Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the intelligence committee, promised in 2004 that his committee would investigate how Bush had used (or abused) the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs--an unkept promise that led to the Democratic shutdown of the Senate this week--he made that promise to me.
Actually, what the Democrats did was not bring the Senate to a halt; much of the media mistakenly reported their action was a shutdown. Instead, the Senate Democrats, deploying the rarely used Rule 21, forced the Senate into a closed session--no TV cameras, no visitors, no reporters--in order to discuss (that is, complain about) Roberts' failure to produce the so-called Phase II report, which was supposed to examine whether Bush administration officials had misrepresented the prewar intelligence to whip up public support for the invasion of Iraq. With this maneuver, the Democrats cast attention on the GOP attempt to duck this issue, and pushed the Republicans to establish a bipartisan panel that would review the progress (or lack thereof) of the Phase II inquiry. This panel--which is investigating the investigation--is to report back to the rest of the Senate by mid-November.
But back to me. On July 9, 2004, Roberts' committee released a report on the prewar intelligence. It concluded that the intelligence had been botched and noted that the major conclusions of the intelligence community were "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence report." The failure of the intelligence community was obvious in the weeks after the invasion. But what Roberts report did not investigate was whether Bush and his aides had hyped problematic intelligence. For instance, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was produced in October 2002, reported--errantly--that Iraq had an active biological weapons R&D program. Yet Bush in a speech declared that Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. Having an R&D program is not the same as possessing loads of ready-to-use weapons.
Roberts' investigation had ignored such exaggerations of the Bush administration. At that press conference, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, pointed this out:
I have to say, that there is a real frustration over what is not in this report, and I don't think was mentioned in Chairman Roberts' statement, and that is about the--after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers?
Roberts indicated that his committee would get to this in a second phase of the investigation, one that would not likely be finished until after the upcoming presidential election. Was that a coincidence? One intelligence committee staffer told me that such an inquiry could be completed within a month or two.
During the Q&A, Roberts called on me, and I asked:
Given that 800 American G.I.s have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, and that American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, don't the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified--before the election, not after the election?
No, Roberts essentially said. His actual response was this:
We simply couldn't get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities. It's his top priority, along with the reform effort....It involves probably three things -- or at least three. One is the prewar intelligence on Iraq, which is what you're talking about. Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA. And then the left one -- what is the last one? What's the third one? Help me with it....There is a third one, and I don't know why I can't come up with it right now. But, anyway, it is a priority. And, hey, I have told Jay, I have told everybody on the other side of the aisle, everybody on our side of the aisle, "We'll proceed with phase two. It is a priority." I made my commitment, and it will be done.
******
Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on the Rove/Libby scandal, Samuel Alito and other in-the-news matters.
******
Roberts has a rather elastic idea of what makes a commitment. After the election, his committee did little, if any, work on the Phase II project, as I reported last spring. Moreover, in March, Roberts declared that further investigation was pointless. He said that if his investigators asked Bush officials whether they had overstated or mischaracterized prewar intelligence, they'd simply claim their statements had been based on "bum intelligence." And he huffed, "To go though that exercise, it seems to me, in a postelection environment--we didn't see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress. I think everybody pretty well gets it." So after making a promise in July to get it done, he then decided to drop the ball. Democrats, including Rockefeller, protested. But they didn't make too much noise about this.
Then came Rule 21. The Democrats had considered calling on Rule 21 to initiate a closed session in 2004 to highlight the inaction on Phase II, according to a senior Democratic staffer. The staff of Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader at the time (who would be defeated in the November election), had researched how to pull off such a maneuver. Daschle wanted to give Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist advance notice of the move, but he never pulled the trigger.
This year, with Senator Harry Reid now leading the Democrats, the Democratic leadership decided not to be so polite and to invoke Rule 21 as a surprise. "The Democratic leadership had finally gotten to the point where--after sending letters to Roberts and holding meetings on this--they figured the only way to draw attention to the Phase II cop-out was to do this," the Democratic staffer says. "It also had the ancillary benefit of changing the subject from Alito to what Bush said to justify the war, and it served as a bridge between the Libby indictment and arraignment. It also made the point that Fitzgerald's investigation was a criminal investigation and was not designed to get into the question of whether Bush had misrepresented the intelligence. That's the job of Congress--or should be."
There's still no guarantee that Roberts and the Republicans will efficiently and vigorously tackle the Phase II assignment. According to a statement released by Rockefeller, the intelligence committee in February 2004 decided that Phase II would focus on five subjects. As he put it,
1. Whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf war period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information;
2. Pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq;
3. Any intelligence activities relating to Iraq within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, headed by Douglas Feith;
4. The use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress; and
5. The post-war findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with pre-war assessments.
This past spring, Roberts told me that the report would not only look at what Bush administration officials said about WMDs in Iraq before the war; it would also examine statements made by leading Democrats about Iraq prior to the war--presumably people like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards. Roberts' intent is obvious: to make it seem that everyone was wrong. Thus, Bush would deserve no blame. But Bush had ready access to all the intelligence, and it was his job to review it carefully and to represent it accurately to the American public before taking the country to war. Nevertheless, the Phase II report could become a spin job geared more toward distraction than disclosure.
With the Libby indictment as the backdrop, the Senate Democrats, thanks to Rule 21, did remind the public and the media that Bush's use of misinformation (or disinformation) to sell the war remains an open question. But this battle over the run-up to the war is far from over, and Phase II will likely not be the end of it.
Mr Corn, why did you fail to mention this in your article:
"Roberts said Democrats have submitted 350 statements by members of the Bush administration for evaluation. A Democratic aide said statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, then-Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were submitted by Democrats to be judged by the committee.
Roberts said Republicans in turn asked that about 100 statements by members of Congress, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, also be evaluated, potentially an embarrassing prospect for lawmakers who are pushing for completion of the probe.
Republican members of the Senate intelligence panel say that they attempted to complete phase two last May but that Democrats balked because they did not agree with Roberts's desire that members of the committee themselves judge whether policymakers' statements were justified by intelligence reports.
Democrats say they objected because it is not feasible for members to deliberate and vote on 450 statements. A Democratic aide said Roberts had purposefully outlined a cumbersome task to persuade committee members to drop the politically sensitive probe.
But the GOP committee aide retorted that lawmakers -- not unelected staffers -- should judge the statements of senior administration officials such as the president, vice president and secretary of defense.
In a press release issued Tuesday, Rockefeller demanded that the transcript of the closed-door May 17 meeting of the committee be made public to show that Democrats wanted to complete the investigation as soon as possible."
Why would you leave the part about wanting to include statements made by the dems out of the picture and not put an equal emphasis on that? Mr Corn, they were using reports that were fromt he Clinton Administration. PLEASE be equal on this investigation and not be on such a witch hunt. It is obvious to everyone with half a brain that both the Clinton Admin and the Bush Admin thought they had WMDS and that even Blix did not out right say that Iraq did not have WMDs and even alluted to the fact that he could have moved them.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 12:57pm
Corn,
"With the Libby indictment as the backdrop, the Senate Democrats, thanks to Rule 21, did remind the public and the media that Bush's use of misinformation (or disinformation) to sell the war remains an open question"
Shouldn't this read,"...If Bush's information was correct that we used to enter the war?"
or is it assumed he lied(misinformation or disinformation) because he is Bush?
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 12:57pm
Good to see David Corn back, first off...
"much of the media mistakenly reported their action"...that media which DID report on it more than two minutes.
The analysis of Harry Reid's sudden "spine implant" that I think is most accurate says that Reid and the Democrats were (as Mr Corn was, no doubt) disappointed that Karl Rove didn't get indicted, and that the Libby Indictment didn't make a "big enough splash" in the media and with the public.
Hence, Reid decides, in order to "over-power" the Alito Nomination in the headlines, to pull his "manuever" to garner some coverage of the "Plame-gate" which we were promised (like so many times before) would be the "beginning of the end for Bush".
The hope now is Reid et al can keep this alive throughout the Alito nomination, so that it gets "moved up the charts to # 1" after Alito is confirmed. (Secondarily, I'm sure Reid hopes that this replaces coverage of how many Democrats Alito will get...a second slap in the face to the liberal base, they're not likely to care for).
Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 1:04pm
For Everyone's information that may be outside the US, we are within weeks of Individual State Elections that may impact Senate, Congress and Govenor positions.
The Rule 21 is a political ploy to try to stain republicans "minutes" before the elections. It is very similar to attempt by Dan Rather to make false reports about Bush just before the elections.
A bit off topic, but needs to be said... I hope you can start to see why Americans are very weary of Main stream media and the extreme liberal left who is attempting to over take America by making it a socialist country. It is why they are nervous about our judges...the ACLU can't make laws through judges any more because there is a "common sense" movement occurring (they label it as the evil CONSERVATIVES) and they hate it...for those of you who don't understand the law making process…the idea must go through our Congress, who are elected officials of the people. They take the message of what the people want and then it is negotiated and then made into law. The left ACLU groups are using liberal judges to bypass the process by setting precedent cases, thus in a sense, making it law. They tend to attack cities and towns that do not have money and cannot defend themselves against the millionaire lawyers the ACLU pays to make "precedent cases" in the court room. The job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make it.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:15pm
DANCALL
Think you're a little off-base on that. The REAL elections aren't for 11 months, Reid doesn't care who gets mayor of Omaha or Burlington, VT. The "hard hit" of a investigatory committee would come in late spring/early summer of 2006...which is when it would do the Democrats the most good.
That's why "keep hope alive" also means, hoping that Fitzgerald will keep working for another year and finally "get Rove" sometime before he helps the GOP formulate a strategy for 2006 AS WELL AS providing some ammo for Dems going into Fall 2006 on "corruption and croneyism" (which is apparently their midterm strategy).
Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 1:23pm
Mask, I am sorry, but in the state of Virginia there are elections going on... Here you go buddy... Voters in Clarke County will go to the polls on Tuesday, Nov. 8, to participate in the general election in which candidates are running for state governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and 33rd District House of Delegates representative.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:26pm
You see people...the liberals have NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON!!!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:27pm
Mask, I guess the only position these people acre about is the president. Here is a little eduaction for the people outisde the US. The President of the US is eleceted every 4 years, the state senators every 6 and congress every two years. This is to keep a balance of experienced people in office.
I hate to disappoint you Mask, but Senators hold some serious power within the US, which is why Hillary went to NY and not to her previous home of Arkansas (they wouldn't have elected her) or her home state of Illinois. They purhcased their home two years before the Clintons were out of the white house so she could quailify for the state elections.
Mask, I highly suggest you start to know the FACTS and stop blurbing out emotionally charged personal feelings.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:32pm
I will take some of my own banter and get some spelling lessons...sorry!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:33pm
The funny thing about Dancall is that he's providing his "information" to inform non US residents!!!
There are no national races this cycle. There is a Gov race in NJ and another in VA, but who cares! Reid certainly doesn't Dancall. I don't think you need to try to educate non USA residents as I am sure they know a lot more about what is going on here than you do!
By the way, does anybody still think that Bush / Chenney didn't manipulate the WMD evidence? Even Bushies generally concede this point now. I mean its kind of hard not to when Powell showed satellite pics at the UN of "KNOWN BIOLOGICAL / CHEMICAL" stockpile locations......but none were found!
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 1:34pm
Colmes...ever heard of City Mayors and Govenors who are partial is big business and grant tax incetives for companies to do buisness in their city or state...oh yeah, but that doesn't amtter...you just like to complain AFTER the elected mayor or governor lets them in and then protest against big business. Again, proving my point. It is also a serious sign of the disconnect between teh liberal left who can't grasp the fact that local elections set the tone for the national elections. You see people, that is were the dems are failing and a true indicator of why even the biggest US Unions are breaking ties with the Dems. YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT THEM. You only care about the Federal Government, otherwise known as SOCIALISM!!!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:50pm
and Colmes, I am informing them because they don;t live day to day here and understand that the local governments do matter...it is what makes up the Red States...it is COMMUNITY and belief in your neighbors that they will act accountable and respect on another. Liberals think minority rules, well I am getting the point across that the majority movement is rolling and you all hate it!!!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 1:54pm
The Rule 21 is a political ploy to try to stain republicans "minutes" before the elections. It is very similar to attempt by Dan Rather to make false reports about Bush just before the elections.
A bit off topic, but needs to be said... I hope you can start to see why Americans are very weary of Main stream media and the extreme liberal left who is attempting to over take America by making it a socialist country.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 1:15pm
Dan, you followed your excellent first post, which made some good points, with this poor second post that is just partisan right-wing hysteria. The MSM and extreme liberal left are working together? That is just laughable. Why don't you ever see Noam Chomsky on the MSM?
And your comment about turning America socialist made me laugh so hard the coffee came out my nose. You sound like Sen. McCarthy from the 1950's.
Also, you are accusing the Democrats of just playing politics? My god, when will people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum be willing to admit that BOTH Dems and Repubs are nearly always playing politics? And that doesn't mean the issues they use are not without merit!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 1:55pm
You see people...the liberals have NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON!!!
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 1:27pm
Actually, it is just the opposite. You don't understand MASK's post. He KNOWS that local and state-wide elections are going on, as he referred to in his post. His point was that the national elections are next year, not this year, and that those are the elections Reid cares about.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 1:58pm
Hey Dancall - if you are going to try and educate the world about US politics, you should consider a refresher civics course first. Here is lesson no. 1 - 2005 is not on your two, four and six year election cycle - thus there are no federal elections this year. But, please go on with the rest of your cirriculum.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 2:02pm
Actually, DAN, the only thing you are getting across is how wacky your beliefs are:
You only care about the Federal Government, otherwise known as SOCIALISM!!!
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 1:50pm
So you equate the federal government to socialism? There you go, folks. History is rewritten! We all that Karl Marx started socialism, but really it was the USA's founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. Amazing...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 2:03pm
Oops, should have written "We all thought that Karl Marx..."
Instead I wrote "We all that Karl Marx..."
Sorry for the omission.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 2:04pm
Reid DOES care about what is going on now, because local elections carry momentum into the higher state and federal elections. That is why she is doing it. Someone within the party is seeing that they have to listen to the local people. That is why the red states are SO RED and why they republicans have soooo many people show up for elections. Listen, if ALL the bitching dems actually showed up to vote, this country would have Dem leaders all across the board. That is what is going on and you don't get that!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:05pm
no, actually Jefferson was a liberatarian who was hyjacked by the liberal cause. Total liberty is for the individual and not for the federal governement to take care of the people.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:07pm
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:09pm
Wow Dancall, 9 posts so far - careful you would not want to be accused of "blurbing out emotionally charged personal feelings" would you?
Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 2:11pm
The local communities are tired of hearing promises made by the dem leaders and nothing has been done about it. Our local communities are being bakrupted, not because of Republicans, but because dems are taxing the hell out of companies so they leave to a cheaper place to oeprate, which then effects the local school systems. People are tired of hearing stories of 8 year old telling teachers to eff themselves, yet cannot punish them and that it is the teacher fault. People are tired of having their rights of being Christian being taken away and filled with Christmas parades with every other relgion but christianity. You all have no idea what is happening across america. You only care for the scoialist state that eliminate religion. It is interesting that you should bring up the founding fathers...they were mostly Masons...they ones who believe in one God. The "Secret Society" that was hates the Catholic Church and any strict chistain group. They were the intellect snobs who owned slaves, yet talked about total freedom.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:15pm
Dancall
actually Jefferson was a liberatarian who was hyjacked by the liberal cause.
Don't you mean Jefferson was a Libertarian who found good / useful aspects in the liberal agenda? Certainly they (liberals) didn't whop him on the head and cart him off to a dark closet someplace.....
Besides...as recent evidence of his occasional philandering with the "hired help" shows - he was, arguably, the first true Democrat! (he says with tongue in cheek)
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/03/2005 @ 2:18pm
Sorry...I will stop because I am making emotionally charged statements.
I will calm down.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:21pm
When did the right of being a Christian get taken away? Is it part of the Patriot Act? Should I stay away from church this week to avoid the "socialist state" police?
Posted by rain man at 11/03/2005 @ 2:28pm
Dancall, try putting on Pink Floyd's Meddle or Van Morrison's Astral Weeks; either usually does the trick for me.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 2:30pm
My political "theory" or belief is that of a libertarian. Jefferson spoke of absolute liberty and freedom. So you say, he was the first dem, which is why I think Dems are hypocrites...he owned slaves, yet slept with one and had children with her. How could own hold himself accountable in that sense? There are certain aspects that I tend to disagree with liberatarian. I actually do have issues with government telling people how to live, ie, gay marriage. That is not my biz...only that between the two involved. I beleive that drugs should be legal. I tend to lean toward business in the conserative way, but understand that some are abusing the system and should be stopped. I also believe we are in a holy war and my family may be in danger. I would rather take the fight to them and kill them then have them kill my family. So. live and let live and Don't Tread on me go hand and hand.
Bottom line, I have the belief in total liberty and personal freedom, but I am real enough to know that people do not have personal accountability. We have too many legal cases going on blaming others when in fact they are not looking themselves in the the mirror. Which is why I am on the fence with Bush and disliked Clinton. I want the old Dem party back or come up with a third party that knows that we can rule by common sense.
Sorry for the personal rant...
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:31pm
Dancall,
This just in from the liberal media (even though it's owned by monolitic corporations).
"Democrats in both the Senate and the House have moved to eliminate all Christian religions. When the bill passes, all people will either be forced to renounce religion entirely or take up budhism, islam, judaism or some other non Jesus derived religion.
Political analysts have concluded this will pass if the democrats can pick up some crucial local elections in Dancall's home state of Virginia."
Dude, calm down!
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 2:36pm
BTW, did we all hear about the leading French Oil Company (Total)that is now being charged with the Oil for Food Program? Know who is heavily connected to Total...Marc Rich..yes the one and only that Clinton Pardoned. Dots are starting connect. The UN and France are in some heat...
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:39pm
Yes, Colmes, you hold the key to knowledge. Did you also know that Ben Afflic, yes the one and only cheaziest actor, may run for the Senate position in Virginia?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:42pm
I bet you will not see one metion of Total Oil on the front page of the NY Times and you will not see this as leading stories on CNN, MSNBC, ABC or CBS. Certainly David Corn will make no metion of this.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 2:47pm
ZERO: I agree with you that the investigation will be a flash in the pan. After the amazingly apathetic response to the Downing Street memo, I can't get my hopes up.
However, at least someone in the Democratic party is showing signs of life.
Posted by rain man at 11/03/2005 @ 3:06pm
Dancall,
Is it the fact that Ben Afflek wants to run as a US Senator that has got you so riled up? I certainly agree that he's a poor excuse for an actor but so was Ronald Reagan! Are you mad that he's banged J-Lo and you havn't?
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 3:07pm
Wow--this page looks a lot better (I mean more relevant) without DanCall's lunatic ranting--thanks for the tip Zero.
Posted by rain man at 11/03/2005 @ 3:09pm
no, actually Jefferson was a liberatarian who was hyjacked by the liberal cause. Total liberty is for the individual and not for the federal governement to take care of the people.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 2:07pm
DAN, I was using mockery to make a point. I don't claim Jefferson was a socialist. I was simply pointing out that he and other founding fathers crafted the federal government, which you called socialist.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:25pm
Relevant because Zero agrees with you? I agree I got off base...but this story is so old and you are pissed off that no one else was indicted. Just trying to bring light to what liberals forget to mention in their own biased views.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 3:25pm
People are tired of hearing stories of 8 year old telling teachers to eff themselves, yet cannot punish them and that it is the teacher fault. People are tired of having their rights of being Christian being taken away and filled with Christmas parades with every other relgion but christianity. You all have no idea what is happening across america. You only care for the scoialist state that eliminate religion. It is interesting that you should bring up the founding fathers...they were mostly Masons...they ones who believe in one God. The "Secret Society" that was hates the Catholic Church and any strict chistain group. They were the intellect snobs who owned slaves, yet talked about total freedom.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 2:15pm
Dude, you have gone off the deep end! Christians aren't having their rights taken away, it is just the opposite! Non-christians have to go to court to stop Christians from forcing their religion down our throats. You people even put your religious laws in our public buildings (like in Alabama). ALL the people in Bush's administration are Christians and go to church. You people run the damn country and then complain about your rights being taken??? Crazy!!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:29pm
no, if you follow the letter of what the founding fathers talk about and where we are today, they may not hold to the far left agenda. They teneded to be in favor of the French and English, who were both heavily influenced by the church. They seperated the two, which I agree with. But how can the ACLU attack cities like LA where their City was founded by the catholic missions and want to take any reference out of the city seal that ties to the christian religion...even though that is part of the "history"?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 3:29pm
Sorry for the personal rant...
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 2:31pm
Actually, I liked your 2:31pm post. I thought you did a good job of explaining your philosophy and raising some of the issues you care about. I wish you would write more posts like that instead of calling the federal government "socialist."
I disagree with most Libertarian positions, but I respect your right to have those views.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:33pm
The public buildings wanted to include the 10 commandments, which is not Christian made, but Jewish. It is part of the old testament and is part of the Judao-Christian base.
You see, in a sense we are in a Holy War. Religion is seperated in the law of the land, but a public figure can talk about his/her religious belief, no matter what it is.
Under God...the majority of the founding fathers were Masons. The Masons believe that there is one god and is interconnected with the religions of Moses and even the previous beliefs of the egyptians. God is mentioned by the founding fathers. Which is why I can't understand why the left gets so upset with Judges who are consitutionalists or Federalists. You want the interpretation of what feels good now, for the individual, with no accountability. You seem to forget that to make laws you need a majority vote. If the majority of the group feels one way without infringing on the individual rights of the other, then where is the problem? If the minority does not want to see or hear things, then it is their option not to listen. Musleum bells ring in American streets...if one christian or one jew living in a musleum neighborhood, should they stop ringing the bells because it offends the individual?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 3:40pm
But how can the ACLU attack cities like LA where their City was founded by the catholic missions and want to take any reference out of the city seal that ties to the christian religion...even though that is part of the "history"?
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 3:29pm
I don't know about the case, so I will hazzard a guess. The first ammendment, when it addresses religion, has two clauses. One is that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. This is called the "establishment clause." It is there to prevent state sponsorship of religion, which was in place in Europe at the time. The American people didn't want to be forced to have a particular religion.
I suspect that the ACLU is arguing, on behalf of a client, that the presence of religious referrences in the city seal is a type of establishment of religion.
Let me ask you this, DAN: If your home town's city seal had referrences to Islam, would you be upset? Would you want your tax dollars spent to create such a seal? And not just Islam, but any religion. I wouldn't want my home town to have a seal that endorses Confucianism or Judaism or Satan Worship or any religion, and I damn well don't want my taxes to pay for it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:40pm
For the love of Allah can we go one day without a religious indocrination session?!!!!!!
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 3:44pm
you know what, if the musleums founded the city, I have no problem with it....it is part of history. Irish Catholics hated the English. When the irish population took over the towns and cities, did they change the city history or change the names of the towns to be of Irish decent? Los Angles. THE CITY OF ANGLES. Go across the whole southwest of america and we will have to change hundreds of named towns and cities because they reference religion backgrounds.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 3:44pm
DAN, I used to be a Christian, so please don't try to tell me what is and isn't Christian. That dog won't hunt. You see, I KNOW FOR A FACT that most Christians embrace the ten commandments as part of their religion, and that preachers preach on it in church, teach on it in Sunday School, etc. So you can't con me on that topic. Nice try, though.
And really, in general, you shouldn't try to tell me what I think and believe. First of all, you don't know. Second of all, what you think I believe is usually wrong. The way debate works is, you say what you believe, not what I believe. I do the same thing. If we start trying to tell each other what the other person believes, it just becomes a stupid waste of time.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:45pm
Wait, DAN, make up your mind. Is the case about changing the name of the city of Los Angeles? If it is, why did you say it was about the seal of the city. If it isn't, why are you bringing it up? That is called "jumping to conclusions."
Stay calm, take deap breaths. Just because the case is about the city seal doesn't mean the name of the city will change. Let's try to keep some perspective here, and remain rational. Overreacting doesn't help.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:47pm
For the love of Allah can we go one day without a religious indocrination session?!!!!!!
Posted by COLMES 11/03/2005 @ 3:44pm
Infidel! Thirty lashes and 6 months "re-education camp" for you!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 3:49pm
Thanks for the intellectual defense, ILP.....yes, I DO know about the NJ and VA gubenatorials (sp?...hehe, always a toughie).
But you're right, Reid doesn't care about them, as much as getting a "Watergate Committee" up and running for the post-Christmas Senate period...for two reasons (one I just thought of)...
1. Its findings would be released in late spring/early summer...optimal use for Democrats going into Nov. 2006. Anything incriminating towards Bush would be linked to the Republicans, anything that showed that Joe Wilson wasn't "pure as the driven" would be ignored.
2. It bogs down the Senate in investigations for the start of 2006...which means the GOP has no accomplishments to run on as well.
So....Reid gets "corruption, possible treason" AND "Do-Nothing Congress" on his plate for 2006.
Pat Roberts and the Administration were really stupid to have not headed this thing off two months after the election. Would be "over" now, timed perfectly with Fitzgerald's pitiful showing on indictments and REALLY "over" by Fall 2006, when the Bush people could use the Clinton line of "old news".
Still...wouldn't put too much hope in Reid or "Plame-gate" (as RAIN said, remember "Downing St").
Another way to look at it is the old joke.....Two guys get into a scuffle and Guy #1 pulls a knife on Guy #2...who starts laughing...Guy #1 says "Why are you laughing?"....Guy #2 says "Just laughing at somebody bringing a knife....to a gun fight".
Wherein, Reid is "Guy #1" and Frist (still MAJORITY leader) is "Guy #2".
Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 3:54pm
Dancall, why would Ried wait until 11/01 to call on rule 21 if he was trying to swing a few votes to the left during the upcoming elections. Here in Kansas we had elections that day, a little late for Ried to make a difference. He probably cared very little about the school bond anyway. Being from Kansas I have watched Roberts for quite some time. When he said phase II would come after the election I told my wife it was never coming. Pat Roberts had no intention of every finishing this report.
Posted by Friscodog at 11/03/2005 @ 4:04pm
ZERO, I think Schell is exaggerating quite a bit in his grandiose hyperbole. Writing over-the-top pieces like that is what gets liberals accused of being out of touch. Bush filters facts through his world view, just as most people do. The facts get distorted, FUBARed if you will, by that most extreme of filters, fundamentalism, but his administration doesn't appear so extreme to many people simply because most people in America are to the right of Schell. Just as the Green Party doesn't seem very extreme to me, but does seem that way to many in the Center and Right, politically.
That is why I try to temper my own emotions about politicians (not just Bush.) So much depends on our own POV...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 4:04pm
FRISCODOG, How much money got voted to teach voodoo science and call it Intelligent Design?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 4:05pm
.
You are regurgitating the oldest stupidity and untruth this war has produced. That Corn, in the absence of better fare, now returns to this swill bucket is typical of him.
There is absolutely no doubt that Hussein possessed WMD. The invoices of his purchases exist. He bought hundreds of Scuds from China. He bought cutting edge c/b warfare labs from Germany and France. Moreover he used his chemical warfare capacity to the hilt - beginning with his attack on Susanger, just two months into the Gulf war. The world saw the thousands of corpses, victims of his many gas attacks. Furthermore, he fired hundreds of Scuds into Iraq and sores into Saudi Arabia and Israel. Also it is established that Iraq was within two to three years of a nuclear weapon in May 1981 when the Israelis bombed his Osirak reactor. Iraq was again within reach of the bomb in 1990. When Hans Blix in 1995 was shown the documents from defectors that showed Saddam had been within one year of a nuclear arsenal Blix conceded to the Guardian: "He had us fooled."
There was every reason to believe Saddam continued to harbor WMD through the 1990s. The manifests showing what he had purchased and the evidence of what he had expanded or what the inspectors had destroyed, left a substantial arsenal unaccounted for. When inspectors showed up at one gate they were made to wait but could watch trucks upload equipment at a side gate. When they found incriminating documents they were not allowed to leave the parking lot for a day until the documents had been returned. Every single intelligence service in the world, including that of Russia and France believed that Saddam had WMDs. At the eve of the war Israel had its population activate the costly chemical pouches of their gas masks, because they believed a chemical attack was likely. The Mossad did not guess that Hussein had secretly disposed of his remaining WMDs. It was not sure but it assumed Iraq still had WMD. That mistake cost Israel $100 million dollars. The govt was not taking any chances with the lives of its population. The opposition did not use that mistake as a cudgel. It realized the govt had acted responsibly.
So did ours. To have assumed Iraq had no more WMD when all the evidence pointed in the other direction would have been unforgivable. No responsible govt can take such risks.
Now twits like you and Corn are sure it was all a lie and that Bush admitted as much. You have the brains of a stalk of celery. .
Posted by nacl at 11/03/2005 @ 4:12pm
Mask...in the movie, the guy with the gun actually gets blown away by a guy he doesn't see. Now, is this not about perception and smoke coming from both camps? the perception of the dems is that they are weak on Defense and do not like the war. The two are intertwined. They are trying throw the smoke out that Bush led us into a illegal war. (that will always be up for debate). The Dems are outright calling all the republicans liars. Now, beware when the hammer swings back against the Dems and they start connecting the dots and lining up the Dems that agreed full force and backed the war. the Dems want Rove out of the picture because they know he is the mastermind behind the Rep machine. He is not indicted and will now start his old tatics back up and we are in for a very long next two years.
ILP...I was connecting the Cross on the seal to the history of the land where the city resides. A city's name with a religious background is the same as the cross on the seal. It is over the top, but we are dealing with the ACLU!
I was not trying to use "you" as personal attack. You are right and I do not know your convictions of views.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 4:13pm
Frisc...Virginia is actually a huge deal. No Va is turning Dem and hae a serious population of Dems starting to take root. Outside No Va, the state is ultra conservative and heavily military based. The governor race here is extremely heated and outright stupid in the the lies by both sides. I hate it! If they can turn Va now, they will carry it into the national elections...called small victory, which is how you win wars! That is how the reps have been building and it is what the Dem leadership has not realized until now. The perception is that the Dem party is now being run by the ACLU and by liberal judges...the Dems are trying to get away from Dean and the screaming Liberals and get some strong common sense leadership in the helm that the average joe will follow. As of now, the average joe in the state of VA dispises Dean because he continually throws insults at the Red states. The way Reid is going about it is the proper way to gain back the peoples trust.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 4:19pm
IL, I hope none, it wal all for window dressing to star with.
Posted by Friscodog at 11/03/2005 @ 4:25pm
Zero...you are laughable. The CIA in their own words dismissed Wilson. they were only after the person that outed the CIA op. The Dems even said he did a shabby job and was not credible.
I agree with ILP...all that is big worded crap that really only says he hates Bush for the last five years and wants to see him fall for the lies he spewed. I was vomiting thinking I was on the titantic reading that post!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 4:28pm
NACL, You are right to state that Saddam had, at some point in his reign, WMD. I for one assumed that he did as late as 2002. I started to suspect otherwise when the administration started to preach certainty regarding this question, as part of the propaganda drumbeat to war.
Then I started to pay serious attention to the issue. I listened to former Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. I listened to then CWI Hans Blix. I even listened to the Administration denounce Saddam's multi-thousand page December declaration so quickly after it was released that no rational person could believe the administration actually read the declaration before denouncing it.
Any celery stalk could see that the Bush Admin's case, their argument for war, was unravelling. Ritter and others explained why the previous WMD stocks were no longer viable. Blix explained how the Iraqis were cooperating with the new round of inspections, and how the inspectors were finding nothing.
Then the January '03 shocker: Saddam Hussein invited the CIA to come to Iraq and show the inspectors where to look!!! Astounding! No tin-horn dictator can lightly risk allowing the CIA into his country, with that agency's well-earned reputation for toppling governments. Yet there it was, Saddam's invite, which got exactly 1 day of news coverage and then was dropped from the MSM.
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy et. al. had to act, and act fast. They clearly wanted war. To delay any further was to risk having their causus belli completely vaporize before the eyes of the electorate. So they went to war. Rushed to war, just as inspections were making it clear that WMD no longer existed in any viable form in Iraq.
January '03, two months before the war. That is when I knew Iraq had no WMD, was no threat, and that no WMD would be found. That's when I realized Bush needed the war to take attention away from his failure to get OBL. That's when I knew, after long suspecting it, that the Bush administration made up their minds first to go to war, and then looked for a propaganda tool to sell the war to the people.
Others are just now coming to that conclusion. Better late than never, I say.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 4:31pm
ILP...do you think that Sadaam moved the weapons? Military intel said massive truck movements were going on for a month or so into Syria...which is where the "insurgents" are coming in through.
What about the fact that Wilson did not include in his report that Iraq officials did visit Niger looking for Yellow Cake...he worded it that they did not obtain it. The Niger officials were a bit upset and clarified that immediately. That would be a clear sign that he was looking to do something, no? What about the chemical plants that Sadaam owned in other countries...the ones that Clinton knew about and is all over the 9/11 commission report?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 4:37pm
It is named in spanish, you fool. The SPANISH MISSIONS founded the cities. Do you think they said...żEl hermano, usted piensa en 200 ańos que un grupo tratará de tomar nuestra ciudad y la prueba para reagruparlo, así que nosotros mejor lo mantenemos en espańol?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 4:39pm
If trucks full of WMD's were moving into Syria don't you think we would have all seen the Satellite images, don't you think that one of the 3,000 sortees prior to the war would have blown up a truck or two to see the chemical burns?
Why are you people so obsessed with the yellowcake? He had yellowcake, actually some of it ended up in a stainless steel scrap shipment in Rotterdam. Yellowcake, shmellowcake, it's not important without a nucleur reactor to process it.
Should we invade Niger....they definitely have yellowcake....I know because Saddam tried to buy some!
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 4:49pm
Zero - thanks for your insights. I have almost completely stopped reading the comments on The Nation's blogs because of the likes of DanCall and others of his irrational persuasion. It seems to have slipped past the freepers that Bush's approval ratings hover around 40%, putting those who recognize the monstrous nature of the current administration in the majority. "We liberals and progressives" are no longer out of the mainstream; we just happen to have been right all along. And I believe it's a sign of how dangerous The Nation is to the conservatives (I hate using that word - it's so non-descriptive of what they stand for) that so many of the comments on the blogs are posted by non-rational rightwingers.
I just read a great quote by John Stuart Mill, "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." Check out DanCall's posts carefully, and you will see a plethora of misspellings, bad grammar, and other writing that makes one cringe. And that's aside from a total lack of logic.
And, Zero, I always enjoy what you have to say. I agree, these people just need to be put on our ignore lists. They are mostly annoying and sometimes amusing in a kind of Kafkaesque-other-worldly-creepy way. Keep up the good work.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/03/2005 @ 4:51pm
(1) 500 Tons of Uranium moved out
(2) 1.5 Tons Enriched Uranium
(3) His Nuke Scientist had centrifuge buried in back yard
(4) Invaded 2 countries
(5) Gassed Kurds and Iranians (and dont hand me that bullshit canard about we sold Saddam the chemicals. Liberal talking point)
(6) Funded terrorists from Palestine to Al-queda. This is a proven FACT
(7) A monster of the 1st order with 2 offspring even more monsterous than Saddam himself.
(8) Ignored 17 UN resolutions after Gulf War
I would want Bush to be impeached if he did nothing about Saddam after 9/11. So happens soon after we invaded Iraq, our beloved soldiers found in one of Saddams palaces a mural he had painted of the planes crashing into the WTC. And you Libs have the nerve to claim Saddam was not a threat???Even after all the mass graves uncovered?? You can never be trusted to hold the reigns of power EVER until you Libs grow up
Posted by bushrules at 11/03/2005 @ 4:54pm
Leanng: If you were not a liberal when you were young, you have no heart. If you are not conservative when you grow old, you have no brain...Churchill
Does it make me stupid that I don't take the time to spell check? I think not...it just makes be careless. Your mode of thinking means that anyone who does not agree with you or does not spell correctly is stupid.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 4:55pm
The reason right-wingers come to this website is because they want to insult liberals. The fact that their mental picture of a liberal doesn't really exist, but is just a Limbaugh propaganda tool, has no bearing. And since right-wing websites ban free speech by anyone who doesn't worship Bush, the right-wingers have to come here to get their fix.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 4:59pm
Zero, I just put DanCall on my ignore list. How lovely. I read his indignant post with his reactionary Churchill quote and his petty rightwing rant. Knowing any future nonsense from him will not reach me is just one more little pleasure in my already quite pleasurable liberal existence. Thanks so much for the tip.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/03/2005 @ 5:00pm
Dan,
Why is it that on every topic you post the same five complaints about how people are unhappy about Democrats and Democrats are doing bad things. How about acknowledging any of the behavior of the administration? That is the topic. If you want to defend that behavior, feel free, but if you want to discuss some other allegations that you found against Democrats, please find another venue. Bush clearly hyped the intelligence before the war. I listened to Colin Powell's speech before the UN and even I was in some way convinced there was a threat. I knew in the back of my mind that the info had been cherry picked to convince the overwhelmingly opposed international community that war was necessary, nevertheless it all sounded pretty convincing. Now Democrats hold a closed-door meeting to force Republicans to shed some light on how intelligence was used, and you start screaming about Democrats not being accountable? What about Republicans? They aren't libertarians either.
