Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Antiwar Critics

In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.

I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

Bush might accept "the responsibilities and criticisms," but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

When was the last time Bush talked about how the war began--that is, when did he mention that his primary reason for war (protecting the American public from the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it?

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, which said,

Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq's links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.

More to the point, Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured by the go-to-war gang. The magazine in May 2004 reported,

"There was a lot of pressure, no question," says Kerr. "The White House, State, Defense were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?...Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, 'We've been pushed to hard.' Analysts will say, 'You're trying to politicize it.' There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but there were being asked again and again to restate their judgments--do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again."

Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? "There may have been some of that," Kerr concedes. The requests came from "primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure. The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.'s "senior customers," including "the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Despite Bush's assertion, the question remains whether undue pressure was applied by the White House. And in his Veterans Day speech, Bush ducked the second issue: how he and his aides depicted the intelligence. This is the source of the dispute over the so-called Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee. The allegation is that Bush and administration officials overstated and hyped the flawed intelligence and claimed it was definitive when they had reason to know it was not.

For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left "no doubt" about Iraq's supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002, Dick Cheney said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence," and Condoleezza Rice said they were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, "Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.") The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public--and the world--there was "no doubt"?

Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Ahmad Chalabi's weak defense, the Rove/Libby scandal, the slow Phase II review of prewar intellience, and other in-the-news matters.

******

On the key issue of Saddam Hussein's alleged connection to al Qaeda, Bush also made statements that went beyond the intelligence. This link was crucial to the case for war, for Bush and other hawks were arguing that Saddam Hussein could slip his WMDs to his pal Osama bin Laden. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. But his intelligence agencies had not reached that conclusion. (And the 9/11 Commission later said there was no evidence of collusion between al Qaeda and Saddam.) So how did Bush come to make such a statement? Recently, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, released formerly classified material showing that before the war when Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and other administration officials cited evidence that Iraq had been training al Qaeda operatives in the use of bombs and other weapons, Bush and these officials were relying on the statements of a captured al Qaeda member whose claims had been discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once more, how had Bush and his senior aides come to disseminate specific and provocative information deemed unreliable by the intelligence community?

Bush's Veterans Days comments addressed none of this.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

The people with the most hands-on information regarding WMDs in Iraq did not. The International Atomic Energy Agency, led by recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, concluded weeks before the war (after their inspectors had returned to Iraq) that Saddam Hussein had not revived the nuclear weapons program that the IAEA had dismantled in the mid-1990s. And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspectors in Iraq, repeatedly said that his team was not finding evidence of chemical or biological weapons stockpiles.

...And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

As noted above, the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should--but only after Bush had promised to go to the United Nations in an effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, who, it turned out, was telling the truth when he denied his government possessed WMDs. Even the John Kerry quote that Bush cites contains the to-disarm condition. And several Democratic members of Congress have claimed that they did not see all the intelligence that was available to the White House.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges.

It's hard to argue with that.

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.

Who said that "it's perfectly legitimate to criticize" the "decision [to go to war in Iraq] or the conduct of the war"? That was Bush, moments earlier, in the same speech. So which is it? Is it okay to criticize the conduct of the war or not?

By the way, while accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise--that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs--and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist.

Comments (729)

1. Who Is Lying About Iraq? A campaign of distortion aims to discredit the liberation.

   BY NORMAN PODHORETZ Monday, November 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

   Among the many distortions, misrepresentations and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

   What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

   Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

   The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary "lie" that Iraq under Saddam's regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even "imminent") possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

   This entire scenario of purported deceit was given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had "outed" Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for having "debunked" (in his words) "the lies that led to war."

   Now, as it happens, Mr. Libby was not charged with having outed Ms. Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that "this indictment is not about the war":

   This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

   This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

   No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting:

   This case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.

   Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

   How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

   The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

   The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

   Mr. Blix now claims that he was only being "cautious" here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration "misled itself" in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.

   So, once again, did the British, the French and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he presented to the U.N. in the period leading up to the invasion. Mr. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as secretary of state. But Mr. Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:

   I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.

   Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Mr. Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, was convinced:

   People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

   In explaining its dissent on Iraq's nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about:

   Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program.

   But, according to Wilkerson:

   The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this rpm, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, "the consensus of the intelligence community," as Mr. Wilkerson puts it, "was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

   Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002," Pollack has written:

   I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

   No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with "high confidence" was that "Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material." (Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: "I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.")

   But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 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.

   Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

   Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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.

   Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

   He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

   Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

   Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "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."

   Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

   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.

   This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:

   There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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.

   Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 12:09pm

2. continued......

   Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:

   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.

   Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 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.

   Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

   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.

   Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

   We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

   And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:

   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.

   Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 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.

   Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

   Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

   Byrd: "The last U.N. 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."

   Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again."

   The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country's salvation."

   So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with this admonition:

   Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous--or more urgent--than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.

   All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Mr. Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam's stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Mr. Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the 16 resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?

   Another fallback charge is that Mr. Bush, operating mainly through Mr. Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

   The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

   Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Mr. Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as "imminent." But this, too, is false: Mr. Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war. Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared that he would "not wait on events while dangers gather" and that he would "not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: "If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long." And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word "imminent" itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

   Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

   What of the related charge that it was still another "lie" to suggest, as Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to "meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives."

   Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.

   The story begins with the notorious 16 words inserted--after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department--into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

   The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

   This is the "lie" Mr. Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Mr. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the vice president's idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Mr. Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Mr. Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Mr. Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed nonrole in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

   My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . ., both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

   More than a year after his return, with the help of Mr. Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Mr. Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

   In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the 16 words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Mr. Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the president's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary--for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the 16 words at issue was true.

   That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore--and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited--Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

   a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

   b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

   c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

   As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Mr. Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:

   He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Mr. Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

   And again:

   The report on [Mr. Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

   This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research--which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons--found support in Mr. Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it--which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Mr. Bush in the famous 16 words.

   The liar here, then, was not Mr. Bush but Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report:

   The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].

   More damning yet to Mr. Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

   [Mr. Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

   To top all this off, just as Mr. Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Mr. Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Mr. Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." Yet--the mind reels--if Mr. Cheney had actually been briefed on Mr. Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

   So much for the author of the best-selling and much-acclaimed book whose title alone--"The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity"--has set a new record for chutzpah.

   But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Mr. Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Mr. Wilson--who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated--is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.

   And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq--the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy--have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

   Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 12:10pm

3. ZERO, The worst part about it is that Iran seems like more of a threat to become a nuclear power "now" than Iraq was "then" under Saddam's regime. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried "wolf"? In the end, the wold eats him.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 12:27pm

4. you libs dont fool anyone...you'll be against doing anything about Iran as well....you all are as weak as water

   Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 12:29pm

5. Bushrules,

   I believe Bush is finally fighting back..but surely you realize, after reading the posts following from here on, that most here will read Corn, agree blindly and never read the post you posted after his.

   I appreciate your attempt to throw another view in the mix and I agree with PODHORETZ.

   Thanks for the efforts.

   What shocks me is most here are stuck on Bush lied as if it is Gospel(to them) and draw a straight line to terrorists stemming from Iraq only. We have been and will continue to be at full war with Islamo facists for years and I find it terrible that all the MSM and the Dems focus on Bush lied...it is all acusations and no proof....just pound, pound, pound and eventually the people will wear down...our enemys couldn't generate amy more Amti-american statements and anti Bush statements than those on the left and their MSM friends. I am amazed at the vitriol... Bush is making a huge mistakes as he doesn't know who his enimys are. Reagan had the ability to go right over the left and MSM direct to the people, but Bush can not publicly speak as well as Reagan, and as a result doesn't present him self in a well ordered defence of himself or his policies. He might not reaqlize that his problem is more than just Al Quoeda or the insurgents, it is right here at home.

   Good Posts Bushrules.

   Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 12:48pm

6. ILP,

   The worst part about it is that Iran seems like more of a threat to become a nuclear power "now" than Iraq was "then" under Saddam's regime. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried "wolf"? In the end, the wold eats him.

   This is double speak for blaming Bush that Iran has nukes. They have always wantedthem since Carter let the Ayytollah loose in Iran and lost Iran. Once they achieve them, they will use them in Iraels.

   I think we should be formenting revolution in Iran like crazy , pump in arms and money , call them "Popular Freedom Islamic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Iran ", and then deny we now anything.

   Or should we have the UN get involved and negoitate and maybe boycott and then sue in world court?

   The wolf will try to eat Israle in the attempt to gain the Islamo Leader of the world and whether we are in Iraq or not...they have a gola and know the American Left, if in power, will let them gain it..

   We are going to fight Iran and soon, for they are gunning for a fight ..

   Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 12:57pm

7. I see this thread has already been hijacked by some alter ego of BushRules.

   What a loser - do you just sit there continually checking this board with your finger on the paste key waiting to regurgitate the latest set of talking points?

   I am sick of warmongering people like you; real tough at the keyboard, but only brave enough to fool others into fighting for you.

   CLICK!

   Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 12:57pm

8. "Accusations with no proof."

   Sounds very familiar John.

   Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:00pm

9. You will soon see you proof....I hope we will survive it. Under the current comditions I can't imagine the US fighting WWII, as this type of "support" the troops would seem demoralizing to me...

   Sorry about poor typing skills today, must have been the wine this week end....

   Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 1:04pm

10. Wow. I'd have to ask Bushrules what his standard of accuracy is. Bottom line is, we are a country with a war economy, which is why we've fought and financed more wars in the past 60 years than anyone else on the planet, and more than a few have been proven to be based on lies or non-existing threats. (Or were the Sandinistas really going to march all the way from Managua, a capital with one elevator in a country of 3 million impoverished peasants, through Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico to take over our country?) I'll never understand why Americans act so tough, yet are constantly living in fear from some evildoer bent on destroying us, whether it's the Germans, Soviets, Latin American narcotraffikers, Jihadists... We're the besieged innocent in a violent world. They just hate us or are jealous of the life we have, right? Sure. The rest of the world spends all their time ruminating about our lives, right? How we live like pigs and squander the world's resources, confuse consumerism with democracy and shop till we drop to fill the emptiness in our lives and surround ourselves with the symbols of prestige and meaningless trinkets which give us identity all while drowning in debt. Yes, that's it, which compels the world to inevitably arrive at the conclusion that we're too good and great and must be destroyed, but we always manage to beat them up just in time.

    In the last 60 years we've also produced the death of millions of non-white, poor people with our newfangled weapons of destruction. 4 of every 10 dollars spent on arms in the world ends up in the US. We produce and export death and destruction, we promote violence and aggression. But regardless of whether or not you think Bush rules or blows, if you take pride in the carpet bombings of Indochina and Korea, the death squads we trained and financed in Latin America, the horrible dictators we've supported or tolerated the world over such as Pol Pot, the Shah of Iran, Mobutu, Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier, Trujillo, the Somozas, Noriega, Ceaucescu, ect. or find them unjust and abhorent, neither Iraq nor Iran represents today's real threat to the Middle East. No, the real threat is Israel, our little offshore military base and watchdog in the region armed to the teeth with US weaponry and more powerful than any NATO country. Israel has nukes, biological weapons and a whole host of other goodies produced in the US, yet they're never to blame for any of the chaos in the occupied territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, nor are they ever associated with Iran's possible development of its own nukes to deter Israeli aggression. Our government is peppered with Zionist warmongers who are more loyal to Israel than the US, among them Perle, Abrams, Chertof, Wolfowitz, Rove, ect. So long as we support Israel there will never be peace in the Middle East.

    But there is no arguing with people like Bushrules - he probably even thinks the world is a safer place with less terrorists since we invaded Iraq, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Sadly, he'll probably also be the first to give up all his civil rights as suggested for his safety when some domestic jihadists blow a Starbucks in the US and scare the hell out of all 300 million people in this country. Think Bushrules! All those countries in the Middle East are threats to Israel, not us. Hell, Kuwait, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Jordan weren't afraid of Saddam, why should we be? Maybe because Israel has a lot more to do with crafting US foreign policy than you think, especially seeing the ties between our two countries and knowing how hungry for power and energy they too are. You'd need nine more earths to give all of humanity the same standard of living as the average American, so basically all the rhetoric about giving them freedom and democracy is crap. We need resources which lie in other countries, or the right people in office to give us the access to those resources, hence the wars we fight. If we were really so humanitarian and altruistic we'd go kill Castro tomorrow and free 11 million impovershed Cubans while ridding the Americas of communism. Too bad Cuba has no resources worth plundering. Iraq and Iran on the other hand, well...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 1:06pm

11. So, John, you admit that Bush cried wolf with Iraq?

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:06pm

12. BUSHRULES

    you all are as weak as water

    Water...the universal solvent, is responsible for the inexorable reduction of mountains into the salts of the ocean across eons of geologic time. Thanks BR....we should ALL be as weak as water!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/14/2005 @ 1:12pm

13. I wish Bush had used the line "There are terrorists who lurk and plot and plan to destroy our way of life" in his speech.

    That's my favorite line. That whole lurking thing makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand at attention. LOL Gee Dubya definitely has to go work for Hollywood when he's out of office. The world always likes a good horror flick.

    Girls, hold onto your boyfriends.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 1:17pm

14. Enjoy your wine John because everything is going to be all right. Maybe I am an optimist, but I don't see the Iranian invasion coming anytime soon. But, don't you worry - King George will save us from all the boogeymen in the world.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:25pm

15. Do Democrats forget about those missiles Clinton launched into Iraq in 1998? What was the reason for doing it (besides diverting attention from Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony)? To go after Saddam's WMD's. Now why would Clinton do that if Saddam didn't have WMD's? Do they also forget about the resolution passed and signed by Clinton in 1998, declaring regime change in Iraq to be US policy? The reason for the resolution? That's right, WMD's. And let us not forget that the only prominent politician who declared the threat from Saddam Hussein as "imminent" came from Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    Posted by lburwell at 11/14/2005 @ 1:32pm

16. Do Democrats forget about those missiles Clinton launched into Iraq in 1998? What was the reason for doing it (besides diverting attention from Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony)? To go after Saddam's WMD's. Now why would Clinton do that if Saddam didn't have WMD's?

    Posted by LBURWELL 11/14/2005 @ 1:32pm

    Why? You said it best both then and now, to divert attention from Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony. Isn't it terrible how those boneheaded analyses come back to bite you in the ass.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 1:36pm

17. Personally, I think critics like Mr Corn would have a LOT more credibility if...

    they weren't letting the Democrats "off the hook" for their vote for the resolution.....he certainly wasn't in the "run-up" to that vote...but now, realizing that he NEEDS those same Democrats raising the "credibility" questions about Bush, he gives them a "Kerryesque" pass on their vote in 2002, which was just as "political" (or not) as Bush's decision for war.

    The non-cynic who's fair could say that BOTH Bush and the "pro-war" Democrats thought that the evidence for Saddam's WMDs (widely held as accurate for 10 years)...and the idea of a VX nerve gas device exploding in (what was then considered) "open American cities"....was their justification.

    I'll take the cynical view on both, to be fair as well, if Bush went into Iraq SOLELY to "get their oil, inact PNAC's plan, revenge his daddy"...then the Democrats who ALSO voted for war, were playing "CYA" on their stereotyped image as "soft on defense" and didn't want to get massacred in the 2002 midterms.

    So either both acted in good faith...or both "killed our kids" for political reasons.

    or the third possibility no less impressive for the Democrats (yet shaping up as their 'defense')...they were FOOLED by a "moron cowboy"...which doesn't bode well when THEY return to power and are faced with a non-moron, non-cowboy Iranian ayatollah or Kim Jong-il, does it?

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2005 @ 1:37pm

18. This is double speak for blaming Bush that Iran has nukes. They have always wantedthem since Carter let the Ayytollah loose in Iran and lost Iran. Once they achieve them, they will use them in Iraels.

    I think we should be formenting revolution in Iran like crazy , pump in arms and money , call them "Popular Freedom Islamic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Iran ", and then deny we now anything.

    Or should we have the UN get involved and negoitate and maybe boycott and then sue in world court?

    The wolf will try to eat Israle in the attempt to gain the Islamo Leader of the world and whether we are in Iraq or not...they have a gola and know the American Left, if in power, will let them gain it..

    We are going to fight Iran and soon, for they are gunning for a fight ..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/14/2005 @ 12:57am

    Sorry JOHN, but now I must accuse you of paranoia. Doublespeak? Blaming Bush for Iran's nuclear weapons (if they have any)?

    No, not at all. It was blaming Bush for attacking Iraq, using WMD as justification, which discredited the administration once no WMD were found.

    I thought that was very clear, but you conservatives seem to find hidden meaning in everything.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 1:38pm

19. but now, realizing that he NEEDS those same Democrats raising the "credibility" questions about Bush, he gives them a "Kerryesque" pass on their vote in 2002, which was just as "political" (or not) as Bush's decision for war.

    Posted by MASK 11/14/2005 @ 1:37pm

    Well, of course it was political!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 1:44pm

20. Norman Podhoretz, Grand Daddy Neocon Shoots Messenger Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire

    Sunday November 13th 2005, 10:13 am

    Norman Podhoretz, the grand daddy of the Straussian neocons, expends a few thousand words in an attempt to convince us George Bush didn't lie when he told us Saddam had a WMD program and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. "Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed," writes Podhoretz in the December issue of Commentary (posted in advance on the Commentary website).

    "To lie means to say something one knows to be false," Podhoretz asserts. "But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq."

    I agree with Podhoretz. But before you think I have gone over to the Neocon Dark Side, allow me to explain. Indeed, it is possible, more than likely, Bush did not tell a series of lies. His neocon advisers did. Bush is a cardboard cut-out placed in office by the neocons. He is a cigar store Indian. He simply repeated the lies served up by the neocons and the Office of Special Plans. Due to his disinterest, his lack of curiosity, his distaste for reading, and absence of critical intelligence, Bush does little more than fumble through the provided script. Bush "believed in the truth of what he was saying" because he lives in a dualistic, Manichean world of radical absolutes, and thus is incapable of critical assessment. Moreover, he had long ago decided to attack Iraq and left it up to more intelligent neocons to provide a bogus basis for the attack.

    Podhoretz does not mention the Office of Special Plans, Karl Rove and Andrew Card's White House Iraq Group, the Downing Street Memo, the yellowcake uranium forgeries, or any number of other instances of documented deception crafted by his neocon brethren. Instead, Podhoretz blames British intelligence, the CIA, Joseph Wilson, the Robb-Silberman commission, the Clinton administration, and a host of others, including just about every Democrat in Congress (including Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and others). In fact, for Podhoretz, the blame for the obvious and glaring lies about the illusory Iraqi WMD program can be attributed to the Clinton administration, in particular Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.

    Indeed, Clinton and the Democrats are to blame, as there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to invading countries and slaughtering thousands of innocent people (in fact, it can be argued Clinton has a more gruesome record than Bush - he oversaw the sanctions on Iraq for eight years, brutal and inhumane sanctions responsible for killing around 1.5 million Iraqis, 500,000 of them innocent children). However, Podhoretz's insistence the Clinton administration is responsible for Bush's decision (actually the decision of the neocons) to invade Iraq is ludicrous, to say the least. As we know, the neocons (via PNAC) sent a letter to Clinton urging him to invade, but Clinton ignored the letter, likely understanding it came from the "crazies" previously chalked off as the sort of people who should be avoided. Moreover, the neocons and Republicans have made a cottage industry out of bashing and blaming Clinton, so we may consider Podhoretz's assertion more of the same.

    As we know, the neocons planned to invade Iraq (followed by Syria and Iran) for some time, beginning with Wolfowitz's 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" draft (at the time, Wolfowitz and the neocons in the first Bush administration were dismissed as "crazies" and the draft was rejected out of hand as lunatic ravings). As Neil Mackay of the Sunday Herald revealed, a "secret blueprint for US global domination reveal[ed] that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001... The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)." Additional candidates for "regime change" included China - nothing less than complete lunacy, considering the United States military cannot defeat a few thousand determined Iraqi resistance fighters (imagine going up against 1,306,313,812 Chinese - but then, I suppose, that's what nukes are for).