Posted by nattiebumpo at 11/03/2005 @ 5:02pm
.
Ritter was not The Chief Weapon Inspector. He was one of dozens of Chief Inspectors most of whom believed that Saddam was hiding weapons. Moreover, Hans Blix, in his book, Disarming Iraq, clearly says, that while he had begun to entertain certain doubts he still believed up until the eve of the war, that Saddam had WMD.
The administration was able to quickly dismiss Saddam's massive declaration because it was more of his massive and obvious shenanigans. That dossier was simply a repacking of all the declarations made in the past. It did not touch what mattered. It did not explain what had happened to those weapons and materials Iraq was known to have possessed but which it had not expended in war and which the inspectors had not destroyed. It did not refer the inspectors to the ashes and remains of the destroyed materials. Every explosion leaves an aftermath. Nothing massive can be done away with without any residue. We can even detect proof of the Big Bang 13 billion years later. Saddam's declaration simply insisted that nothing more existed, without offering any evidence.
Saddam had agreed to make himself transparent to inspectors in 1991. Instead he lied and finagled and played the US like a yo yo for 12 years. Now you are enraged that when, weeks before the outset of the war, he invited the CIA to new inspections, Bush was not interested.
Got spin the propeller on your beanie.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/03/2005 @ 5:03pm
And you Libs have the nerve to claim Saddam was not a threat???Even after all the mass graves uncovered??
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 4:54pm
This is a distortion. Of course, when people say that Bush was not a threat, they mean that he was not a military threat to the US. Which is true. The fact that he had a mural of 9/11 painted in his palace doesn't make him a threat, it just makes him an asshole. There is a difference.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 5:04pm
And as long as I'm here complimenting my fellow free-thinkers - ILovePhysics, you're also a fine blogger. There are many here, and too often they are obstructed by the freepers (a really, really great word - anyone know for sure where it comes from?). It's so much better to use the ignore list and finally be able to discuss real ideas. Thanks to you too for hanging in there and attempting to bring sanity to The Nation's blogs.
And just in case DanCall didn't put ME on HIS ignore list yet - I don't use a spellcheck. I just get it right the first time. Mostly.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/03/2005 @ 5:06pm
The administration was able to quickly dismiss Saddam's massive declaration because it was more of his massive and obvious shenanigans. That dossier was simply a repacking of all the declarations made in the past. It did not touch what mattered. It did not explain what had happened to those weapons and materials Iraq was known to have possessed but which it had not expended in war and which the inspectors had not destroyed.
Got spin the propeller on your beanie.
Posted by NACL 11/03/2005 @ 5:03pm
No thanks, you are doing enough spin for the both of us. The point is not the content of the declaration, the point is that the Bush administration denounced it so quickly that they obviously had their denunciation written before the disclosure! Why do you keep avoiding that fact? Quit trying to distract from the logic of the argument. Typical right-wing tactic, avoid the issue and talk about something irrelevant.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 5:08pm
First time poster, long time reader. I had to ignore DanCall too. While I support his right to speak his piece, he is not only ranting, he seems to have taken over the thread. I have a kid like that in my 7th-grade class--hasn't quite learned that discussion requires listening, not just talking.
Howdy, everyone! I'll be adding my two cents now and then. I enjoy your posts!
Posted by LisaJo at 11/03/2005 @ 5:11pm
ILovePhysics, you're also a fine blogger. There are many here, and too often they are obstructed by the freepers (a really, really great word - anyone know for sure where it comes from?). It's so much better to use the ignore list and finally be able to discuss real ideas. Thanks to you too for hanging in there and attempting to bring sanity to The Nation's blogs.
Posted by LEEANNG 11/03/2005 @ 5:06pm
Thanks for the props. Just for the record, I thought I was multi-tasking. Today on this thread I discussed real ideas, i.e., I posted replies to ZERO and NACL, and referrenced MASK in another.
And I also talk to the freepers because if you can get them to set aside their emotionalism about the "liberal" bogeyman, sometimes you can have a good discussion with them. For example, it is clear to me that Bushrules has posted here before, under a different name, to the consternation of many libs back then. But once I tried to dialogue with him, it turned out to be an enjoyable exchange. Same for DANCALL today.
ZERO, I am guilty myself of changing the subject on these blogs sometimes, so I try not to criticize others for doing the same. I admire your discipline at staying on topic, but I am afraid I cannot match it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 5:17pm
Bushyrules,
Here is the probable source of your information:
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...
Friday, Oct. 8, 2004 11:16 a.m. EDT No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq? Not Exactly ...
Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?
Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant.
Story Continues Below
The press hasn't made much of Saddam's 500-ton uranium stockpile, downplaying the story to such an extent that most Americans aren't even aware of it. But it's been reported - albeit in a by-the-way fashion - by the New York Times and a handful of other media outlets. And one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, admitted to the BBC earlier this year, "We had 500 tons of yellow cake [uranium] in Baghdad."
Surely 500 tons of anything qualifies as a "stockpile." And press reports going back more than a decade give no indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S. invaded.
That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency was finally able to take a full inventory, and suddenly the 500-ton figure emerged.
Still, experts say Saddam's massive uranium stockpile was largely benign.
Largely? Well, except for the 1.8 tons of uranium that Saddam had begun to enrich. The U.S. Energy Department considered that stockpile so dangerous that it mounted an unprecedented airlift operation four months ago to remove the enriched uranium stash from al Tuwaitha.
But didn't most of that enrichment take place before the first Gulf War - with no indication whatsoever that Saddam was capable of proceeding any further toward his dream of acquiring the bomb?
That seems to be the consensus. But there's also disturbing evidence to the contrary.
David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector who was hailed by the press last year for pronouncing Iraq WMD-free, shared some interesting observations with Congress this past January about goings-on at al Tuwaitha in 2000 and 2001.
"[The Iraqis] started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together," Kay said. "And they ran a few physics experiments, re-ran experiments they'd actually run in the '80s."
"Fortunately, from my point of view," he added, "Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead. ... Given their history, it was certainly an emerging program that I would not have looked forward to their continuing to pursue."
Kay's successor, Charles Duelfer, also has confirmed that nuclear research at al Tuwaitha was continuing right up until the U.S. invasion, telling Congress in March that Saddam's scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."
One laboratory at al Tuwaitha, Duelfer said, "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development."
Still, most experts say that Iraq was nowhere near being able to produce nuclear weapons, which is a good thing, considering how much raw material Saddam had to work with.
Writing in the London Evening Standard earlier this year, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, walked his readers through a simple calculation:
"You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium; you need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build? The answer is 142."
Fortunately for the world, Saddam didn't have the nuclear enrichment technology to convert his 500-ton uranium stockpile into weapons-grade bombmaking material.
Or did he?
After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad last year, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, had some disturbing news for coalition debriefers.
He kept blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge, along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home - buried in the front yard - awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed.
"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," Obeidi said recently. His only other choice was death.
In his new book, "The Bomb in My Garden," the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program.
"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," he writes. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."
Last week Dr. Obeidi warned in a New York Times op-ed piece that Saddam could have restarted his nuclear program "with a snap of his fingers."
Perhaps the 500-ton stockpile of nuclear fuel that Saddam kept at al Tuwaitha wasn't quite as benign as our media like to pretend.
_______________________________________________
Yellowcake is not a WMD....you could throw a chunk of it and throwing 500 tons of it at someone would certainly sting like mad but he was not the threat that this administration made him out to be....surely even you would have to concede that itsy bitsy tiny amount?
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 5:18pm
Hi, LISAJO! I won't be ignoring you. I only use that feature for lunatics and foul-mouthed homophobes.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 5:19pm
"Yellowcake is not a WMD"
Hmmm...I thought your lib camera hog liar Joe Wilson said Iraq did not seek Yellowcake. hmmmmm
Posted by bushrules at 11/03/2005 @ 5:20pm
.
How quickly after the declaration was submitted was it rejected. You have apparently made a study of all this. Provide the time line. Moreover, did anyone, apart from you, who took a long time to examine that huge document, ever conclude that it was not warmed over beans? .
Posted by nacl at 11/03/2005 @ 5:25pm
Joe Wilson stuff again???
Did Bush & Chenney exagerate or outright fabricate the intelligence about the threat that Saddam posed? Answer the frigging question!
Why do you care that Wilson (the guy that Daddy called a great patriot) was a liar when you don't care that President Chenney (I mean President Bush) was lying us into war?
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 5:26pm
"Joe Wilson stuff again???"
Sounds like your running away from Wilson and his lies as fast as you did from Cindy Sheehan her brilliant quotes . Desperation is not a pretty thing to watch
Posted by bushrules at 11/03/2005 @ 5:31pm
Bushrules.
So I will presume that your refusal to answer the actual question means that you agree that Chenney's manipulation bordered on outright fabrication.
I have no further questions.
Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 5:36pm
Bushrules: You asked a question about Iraq seeking yellowcake from Niger. You believe that Wilson lied etc etc. It is common knowledge that several hunderd tons of yellowcake was discovered in a warehouse near Baghdad. Got it so far! Unlike some thread above who claims that 500 tons of yellowcake = 142 nukes, this is preposterous. The threader says that plans were uncovered in a scientist's garden for a centrifuge design. It was also intimated that parts of "one" centrifuge was found as well. if in fact all of this is corroborated, then let's take it to the next step. First of all, the 235 isotope has to be transformed to a gas. It then has to be spun in centrifuges to further isolate 238 to at least 95% purity. To produce 5 kg of weapons grade material takes about 10,000 centifuges about ONE YEAR. Now, please enlighten me about Saddams infrastructure for doing all of the above.It takes an enormous amount of technical expertise and equipment. 500 tons of yellowcake, blueprints and pieces of ONE centrifuge do not a "mushroom cloud over New York" make.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 5:52pm
There is absolutely no doubt that Hussein possessed WMD.
Posted by NACL 11/03/2005 @ 4:12pm
I read the news today(skip) I read the news today(skip) I read the news today(skip) I read the news today(skip) I read the news (whap) today oh boy. Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire...
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:54pm
"500 tons of yellowcake, blueprints and pieces of ONE centrifuge do not a "mushroom cloud over New York" make"
Unlike pacifist Libs, Reasoned thinking Americans would rather not wait till the fuse is already set and ticking, thank you
Posted by bushrules at 11/03/2005 @ 6:04pm
(2) 1.5 Tons Enriched Uranium
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 4:54pm
Wow! Saddam had 3000 pound of enriched uranium. Let's see, it takes about twenty pounds of enriched uranium to make a nice tactical nuke. Which means Saddam had enough enriched uranium to build 1500 nukes.
Hmm, then why did he need yellow cake.
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 6:07pm
WILL C,
And though the holes were rather small, they had to count them all. Now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 6:07pm
NACL, Sorry to read that you weren't paying attention in December '02 and need some damn liberal to look it up for you.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 6:09pm
Wait, I'm a idiot. Can't add! That would be 150 nukes
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 6:09pm
I'm a bit late in responding to an earlier comment (Mask, I think) that Reid is acting out of disappointment that Rove escaped indictment. I disagree; as Mask goes on to point out, Democrats are by no means convinced that Rove is out of the woods. Further, as today's WaPo states, "Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration." Rove is increasingly being seen as a liability in his own party.
Mask also states that Reid is attempting to "overpower" media coverage of Alito; and in this case, I believe he is right on the money. More power to Reid! The Bush administration, under Rove's canny handling, has become very deft at well-timed announcements, and Alito's nomination was most likely timed to draw attention away from Libby's indictment.
Similarly, I approve of Ronnie Earle's hoisting Delay's defense team on their own petard. If making campaign contributions to Democrats makes an elected judge unfit to preside over a Republican politician's trial, the impartiality of a judge who contributed to Republican causes is equally suspect.
Yes, things are likely to get messy, especially in Texas (what else is new?), but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Give'em Hell, Harry, says I.
ILP, my mouth is absolutely as clean as that of any 7th-grader. Um, wait a minute . . .
Posted by LisaJo at 11/03/2005 @ 6:13pm
Bushrules: I am asking for an honest reply to an honest question. I have enough rhetoric from our govt, I don't come here to get some more. Tell me, in your own words, how this entire "mushroom cloud" thing was such an eye opener for you. Just because Rice said it? Lets look at Iran. They have apprently been working at centrifuges for over 17 years and still have yet to produce anyhting resembling a nuke. Iraq had absolutley no upgrading infrastucture for thjis type of thing. How was it possible for Hussein to be in a position to formulate and deliver a nuke in 6 months as your administration purported. Also, was he going to deliver it "over new York" on one of his 300 mile range UAV's? Payload capacity 1 kilogram. The point is Bushrules, if you want to debate, please give me facts, not regurgitated rhetoric.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 6:14pm
in your dreams
Posted by bushrules at 11/03/2005 @ 6:18pm
in your dreams
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 6:18pm
The American dream, baby!
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 6:21pm
DANCALL: ILP...do you think that Sadaam moved the weapons? Military intel said massive truck movements were going on for a month or so into Syria...
You Bushies are hilarious- you say Bush is innocent because it was the intel that was bad and then you say, "here's the intel to prove what he did was right."
which is where the "insurgents" are coming in through.
No, actually, the insurgents have been living in Iraq for thousands of years- we're the ones who are "coming in through". I know you Bushies hate to admit that but you might as well because everyone else in the world knows it now.
What about the fact that Wilson did not include in his report that Iraq officials did visit Niger looking for Yellow Cake...he worded it that they did not obtain it. The Niger officials were a bit upset and clarified that immediately. That would be a clear sign that he was looking to do something, no? Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 4:37pm
The small Iraqi delegation never once mentioned or even hinted at yellowcake. Nigerian officials stated that they didn't. So what's your next whopper?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 6:22pm
Isn't it wonderful how elitist the ignore button is to a Lib? You can create your own reality with a push of a button. Congratulations on your accomplishment
Posted by bushrules at 11/03/2005 @ 6:24pm
and that reality doesn't include you. Could it be a prophesy?
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 6:25pm
Sounds like your running away from Wilson and his lies as fast as you did from Cindy Sheehan her brilliant quotes . Desperation is not a pretty thing to watch
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 5:31pm
Remind us again- which war was it that Joe Wilson traitorously lied the American people into?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 6:27pm
A lecture from BushRules on "creating your own reality?" As Jon Stewart once said about The Daily Show's jokes, "Really, this stuff just writes itself."
Posted by LisaJo at 11/03/2005 @ 6:29pm
To NACL and Bushrules: Speaking of the UN request made for a complete declaration of weapons capabilities in Iraq. Well, the report was submitted in a timely and detailed fashion in December 2002. The report was reviewed by the Security Council and UN inspectors and to date thre has been no declaration that the information contained was inaccurate or deceptive. Have any of you heard anything to the contrary? the report seemed good enough for the rest of the world, but not for Bush. Did Bush and company ever publically refute any part of the report other than to say it was a lie. What parts were lies and how have they proven that they were lies? Certainly not from what was found after the country was totally occupied. Again, this exemplifies more massive deception on the part of this administation.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 6:31pm
"500 tons of yellowcake, blueprints and pieces of ONE centrifuge do not a "mushroom cloud over New York" make"
Unlike pacifist Libs, Reasoned thinking Americans would rather not wait till the fuse is already set and ticking, thank you
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 6:04pm
When do we start bombing Niger, O wise leader? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha! We need more leaders like you- we'll be a third world country in no time and then we can establish religious courts the way God intended. I saw it in the DaVinci code. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 6:33pm
Isn't it wonderful how elitist the ignore button is to a Lib? You can create your own reality with a push of a button. Congratulations on your accomplishment
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 6:24pm
Actually, it's a lot more like wiping something messy off the bottom of your shoe before going indoors. And traitors are damned messy!
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 6:38pm
I guess bushrules took his ball and went home! I can go to the gym now.
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 6:40pm
see ya
Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 6:40pm
Bushrules; A further point. Yellowcake from Niger? You're gonna love this. The uranium industry ( for what it is) in Niger---BTW do you you even know where Niger is? is controlled by a ---are you ready-- a French consortium. The consortium is independently owned but under the direction of the UN agency charged with what? Can you guess? the directors of that agency are who? Come on--you can do it. Awaiting your response with agitated apprehension!
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 6:43pm
Too many facts for the right-wingers today. They got quiet in a hurry.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 6:53pm
We have 3 committees/reports which say that found no deliberate distortions in the prewar intelligence. Use the Ronnie Earle method of prosecution. Browbeat enough grand juries until they indict. How many did Earle use...3 of them? Launch enough special committees/investigations and eventually 1 will stick. I will admit progressives are nothing if not persistent.
I guess liberals will keep pissing in the wind until they are tired of urinating on themselves.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007495
Posted by dscott at 11/03/2005 @ 6:53pm
We have 3 committees/reports which say that found no deliberate distortions in the prewar intelligence.
Posted by DSCOTT 11/03/2005 @ 6:53pm
Shoot, I guess ol' George Tenent resigned for nothing, then. I bet he's kicking himself now! He must be thinking "Damn, if I'd just stayed around until DSCOTT explained the whole situation, I'd still be DCI..."
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/03/2005 @ 7:16pm
DSCOTT: Typical! Have anything original? A crime is a crime pal, no matter how you cut it. Want examples of how Delay has compromised the system to his advantage AND how illegal those activities are? Let's quit the bullshit and talk crimes and such. Tell me what he has been up to is moral AND legal and then we'll debate.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 7:19pm
We have 3 committees/reports which say that found no deliberate distortions in the prewar intelligence. Use the Ronnie Earle method of prosecution. Browbeat enough grand juries until they indict. How many did Earle use...3 of them? Launch enough special committees/investigations and eventually 1 will stick. I will admit progressives are nothing if not persistent.
I guess liberals will keep pissing in the wind until they are tired of urinating on themselves.
Posted by DSCOTT 11/03/2005 @ 6:53pm
Maybe you tuned in late. This is about distortions by the happy clowns in the White House not distortions by the intelligence agencies. Distortions by the White House is the part of the investigation that the Republicans have been blocking in Congress- for 18 months.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 7:20pm
Three reports, DSCOTT? Could you list them? And are you quite certain that any of them had as their purpose to determine if there were deliberate distortions in the intelligence or just if there was bad intelligence?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 7:21pm
More on the "Joe Wilson is a liar" lies.
````````````````````````````````````
The So-called "Lies" of Joe Wilson by Larry C. Johnson
The smears keep on coming. The airwaves have been filled with folks like like Joe DiGenova, his wacky wife, Victoria Toensing, and Andrea Mitchell insisting that, "Joe Wilson lied" about who sent him to Niger and what he discovered. Well, let's play he said, she said and pinpoint the real liar.
Andrea Mitchell, a woman genuinely confused by facts, said the following on Tuesday's edition of Hardball:
MITCHELL: I don`t know that to be the case, but what I think people need to focus on, is the overall background of what was going on back then. This was a fight -- an internal fight -- between the CIA and Dick Cheney. . . .And in that context, when Joe Wilson went on television with us and in interviews and said he had been dispatched by the vice president, you could understand why Dick Cheney and his people probably said no, we didn`t send him. We had nothing to do with that, because, you know, whether Wilson was told or was simply inflating his own importance, he led people to believe, he said publicly, that he had been dispatched by the vice president. Gee Andrea, don't you know how to read? Here is what Joe Wilson wrote on July 6, 2003:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. Got it! He did not write that Cheney sent him. Joe Wilson isn't lying, Andrea Mitchell is. Moreover, when Wilson appeared on Meet the Press on July 6, 2003 with Andrea, he did not say what she claims he did. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript:
MS. MITCHELL: But, in fact, many officials, including the president, the vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, were referring to the Niger issue as though it were fact, as though it were true and they were told by the CIA, this information was passed on in the national intelligence estimate, I've been told, with a caveat from the State Department that it was highly dubious based on your trip but that that caveat was buried in a footnote, in the appendix. So was the White House misled? Were they not properly briefed on the fact that you had the previous February been there and that it wasn't true? AMB. WILSON: No. No. In actual fact, in my judgment, I have not seen the estimate either, but there were reports based upon my trip that were submitted to the appropriate officials. The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.
Shocking! Joe Wilson consistently said that the request originated with the Vice President and was passed to the CIA. Don't stop there, that is also what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported in July 2004.
Several in the media also keep repeating as fact that Joe Wilson got it wrong on whether or not Iraq was buying uranium in Niger. Here is what Joe wrote in July 2003:
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. Guess what? That turned out to be true as well. Joe had his facts right, it was Bush and Cheney who were ignoring the truth. What we now know for certain is that the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, consistently shared Joe's judgment that the reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium were not reliable. On at least two occasions in the Fall of 2002, CIA personnel specifically informed Senators and the White House that the reports about Iraq buying uranium were wrong. We now know that the only intelligence on this matter came from one source, Italian intelligence, which provided three separate reports.
Finally, several media hacks go after Joe claiming that the White House had to know about the results of his investigation. Here's what Joe said:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure. Andrea Mitchell on the October 13 edition of Hardball spreads further misinformation by insisting that Vice President Cheney was out of the loop:
MITCHELL: He did not necessarily know that any trip was even under way at the early stages of that trip. MATTHEWS: Sure, but they...
MITCHELL: That`s what they were trying to clear up. That`s why they jumped up. And that was probably the original motivation.
MATTHEWS: Right. But is the vice president, Jim, still left with the explanation that he or someone has to give -- if a trip was undertaken to Central Africa to answer an inquiry raised by him, why didn`t they report back to him that there was no deal there involving uranium? And, therefore, why didn`t he tell the president before he gave his State of the Union address?
Wrong again Andrea! (How can someone get so much so wrong and still be considered a serious journalist?) According to the July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report, Vice President Cheney asked his CIA briefer for an update on the Niger issue he had asked about in early February (which triggered Joe Wilson's trip to Niger). As a result of Cheney's request in early March, two CIA officers debriefed Ambassador Wilson on the results of his trip, wrote up the report, and disseminated the report on 8 March (p. 42 of the Senate report). Now, we're asked to believe that the CIA briefer never got back to Cheney? If you believe that call me, I have a bridge in Baghdad to sell you.
So boys and girls, what have we learned? Well if there is a liar it is not Joe Wilson. He told the truth. It is people like Andrea Mitchell, Joseph DiGenova, Victoria Toensing who are having trouble with the truth of the matter.
Posted by Larry Johnson on October 19, 2005 at 02:01 PM
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/the_socalled_li.html
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 7:25pm
DSCOTT and Bushrules: Anything to add here? I am most eager to be edjumicated. Put your facts where your fingers are or just shut up and realize--your pals are soon to take little trips to unpleasnat places.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 7:39pm
...and therefore Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be eliminated?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 7:40pm
What is truly pathetic is that in the lead up to the war, the Administration seemed to know things that no one else knew: what weapons Saddam had, how many, how much, where they were located, what they were capable of. Once the war began and in the years since, the administration seems to know so much less than their rightwing supporters. "Information" cited and circulated among the believers are spread widely, yet this information is apparently not known by the Administration. Why is that? Maybe the rightwing on this blog could hold a seminar with the Bush, Cheney, Condi and the gang and share your information with them. Then again, we'd have to steer clear as they take your information and do to it what they did with the pre-war intelligence. Could get ugly.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 7:44pm
FROMRED
Isn't it going to be hard to make a case that the chief correspondent for a major TV network got it "wrong" (Andrea Mitchell)...and Larry Johnson at "www.whatever.com" has it right?
Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 7:50pm
Let me get this straight. You think it's unlikely that a major TV Network correspondent got something wrong???!!! What the hell has Andrea Mitchell gotten right! Larry Johnson was a career spook for the CIA. He knows what he's talking about. Andrea Mitchell is a cue-reading faux journalist with absolutely no credibility. She's a paid talker who says what she's told to say.
Posted by BBatten at 11/03/2005 @ 8:07pm
Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth...wait, didn't Iraq lob bombs at Israel even though Israel has nothing to do with the first gulf war. what about this oil for food scandal that you all keep dismissing. The UN is a Fraud. Even today Annan says he will not listen to anyone else but the UN on the issue of Iran.
As I said many mnay moons ago, we just have to wait to see what comes out of the Cheney mess. Bush is cleared...so you can't go there. Cheney has every right to know who the CIA op was that set up the mission that was supposedly authorized by him. If Libby and Cheney talked about Plame there is no one at fault. They have to have hard core proof of a plot to connect Cheney and Rove. But by all accounts, Rove is cleared as well or he would already been served papers. Libby will take the sword and we are back at square one.
A lot of people were saying this war was about oil. Maybe you are right. So, WHY are you all not addressing the oil for food program and start connecting the dots here. My goodness! this has been going on for the last 10 years, but this is all Bush's fault. Today, French Oil Compan, Total, is now being connected to the oil for food scandal and Mark Rich, the guy Clinton pardoned from being banned in the US may be in the middle of it.
Yes, this war was over oil, but why are you slamming one side when in actuality, the UN did nothing about the poor in Iraq who were dying when UN officials were making millions of dollars through Sadaam. these are hard core facts that are being traced by forensic accountant.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:09pm
Mask, Since when---and I know you are smarter than this--are talking heads ever to be taken seriously. Does Judy Miller stike a chord?
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 8:09pm
That's a lot of punctuation.
And now for a brief moment of levity:
Libby's attorney declared outside the courthouse today that Scooter Libby wants to clear his good name.
Not often that a joke's setup and punchline are one in the same.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 8:10pm
Shoot, beaten to the submit button. My punctuation was in response to the post of BBATTEN.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 8:11pm
Dancall, What in what in what in what does Food for Oil have to do with this debacle? Because Total is a Frenchie company? Is that it? that all you got?
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 8:14pm
Scattered thoughts by an active poster:
"Bush is cleared...so you can't go there."
"If Libby and Cheney talked about Plame there is no one at fault. They have to have hard core proof of a plot to connect Cheney and Rove."
"these are hard core facts that are being traced by forensic accountant."
DANCALL is presenting us some serious, hard core action here. Put the kids away.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 8:16pm
Isn't it going to be hard to make a case that the chief correspondent for a major TV network got it "wrong" (Andrea Mitchell)...and Larry Johnson at "www.whatever.com" has it right?
Posted by MASK 11/03/2005 @ 7:50pm
If Larry Johnson is wrong and Andrea Mitchell is right, it would be easy enough to prove. Just as easy as it was for Larry Johnson to prove her wrong.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 8:18pm
Oil men know where the oil comes from. Much like a peanut seller knows where the farms are and who each farm is selling to. The big oil companies knew what was going on and during the Clinton Admin, nothing could be done about it. In comes the Bush family, oil family. they know what is going on not only because they are oil men, but because UN officials are receiving the vouchers and every sanction set up by the UN is being broken and the UN is not doing a damn thing about it. Clinton did nothing about it. 1996, is the year when this took off. Did you not remember that 1996 is the year that Osama formaly declared war against the US? The French Oil Company is extremely relevant for a few reasons. One, because it is the largest French Oil Company. Two, Mark Rich is connected and he is the same man who has given money to the Clintons and who Clinton pardoned...I think he owed the US Govt over $10 million in taexs...nothing too bad. Three, France was a country who was against the US war on Iraq. Now, by all finding by the forensic accountants, there are many french officials, along with German, Russian and even a US oil tycon who was indicted last week. Did you know he and the Bush family hated each other? Sadaam was selling his oil when the UN had sanctions against Iraq. However, he was giving these officials oil vouchers to sell at discounted rates to other groups. In return, Sadaam was gaining favor in the UN because he was looking to by pass the US and the UN sanctions. Basically, he was lining the pockets to gain political favor.
Take a breath and go one step deeper...why did the US Govt step in and stop exxon from being sold to a Chinese firm? Ever heard of Lukens oil? Start doing some serious research on these guys and you will see why this Oil for Food Program could be the biggest scandal ever through earth's modern history.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:29pm
Bush is cleared...so you can't go there.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 8:09pm
Cleared of what- the charge that his real objective is to kill more Americans than Osama Bin Laden? Not in the least. The investigation is still under way.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 8:30pm
Why do you think Bush never listened to the UN...They knew the UN was getting oil vouchers from Sadaam. So no matter what the case, the UN would have never agreed to the invasion of Iraq...get it?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:32pm
Oh Red, why are you not including the bombers and how many innocent iraqi;s they are killing? Our soldiers are there for a duty. They want nothing to do with you. You are using them for your politics.
Our hands are tied because of political correctness. We can win the ar without war, but that takes a serious amount of intel and to get that, liberals would never accpet it. we are doomed one way or the other. There are a lot of people who want to kill us. Iran even said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. But in your world, your extended hand to a fanatical extremist would work...I have a bridge to sell you.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:38pm
Why do you think Bush never listened to the UN...They knew the UN was getting oil vouchers from Sadaam. So no matter what the case, the UN would have never agreed to the invasion of Iraq...get it?
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 8:32pm
Did Cheney and the cabal that he was a member of start planning the Iraq invasion in the early 90's because George Bush informed them that God had told him some staff at the UN would start receiving oil vouchers from Saddam in the mid-90's? If we can just find that puzzle piece we'll be done, won't we DANCALL?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 8:40pm
Dancall, read man read. Exxon--worth 135 billion versus Unocal worth 13.5 billion.The Chinese bid on Unocal. The Chinese? What about them? they already own half of this country--thanks to whom? Think about this---785 billion of our national debt is owned by China. Pre-Bush the debt to China was what? I won't give you the number because I want you to open your mind and do your own research. Now-- on the Oil for Food crap. What does that have to do with anything. To you, it should look like capitalism at its best. Maximize the buck for the least trouble. Kinda like a no-bid thing to me except that every western country, including this one was involved. That is so distressing to you. THAT, my friend is truly representative of your hypocacy. On the final hurrah here, the fact that Hussein was selling oil at a discount to American and European companies on the sly is a great reason to go in a cream his ass?
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 8:44pm
Red, That war plan was drafted as part of the second phase of the Desert storm, Red...obviuously you are ignorant to war planning. They took that out of the archives and used it for a base this time around. It was evident because they were using old info and it burned them a few times. Don't you remember that we never went in to take Sadaam the first time because he made a DEAL WITH THE UN? The same UN that made the sanctions. The same UN Sancations that watched Sadaam break for 12 years. The Same UN that was making millions of Sadaam. The same UN that shit their pants over this oil for food program. Annan is still refusing to hand over personal papers and open the UN papers to an outside group. The UN is a fraud! Dude, if you can tie Bush into this mess, then he should be fried. However, most on this site are not looking into the bigger picture here!!!
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:47pm
Oh Red, why are you not including the bombers and how many innocent iraqi;s they are killing? Our soldiers are there for a duty. They want nothing to do with you. You are using them for your politics.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 8:38pm
How many innocent Iraqis were getting killed by suicide bombers before the Republicans cooked up the Iraq invasion? None. Is there anyone so dim that they don't realize that the American invasion and occupatipon has killed more innocent Iraqis than Zarqawi ever could if he lived a thousand years? No, DANCALL, you and the others who have stabbed our country in the back are the ones who are using our soldiers for your politics. "Liberals" didn't send them there to do shameful acts. You did.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 8:48pm
Ha ha ha, (initial posts). How do you like these civics lessons from the right wingers? I wonder what country they are talking about?
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 8:49pm
sorry it was Unocal. Lets not get into who started with the Chinese...mr clinton only sold them our latest top secret weapons program. No biggie. Lets talk about the false economy in the 90's to start of with then we can go into the accounting Fraud that was happening with US companies during that time but was blamed on Bush. enron was a prime example...there accounting scemes were set up in the late 90's and were approved by the Clinton Admin. yes, they oversee the way businesses run. Exporting of jobs to China started to increase in the 90s along with India...Clinton opened up the fload gates. Get your facts straight.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:51pm
Dancall. Jesus Man!. Do you think that your ditherings will change the endgame for your "fuhrer"? Ain't gonna happen pal. Maybe you should go home and sit awhile on your pee-stained barcalounger and reflect: How could I have been such an idiot?
Regards,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/03/2005 @ 8:53pm
Dancall is beyond the reach of any argument. Sure, let's focus on oil for food and connect the dots. That way, we don't need to look at the collosal swindle that Bush and his folks have perpetrated. I suggest that Dancall stop firing off in all directions and stop seeing enemies of the state and Christianity in every liberal.
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 8:54pm
DANCALL, you are so bamboozled and confused that you're hopeless. You're nostalgic for the good old days (two years ago) when most of America was being played for a fool by the draft dodging Republican plutocrats, just as you still are. Times have changed and facts are obvious. Good luck.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 8:57pm
Ouch, Dancall, I can't keep up with your bullshit. Once again, Clinton is blamed for everything. At this rate, Bush will be found innocent of original sin. You are so out of touch with reality it's almost laughable.
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 8:57pm
Take the soldiers out of the mix. 1993 the first Trade Center bombing occured. Then numerous bombing occured throughout the world killing THOUSANDS. 9/11 happened, killing THOUSANDS. I am all for pulling out the troops and letting these aholes kill each other. Then when they regroup and get a bomb and kill thousands of US citizens on US soil...is that going to be Bush's fault? I love to see the world of 90's afghanastans. Shit, let's just sell nukes to iran and let them wipe out israel. Lets pull our troops out of Germany once and for all...The cold war has been over for how many years but the Germans still want them there...why is that again? Lets pull our troops out of South Korea. what is the difference, right, red?
You have no idea because you don't have a killer instinct in you. you will never get it. that is the difference of Cons and Libs. It is what it is...
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 8:57pm
You have to admit, DANCALL is funny. And, assuming his intellect has led him into a job that is appropriate for his abilities, he is harmless. The danger is when someone like him rises and rises and rises, inexplicably, through no cause of his own, until he achieves the most powerful position in the world.
I keep imagining Saddam as the tanks are approaching Baghdad in 1991, placing a phone call to the UN saying, "Just impose sanctions. I'll give up."
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 8:59pm
Fish...I am not blaming Clinton...just want to go back a bit...hell I will go back 100 years to get the story correct and look into the political dynamics and all the business deals that are made with each country by each country....that way we can truly understand what is going on here. This is not just about the Bush time...this goes back years and years ago...the world is just at the boiling point.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:00pm
Bloppy,
yppolb....there's that sound again..of shit hitting a shallow toilet..
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 9:00pm
I'm only half-way through this thread, but, so far, all I can say is "Go Dancall, go!" You are terrific, man. Keep posting away. I haven't enjoyed a thread this much in quite awhile.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 9:00pm
FISHBITE, don't exaggerate! Clinton is not responsible for everything--only the things that Carter and Ted Kennedy didn't mess up.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 9:00pm
TJ...that is how is happened? No?
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:01pm
dancall, Indeed. You are not looking at the big picture. That is all we look at, with open minds. Guess who was in charge of approving purchases made by Iraq during the sanctions. Did you guess these United States. Well then, you are correct. Every international purchase had to be reviewed and approved by US members of the committee. Every one of them. It was made very clear after the first Gulf War that this was to be. So, who had control of what Iraq imported. Us. yes, during Clinton's term. It was horrendous what these assholes did. Holding up imports of such thimgs as flouride for months etc. Read through all this stuff when you so choose and decipher the difference of how the average Iraqi lived and what the rest of the world thought about it. It was OUR policy to narrow the scope of what was allows versus what actually entered the country. You will note here, that this all happened duing Clintons time in office. AND, I disagree with how it was handled. Unlike you, I am willing to look beyond partisan shit and actually have a rational thought. I hope you can do the same.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 9:02pm
Danny Boy, you have the "stupid" instinct in you.
Best,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/03/2005 @ 9:02pm
Dancall - Hey there killer - I can just see you now, sitting in your armchair, fiercely pounding on the keyboard. There he sits, the conservative, stone cold killer! And all from instinct alone! Do you actually believe this horseshit you're spewing!
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 9:04pm
Dancall, I get man. You are really Baghdad Bob, aren't you? I wondered what ever happened to that guy.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 9:05pm
Doumer...that is what I am trying to address. we set the stage for this to happen. But to be accountable, we must go back all the way to find our faults with an open mind and not just have a blame bush witch hunt attitude. Everyone is at fault...lets find the root cause so it never happens again.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:05pm
TJBEHRENS1 - I think I read somewhere that Clinton was the grassy knoll.
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 9:06pm
C'mon, DANCALL, you didn't take your evening medication. Did you know that an attitude of despisement towards Americans is rather common among South Koreans and Israelis? Did you know that when a Chinese fighter jet collided with our spy plane a few years ago most Taiwanese Americans took sides with China? Just to confuse you with the facts even more.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 9:06pm
Dancall - Why don't you go off and research everything that's happened over the last one or two hundred years, business deals made, treaties, wars, and so on. Then, once you've tied all these threads together, come back here and explain the whole deal to us. Perhaps it will turn out that getting into this adventure in Iraq had more to do with hoe handle production in the mid 1950s than with Bush's lying about WMD, etc - who knows?
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 9:10pm
TJBEHRENS1 - I think I read somewhere that Clinton was the grassy knoll.
Posted by FISHBITE 11/03/2005 @ 9:06pm
I read that he got some on the grassy knoll.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 9:11pm
FromRedBird - but a true winger doesn't care what other countries feel about us, that's irrelevant. When your military budget is more than the military budget of the rest of the world combined, you don't need to worry about what those pesky foreigners think.
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 9:12pm
Red, those are the younger generations that do not like the US. And yes I realize that. we are now being run by the hippy generation who did all they could to get rid of the WWII generation.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:12pm
Hey John aka "the bowl". Swallow it whole my friend. Who's side are you on? Don't get punky with me.
regards,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/03/2005 @ 9:12pm
DANCALL, as to your...
Shit, let's just sell nukes to iran and let them wipe out israel.
Well, let's not forget the Reagan administration having illegally sold weapons to Iranian terrorists in the '80s: it was called Iran-contra -- which is something that went strangely amiss from the "liberal media" when Reagan passed away. And let's not also forget it was this same administration that, along with other countries, helped supply Saddam Hussein with deadly weapons, even when these countries knew he was using them on his own people -- which, again, is something so, so many Repubs remain silent about.
Finally, as to your...
You have no idea because you don't have a killer instinct in you. you will never get it. that is the difference of Cons and Libs. It is what it is...
Can you, please, detail your military service and experience in actual combat so as to justify your claim that you have that "killer instinct"? And if you're of age, then please detail how that fighting's going on in Iraq, being that you're surely seeing it firsthand, rather than channelling your machismo through the brave troops over in Iraq, who're actually fighting over there, and former troops, who have previously fought there or elsewhere.
Chickenhawk/armchair-warmongers haven't any killer instinct -- they just like to think they do. And about Dems not having killer instinct, people like myself merely wish to see our troops only being sent to war when it's absolutely necessary and the last avaliable option -- which, clearly, as we all know, was not the case in Iraq. Afghanistan? You bet. Iraq? No. And if you disagree, then how 'bout we talk it over at a Marine recruiter's office while you're signing up, Killer?
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/03/2005 @ 9:15pm
Dankall - So just how did the hippies do all they could to get rid of the WWII generation?
Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 9:15pm
Fish...maybe...then we can ask ourselves why was germany allowed to exist even though they were in North Africa in the 30's and 40's and killed millions of Jews...Why was saudia arabia created around the same time Israel was created? Why was Stalin allowed to stay in power when we knew he was killing millions of his own people...
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:16pm
TJBEHRENS1 - I think I read somewhere that Clinton was the grassy knoll.
Posted by FISHBITE 11/03/2005 @ 9:06pm
I read that he got some on the grassy knoll.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/03/2005 @ 9:11pm
In the Starr report. Oops! I just ignored myself. Now what?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 9:16pm
It was a rebellion against conservative thinking. Much like what is going on now with the next generation coming through the middle schools...very conservative. It goes in cycles...a mother nature thing...a way of balance.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:17pm
There's that sound again..twice
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 9:19pm
Oil for food...I think it is too funny that you all ignore this subject when in fact it is very relevant to Bush and his reasons for war. You could actually use this as a way to say that he lied about WMD's because he wanted to out the people taking the oil. There it is...laid out for you all.
Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 9:20pm
Oil for food...I think it is too funny that you all ignore this subject when in fact it is very relevant to Bush and his reasons for war. You could actually use this as a way to say that he lied about WMD's because he wanted to out the people taking the oil. There it is...laid out for you all.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person
OK. I fixed it and now that I know how it works, I'm ignoring you.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/03/2005 @ 9:23pm
Maasch, it's your damned gullet.
best,
bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/03/2005 @ 9:25pm
The only time there will be any public pressure on Congress to get to the truth about ALL of the lies - not only about WMD's - all the lies that have been told over and over, will be when the mainstream media come clean about their complicity in supporting every single one.
Of course, that's not about to happen in our lifetime. But, we can fantasize about the New York Times Front Page that we will never, ever see....but we should DEMAND that they pring.
Don't miss this:
CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]
Posted by Reg at 11/03/2005 @ 9:31pm
Reg, very nice
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 9:41pm
Texas,
"necessary and the last avaliable option -- which, clearly, as we all know, was not the case in Iraq."...
should read as you believe, not "as we all know".. as this is not true of all, but only you or some here.
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 10:09pm
I don't think so..it is a distinct sound...
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 10:10pm
Reg,
Don't worry about the NYT or any of the MSM, they will be ready for the mid terms and for Hillary or any other Dem,
As for now, it can only hurt them as they have no(never have and never will) respect right of center and now they are in trouble with the left..but they will return..
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 10:15pm
The public, when aroused will not need the MSM as they are held as a tool of the left politicians in many circles, ie. biased.
If the people are truely upset, all they have to do write their reps in congress over and over. Then some movement will happen, and by writing, it can't be form letters sent out by some group where you fill in the blanks.
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 10:19pm
Dancall, I realize that you are being dumped on here. well, maybe you deserve some of it. But, all the same, I'd like to engage you in debate even tho my brethern here would like to castrate you. You made a point earlier about the Food for Oil thingee. Please submit your post on---and only on----why Saddam's "heinous" contravention of the terms of the program deserved to have his figurative ass blown off, for --- and only for the contravention of the program rules and regulations.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 10:19pm
And John: This is no surprise to you. You have posted here long enough to realize with succint clarity, that the norm of the American public does not have much of an attention span. All of the hit that will run through the proverbial fan in the following months will indeed have some effect. Consider, all that is required is an additional 15% of fencesitters and guess what, you guys are OUT. The way things are rifgt now, even without sex scandals, its all timing. Dems are a little more determined than you might imagine and your pals are onl;y throwing more gas in the fire every time they open their traps.
Posted by doumer at 11/03/2005 @ 10:28pm
Off-topic, but the plot thickens in the DeLay investigation:
DeLay and Norton benefit from lobbying money [msnbc.msn.com]
WASHINGTON - Investigators have unearthed e-mails showing Rep. Tom DeLay's office tried to help lobbyist Jack Abramoff get a high-level Bush administration meeting for Indian clients, an effort that succeeded after the tribes began making $250,000 in donations.
Tribal money went both to a group founded by Interior Secretary Gale Norton, the Cabinet secretary Abramoff was trying to meet, as well as to DeLay's personal charity.
"Do you think you could call that friend and set up a meeting?" then-DeLay staffer Tony Rudy asked fellow House aide Thomas Pyle in a Dec. 29, 2000, e-mail titled "Gale Norton-Interior Secretary." President Bush had nominated Norton to the post the day before.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 10:50pm
John, if the MSM is such a tool of the left, where were they in 2002 and 2003 before the war? At that time, most on the left disagreed with the purported rationale for war (WMD and connection to terrorism), and that the adminsitration was either overhyping, misleading, exagerrating, distorting, or lying about the intelligence (pick you description). I do not recall the NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS, or other MSM taking this angle then.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 10:56pm
HMAN23,
I remember in 2000 during the presidential debates being absolutely stunned by the analysis of the talking heads. I did not vote for Gore but I thought he quite clearly blew up Bush away. Yet they focused on style rather than substance, on low expectations rather than actual performance. I waited for just one person on one of the news programs that followed the debates to ask the others, "What were the rest of you watching?" Just one.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 10:59pm
Freudian slip. I didn't mean to write that Gore blew up Bush, just that he blew Bush away.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 11:00pm
I agree the GOpers are having a difficult time now, the war is a problem but not for the reasons clamoured here, in my opinion, the press carrying the water for the Dems, and I beleive most people are responsible for their own problems, so are the GOPers,...the only thing I can note is that they are blessed by the opponents they will face in 06.
I believe Bush may have hit bottom and it will improve with time. Had all the Libby crapp appeared 3 months before election then the GOP would have trouble holding their majority, but what gives me perspective is the push the DEMs are trying to sell.
The stupid letter to Cheney, as If any VP would respond top a demand as full of shit as that, the obvious disappointment with the Liddy indictments and now the SC appointment.
It will be an interesting next few months.
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 11:05pm
Would that be G. Scooter Liddy?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 11:07pm
Yeah, Liddy, Libby...whatever, LOL
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 11:21pm
"Democrats in both the Senate and the House have moved to eliminate all Christian religions. When the bill passes, all people will either be forced to renounce religion entirely or take up budhism, islam, judaism or some other non Jesus derived religion. Posted by COLMES 11/03/2005 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person
Colmes,
I believe that bill # is HR 666. (OK, I'm bad; I'll quit now.)
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 11:25pm
If we could all take a break from playing lawyer in the Plame case for a moment (and I am as guilty as anyone), I would like to pose a couple of practical questions:
1. If Joe Wilson was so obviously full of shit, as so many on this blog seem to think is so easy to prove, why did Cheney have to get involved at all in the effort to discredit him?
2. If Joe Wilson's points were so easily refutable on the merits, why involve his wife's true occupation? Cheney, Libby and others knew she was CIA. Fitzgerald has alleged that her status was classified and that the leak blew her cover (seems to me that lays out she was covert, your cover cannot be blown if you are out in the open); you have the State Deptartment memo marked classified. Now even assuming for a moment that the conduct was not criminal, why would Cheney's office and Rove decide that Wilson was important enough of an issue to even risk touching this?
3. I think I read that Libby is a lawyer and is regarded as meticulous, savy, and careful. If there was no underlying criminal conduct in outing Wilson's wife, why was he not truthful with the FBI or in the grand jury?
Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 11:43pm
The following by BUSHRULES is so palpably absurd I've a hard time believing someone wrote this while sober:
So happens soon after we invaded Iraq, our beloved soldiers found in one of Saddams palaces a mural he had painted of the planes crashing into the WTC. And you Libs have the nerve to claim Saddam was not a threat???
Uh, so because he had a mural of this, he was, a threat? To the U.S.? An immediate, imminent threat because he had a mural of 9/11? A mural? Not an operative hand in 9/11, but a mural of it? Please, oh please, tell me that this person is joking.
Even after all the mass graves uncovered??
1. Graves holding dead Iraqis killed by weapons partly supplied to Hussein by the Iran-Contra Reagan administration -- yes, indeed.
2. Being a threat to Iraqis does not equate into being a threat to America, thank you very much.
3. Can I see where you protested Bush upon his arrival in the White House for not immediately going to war with Iraq on the part of these Iraqis you would have us believe you care about? Don't be shy.
You can never be trusted to hold the reigns of power EVER until you Libs grow up
After the dribble you've posted, I'd say after you take your bib off that you're the one who needs growing up.
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/03/2005 @ 11:49pm
Hman,
# 3 is puzzling to all. It was and is unecessary for him to lie, had he not lied, would there be any indictments? If no, then what?
#2- What bothers me about Wilson was his wife sent him? Really? Many people new she wqas cia apparently, but the question is who is she that she sends her husband on a mission and he comes back and publicaly buries the Admin policy, with opinions and not facts, according to the Senate reports.
#1 I beleive Cheney got involved by asking the question, " Who the hell is this Wilson guy who is hammering us after a mission? What mission? Why not talk to us? Where is the report? Or is this some sort of hatchet job on us? Who sent him? Liddy, find out what the hell is up with this guy....
look, my suppositions are just that, but i could see something like this happening. I don't think the Wilson are big players in any of this, I think they are a couple of political clowns trying to be important. It got away from them, The Senate Report on Wilson could use some more light.
Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 11:59pm
.
You claimed earlier -
I asked you, as you are so interested in "the logic of the argument," precisely how quickly did the US reject that declaration? Iraq's declaration was made on December 7, 2002. When did the US deride it as empty and warmed over baloney? That certainly is not "avoiding that fact." It is asking to come to grips with your fact, if it is a fact.
Incidentally, thousands of people work in the State Department, Pentagon and White House. A report like that would be parceled out in 60 page sections to two hundred people. Within 2 hours it would be established whether the document contained the sought for answers.
But your response was as feckless as usual. Whenever you are put to the test, you fall apart. You proved yourself a phony and nitwit the last time we spoke, and you have established that again. .
Posted by nacl at 11/04/2005 @ 12:00am
NACl,
Enjoyed your posts this few days..
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 12:13am
#3 It is a lot more complicated than that. First the investigation is not over. Second, if there is no charge for the underlying crime, it will likely be b/c Fitz could not get the requisite intent element, which in many cases is the hardest element to prove. Fitz seemed to be saying at the press conference that Libby's lies hampered his ability to investigate the underlying charges. Someone here a few days ago made a good analogy to a person lying to police about which direction some criminals ran, so there was no arrest b/c they were not caught. So, you can't simply say that because there was no underlying charges brought, if he would have told the truth, you would have the same result.
#2 You do not really answer the question. Libby, Rove and others had to know they were dealing with classified information. Given how circumpect they were with reporters the knew that. Even if showing some form of nepotism would be good tactically, why risk it if Joe Wilson's story is so easily countered. By the way, his wife did not send him (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR20050 81001918.html)
#1 But the people at high levels have people taking pot shots against them all the time. I doubt they get involved for every so-called crank that comes along. What was so special about Wilson that it hit a nerve with Cheney, requiring him to be personally involved, if there wasn't anything behind what Wilson was driving at?
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:17am
.
You claim:
The facts are the complete reverse of your assertions. The report in question was supplied by Saddam Hussein on December 7. On January 27 Hans Blix advised the UN on its contents. The complete text of Blix's findings can be read here. His most pertinent paragraphs spoke thus:
You accuse others of "massive deception." But it is you who here plainly establish yourself as a fabricator. Please have the decency to apologize!
.
Posted by nacl at 11/04/2005 @ 12:22am
#2 What bothers me about Wilson was his wife sent him?
Incorrect. His wife didn't have the authority to send him; she recommended the CIA send him, based on his past experience. This seems to be a stickler point by people wanting to discredit Wilson, but just because his wife recommended he be sent does not equate into him being inadequate for the task at hand. And, help me on this: even if Hussein had sought to purchase uranium, how did this make him more of a viable nuclear threat than North Korea and Iran, both of whom were much more advanced in their nuclear programs before Iraq was invaded?
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/04/2005 @ 12:25am
TexasDem:
If you read the Wash. Post article I gave John http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR200508 1001918.html, you will also see that the CIA is contending that she did not even recommend him for this particular trip. Some excerpts:
"Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999. On that trip, Plame, who worked in that division, had suggested him because he was planning to go there, according to Wilson and the Senate committee report.
The 2002 mission grew out of a request by Vice President Cheney on Feb. 12 for more information about a Defense Intelligence Agency report he had received that day, according to a 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. An aide to Cheney would later say he did not realize at the time that this request would generate such a trip.
Wilson maintains that his wife was asked that day by one of her bosses to write a memo about his credentials for the mission--after they had selected him. That memo apparently was included in a cable to officials in Africa seeking concurrence with the choice of Wilson, the Senate report said.
Valerie Wilson's other role, according to intelligence officials, was to tell Wilson he had been selected, and then to introduce him at a meeting at the CIA on Feb. 19, 2002, in which analysts from different agencies discussed the Niger trip. She told the Senate committee she left the session after her introduction."
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:35am
John Maasch and pals, Hey fellers, no one likes to admit that they took sides with the "ass-end" of the argument. You have my sympathy for that grotesque miscalculation. We will welcome you into the fold, when you renounce your collective idiocy and embrace the concepts of honesty and transparency in government. Also, you will be required to wear pointy hats that say, "I am a damned liar" for the term of one year. (Don't worry, you can select a hat color of your choice)
Such a deal!!
Best ,Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/04/2005 @ 12:41am
HMAN23,
Interesting. And the Repubs still haven't been able to make so much as a dent in Republican's Richard Clarke's damnation of Bush's counterterrorism record. Here is a lifelong Republican who winds up praising Clinton, not Bush, in this area. Something tells me it's going to be nearly too late -- if it isn't already -- when they realize that this is the man whose words meant the most and were the most relevant.
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/04/2005 @ 12:55am
By the way, does DANCALL make it a habit of side-stepping people who challenge him? I'd really like to know his past military experience in the front-lines of war since he wrote that Repubs like himself understand the "killer instinct" he claims Dems lack (though I wonder how Vietnam no-shows like Bush, Cheney and others understand this very same thing). Guess he's like Cheney in that he had "other priorities", huh?
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/04/2005 @ 12:58am
Another question,
Why would Wilson go to the NYT with the op ed piece if his asertations were so devastating to the war justification claim? That and all the Kerry support and the whole picture stinks....seems poor choice for government agent on CIA mission to vent his political disagreement this way. I dunno...it just doen't wash ..he needs more open examination.
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 01:00am
Bloppy,
Maybe we should put each other on the ignore list as we don't seem to have anything the other person can take seriously
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 01:01am
Why would Wilson go to the NYT with the op ed piece if his asertations were so devastating to the war justification claim?
Probably because his assertations weren't known to the public like Bush's asserations concerning the same topic. I mean, c'mon, this is the president who was talking something different than what Wilson had concluded, so naturally Bush's talk is what was in the minds of Americans as opposed to Wilson's differing take. Look at it this way: if Wilson hadn't done the op-ed piece, would you and I have known about his take on things? Of course not. And you write that it's a "poor choice" for Wilson to have vented his frustrations this way? Why? What he concluded contradicted that of Bush, and Bush took this country to war on this issue. Seems to me he did what any patriot should do: speak their mind when they have a relevant opposing view. And, again, what is it with this double standard: someone who's a Democrat says or writes something that contradicts a Republican president is fishy, yet a Republican who says or writes something that supports that president isn't equally fishy?
C'mon.
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/04/2005 @ 01:20am
Tex,
"...Bush took this country to war on this issue."
This is the problem,,you on the left think this is the only reason while the rest of us know it is only part of the issue.
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 01:24am
You have no idea because you don't have a killer instinct in you. you will never get it. that is the difference of Cons and Libs.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 8:57pm
Ok Killer. Maybe its time for a cheetos break. Don't forget the juicebox.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 01:27am
Perhaps it will turn out that getting into this adventure in Iraq had more to do with hoe handle production in the mid 1950s than with Bush's lying about WMD, etc - who knows?
Posted by FISHBITE 11/03/2005 @ 9:10pm
Everyone please, a standing ovation for fishbite. That my friend was funny!
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 01:31am
This is the problem,,you on the left think this is the only reason while the rest of us know it is only part of the issue.
And the rest?
Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/04/2005 @ 01:33am
Another question,
Why would Wilson go to the NYT with the op ed piece if his asertations were so devastating to the war justification claim?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/04/2005 @ 01:00am
umm, because he wanted to tell the country about it?
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 01:51am
You accuse others of "massive deception." But it is you who here plainly establish yourself as a fabricator. Please have the decency to apologize!
Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 12:22am
Snooty little sucker ain't cha? Ok, NACL I'll appoligize for my friend. I'm sorry that no weapons of mass destruction were found in IRAQ. There I said it. Now would you please unclench that sphincter mussle between your buttcheeks and....ease your head out.
You'll feel so much better.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 02:21am
David (Corn),
Why do the Democrats need the Republicans in order to complete a report on Administration exaggeration and falsification of pre-war intelligence?
The minority members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have subpoena power, IIRC.
Posted by Stephen Fro at 11/04/2005 @ 06:57am
Mary, your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. the war in Iraq is not over.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 07:57am
Wllc!,
Good mornining fellow sinner!!!,
"Another question,
Why would Wilson go to the NYT with the op ed piece if his asertations were so devastating to the war justification claim?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/04/2005 @ 01:00am
umm, because he wanted to tell the country about it?
Posted by WILL C. 11/04/2005 @ 01:51am
I can buy that idea, except no one out side the liberal meccas(NY,SF,LA)read the rag,in fact hyold it in extremely low esteem, especially the great unwashed middle America.
To "get" to people like me one must approach me where I can be found, the enemy camp, Fox, conservative talk shows,come waving a white flag of course.... hell, .....or have I been spending to much time at the communion wine table?
Oh well, off to make obsene profits...
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 09:02am
Mary,
It doesn't matter, as someone has to fund all these programs that are being brutaly cut...
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 09:41am
Does my spelling skills and Master of English betray my public education?
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 09:41am
Anyone,
If my wife is an undercover agent and I am sent on a trip to investigate a possilblity of a "war starting" event(NIGER)would I then come home and hammer the idea in the press? Would that not potentially reveal or at worst, weaken my wife's cover? Why not report to the one I claimed sent me(Cheney) if there is aproblem with the evidence on my secret mission? Why was the story I opinined different from the supposedly report filed with CIA?
This Wilson thing is a problem for many of us..
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 09:47am
MBB, you are completely mischaracterizing the argument on nukes. The Left never claimed that Bush lied by asserting that Hussein HAD them; rather, Bush misrepresented the intelligence that they even had a program that was capable of acquiring them in the near future. Find me one allegation from a reputable source attacking Bush on a claim that he actually HAD nuclear weapons.
The Left is not re-trying the case, you are wordsmithing and recasting the rationale. It was not a debate about pre-emptive war based on potential future intentions, it was largely sold on the then-present threat that Hussein posed the US.
Sorry for the long excerpts (my comments in CAPS), but I suspect you would never read it if I only provided you with a link from http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/899/
"In his first major address on the "Iraqi threat" in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
WHAT WAS THE INTELLIGENCE FOR THIS ABSOLUTE ASSERTION?
"Before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)--the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation--stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future."
NO SUPPORT FOR BUSH HERE.
"In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs." The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
NO SUPPORT HERE EITHER.
"Ten months before the president's speech, an intelligence review by CIA Director George Tenet contained not a single mention of an imminent nuclear threat--or capability--from Iraq. The CIA was backed up by Bush's own State Department: Around the time Bush gave his speech, the department's intelligence bureau said that evidence did not "add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons."
NONE HERE EITHER.
"Nonetheless, the administration continued to push forward. In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons." He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave "concerns about Iraq's potential nuclear programs."
WHAT WAS THIS BASED ON?
"Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS's Gwen Ifill that the administration's nuclear assertions were "absolutely supportable."
BASED ON WHAT?
"That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: "There's a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
WHAT EVIDENCE WAS THAT; THE FORGOING REPORTS TO THE CONTRARY?
"To back up claims that Iraq was actively trying to build nuclear weapons, the administration referred to Iraq's importation of aluminum tubes, which Bush officials said were for enriching uranium. In December 2002, Powell said, "Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program." Similarly, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said Iraq "has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
WHAT WAS THE INTELLIGENCE TO BACK UP THIS ABSOLUTE ASSERTION?
"In October 2002, well before these and other administration officials made this claim, two key agencies told the White House exactly the opposite. The State Department affirmed reports from Energy Department experts who concluded those tubes were ill-suited for any kind of uranium enrichment. And according to memos released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department also warned Powell not to use the aluminum tubes hypothesis in the days before his February 2003 U.N. speech. He refused and used the aluminum tubes claim anyway."
I GUESS THIS INTELLIGENCE WAS NOT CREDIBLE ENOUGH FOR POWELL.
"The State Department's warnings were soon validated by the IAEA. In March 2003, the agency's director stated, "Iraq's efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to be related" to nuclear weapons deployment."
OOPS.
"Yet, this evidence did not stop the White House either. Pretending the administration never received any warnings at all, Rice claimed in July 2003 that "the consensus view" in the intelligence community was that the tubes "were suitable for use in centrifuges to spin material for nuclear weapons."
WHAT CONSENSUS VIEW WAS THAT CONDI?
"In one of the most famous statements about Iraq's supposed nuclear arsenals, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The careful phrasing of this statement highlights how dishonest it was. By attributing the claim to an allied government, the White House made a powerful charge yet protected itself against any consequences should it be proved false. In fact, the president invoked the British because his own intelligence experts had earlier warned the White House not to make the claim at all."
"In the fall of 2002, the CIA told administration officials not to include this uranium assertion in presidential speeches. Specifically, the agency sent two memos to the White House and Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use the claim. While the warnings forced the White House to remove a uranium reference from an October 2002 presidential address, they did not stop the charge from being included in the 2003 State of the Union."
"Not surprisingly, evidence soon emerged that forced the White House to admit the deception. In March 2003, IAEA Director Mohammed El Baradei said there was no proof Iraq had nuclear weapons and added "documents which formed the basis for [the White House's assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." But when Cheney was asked about this a week later, he said, "Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong."
UMM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BACK THAT UP WITH SOMETHING?
"Bush and Rice both tried to blame the CIA for the failure, saying the assertion "was cleared by the intelligence services." When the intelligence agency produced the memos it had sent to the White House on the subject, Rice didn't miss a beat, telling Meet The Press "it is quite possible that I didn't" read the memos at all--as if they were "optional" reading for the nation's top national security official on the eve of war … if the White House did not cherry-pick or manipulate intelligence, why did the president trumpet U.S. intelligence from a foreign government while ignoring explicit warnings not to do so from his own? The record shows U.S. intelligence officials explicitly warned the White House that "the Brits have exaggerated this issue."
Your arguments may work for those with a short attention span MBB, but they are little more than revisionist history. You should consider writing a fiction novel.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 09:54am
Maaasch, first, speak for yourself, "many of us" what the hell does that mean. the fact that ambassador Wilson went public in an Op ed piece has absolutely nothing to do with his wife. except of course when the administration' s attack dogs leaked her covert status, to silence him, discredit him and provide an example to anyone else who might have the temerity to challenge the administration
you seem to have a problem with this freedom of speech thing, see previous posts
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 09:57am
John,
Whether you believe him or not, Wilson claims that he tried to voice his opinions through government channels and the White House; after being stonewalled he decided to take his opinions to the press.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 09:57am
Mary, This current, at-large debate between the Right and the Left is not about pre-emptive war and its de/merits. It is about misinformation and lies.
We (and I cringe using that inclusive term, but I and others of my opinions are held to inclusion as citizens in this flawed democracy) impeached Clinton about lying under oath.
A movement has been active for some time now to impeach Bush for lying about the evidence necessitating this so-called "pre-emptive" war with Iraq.
Given the "Impeach Bush" movement, I wanted to ask you Constitutional scholars out there about whether there's a process to go after the real culprit. Could the US Senate impeach Cheney?
Posted by Rael4 at 11/04/2005 @ 10:01am
RAEL4:
Yes, US. Const. Art. II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 10:06am
Thanks HMAN23
Posted by Rael4 at 11/04/2005 @ 10:07am
hman23, what that quote means is that if the president is impeached and convicted, his entire staff including vice is automatically fired. I don't believe the vice can be impeached on his own. I will do a bit further snooping and will report back.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 10:18am
Johannes,
Many of us on the right was what I meant..I have been here long enough to know none here agrees with the right..
As far as freedom of speech, Wilson may have been a possible "Unidicted co conspiritor" in outing his own wife, as if she was an expert, covert, undercover agent, then he may have unintentionaly shined a light on her status.
Why not let the CIA present their case as they have been plamed for poor intelligence in the first place. They should have jumped at the opportunity Wilson provided. But an oped piece in NYT? If Wilson had an air tight case, then he would not have had to risk his wife's status. Something does't add up here. The lies are unecessary by Libby.
If we are going to look under the rocks, t5hen lets look under all the rocks.
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 10:23am
QUESTION,
If you place someone on the ignore list, does that carry through to all blog sites here or just the page we are on?
Posted by john maasch at 11/04/2005 @ 10:25am
hold the presses, I am mistaken, it seems. the vice can be impeached seperately from the pres, as can all civil officers, meaning judges. senators cannot be impeached, nor congressman or women.
Maasch, you are obtuse and incoherent. he went public. this his right. he had nothing to do with outing her as a covert agent.
as far as the ignore button, why not find out for yourself? by the way I know the answer.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 10:33am
Maasch, may I remind you this is a blog sponsored by a progressive, liberal publication. if you'd like to post on a like minded blog there are many out there, so help yourself. it would be a relief with the quality of your posts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 10:35am
while the constitution passage could be read in the way of my first try, it is wrong. of course neither pres or vice have ever been convicted. Nixon and Agnew both having resigned rather than face impeachment and Clinton and Andrew Johnson both beat the rap
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 11:05am
preemptive wars are contrary to international law and contrary to UN rules.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 11:07am
John, we are all for looking under every rock, but there is no rock in Wilson's yard. Even you admit that the most he is guilty of is "unintentionally shining a light on her status." So he possibly could be an unindicted co-conspirator b/c he should have known that his press opinions would result in a counter-attack that outed his wife? This is silly. A conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more people. Who did Wilson conspire with - Libby, Rove and Novak? Wilson had nothing to do with outing his wife.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:13am
We can't wait for the threat to become imminent.
this says it all, it claims the right to attack anyone, anywhere. and you righties support that?
this war and its rationale are being tried(sic?) in the court of public opinion, and in that court the administration is losing, vide approval ratings and support for the war. you righties may carp all you like but the people have voted with their feet, unwilling to join the fight by enlisting. that too will get worse, so blow all the hot air you like, the times they are a changing
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 11:16am
hman,:""unintentionally shining a light on her status." this is nonsense, he did not unintentionally shine the light on anything. the administration leaked her status, criminally so I believe,
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 11:19am
What some are all failing to recognize is when a CIA op is sent out into the field, they are made to sign a document that binds them from not talking to the public about their findings. Wilson was never made to sing that document. Why was he not made to sign that document? Was this a premeditated attempt to bash Bush? We also have to remember that Bush Sr praised Wilson, but years later he was demoted into a diplomat position for a very small country. And the bigger question, the CIA team that sent Cheney never told him about it. They used his name but never contacted him to let him know what was going on. Cheney, therefore has every right to find out who the team members were. Like John is saying, the CIA is most likely doing there own internal investigation into this matter. We must also look at the fact that dems, reps and the CIA all agreed that Wilson's work was shabby. What John is also saying about turning over all the rocks, we have to look at everything. This in itself is a sign of a rouge CIA team. Let's not also forget that Sandy Berger stole classified documents about what Clinton knew about the 9/11 attacks and the connection to Iraq. Something stinks and it isn't just Bush's crew.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 11:28am
These are Joe Wilson's words: The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
These words are very important: "I was acting on behalf of the United States government." If Dick Cheney didn't know about this, nor anyone in the White House knew about this, then was he really acting on the behalf of the US Government?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 11:34am
Yes, US. Const. Art. II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Posted by HMAN23, 11/04/2005 @ 10:06am
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their immediate underlings are all deserving of being charged with all three.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 11:35am
What a lame comeback MBB. You counter nothing in what I posted. Please name me the person that claimed that the Administration asserted that Hussein presently had nuclear weapons. Having some trouble? What about the other sources of information Bush had that I cited to? Any comment on the correctness of those facts and what they mean, or do you just want to parse words in my introductory remarks?
No shit thsi is was a pre-emptive war, and Bush's foreign policy change in that direction was debated on a macro level. But obviously there was a justification proffered FOR the pre-emptive war - which I contend was knowingly exagerrated and misleading based on the actual intelligence Bush had. You tell me how this was not the case, and tell me your thoughts on the sampling of information I provided you. If you want more, there is plenty to be found, but if can't even understand the concept, stay within the framework of the debate, or won't comment on the authority I set forth, it is a waste of time for me to even get into it with you.
BTW - I posted a few weeks ago quotes that characterized the threat numerous times as "urgent," which according to your definition was somehow not synonymous with immediate. I didn't major in English, but I can smell bullshit.
Yes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Funny, though, I do not remember Bush or Cheny characterizing Hussein's WMD progress in that way. I think if they had, they would not have sold their war.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:40am
JR, I agree with you, I was just assuming John's point to make mine (that even under John's deluded facts, Wilson is guilty of nothing).
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:42am
Dancall, the government includes more than the White House. The CIA sent Wilson - and I believe they are part of the U.S. government.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:45am
MBB,
You wrote: I'll repeat Bush's words, "We can't wait for the threat to become imminent." Everybody agreed the immediate danger was small to non-existent. This is where you are airbrushing the preemptive war debate from history and re-debating the decision to go to war on the existing threat.
I cut and paste as a response:
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States." • White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." • President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now." • President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." • President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." • President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." • Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:48am
H...I was wondering that. I hoenstly didn't know...I just thought when using that wording, that the President or VP would know if he was sent on such a mission...know what I mean?
Doing more research on what was going on from 96 till the lead up of the war, my opinion is the CIA botched this whole thing up. The Chief Dept of the CIA said that Bush may have exaggerated one point about countries and amount, but backed him up saying that Iraq officials had been inquiring about yellow cake from three other africian countries. There was also a point that Niger would never admit outright they had discussed this issue with Iraq. Look what is going on with Annan and not opening up the UN books to the public. I am sure they have some great international lawyers telling them how to respond...
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 11:53am
hman, I know that, and I was attempting to add my voice in support of your and our position. sometimes the english language is a slippery beast, at least in my hands
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 11:54am
Let the right cry and moan. Their juggernaut has bitten the dust, and will continue to eat dirt. New Orleans was real beginning of the end, and revelations from that blatant triage- which continues- are only driving wedges into their once solid base. Every storm that comes along drives the point home further. There is a true silent majority in this country, and it's getting ready to take a chunk out of the rear end of the right wing- which has people out in the suburbs and the country nowhere near as sewn up as they might imagine. The more they re-take the city centers with gentrification, the more fractured is their support out in the so-called "red states", where the working poor have to move in order to pull in a decent living. From here on out, it's a matter of speaking reality quietly and forcefully on the ground. The rest of the world is shifting away from this mess.
The most powerful nation in the world, with the most reactionary supportive reactionary wave the world has seen since the days of fascism, has us all on the ropes. It has, for the time being, most of the domestic cards. But it has to produce real results, not mediated results. It has to come up with ideas other than that of market robbery and the national security state. It has to keep the "middle classes" happy with a real economy, and not one based on plastic purchase. And it has to find other ways to get along with the rest of the world, other than shooting the governments it wants in the rest of the world into power. It cannot do so.
They're in trouble. Let them bitch all they want to. They're going down, and even they know it.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/04/2005 @ 12:03pm
TJ...do you think Bush and his staff knew all along about the oil trading that was occuring during the years 96 to 2003? What about all the uranium they found recently?
Not sure if you heard the latest conspiracy theory about the Oklahoma City bomings, but from what have seen and heard, McVey had outside help and the money and expertise was funded by Iraq.
How about the proven funds that Sadaam was sending to the terrorists in Palestine? Weren't there records of Russia giving Sadaam top notch military technology?
Again, like John metions, we have to uncover ALL the rocks here...not just one point so one specific group can gain political power. Heck, I am with you all if you it is proven by FACTS that Bush lied, then he should go.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:04pm
If, DANCALL, in your opinion it was the CIA's fault for the bad info, then what do you make of the Medal of Freedom bestowed to George Tenet?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:06pm
TJB:
Good work, but good luck getting a real response from MBB. I tried some actual quotes weeks ago. Anything you get will be linguistic jujitsu and a side-step.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:08pm
Mr. Maasch,
I presume that you are now in agreement of the obvious, which is that the Administration at least manipulated the evidence if not actually fabricated it.