    "And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq - the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy - have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals," Podhoretz concludes.

    Sounds like a plan to me - so long as the sweep does not stop with the Democrats and continues into the White House, the Pentagon, and beyond Capitol Hill to the neocon foundations, the criminal organizations (RICO should be used against them), including Podhoretz' Hudson Institute, ultimately responsible for planning and launching the criminal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    "American ideals" are native to the Constitution and do not include invading Arab countries for the sake of Israel, as Philip Zelikow, executive director of the Bush whitewash commission, has admitted. In fact, as the retired editor Commentary, a monthly publication of the American Jewish Committee, Podhoretz should be called on his allegiance (either he follows the Constitution or he spends his twilight years in Israel, sucking up to his master, the fascist Jabotinsky Likudites).

    Finally, Podhoretz's long-winded essay will mean little, as the ball is now rolling and more and more people realize "Bush lied," that is to say he more or less mindlessly mouthed the engineered lies of the neocons, the vast majority of them Muslim-hating and Islamophobic Likudite fascists. Of course, this realization will not result in the impeachment of Bush and the prosecution of the neocon war criminals. It is far too late for that now - the Bushites have stacked the deck: Congress is packed with loyal Republicans (mostly Christian Zionists and their fellow travelers), the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, is stacked with reactionary appointees, and the executive has taken on powers heretofore unrealized, and the Constitution is attacked consistently (the Bill of Rights is basically a dead letter, as any honest civil libertarian will tell you).

    In short, the Bushites have won. It will take a Second American Revolution to repair the damage the cardboard cut-out Bush, the rapture-crazed Christian Zionists, and the Zionist neocons have inflicted on this country.

    I don't know if the American people are up to the task.

    Posted by mattjack40 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:44pm

21. LBURWELL:

    Your focus on the word imminent is lame. I notice you carefully used the words "prominent politician." No doubt because you choose to ignore that "imminent" was how Fleischer, McClellan, and Bartlett described the Iraq threat to the public.

    And what is your big point - that the word imminent was not used by Bush and his Cabinet? Maybe you are technically correct, but there are obviously synonyms, which were used repeatedly by the prominent folks in the White House. How do "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", and "unique threat" grab you?

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:49pm

22. MASK, good post regarding the whole pitcure.

    Specifically, I agree with your second (cynical) analysis re: Dems playing CYA. I think that had a lot to do with it, which is inexcusable.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 1:54pm

23. CHIMICHENGA's post was quite interesting. I didn't agree with all of it, but he raises a question that has puzzled me for quite some time: Why are most americans so fearfull? A few weeks ago, LOVE LIBERTY wrote a post in which he expressed concern that jihadists would be roaming the CA countryside, pillaging houses, if a Democrat got elected. Reagan was able to whip up fear of "Sandanistas" invading the US by blitzkrieging through central america as if they were the second coming of the German Wehrmacht. Kennedy was able to drum up fear of communism in Cuba, but when he tried to get the Mexican president to do the same in his country, he was informed that Mexicans would laugh if they were told that Cuba was a threat.

    It seems so absurd. Our military budget is immense, approximately equal to most of the first world combined, and yet our citizens can be whipped up into a frenzied fear of a tinhorn like Saddam Hussein. I don't get it. I've never lost a minute of sleep thinking Saddam, or Sandanistas, or Cubans were a threat. I feel sorry for people who live in fear of these conjured specters, but at the same time these people anger me, because their fear impacts me and all other americans in a negative way.

    This says something about our national psyche, but I am not sure exactly what. Is is genetic? After all, the country was founded by puritanical types with persecution complexes (not that religious persecution wasn't real for them, but that is another story). Is it due to self-centered, insular attitudes? After all, the opportunities for materialistic and hedonistic diversion in this country are manifold, and so why bother learning about the outside world when you can drink beer and watch football, or go to a concert or a club? Or is it another reason, or a combination of reasons?

    Well, I digress. Back to work...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 2:00pm

24. Hman,

    My friend, it is not King George I fear, rather his "loyal" opposition who never see danger until we have to shead 5 times the blood...

    BTW, how are you?:)

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 2:00pm

25. Good - not planning to hunker down in the bunker like you seem though. Check out ILP's post. I could ask you the same - why so fearful? So many on the right are always telling us we are on the verge of mortal danger. Whatever happened to "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?"

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 2:05pm

26. ILP:

    It is about one word - control.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 2:06pm

27. That fear speech came after we were hammered and had to cartch up to get in the war for our own survival. I am not in fear, just fear that we will react and not pro act...

    Got to go eat lunch,....

    BTW, we will not be invaded, Israel will pay the ultimate price someday and we will have to clean it out and up..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 2:10pm

28. Who again mmessed up IRAN and caused this whole mess to be started in the 1st place....Yes your liberal icon Jimmy Carter. Thanks a hell of a lot Jimmy.

    Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 2:32pm

29. Someone already commented on this, but I'll take a different tack for my own theological amusement.. "you libs dont fool anyone...you'll be against doing anything about Iran as well....you all are as weak as water"

    According to a tradition more venerable than your own monotheism, Bushrules, Water is the highest thing to emulate. It flows into the spaces that cannot stop it, is the source of all life, and has ultimate flexibility of form. It changes to fit the container, something I'm sure you'll dismiss as "moral relativism". Yet that same flexibility is what gives water its strength. We know the shape of water by its container, yet know also that, were a new container forced upon it, the shape would dissolve and be replaced.

    Now then, to place this in the context of modern history: War no longer exists as you unilateralists would like it to. It can no longer be a beautiful, heroic endeavour involving tremendous shared sacrifice against a mutually detestable foe. Why? Well, let's add this one up, shall we? Has there been a conflict of that scale since the introduction of nuclear weapons? No. Because any accumulation of troops, no matter how strong, how patriotic, how well armed they are, can be instantly rendered to atomic vapor. Your ideology will not protect you from that, your gun will not protect you either.

    Because of this, conflict has been reduced to lesser scales, usually against a guerrilla, or more conventionally armed opponent. Our "war" in Iraq is an occupation. We do not fight a target, but a mindset. And mindsets require no base of operations, no central influencing figure. They are strengthened, rather than diminished, by acts that appall them.

    Because of this, your attempts at unilateralism fail. They fail not because of a lack of support, or a lack of will, but because the methodology required is utterly alien to our method of warfare. We have an arsenal designed to stop a nation-state, and are trying to use it against terrorists, who by their very definition have no nation. It seems that, even in the Bush administration, at least Condi has started to learn from this. The clear/hold/etc. pattern is our best shot for ending the occupation of Iraq, because it plays to this need to actually win over the Iraqi citizenry, rather than support Halliburton and make proud armchair generals thump their chest in support. Sorry, boys, but this isn't a game. This is the real world, where people seek bloody revenge when you kill their innocent children. Where people cry out against using phosphorus bombs and "shock and awe" campaigns and electromatic super sonic torture chambers. They do this because no freedom loving democracy would possibly condone such methods. They are inhumane, they are vile, and they cannot possibly win "the war on terror". Only a fool, or a madman would believe otherwise.

    So, then, I call upon our armed forces to flow, like water, into the places that allow them. The puddles can sustain life, for they were conceived not to snuff it out, but to allow it to thrive. If Iraq is to be a functional, rational democracy, it must have people within it capable of understanding the difference between a hostile occupier, and a benevolent one. The cost will be to our soldiers, who in exchange for their brave attempts to actually make a difference, will undoubtedly receive more casualties. To those who feel this is unacceptable, try and figure out how many more casualties will mount up when we worsen the problem, rather than seriously attempt to fix it.

    We have broken Iraq. We broke it when we toyed around with their inquiries about invasion, then decided to "get serious" and beat them into the ground. We did so, then crippled their nation for 12 years of sanctions. Then we bombed them back into the stone age, and stood by while looters raped the interior.

    Now, you wonder why there is resistance? Why there is strife? We have to make a difference for good, rather than for profit, if there is any hope of retaining a shred of dignity left in this immoral action. All other routes appear bleak.

    Posted by Megido at 11/14/2005 @ 2:35pm

30. BUSHFOOLS. Statement or subject, either way, it's true. The absolute irony is, if you're fooled, you don't know it, until, of course, you do. But by then it's either too late or you're willing to get fooled again to save face and pretend it wasn't that big a deal. Then, to thinking you really wanted it after all. And then, you turn to having to defend it like crazy. Yes, after all, it really was worth buying into in the first place, and you really didn't get fooled, right(?): Foot in the Door Technique, Pysch 101.

    What was that famous saying Bush tried to repeat about getting fooled? Could never just come out and say it-- could he. If he has been fooled, it would take a total disbelief in himself to admit it now.

    Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 2:36pm

31. "Who again mmessed up IRAN and caused this whole mess to be started in the 1st place....Yes your liberal icon Jimmy Carter. Thanks a hell of a lot Jimmy."

    Wait, what? Hey, let's go back to, I don't know, the 50's? Something about assassinating an Iranian leader so that the Shah could keep, or gain power? You sir, have a weak grasp of history. And, last I knew, most liberals don't exactly aspire to "Carterism". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard a liberal aspire to "Carterism". Have you been drinking the wrong kool-aid?

    Posted by Megido at 11/14/2005 @ 2:38pm

32. I see I cannot fully avoid BUSHRULES with the ignore feature.

    I'll bite - BUSHRULES, by your twisted logic, Bush, who apparently rules, was responsible for the mess after 9/11, huh?

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 2:48pm

33. Wonderful...Since thats what most of you libs now say these days about Bush, by your own ommision you logic is twisted. Glad to see one of you finally admit it

    Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 2:53pm

34. Hey ILP: notice how conviently he ignores the reality that the Ayatollah's were the result of a backlash that emerged in response to the American-propped dictator in Iran prior, the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi? Perhaps if the US hasn't been propping up an Iranian dictator, the Ayatollahs would not have happened?

    Posted by ZERO 11/14/2005 @ 2:24pm

    ZERO, that's a very interesting question. I've asked it myself. But religious fundamentalism is so complex I suspect it would have arisen in Iran anyway, but perhaps without the virulent anti-americanism of the current form.

    After all, blaming religious fanatacism solely on a reaction to a puppet government cannot explain Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Then again, they seem to be more talk than action, whereas the radicals in Iran "walk the walk", so to speak. Maybe I am comparing apples to oranges.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 2:53pm

35. ILP

    More like fruits and vegetables.

    Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 2:58pm

36. Why do so many people honestly believe 1) that there is any real difference between Dems and Republicans and 2) that the politicians are really the ones calling the shots? They're symbolic, it's the corporate interests who finance their campaigns that really wield the power, which is characteristic of a fascist state. We are a plutocracy.

    Enough with the Sean Hannity knee-jerk accusations of Clinton this and Clinton that. Don't you conservatives do any original thinking? Or do you just constantly reiterate the bs the chattering class vomits in red, white and blue? And given all the historical references here, does anyone ever think as to why the US cannot be orphaned of enemies? If we're so great, so favored by God, then why does everyone hate us, especially given the fact that our current president is a close confidant of Jesus Himself?

    And all this talk about what's happening in Iraq and how we may or may not have gotten there, yet no one mentions where we're heading here at home. Judging by the pastimes and priorities of today's youth (our future), the declining state of our health, education, environment, economy, and welfare in general all imply a country in decline and losing the competitive edge it once owned, not to mention the trust and faith it once commanded or its status as "a beacon of freedom and hope". You really think we'd settle for second-best in the world, us, the superior race on the planet and civilization's last hope? Nah. Which is why we ought to get used to war, especially pre-emptive war, because we can't compete in any other field but militarily these days. And when (not if) there's another attack here, man, forget about it. It'll be on for sure. And no need to worry about filling the ranks of and increasingly suspicious and "unpatriotic" populace, for debt relief will be given in exchange for a tour of duty. Maybe sounds crazy, but maybe not, especially if you're among the increasing numbers of hard-working Americans living beyond their means or over a barrel...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 2:58pm

37. How many more asterisks can BushRulz come up with? My ignore list is filling up with variants of this fellow.

    Posted by Fishbite at 11/14/2005 @ 2:58pm

38. The irony of "Bushfools" posting a Podhertz article is that Podhertz is a follower of Leo Strauss and one of Strauss' main rules is that you cannot tell the people the truth. Read Leo Strauss, Bushfools! Strauss believes that if neocons told the truth to the American people, the American people would not support neocon goals.

    And to the rest of you Bush fools: both Cheney and Bush used the term "no doubt" in various statements to the public. "No doubt" means something. We who do not drink the koolaid understand that both men were lying when they said "no doubt." The fact that you bushfools don't see that is a testiment to your pathological condition. You are crazy. You are badly mistaken. You are too cowardly to admit it even to yourselves. You are bad Americans.

    Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 2:58pm

39. Everyone immediately gravitates to the "Bush lied" aspect of the decision to go to war. David Corn makes perfectly clear at the start of his article that the so-called "war" resolution was a resolution to attack only as a last resort -- after all other approaches had failed. Inspections and diplomacy were moving forward.

    Even if you accept the possibility (remote in my view, but still there) that Bush & Co. were misled -- probably because they wished to be -- you still must come to grips with the ultimate decision.

    Congress received assurances that war would be the absolute last resort. So did the American people.

    That's the lie that people should really focus on because it's the lie that truly got Congress to pass the resolution. They trusted Bush!! It was early in his presidency and many people gave him the benefit of the doubt. What an error!

    So, all of you (Bushrules, etc.) Bush supporters, realize that the end does NOT justify the means. Lying about "last resort" to get the resolution and go to war is a totally inappropriate way to remove Saddam -- even if you believe that it was worth over 2,000 American lives lost and 20,000 or so American lives mangled to do so.

    Forget about intelligence. It was flawed and mixed and uncertain.

    Unless Bush and his blind supporters can explain how WAR is a reasonable first or second (or any number but last) resort and how our country can morally justify a first strike approach to war (like Japan and Pearl Harbor), they should all just SHUT UP and sit down. If a Democrat had pulled this stuff, he (or she) would have been impeached long ago.

    War is the most serious action a country can take!! It's never justified to initiate it, only to respond to it. It's not weak to deplore war. Many of our greatest generals and presidents have.

    Posted by adr at 11/14/2005 @ 2:59pm

40. MEGIDO,

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 3:05pm

41. Bush has no business making a speech on Veteran's Day, in the first place (see Nat'l Guard records). And then he politicizes it. Typical! I'm surprised he didn't give the speech at WTC.

    Posted by NJDevil at 11/14/2005 @ 3:05pm

42. 1. On February 9, 2003, Iran's program and efforts for building sophisticated facilities at Natanz and and several other cities that would eventually produce enriched uranium WERE REVEALED. President Mohammad Khatami announced the existence of the Natanz (and other) facilities on Iran's television and invited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit them. Then, in late February, Dr. Mohammad El Baradei, the head of IAEA, accompanied by a team of inspectors, visited Iran. Since then, the IAEA's experts and inspectors have visited Iran several more times. A preliminary report was published in July, with a follow up report on August 26. On September 12, 2003, the IAEA gave Iran an ultimatum to reveal all the details of its nuclear activities by October 31, 2003.

    LOOK AT THE DATES...THE IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM...ONE MONTH BEFORE IRAQ INVASION! THIS DID NOT "JUST HAPPEN" HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS!!!

    2. The Islamic Republic of Iran is making similar noises and threats today. As a matter of fact, as early as December 2000, "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei, said that Israel is a cancerous tumor that should be removed from the region. This same supreme leader, Oct. 26, said according to Iran's latest president, Admadinejad that "the regime occupying Jersualem must be eliminated from the pages of history."

    3. Nov 13, '05 Clinton reportedly condemned the president of Iran's call to destroy Israel. "That is not what he was elected for," Clinton said.

    REALLY, BILL?

    Bottom line...Bill Clinton left the troops on Saudi Arabian Soil after the first gulf war. He could have taken them out of the region but did not. That was the NUMBER one reason why Bin Ladden declared war on the US in 1996. Syrian assassination in Lebanan? Really? That is ok for the liberls because they are freedom fighters...with Syrian military on Lebanese soil. Iran telling the world, no we would never build nuclear weapons, wait, someone in the White House means business, ok, we have them and here are the plants. Where was the UN and the Liberals the last 8 years on this one?

    Why can't you all get this out of your peace loving minds...The Nation of Islam has NO BORDERS. The readicals are in ALL these countries. The US had to make a stand somewhere, and Iraq was the best place to do so. It puts massive pressure on Syria because we all know that Syria is controlling Lebanon and is sending militants into Iraq. Iran is building nuclear bombs and is telling the UN and the EU EFF OFF! Big shock there, but somehow it is a big shock why we would have to put our foot down after 10 years of pussy footing in the region and having the UN in the middle of the biggest fraud in world history...BUT NO BIG DEAL???

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 3:05pm

43. "It's never justified to initiate it, only to respond to it"

    That is liberal thinking at its worst...and why you can never be trusted with power till you grow up... After 9/11 waiting to be hit is NOT an option.

    Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 3:06pm

44. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms2002.htm

    You can't make this stuff up! No one would believe it.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 3:11pm

45. Posted by ZERO 11/14/2005 @ 12:15am "More shocking than the speech, itself more depressingly predictable than shocking, is the new attempt to create in the public mind an image of a strategic weapons "threat" in Iran."

    Posted by ZERO 11/14/2005 @ 12:49am |"there are some reasonable ideas floating around for how to allow nations to develop nuclear power without developing nuclear weapons, such as international agreements that power facilities can be built, so long as nuclear fuel access and ownership is strictly controlled by international agencies such as IAEA. unfortunately, we don't hear much about that from the Bush White House. all we get is "intelligence" appearing in the NYT creating an image of a "threat"."

    Zero, Iran would not allow these groups in the country...but low and behold, US has the war path set and ONE month before the invasion, Iraq shows the world that they have been building nuclear plants. You are the most self righteous person on this site. You have finely tuned language skills and some legitimate points, but overall, you are like a college professor who was never able to make it in the world because your reality lives inside a book.

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 3:13pm

46. "Iran shows the world"

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 3:14pm

47. Bush*** said, "After 9/11 waiting to be hit is NOT an option."--

    You're way off base here. Saddam did not do 9/11. The reaction of the Bush idiots was similar to closing the barn door after the horse was out. Whatever did Iraq have to do with the World Trade Center bombing? 9/11 was an EXCUSE, not a REASON.

    By your approval of first strikes, you apparently support the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. They feared our capabilities. We feared the rapidly failing regime of Saddam.

    By the way, I don't represent myself as a liberal, but only join with them (or anyone) who presents sensible unemotional analysis and conclusions. I must admit that it's been years since I went along with all but a handful of conservative positions, but that's because of the hijacking of the Republican party by extreme ideologues. I have voted for Republicans on many occasions.

    Posted by adr at 11/14/2005 @ 3:15pm

48. "It's never justified to initiate it, only to respond to it"

    That is liberal thinking at its worst...and why you can never be trusted with power till you grow up... After 9/11 waiting to be hit is NOT an option.

    Sorry, hack, but this isn't liberal thinking, it's the basis of international law. Being a grown up means you have to wait until there actually is proof. Guess what power the U.S. has? Oh, that's right, the power to obliterate the world some 80 times over. One might think that, given those circumstances, we kind of have to get our facts solid before we can act on them. There's no going back on a nuclear strike, and there's no calling "quitsies" on a war of aggression. That's why we're stuck in a friggin quagmire right now. And didn't that just work out sooo damn well, that use of unilateral, pre-emptive action? Sure did win the war on terror, and got rid of so many terrorists and WMDs. Why, I even feel safer today than I did years ago!