Just like your administartion you have shifted in why the war was justified, which is understandable but not acceptable.
In the rule of law the ends do not justify the means if those means are illegal. In a democracy you cannot lie to the people that gave you the job and expect to get away with it.
Polls show that a large majority of American's now think that they were lied (manipulated if you prefer) to.
Mark Twain once said "A patriot is someone who supports his country all the time and supports the government when it deserves support".
In Mark Twain's eyes I'm a patriot and if you care to join me then please help us ask our government to stop lying to us all.
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 12:11pm
it is sobering to think that the US can send a squad of national guard to bust down any house thousands of miles away in Iraq, on a moment's notice, but they could not or would not send a squad of guardmen to bust down the doors of a nursing home in New Orleans, containing bedridden or wheelchair bound old people, leaving them to drown like rats or die of heat exposure. they are on the side of life, aren't they?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 12:11pm
JR: I figured so much - my bad. John is no doubt getting ready to hatch a theory that Valarie Wilson is somehow a co-conspirator. ;)
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:11pm
And your points about Saddam and the Palestinians, Saddam and Oklahoma City, Saddam and Russia--even if all this is confirmed, this was not presented either to the public or to the investigators. Remember, the horse goes before the cart. And the horse should not be a crazy, conspiratorial horse, but a real live, honest-to-goodness horse.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:11pm
stellar...you must realize that NO is run by Democrats, and the Govenor of Lousiana was a Democrat. The houses that were flooded were 9 ft below sea level. In any other state and any other city, the majority of those homes would have been condemed and torn down...it is happening all across america and in the bigger cities, there are new projects going on that are integrating the rich and poor. The deal is that if the poor families are caught dealing drugs or any other criminal actions, they are out. NO is a cest pool. The police department is the most corrupt force in America. Business will not move there to help with taxes because they are not educated. There are different dynamics that you have to look into before making a broad statement about NO when you know nothing about the region. I agree with you on the point that America should worry about America first. we have tons of people that need help. But unlike Europe and other regions of the world, education and accountablity stems from the home...it is a catch 22 situation. The inner city youth of America has no respect for teachers. 8 year olds are telling teachers to eff themselves. Homework is not being done. Guns are in the schools. Is that the governments fault or the families fault? You tell me...
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:15pm
TJ, then why would Sandy Berger steal documents and destroy them? why was that not made out to be a big deal and not hit the front pages. He was Clintons national security advisor and Kerry's right hand man during the elections....do you not see any connections here?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:17pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 11/04/2005 @ 11:48am | ignore this person
TJ, Thanks for the documented quotes. As I read them, and read how Saddam was an "imminent threat" to us, I couldn't help thinking how insulting this was to the veterans of the first Gulf War. They were very successful at disarming Saddam and destroying his military machine. I couldn't help thinking how insulting this was to the UN; it supported our efforts there and helped us keep Saddam disarmed by imposing sanctions (albeit controversial). I couldn't help thinking how insulting this was to US and British pilots who enforced the no fly zones (albeit of questionable legality) that especially benefited the Kurds in the North. In short, I couldn't help feeling insulted by these people.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/04/2005 @ 12:21pm
TJ one last point about the the conspiracies...when dealing with intel, one must keep this info secret and not leak it to the press. The press will blast it all over the place, therefore letting the ones you are after know exactly what our intel knows.
The military and intel groups decided after the first gulf war not to disclose any of this information. During that war, it was leaked that troops would be landing in area off Kuwait...IT WAS A NAVY SEALS LANDING. They must have swam undetected for miles, got to the beaches and bam...lights go on and the media was asking them what they were doing. get it?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:24pm
Seattle, Did you not know that we were blowing the hell our of Iraq troops in the no fly zone the whole time? Did you not know that Sadaam broke the Sanctions that the UN imposed, yet nothing was done about it? Someone yesterday said, well the US had to approve it...well, who was running the country during that time? Oil for Food buddy...from the money that was made and was supposed to feed the poor, EVERY IRAQI citizen should have been a millionaire, yet children were dying...but that was twisted to say it was because of the sancations...please!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:28pm
Seattle, imagine how the WW2 vets feel
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 12:30pm
Everything stinks. I wish we could clean house on both sides of the aisle and start over with new blood with new ideas. The problem today is we are being run by two poller opposite groups with no common sense down the middle...The dems just need a leader that knows how to present liberal ideas in a logical way. I think people will listen, but with the Michael Moores of the world, it puts the red states in a shell...just like the wacko religious right...same thing.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:33pm
Did you not know that we were blowing the hell our of Iraq troops in the no fly zone the whole time? Posted by DANCALL 11/04/2005 @ 12:28am | ignore this person
That came out in the Downing Street Memos. Also, thank you for making my case here. Regarding the criminal corruption in the OFF program, anecdotal acts of corruption were not of a scale to build a nuclear weapons program.
I'm happy to debate you further, but I have to run now.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/04/2005 @ 12:35pm
Well, DANCALL, it's Friday and I'm about to enter my only non-working weekend of this month. So I'm in a playful mood.
You countered the lack of presentation of your conspiracies with the issue of intelligence and confidentiality. Please share with me what about your consiratorial posts about Oklahoma City, the Palestinians, or the Russians would have needed to have been kept confidential prior to our invasion but is now safe for public dissemination.
I dream of a mad scientist developing a technique of enemas that could be applied to certain minds that are stopped up with garbage. Perhaps a thorough flushing could allow these minds to function as they were intended to.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:38pm
Revised History: If liberals had influenced Bush
January 20, 2003 State of the Union Address
President Bush: Members of Congress, honored guests, and my fellow Americans; I am pleased to announce to you this evening that we have been able to avoid a war with Iraq. Just moments ago, I received a call from Saddam Hussein in which he pledged to refrain from any attacks on the United States, and to offer us oil priced below the market prices set by OPEC, if we would agree not to invade Iraq. My fellow Americans, this is a historic moment for not only the United States, but all of mankind. War has been avoided and we look forward to a lasting peace and building a new relationship of trust and trade with the people of Iraq.
I have notified the Secretary of State to immediately organize a relief effort to Iraq that will provide whatever is necessary to restore Iraq to it's standard of living that it enjoyed prior to the 1991 Gulf War. I am asking Congress this evening for a spending authorization of 10 billion dollars in support of this humanitarian effort.
(Standing ovation, Congress cheers loudly, media commentators are overwhelmed and note that Bush is certain to win the Nobel Peace Prize).
June 30, 2003 Breaking News
Jerusalem- This just in from CNN in Jerusalem, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have suddenly collapsed throughout Israel. Streets, cafes, homes and workplaces are all filled with men, women, and children, vomiting and struggling for breath, until suddenly dying. Prime Minister Sharon said in a brief press release that Israel had been hit with a massive terrorist attack in which the Palestinian attackers had now switched from bombs to Anthrax. Sharon vowed to take revenge not only on the Palestinian leadership but on whoever supplied the Anthrax.
Jerusalem, more breaking news! A spokesman for Hamas announced that Hamas had carried out this glorious and victorious attack on the infidel monkeys. The spokesman declared that 100 heroic martyrs had each carried a one-liter vial of Anthrax, which was dispersed in cafes, markets, and various public areas three nights ago. "They have made a great and heroic sacrifice for all Muslims, Allah be praised! Soon, these monkeys will be dead and we can reclaim this holy land for all of Islam."
CNN now breaks in with this startling report from Amman Jordan. Reports are filtering in from near Baghdad Iraq and Damascus Syria of what appears to be nuclear explosions. Huge mushroom clouds have covered both of these cities. We have been unable to communicate with our reporters in these cities. President Bush will be holding a news conference shortly.
July 1, 2003 Washington D.C.
President Bush: I have just finished speaking with Prime Minister Sharon who provided me the evidence that this attack by Hamas involved Anthrax that is traceable to Saddam Hussein and was transported to Hamas through coordination with the Syrian Government. Unfortunately, it appears that I along with other world leaders were deceived by Saddam's olive branch.
Our condolences go out to the people of Israel and this devastating loss of human life. Prime Minister Sharon said that the final death toll may exceed 1.5 million Israelis. The Prime Minister added that they are conducting an all out offensive against Hamas and the other militant factions among the Palestinians. Simultaneously, the IDF are staging defensive forces along the borders of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Satellite images show a massive gathering of military forces from these three nations.
I have placed calls to all three leaders of the nations, but have been unable to speak with any of them. I am sending the 1st fleet immediately to the Mediterranean along with the deployment of our Stealth Bombers.
This tragedy must be stopped before all mankind is destroyed. Moments ago, Congress unanimously passed a resolution of war against Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and to include any nation that supports these countries in this war. I will use the full force and power of the US military to stop this campaign of hate and world destruction.
I have also sent word to President Musharref of Pakistan that we will provide whatever support he needs to ensure that Pakistan stays out of this conflict. Unfortunately, I cannot reach President Musharref and his safety is in question.
CNN-
We interrupt the President to bring this breaking news- Reports are coming in now that nuclear missiles have been fired from Pakistan and are in route to India and Israel. A statement has been released purportedly from Ossama Bin Laden stating that the Pakistani Army has turned over control to him just moments ago. We now return to the President for comments.
President Bush; "As you just saw on CNN, US Intelligence has verified the CNN report. As your president I will do everything I can to preserve our nation and the world." (President is handed a piece of paper, looks very shaken).
"I am ordering Marshall Law immediately throughout the nation. Reports are coming in throughout the country's major cities of hundreds of thousands of US citizens dying of what apparently are Terrorist attacks using Sarin Nerve agents. Everyone should stay in their homes until further notice. We are now involved in an all out assault on mankind and freedom. May God have mercy on us."
You can all keep spouting your insults and keep searching for what you believe are your "gotchas" on the justification for the war with Iraq. What I just presented may seem absurd to some of you, but it represents a realistic scenario that is of current concern to the President and to Congress (at least those in Congress that care more about our safety than politics).
If you look past the scenario and just for a moment consider how little it would take in the way of nerve agents to bring about this kind of destruction, you hopefull will even think a little more about the threat that Saddam and his like present to the world.
And as one last note; the following link provides much of the intelligence cited by President Bush in the lead up to the war with Iraq. You will find much of the language and the details familiar. Then take note that this was a report prepared by the Clinton Administration to Congress.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html
Posted by love liberty at 11/04/2005 @ 12:41pm
Love Liberty wrote:
You can all keep spouting your insults and keep searching for what you believe are your "gotchas" on the justification for the war with Iraq. What I just presented may seem absurd to some of you, but it represents a realistic scenario that is of current concern to the President and to Congress (at least those in Congress that care more about our safety than politics).
If you look past the scenario and just for a moment consider how little it would take in the way of nerve agents to bring about this kind of destruction, you hopefull will even think a little more about the threat that Saddam and his like present to the world.
Thank goodness most of us do not live in your world, LL. I am not sure how you can stand to live in such an ugly, bizarre place. There is room for you in an alternative sphere which is not predicated on wild hypotheticals and preposterous visions of doom.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 12:52pm
Dude, why don't you ask the vets who were flying there? why did clinton send troops there? Why did Clinton try to blow up Sadaams chemical plants? faded memory? Guys here is the bottom line: Osama formally declared war agains the US in 1996. why was this not made public to the Citizens of the US? His main deal for peace was to take US Soldiers out of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Holy Land. we had troops left over from the Desert Storm. Why didn't clinton move the troops? He also wanted the US to stop funding Israel. He never mentioned anything about oil. Yes, Osama was an "friend" to the US during the Afghan wars with Russia. We trained and Funded them...however, he was not an Afghan. He was a Saudi. His family disowned him. His ultimate goal is to take the war into SA, so he can go home to the "Holy Land." With Iran dismissing the UN and the powerhouse EU countries, Iran is now telling the world that he wants to destroy Israel, I think we should all step back for a moment and look at what is going on. we are all in this together and this is just not about Iraq...there is a serious Democratic movement in Iran and we want to support it...in the next year or two, it will be destroyed because Iran is now being run by a fanatic, who was fingered by the famous "Iranian Hostages" as a member of the group. He will not cooperate with the Syrian Leader murder, even though the world knows he assassinated him. But yet, we are focused on how the US is always wrong. We are at a global boiling point. You all will dismiss this a a right wing conspiracy, but no matter what you all will say...Osama Bin Ladden Declared war against the United States of America in 1996. Why are we not addressing this fact and why can't all start building the case of how we messed up then, what we did wrong today and how we should deal with it in the future. I am tired of the blame game. This is exactly what happened in the late 30's with Hilter...we ignored him until it was too late and millions of lives were lost. Churchhill warned the British government that he should have been stopped years before. Even here in the US, protestors were in the streets saying we should NEVER enter the war in europe. However, German U boats were sinking US cargo ships off US shores.
As for the WWII vets go, they did their duty and still have the same attitude. Many of which are spinning in their graves seeing all the BS politics that are going on today. Keep the soldiers out of the politics!!!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 12:55pm
Pretty telling LOVE LIBERTY, Pakistan is the main threat, by far, not Saddam, he was a bit player. President Pervez giving A Q Khan a walk on giving everyone and their grandma nukes because he apoligized on television is laughable. Pakistan is our ally? Are they being any more forth coming about their support of the Taliban, Al Queda, or selling nukes like hotcakes than Saddam was about whatever WMDs he had at some point?I wouldnt be suprised if Saddam did smuggle some away , but why did he not use them when we invaded. My point is merely that Pakistan is the serious threat, not our ally, they make Saddam look like a wannabe, and we need to stop playing footsie with them , acting like they are our ally. Who has been setting of bombs in Indian cities this week in the wake of the earthquakes, Saddam?
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 12:56pm
Pakistan is the major focus for Al Queda. If they can kill Mussharraf and then have a "democratic election", win that, then we are all in trouble!!! Don't think there hasn't been attempts on his life. He goes, Al queda steps in and Brings Osama to power with Nukes!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:02pm
Sadaam never used them because if he did, he would be making the case for Bush, no? Common sense here! He gambled and thought the people he bought off through the oil for food scandal would stop the US. Sorry...
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:04pm
Last response to DANCALL (don't want to ruin my good mood):
Common sense, you say? You think it is common sense to sacrifice your country and your power rather than admit that another world leader is right about your weapons cache? If this is common sense to you, then count me among the uncommon.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 1:06pm
TJ, BTW, that was pretty funny!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:07pm
But TJ, we found tons of materials that could be used for making dirty bombs...what did he need that for, TJ?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:08pm
They dont need to topple Pervez, although i have no doubt they want to, he sure isnt doing much to prevent them from doing what they want, you think AQ Khan sold all that weapons technology without Pervez knowing? Thats what Pervez claims. Iran and N. Korea got their nukes from Pakistan, not Iraq.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 1:11pm
DAN, material for making dirty bombs? where? and what materials? uranium of some sort?
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 1:14pm
Does this work for you
"U.S. considering moving 500 tons of uranium from Iraq" http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html
Here is another:
"The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention" http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:35pm
One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.
Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:
"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:36pm
Love Liberty,
I adored your scenario, very creative.
Do you think that people in every country in the world don't have their boogeyman? Yours is (was) Saddam.
Let's say you live and have grown up in pretty much any country in the world other than the USA and have witnessed the lone superpower of the world be attacked by terrorists and then lash out at Iraq almost unilaterally and without UN Security Council agreement. Given that the superpower in question has the military might to crush every other country on the plannet, who do you think their boogeyman is? Trust me his first name starts with G!
For once could you actually answer this question?
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 1:36pm
Colmes, why ask the question if you are going to answer it for him?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:38pm
ok, why would Saddam try to get uranium from Niger if he had that much sitting around?
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 1:39pm
But by all accounts, Rove is cleared as well or he would already been served papers.
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 8:09pm
I wish you conservatives would get your facts straight! As the president himself said this morning, Karl Rove is still under investigation!
Come on, Dan. I'd like to engage in dialogue with you, but that requires we discuss facts.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 1:40pm
Dancall,
We went through this exact thing yesterday.....we all know there was yellowcake we all know that there was no way to reconstitute it into anything dangerous.
This is where you go back to attacking Wilson (can't remember why that is relevant though).
Do you have any new material?
Did you ever answer whether you think that the Administration manipulated or entirely fabricated the evidence to push us into war to remove the "imminent threat" of Saddam?
No of course not you never actually answer questions.
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 1:42pm
So, WHY are you all not addressing the oil for food program and start connecting the dots here. My goodness!
Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 8:09pm
Well, Dan, I think the answer to that one is found in a quote from one of the Gospels: "First remove the log from your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the mote from your neighbor's eye."
This country has a big problem: The war in Iraq. AFTER we get that log out of our own eyes, then we can help the French and the UN remove the mote from their eyes.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 1:44pm
In theory, if Sadaam was shopping for yellow cake, what would he need it for? To eat it?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:45pm
Dancall,
I only gave him the first letter and in his entire history he's never answered a question so I don't expect he'll start now!
HVMiller,
The iraq inquirt into yellowcake was along the lines of me walking into a BMW showroom and offering $10,000 for a brand new 745. Legally it's an offer, but realistically I wasn't really interested in a 745.
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 1:46pm
Yes...this is our fault...oil for food program started, oops, when? war started, opps when? I was always told to go to the root cause first. then open it up from there....but that would expose a lot of other things that some people don't want to share and would expose criminal wrong doings...hmm, now why won't Annan open up the UN books again? Connections to Sadaam you say? US won't listen to the UN...why is that again? Oil for food 1996...Osama declares war agains the US in 1996. US Invades Iraq in 2003. Work back all the way back my friend.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:48pm
Then why do it? flirting to see what he could get away with? Why?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:49pm
DAN, since he had 500 tons of uranium why would he need to purchase more is my question
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 1:50pm
Dancall,
If Saddam had truely wanted to close that Niger yellocake deal he could have. He didn't really want to close it because he already had 500T of yellowcake that was plenty for him to eat!
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 1:51pm
Colmes, so did Bush lie then? Did the intel lie that Sadaam was seeking WMDs?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:54pm
Saddam is a meglomaniac! He genuinely thinks he's invincible. Have you ever heard him at any of these court appearances.....he honestly still thinks that everyone is his servant. Given that psychology....why not go to the yellowcake store for a nice little afternoon diversion?....they may give you a nice cup of tea!
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 1:54pm
I don't know why he would want more...that is the question, Colmes! The question that boggles my mind that you all are not asking, but keep on the path of Bush lied...and it is factual truth. I don't get it!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:56pm
DAN, my point is if Saddam had sufficient amounts he needed to enrich it, not purchase more unenriched uranium, so why buy more?
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 1:58pm
So, keep him in power then? Let the UN and others make millions off the oil for food scandal? do you think he would step down from power? He is a madman. He was lobbing bombs at Israel. If he could get enough material he would have used it. He used it in the first gulr war and now a bunch of US Vets are screwed because of it.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 1:58pm
Have you answered a question with a question?
Yes, Bush lied. As I said yesterday yellowcake is not a WMD. You could throw it at someone and it would sting but that's about it. As Doumer very clearly showed (and you chose to ignore) Iran is about 17 years past where Iraq was and still hasn't reconstitued yellowcake! In addition, his missiles had a range of 95 miles and did not have a large enough payload capacity to carry a nucleur warhead.
Perhaps an answer from you now would be appropriate.
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 1:59pm
The other point is , relative to Pakistan, Saddam giving nukes to other countries or terror organizations is involves alot of ifs, where as Pakistan has clearly done so, repeatedly.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:01pm
Because he honestly thought the UN and lets not forget about some of the French politicians that were involved would help him out. If he could get more and get the program back up and started, it wouldn't take him long to build a nuke. He had different grades, some of which could be used immediately to make a nuke...he is an ego maniac. They don't think clearly...I don't know why.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:01pm
Gee...we have LL, Bushrules, DanCall, and NaCl all riled up here....
I would want Bush to be impeached if he did nothing about Saddam after 9/11. By BushRules...way upthread
I see that folks like BushRules can't seem to digest the KoolAid and keep yakking up gobbets of BS like this from time to time. Even though Bush, Cheney, and well...damned near everyong involved in the 04 campaign said and/or intimated the Saddaam / 9-11 link, they ALL later denied or corrected the "mis-fact" (often doing both)
The plain and simple fact is that this war was intended well before 9-11. Documents like the Downing Street memo do indicate this, as does the "Cheney secret energy talks"....the few FOIA docs released from this were oilfield maps of Afghanistan & Iraq and lists of potential oilfield developers. Duh...connect the dots.
BushWar2 was linked for conveniences' sake to an event of international significance (9-11) falsely, and intel misrepresented or doctored to give the illusion of WMDs and "immediate threat / imminenet danger" (which is why Dubya put togther a separate intelligence committee that disagreed with all extant CIA intel, but took out-of context snippets as gospel.) BushWar2 IS Cheney's energy policy realized...although it isn't going quite as planned....obviously.
Now his zealots cry out that "why wait till a problem develops" which seems to be dangerously close to the old "shoot'em all first and let God sort'em out" for me!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 2:02pm
He used it in the gulf war? what "dirty bombs"? i think we accomplished that ourselves using depleted uranium munitions
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:02pm
I asked you, as you are so interested in "the logic of the argument," precisely how quickly did the US reject that declaration? Iraq's declaration was made on December 7, 2002. When did the US deride it as empty and warmed over baloney? That certainly is not "avoiding that fact." It is asking to come to grips with your fact, if it is a fact.
Incidentally, thousands of people work in the State Department, Pentagon and White House. A report like that would be parceled out in 60 page sections to two hundred people. Within 2 hours it would be established whether the document contained the sought for answers.
But your response was as feckless as usual. Whenever you are put to the test, you fall apart. You proved yourself a phony and nitwit the last time we spoke, and you have established that again.
.
Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 12:00am
Actually, I gamed you, dude. You tried to set a trap for me: No matter what time line I specified, I knew you'd make some arbitrary claim that the documents could be analyzed in a shorter period than I specified.
So I wanted to make you show your cards, and you did. You pulled 2 hours out of your ass... That much is crystal clear. Now, I challenge you, get thousands of pages of documents faxed from Iraq to the US State Department in 2 hours. Not even analyzed, just delivered! Your fantasy world is unhindered by logistical realities.
But as another poster (HMAN, I think) pointed out, where are the specifics of the refutation?
To answer the timeline question, and I am going by memory, it was about 8 to 12 hours or so between release of the documents by Iraq, and the US government's response. I don't recall the EXACT amount of time. What is important is that when the events unfolded the rapid US statement was notable and suspect.
But since I am unwilling to serve as your research assistant, unwilling to do your googling for you, I am sure you will use that as an excuse to heap more insults on me. You are a manipulative cuss, aren't you?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 2:03pm
I asked you, as you are so interested in "the logic of the argument," precisely how quickly did the US reject that declaration? Iraq's declaration was made on December 7, 2002. When did the US deride it as empty and warmed over baloney? That certainly is not "avoiding that fact." It is asking to come to grips with your fact, if it is a fact.
Incidentally, thousands of people work in the State Department, Pentagon and White House. A report like that would be parceled out in 60 page sections to two hundred people. Within 2 hours it would be established whether the document contained the sought for answers.
But your response was as feckless as usual. Whenever you are put to the test, you fall apart. You proved yourself a phony and nitwit the last time we spoke, and you have established that again.
.
Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 12:00am
Actually, I gamed you, dude. You tried to set a trap for me: No matter what time line I specified, I knew you'd make some arbitrary claim that the documents could be analyzed in a shorter period than I specified.
So I wanted to make you show your cards, and you did. You pulled 2 hours out of your ass... That much is crystal clear. Now, I challenge you, get thousands of pages of documents faxed from Iraq to the US State Department in 2 hours. Not even analyzed, just delivered! Your fantasy world is unhindered by logistical realities.
But as another poster (HMAN, I think) pointed out, where are the specifics of the refutation?
To answer the timeline question, and I am going by memory, it was about 8 to 12 hours or so between release of the documents by Iraq, and the US government's response. I don't recall the EXACT amount of time. What is important is that when the events unfolded the rapid US statement was notable and suspect.
But since I am unwilling to serve as your research assistant, unwilling to do your googling for you, I am sure you will use that as an excuse to heap more insults on me. You are a manipulative cuss, aren't you?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 2:03pm
My answer....yes keep him in power and let food for oil go on.
Spend our resources / military lives hunting down the perpetraror of the attack on our country.
Saddam was an asshole but not a credible threat. OBL is both (and still both).
Posted by colmes at 11/04/2005 @ 2:03pm
That is a problem. But take a walk back in history when Pakistan actually came to the US for help because India was allowed to build nukes. The India nuclear program was started by the FRENCH, then the Brits and completed by the US. Then Pakistan turned to the Soviets and the rest is history. Let's not forget about the Cold War and what was going on during that time. And lets take a look into the new partnership between China and Russia. Russia is pissed at the US for bring Democracy into their "satellites". Russia is not through.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:04pm
colmes, I agree and disagree...I actually see both sides to that point. Problem is, the way to win that war is by Old School tactics, and we are tied because of the Political Correctness BS. The guys can't do their jobs. For instance, for a Seal team to engage in combat, they first have to warn the people, show their flag and then ask for surrender...this is all after bullets are flying. It isn't as easy as it seems. Especially after Groelic tied teh FBI and CIA from communicating. We have big issues that we all need to take a look at. That is why I think Europe was a bit more common sense about this. They understand that things get ugly...but it has to be done. In America, we don't have that common sense.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:08pm
"...his missiles had a range of 95 miles by Colmes
Colmes....as was pointed out "upstream a might", Saddaam had beaucoup Scuds. Maybe Dubya's intel team should have been looking for the duct tape Saddaam obviously would have used to extend the range of his Scuds by taping them together!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 2:09pm
The fact is, Al Queda attacked us, not Iraq. Al queda was supported by sudan and pakistan and the taliban, which was merely a pakistani puppet. Al Queda couldnt get nukes from Iraq, since they had lots of yellowcake, not a bomb. AQ Khan and various other pakistani scientists repeatedly met with sudan, niger, the taliban and al queda. No one can even prove Saddam collaborated with al queda, and he had no bomb to give them. Pakistan does have a bomb, and has (is?) collaborating
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:10pm
Then why didn't Clinton take the Troops out of Saudi Arabia, HV? That is what he asked in his formal state of War against the US in 1996. Please, I would love to hear your response...
Left, OK, move the bomb and missle to the border or even sneak it out of the country CLOSER to Israel...then what do you have, LEFTOFCENTER???
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:13pm
Or, put it on a truck and drive it to the border...ever heard of a CAR BOMB?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:15pm
I guess I'm missing something here, having ignored so many right wing loons, but folks how many times can we go round and round on this Saddam thing. the loons throw up lies and factless assertions, and intelligent posters bend over backwards to prove them wrong over and over again. talk about Pavlov's dog.
as much as I enjoy reading the many valuable posters on this site I find this a pointless and tedious exercise. the loons keep throwing up talking points that even the mis-administration has long abandoned.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 2:18pm
NACL,
Seems in my last post I gave credit to HMAN, when in fact the credit goes to DOUMER for the following ancillary comments:
To NACL and Bushrules: Speaking of the UN request made for a complete declaration of weapons capabilities in Iraq. Well, the report was submitted in a timely and detailed fashion in December 2002. The report was reviewed by the Security Council and UN inspectors and to date thre has been no declaration that the information contained was inaccurate or deceptive. Have any of you heard anything to the contrary? the report seemed good enough for the rest of the world, but not for Bush. Did Bush and company ever publically refute any part of the report other than to say it was a lie. What parts were lies and how have they proven that they were lies? Certainly not from what was found after the country was totally occupied. Again, this exemplifies more massive deception on the part of this administation.
Posted by DOUMER 11/03/2005 @ 6:31pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 2:20pm
DAN, my point is that Pakistan is clearly FAR FAR more of a threat to us than Saddam. Why clinton or bush didnt take bin laden as seriously as they should have, and still dont seem to be, i have no way of answering. By the way, i thought clinton should have been impeached/indicted/ whatever for lying in court, but if he wasnt busy worrying about who gave him a blowjob maybe he would have done more than lob some cruise missles at sudan and afghanistan. which i recall some people claiming was an attempt to change the subject from the lewisnky scandal, since clearly no one in sudan or afghanistan were of any threat to us. coulda, shoulda, woulda, bin laden is still around, and Aq Khan and pakistan have got off almost scott free from doing things that are in the scheme of things far worse than invading kuwait and lobbing some missles at israel.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:21pm
Listen, I have said this many times...if it is proven that lies were told then so be it. We are bitching about the CIA leak, which is all about yellow cake. It has been proven that Sadaam was looking for yellow cake. Done, it is a fact. It is also been found that he DID have uranium at different grade levels and we moved the stuff out. Done, Fact! Hanz Blix even said it is likely that he still had them. The world leaders said he had them. The Dems said he had them, the last administration said he had them. We have forensic accounting proof that Sadaam was funding terrorist activity in Palestine.
Please, tell me again, where did Bush outright lie and made up a fiction based story?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:21pm
JOHANNESROLF, then why even have debate? Some people do listen to what is said, and think about it. FREIHEIT, JOHN MAASCH and LOVE LIBERTY are all interested in rational debate on the issues. Other righties may well be also.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 2:23pm
Left, OK, move the bomb and missle to the border or even sneak it out of the country CLOSER to Israel...then what do you have, LEFTOFCENTER???
Or, put it on a truck and drive it to the border...ever heard of a CAR BOMB?
Posted by DANCALL
Uhh...lemme see....I can tell you what we DON'T have. An imminent threat to the US. Isn't that the touted "rationale for war."
Oh, I forgot....we are "Team America - World Police"
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 2:24pm
I agree with you...that is why Sadaam was desperate to get that Nuke. we will never invade a country that has a nuke, which is why Iran is scaring the crap out of everyone and may be the next battle field. I think it is more strategy as a "base of operation" for what is to come next...which unfortunatley is coming sooner or later. That is why I am so bitter about the Clinton Admin...he should have told the American people what was going on and taken this to task a long time ago.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:24pm
Please, tell me again, where did Bush outright lie and made up a fiction based story?
Posted by DANCALL 11/04/2005 @ 2:21pm
Why tell you again? Many posters have made the case, many many times. Why should they do it again?
Please justify such a request.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 2:26pm
JOHANNES, what im merely trying to point out is the threat the pakistan/al queda axis poses, compared to what saddam did or intended to do. Saddam was a long way off from accomplishing what pakistan has, even if that is what he had intended.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:26pm
Are we not in a global society? Any threat against democracy is a threat against the US and our allies. We have a rift with France and Germany because we have serious disagreements in what is a democracy and all of the countries are looking to EXPAND their economy for their people at home. If we all stayed within our borders in the type of world we live in today...it wouldn't work because of resources. and unfortunately, the super powers know that to maintain their status...they need oil to survive...so don't get fooled by France, German, Russian and Chinese best intentions...you are being fooled...they are all after the same thing!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:29pm
ILP, if is it proven that Sadaam has uranium and was shopping for more in africa, then your wilson Bush connection of lies is out the door. He was in pursuit of WMDs and the whole world thought he had them. That is why the dems do not want Dem leadership quotes being researched.
So where did Bush lie? About Yellow Cake? About his weapons stash? What?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:31pm
Well DAN, has Bush ever mentioned in a major public speech to that country that Pakistan helped N. Korea and Iran , etc etc etc? I think the average person would be shocked and surprised to learn all this. As for never invading a country with a nuke, Pakistan was doing a hell of a job making sure more countries joined that club.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:32pm
HV...in theory I agree. But the Oil for Food probe is starting to shed light on what was going on and how the UN turned a blind eye to it. The US listened to the UN and let Sadaam stay in power, yet broke every rule. So who in their right mind would ever listen to the UN, France and Germany?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:34pm
HV, I agree...but when did Pakistan give these nukes to these countries?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:34pm
as for intentions with oil DAN, the countries with the four largest reserves, three of them are clearly within our sphere of influence or under our occupation, so of course im not naive about other contries intentions, as i doubt anyone else wants us controlling about 60% of the worlds oil reserves. of course that would probably be why we invaded iraq, and let pakistan off with a slap on the wrist, pakistan doesnt have 100 billion barrels of oil
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:37pm
Also, when talking about SE Asia, you have to throw Japan in the mix, because countries like N Korea and China have not forgotten what Japan did to them over 60 years ago. Australia is starting to get nervous as well...why are we building missle sites in Darwin? Why is Tawain such a big deal? Did you happen to know that Chinese subs are now patrolling US shores?
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:39pm
DAN, its public knowledge that Iran and N. Korea got materials/and or technology from Pakistan to build nukes, AQ Khan openly admitted it on television! As for when, it went on for many years, providing scientific designs and assistance.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:40pm
HV, tanks and supply trucks need oil...it is why Germany lost the war...hitler didn't listen to his generals and went his own egoistical way...we cut off germany's supply to oil...it was a metter of time before they would have run out...without fuel for planes and tanks and some ships, you now longer have the power...which is why Chirac wants a EU Army.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:42pm
HV...the majority of this went on in the 90's. It is the same crap that CLinton pulled wiht Israel and Palestine. It was all smoke and mirrors with no spin to any agreement. AQ was allowed to build their camps and we knew all about it. We could have nailed Bin Ladden a few times, but the "economy" was strong and didn't want to piss of the liberals or far right. He had no backbone as a leader.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:45pm
Clinton was all about ratings...he watch the polls and ruled by them...Bush doesn't care about polls. FDR wasn't very popular and Reagan the same, but history tells a different story...
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:47pm
Side bar...it is sad to think that in today's world, FDR would have never been president...he was in a wheelchair and it was hidden to the public because of perception.
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:49pm
Well, Clinton didnt , and Bush still isnt. Our 150,000 troops are not looking for bin laden and Saddam is on trial, not AQ Khan
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 2:50pm
Do you think Russia and China would have allowed 150,000 troops to be sitting in their back yard?
Pakestan is not our biggest threat. China is our biggest threat. They don't have the internal resources to support over a billion people. The majority of wars started over resources...and as we all know, oil is the number one sought after resource...
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:54pm
I know you will all be happy...but I have to run. All the best!
Posted by dancall at 11/04/2005 @ 2:55pm
Then Bush should admit we cant stop al queda because Pakistan is untouchable. As for China being a threat, I assume you mean that is because we are in direct competition for oil. How that will play out is anybodies guess, but China didnt knock the World Trade center over, and i assume everyone would like to keep the majority of our military actions catching those responsible, be those the direct actors or their state sponsors.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 3:02pm
I can buy that idea, except no one out side the liberal meccas(NY,SF,LA)read the rag,in fact hyold it in extremely low esteem, especially the great unwashed middle America.
To "get" to people like me one must approach me where I can be found, the enemy camp, Fox, conservative talk shows,come waving a white flag of course
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/04/2005 @ 09:02am
John!
Sometimes I wonder if you live on the same planet that I do. Or maybe you can't pull yourself away from the communion wine table (you can get help for that).
Perhaps you missed the uproar in the media that Wilson's op-ed created. Yes, apparently you did. My boy Joe chose well. On a side note, I just saw him speak in Seattle recently. It was a joy listening to the words come out of his mouth and then going home and watching the Fox News translation of them. It was almost as good as reading one of Mary Mary's fairy tales.
One more thing. When the Nazarene died on the cross to save us from our sins he did just that. There are no sinners. There is no sin.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 3:12pm
Anyone,
If my wife is an undercover agent and I am sent on a trip to investigate a possilblity of a "war starting" event(NIGER)would I then come home and hammer the idea in the press? Would that not potentially reveal or at worst, weaken my wife's cover?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/04/2005 @ 09:47am
Only if you were "Schtoopid" enough to mention her name and her job. John, I wouldn't put it past you.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 3:16pm
Bush and his handlers committed treason. They should have been already convicted and stretching a rope for what they've done.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 3:29pm
The Nation has a link to an excellent and long summary of the complicated web of relationships within the UN Oil for Food scandal. In case you don't want to go back to The Nation's homepage, the link is
Oil for food scam [alternet.org]
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/04/2005 @ 3:37pm
You can all keep spouting your insults and keep searching for what you believe are your "gotchas" on the justification for the war with Iraq. What I just presented may seem absurd to some of you, but it represents a realistic scenario that is of current concern to the President and to Congress (at least those in Congress that care more about our safety than politics).
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/04/2005 @ 12:41am
I noticed in your little fairy tale that you and all the other evangelics didn't magically up and disappear leaving the rest of us to do the dieing cockroach in the streets. That's not a good sign for you buddy.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 3:45pm
I don't mind debate, why would I be here, but this circular rehashing of the same points with people who are both uninformed and doctrinaire is tedious, to me. if it thrills other people fine. this isn't the only blog in the world, and in at least this one regard it's a free country. debate requires a certain amount of back and forth. I have yet to see a single right wing loon to admit any error or misstatements, a trait they share with their beloved leader.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 3:50pm
WillC, I too have wondered what planet Maasch lives on, or what's in his Kool Aid. these people are insular, ill informed, perhaps brainwashed, some brain dead. these are desperate cries of folks who's time has past, the lies have played out, the mood of the country has gone from triumphalism to skipticism to distrust, a very hopeful sign.
I no longer read LL or USApride etc, whatever happened to libsarenuts anyway? when someone states that the recent antiwar demonstrations consisted of 10,000 protesters nationwide, when impartial experts estimated 100,000 to 200,000 in Washington alone, then there really is nothing to discuss and debate. to say nothing of those with post diarhea who flood the thread. who can read that drivel?
again this is just me, opinions vary. but I welcome new posters of either stripe.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 3:59pm
I would be happy to engage a more worthy debate if you would point out such a blog, JOHANNES, I am trying to learn, and also had alot of time to kill
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 4:02pm
Meanwhile fires rage in riots in Argentina, must be because they are so happy to see Bush down there
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 4:05pm
JR.
Yeah, I saw the tapes of that protest on Democracy Now. That wasn't a crowd of ten thousand. Our local sports stadiums wouldn't have held that crowd.
I have a question for you. Our buddy Dancall: dazzling us with brilliance or baffling us with bullshit?
I just want to see if I'm alone in the world
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 4:08pm
Must be former Baathists down in Argentina burning American flags
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 4:13pm
Will, I do not find Dancall on MY thread, sorry, I decided that question long ago, and this has mercifully passed me by
I do appreciate your posts, as I do many others, and if I have painted the folks on the other side of the aisle with too broad a brush I'm sorry
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 4:14pm
I've been reading the posts (as mind boggling as it is to actually get through them) by LoveLiberty. His (her? - sorry, I don't read quite enough of the blogs to have found out for sure) little "If liberals had influenced The Shrub" scenario takes the "missing link" argument to a whole new level. So we don't invade Iraq and voila! Israel is suddenly hit with biological weapons. And the entire world escalates into WWIII. Holy cow!
One of the freepers lurking around this site will undoubtedly correct me, but somehow I've missed where the White House and its lackies are still promoting the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time of the Shock and Awe Campaign. It actually seems to me that this is a lost argument. Even Bush and Cheney changed their tune to "We Are Liberating an Oppressed People" after no weapons were found.
Why is anyone still arguing that we really did go there to avoid being attacked by Iraq's WMD? If there were tons of yellowcake, stockpiles of components, centrifuges, and other viable indicators that WMD were either imminent, in existence, or otherwise a true danger to the USA, don't you think the spinmeisters would be touting that line instead of going on the defensive and trying to make it seem that we had other, even more noble motives for this war?
And does the use of the moniker "LoveLiberty" seem kind of insultingly arrogant - as if those who disagree actually prefer slavery and oppression? Oh, yeah, well, I for one would really rather live under the Patriot Act where my membership in the ACLU might label me a terrorist sympathizer, my US citizenship could be revoked, and I could be thrown in prison with no legal counsel or reason given other than "we are in a war on terror and must take extreme measures."
Once again, at the risk of repeating myself and annoying someone, the vast majority of Americans no longer believe this war was necessary. The majority of Americans realize that the Bush Administration is composed of a bunch of adolescent power mongers who happened to have had the good sense to select the right parents, thus allowing them to avoid the draft during Vietnam, gather large sums of money, and worm their way into the government.
Oh, by the way, "Liberal" means, among other things "tolerant, broadminded, generous, honorable, and magnanimous." That's according to Microsoft (that bastion of liberal thinking). Not one negative definition. Conservative, on the other hand, has many positive meanings, but also has "conventional, inflexible, and obstinate." Hm. Which would you rather be?
Maybe I'll change my blogger name to LoveOppression.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/04/2005 @ 4:14pm
LEEANG, i too love liberty, which is why i was pissed when i saw this article, as I was one who organized on campus functions with some of these student groups http://progressive.org/mag_mc082905
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 4:22pm
maasch, don't insult my intelligence with this:"except no one out side the liberal meccas(NY,SF,LA)read the rag,"
the Times has a large circulation around the country, perhaps even in your eden, Nebraska, in Lincoln for sure.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 4:22pm
Leeann, fine post
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 4:23pm
copies of NYT are free to students on both university campuses ive attended here in michigan, JOHANNE. Both are public schools, must be that communist conspiracy
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 4:28pm
HVMiller - just read the article you indicated. Nasty stuff.
Funny how so many rightwingers see liberty through their own prism. Religious liberty if you are a Christian, but not if you are Islam. And especially not if you are an agnostic, atheist, or (God forbid!!!) a Wiccan. Liberty from taxes if you are already wealthy, but no liberty from economic oppression if you are poor. Liberty from government intervention if you are a corporation, but no liberty from government intervention if you smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home. Can you just imagine what this country would be like if the pseudo-Christian rightwingers actually got control of the government? It could easily be a nightmare of sexual oppression, where anything pleasurable was sinful and therefore illegal, where money rules and people are rich because God likes them better. I say "pseudo-Christian" because these people are as far from the wonderful, inclusive, LIBERAL teachings of Christ himself.
Sorry about this rant; it's totally off the subject. I haven't visited this blog recently, and I got out of control reading all the ill-informed, ignorant, and illogical posts. I will make a far greater attempt to rein myself in from now on.
Kudos again to the fine posts by the many refuters of nonsense found here.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/04/2005 @ 4:36pm
Leeann, please don't rein yourself in, and a little off topic now and then is perfectly acceptable in my book
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 4:39pm
Yeah, all that sex and drugs might open your mind to debating politics in school sponsored campus discussion groups, where you might get spied and on labeled a terrorist. Funny how the ACLU gets labeled far left, communist , whatever, when they seemed to be the only ones concerned with my right to debate government policies in public without getting spied on. The president of the university sure didnt care, it was Peter McPherson at the time, part of which he was over in Iraq re-building(looting) their economy as part of the CPA.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 4:45pm
JOHANNESROLF - Thank you! Somehow that felt like a real compliment.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/04/2005 @ 4:47pm
Mary, was Bush lying when he said "we have found the WMD"? this is second time around for this question as you did not deign to answer, among many others I might add, just too inconvenient for your stalinist mind, I imagine.
and what does this mean?:"This can only end badly for you. a veiled threat?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 4:59pm
MARY, Saddam is a secular tyrant. He may have tried to build a nuke, but clearly he was not capable. The head of this world wide islamic terror movement is in Pakistan, which also funded the taliban, and helped numerous countries, including Iran and N. Korea, start nuclear weapons programs. My opinion is GW has piss poor judgement in weighing threats. My first example is 9/11! Saddam didn't perpetrate that, but a shadowy group funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and given haven in Afghanistan and Sudan, did. Sorry for being concerned foremost with those who attacked us, and what harm they could potentially do, as opposed to some half-ass megalomaniac who didnt even control the air space over half his country.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:01pm
Mary:"Millions of Muslims practice their religion in the US without a problem"
this is not true, since 9/11 they have been mercilessly harrassed. example: four or five muslim men, during a NY Giants football game, found a somewhat secluded area to pray. they were turned in, pulled from their seats and interrogated. a relatively mild example but enough to prove that it is you who is peddling bullshit
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 5:02pm
Leeanng, you are correct it was a compliment
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 5:03pm
MARY, get over it! your hero Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11! so stop waving that around as a reason to invade iraq
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:07pm
Mary, ha ha ha ha, this is rich, not that you could put together this many coherent sentences, but you quoted it very well, now go back to your seat, dear
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 5:07pm
Also MARY, please explain to me how the rightwingers put a stop to it, as you claim. Neither Bin Laden nor the largest proliferator of WMDs are in our custody, but free to attack us another day.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:11pm
MARY, please explain to me how Saddam was a larger threat than a global islamic terror group which includes one if not more nuclear powers , and successfully attacked us on 9/11.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:15pm
ILP, if is it proven that Sadaam has uranium and was shopping for more in africa, then your wilson Bush connection of lies is out the door. He was in pursuit of WMDs and the whole world thought he had them. That is why the dems do not want Dem leadership quotes being researched.
So where did Bush lie? About Yellow Cake? About his weapons stash? What?
Posted by DANCALL 11/04/2005 @ 2:31pm
Dan you are surely confused. When did I say that Bush lied? I didn't. I simply pointed out that many posters have said this, and backed it up with research. Why should they continually repost the same arguments, ad nauseum? I ask you again to justify your request. And I don't care about "dem quotes" being researched. Go ahead and look up all the quotes you want, dude. Have fun!
MBB, you have really spaced out, sir. China swallow Russia? Just because your beloved leaders are imperialistic warmongers doesn't make everyone else that way. You are projecting your own perverted political proclivities onto Peking. (OK, so it's Beijing now, but for the sake of illiteration...)
Then you followed up with your right-wing fantasy:
If Bush isn't a liar and the majority of Americans agreed with the war because they agree with President Bush's opinions, then all the Liberals on this site are completely irrelevant. That is why they so firmly believe he is a liar, because they have too.
Wishfull thinking. But you so earnestly want it to be true...
I am starting to suspect that the Nation is blocking all right-wing posters that don't live in mental institutions, permitting only the nutcases to post here. That is a rather devious way of making conservatives look bad...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 5:15pm
Dancall: Hi there. Hopefully for the last time, you can give it up on the Oil for Food/UN connection. This info has been stated a zillion times on various posts and blogs. Oil for Food was monitored by the UN and more specifically by US delegates to that committee. I'm sure you have read the widespread reports about the thousands of malnourished and dying Iraqi children. That is one thing and I think we can all agree that the whole program was not well managed. Now think for a second. How did Hussein enrich himself from Oil for Food. If he managed to slip something past the monitors in New York, we have only our American monitors to blame. Now for the rest of your allegation.It has been well documented that Hussein engaged in a kickback scheme where he sold oil credits on the cheap in exchange for well defined oil delivery contracts. In short, the players bought cheap oil, sold it at going world market price and kicked some money upstairs to Hussein. That, as I mentioned before is pure power play capitalism. Now have a look at who the players were: French, Brit, german, Russian and American oil companies and middlemen. How do you tie this to the UN Oil for Food progam. The UN did not have any direct involvement in any of this with exception of one member Sevin? Bevin? who is aleged to have rceived $146,000 from an "aunt". he hasn't been indicted. There is absolutley no evidence anywhere that any other UN members were involved. Another fact: how do you think the Iraqis were able to ship this oil out of the country. Since the UN monitored pipeline output, they managed the clandestine shipments by ocean tankers and highway tankers. Bear in mind however, that the entire coast was under direct and constant surveillance by US Navy ships. Did our navy let these tankers inadvertantly slip by? Who knows for sure. Now by road, it is well known that most road shipments were made to the border posts into Turkey. that's right. Now, if my geography serves me, one would have to pass through Kurdistan to get to Turkey. Guess who was patrolling Kurdistan in the air AS WELL as on the ground. I should think that our peshmirga allies, as well as our own troops would know that trucks rolling north toward Turkey should cause some suspicion. Point is that everbody turned a blind eye and everybody involved made a shit load of sheckles. Final point, how does all of this tie in to UN/Oil for Food. It was all done outside the jurisdiction of the UN. Period. Now, PLEASE, no more about Oil for Food.
Posted by doumer at 11/04/2005 @ 5:17pm
So harboring Bin Laden isnt getting out of line? Helping Iran and North Korea obtain nukes isnt getting out of line? and Pakistan already HAS nukes, its not trying to get them. Also, they dont need to set off a bomb, they simply let their puppet Al Queda network attack us.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:21pm
Mary, what a nasty piece of work you are, your example just reeks of condescension and lack of pity, you make me puke. no mas
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 5:24pm
MARY, why hasnt the man who gave nukes to Iran and N. korea and tried to sell them it iraq, being punished? can you explain to me how the man who sold nukes to 2/3rds of Bushs axis of evil, and almost sold them to the other 1/3rd has not been mentioned as a threat to the US by Bush?
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:26pm
MARY, the lack of an attack has lots to do with our invasion of Afghanistan, nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq.
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 5:28pm
Doumer, two things, first your geography is sorely lacking, Turkey shares a border with Iraq, you could have googled that in no time flat, I did, eventhough I knew, just to be doubly sure, obsessive yes, this is the cause of all the tensions with the kurds, a group that straddles that border among others.
second, every now and then hit "return" twice on your keyboard to create spaces in between thoughts, this will make it far easier to read for us to read your thoughtful posts
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 5:31pm
If Bush isn't a liar and the majority of Americans agreed with the war because they agree with President Bush's opinions, then all the Liberals on this site are completely irrelevant.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/04/2005 @ 4:49pm
Great! Case closed. Why are you still here.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 5:36pm
MBB,
Am I the only one who is getting tired of this merry-go-round with you on this? Nobody says that Bush "lied" about everything, that is too simplistic. First, he and others did make SOME statements of present FACT, NOT OPINION, that they must have known were not true becasue of the intelligence that we now know was in their hands. Some would call that a lie, and I think they would be right. Those examples have been posted for your review ad infinitum, but, not surprisingly, you never have a comment on those. Second, Bush and others offered some OPINIONS on the threat, and characterized it as urgent, present, and yes, even imminent. Again, this has been shown to you. Third, Bush and others also offered some different OPINIONS that Iraq posed a grave threat to the U.S. in some indeterminate future. You seem to think that because it is an opinion, it is defensible. However, just because something is an opinion does not shield it from credibility. Since you love analogies, here is one: if I told you that I thought you should buy stock in a company because a product under development was SURE to be a big hit, that is obviously an opinion of some future event. But, assume I knew that there was pending patent litigation and the company may not be able to actually go to market with the product. If I do not tell you this, I have not "lied," but I did make a misrepresentation, becasue I omitted the material fact of the litigation from inclusion in my opinion. With the Bush Adminsitration, there were some outright lies, but there were also misrepresentations like my example - he told us what he wanted us to hear, but disregarded and did not reveal intelligence that ran counter to his opinion.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 5:44pm
Was it the 500 tons of uranium?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/04/2005 @ 5:11pm
Wow! All that uranium. A million pounds. Enough to make fifty thousand nuclear weapons.
Let me ask this again. Why did he need the yellow cake?
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 5:45pm
Johanne: Turkey does indeed share a border with Iraq. Yet, to get to Turkey, one must pass through the Kurdish controlled provinces. Provinces under direct control of the US and britain.
Posted by doumer at 11/04/2005 @ 5:47pm
Bush is a traitor- there's a more appropriate necktie waiting for him if we can get him to trial and convicted. The second part should be easy.
Also, why would a citizen of the country that is the worst nuclear proliferator in the world be whining about Pakistan with it's- what, half-dozen warheads? That's like a bank robber complaining because the police have guns, too. It's been made very clear by the recent Republican administrations that they are the ones more likely to commit a nuclear atrocity than anyone else in the world. Others, logically, seek to defend themselves. How much of a dimwit does one have to be to not understand that?
Why does this country, especially under Republicans, make such herculean efforts to create more enemies? The Bush administration takes the gold medal in that department. They have created more enemies for America than the last ten administrations combined. The icing on the cake is the cost of their $1 trillion dollar war.
How much more could someone f--- up a country? But they keep trying to top it. They're psychopaths. It must be biochemical.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 5:58pm
some thoughts on Pakistan and the middle east. all the countries of the middle east and Pakistan too, are ruled by dictators, in Pakistan's case, military and in Saudi arabia the family of Saud.
they are also powderkegs of disaffected, nationalist, radical islamic, small wonder getting screwed for so long,poor majorities.of course Israel is the middle east exception.
all these countries are close to revolution and or civil war. it is the military might of the US and their support for some of these regimes that holds in the cork, for now.
the US never had any problem with the vilest of dictatorships as long as they were 'our" dictators, vide US support for Saddam.in Iran the dictatorship is the mullahs.
if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil, no one would give a damn about them. Pakistan without oil is the exception here, it has to import oil. this scare tactic of islamofascism is mostly made up. the islamists have good reason to hate us, as we support their oppressors.
the big lie here is that they hate us for who we are and our freedoms. they also hate having our "freedoms" shoved down their throats by Bush, and rightly so.
these are geo political struggles, which will only intensify as oil becomes more scarce and demand rises, think China, India
.another big, BIG lie is the global war on terror. there is no such thing. terror is a method used by those who do not have planes, gunships, 5,000 pound bombs etc. the "terrorists" are varied and many.
in some cases they are freedom fighters, like in Chechnya for instance.they are often separatists, this idea of the modern caliphanate is a pipedream of Bin Laden, who's real aim is to overthrow the Saudi rule in his homeland.the arabs have often tried to unite into a super nation but have always been unable to agree
america is the iron fist trying to hold all this together, in vain it appears. I'm afraid I don't have a moral to this story, but perhaps fruitful discussion could result
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 6:01pm
doumer, go on, you can say you were wrong, it's OK
"Provinces under direct control of the US and britain."
you're also wrong here, Britain is occupying southern Iraq
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 6:05pm
MBB
There hasn't been a successful AQ attack on American soil since 9/11.
As a scientist I can assure you....lack of data does not prove anything. You are clainimg that "no data" (no further events) is causally related to BushWar2. However, there is NO true logic to this...at best loose inference with no supporting criteria except for vague "we've stopped lots of stuff" statements..."but we can't say anything about it...security issues dontcha know"
After all, I once had a snake in my house. About the same time I switched to a new brand of coffee. By your logic, I can thank coffee that I do not have an infestation of snakes!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 6:07pm
nice, lefty, but a bit rough on the snakes, don't you think
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 6:11pm
.
I did not want to trap you, I wanted to get rid of you. Nor were you gaming me, you were trying to crawl and slink out of the sink hole your stupidities had landed you in.
As to a specific refutation, it is in "NACL 11/04 @ 12:22am," three posts beneath where I call you feckless for demanding I address facts you are afraid to specify, you shrewdy. I dare you to read my post and answer it.
As to your claim of a response within 8 to 12 hours, you are referring to the initial US statement. That came from the White House press office, and said the following:
The official US reply was delivered on 5 February by Collin Powell. It pointed out the declaration's various defects.
For the UN's own evaluation of that 12,000 page package of humbug, as issued by Hans Blix, look at the link provided in "NACL 11/04 @ 12:22am" post to Doumer.blockquote>
.
Posted by nacl at 11/04/2005 @ 6:14pm
Yellowcake facts
HERE [chemcases.com]
Yellowcake is purified uranium oxide....but it is mainly U-238, it is only 0.7% U-235 (the kind that goes boom)....(actually closer to 0.5% if we discount the "oxide" portion) Bomb grade concentration is around 80% U-235 meaning we have to massively concentrate the diffuse 235 in order to get a bomb.
Not near as many bombs as one would think....providing they had the technology to do it, which is arguable at best.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 6:17pm
Johann
But the coffee is oh so good!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 6:18pm
.
I haven't noticed you before. If you are a newcomer, welcome.
Your mouth odor tells me you feed from the same swill bucket as the typical Nation poster. You are unburdened by any obligation to speak coherently or factually. You will fit in nicely.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/04/2005 @ 6:21pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/04/2005 @ 6:17pm
Excellent post. It's too bad that in the minds of our conservative friends all uranium is bomb grade. I infer this from the fact that they never make the educated distinction you just made. Ever
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 6:24pm
ILP
I said Bush isn't a liar. You called it "wishful thinking." Does that mean you are calling Bush a liar?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/04/2005 @ 5:20pm
I was referring to your claim that liberals are "irrelevant".
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 6:25pm
The consequences have changed. There hasn't been a successful AQ attack on American soil since 9/11. Bush's demonstrated eagerness to go to war has certainly been a factor in that.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/04/2005 @ 5:25pm
Again, irrational! Al Qaeda started the war, dude. They time their attacks on their own timetable. Do you seriously think they decided to end a war that they themselves started, just because Bush invaded Iraq???? Mind boggling cluelessness.
Sorry, I mean no offense, I am just calling it as I see it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 6:28pm
lefty, the coffee here at the burg has been exceptional since we got our Capresso espresso machine, the least expensive pressure pump model we could find, under two C notes, now I turn my nose up at Starbucks and just stay home with my C and C, I'll leave it to you to guess what the other C is.
finally a subject I'm not angry about, too much posting today on my part, I guess I'm just garrulous
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 6:31pm
.
You are one to talk. You think history is a 2002 memo and a 2003 speech.
For a bit of history consider the post WWII period. The US emerged far ahead of everyone, most particularly in science and technology. And she had a nuclear monopoly. No one in Europe could rival that, not to mention any other region in the world. As to the USSR, for most Russians a flush-toilet was a novelty. Everyone was sure they were not up to building an A bomb, certainly not in the foreseeable future, probably never.
Yet by August 1949 the Soviets exploded their copy of our Fat Boy. That was only four years after Hiroshima. America was stunned. It was unbelievable.
The US had the H-bomb by 1952. But to our amazement, just 18 months later, the Soviets tested their first version of a thermonuclear weapon. And that achievement was without the benefit of spies. The US was flabbergasted. She was again thunderstruck when the Soviets sent up Sputnik in 1957 and then in 1961 the Soviets stunned the world by sending a man, Gagarin, into space.
Nor was that the end of our being surprised. In 1962 the Soviets were suddenly building a missile base in Cuba and were about to stock it with nuclear warheads. (Thirty years later it was discovered that the war-heads had in fact already been delivered and were in position in Cuba at that time.)
Then, in 1964, the Chinese exploded their first A-bomb and three years later a 6 megaton H-bomb. Again, a devestating surprise.
In every instance the US was dumbfounded. The unbelievable kept happening. The US constantly underestimated her foes.
That is history. Moreover, it is not just the US that has been fooled. In 1980 Hans Blix gave the Osirak nuclear facility a clean bill of health even though an advanced Atom bomb program was under development a hundred yards from where the IAEA was inspecting.
In August 1990 IAEA safeguards director Jon Jennekens praised Iraqi cooperation with the IAEA as "exemplary," and said Iraq's nuclear experts "have made every effort to demonstrate that Iraq is a solid citizen" under the nonproliferation treaty. But the very next month Iraq launched a crash effort to build a bomb by April 1991 using enriched reactor fuel supposedly under IAEA safe-guards. That effort only came to a halt when a Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on 17 January 1991.
In 1993 Hans Blix was still insisting that "the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium which was under our safeguards." But then a defector, Hussein Kamel, produced documents proving the reactor fuel had been removed and the ends of the fuel rods had been cut off. In 1995, in a Guardian interview, Blix conceded that Saddam had been within a year of the bomb and that "he had us fooled."
In light of that real history, what must be the attitude of any administration responsible for the security of the United States?
Could it dismiss a report from the Italian intelligence service, that Iraq had made renewed efforts to buy yellowcake from Niger? Especially as Niger had in fact sold Iraq tons of yellowcake in the past? Ambassador Wilson opined, there was nothing to that report. But history has warned us. We disregard even tricky or flimsy information at our peril. Which responsible leader will dare that on his watch? It is better to be wrong than sorry.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/04/2005 @ 6:37pm
Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 6:14p:
I did not want to trap you, I wanted to get rid of you.
Of course! You tolerate no dissent. Sieg Heil!
Nor were you gaming me, you were trying to crawl and slink out of the sink hole your stupidities had landed you in.
Nope, I thought it all out beforehand. Sorry you didn't do the same. Of course, I cannot force you to believe me, but I don't care if you doubt.
As to a specific refutation, it is in "NACL 11/04 @ 12:22am," three posts beneath where I call you feckless for demanding I address facts you are afraid to specify, you shrewdy. I dare you to read my post and answer it.
I'll certainly take a read when I get a chance.
As to your claim of a response within 8 to 12 hours, you are referring to the initial US statement.
Bingo!
That came from the White House press office, and said the following:
The White House, Press Secretary, 12/7/02
The Iraqi regime today submitted to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) what it claims is a declaration of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems. A "currently accurate, full and complete declaration" is required by United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. The U.S. Government will analyze this declaration with respect to its credibility and compliance with UNSCR 1441. We will continue to work with other countries to achieve the ultimate goal of protecting the peace by ending Saddam Hussein's pursuit and accumulation of weapons of mass destruction.
Just what exactly is the last sentence, in your opinion, if it isn't a repudiation? Without having even analyzed a multi-thousand page declaration, the accusation is right there in the last statement that the Iraqis are pursuing and accumulating WMD! Declaration notwithstanding!
How much more blatant disregard do you need, NACL? Do you expect the State Department to come out and say specifically that "We made up our minds to go to war, no matter what the state of Iraq's WMD program." Of course they wouldn't do that, but the 12/7 statement is practically the same thing.
The official US reply was delivered on 5 February by Collin Powell. It pointed out the declaration's various defects.
It is called CYA...
And your post didn't contain the usual level of insults and ad hominum attacks. I hope you are not feeling ill...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 6:49pm
NACL - Let's see if I understand this. Since the US has been dumbfounded in the past by military advances of its enemies, that gives the administration a free pass to take the country to war based on "tricky or flimsy information". Fine, but given the clear evidence that the administration sought war in Iraq from the beginning (cf first meeting of National Security Council, etc.) isn't it clear that they were looking for a pretext not a valid rationale?
North Korea actually has nuclear weapons and has always been extremely bellicose. Does our intelligence indicate that they are not a threat? Was Iraq really the most significant threat to the national security of the US? How can anyone seriously believe
(a) that it was true at the start of the war, and
(b) that the administration really thought it was true
Posted by Fishbite at 11/04/2005 @ 6:52pm
Your mouth odor tells me you feed from the same swill bucket as the typical Nation poster. You are unburdened by any obligation to speak coherently or factually. You will fit in nicely.
Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 6:21pm
Ooooooooo. I can assure you that if your nose was that close to my mouth, you're blood would be all over my floor. But I look down and my floor is clean.
I read your post to Doumer in it you cut and pasted the following:
"One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues ... [on] questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited. . .
"They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.
"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise."
The center paragraph is just classic conservative bitching. We expect that. But first and third paragraphs contain a level of hysteria that can be easily explained away by a simple mechanism: Operation Instant Thunder. Perhaps you saw the footage of it. It was great!
You see a building in the cross hairs of the gun camera on the fighter plane dropping the laser guided bomb. Cutting edge stuff in that day. A little dated right now. And then (poof) smoke comes out of all four sides of the building and it burns down.
Now the rest of this post requires you to think for yourself. You can't cut and paste your way though this. So go grab your wooby.
What kind of buildings were in the cross hairs? Yes, government buildings! What do government buildings hold? Right again, desks, chairs, tacky velvet oil paintings, and filing cabinets! What do those filing cabinets hold? That's right files! And what do the files hold? Correct, documents! What were the weapons inspectors asking for from Saddam to prove that he didn't have WMD? Take your time. There's no rush. Oh sorry, times up. They were asking for documents.
No I could be wrong but I'm guessing that there was no way Saddam could produce all the relevant documents requested in your link because we blew them up. Crazy isn't it. You could almost say that the above was the intelligent design of missing document hypotheses
See, now wasn't that easy.
Nacl I truly admire you. Absolute certainty is a quality that continues to elude me. And it probably always will. But that's a good thing. This is why I don't limit my thinking to Google searches.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 7:06pm
In light of that real history, what must be the attitude of any administration responsible for the security of the United States?
Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 6:37pm
umm, other countries aren't as "Schtoopid" as evangleic conservatives and could actually figure out how to make nuclear weapons. But Saddam couldn't figure it out.
"Schtoopid"!
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 7:12pm
FROMREDBIRD, my point was that relative to Pakistans proliferation and support for al queda, taliban, etc, Saddam was a joke
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 7:51pm
NACL said: In 1993 Hans Blix was still insisting that "the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium which was under our safeguards." But then a defector, Hussein Kamel, produced documents proving the reactor fuel had been removed and the ends of the fuel rods had been cut off. In 1995, in a Guardian interview, Blix conceded that Saddam had been within a year of the bomb and that "he had us fooled."
Think about what you post before doing so. There are two preferred methods of producing fissionable material for a nuke. One: convert to gaseous state and enrich throug use of multiple centrifuges. This produces a highly enriched uranium. Two: the "pile" method uses depleted fuel rods from reactors.
The Iraqi scientist must have been very confused. the last reactor Iraq had was Osirak. And you know what happened to it in 1981. Ends clipped off fuel rods from where?
Posted by doumer at 11/04/2005 @ 8:00pm
as to the italian niger documents http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html
Posted by hvmiller at 11/04/2005 @ 8:06pm
Ends clipped off fuel rods from where?
Posted by DOUMER 11/04/2005 @ 8:00pm
Jenga :)
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 8:07pm
Jenga--Chinga and Mobuto too!
Posted by doumer at 11/04/2005 @ 8:21pm
Tasty weekend reading- Nur al-Cubicle's translations from the Italian of La Republicca:
PT I Republican Party leadership plotted Iraq war with Iranian mullahs
http://tinyurl.com/ajlbc
PT II Italian intelligence confirmed to Washington that Saddam no threat of any kind prior to invasion
http://tinyurl.com/bvpqc
PT III - forthcoming -
_______________________________
An earlier three-part series- Nigergate: Republican leadership tells Berlusconi, "Supply us any kind of flimsy excuse you can find to invade Iraq." Berlusconi: "It can be arranged."
PT I http://tinyurl.com/8bq8c
PT II http://tinyurl.com/d28d5
PT III http://tinyurl.com/8wa2l
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 8:41pm
FROMREDBIRD, my point was that relative to Pakistans proliferation and support for al queda, taliban, etc, Saddam was a joke
Posted by HVMILLER 11/04/2005 @ 7:51pm
Yes. And my point is that America should have been taking a much, much more aggressive role in encouraging India and Pakistan to resolve their differences diplomatically, and the same in the case of Palestine and "israel", rather than spending our time and money proliferating nuclear capability to "israel" and helping it steal land from Arabs. Wouldn't Pakistan and other Muslim countries feel less need for a deterrent if there were no continuing threat? A wild and crazy idea? Maybe.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 8:54pm
Wake up DANCALL,
You said that Clinton checked the polls and ruled by them, and that Bush does not care about polls--and that is a good thing. First of all Clinton did not rely on polls, but he did consult them, which he should. Last time I checked the president and his staff are public servants, which means they serve the public--something that dubya could care less about; dubya only cares about his corporate lovers. In case you didn't know DANCALL, dubya's ratings are in the toilet (38%), and a majority of people are fed up with the chaos in Iraq. So I would think that dubya should check the ratings--then again dubya did admit to not reading newspapers or watching the news. So you are right DANCALL, dubya does not check polls or ratings, because he doesn't care. He only cares about implementing his far-right wing agenda, satisfying his debts to the corporate interests buddies that got him elected, and smearing people like McCain and Kerry who actually have engaged in combat. Sidenote: my father a retired Colonel in the Marines and my brother a current Marine both see dubya as a rich, spoiled, cowardly chickenhawk. If you agree that it is o.k. for dubya to ignore his constituents and govern based on ideology, then you have an extremely warped sense of what a democracy is, DANCALL.
Posted by JVHRIDE at 11/04/2005 @ 9:01pm
when both the administration and the congress promote policies that are repudiated by the public, such as drilling in the arctic refuge, or cutting social program in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy, and the war, it is as if we are in an occupied country, something Kurt Vonnegut has pointed out in his latest book.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 9:12pm
FROMREDBIRD, my point was that relative to Pakistans proliferation and support for al queda, taliban, etc, Saddam was a joke
Posted by HVMILLER 11/04/2005 @ 7:51pm
I was referring more to the general tendency of Americans to express alarm at others seeking a nuclear capability when it is, in fact, the current nuclear powers that provide the impetus to them and are more guilty with their own proliferation activities. I wasn't referring to you directly with the "whining" terminology.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 9:24pm
Hmmm Judge Roberts Approved, Judge Alito Going to be approved, Drilling in Anwar going to be approved, the Budget.
Looks like the Republicans are forwarding our agenda whil all the Democrats can do is pull stunts like calling for the closed door session of congress and calling for investigations into the prewar intelligence that they ALL BACKED themselves. It's called smoke and mirrors. The Democratic leadership is powerless so all they do is bluster.
Johanne you don't understand taxation do you? Your comment Tax cuts for the wealthy is the oldest scam tactic in the book.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:32pm
NACL said: In 1993 Hans Blix was still insisting that "the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium which was under our safeguards." But then a defector, Hussein Kamel, produced documents proving the reactor fuel had been removed and the ends of the fuel rods had been cut off. In 1995, in a Guardian interview, Blix conceded that Saddam had been within a year of the bomb and that "he had us fooled."
Jeez. Hussein Kamel was a fraud and, Jeez again, I'll bet Hans Blix didn't say that . . . and that's why you don't have a link to back it up.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 9:36pm
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 9:32pm
Jzimm!
You could probably give us the inside scoop on Dick. If it's not too taxing.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:37pm
just don't jerk us around
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:38pm
Johanne -
What policies that are repudiated by the public are you talking about? Gay Marriage? Banning Religion from Schools and Partial Birth Abortions.
Looks like now that you are losing the Supreme court your last hope (The Courts) will soon be fading.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:39pm
and nothing premature.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:40pm
but once you start keep it coming
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:40pm
good scoop, nothing limp or flacid
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:42pm
Will Here is the Inside Scoop from the IRS -
This is the latest data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%.
hink of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay: The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:42pm
and no condomnation
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:43pm
Whatcha got will?
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:43pm
Im waiting?
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:43pm
hope you can swallow the HARD facts
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:44pm
were they counting dividends as income or did they convenently leave that out?
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:45pm
Because your spewing a lot of nothing right now
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:45pm
don't choke on that one
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:45pm
all the Democrats can do is pull stunts like calling for the closed door session of congress and calling for investigations into the prewar intelligence that they ALL BACKED themselves. It's called smoke and mirrors. The Democratic leadership is powerless so all they do is bluster.
Posted by JZIMM, 11/04/2005 @ 9:32pm
What a cowpie that is! The Bushies continually reiterated that they had intelligence which they couldn't share with anyone else which gave solid backing to the "threat" from Iraq- while continually interspersing those pronouncements with referrals to mushroom clouds and Al-Qaeda . . . are you now trying to say that they were actually sharing that intelligence that they insisted they couldn't share? Are you saying that the Congressional intelligence committees see the complete intelligence that the executive branch does? Because if you are you're way off base. If you're not saying that then what are you saying?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 9:46pm
I assume when they say TOTAL INCOME TAXES PAID, but I've done my research. you do some
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:47pm
your choking
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:47pm
it's your point buddy. bring facts
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:48pm
It isn't the numbers that are important. It's how they are figured. And you can't tell me how they were.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:52pm
boner
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 9:53pm
Redbird here is a letter from Kerry from in 2002. This is just one in a long line of comments made before when Democrats were trying to appear stong against terror and before the developed mass selective amnesia...true American heros...do anything to try to stay in power.
This Is written by John Kerry in 2002 - how odd
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.
The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.
Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 9:54pm
Johann
Single farm Central American Tarrazu decaf (gotta watch the caffeine...) Absolutely marvelous!
FRBird
Here, here. Anyone reading the facts knows that Dubya's "special intel unit" ignored 95% of the extant CIA intel (most of which turned out to be correct and in conflict with the war mandate crap) and took as fact the ones that fit their stratergery
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/04/2005 @ 9:59pm
ll you hear from the liberal democrats these days is "Bush lied... no weapons of mass destruction... Get out of Iraq... Saddam was not tied to terrorists... etc and so forth."
I came across this series of quotes from the beloved liberal leadership that should make anyone who has supported them in the past go "hmmmm"
Their own words nullify their objections with this administration, and make clear that they have absolutely no platform to stand on.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Kennedy. Clinton. Kerry. Gore.