    HAhahahahahaha. Sorry, but this kind of drool-laced, froth at the mouth bulldog reaction is what earns you those condescending smirks that piss you off so much. I smirk, because you're obviously a child. Responsible citizens, and especially their embodiment of law, in the form of police officers, have to wait until the threat manifests before they go off shooting. There's no "pre-emptive" shooting defense of killing another person because you suspect they have a gun, and may use it. If there was, we would have several hundred thousand murders a day, when paranoid snits such as yourself got threatened, and shot someone because they might have shot you first if you hadn't.

    Fortunately, there's a little more sanity in our domestic policy than in our foreign policy. I know it must be just sooooo hard to keep from pulling the trigger ahead of time, if you're an angry, poorly read, knee-jerk neanderthal like Bush Rules. I mean, when your only original thoughts aren't, and you can't structure a cogent and logical defense of your bloodthirsty habits, it's only natural to revert to a kind of barely contained animal. But, luckily, his rantings and ravings are connected to some pitiful shell of a man on a computer, hiding his face from the real world, and spending all their time puking bilious material onto a website full of people that will, at most, ignore it, if not villify it outright.

    Make ya feel like a big man, sonny boy? You're not. Big men stand up for what they believe in with their own words, and using their own experiences as support. You do neither. Nobody can respect a hack, and you can cry, and whine, and bitch about whatever you want, you're still going to be one.

    So shine on, ya crazy diamond.

    Posted by Megido at 11/14/2005 @ 3:26pm

49. Yes he did...

    ...no he didn't. (manipulate intelligence).

    I don't mean to dismiss the debate...but

    ...Bush and Co repeatedly denied intelligence

    of the insurgency.

    The insurgency is a fact.

    It is also a that Bush ignored intelligence..

    ..by claiming in July 03 that there wasn't an

    insurgency.

    Bush has been rolled by his own people and

    that is embarrassing. The old man must be

    wishing he had just jerked off that night.

    Posted by polnow13 at 11/14/2005 @ 3:29pm

50. he wore out his welcome with random precision...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/14/2005 @ 3:31pm

51. Thus to not get fooled again-- slam the door on the foot forcefully and repeatedly whenever and wherever it pokes it's toes into any door!

    Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 3:36pm

52. blah blah blah...UN is 1000% worse the the USA...BOTTOM LINE!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:11pm

53. International Law is a complete joke! The EU countries, like Germany and France do not even follow the laws set forth within the EU, never mind China (ever heard of copy rights...China hasn't), never mind Russia and our South American friends...

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:13pm

54. Pharms in South America...well if you don't drop your price, then we will take your products and make it oursleves. Hmmm...Internationl Law? Sanctions against Iraq in the 90's, meanwhile Sadaam was making billions and was gaining political favors within the UN...Hmmm, International Law.

    International Law..Genova convention. Beheadings around the world...insurgents in Iraq, Afghan borders with no flag or no recognized political branch...AND you are worried about International Law.

    Shouldn't international law include protection of women? Shouldn't it protect the rights of religious genocide. Yes we are the most powerful nation in the world and we have played the game with the UN, but as you can see with the Oil For Food Scandal, THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:17pm

55. against religious genocide...we all know that the UN supports genocide in Africa!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:18pm

56. Rewriting Bush

    David Corn insists:

    Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam.

    It did just that. One of the senators, John Kerry said, "It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested..." Kerry understood what he was authorizing:

    This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty . . . we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

    It could not be more explicit. The senators knew that the target was Saddam and his Baath regime. And Kerry said so. Moreover he said that raising up the replacement for that govt would take a long time and hard work.

    Bush ... has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes.

    When was Woodrow Wilson's administration asked to acknowledge the post World War I Versailles disaster? When were FDR or Truman asked to acknowledge the mistakes of WWII and the post war shambles. The Marshall Plan only began three years after that war ended, as Europe wallowed in semi starvation, unheated winters, seething discontent that created communist majorities in many French and Italian cities and provinces. But in Iraq Corn demands mea culpas even as the war still rages.

    When was the last time Bush talked about ... his primary reason for war... (which) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it?

    Bush went to war because Saddam had refused to make himself transparent as he had agreed to, and because all he world's intelligence agencies said he was hiding WMD. Is Bush ignoring and even rewriting history because he does not say often enough that Saddam had secretly destroyed his remaining WMD? That is plain stupid.

    ... the Bush administration misled the nation ... (about) the production of the intelligence ... (and) how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public."

    False on both counts. The Robb/ Silberman investigation, the Butler investigation and the Congressional Intelligence Committee investigation all agreed that there had been no political interference in the creation or presentation of the intelligence data. The administration presented that date to make its case. What is wrong with that? It should have tried to use the data to undermine its case?

    Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured

    For the second time, all the commissions and inquiries into the question of undue pressure distorting the intelligence, disagreed with Kerr and found there was none.

    Corn is repeating himself like a stubborn child. It is pointless, and haven't time to read his mush further. He hasn't a new angle. He is grousing and doodling and rehashing all the usual rubbish.

    The ones who owe this country an explanation are those who supported Saddam, who agitated against the US decision to eject him, who even now want the US to leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the the insurgents. They owe mea culpas and a long crawl to Cornosa and an abject apology. But they lack even the acuity or honesty to recognize the deep brown pit they have dug for themselves and are carausing in.

    Posted by nacl at 11/14/2005 @ 4:19pm

57. NACL...those are facts...you know you can't use those on this site! You are a lier and should be burned at the stake!

    Otherwise, you are doing a great job!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:21pm

58. .

    SEATTLESCRIBE 11/14 @ 03:59am

    Firstly, the US formally re-established relations with Saddam in November 1984 during the Reagan Administration. Did you ever see that photograph taken in December 1983 of then US special envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

    Did you ever see the picture of Churchill shaking hands with Stalin during WWII and sitting down with him, alongside FDR? Moreover, both Churchill and FDR gave Stalin billion in aid. Does that mean they approved of him, liked him, or supported his domestic or foreign policy?

    US/Iraq elations, broken since 1967, were reestablished in Nov 1984, because the Iranian army threatened to break into the Gulf and seize the oil fields. President Reagan could not allow the Ayatollah to control Europe's and our economic blood. Khomeini had held our diplomats hostage for 444 days and considered the US the Great Satan. Thus the wobbly Iraqi army was given the minimum aid necessary (mostly satellite intelligence) to resist the Iranians.

    Until then the US was the only country to abstain from arming Iraq while every other country, especially Russia, China and France did billions in business. The US had a law forbidding arms sales to Iraq. It was violated once when cluster bomb components were sold, for re-export, to a Chilean company; the result was a sensational court trial.

    As to air launched weapons, Iraq got those not from the US but from France. It was a French Exocet missile launched from a French Super-Etendard aircraft flown by Iraq that came near to sinking the USS Stark. The cultures and chemicals which Iraq was able to buy in the US after relations were reestablished were not in militarized form. The anthrax for example was the Sterne (not the Aimes) strain and not an aerosol. It was supplied under a UN FOA program for vaccinating cattle. At that time Baghdad also received deadly cultures, including anthrax, from the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Moreover, Iraq had practiced poison gas warfare since Nov 1980 when it first attached Susangerd. It had not needed the US for that. But it did need the billion dollar c/b warfare labs sold it by France and Germany, and the know how its technicians had acquired when trained in Leningrad laboratories.

    World condemnation of Saddam for using chemical weapons against the Iranians and their Kurdish supporters in northern Iraq was universal; except, that is, from President Reagan and Secretary of State George Schultz.

    Baloney. The world had armed Saddam, not the USA. Even by 1990 a Swedish govt institute found that weapons in Saddam's arsenal with an American provenance amounted to less than 1%. Halabja was bombed by MIGs and Mirage aircraft dropping canisters with a cocktail of poisons derived from a Soviet formula. The only country to make a fuss was the US. The US Congress, alone of all the parliaments in the world, held special hearings on Halabja.

    in July 1990 Ms Glaspie, never expressed any outrage of Hussein's use of these weapons; on the contrary, she was effusive in her praise of Saddam and sympathetic to his need to see oil prices increase to help Iraq improve its income. With regard to the mounting tension between Iraq and Kuwait – even including a discussion of increased troop presence along the Iraq-Kuwait border – Ms Glaspie is quoted as saying, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict, like your border dispute with Kuwait."

    That meeting was about an oil well dispute where Saddam had, in part, a legitimate gripe. Glaspie did not suspect Saddam meant to grab the whole of Kuwait. That meeting had nothing to do with US concerns about poison gas weapons. But the US alone ever required Iraq eschewing c/b warfare as a condition of friendly relations. It was why the US alone had condemned Iraq as a rogue while others had diplomatic relations and even sold her nuclear reactors.

    Your side is a disgusting lot for spitting these foul charges. Countries like Russia and China and France gave Saddam the bulk of his arms, his tanks, jets, artillery, Scuds, poison gas capacity, yet you wail over the US whose contribution to his arsenal was miniscule. How much phonier can you get.

    You marched in the streets for that lowlife, just as your lot supported every other mass murderer and liar from Arafat to Stalin. Wherever there are skunks and worms, there you are. Get back under your rock and show some shame.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 11/14/2005 @ 4:21pm

59. Dancall that is the dumbest remark. Which is why when conducting any type of comparative anaylysis it always helps to have a few dozen countries blatantly disobeying international law, living like "animals", doing things we "civilized" folk would never do. That way our own transgressions (which are manifold) appear much less severe. Our guys hold captives underwater so they think they're drowning, or shove glowsticks up their asses. Who cares when they're cutting people's heads off, or using "rape rooms"? So the insurgents behead someone, while we drop 500 lb bombs on them from 10,000 feet up. So much more sanitized and civilized. We may have 40 million people without healthcare, but at least they're not starving like in North Korea. These types of comparisons make the eagle soar so much higher and mightier...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 4:24pm

60. Take that first comment back Dancall, didn't get to see beyond that first post...

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 4:29pm

61. Chim...you are missing the biggest point of all...that the majority of the world's biggest and richest countries do whatever they want and break international laws all the time...so what good is it to have these laws if they are going to be broken with no accountability? Not sure which side of you are presenting because it sounds like you are actually agreeing with my point that until the UN is cleaned up, then we shouldn't be worried about what the UN thinks because they are part of the problem with Iraq.

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:30pm

62. Chim...that's what I thought...

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:30pm

63. "...you libs dont fool anyone...you'll be against doing anything about Iran as well....you all are as weak as water..."

    Posted by *BUSHRULES* 11/14/2005 @ 12:29am

    Thank you. Considering the power of water demonstrated by the last couple of hurricanes, (water) as well as the tsunami, you give us libs much respect, and its appreciated.

    Give it up, Bush has lied his entire existance on the national scene in 2000. From his national guard duty, to now, he and his administration is totally dishonest. They dont deserve the 30% approval ratings theyre getting. The truly sad part is, over 2000 of our brave young people have been lost because of his lies.

    Posted by Wildmen at 11/14/2005 @ 4:32pm

64. "They dont deserve the 30% approval ratings theyre getting"

    Hate to tell you libs...but the latest Zogby poll has Bush up to 46% now.. Guess your campaigns of lies has fizzled out....like everything else liberal

    Posted by *bushrules* at 11/14/2005 @ 4:39pm

65. Let's see teh questions that are being asked in these polls that have Bush down...probably go something like this...Since Bush has lied about Iraq, do you feel he is trustworthy?

    don't think this is a stretch...I have seen some polling questions that would absolutely blow your mind.

    And let's remember...ever the EXIT polls had Kerry winning!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:42pm

66. Wildmen, the water didn't destroy NO...that was the Bush Admin...that is because they blew up the levees and then had a plan not to pay attention. Come on, did you not drink your coolaide today?

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 4:44pm

67. HMAN

    Sorry...but if the Dems who voted for war, were just as cynically "using war for political gain" (as Bush is accused of)...then they deserve the same "justice" (i.e. calls for impeachment).

    However, I (cynically) doubt that Mr Corn will call for the removal of office of those Democrats (even to try to replace them with other Democrats)....because he knows that he doesn't blame them THAT much (or, more cynically, CARE that much that they "killed kids" to win the 2002 midterms).

    Frankly, until he does, I'll be a LITTLE more dubious of Mr Corn's attacks on Bush and relative silence on the pro-war Democrats.

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2005 @ 4:45pm

68. The greatest thing about this discussion is how efficiently it illustrates not only the division in our country, but also the revulsion felt by one side for the other. This is the point people, do not be united, do not see what we all have in common, only see differences, exploit and despise them. Incorporate yourself into the mindless herd of meddlesome outsiders, clobbering each other with what O'Reilly hollered or Dowd wrote, what Chomsky says or what Limbaugh howled. That's as far as your words will go and as significant as your voice will be. Meanwhile, the men on the hill will send the boys off to fight the corporate sponsored wars and fix reality and history to suit their pretexts. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The more jargon and invective the better. This country is doomed with this kind of atmosphere, and is why all our domestic problems are being compounded every day while we argue over why we went to war, what Saddam did or didn't have or didn't do, when in reality we never had a voice in whether or not to go to war or stay out of it in the first place. Is this what democracy is all about? The books are cooked people, doesn't matter what comes out or who discovers it, because in the grand scheme of things your voice means nothing. And to those of you who believe that voting actually means anything, just remember that before the majority elects (selects), the minority nominates. Lies are truth, slavery is freedom, war is peace.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 4:47pm

69. It is SOOO funny to hear you Bush zombies desperately trying to justify this disasterous Iraq debacle, when nearly everyone around the world can see it was a mistake. What bullshit you people spout: the inspectors WERE allowed in Iraq- they couldn't find anything. The chickens have come home to roost...the American people can now see what a lying bunch of criminals are running this country. The poll numbers are real. The emperor has no clothes.

    Posted by philbq at 11/14/2005 @ 5:03pm

70. November 14, 2005, 3:41 p.m. Rockefeller's Confession What was the West Virginia Democrat doing as a freelancing prewar diplomat?

    By William J. Bennett

    Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

    WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The -- I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq -- that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

    While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

    Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq -- to the U.N. or anyone else.

    We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons -- we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.

    Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies -- but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.

    If Syria -- or elements in Saudi Arabia -- began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

    Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 5:04pm

71. CHIMI

    I often wonder how many of the ersatz "revolutionaries" I see on these blogs....will REMAIN revolutionaries, the moment a Democrat is elected President and Democrats control Congress again.

    I know, I know...the "true believers" know that "Democrats are sell-outs...no better than Repubs". But, if that is believed by so many, then why does the Green Party still only draw 2-4% of the vote in even the most liberal areas?

    Why is there no "Green Party" Congressperson? And doesn't that ultimately mean that the "revolutionaries" are such a small minority, even within the minority faction of the Democratic Party...as to be so unimportant as to be merely engaging in "wasted typing" by posting their calls for Revolution on blogs on the Internet?

    And why will people like David Corn, Katrina vanden Heuval, John Nichols, etc. continue to support and call for the election of those "sell-outs" and not push for an abandonment of the DNC and total removal to the "Greens"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2005 @ 5:05pm

72. Chim...I call this whole thing "the waking Giant". Republicans (or Neo Cons as they are called here on this site) have always been known as hicks, religious idiots who are not cultured. The Liberals have always held themselves at a "higher standard". I fully admit that there are many cultured liberals and they have many brilliant ideas. However, after 9/11, the country woke up and started to look outside the US borders and started taking a deeper look into the UN, our "allies" and "foes". Many americans have a common sense approach. The liberals HATE the common sense approach…many in America still believe in a hand shake deal. I think that is most relevant because people can get poralysis by over analysis(liberals), which in the case of the middle east has been the case for the last 30 years, if not longer...Yes, the US may have had questionable practices, but we have for the most part been the most revered country on Earth. The Europeans loved the US when the Soviet Union was in tact, because the "idiots" would protect them. Soon after the wall went down and Russia was not a threat, the American bashing came out. Who is leading the crowd? The Socialist in Europe and around the world. They hate capitalism and everything it represents. Doesn't it strike you funny how the Liberals in America echo the European voice? The problem is, we live in America and have a capitalistic society...not perfect by any stretch. The world was fine in the 90's because America was fat dumb and happy. In other words, our government and the world's leaders became fat dumb and happy...lazy! The American voice is now questioning the world and seeing the "Dem Left" as the socialist as they are and the Libs are now being called on it! Just the way I see it! That is what is causing this massive divide!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 5:05pm

73. "The poll numbers are real"

    New Zogby has Bush up to 46%...The poll numbers are real all right...and it confirms your campaign of lies and slime has failed....like everything else liberal

    Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 5:06pm

74. NACL is living proof that Americans are blind by choice, for to open their eyes and look at themselves in the mirror would mean questioning their morals and objectively analyzing every conviction they claim to own with such certainty. It's almost childlike when these people refuse to believe that some elected official or military man could actually lie or be less than honest, that Wall St. is rife with criminals, or that America isn't anything less than "the shining city on the hill". But at least children grow up to realize that the daddy they once marveled at when growing up is actually a flawed mortal with more than a few problems, far from the Superman he seemed in those days of innocence. But how odd that so many people here can't face the mirror when we're a country surrounded by them, only seeing ourselves and our own interests everywhere we look.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 5:06pm

75. Phil...the German elections may differ in your opinion...there seems to be a movement to the conservatives in Europe...the SOCIALIST are now being called out because they constantly protect the UN, which again, COULD HAVE STOPPED THE OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM and held the world accountable! Everyone has a vested interest in Iraq and the USA screwed that up. How can you not see the connection?

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 5:07pm

76. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/14/2005 @ 4:47pm

    What would you have us do? Go quietly into that good night?

    The right will not easily give up what it has gained. It is only now, after so many decades, that the the great Liberal Center of America is strirring and putting aside it's differences for the fight that is coming.

    I don't know about the rest of you. I'm not sitting this one out.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 5:08pm

77. ILP: Good to see a Floyd reference.

    I might add - caught on a steel breeze...

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 5:17pm

78. Will C. if the Dems bring the pain I'm in, but not expecting any major changes.

    BushRules go take your poll numbers and shove 'em. I just conducted a poll and guess what? 68% of people currently logged on here think you're a hick who shops at Walmart, gets nostalgia when you watch Deliverance, drives a Ford pickup, listens to Garth Brooks, considers Olive Garden fine dining, and plugs his central nervous system into Fox News everynight. Oh yeah, and you probably ride a bike without a seat on it.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 5:21pm

79. MASK (your 4:45 post):

    I could be wrong, but I do not think you can impeach a legislator. Forget my being technical though, b/c I agree with your overarching point - anyone who had the same intel as Bush yet voted for the authorization (whether under deceptive means or cowardice fro being labeled "soft") deserves to be outed. I would have no problem with cleaning house on both sides - trust me.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 5:23pm

80. Frank, then hold ALL of the 77 Senators on the same level of accountability...if you are willing to do that and then revisit the idea of stepping away from the UN and stop funding them, then I think you would be onto something. This is a huge mess that Bush is at the tail end of. If Bush came out and said, sorry, the intel was wrong, would that make it better? You keep dismissing other facts, and yes, they are facts, if they do not point fingers at Bush. It is getting old and tiresome, which is what is going to happen in a few more weeks and Bush will come out on top...not because he was right, because the public is getting tired of slanted lies from the Dems just as you claim they are tired of the right...get it?

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 5:23pm

81. Will C...you mean the great Socialist movement set forth by Communist Russia in the 60's, don't you?

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 5:26pm

82. The real funny thing is that if you could take a walk back in time and talk to the Old Dem party back in the 40's and 50's, I think they would agree that their party has been hyjacked by the socialist movement which has "politically masked" themselves as lovers of America. The "liberals" are the minorities...there are a lot a solid Dems in the US...but they are not being represented well in Washington DC. It is sad, but the Dem party has sold themselves to the Power and corruption that they once truly fought against!

    Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 5:29pm

83. So very true Dan....The Old Dems were a party of convictions...If they ruled that way today I would vote for many of them now. As Reagan used to say...The DIMS left me, I didnt leave them

    Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 5:34pm

84. Will C...you mean the great Socialist movement set forth by Communist Russia in the 60's, don't you?

    Posted by DANCALL 11/14/2005 @ 5:26pm

    I believe their movement started in 1917. Oh wait, your refence was from the time in US History when all the kids were talking about peace and love and god.

    I don't think the communists were into that kind of thing.

    Or you guys for that matter.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 5:41pm

85. WLLC,

    "I don't know about the rest of you. I'm not sitting this one out."

    Come on in son, the waters fine....:) Praise the lord...

    How have you been?

    Good view here from the righteous choir(front row), and Bush is doing OK...actually fighting back...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 5:41pm

86. DANCALL:

    You are assuming of course that everyone who voted for the authorization was privy to the same intelligence as Bush. I am not sure you can rightly make that case for everyone. Do you really think that any member of Congress has the same access to intelligence as the president? That's not really how it goes, and I think even you know this. I guess we will have to see what develops in Phase II, but I have seen plenty indicating that much of the intelliegence was not shared with Congress. Could it have been that many voted in favor not simply because they looked at the "smae intelliegnce", but that they put their trust in Bush, that he was being accurate and not omitting anything in what he was providing?

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 5:44pm

87. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/14/2005 @ 5:41pm

    John!

    Yes, very impressive. I noticed he still reads very well from the teleprompter. His lips move and everything.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 5:45pm

88. Hey John

    Where did you go in the city

    Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 5:45pm

89. Bushrules and Dancall,

    "The Old Dems were a party of convictions"

    I don't think there are any old dems left. The place has split into two haves ,Progressivess(Dean, socialists) and Cintonites, which roam around with the wind and say what needs to be said to get elected.

    The main point for the left is to get the House back at all costs and if they do, will start impeachment procedings in the first day of business...as the only goal is to get Bush,forget the country...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 5:48pm

90. Wllc!,

    Tried to con johannes out to the 14th street Markt and couldn't do it..I want to meet him there for a Trappist ale he likes and show him what a good conservative looks like:)

    I have an office in Mid town and hit some local Irish pubs,Mollys for 1 on 23rd and 3rd I think, great burgers, , I think,...Had a Ruths just to get some red meat(Nebraska, you know, and then paid $ 50 for a steak my grocer has for $ 8.00, oh well), and then a variety of saloons but not to crazy.. Hard work week actually,

    Say, you live there, I forgot, what area? I will buy you a cold one(or maybe some communion wine)!!next time I am there. I should be back after Turkeyday...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 5:54pm

91. Wllc,

    "Yes, very impressive. I noticed he still reads very well from the teleprompter. His lips move and everything."

    Yes, indeed, I wish he let out some anger or maybe and f-word, just to let those of us have who trouble with profanity, feel better..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 5:57pm

92. Remember most of all, salesmen sale themselves'-- before they can sale you!

    President Bush: Favorability Ratings Polls listed chronologically. All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

    "Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures and organizations, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. George W. Bush."

    VeryPositive SomePositive Neutral SomeNegative VeryNegative Don'tKnowName NotSure

    11/4-7/05------20 -------18-------12------15-------35-------0

    10/8-10/05-----21-------20-------11------17-------31-------0

    http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

    Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 6:00pm

93. "The public is getting tired yes, but according to all the polls, they're tired of Bush and the Republican party.....do you get it??

    New Zogby has Bush up to 46%...guess you dont get it...lies and slime is all you libs have to offer...I say keep on keepin on

    Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 6:02pm

94. John and Dancall:

    Very preceptive - the Democratic Party has changed over the years. I think the same can be said for both major parties. How are true fiscal conservatives feeling about Bush? How about libertarians? Are there any "old conservatives" actually wielding any power in today's GOP?

    For a look at the opinions of a few "old conservatives" on the war, check out the following link:

    Conservative Thoughts [geocities.com]

    If you do nto care to read the link, there are some opinions from William F. Buckley, George Will, Henry Hyde, Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.), Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.), Patrick Buchanan, Christopher Layne, William S. Lind, Paul Craig Roberts, Bruce Bartlett, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), and John J. Duncan (R-Tenn).

    "Prominent among the myths regarding the war in Iraq is the proposition that the pro-war interventionist position is universally supported by pro-American conservatives, and that opposition to the war is a left-wing position.

    Overlooked is that some of the most principled opposition to current Iraq war policy comes from traditional, patriotic, pro-national defense, small-government conservatives, who object to current interventionist policy as over-reaching, counterproductive to our relationships with our allies, a factor aggravating creation of more terrorists, and resulting in an on-going heavy price in American lives and collateral damage."

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 6:02pm

95. "If the Dems had control of Congress"

    Well you dont you out of power crybabies...

    Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 6:05pm

96. A typical koolaid-drinking Bush apologist: "New Zogby has Bush up to 46%...The poll numbers are real all right...and it confirms your campaign of lies and slime has failed....like everything else liberal"

    Actually, that Zogby poll was as of Oct. 29-Nov. 4. A newer poll, the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll as of Nov. 10-11 has Bush's approval at 38%. As in most cases, your facts are purposely incomplete in order to make a point by distortion. Bush apologists keep repeating the same mantras: everyone thought he had WMD's, democrats thought he was a threat, blah, blah, blah. That's all irrelevant because you know none of these democrats you cite would agree to a pre-emptive war when there were doubts about intelligence. They all wanted the inspections to run their course and you all know it. These pathetic attempts to explain away the biggest foreign policy blunder in history aren't working, boys. The newest polls show that a significant majority of Americans don't trust you and your pandering, whoring republican party. They don't trust Bush. They don't even like him anymore. Face reality you bleeding lunatics.

    Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 6:06pm

97. Hman,

    True to a point, most true conservatives might be closer to libertarians..fiscaly conservative. I hate Bushes spending, as from thee he is no conservative, as far as the war, I am not surprised that many Gopers do not support the war..

    The new GOP has a number of old Democrats in it...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 6:09pm

98. Hey Bushrules,

    My search found that Zogby had Bush at 47% on 10/29 - 11/2/05 so congrats, you have lost a point!

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 6:11pm

99. "That's all irrelevant because you know none of these democrats you cite would agree to a pre-emptive war when there were doubts about intelligenc"

    What the hell are you smoking??? They DID agree to it. Look at the resolution the DIMS insisted on so they would be on record looking tough. Well they are on record all right...and all your feeble attempts at lying notwithstanding

    Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 6:11pm

100. yeah, well Dems picked off a few of yours over the years too John.

     ;)

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 6:12pm

101. Bushrules - you should do another bong hit yourself if you think the members of Congress have the same access to intelligence as the president.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/14/2005 @ 6:14pm

102. Dean seems to be having trouble raising money for the Dems right now, what happened to all those grass root dollars? Wasn't it Bush who actually raised more small(grass roots) donations and the Dems had more "Big coporation, evil rich donations, blog moneys"?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 6:18pm

103. Really???The intellegence the president had was even more persasive than what congress saw...but yet the congress thought what they saw was good enough for them...so they voted for the war..

     Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 6:18pm

104. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 10-11, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "Do you think Bush can be an effective president during his last three years in office, or that he won't be able to get much done for the rest of his second term?"

     -------Can Be Effective---Won't GetMuch Done-----Unsure

     11/10-11/05-----36-----------56-------------8

     "Do you think the phrase 'is honest and ethical' describes George W. Bush, or not?" Describes----------Does--------Not---------Unsure

     11/10-11/05--------42---------50-----------8 1/22-23/04---------57---------38-----------5

     . "Do you think the phrase 'is honest and ethical' describes Dick Cheney, or not?" Describes ---------Does------Not----Unsure

     11/10-11/05--------29 ------55 ------16

     It's taken a while but people really aren't that dumb to not figure it out eventually.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 6:20pm

105. NBC and Newsweek polls are lib hack polls. They also had Kerry winning by a comforatable margin....so much for that tripe

     Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 6:23pm

106. Sorry about the first one-- didn't edit....

     Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 10-11, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "Do you think Bush can be an effective president during his last three years in office, or that he won't be able to get much done for the rest of his second term?"

     -------Can Be Effective---Won't GetMuch Done-----Unsure

     11/10-11/05-----36-----------56-------------8

     "Do you think the phrase 'is honest and ethical' describes George W. Bush, or not?"

     Describes----------Does--------Not---------Unsure

     11/10-11/05--------42---------50-----------8

     1/22-23/04---------57---------38-----------5

     "Do you think the phrase 'is honest and ethical' describes Dick Cheney, or not?"

     Describes ---------Does------Not----Unsure

     11/10-11/05--------29 ------55 ------16

     It's taken a while but people really aren't that dumb to not figure it out eventually.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 6:27pm

107. NBC and Newsweek polls are lib hack polls. They also had Kerry winning by a comforatable margin....so much for that tripe

     Posted by >bushrules at 11/14/2005 @ 6:30pm

108. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/14/2005 @ 5:54pm

     John!

     Born and raised in Jersey. Haven't been to the city since the late 1980's. Seattle is my home now.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 6:53pm

109. WLLC,

     I travel there ,too...you WILL be saved!!!!!!!!!!.........:)

     Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 6:58pm

110. WARNING, THE FOLOWING IS A LIBERAL ALERT...

     YOU MAY NOT WISH TO READ ANY FURTHER..IT IS OFF THREAD, BUT MAJOR NEWS

     OTTOWA, CANADA

     "OTTAWA -- The beleaguered Liberal government will promise significant cuts to personal income taxes and a sprinkling of corporate tax reductions today in a pre-election mini-budget that offers something for everyone.

     Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will promise to lighten the tax burden on Canadians, reiterate an earlier plan to cut billions from corporate taxes and introduce other business tax changes as part of a broader plan to boost the economy, sources say."

     Canada may be doomed, going conservative?

     OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 7:00pm

111. Another point most on the left is ignoring.

     If these demo senators cast a vote on something as serious as war without having all the intel, then they are even more responsible to the public for not doing the friggin job they were put into office to do!

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:12pm

112. are ignoring

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:13pm

113. you WILL be saved!!!!!!!!!!.........:)

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/14/2005 @ 6:58pm

     I'm not in danger

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 7:14pm

114. I'm not in danger

     Posted by WILL C. 11/14/2005 @ 7:14pm | ignore this person

     Oh, well..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/14/2005 @ 7:19pm

115. USAPRIDE,

     Your point is valid, but it goes only so far. Quoting from the Washington Post, "The National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country." Since there was clearly no rush to invade (we waited a few months), why was the vote so quick? Can you not remember the discussion about how few members of Congress had been able to read the report? And...this is the fault of the Democrats? The vote was part of the GOP's unified rush to war.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 7:26pm

116. NACL,

     You began your post on 11/13 by saying "your crowd…were supporter of Saddam." I have demonstrated that Ronald Reagan was THE supporter of Saddam. Now you want to justify it because "President Reagan could not allow the Ayatollah to control Europe's and our economic blood." Ok, if you want to argue along the lines of shaking hands with the devil is sometimes expedient, then make that point. However, your accusation that the opponents of BushII's war are salacious supporters of Saddam is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

     You wrote, "As to air launched weapons, Iraq got those not from the US but from France." I did not stipulate that we provided Iraq with those particular weapons. Rather, I wrote, "The US supplied training in precision targeting of air-launched weapons to Iraqi forces…." You argue that Saddam received his deadly chemical agents from a UN program. However, in 1994, Congress found that dozens of deadly agents, including anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq during the period of the Iraq-Iran war, by US companies under licenses issued by the Commerce Department under the rubric of "dual use" capability. Apparently, there was even a $1.5 million sale by Dow Chemical that raised suspicion by some in the administration, but they allowed it to go forward anyway. The point here is Reagan's people knew what Saddam was up to and they could have stopped the supply of these items, but they didn't. Former Lt. Col. Rick Francona has written about this and said that when he reported finding evidence of sarin usage on a battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula, the administration stopped cooperating with Iraq – but only for a few weeks.

     You write that the conversation I referenced between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein was "about an oil well dispute." Nothing could be further from the truth. If you read the whole transcript, it is very clear that Saddam felt like he was being squeezed by his Arab brothers, particularly the UAE and Kuwait. These countries had provided some assistance to him during his war with Iran, but now (during the meeting with Glaspie) they considered the assistance loans and wanted repayment. Further, Saddam felt they were manipulating oil prices thus making it costlier for Iraq to repay the disputed debt. Oil was trading around $25/barrel at that time and Saddam pointed out to Glaspie that when the price dipped to $12, it cost Iraq $6 billion to $7 billion in lost revenue. Glaspie was sympathetic and pointed out to him that there were many US politicians from oil states that wanted to see the price rise higher.

     To state that Glaspie "did not suspect that Saddam meant to grab the whole of Kuwait" is either wishful thinking from a die-hard apologist, or else is a tacit way of saying this career diplomat was as incompetent as Michael Brown at FEMA. Perhaps Saddam did not come right out and say "I'm going to attack Kuwait in eight days," but he acknowledged his troops were moving into the border region and discussed Mubarik's efforts in brokering peace between Iraq and Kuwait. Are you saying Egypt knew of impending hostilities between Iraq and Kuwait but our own ambassador didn't?

     Lastly, I personally don't know of anyone who "marched in the streets for that low life," but I do know many, this writer included, who marched in the streets in protest of an American president who lied to us in order to invade a country that was no threat to our security and a congress that failed its responsibilities under our constitution.

     If anyone should feel shame, it is apologists for these neocon extremists who are getting Americans killed every day - not for a noble cause, but for a lie. So you crawl under a rock, and don't come out until I tell you to.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/14/2005 @ 7:28pm

117. "What part of that don't you wingers get?"

     What part is it you dimwitted libs dont get???Your senators and congressman BEGGED for a 2nd congressional resolution to vote FOR the war so they could be seen as tough guys. Now like the total wimps that you all are, your trying to back away from your record and lie and slime all the while giving aid and comfort to the enemy and making the job tougher for our troops...all in the name of a jealous lack of power... What Disgusting pathetic excuses for patriots you claim to be

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 7:29pm

118. With all due respect, I say nonsense.

     You guys are giving the demo senators a pass. You don't go cast a vote to authorize the POTUS to use force if you don't feel comfortable with your vote. Remember, we are talking 77 votes. this was not even close.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:31pm

119. dream on fool

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 7:37pm

120. Well Frank, you have your views and I have mine. We will never see eye to eye on this subject.

     I feel you on the left will be very surprised at how this all turns out. The facts are what they are. Time will show GWB was acting on behalf of our best interests. In other words, doing his job.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:42pm

121. Time will also show that liberals have been actively undermining our country for their own perceived political benefit. But they are slowly but surely being exposed for who they really are. And thankfully be relegated as a permanent minority party

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 7:47pm

122. Bushrules: "NBC and Newsweek polls are lib hack polls. They also had Kerry winning by a comforatable margin....so much for that tripe"

     Bushrules, you started by citing a Zogby poll. Zogby called the race for Kerry on election night based on exit polls. So, by your ever-changing definitions, the poll you cited is "tripe." You are one very confused little boy, aren't you.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 7:51pm

123. I am sure we all would love to find out that attacking Iraq was in our best interests. Had you heard of Zarqawi before the war? I hadn't, but I live in a little hovel in the dell, so maybe he was better known in the rest of the country. Assuming he was lurking under everybody's radar, I shall ask, "is his emergence connected to our invasion and is this a bad thing?" This is a man who has attained a ridiculous amount of power and Islamic street cred, has make attacks in Europe and now in Jordan. And what have we done to tighten up our security here at home? We pat people down as they enter NFL games. We take away their dangerous toiletries. And we try to imagine that our president is doing all he can "on behalf of our best interests".

     Stay well.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/14/2005 @ 7:52pm

124. I can't believe we're still talking about this shit. The idea being that if one half of a lying group of motherfuckers in power backs up the other half, the other half must be telling the truth. Fuck the democrats. Fuck the republicans. Fuck the war, and fuck all you motherfuckers who support it. I'm tired of being civil about this. You all lied us into this mess, and even now, EVEN NOW, confronted with the concrete fact that Hussein had nothing, you cite government documents. You're so fucking stupid it's amazing you can breathe on your own. Go fight your fucking war if you want it, and may you all cheerfully blow each other's brains out. I've had it with you right wing fucks. Eat shit and die.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/14/2005 @ 7:53pm

125. Frank, not the carrier deal again. If you all had any idea how lame that makes you sound. It gives all your viewpoints a cheaper by the dozen aspect.

     Leave it behind, time to get over it.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:54pm

126. It doesn't matter how many times you Bush apologists say "dems voted for the war." Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war as a last result. Bush, in turn, promised Congress that he would bring them proof of the existence of WMD's. Bush told Congress that he would go back to the U.N.

     Bush pulled a "bait and switch." It's a common thing for these people. Bait with moderate -- switch to hard right. Bait with WMD's -- switch to regime change. Bait with Afganistan -- switch to Iraq. It's an old salesman's trick and we're all being played people. It's just that a few of us are way too emotionally invested in our dear leader to understand what's being done to them.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 7:56pm

127. Back at you Stellar.

     Real classy man.

     Take your ball and go home.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 7:57pm

128. I can't believe we're still talking about this shit. The idea being that if one half of a lying group of motherfuckers in power backs up the other half, the other half must be telling the truth. Fuck the democrats. Fuck the republicans. Fuck the war, and fuck all you motherfuckers who support it. I'm tired of being civil about this. You all lied us into this mess, and even now, EVEN NOW, confronted with the concrete fact that Hussein had nothing, you cite government documents. You're so fucking stupid it's amazing you can breathe on your own. Go fight your fucking war if you want it, and may you all cheerfully blow each other's brains out. I've had it with you right wing fucks. Eat shit and die.

     Posted by STELLARSJAY 11/14/2005 @ 7:53pm

     You libs can read this obnoxous rant above and have the balls to complain about a civil tone and intellectual discourse???Well I copied this shit for brains post to keep reminding you detestable libs what liars and hypocrites you truly are.

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 7:59pm

129. Eat shit and die.

     Posted by STELLARSJAY 11/14/2005 @ 7:53pm

     Jaymo

     You hit that fucker dead on the head.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:00pm

130. Anonymous Bush apologist: "Time will also show that liberals have been actively undermining our country for their own perceived political benefit."

     The record shows that after the '93 Trade Center bombings, the Clinton administration began to take terrorism very seriously. As we all know, Clinton tried to kill bin Laden on a couple of occasions. Here's my question to Mr. anonymous Bush apologist: were Republicans in congress helping Clinton kill and capture terrorists or were they "actively undermining our country for their own perceived political benefit." Because it sure looks to me like they were more interested in fighting the Commander in Chief than they were in fighting terrorism.

     Let's hear it, big mouth. The shoe has been on the other foot and I'm reasonably sure you were comfortable with it.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:01pm

131. Hey, USA Pride. Fuck you, fuck your classy, fuck your home. Okay? Go join Hitler Youth and get it over with. FUCK YOU!!!

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/14/2005 @ 8:02pm

132. Well I copied this shit for brains post to keep reminding you detestable libs what liars and hypocrites you truly are.

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 7:59pm

     Uh oh. A little harsh language, Bag boy is going to cry.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:03pm

133. "The record shows that after the '93 Trade Center bombings, the Clinton administration began to take terrorism very seriously."