Who REALLY lied to the people? And who is perpetuating the lies? hmmmm....
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:01pm
The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 9:42pm
Does that include, like, a highschool kid who works fifteen hours a week after school? Of course it does. Not a very good methodology unless you're really, really dishonest. What do you want them to do- pay 300% of their weekly salary in taxes while working after school and still trying to compete against your spoiled brat, lazy kids?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:01pm
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 9:54pm
It's to bad you couldn't cut and paste that stain off the blue dress. You so good with numbers and speeches. Think of all the BS you could have saved our nation.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:04pm
I came with facts and you came with
"Boner" and "Tax Cuts for the wealthy"...I was hoping for more from this blog but I should consider the source. you are moronic, simple and ignorant
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:04pm
I was thankful that the stain was still there to show the nation what lying under oath, and obstructing justice really looks like.
Clinton the hero of the Democratic Party - HA ha..now that is funny!
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:07pm
Oh no! I'm moronic simple and ignorent. How will I ever live with myself form now on?
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:07pm
will -
you so good with spellin to
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:08pm
In ignorant bliss now doubt
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:08pm
I was thankful that the stain was still there to show the nation what lying under oath, and obstructing justice really looks like
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:07pm
Yes! It looks like JZIMM.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:09pm
yss eye tri
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:10pm
Ps - sorry for cutting and pasting the facts. I know it hurts your cause.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:11pm
Redbird here is a letter from Kerry from in 2002. This is just one in a long line of comments made before when Democrats were trying to appear stong against terror and before the developed mass selective amnesia...true American heros...do anything to try to stay in power.
This Is written by John Kerry in 2002 - how odd Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 9:54pm
I didn't ask for a copy of a dopey speech from two-faced John Kerry, dingbat, I asked you if the Congressional oversight committees see the exact same intelligence as the executive branch. I asked you if the Bushies weren't repeatedly saying that they had intelligence they couldn't share which solidly backed up their contention of a "threat" from Saddam Hussein and continually interspersing that with references to mushroom clouds and Al-Qaeda.
Why did you suddenly run?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:11pm
I know it hurts your cause.
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:11pm
very painful, almost unbearable
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:13pm
Why did you suddenly run?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/04/2005 @ 10:11pm
You know jzimm. Always coming or going
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:16pm
To answer your question I don't know for sure, maybe some if they are on the intelligence comittee????
But read back and read the Mushroon Cloud comments from your own Democratic Leaders - Even fromer President Clinton....Did he have access to that info?
Are you saying Iraq never had WMD's?
Did they prove that they destroyed their WMD's
Don't run.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:17pm
I better stop before I run out of puns
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:17pm
ooops I had a Will C moment with my spelling
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:18pm
I have to hand it to you Will. You have added more substance to this debate than most liberals..
Good Points, Sound facts, insightful thinking. You are the Pride of the left I am sure
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:19pm
Thank you! Cumming from you jzimm, that's high praise
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:21pm
Kennedy. Clinton. Kerry. Gore.
Who REALLY lied to the people? And who is perpetuating the lies? hmmmm....
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005
How brilliant is that. You cut and paste quotes from before the UN inspectors had determined that there were no WMD to be found and who were then rushed out of Iraq by the Bush administration before they could conclusively finalize that determination. They were all referring to partial facts that were years old and everyone knows that. You and the Republican Party are utterly despicable fakes, and traitors into the bargain, and the "body of the people" know it. Do you smell tar boiling?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:22pm
Like I said. The Bush Lied BS, The Valerie Plame BS, The Closed Sessions BS to urge a third investigation into prewar intelligence BS is just that...BS
Democrats trying to look strong to the Kooky left financial backers all the while republicans are still forwarding our Agenda. See the Supreme Court, ANWAR, and the Budget...It is hard being powerless. You can't even fillibuster Alito
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:24pm
You can't even fillibuster Alito
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:24pm
umm, he hasn't cum before the Senate yet. Don't you think your comment is a little premature?
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:26pm
To answer your question I don't know for sure, maybe some if they are on the intelligence comittee????
But read back and read the Mushroon Cloud comments from your own Democratic Leaders - Even fromer President Clinton....Did he have access to that info?
Are you saying Iraq never had WMD's?
Did they prove that they destroyed their WMD's
Don't run.
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:17pm
Well, by God! I guess you don't really know s--- then, do you? In two responses you go from making bold assertions to asking simpering questions. Confirmed. Republican.
Clinton? Mushroom clouds? Up your a--, maybe.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:27pm
There have already been at least 2 investigations into the prewar intelligence. Pretty naive to buy into your own parties flailings.
Why didn't you answer my questions?
Were there WMD's in Iraq at some point? Did Iraq prove that they were destroyed?
It seems that with both Democrats and republicans on the Intelligence comittee taht it would be easy to prove that Bush lied about something. Wake up - Grow up.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:28pm
Hey Redbird are you a Muslim?
Do you belive that 9-11 was really a hoax? Was Sadaam your hero?
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:31pm
republicans on the Intelligence comittee taht
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:28pm
oops! another will c spelling accident
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:32pm
Did Iraq prove that they were destroyed? Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:28pm
Iraq made every effort to. Bush rushed to war to preclude that proof. Everyone knows that clowntime. Do you smell the tar boiling?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:32pm
Redbird should be replying
by Allah
Heaven forbid we defend America. How dare we launch a pre-emptive war against a good, soverign ruler like Sadaam.
get some balls you're pathetic
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:33pm
allah is just arabic for god, dummy
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:34pm
Why don't you look at the ratings for Foxnews and the Rush Limbaugh show.
Imagine the next election map all full of red states...what a beautiful picture. You should move to france. You'd be happy there
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:35pm
Will you are a sharp one. We didn't know that
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:36pm
Hey Redbird are you a Muslim?
Do you belive that 9-11 was really a hoax? Was Sadaam your hero?
Posted by JZIMM, 11/04/2005 @ 10:31pm
Well, there you have it. Another Republican weeny drags itself into the elephants' graveyard. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. And their kids are such spoiled, lazy slobs.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:36pm
You should move to france. You'd be happy there
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:35pm
french wine. french fries. L'Amore en Paris
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:36pm
but does it mean GOD DUMMY or GOD, Dummy?
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:36pm
Will you are a sharp one. We didn't know that
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:36pm |
awww :) really!
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:37pm
Yeah I hear it's a Riot there this time of year =)
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:37pm
allah is just arabic for god, dummy
Posted by WILL C. 11/04/2005 @ 10:34pm
reading is fundamentsl (Rodney Allen Rippy)
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:39pm
spelling is optional
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:39pm
Yeah that Brilliant Redbird. All Conservative kids a lazy slobs.
I guess when you are at a loss for word, and can never answer a question it is your tactic to cast dispersions at entire groups of people.
You probably don't like those Christians either?
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:40pm
What's the percentage of cowards in the Republican Party- pushing 99.9%? Nor do they have enough brains to argue a position even with the help of their limpwristed lies.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:41pm
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:40pm
you're starting to lose it jzimm. Too many will c spelling accidents
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:43pm
Not exactly accomplished at English grammar or spelling are you Republicans?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 10:43pm
take a deep breath
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:43pm
exhale slowly
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:44pm
Anyway. This is boring.
Good Night Redbird . Allah Akbar to you and your powerless party. Im out.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:44pm
pussy!
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:46pm
Red still hasn't answered any of my question?
What's wrong red? I answered your? You are a sissy ass sore loser. I really am out this time.
Posted by jzimm at 11/04/2005 @ 10:46pm
This is the latest data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%.
Jeez, Bozzo the blogger, what do you think it means? Their tax rate went down, yet the percentage of tax revenue they paid went up. It means, doofus, that their relative income went up. That's right, the top 1% are making more money! Incredible. Before you start posting your nonsense, please figure out what it means. Thank you.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 10:49pm
FROMREDBIRD
It was a pleasure working with you
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:50pm
WILL C, your series of posts regarding JIZZM and DICK made me laugh beer up my nose! Please stop it... or continue. I am not sure which...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 10:52pm
hey zimmy, appproval ratings down, even with repubs, I wonder why? I guess they didn't ask you
the Libby trial will be dreadful for Bush. there is a little thing called discovery, and I'm not talking space shuttle here.
my prediction, a plea bargain, Rove willbe pushed out, maybe even Cheney, and it won't do them any good.
Zimmy, you sound a little desperate
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 10:53pm
Physics!
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 10:59pm
cosi fan tutti, they all do it like that, blaming their failures on Clinton, corrupt dealings with lobbyists, lying about giving up a CIA agent, and this from the law and order crowd.
there is something rotten in the state of...
and that Zimm, what a twit, nasty, brutish and small minded.
these armchair heroes lecturing us on tough they are. the wellcrafted image of Bush is crumbling, the picture of Dorian Gray comes to mind, or for you repubs unfamiliar with english lit, the wizard of Oz will do nicely
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/04/2005 @ 10:59pm
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
And Bill C. did quite well WITHOUT invading Iraq. Sorry Bush couldn't measure up to Bill's standard. The proof? There were no WMD in Iraq! Amazing...
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
And Saddam clearly got the point, not just from Bill, but from George as well, because Saddam had no WMD and was cooperating with Blix in 2002-2003. Jeez, Georgie got what he wanted yet still invaded. What does that tell you?
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Bullshit propaganda. Thanks for selling your soul, Madeline.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes, NOT unnecessary invasions. Please read your own posts...
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Saddam was contained by inspections and sanctions. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
More propaganda. Thanks again, Madeline. The rest of the post is more of the same. You get the picture.
Posted by JZIMM 11/04/2005 @ 10:01pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 11:07pm
pardon the mistake with the italics - I blame the beer
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 11:08pm
JIZZM & WILL C., I really enjoyed your back-and-forth argument with the innuendo. Hilarious! JIZZM, I am actually starting to respect your posts.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 11:10pm
Hey JZIMM, thanks for the 10th posting of Kerry's 2002 letter. It was as worthless now as it was the first 9 times.
NACL:
Thanks for the history lesson. You have conviced me. Given how much we miscalculate threats, we should just abandon intelliegence altogether. Forget policies like diplomacy and containment too. We'll just use your crystal ball to pick out the potential bad guys and take them out in their infancy. Given how Niger is the one supplying all the yellowcake, we should probaly go in there too. I mean, it will only be a few years before they can launch ICBM's on the East Coast, right? Venezuala is starting to talk a lot of shit too, and their current president is not too high on us either. What do you think, can we wait to invade until 2009, or is that giving them too much time to build the bomb? How many others are on your list, Nostradamus?
Hey, John Maasch, if your finger doesn't fall asleep scolling through the lunatics, check out the following article by John Dean regarding the CIA investigation. I'd like your thoughts in light of our conversation concerning why Libby testified as he did. See ya.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:19pm
don't tell him that. He'll grow a big head
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 11:20pm
ok i'll stop
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 11:21pm
How "Schtoopid" do you have to be before you seriously contemplate using "JZIMM" as your screen name.
Or perhaps "Schtoopid" is the wrong term. Maybe conservative is a better one? Hmmmm...
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 11:23pm
WILL C, more beer out my nose! Have you no respect, man?!?!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 11:33pm
John, sorry, here is the link:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
Posted by Hman23 at 11/04/2005 @ 11:37pm
and that Zimm, what a twit, nasty, brutish and small minded. these armchair heroes lecturing us on tough they are.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/04/2005 @ 10:59pm
Dont waste your time on JZIMM. He cuts and pastes something that he got from some adult but it quickly becomes apparent that he's about 14 years old. He thinks it's really demeaning to ask someone if they're a Muslim and it's simultaneously his get-out-of-jail-free card when he can't reason his position, which is immediately. His parents probably told him that all the good people in the world are in the Republican Party. You could probably find him on Sunday in one of the heretical pretend-"Christian" churches singing "Jesus loves me, and this I know, because the Bible tells me so".
Posted by fromredbird at 11/04/2005 @ 11:48pm
"Joe Wilson stuff again???"
Sounds like your running away from Wilson and his lies as fast as you did from Cindy Sheehan her brilliant quotes . Desperation is not a pretty thing to watch
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/03/2005 @ 5:31pm
Comparing Joe Wilson to Cindy Sheehan is like comparing Albert Einstein to Forrest Gump...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 11:52pm
my prediction, a plea bargain, Rove willbe pushed out, maybe even Cheney, and it won't do them any good.
Zimmy, you sound a little desperate
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/04/2005 @ 10:53pm
That is a bit overly optimistic, JR. If Cheney is ousted, I will eat my hat.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/05/2005 @ 12:08am
NACL, I saw the post to which you referred (3 posts after calling me "feckless.") However, I haven't waded through the dozens of blasts against your post that my fellow high-minded liberals have levelled against your duplicity.
If you are still around when I finish wading, believe me, we will exchange broadsides. May your salty dispostion still be intact, as that is about the only thing about your posts worth reading :0
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/05/2005 @ 12:10am
NACL, Of course I was just teasing. Actually, your posts have more substance than most of the conservative posts here at the Nation, but then, that is not saying much! This explains why I didn't originally "compliment" you in that way. I didn't want to appear rude!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/05/2005 @ 12:14am
The US had the H-bomb by 1952. But to our amazement, just 18 months later, the Soviets tested their first version of a thermonuclear weapon. And that achievement was without the benefit of spies. The US was flabbergasted. Posted by NACL 11/04/2005 @ 6:37pm | ignore this person
NACL,
I'm assuming your reference to the Soviets' development of the H-bomb "without the benefit of spies" is a rhetorical manipulation to gloss over the Soviets' development of the A-bomb with the help of the Rosenbergs and their skillful handler Feklisov?
Without even getting into a discussion of the value of jump-starting the Soviets on atomic and thermonuclear weaponry education, I believe that at the end of the day (no pun intended) we are really talking about knowledge. In weapons technology, one can call it applied science. No one race or nationality has a monopoly on knowledge. Jared Diamond lays out a well reasoned theory of knowledge transfer among mankind in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.
I believe all races and nationalities are intelligent and capable of acquiring this awesome knowledge. Most of the time, however, they are busy applying their intellects to the more immediate needs of their societies, or so it seems to me.
On the other hand, sometimes a nation can feel an external pressure to concentrate their intellect on the applied science of weaponry, as in the case of Pakistan following India's detonation of a nuclear weapon.
I don't believe the US is "flabbergasted", as you put it, when another country demonstrates that it too has learned how to apply science to develop these awesome weapons. I do think we need to ask ourselves if our new-bully-on-the-block policy of preemption is not a cause for more nations to apply their intellectual capital toward developing a big stick to protect them from us.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/05/2005 @ 12:33am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/05/2005 @ 02:29am
Rio
Wait! I know what you are doing wrong. Your supposed to click your heals together three times each times you repeat your mantra.
Otherwise you're never getting back to Kansas.
Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2005 @ 03:09am
...in general, you shouldn't try to tell me what I think and believe. First of all, you don't know. Second of all, what you think I believe is usually wrong. The way debate works is, you say what you believe, not what I believe. I do the same thing. If we start trying to tell each other what the other person believes, it just becomes a stupid waste of time.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 11/03/2005 @ 3:45pm
I'st this standard debate practice these days? Sometimes they don't even wait until the oppisition is finished before they tell them what they believe.
boner
Posted by WILL C. 11/04/2005 @ 9:53pm
huahuahua ... he said "boner"
Posted by zhong at 11/05/2005 @ 03:43am
Corn,
You're probably already aware of the PNAC's documents, but in case you aren't, you should be. They are EXTREMELY damaging and are a HUGE PAPER TRAIL. See for yourself:
I write also to share with you some EXTREMELY damaging documents I found, which Cheney and Libby both signed. They establish a motive (and a pre-established agenda) for them and other participants to "fix the facts around the policy", to deceive congress, to commit all sorts of disgusting crimes. The paper trail follows...
Sincerely, Brian Wheeler
wheels777@msn.com
Anyway, here is what I promised after this 3 paragraph intro:
Project for a New American Century (PNAC) documents that show a pre-established agenda of Bush administration officials to invade Iraq and take out Saddam, which dates back to 1997, 1998, and Sept. 20th 2001. Cheney was a principal participant, and signed these documents. This is a HUGE paper trail.
PNAC is a neoconservative advocacy group, established in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Officials linked to the documents which I refer include: I. Lewis Libby (a member of the WHIG), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton (a former PNAC director), other Bush administration officials, such as Elliott Abrams, Paula Dobriansky, Peter Rodman, Zalmay Khalilzad, former administration official Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank president), Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and many others.
The appends documents prove that the above-mentioned individuals had a foreign policy agenda that served as an ideological framework which led to a highly organized conspiratorial campaign to manufacture the intelligence required to start a "just" war and to propagandize government insiders and the American people, and to subvert the will of the people and deceive Congress into supporting a "necessary" war.
These are big assertions, but nonetheless these documents back such statements and clearly relate to Rep. Kucinich's resolution of inquiry into the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), H. Res 505.
A Letter to President Bush
Pronouncing their agenda extremely well is PNAC's September 20th, 2001 letter to President Bush[vi] in which they wrote:
In order to carry out this "first war of the 21st century"… the following steps are necessary…
One of which was sub-headed "Iraq":
…It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
The PNAC goes on to say:
The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
Another Presidential Letter
In a January 26th, 1998 Letter to President Clinton[iv] the PNAC wrote:
…we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding…In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course... We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The document later reads:
…the current policy…is…dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action...In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power.
A Statement of Principles In their 1997 founding document, Project for a New American Century's Statement of Principles[iii], signatories include I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney, and other big players such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and others. Also agreeing with such ideology is John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and others who have signed PNAC documents. All these guys (the specific names mentioned in this paragraph) signed the 1998 Letter to President Clinton, and therefore stated publicly, in 1998, years before 911 even occurred, that the US should invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam's regime through using the patriotic hearts, minds and souls of the US military.
Congressional Ties
As painful as this may be to read, and as painful, yet fulfilling as it is for me to write, the PNAC's foreign policy gets even clearer in the May 29th, 1998 letter to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott[vii] where the PNAC wrote:
Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, [that "the U.S. policy of ‘containment' of Saddam Hussein was failing"] you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime. And, at the time of the Annan deal, Senator Lott, you pointed out its debilitating weakness and correctly reminded both your colleagues and the nation that "We cannot afford peace at any price."
They continue:
Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. To Congress's credit, it has passed legislation providing money to help Iraq's democratic opposition and to establish a "Radio Free Iraq." But more needs to be done, and Congress should do whatever is constitutionally appropriate to establish a sound policy toward Iraq.
They go on to write:
U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily…
They then write:
To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:
-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal; -- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control; -- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power
In their concluding paragraph, the PNAC writes:
In short, Saddam's continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion.
The signatory reads:
Sincerely….Donald Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, R. James Woolsey, Paula Dobriansky, William J. Bennett, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Bergner, Francis Fukuyama, Robert B. Zoellick, Vin Weber, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Schneider, Jr.
[i]http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm [ii] http://www.newamericancentury.org/ [iii] http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm [iv] http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm] [v] http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm] [vi] http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm] [vii] http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm]
Posted by wheels777 at 11/05/2005 @ 04:29am
something is happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/05/2005 @ 09:50am
Rio, not on this thread either, you armchair warrior. why don't you volunteer for Iraq duty, then the guerillas can do us all a favor and blow you up, please don't hurt anyone else in the process Ahmed, Ok?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/05/2005 @ 10:29am
attacks on our troops have doubled in the last year. Oh but it's because of the elections, say our generals. well then let's stop all that election nonsense and save a few american grunts.
notice how every week or so the "coalition" forces mount a MAJOR attack in western Iraq, it's alway major and it's always near the syrian border, mmh
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/05/2005 @ 10:32am
JZM
How dare we launch a pre-emptive war
Exactly....what kind of nation would dare to start a war against ANY nation unprovoked? Guess we kinda gave up on that whole "leaders of the free world" thing and started a new "we're the schoolyard bully....gimme yer lunch money bee-atch"
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 11:02am
Rio Loco
I see the Kool-aid overdose is leading to a manic state. Guess you guys are doubling your dosage these days, what with all the arrests, indictments, and investigations and such.
Shit buddy, take two Prozac with a shot of Jim Beam. Knock the edge offa that reality thing, apparently its too much cause you have retreated into a weird GOP fantasty world.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 11:07am
.
Acquiring it yes, but controlling it?
Would you want to live in a Middle East where a President Admadinejad, or a Zarqawi had the bomb?
People "believe" lots of things, including that whenever they hear a bell, an angel gets his wings in heaven. What is believed, without a basis in fact or logic is not of much account.
Sure, every nation has produced geniuses. It is very likely that over the centuries across Asia, Africa and Latin America thousands of potential Newtons and Beethovens and Edisons were born. But they lived and died largely as coolies, as peasants, their abilities unrecognized. Because their societies lacked the institutions and political structures and cultural sophistication to recognize their worth and to harness their talents.
What counts are not just a few individuals of exceptional intellect. There has to be a large population sufficiently complicated to appreciate and able to nurture exceptional ability. Once that exist then the breakthrough work of a few individuals can benefit the entire society. But that can't happen before there is a sizable, relatively affluent population sufficiently sophisticated, emotionally, socially and politically. In short, civilization is less a matter of a few geniuses than of a great many reasonable people.
The Atomic bomb is manageable so long as it is confined to societies able to produce it indigenously. Because the sophisticated scientific and industrial infrastructures required for building the bomb is also likely to have grown up alongside a political culture and emotional climate sufficiently sophisticated to control the weapon.
But if a nuclear arsenal is largely imported, watch out. Then enormous destructive power falls into the hands of emotionally unstable and politically crude or naive individuals. All hell will then break loose. Which is why the nuclear proliferation regimes must be enforced if the world is to escape catastrophe.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/05/2005 @ 11:12am
.
I realize that you, like most of your friends here, are largely defenseless. Which is why I repress the itch to lash out. Its not much fun bullying helpless outpatients.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/05/2005 @ 11:15am
.
Yes, it is you who don't understand. Moreover, you are incapable of understanding.
Furthermore, you refuse to understand that I have run out of patience with you. Sure, that's a bit arbitrary as you are no worse a moron than most of the others, but I have to start somewhere, don't I?
.
Posted by nacl at 11/05/2005 @ 11:23am
Question: How much of a nitwit does someone have to be to quote references to Iraq's weapons capabilities prior to their elimination as justification for an invasion of Iraq AFTER Iraq's weapons capabilities have been eliminated?
Answer: Heap big nitwit.
RIO BRAVO, isn't it clear that you're on the wrong planet? This isn't Bizarroworld. Why don't you be brave and go jump in a river?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/05/2005 @ 11:25am
.
You display the cheap bravado of a coward and are about as sharp as a fishy smelling septic tank. Go take a flying leap among the turds. Breathe through your gills, and stay down there, you swamp creature.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/05/2005 @ 11:29am
NaCl
Yes, it is you who don't understand. Moreover, you are incapable of understanding.
Salty dog....we *DO* understand. We understand on the the planet RepubliKrap that the ends always justify the means. That all the "non-Christian" and other "non-believers" are to be at best bedrudgingly tolerated as long as they are useful. That liberals, gays, abortionists and other sinners will burn. That we, the almighty Christian US led by God's annointed Dubya, have the right as given by Providence, to help ourselves to whatever resources we please, to war and/or chastise any that disagree, and that as we are above morality, to say anything and do anything we want becasue we are always "Right" and clearly we are better than everyone else.
Does that about sum up the RepubliKrap worldview?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 11:39am
.
Apart from the fact that your elucidation is nonsense, what exactly in my post are you correcting?
You're the one who's confused.
The Iraqis initially aimed at an A-bomb with a plutonium core, the kind dropped on Nagasaki. The Osirak reactor was to be the source of their plutonium. Plutonium does not occur in nature but a nuclear reactor creates it in the course of its operation. The plutonium can be separated from the spent fuel and packed into a bomb. However, the Israelis destroyed the Osirak facility and so ended that approach.
The Iraqis thereafter concentrated on building a Hiroshima type bomb, one made largely of uranium 235. That fissionable material is not grown in a nuclear reactor. It can be extracted from natural uranium. That was originally achieved in 1945 via an electromagnetic separation process. An improvement was a gaseous diffusion method. It forces the uranium in gaseous form, as uranium hexafluoride, through membranous filters. Nowadays there are additional methods, including the gas centrifuge process which the Iraqis preferred. They had a design and plans to produce thousands of centrifuges. Desert Storm and subsequently the UN inspectors put an end to those facilities.
Desert Storm also put an end to a crash program to build a bomb by April 1991. The idea was to cannibalize the 40 to 50 kilos of partially enriched and highly enriched uranium with which Iraq had been supplied for the fuel rods of its Soviet and French research reactors. That fissile material was supposedly under IAEA safeguards. As it turned out, Saddam's scientists removed it. But for the swift success of Desert Storm that crash program could have given Saddam two to three nuclear weapons.
Saddam was unpredictable and determined and without scruple. He was capable of everything. That is something worth thinking about.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/05/2005 @ 11:48am
.
NaCl
Plutonium does not occur in nature
Get yer facts right...plutonium does indeed occur in nature, albeit in small quantities (except in the rare instance of a natural fission zone as in Gabon, 1972)
...uranium 235... It can be extracted from natural uranium.
Well sure, but even the "infamous yellow-cake" is only about 0.5 - 0.7% U-235. To get to weapons grade (~80% U-235) requires a level of technology that Iraq does not, nor did they ever, possess. In fact, only 6-7 nations on the entire planet have built gas-centrifuges (Pakistan is thought to have a small one), and even less have operating gaseous diffusion plants.
Just because someone owns a collection of auto parts, doesn't mean they are secretly building Buicks in their basement. They might wish they could (Saddaam's likely level of expertise) but in practical terms, it weren't never gonna happen. Even his "bio-weapons" and "Planet-Scud" technology were WW2 level stuff. Hell, the Scuds are "barely" WW2 level (like 100 mile range...don't see them firing on NYC anytine soon)
Bottom line is, Saddaam wasn't any significant threat to the US prior to the war. We knew it then, hasn't changed now (aside from the new terrorists growing from the ranks of those displeased with occupation.) CIA intel said so, UN member intel said so. The only intel that indicated was the stuff from Dubya's "focus group" and UK (Bush's pocket) intel.
BushWar2 was a ploy to control oil interests for the US, as was BushWar1 (although at least that one had a valid reason - the invasion of Kuwait and their request for assistance) That is why FOIA requests of Cheney's "secret energy talks" have produced only oil field maps of Iraq & Afghanistan and list of potential investors.
As to my "balance"....I appreciate your concern. I assure you I am fully "balanced"...just trying to distill the average Right-WingNut ravings into a more compact from in the previous post. Apparently you deem the "pre-emptive option" as acceptable then?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 1:04pm
to All
Considering the thread topic, I thought it apres to remind everyone of the illustrious FrankGrits' "Pre-War Fireside Chat w/Duya & Co." (Take a bow my friend) I extracted from threads a time back and posted here: http://geodude.hom e.mchsi.com/GOP_theater.html [geodude.home.mchsi.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 1:12pm
Maybe I a missing something, but I keep wondering when the press will go back and analyze how the VP could be anxious to ease economic sanctions against Iraq before 911
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/gensanc/2001/0419us.htm
and then declare Iraq as dangerously close to having nuclear capability. We all know the man is a liar. It's not executive privledge that led him to oppose revealing the deliberations of his energy task force. It's more likely related to something that would undermine the drive to war, or maybe even show a predetermined direction that ousting Saddam was on the table before 911.
Posted by abluefire at 11/05/2005 @ 1:23pm
NACL: What is your point? Fuel rods from Soviet and French reactors? These reactors were in Iraq? try again.
There have been no reactors built in Iraq since Osirak was bombed in 1981. Link me if you will.
Secondly: you talk about thousands of centrifuges. Where may I ask were they when the troops started lokking around. All the shit you spout was a scenario of 1990-1991. Give me proof that Hussein had any type of nuke infrastructure after Gulf I.
And, what about that quote from Blix and the Iraqi scientist?
Posted by doumer at 11/05/2005 @ 1:48pm
I think I get it now. Revelation!
It has become clear that the intel used by bush and so easily swallowed by pugs is right out of 1991. Hell, it was perfectly good intel then, why not use it now.
Posted by doumer at 11/05/2005 @ 1:53pm
If Sadaam was capable of "everything", as NACL attests, it's pretty damn peculiar that he did not exercise his options. But I suppose that's a moot point out there in right wing doodybrain la la land.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/05/2005 @ 2:27pm
Of course, the word "everything" probably means something different in that world, just as the word "is" had a different connotation in Clinton's world. What a pack of pathetic jokers.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/05/2005 @ 2:28pm
S_JAY & DOUMER
Obviously Sadaam was teaching camels to swim...then he would put a small tactical nuke up their asses and have his al Qaeda jihadists ride them to American shores. Once ashore they could ride anywhere within US borders to wreak havoc!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 2:34pm
What counts are not just a few individuals of exceptional intellect. There has to be a large population sufficiently complicated to appreciate and able to nurture exceptional ability… But that can't happen before there is a sizable, relatively affluent population sufficiently sophisticated, emotionally, socially and politically. In short, civilization is less a matter of a few geniuses than of a great many reasonable people. by NACL 11/05/2005 @ 11:12am | ignore this person
…or coerce it as in the case of North Korea and China where both fail to meet your definition of sophistication. Yet, both have extracted from among their citizens the bright and talented to produce these weapons. What were their motivations? We cannot know and can only speculate.
Your sarcasm directed toward a belief system, while amusing to read, overlooks an important fundamental tenant of all societies: their values. Our democracy originated in a rational a priori train of thought. Our founders were heavily influenced by John Locke, and other philosophers, who opined on the origins of man's rights. These philosophical underpinnings of our form of government are based upon beliefs, not facts, in an objective sense. Thus, they shape the values of society and define a direction for future generations.
American values – our beliefs, if you will – are contained in our constitution for all to see. This man's grievance with politicians, of both parties, in general and the Bush Administration in particular, is their willingness to run our government in contravention to our values.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/05/2005 @ 3:00pm
Rio Loco
I find it incredulous that the leftwing nuts still think that establishing a "beach head" in Iraq was not the right thing to do to began to combat islamic terrorism and attempt to establish a forceful stabilization to the growing threat jihadism represents if allowed to spread throughout the rest of the region!
Uhhh...Earth to Planet Loco: Terrorism has increased substantially since the onset of BushWar2. Sure Dubya Sr shoulda taken out Hussein in BushWar1. He fucked up. Now we invent a half-cocked rationale for war while the real terrorist dangers like OLB, Pakistan and N Korea are shelved without further thought.
As to your "book of Dem quotes"..only ones prior to 9/11 have any meaning at all as intel after in prep for war was manipulated. Thus the latter quotees suffered from the same stilted vision that was thrust upon all of us....courtesy of Dubya & co. The pre-9/11 quotes never mention invasion of a sovereign nation....just that rogue nations shouldn't be alllowed to proliferate WMD technology.
I guess the fact that most CIA/UN pre-BushWar2 intel said Iraq possessed very little technology capable of any WMD were "inconvenient facts" that conflicted with Dubya's little intel "study-group"
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2005 @ 3:08pm
I think I get it now. Revelation!
It has become clear that the intel used by bush and so easily swallowed by pugs is right out of 1991. Hell, it was perfectly good intel then, why not use it now.
Posted by DOUMER 11/05/2005 @ 1:53pm
When you base so much of your life on the writings bound in a single volume that range from nearly 2,000 to several thousand years old, time has no meaning. As long as something was written at some time that provides justification for a war, it's good as gold now. For the life of me I can't understand why we aren't watching Japan's military more closely; I don't like the way they are looking at Hawaii.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/05/2005 @ 3:13pm
Go take a flying leap among the turds
Posted by NACL 11/05/2005 @ 11:29am
I'm here with you aren't I? Rhetorical Question: you ain't the sharpest tack in the box, r ya?
Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2005 @ 3:40pm
WILL C.; I apologize, you are right!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/05/2005 @ 10:09am
Apology accepted!
Good luck with that Kansas thing.
Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2005 @ 3:43pm
remember... three clicks
Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2005 @ 3:57pm
Posted by WHEELS777 11/05/2005 @ 04:29am | ignore this person
There is a Harvey the rabbit aspect to the letters posted here (apologies to movie fans and James Stewart fans). The letters demonstrate a predisposition to invade Iraq on the part of those who were tapped by Dubya to lead is foreign policy apparatus. When these pronouncements are superimposed over Dubya's 2000 campaign rhetoric about a "humble foreign policy," and a disdain for "nation building," then the fraud aspects of GWB emerge and are clearly visible.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/05/2005 @ 4:10pm
find it incredulous that the leftwing nuts still think that establishing a "beach head" in Iraq was not the right thing to do to began to combat islamic terrorism and attempt to establish a forceful stabilization to the growing threat jihadism represents if allowed to spread throughout the rest of the region! Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/05/2005 @ 02:29am | ignore this person
Rio,
Are you intentionally minimizing our "beachhead" in Afghanistan? You might have a stronger case arguing that the base of "Islamic terrorism" is there rather than Iraq. It has been pointed out ad nausea in these posts that Iraq, under the thug Hussein, was a secular regime, not a country of jihadists
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/05/2005 @ 4:36pm
to establish a forceful stabilization to the growing threat jihadism represents if allowed to spread throughout the rest of the region! Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/05/2005 @ 02:29am | ignore this person
Right, Rio. We have certainly stabilized that, haven't we?
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/05/2005 @ 6:14pm
David,
RE: your debate with Randy Scheunemann moderated by Margaret Warner on the News Hour last night (11/4/05).
It's too bad for the Administration that the VP's office declined to send someone. I'm guessing this fellow Randy Scheunemann was a substitute? His fact-challenged remarks and lack of substance in his statements only furthered my suspicion that Cheney and Rumsfeld did, in fact, conspire to bypass State and control the intelligence reports presented to the president.
This is illustrated by your bringing up the fictitious meeting in Prague between Atta and an Iraqi spy supposedly reported by the Czech Intelligence Agency. This fable has been refuted by the 9/11 Commission, and yet Scheunemann persisted in blowing on those embers. Former Secretary Powell was grilled repeatedly by Senator Carl Levin of MI (Hearing before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 9/13/04) on why he (Powell) did not include this reference in his UN speech. Powell stated he had concluded there was no basis for it after spending several days and nights at CIA headquarters reviewing the intel and speaking with analysts. Powell, ever the good soldier, repelled Levin's many queries on whether there was any pressure to include this story in his remarks.
It is more than troubling that fiction – even if it comes from a shill defending the administration on a TV program – remains the only justification for this Iraq military adventure.
Posted by seattlescribe at 11/05/2005 @ 8:12pm
ILOVEPHYSICS 11/04 @ 6:49pm
You tolerate no dissent. Sieg Heil! . . . And your post didn't contain the usual level of insults and ad hominum attacks. I hope you are not feeling ill...
I realize that you, like most of your friends here, are largely defenseless. Which is why I repress the itch to lash out. Its not much fun bullying helpless outpatients.
.
Posted by NACL 11/05/2005 @ 11:15am
Obviously you are feeling fit as a fiddle. It is also obvious that you are a legend in your own mind.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/05/2005 @ 9:25pm
Where are the neo-fascist, punkass interlopers? Oh, they must be eating. Sorry punkasses, I won't interrupt your repast of fast food grease and cheap gin.
If you can find the time, come out and play!!
My best to all,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/05/2005 @ 9:54pm
I'm about ready to sign off so I'll throw a good smelly one in the fan before I leave.
Smoking Gun on Manipulation of Iraq Intelligence? 'NY Times' Cites New Document By E&P Staff Published: November 05, 2005 1:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Ever since the Democrats briefly closed the U.S. Senate from view earlier this week, to protest alleged Republican foot-dragging in probing Bush administration pre-war manipulation of intelligence, the press has been asking: So what new evidence do the Democrats have in this matter?
Tomorrow, in its print edition, The New York Times starts to answer the question, with reporter Douglas Jehl disclosing the contents of a newly declassified memo apparently passed to him by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It shows that an al-Qaeda official held by the Americans was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the basis for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to this Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002. http://tinyurl.com/dvu4r
Posted by fromredbird at 11/05/2005 @ 10:54pm
Well, I doubt the Democrats will do anything with it. fortunately, the public is watching this stuff now, so that will bring some much heavier players then the democrats into play.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/06/2005 @ 12:02am
Well, I doubt the Democrats will do anything with it. fortunately, the public is watching this stuff now, so that will bring some much heavier players then the democrats into play.
Posted by STELLARSJAY 11/06/2005 @ 12:02am
Point taken about the official offensive team but the fact of the matter is that it did come from Carl Levin and hopefully this will play out so that in the end the D collaborators will get singed, too.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 12:40am
Has anyone heard from Frank lately? How's his boy doing?
Posted by BusyHands at 11/07/2005 @ 04:13am
Where was Wilkerson in 2004? Am I the only one who feels cheated out of an "election"? I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that we can still pretend to vote and pretend it counts.My Republican neighbor tried,yesterday,to explain to me that we do still have checks and balances in this country.That the Congress's job is to oversee the President and his cabinet.When I asked why Congress never said anything about what Bush was doing until Katrina came up she said "he didn't do anything wrong"Not wanting to fight with this woman(my walking partner)I just said "you don't watch the news much do you"?Reply "no there's never anything good in the news"Sadly this is the response of a lot of good people who believe in Bush.They believed his original campaign promise of bringing Morality back to the White House and have closed their eyes and ears to all the rest.When pressed for an explaination of some of the headlines "the media is full of liberals" is a common response.That's strange because most major networks are owned by Republicans but there are some truths they can't hide.
Posted by BusyHands at 11/07/2005 @ 04:29am
busy, you are correct in that the last election was also stolen. no I'm not talking about Ohio. as you pointed out everything slightly detrimental to the administration was pushed back, including that Time magazine story about the reporter.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2005 @ 10:29am
. FROMREDBIRD 11/06 @ 12:40am
My hunch is that, in the end, it will be you guys who will get it in the teeth. You have a crushing denouement in store.
Just consider: You boys and girls opposed, bitterly opposed, the removal of the Middle East's cruelest despot. He had the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands, he amputated the tongues of his critics and attacked, without provocation, his neighbors. His govt was a true fascist dictatorship. For that you marched in the streets. You tore out your hair at the prospect of Saddam Hussein having his neck wrung. And now that he is gone and twenty million Iraqis denounce his barbarities, you yet try to justify your collaboration. That is on the record. That is down in writing, in video and audio. You are nailed.
But not just for your support of Saddam.
Now America is spending its blood and treasure to shield a struggling Iraqi govt. That govt is besieged by fanatics who openly disdain democracy, religious toleration and free speech. The insurgents have declared those values, evil. They make no bones about preferring the fascist Baath. They have no compulsion about blowing up civilian crowds in the streets, in voting stations and even in mosques. You have chosen that side.
You seek an American withdrawal that you know will most likely produce a ferocious civil war and most probably an insurgent victory. You seek the conditions that will make for the triumph of the most terrible totalitarians since the Nazis. That is where you stand. You think you will get away with such a performance? You think there will not be hell to pay?
The left has fully disqualified itself. It has lost its integrity, its intellectual honesty, its common sense. It will no longer be taken seriously.
But it stood exposed before. There were the 1930s show-trials. There was the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. There was the denunciation of Stalin and the Gulags. There were the Soviet tanks suppressing the Hungarian Revolution. There was the view which the crumbling Berlin Wall exposed. Again and again the truth behind the left came to the surface. And every time, after the initial shock, all was forgotten or forgiven, and the old song and dance soon returned.
Yes, nevertheless, this time something major will snap. You do not become the outright ally of the worst fascists since Heydrich hanged democrats from meat hooks, without lasting repercussions. The Iraq episode wont be wiped away. It will not be forgotten or forgiven. It is on the record ineradicably. The left's own efforts to justify itself, are digging its hole deeper and deeper. No one with sense, no one with integrity, no one with any pride, looking back, will want any truck with such fools and scoundrels.
The country will by the end of the decade have moved markedly right. The left has betrayed the most basic American values. It will be more than singed, it will be broadly repudiated. It will evoke a shudder. It will become a thing of infamy.
That loss will NOT be an unmitigated blessing. The left has important and positive values and traditions. In the absence of that leavening the country will be the poorer. But it will create an opportunity. It will open the door to a political and social movement from an entirely new direction.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/07/2005 @ 10:47am
.
Neither China or North Korea worked out the physics or chemistry of the bomb for themselves. Nor had they mastered the metalurgy. Nor did they build the bomb from scratch. Far from it. Beginning in 1955 the USSR began helping China mine uranium. In 1957 the USSR promised China a complete bomb and help in setting up a production capacity. Some 230 Russian scientists and technicians along with equipment, technical data and blueprints were supplied. That relationship soured and that help was suspended in 1960, but the Chinese had gotten a very substantial boost. Furthermore, several of China's top nuclear physicists were trained in the USA.
North Korea too was helped. First by the Russians who gave them a small research reactor in 1967 and later the Yongbyon 30-megawatt reactor that went critical in 1985. China helped too, including with the yet incomplete 200-MWe reactor at Taechon. Furthermore Pyongyang got the Zippe centrifuge design, which is German technology plundered by the Soviets after WWII, from Pakistan. But the key NK approach was to qualify for reactor fuel under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and after the fuel was supplied they renounced the treaty. What that requires is a culture that is comfortable with bribery and bullying, lying and trickery.
If you want an idea of what the China that produced the bomb was like, read: Mao, The Untold Story, by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. At one poin, during the Great Leap Forwar, Mao experimented with eliminating names and identifying people by numbers.
Cut the crap. Your gushings about everyone's equal ability to "acquire this awful knowledge" has nothing to do with John Lock or America's principals. Lock was not snowed by pieties. He was famously - an empiricist, a show-me guy. So too the Founders. They granted that everyone has a natural claim to fundamental rights. But they had a low opinion of human nature and did not trust the public further than they could throw it. Which is why the electorate is tied to an electoral college and we have a Bill of Rights and the countervailing powers checks govt. Look at the jerks just on this board. Where would civilization be if it depended on their capacity to think and imagine, and on their respect for the truth, or their sense of fairness?
.
Posted by nacl at 11/07/2005 @ 11:08am
.
He was capable -
* of serving as an assassin, which was why he had to flee Iraq in 1959,
* of attacking Iran without provokation in 1980, causing the death of at least 750,000 Iranian and Iraqi troops,
* of poison gas warfare against Iran beginning in Nov 1980 and against his own citizens in 1988,
* of the 1986 - 89 Anfal campaign that killed around 182,000 Kurds,
* of seizing Kuwait and dragging hundreds of Kuwaitis into Baghadad dungeons, from which they never emerged,
* of suddenly restoring to Iran the conquered Shatt el Arab territory (plus the best part of his airforce),
* of calling his drubbing during Desert Storm, a victory,
* of raining 36 Scuds on TelAviv apartment blocks, though Israel had nothing to do with the Kuwait war,
* of putting 300,000 Shias into mass graves according to the UN and HRW,
* of draining and cleansing the wetlands of southern Iraq of half a million marsh Arabs,
* of threatening to turn Israel into a sheet of flame,
* of $25,000 bonuses to suicide bombers,
* of an edict in 2000 that punished with tongue amputation anyone who spoke against him or his family.
But you are right, that is not "everything."
For "everything" you have to look at the cretins who were capable of protesting on behalf of a mass killer and fascist like Saddam. You have to look at the humanitarians now taking the sided of insurgents who behead journalists and openly denounce democracy and freedom of speech and religioius toleration as evil. Your ilk is capable of that.
You haven's even have the decency to be ashamed.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/07/2005 @ 11:33am
NaCl
Sadaam was a genocidal bastard...so what? Wasn't exactly news and certainly not the reason we went to war. (Unless you are using hindsighted logic to justify perhaps?) The ONLY item on your list that could be construed towards the spectre of "imminent threat" is the last...and that could have been solved with a single bullet.
Nice try. Thanks for playing and come again...
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 12:00pm
. DOUMER 11/05 @ 1:48pm
Every newspaper reader with normal acuity knows that the Osirak reactor was bombed in 1981 just before its nuclear fuel rods were installed. That fissile material obviously remained at hand, in Saddam's hand, even if, ostensibly under IAEA scrutiny. So too the nuclear material in two smaller Soviet supplied research reactors. It was, as I already explained, this stuff that the Iraqis meant to quickly pack into a few nuclear devices at the time of Desert Shield.
But it was I who asked you (in NACL 11/05 @ 11:48am) for an explanation of "DOUMER 11/04 @ 8:00pm". And in my post: "NACL 11/04 @ 12:22am" I corrected your earlier, "DOUMER 11/03 @ 6:31pm" rubbish with a link and asked for your apology.
Where is that apology, or a rebutal?
Instead you had the impudence to say: "Think about what you post before doing so."
You fraud.
That is a good illustration of your dishonesty, your finagling. Because that is your twisted response to the following words of mine about enriching uranium:
In 1991 Saddam promised, as a condition of peace, to make himself transparent. His murderous performance and his proven appetite for acquiring WMD fully justified that stipulation. However, throughout the following 12 years he studiously refused to make himself transparent. Instead he played footsies with the inspectors and for the final four years locked the UN out completely.
Following 1991 we did not have to prove that Saddam had WMD. We had the invoices and manifests showing what he had purchased in equipment and material and was capable of putting together. He had accepted the responsibility of demonstrating that he had destroyed or surrendered all of that.
We were fully justified in assuming he retained WMD and a capacity to build them, because he refused to make himself transparent, and because he undertook a gigantic effort, including forgoing $100 billion in oil revenues, to obstruct our view.
Posted by nacl at 11/07/2005 @ 12:01pm
.
It is not a game when you go to bat for a mass murdering fascist. May I invite you to stick your head out the window - feet first.
You monkey with the truth, you specious, spite filled jerk.
I had said that plutonium does not occur in nature but must be created in a nuclear reactor (in contrast to uranium which is mined). That is correct. An estimated 1,500 tons of plutonium have been produced since 1944, all of it was bred in reactors. Not a gram has been mined. To say plutonium occurs in nature in "small quantities" is nonsense. You can say that about U235 which composes seven tenths of one percent of uranium, which occurs in rock in concentrations of 3 parts per million. But no one can reasonably say that about plutonium.
It is a transuranic element. Those are virtually all man made. The possibility of their existence only began to be postulated and confirmed when cyclotrons came into the world. If the earth's crust contained even just modest amounts of plutonium they would produce dangerous radiation zones and spontaneous chain reactions and explosions.
Extremely minute trace amounts exist in the earth's crust because, in rare instances, rocks with a high localized concentration of uranium can, under special conditions, spontaneously and in a miniscule way, duplicate the fission process of a nuclear reactor. In close proximity to an element like beryllium, the alpha particles from the decaying uranium will release neutrons which might incite the mutation of a U238 atom into U239 which will within minutes lose an electron and transmute into neptunium which within a matter of days will decay into a stable isotope of plutonium. But this happens about as often as a Nation poster has a sensible ideation. In short, practically speaking, never.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/07/2005 @ 12:16pm
Busy & Johann
re: elections, etc. I say to hell with the Electoral College. It no longer fills its function as designed anyway and puts an uneeded layer of BS between the will of the people and the election process. Per the FEC the college "...the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns while maintaining the balances..."
Obviously this is NOT the case anymore. I say go back to the popular vote and let the 1st place, 2nd place be Pres & VP! Let go "old school" and have *real* elections! (Or split the electorate as only 2-3 states do now!)
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 12:20pm
NACL: Me--- a fraud? I should apologize to you? Re-read your posts. You don't even come close to debunking anything I said in earlier posts. The context here, if you can move ahead a few years is intel available in 2002-2003.I don't give a shit about the fuel rods in Osirak -- which you claim "in 1981 just before its nuclear fuel rods were installed" if that was the case what use could they put to if there was no reactor around to deplete the fuel to prepare it for processing into plutonium?
The UN inspectors were in Iraq from 1991 through 1998 and pretty much eradicated any stockpiles of WMD. Further inspections, after they were resumed in 2002 conclusively showed no re-emergence of WMD build -up. AND, clearly thorough inspection after April 2003 again conclusively proved no re-emergent WMD's.
You are obviously the fraud here. I won't stoop to your level. Or maybe I will. get your head outta your ass and breathe deeply for a change.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 12:59pm
NaCl
I expect no better from you NaCl....you indeed show your party colors on your sleeve. Venom versus discourse is what we expect from you and thus no surprises. As to spite....I am surprised you want to share that claim with anyone!.
I never laid claim that useful quantities of Pu derive from natural sources. Just correcting a misstatement. Per a standard definition Plutonium also exists in trace quantities in naturally occurring uranium ores. So if I am specious, I am so without intent. Blame it on my training in the geologic sciences.
Along that line though It takes about 10 kilograms of nearly pure Pu-239 to make a bomb. Producing this would require 30 megawatt-years of reactor operation, with frequent fuel changes and reprocessing the 'hot' fuel. Weapons-grade Pu is made by burning natural uranium fuel to the extent of only about 100 MWd/t (effectively 3 months), instead of the 45,000 MWd/t typical of power reactors (or even the 8000 - 10,000 MWd/t in Magnox reactors used for power). From http://www.uic.com.au/nip18.htm
Hussein's ability to produce Plutonium in useable quanta is about akin to using naturally occurring matter.....doubtful at best. For the record though, there are lots of assorted "heavy" radioactives in Earth's crust....and are responsible in large part for keeping it toasty for these billions of years!
re: "It is not a game when you go to bat for a mass murdering fascist.
Never said I was behind the man, so I guess you pulled that one out of your ass...where much of the shit you sling derives I suppose. I'll own up to what is mine...so don't you go feeling the need to put words in my mouth. I see you also danced around the real point of my post. Again...no surprises, only blathering the party line.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 1:03pm
Mary, it is your post that is pointless. now we are going to attack countries on their perceived intent? your heroes, Bush and Cheney, are liars and despite your many protestations we all know it.
many times we are told how if the western powers had attacked Hitler in 1938 all the genocide could have been avoided. what nonsense. you might as well argue that strangling baby Adolf in the crib would have avoided all the bloodshed. what would they have attacked Germany for? for writing Mein Kampf?
the fact is though Saddam would have liked to have weapons and more importantly the means to deliver them, he was not a threat to America. even if he had a nuclear bommb how would he have shipped to to the US? by Fed EX?
you can puff yourself up all you like, Mary, you and your kind have been left behind by history, you are irrelevant
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2005 @ 1:03pm
MBB
So how many countries are also "wanting to aquire nukes" I wonder? Shall we form a hit list of all the countries doing stuff we don't like? Your hindsight to justify the BS past is pitiable.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 1:06pm
Johann
Everyone knows about Sadaam's secret swimming camel navy! Just tuck a scud up its butt, send him swimming (with a suicide bomber on his back) and there ya go!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 1:08pm
MBB: Your points are totally irrelevant. You operate on the "what if" mindset.
"What if" may provide logical scenarios if dots connect, but never when there is cooked and manipulated intel to back it up. face it and face it hard, this whole connundrum is unravelling and this corrupt administration is going down.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 1:10pm
Left:LOL Kind of reminds me a of a cartoon that circulated after Gulf I. A camel backed up to a tree stump with a scud stuck down its neck. The camel's balls are hung on the stump and an Iraqi gettin ready to swing with a sledge hammer.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 1:14pm
Doumer
LOL...classic
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 2:00pm
NaCl
As a goodwill effort to lift you out of geologic ignorance go read this: http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/natures-nuclear-reactor0204/
See nuclear fission HAS happened naturally and the Earth hasn't blown up as a result yet!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 2:06pm
NACL,
Does a decision not to go to war against a country mean that all who agree with that decision sympathize with the leader of that country? This is what you imply with your logic-defying opinion that those who did not support the war are in cahoots with Saddam. This is just, plain shtoopid, to use WILLC's word.
MBB,
You have made yourself a completely irrelevant poster here by refusing over and over again to address arguments against your unjustifiable beliefs. If you'd like, I could cut and paste the "imminent threat" quotes again so that you could print them out and tack them to your fridge.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/07/2005 @ 2:16pm
But this happens about as often as a Nation poster has a sensible ideation. In short, practically speaking, never.
.
Posted by NACL 11/07/2005 @ 12:16am
He remarks, as he posts at The Nation.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2005 @ 2:37pm
You see, the beauty of this strategy is you don't have to be perfect. You don't have to apply your preemptive principle with perfect consistency. You just have to demonstrate that the consequences are unacceptably high and can be imposed if Bush gets up on the wrong side of the bed. That is enough to be an effective deterrent.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 2:46pm
Translation: If Bush is viewed as mentally unstable, then a grand total of ONE dictator will voluntarily give up his nuclear ambition. Meanwhile, at least TWO countries on Bush's list of enemies will get worried enough about the wacko US president to seek nuclear arsenals. As they say in the Guinness commercials, "brilliant!" "Brilliant!"
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2005 @ 2:53pm
MBB: Wrong on both counts.
The US is seen as weak. Inability to effectively and conclusively defeat a third rate military such as Iraq, is what in your twisted logic? Why has Iran had the balls to issue threats such as it did last week? Iran and the rest of the Islamic world knows we have neither the military wherewithall or the backing from the world community to do more than bark. Can you not see what is happeneing right in front of your eyes? Check what is happening in Uzbekistan and soon to happen in Azerbejian? Is North Korea in its "last throes" in its quest for great big WMD?
France is dealing with an internal problem involving assimilation, or lack thereof of its various minority groups. Nothing else. You have better believe that the French are listening and will find some sort of higher ground to address their problems.To me and the rest of the world, this is called "dialogue". We in America---we just lock them up on zero grounds or deport them. In other words, we bury our problems or pretend they don't exist.Or we lie about them. New Orleans sound familiar?
Re your point on Qaddafi: he began to change his tune in 2001 when he agreed to extradite the person(s) responsoble for Lockebie. Nothing to do with bush's wars.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 3:03pm
France is experiencing the "race" riots we had here in the 60s and 70s.
so we invaded Iraq as a deterrent, attacking a nation which had NOT attacked us to frighten those that did attack us. brilliant, and the entire mid east has turned into a garden of peace and democracy. what bullshit
the fact is that no matter why and how we attacked Iraq and no matter how many phony rationalisations are slapped on that puppy, the situation there and here stinks because of it.
a country destroyed, a people decimated, troops and their lives wasted. tell us again how swell it's going over there. when will our troops be welcomed as liberators, when will Iraq be able to pay for this catastrophe, and when will our Iraqis be able to defend themselves? it has been several years now that we've been "training " them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2005 @ 3:23pm
MBB
As far as I can ascertain, Ari Fleischer has used the actual word "imminent" in this context. Most of the rest say things like "looming". However, In Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush said, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." Bush reiterated the claim from British Intelligence that Saddam could launch a chemical missile attack with 45 minutes. Seems like "imminence" is implied to me?
Howzabout instead of a quote, you can hear from the horses' own orifices! Just go here: HERE [geodude.home.mchsi.com] Again, while no one uses the term "imminent" the message is pretty clear, as well as painting the false Iraq-9/11 link.
How about too the actual resolution of force which says the US is going to "(1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. " (And let us not forget we said this in spite of the UN's non-support))
Is that enough to show a dishonorable action?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2005 @ 3:37pm
MBB,
Here is where I think your confusion lies: As reported in March 2002 by CBS News (don't laugh), "President Bush said Friday he believed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that the United States had "no imminent plans" to attack."
Yet, Ari Fleischer had this exchange in May 2003: "PRESS: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
"MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it."
And from a "Press Gaggle" with Scott McClellan aboard Air Force One on February 10, 2003.
"QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
"MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose."
The Administration was trying to get NATO involved by arguing that Turkey was in imminent danger from Iraq. This is not the same as saying that the USA is in imminent danger, though Fleischer successfully conflated the two as had many Americans. The reason for the confusion was deliberate on the part of the Administration.
Consider "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended," as told by Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03.
Or in Bush's words: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder," stated on 3/19/03, or "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations" stated on 3/16/03.
Or there is Cheney stating on 1/30 and 1/31/03 that Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies," that Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world," that Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
No "imminent" used, but it sure sounds like they could hurt us bad at any time. I can find no source to back up your assertion that "Bush specifically said the threat was not imminent." To be honest "imminent threat" is a silly phrase. It's hard to be a threat to something if you're saying, "Just a minute. I'll threaten you in a little bit."
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/07/2005 @ 3:40pm
Speaking of perceptions, note that the US is now perceived as strong in the "Arab street" and France is seen as week. And France has violent riots in 300 cities and the US has zero. You seem to forget that the Islamofascists didn't all graduate from Harvard and don't have the same values as you do.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 2:46pm
You're quite consistent at conflating one unrelated fact with another and claiming that 1 + 1 = 6.
As someone already correctly pointed out the US has lost an immense amount of stature among Arabs/Muslims because of the Republican Iraq blitzkrieg stupidity. Polls taken at the time showed that a majority of Arabs/Muslims sympathized with the US after 9/11. The Republican incompetemts in the White House have succeeeded in turning that around 180 degrees. The fact that you are incapable of recognizing that illustrates how unlikely it is that a conversation with you will produce anything positive and also how unlikely it is that the Republican Party can ever produce anything good for America since it's heart and soul consists of know-nothings.
The riots in France are quite specifically a result of persistent French racism rather than anyone's religion and that same attitude is obviously alive and well in you when you refer to an entire group of people as "Islamofascists". What did you call the people in America who were rioting in the late '60's and '70's . . . "Christofascists"? Or something else? Go ahead, you can share it with us.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 4:02pm
Mary Mary,
Nuance, implication, these are standard literary devices that are lost to you. You are a literalist. Without the plain spoken word "imminent" coming from the presidents mouth then we liberals can't make the claim that the Bush administration made the case that Saddam was an imminent threat even if all the presidents' minions were implying that he was.
I once saw a woman pick up a baby and say, "you're so cute I could just eat you all up." My guess is that from your literalist position if you saw that same women do that same thing you would have no choice but to call a cop and preemptively abort hardcore cannibalism. But if through the woman's tone, body language and facial expressions you can detect that our heroine doesn't intend to actually have the kid over for lunch, then you are quite capable of understanding the Liberal position.
Unless you're just "Schtoopid".
That's where my money lies.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 4:57pm
What did I call the people rioting in the ‘60s and'70s? Hippies, I suppose.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 5:02pm
No, Rioters!
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 5:05pm
No, you probably called them Commie agitators, MBB.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2005 @ 5:09pm
Mary, I suspect that you were too young to call anyone anything in the 60s. there were race riots in the 60s, the rioters were neither hippies, a pronounced pacifist bunch, or communists, they were americans who had been screwed for a hundreds of years
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2005 @ 5:14pm
The baby analogy here is the woman says "eat you up". And the baby dies of SIDS and you want to send the woman to prison for murder, because after all, she threatened the baby.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 5:13pm
Were there any teeth marks on the corpse?
Get out of the main stream mary, you're drowning!
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 5:16pm
the only word to follow Maryetc is braindead
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2005 @ 5:17pm
We should return to the debate as to whether The Nation is collectivst or not.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 5:15pm
I collect stuff
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 5:17pm
MBB- China is growing in power all the time, they are competing very successfully for key resources (oil), are becoming more innovative, increasing their military projection capabilities, etc. So, isn't it likely that a few years out they could be a threat to the US? So, shouldn't we pre-emptively attack them?
Just an example, but do you seriously believe that our foreign policy should focus on drawing up a series of scenarios for every country, determine which ones appear to present the highest future threat and then eliminate those countries? I mean, of course, engage in a little regime change, planting some seeds of democracy. Imagine, if you will, that we could take a sort of "net present value" approach for comparing future threats. Thus, a really big threat many decades out is less threatening then a series of smaller threats in the next few years. Once we have the formulas worked out, we'd draw up the attack plans and away we'd go.
What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by Fishbite at 11/07/2005 @ 5:26pm
The money I collect Says "United States Of America" on it. You have your own Money?
Print it yourself I take it?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 5:28pm
I think there are two different battles going on, because it seems to me that my points and MARYBRETBRAD's points are missing each other by wide margins. I thought the imminent threat was primarily a matter of context, innuendo and linguistics. MBB seems to think it is about the CIA's bad information. Which means I can conclude nothing. I think his point is that if Iraq was an imminent threat it was the CIA's fault and not Bush's; however, he points out that Bush did not say imminent threat. Does this take the CIA off the hook? Apparently from MBB's response I was supposed to factor WMD into this, even though I thought I was just looking at WORDS.
And since I was looking at words I thought Bush's statement that he had no "imminent plans" to attack Iraq was a riot. First, because it was a lie. Anyone who thought he was not itching for a fight is a goddamn fool. Anyone who thought he was looking for a diplomatic solution was a goddamn fool. Second, because an "imminent plan" means nothing. Is he indicating that plans were not "about to happen" or "impending"--two of the primary definitions of "imminent"? Of course they were. How can you begin steps toward war without planning to have plans in your back pocket? [We realize now that it is possible to take steps toward war without having good plans in your pocket.]
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/07/2005 @ 5:37pm
Second, because an "imminent plan" means nothing. Is he indicating that plans were not "about to happen" or "impending"--two of the primary definitions of "imminent"? Of course they were.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 11/07/2005 @ 5:37pm
TJ
Funny story! I was taking some classes at Rutgers U during the lead up to the Gulf War when I stumbled onto one of the candlelight vigils for the troops that the kids were holding. The chant was "We support the troops. Troops out now". I walked up to one of the kids on the edge and struck up a conversation in which I said "You guys should be happy to know you are going to get your wish." He gave me this weird look and said, " what do you mean."
I replied, "When the troops come out, it will be now."
He wasn't amused.
I thought it was a riot.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 5:50pm
Hey MBB:
Can you say PNAC? Well defined plans to do Iraq go back many years.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 5:50pm
WILL C,
I think that's pretty darn funny. I did in-depth research some years ago showing that 2 out of every 3 chants at marches or demonstrations are certifiably stupid. And that even includes the ones that "demonstrate" that the participants can count to four, can make simple rhymes, or can answer questions such as "what do we want" and "when do we want it".
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/07/2005 @ 6:08pm
Mary Mary
Give it up. You're screaming loudly in an empty room to hear your own echo.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 6:15pm
MBB:
No lies? How about these?
US President George W Bush - 17 June 2004:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
9/11 Commission - 16 June 2004:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."
US Vice-President Dick Cheney - January 2004:
"There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq".
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - January 2004:
"The most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda."
US Secretary of State Colin Powell - January 2004:
"I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed."
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - September 2003:
"Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged."
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - November 2002:
"Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda."
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 6:18pm
Bush said: "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases." (MBB, how's that for a relationship?)
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 6:57pm
Oooooooooooo, and Gee Dubya even said it.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 6:59pm
Am I spoiling the party?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 7:03pm |
you're the only one who showed
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:04pm
THESE LYING BASTARDS LIED US INTO THIS WAR
1. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.
2. The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
3. There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
4. In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
5. I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
6. The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.
7. The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how.
All of these statements are those of Senate Democrats. The first three were made by Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The fourth, by Hillary Clinton. The fifth, by Joe Lieberman. The sixth, by John Edwards. The seventh, by Ted Kennedy. And the list could go on.
IMPEACH THE LYING BASTARDS NOW
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 7:08pm
IMPEACH THE LYING BASTARDS NOW
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 7:08pm
Mary Mary
Your friend showed up. Time to fire up the disco ball
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:10pm
WillC If I'm the only one here I guess it's because Liberals scatter from facts like cockroachs from sun light. Or is that vampires?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 7:09pm
I can see you've already smoked a big fat one. I hope you saved some for BUSHRULES
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:11pm
last word
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:20pm
:)
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:21pm
IMPEACH THE LIBS THAT LIED TO US
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 7:21pm
WillC If I'm the only one here I guess it's because Liberals scatter from facts like cockroachs from sun light. Or is that vampires?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 7:09pm
From the man who doesn't believe atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to global warming...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2005 @ 7:21pm
From the man who doesn't believe atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to global warming...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 11/07/2005 @ 7:21pm
from a man who believes that cockroaches are even aware of vampires
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:26pm
at least enough to hate them
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:27pm
The majority of DemoRATS voted for this war...this war they lied to us about...Its time to hold hearings on thier intellegence(which wont take long) and impeach these low lifes immediately
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 7:35pm
MBB:
"(MBB Salman Pak was an AQ terrorist training camp in Iraq. There must have been a relationship for Saddam to allow an AQ training camp.)
Well, you did it again. Salman Pak? Are you perhaps referencing the Ansar al Islam camp buried in the mountains of the Kurdish provinces. "The group Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. On the other hand, the location of the group's bases very close to the Iranian border, taken together with credible reports of the return of some Ansar al-Islam fighters to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran, suggest that these fighters have received at least limited support from some Iranian sources. Villagers living under Ansar al-Islam control, and mainstream Islamists who have visited those areas, reported to Human Rights Watch that Iranian agents had been present on occasion. However, the exact nature of relations between the two sides is unclear: PUK and other sources acknowledged that Iran had played a mediating role aimed at ending the clashes between PUK and Ansar al-Islam forces."
Is this what you refer to? Now we have Iranians doing their thing? Get it right if you are going to quote something of substance. Iranians are Shia. Islamists for the most part are Wahabi or a deviant sect of Sunni. they dont like each other. Kinda like Baptists and Mormons. Al Queda is Islamist!! AND, Hussein was in bed with Iran in aiding and abetting this camp? Get real!
Another thing: "US Vice-President Dick Cheney - January 2004:
"There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq".
Where is that evidence? Who controlled Kurdistan from 1991 onward? Husseins army would venture no futher than Kirkut during that time. In effect, Kurdistan was in the hands of the peshmerga and its US allies. This was re-inforced with the no fly zones and the fact that American troops were on the ground in Kurdistan during this time.
So the conclusion is: Cheney lied.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 7:35pm
So the conclusion is: Kerry, Clinto(both),Gore,Kennedy, Durbin, and most Libs LIED TO US> IMPEACH IMPEACH
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 7:38pm
So the conclusion is: Kerry, Clinto(both),Gore,Kennedy, Durbin, and most Libs LIED TO US> IMPEACH IMPEACH
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 7:38pm |
yea baby let's do it
except for clinton and gore though. They no longer hold public office
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:40pm
and right after they vote out Gee Dubya and Dick
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:41pm
thank god for that
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 7:41pm
I was hoping you would see it my way
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 7:45pm
Trying to communicate with MBB is like trying to train a kitten. You can show him the error of his ways and the proper way to do things and he still ends up clawing the furniture and peeing on the floor. And then looks at you real cute-like as if no training had ever occured.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/07/2005 @ 8:18pm
more insults....
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 8:19pm
more insults....
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 8:19pm
I understand the repetition. But you guys usually are much more verbose. Are you not feeling well?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 8:21pm
FROMREDBIRD Islamofascist is not "code" for Muslim. It specifically identifies that tiny subset of Muslims who believe in using terrorism as a political means to an end. So the whole group I'm talking about is all people who support using murder as an acceptable political tool. That is a tiny subset of Muslims.
What did I call the people rioting in the ‘60s and'70s? Hippies, I suppose.
Is it acceptable to refer to all hippies as "hippies" or is that, what? Racist? Sexists? Liberalist? What is the name of that sin?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 5:02pm
The one thing you carefully left out was why you didn't call the American rioters of the 60's and 70's "Christofascist". Would you today call the tiny subset of Adolph Hitler and his followers "Christofascists"? Why the disconnect? Why is Islam the only religion in which those among them who are "murderers" are referred to by you with a name which conflates their religion with the word "fascist"? Any explanation?
"Islamofascist" is unequivocally a code word for Muslim. The purpose of using it is to demean Muslims and that's exactly why you used it. Your mealymouthed denial is just compounding the disrepute into which the original sin has thrown you. That sin is racism and cultural zenophobia, the bread and butter of the Republican Party. You called H. Rap Brown a "hippy"? Is there an honest Republican anywhere on planet earth?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 8:55pm
Johannes,
I am in New York,
The beer place is called the MARKt on 14th?
Posted by john maasch at 11/07/2005 @ 8:56pm
The actual link is Salman Pak. That is a terrorist training camp in Iraq when terrorists trained for the 9/11-type attacks.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 4:54pm
That's a big load of horse manure. Salman Pak had an airplane mockup to train commandos how to storm and retake a hijacked aircraft, not how to hijack an aircraft. Every country the size of Iraq would have training for that. That lie was discredited many years ago but there you have it- another Republican repeating it like the Energizer bunny . . think Dick Cheney. Lie, lie, and lie again: the Republican virtues.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 9:04pm
"think Dick Cheney. Lie, lie, and lie again: the Republican virtues."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewensky"
DemoncRAT Virtues
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 9:09pm
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewensky"
DemoncRAT Virtues
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 9:09pm
It's a guy thing. You wouldn't understand
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 9:15pm
On February 11, 2003--a year after the DIA report--CIA Director George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful."
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 6:57pm
You've been really flogging this, trying to get your adored chimp-fuhrer off the hook. It's clear as day that Bush demanded a get out of jail free card from Tenet as a confirmation of loyalty and he got it with the "slam dunk" comment. Tenet's been trying to wriggle between the cracks ever since. The big reward he got was a Medal of Freedom bestowed by what will be the most reviled President in American history- a Republican, of course, what other kind of reviled American President is there? Bush knew everything that was going on and he was continually requesting, nay, demanding, lies to use as a traistorous prop for the invasion of Iraq. This is who you wish to identify yourself with? Is that a political party or a disease?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 9:16pm
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewensky"
DemoncRAT Virtues
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 9:09pm
It's a guy thing. You wouldn't understand
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2005 @ 9:15pm
Definitely he should sign up for remedial training. When someone thinks it's as bad to have sex as it is to murder 100,000 human beings they obviously weren't paying attention somewhere along the line.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 9:20pm
Lib responses are so predictable
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 9:24pm
All of which makes one thing clear: Carl Levin may still believe there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
But the Iraqis, who might have had unique insight into such matters, thought otherwise.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/07/2005 @ 7:07pm
Can you tie it down with another quote from Dick Cheney? He and The Weekly Standard are so-o-o-o believable.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 9:28pm
Lib responses are so predictable
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 9:24pm
Ok, what's my next response going to be?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 9:31pm
Will:
Can I help? Man you jus don't get NASCAR do ya?
To Dufus: You ran from the other Nation thread for what? Too much a dat thinking shit> You are still a punk coward. Can't put together a single thought. I'm ashamed to call you a brethern American.
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 9:37pm
Man you jus don't get NASCAR do ya?
Posted by DOUMER 11/07/2005 @ 9:37pm
It's much more fun going around in circles here. I get to drive.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 9:39pm
thank god for that
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/07/2005 @ 7:41pm
Kudos to WILL C. You finally got BUSHRULES to realize that he's been bamboozled, Bush lied us into war, and we have been here all along to help him. Now on to the impeachment issue.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 9:40pm
"Now on to the impeachment issue"
Yes its time to impeach the lying DIM Senators that have been lying to us about Saddams WMDs since the 90's. IMPEACH
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 9:52pm
THESE LYING DIM BASTARDS LIED US INTO THIS WAR
1. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.
2. The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
3. There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
4. In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
5. I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
6. The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.
7. The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how.
All of these statements are those of Senate Democrats. The first three were made by Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The fourth, by Hillary Clinton. The fifth, by Joe Lieberman. The sixth, by John Edwards. The seventh, by Ted Kennedy. And the list could go on.
IMPEACH THE LYING DIM BASTARDS NOW
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 9:54pm
DIMS LIED KIDS DIED
Posted by bushrules at 11/07/2005 @ 9:57pm
pitch forks, torches, on three
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 10:00pm
I bid you all a very good night. And: Bushrules, may your dreams be filled with Bush riding his bicycle yelling "giggy yap".
Posted by doumer at 11/07/2005 @ 10:04pm
BushRulz - Go away! Now! You're polluting this site with your tiresome bullshit. If you keep on ranting and reposting your crap everywhere, you will be ignored. I know it's hard to keep reading that your hero, far from ruling, is actually going down the crapper. Hey, shit happens.
Apologies for scatalogical emphasis, but this guy warrants it.
Posted by FISHBITE 11/07/2005 @ 10:45pm | ignore this person
Just an observation here, but,..
"BushRulz ....... If you keep on ranting and reposting your crap everywhere, you will be ignored. I know it's hard to keep reading that your hero, far from ruling, is actually going down the crapper. Hey, shit happens.