     Dont make me laugh... B.J Clinton had Osama on a silver platter 3 times. He was busy with other things apparently

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:04pm

134. Stellar - like I said, back at you freak!

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:04pm

135. FUCK THIS WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING PRETENSE AT GETTING AT THE ROOT OF THIS MESS! FUCK LIBERALS, FUCK CONSERVATIVES, FUCK CAPITALISM, FUCK YOUR FUCKING WAR, GO DROWN IN YOUR MOTHERFUCKING COMMODIFIED SHITHEAP OF A LIFE! OKAY? Now take that to the fucking bank and deposit it.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/14/2005 @ 8:04pm

136. impressive

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:05pm

137. impressive

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:05pm

     yea baby!

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:06pm

138. now we have sunk down into the TRUE intellectual level of your typical loonie libs

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:07pm

139. Bush parades around a flight deck in a codpiece and declares victory. 1800 lives later, someone points this out and a Bush apologist says "get over it." Sorry, fucker, but we're not getting over anything. And, if that kind of language is too extreme for dainty little bastards like you, then I'll quote Dick Cheney: "go fuck yourself."

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:08pm

140. now we have sunk down into the TRUE intellectual level of your typical loonie libs

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:07pm

     Ah, the wonder of it.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:08pm

141. Yeah I'm a freak. to hell with this mess. waste of time. unsubscribe my ass. I'm tired of trying to talk sense with people who are setting themselves up to be a shark lunch. Fuck you right wing losers.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/14/2005 @ 8:09pm

142. "Bush parades around a flight deck in a codpiece"

     It seems funny you would have pointed that out in particular..

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:10pm

143. StellarAsshole is more like it.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:11pm

144. "Bush parades around a flight deck in a codpiece"

     It seems funny you would have pointed that out in particular..

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:10pm

     Bag Boy

     You were licking your lips.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:13pm

145. Anonymous Bush apologist: "Dont make me laugh... B.J Clinton had Osama on a silver platter 3 times. He was busy with other things apparently."

     So, I take it by your answer that you approve of the fact that the republican congress was more concerned with getting Clinton than they were with fighting terrorism -- exactly my point. Thank you. By the way, the 9-11 commission report debunked the myth that Clinton could have gotten bin Laden easily. Maybe you should read it. But, since you're so interested in those kinds of things, maybe you can explain why our own Pentagon reported that it offered the Bush administration three distinct opportunities to kill Abu al Zarqawi and Bush turned them down all three times for political reasons -- they felt killing Zarqawi would undercut one of their rationals for invasion. So, Bush let a guy off the hook who has gone on to kill hundreds and personally cut the heads off of two Americans. Bush apologists: your thoughts!

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:13pm

146. "And, if that kind of language is too extreme for dainty little bastards"

     Not at all...but it is you un-american detestable libs thats gonna need the vasoline in the next few months. Were tired of your bullshit lies and were gonna crush you assholes like the grape that you are

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:14pm

147. StellarAsshole is more like it.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:11pm

     We can always count on you to be quick to the punchline. Threaten to kick anyones ass lately?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:15pm

148. "And, if that kind of language is too extreme for dainty little bastards"

     Not at all...but it is you un-american detestable libs thats gonna need the vasoline in the next few months. Were tired of your bullshit lies and were gonna crush you assholes like the grape that you are

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:14pm

     Bring it on baby. Show us what you got

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:16pm

149. The silly little anyonomous Bush apologist is now resorting to threats. Is that what passes for an argument when you're out of ideas and answers? Pathetic and unamerican.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:18pm

150. Only you sickening Libs are an embarrassment to all true Americans.

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:20pm

151. Only you sickening Libs are an embarrassment to all true Americans.

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:20pm

     Look out!

     Bag boy needs a barf bag

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:20pm

152. and a skirt to hide behind

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:21pm

153. Hey anonymous Bush apologist: here's a quote by one of those "unamerican detestible libs" you hate so much: "As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality."

     George Washington, 1790

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:23pm

154. George was right..But I am sure he was not talking about socialists who appease terrorists...

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:24pm

155. Who is lying?

     "We do not torture."

     This is a simple, basic, and fundamental lie.

     How can anyone belive a single word this man says?

     Posted by Ray Barto at 11/14/2005 @ 8:24pm

156. I don't remember threatening anyone. Altough I have been called out a couple of times. Seems it is always by one of you lame asses that is opposed to violence - go figure. But yes, I am quick to the punchline.

     It's just so easy here.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:26pm

157. No, he wasn't talking about "socialists who appease terrorists." He was talking about religious conservatives, the same group that's still fucking up our country today.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:26pm

158. George was right..But I am sure he was not talking about socialists who appease terrorists...

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:24pm

     Bag boy!

     But you're not sure right. BBATTEN, you dumbfounded him.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:27pm

159. Seems it is always by one of you lame asses that is opposed to violence - go figure

     Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:26pm

     Did the lame ass kick your ass or did you scurry away first?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:28pm

160. USAPride, your friend, the anonymous Bush apologist said this: "Were tired of your bullshit lies and were gonna crush you assholes like the grape that you are "

     He's on your side, pride.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:29pm

161. Hey Frank, don't look now, but he's your president too.

     That is unless you are not an American citizen. In that case, who cares what you say or think.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:30pm

162. "

     FUCK THIS WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING PRETENSE AT GETTING AT THE ROOT OF THIS MESS! FUCK LIBERALS, FUCK CONSERVATIVES, FUCK CAPITALISM, FUCK YOUR FUCKING WAR, GO DROWN IN YOUR MOTHERFUCKING COMMODIFIED SHITHEAP OF A LIFE! OKAY? Now take that to the fucking bank and deposit it.

     Posted by STELLARSJAY

     Hes on your side.

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:30pm

163. Hes on your side.

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:30pm

     Cool!

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:31pm

164. "maybe we'll actually be respected once again"

     The only ones that we need respect from is our terrorist enemies. Instead of appeasing them like you libs do. Didnt work out too good for the socialist libs in France did it

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:35pm

165. Yep. Stellar Asshole, that's me. Dig it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Why don't you go help your government burn more children with white phospherous, USA Pride? Then maybe once you all are through testing it abroad, you can use it on your opposition here at home, which is what you really want to do anyway.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/14/2005 @ 8:35pm

166. USAPride: "Hey Frank, don't look now, but he's your president too."

     We don't follow the leader in America. We follow the law. The military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the leader. But I know I don't have to tell a conservative this. Conservatives made it clear that they understood this principle during the last administration.

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm

167. " No more Mr. Nice Guy"

     When have you assholes ever been nice??...all you have to offer is spew and hatred..wso its times to shove it back up your asses deep

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm

168. The only ones that we need respect from is our terrorist enemies. Instead of appeasing them like you libs do.

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:35pm

     Because, after all, fighting them the Gee Dubya way has done nothing to swell their ranks and embolden them into striking out across international borders.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm

169. When have you assholes ever been nice??...all you have to offer is spew and hatred..wso its times to shove it back up your asses deep

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:37pm

     Can we! Can we! Can We! Can we!

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:39pm

170. "You all need a good lesson in history"

     Yeah every time you libs have appeased someone it has come back to bite you in your detestable asses. No more...were not listening to your lies and deceptions anymore..its war and were gonna win it despite you un-american assholes

     Posted by at 11/14/2005 @ 8:41pm

171. "You all need a good lesson in history"

     Yeah every time you libs have appeased someone it has come back to bite you in your detestable asses. No more...were not listening to your lies and deceptions anymore..its war and were gonna win it despite you un-american assholes

     Posted by 11/14/2005 @ 8:41pm

     So what's the plan stan. Pistols at ten paces? Three martini lunch?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:42pm

172. Will, all I can say is, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:42pm

173. Will, all I can say is, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

     Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:42pm

     Night Night. Don't let the bed bugs bite!

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:43pm

174. "its war and were gonna win it despite you un-american assholes"

     How do you know if you're winning this war? Terrorism is up. Our influence is down. Our military is broken. Our borders are no more secure than they were on 9-10-05. We've got fewer allies than we have had at any time in the last 200 years. AlQueda recruitment is soaring. Iraqi terrorists are bringing their suicide attacks to other countries. The Taliban is back in power in Afganistan. Iran and North Korea have more nuclear capability than they did when Bush came to power. Our budget is broken.

     HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE WINNING THIS WAR? IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR LEADER IS LOSING HIS WAR! You think we're happy about that??!! You think we like to see all this death and destruction? What the hell is the matter with you people that you can't see the first thing about reality?

     Posted by BBatten at 11/14/2005 @ 8:46pm

175. Will, no hard feelings.

     Did you know that every time DUBYA says goodnight to Laura, he cites the line from the movie, History of the world - "it's good to be king."

     Sweet dreams libs.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 8:53pm

176. Posted by USAPRIDE 11/14/2005 @ 8:53pm

     And like the movie, his administration is a comedy

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:54pm

177. a comedy of fools? or was that dunces?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:55pm

178. or errors

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:56pm

179. Perhaps we will never know

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 8:56pm

180. Frank, now you are throwing dice.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:12pm

181. crap

     Posted by Will C. at 11/14/2005 @ 9:13pm

182. To BushRules and cronies - Can't speak to all of Podhoretz's comments. Reads like he cherry-picked the available evidence. He has a point re: Dems prior support of the war. They did support "regime change" unequivocally and they should be held accountable for that. He is wrong, however and he knows it, to call the pro-war Clinton-Biden wing of the Dem Party "Liberal". They are anything but as years of votes and statements attest to any honest reader.

     BTW - Liberals are as "weak as water"? Maybe you slept through Physics (must have come right after Government). Water is about the strongest thing on Earth. Ever hear of the Grand Canyon? And unlike clouds of hot gas (i.e., some of your posts) it cannot be compressed. Thanks for the compliment and here's hoping we wash you and your pals away before too long.

     Posted by jareilly at 11/14/2005 @ 9:18pm

183. Frank, I do like hanging with you guys. I don't have a problem with people of different opinions. I welcome it. I "pride" myself at being open minded.

     You all are good people in my book.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:20pm

184. Nite Frank.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:31pm

185. "...US society has a pragmatic orientation. This is a preference for action over reflection. If the truth of a belief is to be sought in the consequences of acting on the belief, rather than through a preliminary examination of the grounds for holding it, there will be a tendency to act first and question later (if at all - for once a belief is acted upon the actor becomes involved in responsibility for the consequences and will be disposed to interpret the consequences so that they justify his belief and hence his action)."

     There you have it, the White House and the rest of you fascist Republicans trying to justify everything after the fact, lying, changing face, flipping the script, then smearing and defaming anyone who challenges your bullshit. And please, calling anyone antiAmerican or unpatriotic is the gayest thing you can do, I mean COME ON. You think the people who oppose Berlusconi in Italy are called antiItalian, or unpatriotic? Fuck my country, it's God I care about, not the lying warmongers and their lies to coerce people into swallowing bullshit and getting killed for corporate interests.

     The first pretext was for WMD, then for ridding the region of Saddam, then for bringing freedom and democracy. They'll greet us as liberators, they're in their last throes... Chalabi is our guy, no wait he's in bed with the Iranians, no I mean yes, he's our guy. We're right on Zarqawi's tail, wait, maybe he's in Syria... We're right on Osama in Tora Bora, er, I mean, we don't know where he is, maybe Pakistan, maybe Afghanistan. We don't practice torture, but yes, we do operate clandestine prisons in nice places like Eastern Europe and Thailand and deny access to the Red Cross. Only a retard couldn't clearly see that the government is full of shit and its supporters mindless trolls.

     You nuts are the reason I left the US and live happily in southern latitudes, watching the great colossus slowly sink. You are a laughing stock to even the poorest peasants here in America's basement. Though I too have to laugh at the lunacy and illness so obviously manifest in the rightwingers ranting and raving here, talking about patriotism yet too chicken shit to truly defend thier beliefs by being a real-life GI Joe, I also cringe knowing what a fucked up society you boast, all taking pills, eating garbage masquerading as food, playing video games and getting fatter, zoning out to the boobtube and "reality TV", all while boasting you're something special, something worth imitating. Wake up morons, the world DOESN'T want to be like you and it doesn't respect you. Bunch of morons, obviously never left to see that great thing called 'the world' outside your borders because the idiot box has trained you to fear everything and everyone, including each other. You neo-cons are all cowards like your president, all talk no action. Go take your prozac or prilosec or crestor or zoloft and turn on the propaganda. You are the most insular society on earth, the least informed, though the most entertained...

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 9:36pm

186. Time to slumber.

     May God be with you always.

     Yes, there is something bigger than yourself.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/14/2005 @ 9:36pm

187. Chim...it must be nice living off your local government and not working when you don't want. Or better yet, exporting your fellow man so they come to America and work their asses off, so they can send the money back to your lazy ass.

     Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 9:44pm

188. And Chim...one last thing...a high majority of the "Real GI JOE's" are republicans and they really don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about them. As long as they have their family, that is all that matters. You see, the true hypocrites in America are the Hollywood buffons and the ones who idolize their every day activities. The Majority of this crowd is based more on the Democrat side...ie, Bill Clinton traveling with Hollywood stars in Air Force 1.

     Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 9:54pm

189. DanCall, I'm a teacher, don't be a fuckpuppet and think you know shit about me or this region. Come down here and spend three or four years, then talk to me. And as far as people leaving, well, maybe in Mexico and Central America, but there's this area of Panama called the Darién Gap that stops the South Americans. Check it out smart guy. No, these people in the Andes often make a living by growing coca and poppies for all you drug addicts there, for there is no demand which doesn't find its supply. But if you are ever bothered by illegal immigrants, such as the 3 million who crossed the border last year alone, maybe you guys should stop offering so many jobs to illegals or maybe make it at least somewhat of a challenge to cross al norte. Gimme a break. You must be pissed because you realize Hispanics have more pride and will work harder than most Americans. Your economy is 75% services Greenspan, without the 45 million Latinos there, you wouldn't have shit. And given the amount they all send home to their patrias in the form of remittances, you can't even consider ever kicking them out, because much of Latin America would erupt in war and revolution, and we know we're not strong enough to handle any more wars. So it's you who depend on them, not me jagoff. (And in case you didn't already know, Latinas are much better women than your crazy gringas...) Try getting a passport instead of listening to talking heads and pundits.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/14/2005 @ 9:58pm

190. Dude, I have all the respect in the world for the Latin Americans who come to America. They do work their asses off and have a huge amount of respect for family and values. My personal opinion is to make the citizens so they have to pay taxes just like every other hard working person in the US. The US is becoming lazy BECAUSE THE USA IS TURNING INTO A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.

     I have traveled around the world and love the life style and atomosphere..the whole culture. Again, the point that the outside world does not really pick up is that the majority of America is "common man" and has a fear of god with hard core family values...much like the Latino community...Right now there is a language problem, but that will fade over time.

     I am trying to learn spanish so I can actually talk to people in my area...but is some what disturbing that a lot of them refuse to learn English. That, my friend, is pure arrogance, or pure defiance...that is what the American population has a problem with. The majority of european, Russian, African, Asains that come to America try to learn the language or have a trong enough base to get buy in a short time.

     Drugs...that must make you proud...supplying drugs to fuck someone elses life up...that is responsible...yeah right.

     When I traveled a few years ago overseas, which was about 2 years after 9/11, I was absolutely amazed how the world sees America...and it is because they only get on side of the story...THE SOCIALISTs Interp. I also noticed a huge influx of American culture seeping into other "traditional" cultures. The funny thing was, it was the crap of America they loved...which is what the republicans are complaining about. The biggest fraud on the world is that ALL Americans are GI Joe Types...the reality is, we just don't put up with shit heads.

     Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 10:23pm

191. Just rereading the 9/11 commission report and there is total and absolute connection to Bin Ladden and Sadaam...one FACTUAL NO DISPUTABLE CASE is the Sudan bombing by Clinton...these are the FACTS. Remember people...these terrorists have no country and is extremely hard to trace them...the liberals in america keep thinking that a border is a border and that is how you play the game...it just doesn't work like that!

     The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:

     "Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas."

     Then, the connection:

     "The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."

     The senior intelligence officials who briefed reporters laid out the collaboration. "We knew there were fuzzy ties between [bin Laden] and the plant but strong ties between him and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Although this official was careful not to oversell bin Laden's ties to the plant, other Clinton officials told reporters that the plant's general manager lived in a villa owned by bin Laden.

     Posted by dancall at 11/14/2005 @ 10:35pm

192. Why is no one talking about putting George Bush in jail? He should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Why is it not a crime to for a public official to lie to the public? He does it every day and the stupidest lawyer could prove it to a stupid jury (I'm not sure about the math on that statement). How can he lie so indiscriminately and everyone just acts like we have to accept that that is what presidents do? Every day he says things that are not true and he never gets arrested.

     I would like to hear how politicians would justify opposing a bill to criminalize lieing to the public.

     TMark

     Posted by tmark at 11/14/2005 @ 10:48pm

193. or not keeping campaign promises....remeber that "uniter" stuff?

     TMark

     Posted by tmark at 11/14/2005 @ 10:54pm

194. Stellarsjay,

     Don't let yourself be baited by these rightwingers. They have already made up their minds about Bush and no amount of evidence you provide is going to change how they think.

     The important point is that we need to focus on the people who are in the middle, not the extremes, of the political spectrum. Previously, many of these discussions about Bush's wrongdoings were confined to liberal sites such as this one. Now because of the consequences from Bush's policies, people in the middle are beginning to question whether we are indeed safer now that we have invaded Iraq. And as these questions arise so does the search for the truth on the conduct of the Bush administration and their deceptive case for taking this country to war.

     Bush's poll ratings prove that these "liberal" views are now gaining acceptance in mainstream America. Awareness is growing, and we are succeeding.

     Posted by bluelaser at 11/14/2005 @ 10:55pm

195. DANCALL: You are pissing into the wind...nobody but you Bush zombies believes in this war anymore. It is a loser. Don't you get it? Nobody buys your Bush bullshit anymore. The war is devouring the Bush administration. You are done.

     Posted by philbq at 11/14/2005 @ 10:56pm

196. Bush and his team lied to the American public and Americans died. The American death toll is approaching and will definitely surpass the death count of 911 itself. How ironic. We have hundreds, if not thousands of American troops currently in Iraq who are walking dead. They are basically walking over a cliff to their deaths and we are sitting around letting it happen. There are definitely war crimes here and I look forward to a democratic majority in the house after 2006 to start impeachment proceedings. That is the least that the electoral victors will owe the American public.

     Posted by D1od1o at 11/14/2005 @ 11:00pm

197. PRESIDENT BUSH Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls Complete trend Survey

     ----------------------------Dates---------Approve---Disapprove---Unsure

     CNN/USA Today/Gallup------11/11-13/05-------37--------60---------3---(-23)

     Newsweek --------------------11/10-11/05-------36--------58---------6---(-22)

     FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV---11/8-9/05-------- 36--------53--------11---(-17)

     AP-Ipsos *--------------------11/7-9/05---------37--------61---------2---(-24)

     NBC/Wall Street Journal------11/4-7/05--------38--------57---------5---(-19)

     Pew----------------------------11/3-6/05---------36-------55---------9-- -(-19 )

     AP-Ipsos *-------------------10/31 - 11/2/05----37-------59---------4---(-22)

     ABC/Washington Post-------10/30 - 11/2/05----39-------60---------1---(-21)

     CBS--------------------------10/30 - 11/1/05-----35-------57---------8---(-22)

     Wouldn't it be easier for the country if the Bush + admin, just resigns. Everyone is catching on and the Bush admin is embarrassing the country. Are they waiting to hit the 20% approval mark? Wouldn't that be putting the country at risk for shear vanity-- How many more sins are left that they haven't commited...?

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/14/2005 @ 11:57pm

198. Podhoretz' effort defines "obsessive crackpot". Can't believe the energy and time he puts into shoring up the totally delusional framework constructed by Bush and like minded neocons. Especially curious when reality is so easily ascertainable. Particularly obsessive is his need to kick the redoubtable Clinton ghost a few more times. Toying with the "vast right wing conspiracy" was a finger exercise for old Bill, and apparently they still aren't over it.

     Iraq is a total strategic disaster for the US. Any truly conservative, patriotic American wants to see Bush and his inept stooges out of office and in a jump suit as soon as possible. Instead, we will be facing 5,000 dead soldiers, $600 billion in wasted taxpayer money and the hatred of most of the world before anything reasonable can be done.

     Posted by boogster at 11/15/2005 @ 12:08am

199. I have yet to read any Bush or war supporter verbalize the obvious intellectual discomfort the President is putting them in by defending his decision to send servicemen to there deaths not with the actual causes that he cited before pulling the trigger on the invasion, but with a litany of out of context quotes from his political arch rivals.

     What kind of mush-mouthed sissy do you guys have for a leader? Did our servicemen die for a real reason, or did they die because of some botched intelligence that got misinterpreted by Bush who now must cite similar misinterpretations of those you view as wholly incompetent and untrustworthy to somehow prove it was an "honest mistake"?

     What's so damn respectable about an "honest mistake" anyway when over 2000 of our finest die, thousands more are maimed and countless civilian Iraqis are killed?

     Does some agreement from grandstanding Democrats triangulating for re-election make getting and presenting the facts about the Iraqi threat "all wrong" OK?

     Why don't Republicans with stones stand up and say: "Hey, some twist in the wind liberal politicians beating the war drum is meaningless, if our intelligence services screwed up which made my President screw up and it got people killed unecessarily -- heads have got to roll."

     Is there any thing more damaging to the mindset of a potential military recruit or new enlistee than knowing the civilian leaders of the force that he's willing to die for can make and admit huge deadly mistakes and still tout them as good leadership?

     Posted by chilled242 at 11/15/2005 @ 12:10am

200. CHIMICHENGA,

     "You nuts are the reason I left the US and live happily in southern latitudes, watching the great colossus slowly sink."

     Are you an American? This is a sad statement and you are probably where you belong. Please stay there and take 2 more home with you as I am sure they must have the same attude. Maybe you can help the country you are in now become a paradise as you certainly contribute nothing here in America, you are part of the problem and I for one are glad you are down there helping them and not us. We need qualified teachers and businessmen. No more lawn mowers, please.

     If the great colossus sinks, you in the "south" are REALLY screwed.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 12:16am

201. Direction of Country

     ---Poll----------Date---------Right Direction-------Wrong Direction------Spread

     RCP Average----11/2 - 11/11------28.8%-------------64.3%------------(-35.5%)

     Newsweek---------11/10 - 11/11-----26%--------------68%-------------(-42%)

     AP-Ipsos-----------11/7 - 11/9--------32%-------------64%-------------(-32%)

     NBC News/WSJ------11/4 - 11/7--------26%-----------63%------------(-37%)

     Democracy Corps (D)--11/2 - 11/6------31%-----------62%----------(-31%)

     What's left is for the Bush admin to do right for the good of the country and resign before it gets to the point of putting our troops at even greater risk. If there is any honor left in him, his state of the union will detail how his admin will leave office before he hits the teens or lower for the direction he's leading the country. Obviously he's serving a different population from the majority.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/15/2005 @ 12:30am

202. Bushfools,

     You would be a fool to lean so heavily on polls, as they are a reflection of a few people of what occured yesterday. The only polls relevant are the election polls and Repubs and Bush seem to always do well there on the day......

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 12:41am

203. How are the DEMS doing in your polls?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 12:42am

204. Dear John Maasch,

     I am far from the problem, and accusing me of being a problem is why you idiots are blind as can be. Everything is the fault of the unpatriotic and unAmerican liberals to you people when all the problems your country finds itself in now were all engendered by your party. But regardless, I could care less about contributing to a completely ignorant and wasteful society where people worship things and fear their neighbors, as I see you do, whether it's liberals or Hispanic immigrants. I guess your impoverished ancestors who came over from Europe were skilled laborers who spoke English, right? They were received with open arms, right, never experienced any type of discrimination or antagonism? I guess Latinos aren't fleeing poverty, war, injustice, discrimination, famine, economic hardship, ect. like our European ancestors, right? I too am glad I'm here, for I'm happy as can be and much more at peace with the society and values here in Latin America. At least they don't try to hide their problems under the rug like you people, trying to make believe the US is some kind of paradise. RIIIIIGHT. The thing is, people are very poor here, but generally happy. They take nothing for granted and enjoy even the smallest things in life. You people stress out over traffic or bad hair days, and you all hate each other. I honestly wish you'd all just declare a civil war and take out your sexual frustrations and insecurities on each other. Anyway, shouldn't you be duct taping your house before the Bird Flu kills you? You really ought to pull your head out of your ass, wipe the dirty Sanchez off your face and get a clue.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 12:55am

205. Congress - Job Approval Ratings

     ------Poll---------------Date---------------Approve-------Disapprove---- ----Sp read

     RCP Average----------10/30 - 11/9---------32.8%---------58.3%---------(-25.5%)

     AP-Ipsos---------------11/7 - 11/9----------32%-----------64%-----------(-32%)

     NBC News/WSJ--------11/4 - 11/7----------28%-----------57%-----------(-29%)

     ABC News/Wash Post--10/30 - 11/2--------37%-----------59%----------(-22%)

     CBS News--------------10/30 - 11/1---------34%------------53%----------(-19%)

     Generic Congressional Vote

     Poll-----------------------Date--------Republican-------Democrat-----Spr ead

     RCP Average---------11/2 - 11/11--------37.3%-----------49.7%-----D + 12.3%

     Newsweek------------11/10 - 11/11------36%-------------53%-------D + 17%

     NBC News/WSJ-------11/4 - 11/7---------37%-------------48%-------D + 11%

     Democracy Corps (D)--11/2 - 11/6-------39%-------------48%-------D + 9%

     I bet Repub's are scurring around looking for different ways to show they're not with the Bush admin as much as possible-- i.e. stopping the drilling, calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq, soon repeal of the tax cuts for the rich, block the supreme nom,...etc. As Bush continues to sink and take the country with him... If he were really in charge Bush would cut the dead wood and find some that can float and jump on it. Otherwise he's taking us down with him!

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/15/2005 @ 01:46am

206. Survey Results

     Should George W Bush Step Down As President?

     Yes! 68 %

     No! 32 %

     And good night and pleasant dreams to all.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/15/2005 @ 02:02am

207. It is no small credit to Mr. Corn that political opponenets like this Mr. "Bushrules" spend so much time and effort to try to fight off Mr. Corn´s razorsharp and straight-to-the-point analysis of the current Bush administration. The lack of common sense and wisdom in the messages posted by "Bushrules" (and others) is heartbreaking since it reflects the minds of many presumable republican voters. The attitude in these messages also touch a very central aspect of the whole political debates in America. Far too many common people are not well enough educated or have not read enough political history. Too many people (voters) are either ignorant or misinformed. This makes it easy to politically mislead them. Bottomline: A hundred years ago the GOP established all the modern governmental institutions that the current GOP is undermining and betraying. Back then the majority of the members of the Republican party were both progressive and honourable. Not anymore.

     Posted by JanHolmLarsen at 11/15/2005 @ 06:08am

208. It is no small credit to Mr. Corn that political opponenets like this Mr. "Bushrules" spend so much time and effort to try to fight off Mr. Corn´s razorsharp and straight-to-the-point analysis of the current Bush administration. The lack of common sense and wisdom in the messages posted by "Bushrules" (and others) is heartbreaking since it reflects the minds of many presumable republican voters. The attitude in these messages also touch a very central aspect of the whole political debates in America. Far too many common people are not well enough educated or have not read enough political history. Too many people (voters) are either ignorant or misinformed. This makes it easy to politically mislead them. Bottomline: A hundred years ago the GOP established all the modern governmental institutions that the current GOP is undermining and betraying. Back then the majority of the members of the Republican party were both progressive and honourable. Not anymore.

     Posted by JanHolmLarsen at 11/15/2005 @ 06:08am

209. Well.....RESE has shown up with his "Illuminati" postings.

     and as we all know, that signals the end of serious discusion on a thread!

     Posted by Mask at 11/15/2005 @ 06:44am

210. When will Bush & Co. finally begin to tell the truth to the American people, on Anything, instead of Spin, Spin, Spin, and Talking Points, like the American public are dumb and stupid. We gave them a blank check after 911 which they totally abused but after Katrina there are no more blank checks.

     Posted by Angellight at 11/15/2005 @ 06:52am

211. 1. If the democrats had voted against the "war resolution", republicans would have blamed the ensuing debacle on their lack of support.

     2. If the war had been conducted competently, no one would care how we got into it.

     3. If a democrat had been president, we would not be in Iraq.

     Posted by tmag at 11/15/2005 @ 06:54am

212. Max Cleland said it of the Vietnam War and it is applicable to the Iraq War - "Bad war, good soldier(s)."

     Posted by UtahReb at 11/15/2005 @ 07:54am

213. Chim... your statements about Latin immigrants and European immigrants that didn't speak English is flawed. If the parents never learned English, their kids were forced to learn English by their parents. They INTEGRATED into the "melting pot". When latinos are born in America, we are paying tax dollars in public schools to teach ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE. That is the fundamental difference. That my friend automatically sets Latinos aside from the general population. What don't you get there?

     John is right...you can blame the USA all you want, but it is you and your type that refuses to integrate into the system. the attitude is our way or else. every other culture that came to the US brought their cultures and was not always met with open arms. Take the Irish. they were treated just as bad as the black man. Ever heard "irish need not apply".. What di the Irish do? They sent their kids to schools, college and took the civil services jobs that no one wanted. they to this today are still laborers, but do not BITCH like you. They worl hard for their KIDS to succeed. They knew that they may not be the smartest in the world but they are making sure their children have the best opportunities to integrate into society.

     Communication is the key to everything...but when you have a culture that refuses to learn to communicate in the language that the Constitution of the USA is written, we have a fundamental problem!!!

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 09:35am

214. Phil...I rather piss in the wind, then sit with shit in my pants and blame the smell on someone else!

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 09:37am

215. DanCall, My comparison of European and Hispanic immigrants was given to highlight their reasons for coming to the US more than the language. You act as if ALL European immigrants learned our language which is totally wrong, especially in places like New York and Chicago. It's kind of like the English in Alicante, Spain who never learn Spanish, the Americans all over the Yucatan who don't speak a word of Spanish (Americans are lazy when it comes to learning other languages, demanding all the world speak our barbarian tongue). It's not always necessary, though of course it helps, just like it would help you people if you'd wake up and start learning Spanish or Mandarin, since by 2050 the whites will be the official minority in the entire USA as Asian and Hispanic populations continue to explode. Either way, all those Hispanics born of immigrants and illegals learn Spanish in the home and English in the school, and will be more and more valuable in a country constantly invaded by the Latin tongue. By the way, I'm not Hispanic, though I'd rather be grouped with them than your lot. What really surprises me is, if you've ever traveled anywhere in the world you know that you can speak English everywhere, (good for you since you refuse to learn any other tongue and would be like a baby without its mother abroad) as foreigners realize English can be quite valuable in their own countries. Yet how is it that we refuse to recognize any language as being valuable to us? You'd think by now that with 45 million Hispanics there and 450 million in the Americas it might come in handy someday…

     You seem to be one of those Americans who refuse to admit that 4 out of 5 people on this globe are NOT white while 2 out of three ARE NOT Christian. Not handling your minority status too well. And though you talk tough (as do all gringos), the funny thing is, once you're alone with an African American or Hispanic, especially from the urban areas, you become the biggest pussy and keep your witless, racist comments to yourself, of course, then go into kiss-ass mode. Afraid you might get jacked, are you? Maybe because you KNOW that these people really are tough and inured, unlike you and don't need to hear your whiny bullshit? You guys are nothing without your guns and bombs. And though as they say when the US sneezes Latin America catches a cold, the people here are WAY more resilient and able to cope with hardship, because it's what daily life here is all about. You guys on the other hand go ape when NY loses electricity for a night. You guys have a show where some dumbfucks spend 30 days on an island or in the jungle without their hairdryers and deodorant and drive thru cuisine and call it "Survivor". What a bunch of babies. You don't know the first thing about survival.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 10:41am

216. Chim...I guess you did not see that I am trying to learn spanish...I said I love the Latin culture and I damn well know that white America is not the norm around the world.

     You seem to be a very angry and self righteous person.

     I wish the best for you.

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 10:51am

217. Survial...that is interesting that you use that word. If you look at the world and the universe, earth eventually will die...THAT IS A FACT. Technology and advancements are a mode of survival. Now what we do with that Technology is a a different subject, but when my kin's kin's kin is able to get on a ship to another planet/space station when the earth is burning and your kin is frying in your huts...then talk to me about surviving.

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 10:54am

218. Good for you DanCall. Pero no estoy enojado sino bien chévere aquí solo que me da pena la estupidez de la gente allá y entiendo que el gringo no mira al latino como igual. A la vez te confieso que me da risa joder con Uds. mientras hago mis tareas aquí. No presto mucha atención a la politica de EU pero de vez en cuando me conecto para burlarme así como lo hago ahora. No lo tomes al pecho chico es una diversión nada más. Relájate las carnitas.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 10:56am

219. I get your jist and I would probably enjoy your company. I agree that there are many stupid people running around, but is more ignorance. That is the problem with the US. It is soooo big and most americans do not travel and if they do, they only travel within the 50 states.

     I personally believe that the Latinos are the "Irish of the Times". They will be successful because they do work hard and have a strong sense of accountability. They are trying to set themselves apart as a minority because I feel they understand the negative connection it brings to be lumped in with other groups.

     That is why I am learning Spanish...I want to communicate with my neigbors becuase they always seem to be having fun...

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 11:04am

220. And I take it that the EU countries screw over the Latino countries just as much as America.

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 11:05am

221. Bushrules wrote: "you all are as weak as water."

     I think that was a compliment. What isn't stronger than water?

     Keep reading Normy Podhoretz, Bushrules. Next you'll be telling us that Islamic Terrorism is like Communism. Oh, wait a minute. That is what Bush said last Friday. . . .

     Posted by hhemwm at 11/15/2005 @ 11:07am

222. Republicans run true to form: first they lie about invading Iraq and now they lie about withdrawing from Iraq. Does America need incompetent liars like this in our highest offices?

     Republicans say the idea was theirs.

     "Our amendment came first," Eric Ueland, Frist's chief of staff, said in an e-mail. "It is classic spin of losers to claim victory from the words of the winners, which is exactly what Democrats portrayed," Ueland said.

     "Not true," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid.

     At their press conference, Democrats circulated a copy of their amendment with Democratic co-sponsors crossed out, Warner and Frist's names inserted, and the key changes made in pen.

     "That is their handwritten changes to our amendment," Manley said in an e-mail. "We drafted, provided them our text, and then they made changes to our amendment and filed it as theirs."

     http://tinyurl.com/c337x

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 11:07am

223. .

     SEATTLESCRIBE 11/14 @ 7:28pm

     I have demonstrated that Ronald Reagan was THE supporter of Saddam. Now you want to justify it because "President Reagan could not allow the Ayatollah to control Europe's and our economic blood." Ok, if you want to argue along the lines of shaking hands with the devil is sometimes expedient, then make that point. However, your accusation that the opponents of BushII's war are salacious supporters of Saddam is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

     That you still think "Reagan was THE supporter of Saddam" and that you "have demonstrated that" is perfect proof of your confused condition.

     None of the arms with which Saddam went to war against Iran in 1980 were Americans. Only 1% of the arsenal with which he attacked Kuwait was American. Politically Reagan did not support Saddam, rather he declared Iraq a rogue state. Nor did he provide economic support. Trade between the countries was nil. How is it possible for you to believe that "Reagan was THE supporter of Saddam"?

     Rumsfeld stiffened the cracking Iraqi army when the Iranians threatened to break into the Gulf. That was done to preserve US access to the Gulf's oil. What has that to do with you and your friends agitating to keep Saddam in power twenty years later? Explain that.

     Furthermore, why is it unfair, incorrect and dishonest to charge you with siding with Saddam when the US sought to eject him ?

     Was he or was he not a mass murdering tyrant, and known to be that? Was the US or was it not trying to eject him? Did you or did you not at that time take Saddam's side against the US effort to eject him? Why did that not make you his collaborator?

     Which of us is being unfair, incorrect or dishonest?

     I did not stipulate that we provided Iraq with those particular weapons (Exocets). Rather, I wrote, "The US supplied training in precision targeting of air-launched weapons to Iraqi forces…."

     Please stipulate the air-launched weapon in whose use the US trained Iraq, and where and when it did so.

     ...in 1994, Congress found that dozens of deadly agents, including anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq

     When diplomatic relations were restored Iraq was allowed to go shopping in the US, like any other country. There was the hope of pulling Saddam out of the Soviet camp by tying him to the US economically. Like any country with a modern scientific sector including medical schools, a pharmaceutical and herbicide industry, Iraq required chemicals and biological cultures.

     Thus, for example, Dr. Mahammad Mahmud, after finishing months of research on mosquito-borne viruses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, was allowed to hand-carry his work home, his work having focused on dengue fever and a non-virulent strain of plague.

     Thus, to take the most sensationally of the germs, anthrax cultures were supplied to Iraq under a UN cattle vaccination program. And not the virulent Aimes strain or as an aerosol, the only form in which anthrax can be used as a weapon. In short in every case what was delivered was not stuff easily adapted for military use. And the delivery of most of it did not occur until 1988, when the Iraq/Iran war ended.

     The point here is Reagan's people knew what Saddam was up to and they could have stopped the supply of these items, but they didn't.

     Not true. None of what was supplied ever became weapons used against anyone. Saddam's c/b warfare capacity was entirely independent of the US. He was conducting poison gas attacks since Nov. 1980, four years before US/ Iraq diplomatic relations resumed. The poison cocktail dropped on Halabja was a Soviet formula. He clearly did not depend on US supplies for his c/b warfare. Furthermore, most of Saddam's requests were denied licenses. He complained bitterly that he was not being allowed what his economy desperately needed, and even uncontroversial items; just the purchase of a set of collector's pistols involved the greatest difficulties. A deal for a thousand heavy military trucks was stopped.

     You write that the conversation I referenced between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein was "about an oil well dispute." Nothing could be further from the truth.

     You keep denying what is common knowledge. Saddam was angry at Kuwait for drilling into an Iraqi portion of an oil field they shared. That and the demand for the return of war loans was at the core of the dispute. If you want to believe Glaspie and the US knew and encouraged Saddam to take over Kuwait, suit yourself. That theory completes your profile as a fruitcake. Furthermore, you are using the Glaspie episode as a distraction from the argument over whether or not you supported Saddam.

     You claim you did not march in support of Saddam but rather in, "protest of an American president who lied to us in order to invade a country."

     Rubbish. No one knew, and that included Bush, that the WMD did not exist, until after the war. All the intelligence services believed they existed. So did Hans Blix. So did the Israelis whose precautions against a poison gas attack, on the eve of the war, cost them $100 million. You had no way of knowing that the WMD did not exist when you fulminated against the ejection of Saddam. To pretend you did is a lie.

     You marched because you admired Saddam for standing up against the US. That he was a cruel tyrant and a fascist did not phase you. What phased you was losing the boldest and strongest of the Arab leaders, the man who had made a monkey of the US for 12 years, who represented the ability to defy and undermine the US.