Apologies for scatalogical emphasis, but this guy warrants it.
Posted by FISHBITE 11/07/2005 @ 10:45pm |"
The point he might be making , the feeling you all have about Bush lied, impeach Bush, only in war for oil,..all the things spewed here...are to the conservatives as mind numbing for us you seem to feel Bushrules posts are to you. This is EXACTLY how many of us feel on the right..that it is the mind numbing repitition of the talking points proliferated by not only the left, but MSM..
Now, just imagine the posts of Bushrules , on this site, on everysite, every day of every blog, on every TV station ,of every....you get the point,that no matter what is proven , unproven, quoted, leaked, legal nonlegal,...everything comes back to the same points you read and post here ad nuaseum.. Bush lied, cheney and libby, homo phobes...on and on inspite of all..
He is just exampling by example.....but I am sure no one here will get it, except wllc...by the way how are ya? Did I see a post by you refering to pitch forks and torches?...Satanic? :)
By the way, how about those tolerant and enlightened Frogs, speaking of torches.....Is Paris burning,...must be Bush"s fault..No economic growth, no jobs, no racial tolerance, could it be Muslim radicals attacking the West?.....nah.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/07/2005 @ 11:08pm | ignore this person
Posted by john maasch at 11/07/2005 @ 11:11pm
Man you jus don't get NASCAR do ya?
Posted by DOUMER 11/07/2005 @ 9:37pm
It's much more fun going around in circles here. I get to drive.
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2005 @ 9:39pm
I like to freak out my many conservatives friends, co-workers, and acquaintances by the fact that I know more about NASCAR and football than they do. Some things we outgrow; some childhood loves just won't die. Freaks my wife out too, when I identify a driver simply by his voice and then tell her his sponsor and number.
That's right, Len Mosse. I can be one of you. I've infiltrated. And when you think that NASCAR is supporting torture camps in eastern Europe or illegal retention of prisoners in Gitmo, remember that some parts of NASCAR think you're full of it. And my part of NASCAR can actually spell, burdened with unnecessary university degrees and untold interests beyond cooked meat, the Lord Jesus Christ, little glimpses of cleavage at Hooter's, and the private life of Kenny Chesney.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/07/2005 @ 11:35pm
After checking the time and the size of my scroll bar, I've realized that I won't be able to finish all of MBB and Bushrules' entertaining posts before I need to go.
For now, my two cents:
Although I feel that many Senate Dems and Repubs were mislead into actually believing Saddam was a threat and may have learned too late that the evidence simply didn't add up, I do agree with Bushrules: let's impeach them all. Perhaps the Senate can put together a Senate committe to investigate itself. But really, BR, you continually hammer away at this point--that some Democrats also believed Saddam to be a threat. Does anyone seem to argue? No, but then you just keep hammering. In other words, BR, okay. Fine. We're all proud of you. Way to go!
MBB, as a U.S. Citizen and linguist currently living in the Middle East, I simply find you hilarious! Keep it up! Don't stray too far far from that rightwing MSM, you might not be so much fun. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Jason
Posted by Litz at 11/08/2005 @ 05:54am
MBB
"Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
Do I win?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/08/2005 @ 07:08am
Maasch:"By the way, how about those tolerant and enlightened Frogs, speaking of torches.....Is Paris burning,...must be Bush"s fault..No economic growth, no jobs, no racial tolerance, could it be Muslim radicals attacking the West?.....nah.
this is the kind of nonsense we could do without. no one has connected Bush to the riots in France. that's just you playing rhetorical games, coy and snide. this adds nothing to the argument and is unworthy of a serious person, are you one?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 10:41am
By the way, how about those tolerant and enlightened Frogs, speaking of torches.....Is Paris burning,...must be Bush"s fault..No economic growth, no jobs, no racial tolerance, could it be Muslim radicals attacking the West?.....nah.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/07/2005 @ 11:08pm
No, John, it's absolutely "the Muslim radical's" fault. It had nothing at all to do with America's Republican administration and it's mass murder in the Muslim world and it certainly didn't have anything to do with the French telling Muslims that they have to dress exactly the way the French like. Nor did it have anything to do with the fact that Italian media yesterday ran an expose' of the American Republican administration's extensive use of chemical weapons in Falluja last year, including lots of photos and video. Muslims all over the world knew this last year but of course it doesn't count until the good white people find out in their own media years later. For Christ's sake- don't we all wish those "radical Muslims" would stop their imperialism against the innocent West? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2005 @ 12:04pm
MARYBRETBRAD and BUSHRULES just went on the ignore list. JOHN MAASCH can channel their esoteric wisdom to me for now. I'm in favor of everyone being able to practice the religion of their choice but I don't have to go to their church. Who knows- if a lie is exposed once but repeated 5,000 times maybe it does become truth. Unfortunately for them their denomination is shrinking precipitously.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2005 @ 12:12pm
MBB,
Why would the world's public toilet be a "nice place to visit once in a while"?
My brother just moved to France and loves it! So, why exactly is France the world's public toilet? I'd love to hear the examples as to why, but you most likely don't have any. It's just fun to France-bash, isn't it?
France is by far not perfect, but they've done quite well with their social system. Germany has been having issues, but much of this is a direct result of the reunification. Two generations of workers suddenly unemployed can really impact a system.
Posted by Litz at 11/08/2005 @ 12:32pm
MBB,
I'm not sure what attention Jimmy Massey has received. I had not heard of him until this week on this site. Are his lies or inconsistancies supposed to make me think twice about the war? You guys will focus on anything that distracts from reality. Go ahead, tell us how important Jimmy is to our cause. Tell us that the war is A-OK because Jimmy likes attention more than he likes reality. You wonder why he would tell stories? Maybe because he was in a flippin' war zone and he couldn't take it anymore.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/08/2005 @ 12:58pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/08/2005 @ 12:09am
The readers of The Nation generally favor a generous welfare state, like France. They advocate for government controlled health care, like France. They advocate for isolationism when it comes to totalitarian regimes such as Saddams, like France.
And conservatives wonder why liberals insult their intelligence. Because no matter how frequently, and patiently, we explain our positions, no matter how small the words are we use for you, no matter how short the sentences, AND NO MATTER HOW MANY DIFFERENT POSITIONS LIBERALS HAVE, you still lump us all together as believing the exact same thing, and then you lie about what it is. Invasive weapons inspections, sanctions, and surveillance of Iraq become "isolationism." I suppose you'll say the same about getting N Korea to end its nuclear weapons program, which by the way, Bush screwed up as soon as he got in office. Have you looked up the word "isolationism", Mary?
And universal health insurance becomes "government-controlled health care." That kind of double-speak sounds like it is straight out of a George Orwell novel. I must ask, what flavor is the cheese in your head, Mary?
Having Bush as Commander and Chief might not make the US perfect, but it guarantees we won't end up like France. I can't imagine that it's possible to end up any worse.
Have you heard of Iraq?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2005 @ 1:09pm
MBB, If you had to take Mary, Bret and Brad to either Paris or Fallujah, which place would you choose? The "toilet" of Paris, or the gratefully liberated US-built paradise of Fallujah? What's it gonna be for your family, MBB?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2005 @ 1:15pm
"it's like listening to The Black Knight claiming his arms haven't been cut off" Cute comparison, but I fail to see the connection. However, no need to get lost explaining it. Probably my fault anyway.
I now see that it is just fun for you to France-bash.
I somehow missed the dying elderly "in the tens of thousands". Please send me the link, I'll check it out, and apologize if and when as necessary.
I don't quite see the diffence between 50/50 or 95 as you present them. You explain the 95% in nicely biased terms, "collectivist welfare state", so I at least know what you're talking about. But what's the 50/50? You mean 50% East, 50% West? Whatever your percentages define, the problem most definitely was largely the result of trying to incorporate a nation with an unbelievable 0% unemployment (everyone was garanteed a job no-matter-what in the GDR) into a capitalist-social sytem. Interesting things happened in the GDR, such as dividing jobs into halfs, thirds and quaters just to give more people employment but all still receiving the same pay and benefits as the first person. This was a neat socialist manner of cooking the books, or manipulating data in such a manner as to support one's political agenda. Sound famliar?
Posted by Litz at 11/08/2005 @ 1:20pm
.
Plenty of people opposed the US going to war in 1917. But once that decision was taken no one marched in support of the Kaiser. No one tore out their hair or reviled the administration because the Kaiser was deposed. Wilhelm II, compared to Saddam, had been a Jefferson. He had NOT run a criminal regime. But he had been a despot and an autocrat, and no American who believed in democracy grieved his ejection.
Suppose we were in the 1930s and the administration decided to take a military hand in ousting Franco. Would I oppose that?
I would think there were worse tyrants. I would worry about the anarchist/communist alternative to Franco. I would say so. But once I saw the resolve to eliminate the Falange, I would see no reason to oppose that, let alone mourn. I would be glad that at any rate the Spanish Caudillo was gone. There would at least be one less SOB in the world.
If instead I howled against Franco's ejection, lambasted the administration as criminal, plastered the Internet with protests, marched in the streets, I would be fooling no one! I would be a fascist weeping over a grievous loss. Everyone would know it and say so, and it would be true.
That is exactly what your hand wringing over Saddam amounts to, and your desire for an insurgent victory. Don't kid yourself. You have identified yourself. You are nailed. You and your friends are full blown left-fascist collaborators. If you are too stupid to realize it, too bad, but that is what you are.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/08/2005 @ 1:31pm
NACL, I don't remember reading any signs from protesters reading "I supoort Saddam -- Let Bush begone", "Iraq Rulz", or "Shout if you love tyrrants!" Most likely because that wasn't what we were protesting. We were protesting the lack of evidence, the reasons for war. No one ever wrung their hands over Saddam, though there was a huge amount of concern for innocent civilians who would be and have been killed. Let's see if we can't add up the WTC victims (although Saddam was unrelated to this, we'll do it just for effect) and all the uncounted Iraqi collateral damage, then compare that to those murdered under Saddam. Wow! The war's done pretty well in a just a short time, hasn't it?!?
Instead of just nailing us lefties, could you tattoo it as well?
Posted by Litz at 11/08/2005 @ 1:42pm
Thanks for that MSM reference, Mary. Didn't think you read that sort of thing. I'll check it out this weekend (that starts tomorrow in the Middle East, FYI) and be sure to get back to you. For now, gotta hit the hay.
Looking forward to more dialog.
Posted by Litz at 11/08/2005 @ 1:46pm
.
If you don't care about the fuel rods, why did you ask me about them twice? If you really believe that link to Blix's UN report did not turn you inside out, then that is because you really do lack frontal lobes and really are a twit who, if stupidity were people, would be China. But you can't help that. Reprehensible is that you are shameless.
When the inspectors left in 1998 ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said that his agency believed that Saddam did not have a nuclear arsenal, however he expressed himself aware that -
Moreover, for anyone with half a head, and that excludes you, it was clear that Saddam retained his dangerous ambition and could be counted on to seek nuclear weapons, by hook or by crook. No responsible leadership could close its eyes to that.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/08/2005 @ 2:04pm
Hello truthseekers. Greetings also to the Bushies.
Hmm, lots of French bashing going on... By the way, isn't DeLay a French name? ;)
On a different topic, what do you "fiscal conservatives" think of this [dccc.org] ? An excerpt:
President George W. Bush and the current Administration have now borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined.
Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation's history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury Department. In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.
Astounding!
Posted by dlg at 11/08/2005 @ 2:12pm
.
You may have taken a high school science course that had a chapter on geology. But I don't believe you have any rigorous training in any science.
All you have is google wisdom which is how you've latched on to a phenonomenon billions of years ago in the youth of the solar system.
When I said that even just modest amounts of plutonium in the earth's outer crust would produce deadly zones and the possibility of dangerous explosions, that is accurate. Small amounts of plutonium, far less than 10 kilo, have killed lab workers both in Los Alamos and in Russian labs and have caused fires. Plutonium reacts chemically with oxygen and water which can produce globs of plutonium hydride, a pyrophoric.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/08/2005 @ 2:17pm
.
You said, Saddam had no practical chance of building a bomb, by offering this data:
First of all, while 10 kilo is nominally the critical mass for plutonium, nuclear weapons have been made out of as little as 5 kilograms of fissile stuff.
Secondly, while Osirak was a 40 megawatts (thermal) reactor, the Israeli Dimona reactor began at 26 megawatts (thermal), yet was soon producing dozens of bombs a year.
Thirdly, Osirak, as it was to be fueled with close to 100% enriched uranium, would not have produced much plutonium off its rods. However, it would have grown lots of plutonium on the fertile U238 padding it.
Fourthly, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Saddam had some 40 to 50 kilos of fissile material of various types and quality, including irradiated stuff. That derived from what was to have fueled, Osirak's Tammuz-1 and 2, as well as the fuel from two smaller Soviet research reactors.
That could have easily have been turned into a handful of weapons, both dirty bombs and real nukes. That is not even considering considerable quantities of deadly nuclear materials like cesium-137 which was available to Saddam via his medical labs. The only thing that stopped him was Desert Storm.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/08/2005 @ 2:41pm
.
If you didn't know, when you were howling against the ejection of Saddam Hussein, that you were supporting a mass murderer in his efforts to retain control of Iraq, you were an idiot.
Where was your concern for the hundreds of thousands of his victims? Where was your worry about the 40,000 murders a year his police state was averaging? Where was your hand-wringing for the 300,000 Shia he had put into mass graves according to the UN and HRW? Or for the Kuwaitis he had deported to Baghdad's dungeons?
There were two decades of evidence that Saddam was a homocidal tyrant. The proof included half a million dead Iranians, the corpses of thousands of gassed Kurds, and published Iraqi edicts that punished criticizing the regime with tongue amputations. That is what you protested to keep in power.
You closed your eyes to that. You closed your eyes to the unanimity among all the intelligence services, including the French and Russian, that Saddam retained WMD. Even Hans Blix, in his book, Disarming Iraq, admits that he believed Saddam had WMD down to the eve of the war.
None of that bothered you because you were either a left fascist, or had your brain filled with dirty socks.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/08/2005 @ 2:50pm
good thing we didn't elect one of them tax and spend liberals
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 2:51pm
.
When I noted that, unlike the U235 of uranium bombs, plutonium bombs, because of the absence in the earth's crust of plutonium, rely on our ability to manufacture the element in nuclear reactors, you interjected: "Get your facts straight ... plutonium does exist in nature."
And now you claim to be speaking as a trained geologist! You bag of warm diapers.
.
Posted by nacl at 11/08/2005 @ 2:57pm
Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation's history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury Department. In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.
Astounding!
Posted by >b>DLG 11/08/2005 @ 2:12pm
"Sure, but look at how much self-respect I gave America" said the indebted murderer.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2005 @ 3:12pm
"This is the guy who has been traveling around with Cindy Sheehan. I can't understand why a guy would come back from war and then just fabricate outlandish stories of atrocities committed by US soldiers."
Maybe he fancies himself the John Kerry type.
Posted by bushrules at 11/08/2005 @ 3:13pm
It's been fairly obvious that the Bush team planned on taking down Iraq even before the first election. And it's been obvious that the strong-armed to get folks to go along with the plan. They also figured it would be a piece of cake. None of this is earth-shaking news. It was evident in 2004 when Bush was reelected.
That's the scary part to this whole thing: all the spin, bulls---, and deception that really was tranparent. But now we are in a mess...and no one seems to know what to do about it...
Posted by Damiens at 11/08/2005 @ 3:26pm
Damiens, that is not true. why even Kissinger has come forward with a plan. if I may be so immodest, I too have come forth with some ideas, and then there is always"give peace a chance"
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 3:33pm
"Sure, but look at how much self-respect I gave America" said the indebted murderer.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2005 @ 3:12pm
As well as indebted murderer I would add liar and untreated alcoholic.
Posted by dlg at 11/08/2005 @ 3:48pm
" there is always"give peace a chance"
Hmmm...sounds like an idea the Islamofacists would embrace...A perfect example of the distorted thinking of your typical lib. A more perfect example why they never deserve power till they grow up
Posted by bushrules at 11/08/2005 @ 3:49pm
NACL has outed me, you and all of our friends:
That is exactly what your hand wringing over Saddam amounts to, and your desire for an insurgent victory. Don't kid yourself. You have identified yourself. You are nailed. You and your friends are full blown left-fascist collaborators. If you are too stupid to realize it, too bad, but that is what you are.
As of today, I'm stopping my arms and cash shipments to al-Zarqawi, I'll stop knocking off defense attorneys of those being tried side by side with Saddam. I'll start using my IED on the insurgents rather than on US troops. And I'll get ready to continue this mother of a holy war against Iran, Syria, and anyone else Dick and W identify as having attacked us in one of their dreams.
By the way, the monthly meeting of the Left-Fascist Collaborators is on the third Tuesday of the month at the local Unitarian church. Organic cookies and fruit juice are provided. Our doors are open to all. Even salty buggers like you, NACL.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/08/2005 @ 3:51pm
OK, I love reading intelligent debate so I can see differing viewpoints... But the noise level has become hard to tolerate. Therefore:
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/08/2005 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person ---click
Posted by NACL 11/08/2005 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person ---click
Posted by BUSHRULES 11/08/2005 @ 3:49pm | ignore this person ---click
Posted by dlg at 11/08/2005 @ 4:05pm
who gives a rats ass what you think fool
Posted by bushrules at 11/08/2005 @ 4:08pm
DLG, very sensible, I have subtracted Rese, cpt, liberty, Rio and rl349. I invite everyone to do the same, try it, you'll like it
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 4:43pm
MBB,
Isolationism is an obsolete approach to foreign policy that has been discredited since December 7th, 1941. It would require ignoring world events, withdrawing from NATO and other international treaties, bringing all troops home from everywhere (including S Korea, Afghanistan, and Europe), perhaps even instituting tariffs, and other such 20th century ideas that are inappropriate for dealing with today's world, especially dealing with Al Qaeda.
To equate "being against the Iraq war" with isolationism is a gross misrepresentation, quite unfair and illogical to boot. What isn't objectionable about that?
And again, national health insurance is not the same as government-controlled health care To equate the two makes about as much sense as equating your car insurance company with your auto repair shop.
Since the point of my post is my objection to the continued and rampant misrepresentation of liberal ideas by the right, why wouldn't your gross misrperesentations spark contention?
Hell, I don't want government-controlled health care either! I was in the Navy, and government-employed doctors and nurses are a dubious bet that I would rather not revisit. However, single-payer health insurance is a great idea, because it takes the whole point of insurance, which is to share risk across a large group, and extends the idea to its ultimate limit.
The fact that you don't recognize these two scenarios as vastly different is enough to make one wonder...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2005 @ 5:11pm
You Bushloving zombies never learn, do you? Most everybody in the world can see that the Bush/Cheney Mob manufactured a bullshit propaganda campaign to scare/deceive the Congress and the nation into this disasterous Iraq quagmire. When I hear you goons still beating that dead horse of "SADDAM REALLY WAS MAKING WMD!!!", I fall down laughing! Give it up! Nobody with any brains is buying it! It is scary to think that you people are so fanatical in support of a punk criminal like Bush who stole two elections. I don't call him "president", I call him "resident". If the Congress wasn't ruled by the Republican Mafia, Bush would be tried and thrown out of office. His lies have caused the deaths of thousands. He has blood on his hands.
Posted by philbq at 11/08/2005 @ 5:20pm
we have single payer health insurance in this country now, Medicare, and the seniors seem to be pretty well contented, which does not mean it could not be improved, but socialised medicine it ain't.
you must remember the right wing loons always seek to erase distinctions in favor of knee jerk positions, much easier on the brain to lump everything together under an ideological banner. knee jerk is appropriate with these jerks
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 5:23pm
Guys, This story is not over...Wilson may have outed his own wife...retired General says Wilson told him a couple of times that his wife was a CIA agent. Sorry to bring the bad news...
Analyst says Wilson 'outed' wife in 2002 Disclosed in casual conversations a year before Novak column
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242 A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 5:33pm
Gen Paul Vallely has come forward and claimed Joe Wilson was talking about his CIA wife in the Fox News Green Room - a charge Wilson is denying with threat of legal action.
"This is slanderous," Wilson wrote. "I never appeared on tv before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX.
Well, when was Wilson possibly in the Green Room with Vallely? In reverse chronological order:
January 10th, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on John Gibson's show this day. Which is why Gibson has similar recollections to General Vallely. Vallely was on Cavuto which airs right before Gibson's show.
November 18, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Vallely was scheduled for 1:10, Wilson was to be on after 3:00 PM.
October 1, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Fox and Friends in the morning, Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when Vallely came in to tape his section they could have met up.
September 12, 2002 - they were on the same show at 3:00 PM.
August 20, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Greta and Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when/if things were taped the could have run into each other.
Well, four good opportunities to run into Wilson in the Green Room. BTW, all the guests listed in the same days as these make for potential witnesses. Not to mention all the times Wilson was at Fox and other networks.
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 5:36pm
Some more for ya... As a citizen of the United States of America, I want Joe Wilson and every reporter indicted. If you that wanted the Reps to go down on this for "outing a CIA agent", then you have to agree that THIS MUST BE LOOKED AT. This will show your true colors!!!
WEST POINT RALLIES AGAINST WILSON. Lt. General Tom McInerney, USAF (ret), West Point ‘59, will join his colleague Maj. General Paul Vallely, USA (ret), West Point ‘61, on my show Monday 7 November (1005 pm Eastern Time on ABC Radio Network) to repeat and expand upon Vallely's memory that Joe Wilson more than once in 2002 in the green room at Fox New Channel in Washington D.C. boasted about his wife the "CIA desk officer." McInerney has the same memory and more, since both he and Vallely were on FNC between 150 and 200 times in 2002 each.
You will recall that Vallely received a threatening e-mail from Wilson's attorney Christopher Wolf on Saturday 5 November, demanding Vallely retract his remarks on my show Thursday November 3, and to WorldNetDaly.com on Friday November 4. Vallely has not such intention.
Included in the threatening e-mail was an attached e-mail from Wilson himself, calling Vallely's remarks "slanderous."
Also, I have written my regular correspondent Victor Davis Hanson to ask after his reported memories of Wilson boasting to him in a green room meeting that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA…
…n brief, why did Fitzgerald not investigate Wilson for the same concerns he investigated Libby and Rove and others?
Time for Fitzgerald to start again? New grand jury? Put Wilson under oath along with Vallely and McInerney and all others who remember Wilson's boasting of his wife as a "CIA desk officer" prior to Novak's publication?
For now: Monday November 7, 1005 pm Eastern Time, West Point rallies against Joe Wilson. Who is more credible, two decorated combat heroes with a combined five stars and nearly one hundred years living with their oath to defend the Constitution - or Joe Wilson"?
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 5:39pm
You Bushloving zombies never learn, do you? Most everybody in the world can see that the Bush/Cheney Mob manufactured a bullshit propaganda campaign to scare/deceive the Congress and the nation into this disasterous Iraq quagmire.
Posted by PHILBQ 11/08/2005 @ 5:20pm
It is amazing how people can be so blind. I think Mike Papantonio said it pretty well [tinyurl.com]. In his opinion, the remaining Bushies are inflicted with what he compares to a form of mental illness. Makes sense because trying to reason with Bushies is so totally frustrating.
Posted by dlg at 11/08/2005 @ 5:40pm
Move to France...europe is being bitch slapped right now and France is a total joke for pulling a "curfue" after 12 nights of buring down the streets. That is what you get for having a soft heart AND soft hands!
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 5:44pm
Why can't we agree that Iraq DID go to Niger at some point in time looking for Yellow Cake...never mind the other countries in Africa where they did the same. It is documented that this is true.
If that is the case...why are you backing Wilson in this mess by saying that Bush lied? The yellow cake story is where this all stemmed from, no? So, if they were looking for Yellow cake, then he did not lie...
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 5:47pm
DANCALL, You expect me to believe that Joe Wilson outed his own wife? I am LOL!!!
Seriously, does that make any sense? I want you to try to think objectively here. Are you married? If so, would you ruin your wife's career intentionally? Come one.
Any reasonable person can see right away that a claim like that is nothing but pure desperation from partisan fanatics who will say anything, no matter how goofy, to try to deflect blame from the Bush administration.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2005 @ 6:12pm
Apparently this has become the Dancall propoganda room. Last I heard it was illegal to pay operatives with government funds to promote the ruling party´s agenda. I don´t believe he has said a thing that is in fact true and accurate. How´s the pay, dancall?
Posted by plunger at 11/08/2005 @ 7:03pm
MBB:
Get over the "lying" angle please. I posted many times to explain that proving Bush lied, per se, is not the threshold here - it is misreprentations of the nature of the threat for a preventive war. I thought I made my points pretty clear, yet I never saw much of a response from you - only more of the same, "you cannot prove Bush lied" stuff.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/08/2005 @ 8:37pm
DANCALL, ignored. Bye, bye.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2005 @ 8:41pm
ILP, Have you ever heard of an ego maniac? why would you do a Vanity Fair spread if you were sooo worried about your role at the CIA? Ms Plame certainly didn't worry too much. It is pure arrogance in which people never think they are going to get caught. He is threatening legal action...these guys apparently are saying bring it on...let's go to court and see whose lying. Now, would a ex general RISK all of his credentials and reputation on a guy like Wilson? Again, you just showed your colors by dismissing it. Would you not want to at least entertain this idea, no matter how crazy it may seem? Just seems like intellectual snobery to me. People LOL when Columbus said the world was round...
Plunger, pay is great. I am glad I live in a capitalistic society. Problem I have is paying taxes to support SOCIAL programs that are not working, yet blamed as failures because of the Reps. Tired of liberal BS. Liberals...time to take a look at France in the eye...kinda like looking at yourself in the mirror. over 20% unemployment, riots all over the streets, their form of social security is going bankrupt, yet America is the doing things wrong? Wake up! People in this country have a choice...learn to read and write and stop blamming people with money or people who will work harder then the person next them without the unions breathing down their backs. There is no place in the Constitution that says that I have to wake up every day to go to work and have half my pay check goes to the government for social programs that fail. When you find this part or any mention in our documented history where I am wrong and our fore fathers believed that we were a socialist country, please feel free to show me.
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 8:43pm
Redbird...should call yourself yellowchicken!
Posted by dancall at 11/08/2005 @ 8:46pm
DANCALL, I don't believe every blowhard that comes out of the woodwork, liberal or conservative. I am skeptical. Does that make me an intellectual snob?
Think about it. Where was the good general 3 months ago? Three weeks ago? And all of a sudden, when Scooter Libby is indicted, he appears with his story?
Come on, it doesn't pass the smell test! It is "south of cheese", so to speak.
Joe Wilson is an ambassador who served under 4 presidents! Not some unstable wacko just released from the mental ward. Consider the modus operandi of Karl Rove. Look what he did to McCain in the South Carolina primary 5 years ago. Aren't you just the least little bit suspicious?
Please answer that question, DANCALL!!! Aren't you even just a bit suspicious????
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/08/2005 @ 11:08pm
dancall your money goes to the rich and the corporations. take a look at the bills coming out of the congress. energy companies are getting huge subsidies at a time when they are making record profits. we all get screwed but you don't see it and spend your time defending the status quo and attacking france you sap. whata ya make 40, 50 grand you are a chump licking the hand that beats you
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 11:13pm
Wilson threw his career away the moment that Times op ed appeared, he is a hero in my book, speaking truth to power.
that Cheney, and it was Cheney, children, outed his wife and ruined her career is just the way the thugs in the white house operate. but the people are wising up, read the polls right wing scum and weep.
oh and you can speak to your god about it, maybe he can hurry up that rapture bit.
kansas has decided its children should grow up ignorant of the differencce between science and religion. next time you wanna fly to LA talk to your priest, but don't take a plane, it's all based on science
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2005 @ 11:30pm
kansas has decided its children should grow up ignorant of the differencce between science and religion. next time you wanna fly to LA talk to your priest, but don't take a plane, it's all based on science
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/08/2005 @ 11:30pm
How long before someone sues to force the teaching of evolution in church Sunday school classes? Shouldn't their tax-free status be considered a public subsidy? It's only logical.
Keep your religion out of our schools and we'll keep our schools out of your church.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/09/2005 @ 12:41am
I don't get it.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/08/2005 @ 4:52pm
Yup
Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2005 @ 01:39am
Everyone,
2 things:
1. It would take an incredible degree of faith, or a total rejection of deductive logic, to argue against the proposition that the Bush Administration misrepresented the rationale for the Iraq War. At the very least, they were so wrong about almost all the facts that it almost doesn't matter if the mistakes were intentional or not.
Amazingly, none of the main agitators of the war have either been disciplined, or agreed to take responsibility, for being almost completely wrong. Before the war, check the records, Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld make definite, not a shread of doubt, statements about the state of Iraq's WMD. They did this in the face of the deep and widespead skepticism of virtually all of the intelligence agencies and the State Department.
The more interesting and pertinent questions is whether there misrepresentations were justified. I don't think so, but at least it is a debatable question.
On another note, how richly ironic is it that the Republican leadership in Congress is calling for and official inquiry into the leakage of secret CIA prisons? The actions of the Bush Administration passed the surreal level years ago. We will have to come up with some new adjective!
Stormbringer
Posted by Stormbringer at 11/09/2005 @ 01:43am
MBB
In you 4:54 you say "I don't know what Ari has said." and I gave you the quote...."yes" response to imminent threat question. Is there anything unclear about that..
NaCl
I can claim Bachelors' in both Geology & Natural Resource Studies, A Master's in Environmental Risk Assessment, and am finishing my PhD In Analytical Organic Geochemistry. (So at present I suppose I am more a chemist in practice....but yes, I *AM* a geologist by training) In addition I have written two lab manuals, (used by oh...1,000 students/year) and have taught geology/science classes for like 5+ years?
So you see I probably have more schooling than all of your cousins in the trailer park. So to your stilted insult of my abilities I can only say...grow up asswipe and get a friggin clue.
As to Osirak....first and foremost 100% enriched isn't even a concept as far as Iraq is concerned. Reactor fuel varies, but usually "standard" enriched is ~20%. Only the US runs "hi-test" (50-90%) in nuclear subs. Also, the "big" Osirak reactor was never finished or stocked with fuel, only the 2 "little fellas" Per a physicists recounting of the capacity, it would likely have taken them decades to get bomb-grade stuff together. (And if I have to pick the opinion of a scientist versus a politicain's report about science...guess what, I am choosing scientist.)
http://gnn.tv/articles/614/The_Lessons_of_Osirak
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/09/2005 @ 01:48am
When you find this part or any mention in our documented history where I am wrong and our fore fathers believed that we were a socialist country, please feel free to show me.
Posted by DANCALL 11/08/2005 @ 8:43pm |
intent:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
mechanism:
16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
any other questions?
Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2005 @ 07:23am
If the federal government pays for everyone's health care, how are you going to ration it? Until you answer that question, no one will take your great ideas seriously.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/09/2005 @ 07:32am
If you're not feeling well you go to the doctor
If you're feeling well you don't go to the doctor
once a year everyone gets a physical
KISS
Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2005 @ 07:39am
Dear MBB, Of course I remember the death toll in France as a result of the heat wave. I was in Germany at the time, feeling the incredibly unusual heat as well. Don't suppose we're allowed mention global warming here, since we all know what bad science that is.
What confused me was the how this had any relationship at all to France's social system, or for that matter to where the "families ... on vacation" come into this. The article states: "Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has ordered a separate special study this month to look into a possible link with vacation schedules after doctors strongly denied allegations their absence put the elderly in danger. The heat wave hit during the August vacation period, when doctors, hospital staff and many others take leave ... The role of vacations is a touchy subject. The National General Practitioners Union says that only about 20% of general practitioners were away during the heat wave." There is NOTHING in this article about (socialist) families neglecting their kin, as you claim.
Now in fairness, there is this tidbit: "...French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly." Wow! I'm glad that the U.S. never has any deaths related to insuffcient health care! Under our system, everybody gets exactly what they need all the time, at least if you can afford it (and convince the insurance company of the necessity). I just read in the newspaper today that 22 people died in Evansville, Indiana by a tornado. Should we blame that on the red-state leadership of Indiana who allow thier citizens to live in mobile homes? I also find it odd that other European countries with equally social health care systems, or for that matter greater, had fewer deaths than in France (re: "The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country.") However, this may be a statistical issue.
Ah, statistics! I'm still trying to figure out how this carries any sort of mathematical legitimacy: "... elderly died of heat exhaustion in the tens of thousands (ten times worse than New Orleans in a much smaller population than the US)". "Died in tens of thousands"--Okay. "ten times worse than New Orleans"--Okay "in a much smaller population than the US"--Okay (1/5 the population of the US, if www.cia.gov info is to be trusted:) ) But what in the world are you comparing!?!? Are you comparing France to the United States as a whole or to New Orleans? I'm afraid that you can't do both in one fell swoop.
Just for fun though, let's equal out the populations of France and New Orleans. France had a death toll of circa 15,000 from the heat wave in 2003. New Orleans had 1,055, as of November 1. Now let's multiply N.O.'s 4.5 million people by 13.5 to get roughly the same population as France, 60.6 million. It appears that about 14,000 people died from Hurricane Katrina. Yet we all know it wasn't Bush's fault; therefore it must have been the French.
Since you seem to be approve of USA Today as a MSM source, check out this quote: The United States spends nearly 50% more on health care than any other nation -- 14.9% of its economic output in 2002 vs. 10.9% in Germany, 9.6% in Canada, 9.7% in France and 7.7% in the United Kingdom. U.S. health costs are on a trajectory to consume 18.4% of every dollar spent by 2013." Or read on to this: "Other studies have shown that about 15 to 20 cents of every health care dollar is either pure waste or pays for inappropriate or excessive care." That sound almost like a socialist state of waste to me! In other wordws, nobody's perfect. Let's learn from mistakes and improve upon what we've done. You seem to think that fewer controls over issues such as health care are better, yet I respectfully disagree. But really no need to France bash.
Posted by Litz at 11/09/2005 @ 07:47am
Again, my opinions of Saddam do not change the President's actions or veracity, the only change is the liklihood I assign to certain motivations.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/09/2005 @ 07:45am |
God you are retarded
Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2005 @ 07:48am
Will C. If that is your idea of a serious health care plan, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on the issue. Somehow, I don't think that bothers you all that much.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/09/2005 @ 07:48am
that's pretty much how it works now. minus everyone included
Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2005 @ 07:51am
Finally, thank you, thank you, thank you, for the GDP statistics on health care spending. WillC please look at those and tell me how you intend to ration care once it becomes free.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/09/2005 @ 08:02am ------------------------------------------------------------
God you are retarded
Posted by WILL C. 11/09/2005 @ 07:48am |
Can it be said enough?
------------------------------------------------------
If you're not feeling well you go to the doctor
If you're feeling well you don't go to the doctor
once a year everyone gets a physical
KISS
Posted by WILL C. 11/09/2005 @ 07:39am
-------------------------------------------
Mary Mary
I'm sure we'll still have payroll deduction for our health care. If we are smart we'll amend our constitution to create the locked box for the trust fund. Otherwise it becomes another slush fund.
Posted by Will C. at 11/09/2005 @ 08:12am
Move to France...europe is being bitch slapped right now and France is a total joke for pulling a "curfue" after 12 nights of buring down the streets. That is what you get for having a soft heart AND soft hands!
Posted by DANCALL 11/08/2005 @ 5:44pm
Nice response! You really nailed me.
Oh, and your posting about Gen. Vallely claiming that Wilson outed his wife before Novak did--do you realize that Vallely is a paid military analyst for Fox News [foxnews.com]? And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The Republican spin machine is in full defensive mode and you quote it as factual...
Posted by DANCALL 11/08/2005 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person ---click
Posted by dlg at 11/09/2005 @ 10:15am
whata ya make 40, 50 grand you are a chump licking the hand that beats you
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/08/2005 @ 11:13pm
I like that. Mind if I borrow that to use in discussions with my stubborn Bush-supporting friends? ;)
Posted by dlg at 11/09/2005 @ 10:23am
DLG,thank you, certainly, this and any other pearls of wisdom falling off the back of my mental truck is fair game.
I have repeatedly, in letters to collumnist, referred to the country's mood vis a vis Bush as "buyers remorse",
you know the feeling, when you've bo