     What bothers you now however, is being identified as a fascist collaborator. Yet that is what you are. And that is what you are if you side with the insurgents, the most ferocious fascists since Heydrich hanged democrats from meat hooks.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 11/15/2005 @ 11:23am

224. Chime,

     " by 2050 the whites will be the official minority in the entire USA as Asian and Hispanic populations continue to explode."

     Why is that? Because your favorite people are having 8 kids they can't feed? I agree, the whites here will die out and the country will become Hispanic,however,, if the current trends continue and Hispanics who come do not meld into the pot, the US will become another overpopulated, uneducated, poor Hispanic culture..and you will be happy then, I guess..

     "Everything is the fault of the unpatriotic and unAmerican liberals to you people"

     I have never belived this and don't know anyone who seriously does. You don't know me well enough to make judgements..very foolish to do so, especially for an "enlightened" teacher. Not very LIBERAL of you.

     "I could care less about contributing to a completely ignorant and wasteful society where people worship things and fear their neighbors, as I see you do,"

     I enjoy my nieghbors and fear no one. I worship God by free choice and view all the material things in our consumer driven society as dangerous.

     "I guess your impoverished ancestors who came over from Europe were skilled laborers who spoke English, right? They were received with open arms, right, never experienced any type of discrimination or antagonism? "

     They were hated and had nothing..they LEARNED ENGLISH AND WANTED TO BE AMERICAN AND WANTED ALL THE OPPORTUNITYS THIS COUNTRY OFFERED. BY 1914 one of my great grandfathers was forced to carry, on him at all times, a card with his picture issued by the State Department, that read "Enemy Alien Identity Card". The man was 84 years old and hadn't seem Germany for 30 years. No drivers license from Germany nor free heath care, or allowing his children to attend college at in state rates,...get the picture?

     You sir, are a fool of a magnetude I have rarely seen. What makes you dangerous and sad, is that you are a teacher..what a waste.

     Shame on you... I would gladly break bread with ANYONE here as a fellow American, but you are bitter and sad. I can only conclude that you have had some kind of FAILURE here and can't make it at all. I am sorry for you, and please, stay where you are as you are very benificial to the US there.

     And, I have traveled the world and seen many countrys,..

     "trying to make believe the US is some kind of paradise" and yes, for me the US IS PARADISE.

     SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR IGNORANCE...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 11:38am

225. Chimichenga, good points all. what is often forgotten is that the treaty ending the mexican war, guaranteed the millions of inhabitants of the territory that was mexican and then became american, the right to continue speaking their language, spanish. this right was granted in perpetuity

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:40am

226. NACL you ought to read Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann before you go spouting your verses as if they were Holy Writ...

     "The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to want to think, and this they consider freedom."

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 11:41am

227. Johannes,

     BTW, I still have my great grandfathers ID card( from above post).. very strange..the man looked exactly like Santa Claus...

     A little German/American history there..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 11:43am

228. Well, I just ignored ... Mr Blank. Kind of interesting name, evocative of the content of his posts.

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/15/2005 @ 11:45am

229. Bush let Bin Laden chase his troops out of Saudi Arabia and he let him get away in afghanistan. who is the appeaser?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:46am

230. Maasch:"since Carter let the Ayytollah loose in Iran and lost Iran. Once they achieve them, they will use them in Iraels.

     I think we should be formenting revolution in Iran like crazy , pump in arms and money , call them "Popular Freedom Islamic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Iran ", and then deny we now anything.

     this is another of your weird rewrites of history. Carter did not lose Iran, he did not let loose the Ayatolla. america, read CIA, installed the Shah and he was their boy, a dictator, as cruel as Saddam.

     and this stuff with fomenting a revolution in Iran, this is a sovereign country, you are too full of yourself. let's say Iran does get a nuke weapon. what makes you think they would use it on Israel, who too has nukes? look let's be a tad pargmatic, pakistan and india, mortal enemies most of the time, they both have nukes, but have not used them

     also a little history lesson. had Hitler not declared war on the US unilaterally after pearl harbor, it is very possible that Roosevelt would not have been able to get congress' approval for war against germany. for two reasons, one there was considerable isolationist sentiment in congress and in the country. two, now that we were fighting in the pacific we had a war, and no country wants to fight two wars at the same time, except for that nut Hitler, of course.

     as it was the pacific war was put on a back burner, the phillipines were left undefended, and rossevelt had a clear excuse to support britain

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 12:02pm

231. The argument that Congress had the SAME access to the SAME intelligence that Bush had is a load of garbage. Anybody who thinks so is kidding themselves. There was plenty of intelligence that Congress simply never saw. No president has ever given Congress an open book on national security and foreign intelligence, and it is well-documented that Bush drastically curtailed what information was supplied to Congress as a whole. Most in Congress were given only unclassified summary-level reports that whitewashed, deleted, or amended the qualifiers and dissenting views. As should be the case, Congress was relying on Bush to be accurate in his representations.

     1. In 2001, Bush issued the following order curtailing the release of intelligence information to Congress: "The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate."

     2. Congress was given intelligence estimates only immediately prior to the rushed vote to authorize force as a last resort. Unclassified documents removed qualifiers and dissenting views contained in the classified assessments, turning the dubious intelligence into affirmative representations of fact.

     3. Days before the vote, Congress had to go examine the limited classified intelligence that Bush released in a designated location; they could not make any copies or have staffers examine the intelligence; the dissenting views on Iraq remained classified so they could not be shared with the public.

     4. Many who voted yes publicly acknowledged that Bush had more intelligence on Iraq, and that they were putting their trust in his assessments.

     So, basically, if Bush were now being honest to those who voted to authorize force, he should recite to them the famous line from Animal House:

     "You fucked up. You trusted us."

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 12:05pm

232. of course Hman. today's Tom Toles cartoon says it best

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 12:10pm

233. Maasch, you have every right to consider this country a paradise. but your inability to fathom that it might not be so for many of your fellow residents, is what keeps you from being a real human being, a "mensch"

     a poem by Goethe starts like this" wer nie sein Brot mit Traenen ass..."

     reading your posts for this time, I have found your philosophy uncaring, if not hostile to anyone who is not you, or your class of people out there in Nebraska, is it?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 12:17pm

234. Maasch,

     Don't have a hissy fit, I'm only fucking with a few select blowhards in between doing some translations here. That's the problem with you Northerners, you're all wound so tight and ready to explode, which is why bringing out your anger with my smears and antics while brushing up on my English is so fun for me. This doesn't mean I don't own up to the opinions I disgorge here because I do.

     As far as the HispanicAmerican issue, well, unlike most Europeans who stayed and assimilated and gave us our roots in the US, many Latinos only go to take the jobs you guys offer and refuse to do, send remittances back home where the dollar is multiplied 8, 10, 15 times, then return years later with a good financial situation. Sure, some stay and have lots of kids. But so do the Irish. It's called being a devout Catholic. Whether they have the means to raise all those kids is another question, but surely many of them come thinking, like you, that the USA is paradise, that it's just like in the Baywatch episodes they love to watch, only when they get there and take a shot at it the great American Dream evades them. Now, whether it's due to the language barrier, education or whatever is another story. Bottom line is, as the term indicates, the American Dream is just that - a dream. And as Carlin says, "you have to be asleep to believe in it." America is an abstraction, a postcard, it doesn't exist. Meantime, keep working more for less, fighting at home and abroad, fearing this and fearing that, eating this and polluting that, blaming them and lying about that, flipping the script here, distorting the word of Jesus there. So long as you don't look in the mirror. Sounds grand to me.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 12:23pm

235. THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS CAUSED THE DEATH OF OVER 2000 SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN AND COUNTLESS INJURY AND CIVILIAN DEATH BASED ON A LIE! IT'S DOCUMENTED. WHEN IS ALL THIS CONVERSATION GOING TO END?WHEN WILL CHARGES BE BROUGHT AGAINST THESE WAR CRIMINALS.BECAUSE OF THEM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS LOST WHAT IT STANDS FOR.(FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY)WE ARE NO LONGER WHAT RONALD REAGEN SAID, "THAT SHINING CITY ON A HILL"

     Posted by mike51349 at 11/15/2005 @ 12:27pm

236. Nebraska? Oh no! So by your logic of assuming all Hispanics are lazy immigrants who breed like rabbits, never learn English and milk the system (maybe sell drugs and gangbang to boot?), I should assume that the folk in Nebraska are all porgy rednecks who wear flannel shirts, eat corn and mashed potatoes, drive pickup trucks, hang out in front of QuikiMarts, snort crystal meth and have a penchant for mullets and banjos. Is this correct? Like JRolf says, don't assume everyone sees the US as paradise, because for every Bill Gates, Michael Jordan or Steve Forbes there are 100 million peasants living on a dollar a day. Do you think living well in Nebraska would impress a Manhattanite? Probably not. It's called perspective, you have yours and I have mine. And don't assume that everyone wants to be like Americans, because they don't. There are in fact people who have quite complex and ancient cultures and traditions that see spending your free time in the malls shopping and eating as quite lame and mechanical, especially when many people do it with money they don't have, without realizing that they live wanting things they don't even need. The biggest attraction there is money, and as people here know, it buys a lot more diversion and freedom south of the border.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 12:52pm

237. John Maasch said:

     We need qualified teachers and businessmen. No more lawn mowers, please.

     - and -

     They were hated and had nothing..they LEARNED ENGLISH AND WANTED TO BE AMERICAN AND WANTED ALL THE OPPORTUNITYS THIS COUNTRY OFFERED. BY 1914 one of my great grandfathers was forced to carry, on him at all times, a card with his picture issued by the State Department, that read "Enemy Alien Identity Card". The man was 84 years old and hadn't seem Germany for 30 years. No drivers license from Germany nor free heath care, or allowing his children to attend college at in state rates,...get the picture?

     The picture I get is of someone who became an American and then later became embarassed by at least one of his offspring.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 12:55pm

238. Believe It or Not Are you sure you want to keep saying we were fooled by Ahmad Chalabi and the INC? By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, Nov. 14, 2005, at 11:46 AM ET

     The power to cloud congessmen's minds? What do you have to believe in order to keep alive your conviction that the Bush administration conspired to launch a lie-based war? As with (I admit) the pro-war case, the ground of argument has a tendency to shift. I saw two examples in Washington last week. An exceptionally moth-eaten and shabby picket line outside Ahmad Chalabi's event on Wednesday featured a man with a placard alleging that Bush had prearranged the 9/11 attacks. I know a number of left and right anti-warriors who have flirted with this possibility but very few who truly believe it. (Even Gore Vidal, who did at one point insinuate the idea, has recently withdrawn it, if only on the grounds of the administration's incompetence.)

     But then there is the really superb pedantry and literal-mindedness on which the remainder of the case depends. This achieved something close to an apotheosis on the front page of the Washington Post on Nov. 12, where Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus brought complete gravity to bear. Is it true, as the president claimed in his Veterans Day speech, that Congress saw the same intelligence sources before the war, and is it true that independent commissions have concluded that there was no willful misrepresentation? Top form was reached on the inside page:

     But in trying to set the record straight, [Bush] asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

     The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

     A prize, then, for investigative courage, to Milbank and Pincus. They have identified the same problem, though this time upside down, as that which arose from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1998. That legislation--which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote--did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

     Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are. It was, of course, the sinuous and dastardly forces of Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress who persuaded the entire Senate to take leave of its senses in 1998. I know at least one of its two or three staffers, who actually admits to having engaged in the plan. By the same alchemy and hypnotism, the INC was able to manipulate the combined intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, as well as the CIA, the DIA, and the NSA, who between them employ perhaps 1.4 million people, and who in the American case dispose of an intelligence budget of $44 billion, with only a handful of Iraqi defectors and an operating budget of $320,000 per month. That's what you have to believe.

     A few little strokes of Occam's razor are enough to dispose of this whole accumulation of fantasy. Suppose that every single Iraqi defector or informant, funneled out of a closed and terrified society by the INC, had been a dedicated and conscious fabricator. How could they persuade a vast organization, equipped with satellite surveillance that can almost read a license plate from orbit, of a plain untruth? (Leave to one side the useful intelligence that was provided by the INC and that has been acknowledged.) Well, what was the likelihood that ambiguous moves made by Saddam's agents were also innocuous moves? After decades in which the Baathists had been caught cheating and concealing, what room was there for the presumption of innocence? Hans Blix, the see-no-evil expert who had managed to certify Iraq and North Korea as kosher in his time, has said in print that he fully expected a coalition intervention to uncover hidden weaponry.

     And this, of course, it actually has done. We did not know and could not know, until after the invasion, of Saddam's plan to buy long-range missiles off the shelf from Pyongyang, or of the centrifuge components buried on the property of his chief scientist, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi. The Duelfer report disclosed large latent facilities that were only waiting for the collapse of sanctions to resume activity. Ah, but that's not what you said you were looking for. … Could pedantry be pushed any further?

     We can now certify Iraq as disarmed, even if the materials once declared by the Saddam regime and never accounted for have still not been found. Why does this certified disarmament upset people so much? Would they rather have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt? Much more infuriating about the current anti-Chalabi hysteria is this: He turns up in Washington with a large delegation of Iraqi democrats, including a female Shiite ex-Communist, several Sunni dignitaries from the "hot" provinces, and the legendary Abdul Karim al-Muhammadawi, who led a genuine insurgency among the Marsh Arabs for 18 years. And the American left mounts a gargoyle picket line outside and asks silly and insulting questions inside, about a question that has already been decided. What a travesty this is. Not only do the liberal Democrats apparently want their own congressional votes from 1998 and 2002 back. It sometimes seems that they are actually nostalgic for the same period, when Saddam Hussein was running Iraq, and there were no coalition soldiers to challenge his rule, and when therefore by definition there was peace, and thus things were more or less OK. Their current claim to have been fooled or deceived makes them out, on their own account, to be highly dumb and gullible. But as dumb and gullible as that?

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 12:59pm

239. Redbird,

     "The picture I get is of someone who became an American and then later became embarassed by at least one of his offspring"

     Amazing statement.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 1:11pm

240. Red,

     Good name, by the way, the third world needs you.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 1:11pm

241. How many agree with this statement?

     "We had to attack. He had to do what his military advisors told him he should do ... Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first. Saddam Hussein is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

     Now, guess who said it?

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 1:25pm

242. Chime,

     where to start...so many errors,,,

     1.) I am not native Nebraskan, so.."I should assume that the folk in Nebraska are all porgy rednecks who wear flannel shirts, eat corn and mashed potatoes, drive pickup trucks, hang out in front of QuikiMarts, snort crystal meth and have a penchant for mullets and banjos"..

     Yes, you are pretty correct except for the banjos.

     2.) "don't assume everyone sees the US as paradise"...I don't assume anything..

     I merely stated the US is paradise for me,. Period.

     3.)" Do you think living well in Nebraska would impress a Manhattanite? Probably not. It's called perspective, "

     Yes,it does, from what I have observed...I work in Mahattan and spend more time there than you apparently.

     4.)"And don't assume that everyone wants to be like Americans,"

     I don't assume ..see answer # 2. Just an observation,.. Many more than we can absorb seem to want to get here tho, Any immigration rush to where you are living now? If not, why not?

     5.)"There are in fact people who have quite complex and ancient cultures and traditions that see spending your free time in the malls shopping and eating as quite lame and mechanical, especially when many people do it with money they don't have, without realizing that they live wanting things they don't even need. "

     I agree and these people live in my house. We don't frequent malls. Surprised? we also don't like twinkies...McDonalds...

     I for one, am a history freek and love to travel to other cultures. I also happen to appreciate my culture and am proud of what the American experience has given to the world and prefer not to focus on the drawbacks of the same experience only, as my overriding effort and observation.

     If your post was a paper sumitted for a grade in school, I would assigh an F MINUS SQUARED.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 1:27pm

243. Maasch,

     If you really traveled as much as you claim to, then you'd know that the term 'third world' is an insult to developing countries. By 'third world' I imagine you mean backwards or broken, strange, corrupted and inefficient. Perhaps in some ways, yes. When compared to the US or Germany, yes in some ways. And though many people here view the 'first world' as being attractive in many ways, it also scares the shit out of them and bewilders them. But if you are indeed from Nebraska, then you have a lot of nerve using such a term, because you're far from being a pioneer on the front of development and modern civilization. I mean come on, driving tractors instead of limos to your senior prom?

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 1:36pm

244. It doesn't take much courage to go after Bush now that he's suffering in the polls. A vote to authorize intervention as a last resort was, in fact, a vote for war. A vote cast because politicians, who knew all the reasons to justify our going in were bunk, didn't want to take the heat - Kerry included. No wonder he looked like an idiot during the campaign. If Bush and Rove and the rest of the crew can spin public opinion so the polls start to reverse, you can bet the rent that the Dems won't walk so tall, talk so proud.

     Posted by porter1950 at 11/15/2005 @ 1:37pm

245. I asked this earlier, now for the answers:

     How many agree with this statement?

     "We had to attack. He had to do what his military advisors told him he should do ... Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first. Saddam Hussein is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

     Now, guess who said it?

     Well, obviously David Corn doesn't agree with it, and you would think no Democratic Senator would agree with it, but that's where the rub is.

     Who said it? Why, none other than Harry Reid. Maybe he should listen to his own words.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 1:38pm

246. Lburwell - wow, you really got us on that one. Hey America, greet the new talking point - the democrats were just as screwed up as the republican administration. That must mean that it's OK for beloved leader to take the country down the shit hole.

     Very persuasive.

     Consider the following. Let's say I tell Susie that Tommy broke the lamp and Susie repeats the accusation. Tommy is punished for breaking the lamp. Later on, it turns out that Tommy didn't break the lamp, and maybe I had doubts all along that it really was Tommy. Do I get off the hook by saying that Susie repeated the accusation?

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/15/2005 @ 1:50pm

247. Fascinating post, LBURWELL. If you could show us to the WMD, then we will be happy to...what's that? Haven't found them yet? So Reid is to blame for what? Acknowledging mistakes? Looking for answers?

     Such a weak man we have as a president. Too fragile to admit a mistake. Too confused to read an intelligence report. Too childish to look bad in front of his friends.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 1:52pm

248. This war has NOTHING to do with terrorism. This war has EVERYTHING to do with MONEY, and War Profiteering.

     Posted by larrykevin at 11/15/2005 @ 1:52pm

249. Chime,

     "By 'third world' I imagine you mean backwards or broken, strange, corrupted and inefficient."

     You need to work on your imagining...to me third world means not as developed structuraly as the Western societys, in the form of communication systems, food distibutions, ect,..you should know what I mean...where are you anyway? It might explain somethings about your attitudes and views.. I do not mean to be insulting to other cultures, although I am insulted somewhat by people who do not respect my culture here and expect me to speak to them in their whatever language. When in other cultures I TRY to speak their language ESPECIALLY, if I am trying to earn a living there and living within their culture.

     Also, reread my post, as I am not Native Nebraskan, Never have seen a tractor here but I am sure my children would get a kick out of driving one to school. How about your students? Would they like a tractor? Please...

     By the way, my oldest sons class took their Prom money and added it to fund raisers , went to Mexico and built a school in a poor rural village instead...stupid unsofistcated mall cruising fast food eating meth snorting rednecks....... Came back full of joy and actually think America is a paradise..stoopid shitheads, they need progressive enlightenment..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 1:54pm

250. foolish liberal crappola

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 1:54pm

251. "If Bush and Rove and the rest of the crew can spin public opinion so the polls start to reverse, you can bet the rent that the Dems won't walk so tall, talk so proud."

     this is wishful or cynical thinking. the polls will not reverse, the truth will not be spun this time around. do you honestly think that Bush can say anything or do anything to change the public perception that he is a liar?

     the cosi fan tutti defense will not work either, the dems have nothing to lose by saying that they were duped.

     Bush has little to fear from dems, for now, what he really has to fear is moderate repubs and wannabe's who are starting to come out of the woodworks

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 1:56pm

252. Such a weak men we have as Lib Senators. Too fragile to admit a mistake. Too confused to read an intelligence report. Too childish to look bad in front of his friends., but yet wanted to look tough when they voted for the war.

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 1:57pm

253. "the dems have nothing to lose by saying that they were duped"

     Youve already lost you silly nitwit

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 1:59pm

254. Fishbite,

     Your analogy is wrong. I'll repeat it: Let's say I tell Susie that Tommy broke the lamp and Susie repeats the accusation. Tommy is punished for breaking the lamp. Later on, it turns out that Tommy didn't break the lamp, and maybe I had doubts all along that it really was Tommy. Do I get off the hook by saying that Susie repeated the accusation?

     The analogy should go like this: Susie tells you Tommy broke the lamp, you believe her, but do little about it. Susie then tells me about it, and I punish Tommy. Later we both learn Tommy didn't break the lamp. Do you then have the right to say I twisted Susie's words, or lied in order to punish Tommy? No, of course not. The same applies here.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 2:07pm

255. Republicans should heed Mr. Corn's suggestion that they keep in mind President Bush's declaration about open debate ("Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.") before attacking opponents of Iraq War as unpatriotic and doing a disservice to the troops. I would add that they (Republicans) should stop the knee-kerk defense of Libby, Rove and co., and accept the fact that the treatment of Valerie Plame was one of the most egregious violations of the President's newfound matra.

     Posted by James Thindwa at 11/15/2005 @ 2:18pm

256. Johannes,

     What kind of person out here do you think I am? In Nebraska? As I have had hard and good times..I am not uncaring and do not espouse that type of philosophy. I am, as I know myself to be, somewhat rigid, but I am also willing to look at myself in order to do some "repairs"..

     Anyway, I am very protective of my American experience, and I do acknowledge others may not have the same feelings or experience...I just don't agree with many people's out look here and that does not make me a cold hearted fish..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 2:24pm

257. TJBEHRENS1

     I don't believe I said Reid is to blame for anything, except being a hypocrite (and a liar). As for the WMD's, I believe they are in Syria. There was a large caravan of trucks from Iraq to Syria just prior to the war, I wish we would go there and do a thorough search. And by the way, the WMD's are MISSING, stockpiles we knew he had that are still unaccounted for; no one has said that they never existed. So if you are so smart, tell me where they are. Do you actually think Saddam destroyed them in secret?

     I could give you a long list of warnings about Saddam from both sides of the aisle. Should we now just ignore all those warnings, just because we haven't found the missing stockpiles? These officials had access to the EXACT SAME intelligence as the President, and yet, he is the liar, but they aren't? And what would you have us do now, just free Saddam and say "oops, never mind."? Just looking at all the argumnents presented by Democrats alone would be enough basis for me to justify going to war. Would you like to see all their arguments? It would make your head spin.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 2:29pm

258. If Bush distorted the pre-war intelligence then so did France, Germany, Russia and China, all the other countries who opposed the war.

     The fact remains that every country thought Saddam had WMDs. Even Hans Blix in his last presentation to the U.N. shortly before the war started said he couldn't tell whether or not Iraq had WMDs because Saddam wasn't helping him with his investigation.

     If you think that launching a war in Iraq wasn't the best solution to handling the situation, that's fine. But stop with all the "Bush lied" nonsense.

     Posted by Zeddmen at 11/15/2005 @ 2:36pm

259. I see all the leftwing jerks like Chim have been running loose again.

     In spite of Chim and the rest of you Bush haters, especially people like Stellar, Philb, and Frank, I really enjoyed and appreciated Bush's speech. For once he was fighting back at all the Anti-American haters, the wimps, the socialists, and all the rest of you miscreants.

     Only liberals think quitting is good. Since Nam, liberals hold no clear strong beliefs except that they desire the US to become just another 3rd world country.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/15/2005 @ 2:42pm

260. "Only liberals think quitting is good" Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/15/2005

     So Bush must be liberal, since he moved the focus off of afghanistan real quick, and over to iraq? They have had elections in afghanistan, and they have also become the worlds largest exporter of herion since then. Bush must be a liberal, because he went from talking like clint eastwood about bringing people back dead or alive, to saying one guy isnt that important after all. Bush must be a liberal , because he moved all focus except for a token force off of the people who knocked over the wtc to someone else who was marginal to islamic extremism at best.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 2:51pm

261. Redbird,

     "The picture I get is of someone who became an American and then later became embarassed by at least one of his offspring"

     Amazing statement.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/15/2005 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person

     Red,

     Good name, by the way, the third world needs you.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/15/2005 @ 1:11pm

     My ancestors were here long before yours so if you don't like the company you're free to return from where your late-arriving ancestors came. America doesn't need you. People like you have made us a laughing stock in the world and it would be no great loss.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 2:54pm

262. I agree we should have open debate. But saying the President, who in many cases made less strong arguments for war than the Democrats, twisted intelligence, isn't debate, it is as the President said - re-writing history. If the Democrats were truly interested in having a debate, I can think of some very important questions we should be debating:

     1) Where are the WMD's? 2) Does someone dangerous now have control of Saddam's WMD's, and if so, what can we do to keep him from using them? 3) Shouldn't we rally together in this country, both left and right, in the war on terror so that we can win it as quickly as possible and with the fewest casualties? Wouldn't a united front give pause to our enemies? Doesn't the never-ending whining from the Democrats, and the resulting drop in Bush's polls, empower the enemy, and thus, endanger more soldiers' lives?

     These are the questions we should be debating. Trying to make the public believe that the President twisted intelligence when Democrats had access to the exact same intelligence and came to the exact same conclusions is a monumental waste of time.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 2:58pm

263. Fishbite,

     Your analogy is wrong. I'll repeat it: Let's say I tell Susie that Tommy broke the lamp and Susie repeats the accusation. Tommy is punished for breaking the lamp. Later on, it turns out that Tommy didn't break the lamp, and maybe I had doubts all along that it really was Tommy. Do I get off the hook by saying that Susie repeated the accusation?

     The analogy should go like this: Susie tells you Tommy broke the lamp, you believe her, but do little about it. Susie then tells me about it, and I punish Tommy. Later we both learn Tommy didn't break the lamp. Do you then have the right to say I twisted Susie's words, or lied in order to punish Tommy? No, of course not. The same applies here.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 2:07pm

     Yes, you should be accused of twisting Susie's words and lying if that's what you did. It's certainly what the anti-American Busheviks did.

     Give it up- you Busheviks are down the toilet.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 2:59pm

264. I love how you righty-wack-jobs keep apoligizing for a President that hasn't spoken more than 4 words at a time before going down to the page to read what is so "heartfelt." I'm sorry but that speech was nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face. And i suspect too-little-too-late. I'm also sick of all the politicizing on both sides. Who gives a damn what Clinton said six years ago he doesn't have the blood of 2000+ US soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians on his hands. Iraq is a mess! If you were told that if you sacrifice your mother/daughter/brother too build a school would you go for it. It's so easy to sit in the comfort of you own home and cheer on the military while you sip on some Bud Lite and watch Survivor. Do me a favor why don't you all sign up and fight the evil doers(please read that with a phony souther accent) and shut up PLEASE!

     Posted by zigful at 11/15/2005 @ 3:01pm

265. Therefore HV you are now advocating that we invade Pakistan up in the valley of Dir near the Kyhber Pass where Ossama is hiding? The area that even Pakistani troops will not go into? You and those like you call Bush a cowboy as a slur, but you want him to start WWIII with the Pakistani Military staging another coup and perhaps launching nukes on India and Afghanistan.

     Learn a little bit about war and politics and then come back with an answer when you grow up into an adult thinker.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/15/2005 @ 3:03pm

266. Red,

     "People like you?"

     So now it is important as to "when my people came before yours horseshit? Boat verses land bridge..you are ridiculious...foolish and small....easily conquered?

     America needs people like me to fund all the usless shit ideas you think are important. Is this your country alone and I should leave? Did your ancesters screw up and lose the place and now I am to blame?. Grow up, be mature...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 3:03pm

267. How many WMD does it take to go to war? The important thing is that intelligence estimates about the presense of WMD allows you to get bipartisan support to go to war, even though those estimates don't have to be very concrete. After all, war is probably as popular as sex even though orgasms are easier to fake than WMDs.

     Posted by John Earl at 11/15/2005 @ 3:04pm

268. Red,

     As far as laughing..it may not be the laughter you hear with you, but at you...mostly

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 3:06pm

269. David Corn, A man who attempting to retrieve polical power for the democrats, will lie without even thinking twice. We saw Corn's outrageous duplicity in defending Clinton's perjury, which occurred while Clinton should have been protecting the country.

     I thought we saw then the depth to which Corn could and would sink, but he has topped himself with his version of claims of lies by the Bush admistration.

     Corn repeats the democratic montra, (that Bush lied) hopeing that if they lie often and loud enough that they will be believed, and it you read the polls it is working. But, when Bush attempts to correct his lies, Corn just continues with this latest batch of lies.

     There is nothing that Corn writes, or anyone at the Nation writes that I would believe without a through fact check, because he thinks Clinton did not commit perjury, and Bush lied when he and Congress looked at the same info and came to the same conclusion.

     And the worst thing he can come up with is unnamed sources saying the "perhaps" intelligence analysts (who refused to admit to this to two congressional committtees looking in to this issue, of the dems) where presssured because the administration asked them to be sure their facts were correct and well stated.

     If the adminstration had not asked the intelligence community to be sure, Corn would be screaming about that.

     Corn is a lier who gives aid and comfort to the enemy and this causes them to kill more of our boys, because that is their plan, to cause us enough damage we will cut and run. They know we are strong, but listening to Corn, and Kennedy, and the other cut and run dems, the terrorist believe if they just kill enough we will cut and run and Corn wants. Corn is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation with whom we are at war. If I were Bush, I would charge Corn with treason. Ligitimate, that is truthful, critizm is OK, but to lie as Corn does is treason.

     The deaths in Iraq and Afganistan fall at the feet of Corn, and those like him who are unable to keep the record straight, unable to comeup with better solutions (remember Kerry, I have a plan, but he has never revealed that "plan").

     Just remember Corn and the Dems have nothing to offer except to attack the only president who has dones somethign effective about the terror attacks on the US. While Clinton was "not having sex" with Monica, Bin Laudin could have been captured or killed at least 3 documented times, but Clinton did not have the courage to do anything but attack a dessert camp, after giving Bin Laudin's fellow travelors (Pakastani ISI) 3 hour warning of something that was going to happen 200 miles away in Afganistan.

     All the Dems, and their fellow travelors like corn, can do is make outrageous lies, and hope that repeated often enough they will be believed.

     It is a sad state of affairs that is all the Dems and Corn have to offer, besides higher taxes, and more give aways to the people who contribute the least, to buy votes. Please David, tell the truth just once, and tell us what Kerry's plan was, you sup with him and his kind.

     And, what is your plan to defeat people who driven by a religious desire to destroy all we hold dear, continue to try to get you to throw in the towel and quit fighting them. What is your plan?????

     YOU just lie, and lie, and lie and lie. Excuse me while I throw up at the thought of all of the Americans who where killed by Bin laudin, trying to bring you to power.

     Ray Exley

     Posted by rwe9 at 11/15/2005 @ 3:07pm

270. Im definitely pissed that neither party has pointed out some obvious things. Remember Ahmad Shah Massoud the head of the northern alliance assassinated two days before 9/11? the northern alliance seemed to think pakistani intel was behind that(with al qaeda help). i also recall that the pakistani general who was here before, during, and after 9/11 was later fired after the govt of india gave evidence to the us govt that he had ties to mohamed atta. if true or not, why have none of these things been discussed? its a long shot to think saddam had anything to do with 9/11, but pakistani intelligence has their hands in alot of what al qaeda was doing.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:09pm

271. Clinton was a fake, yet he as well as all the week kneed lib senators claimed Saddam had WMD. Orgasms withstanding

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 3:12pm

272. John Earl, "How many WMD does it take to go to war?"

     Only 1, if that is the only reason you go, but if like the US in Iraq, then the other reasons contribute.......

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 3:14pm

273. I agree we should have open debate. But saying the President, who in many cases made less strong arguments for war than the Democrats, twisted intelligence, isn't debate, it is as the President said - re-writing history. If the Democrats were truly interested in having a debate, I can think of some very important questions we should be debating:

     1) Where are the WMD's? 2) Does someone dangerous now have control of Saddam's WMD's, and if so, what can we do to keep him from using them? 3) Shouldn't we rally together in this country, both left and right, in the war on terror so that we can win it as quickly as possible and with the fewest casualties? Wouldn't a united front give pause to our enemies? Doesn't the never-ending whining from the Democrats, and the resulting drop in Bush's polls, empower the enemy, and thus, endanger more soldiers' lives?

     These are the questions we should be debating. Trying to make the public believe that the President twisted intelligence when Democrats had access to the exact same intelligence and came to the exact same conclusions is a monumental waste of time.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 2:58pm

     How many times are you going to repeat that simpleminded lie that "everyone had the exact same intelligence as Bush"? The Bush administration had intelligence which they hid- the intelligence indicating that reports of Iraqi possession of WMD were unreliable. Face reality. The world knows that now. And you're trying to blame the increasing rejection of Bush and the Republicans on the Democrats? Sorry, but it's a result of your own failures- failures of wisdom, failures of leadership, failures of loyalty to America.

     You Republicans are a deranged cult who can't recognize what everyone else does- that your barbarous idol is made of clay. You're dangerously incompetent and America is realizing that it has been a disatrous mistake to allow you into positions of power.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 3:14pm

274. LL, Sorry, I dont want to think like an adult if it means ignoring the people who attack my country, and then attacking someone much less dangerous who i think i will have more success at defeating since it looks good. sure pakistani troops wont go there, but why cant pakistani intel catch bin laden or mullah mohamed omar? they had no problem helping iran, libya, north korea on the way to building nukes. also i recall President Karzai saying that he thought pakistan was behind several attempts on his life, and the life of the us ambassador. and why would the pakistani military need a coup? they run the country right now.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:15pm

275. LL, than Bush should just admit, pakistan can fund an arm al qaeda to attack us, and we cant do anything about it. that seems to be what you are saying

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:18pm

276. LL, sorry im not going to stoop to your level. I will debate and discuss the facts, but im not going to personally insult people like you keep doing, telling me to grow up etc. I though being an adult meant engaging the content of what the other person said, not name calling. i guess i need to grow up then, and learn how to insult people with style, by implying they are immature, rather than just being crass and telling them to fuck off

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:21pm

277. FROMREDBIRD

     It seems you do not understand how intelligence is provided to Senators and Congressmen. Any Senator can ask for briefings from the administration officials, or they can ask for the raw intelligence data, or they can ask to be briefed by a CIA analyst, or all three. The Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV, obviously has access to any and all intelligence data he wants, and is, in fact, required to look at it in the performance of his job. And yet, he is the only major politician who said that Saddam was an imminent threat. Are you saying that intelligence was hidden from Rockefeller? That is impossible.

     Now that you know the facts, will you please apologize for calling me a liar?

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 3:23pm

278. RWE...A federal judge ruled he committed purjury and obtrucuted justice. She gave Clinton Two options. Pay a fine over $500,000 or appeal the decision and prove that he did not commit purjury.

     Clinton paid the fine.

     Amazing!!!

     Posted by dancall at 11/15/2005 @ 3:23pm

279. Red,

     "People like you?"

     So now it is important as to "when my people came before yours horseshit? Boat verses land bridge..you are ridiculious...foolish and small....easily conquered?

     America needs people like me to fund all the usless shit ideas you think are important. Is this your country alone and I should leave? Did your ancesters screw up and lose the place and now I am to blame?. Grow up, be mature...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/15/2005 @ 3:03pm

     Jeezus! Give me a break with the cultural victimization routine. I'm sure there are some good aspects to your culture, whatever it is. But that doesn't give you the right to betray America with your barbaric war-religion. Talk about "usless shit ideas", as you so maturely put it.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 3:23pm

280. Red,

     As far as laughing..it may not be the laughter you hear with you, but at you...mostly

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/15/2005 @ 3:06pm

     By the way, come back and do the yard again this weekend. You missed the corner in the back.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 3:25pm

281. "sorry im not going to stoop to your level"

     You disgusting libs scrap the bottom of the barrel constantly...let me give you libs a sweet nugget of lib intellectual discourse:

     FUCK THIS WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING PRETENSE AT GETTING AT THE ROOT OF THIS MESS! FUCK LIBERALS, FUCK CONSERVATIVES, FUCK CAPITALISM, FUCK YOUR FUCKING WAR, GO DROWN IN YOUR MOTHERFUCKING COMMODIFIED SHITHEAP OF A LIFE! OKAY? Now take that to the fucking bank and deposit it.

     Noone needs lectures on debating skills from unamerican detestable hypocritical liberal assholes. Thank you

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 3:27pm

282. the guy with no name is a pussy , debate that

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:29pm

283. oh, wait, its bushrules with some stupid html trick to hide his name. hes a REAL big pussy

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:30pm

284. FUCK CAPITALISM GO DROWN IN YOUR MOTHERFUCKING COMMODIFIED SHITHEAP OF A LIFE! OKAY?

     Posted by BUSHRULES 11/15/2005 @ 3:27pm

     sounds like you are a marxist now

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:33pm

285. Redbird, now that you know that Senators have access to the same intelligence as the President, are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 3:36pm

286. I vote Red the guy with the best sense of humour on here.

     Love Liberty, you are so obviously just reiterating the shit your two dads talk about at the dinner table before heading out to go cruising every night. We all know the GOP is full of closet homosexuals.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 3:40pm

287. LBURWELL, i dont think congress had access to the seperate intelligence office of special plans that bush set up. (not sure if i got that name correct). but i dont know how that affected the thinking of anyone in congress

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:41pm

288. FROMREDBIRD

     It seems you do not understand how intelligence is provided to Senators and Congressmen. Any Senator can ask for briefings from the administration officials, or they can ask for the raw intelligence data, or they can ask to be briefed by a CIA analyst, or all three. The Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV, obviously has access to any and all intelligence data he wants, and is, in fact, required to look at it in the performance of his job. And yet, he is the only major politician who said that Saddam was an imminent threat. Are you saying that intelligence was hidden from Rockefeller? That is impossible.

     Now that you know the facts, will you please apologize for calling me a liar?

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 3:23pm

     You're the one who "does not understand how intelligence is provided to Senators and Congressmen." Congress does not view raw intelligance data, they are not allowed to see even the Presidential Daily Brief. They can view the National Intelligence Estimate and some did but that doesn't help much when that is prepared by the administration and has had all the analysis pointing out the unreliability of the fake sources massaged out.

     What you said is a lie and all you're doing now is expanding the lie, just as Bush did in his recent speech. The Republicans are trying to cover up earlier lies by telling more lies and it's not working.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

289. LBURWELL:

     You say, "Any Senator can ask for briefings from the administration officials, or they can ask for the raw intelligence data, or they can ask to be briefed by a CIA analyst, or all three."

     Did you make that up? Please show us how Congress had the EXACT SAME intelligence that Bush had?

     You cannot because you are dead wrong. I don't expect you to respond to me b/c you ignored my post debunking your earlier assertion that no prominent politician said the Iraq theat was "imminent," but I will direct you again to my 12:05 post. I could provide you with more facts, but I am sure you would ignore them.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

290. Hey Freiheit, you should check out the other thread where some are arguing that minors are mature enough to make an informed decision on joining the military.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 3:44pm

291. You leftists really should read Thich Nhat Hanh to understand what your irrational consuming hatred of George Bush is doing to you and your future on the political scene. You aren't mainstream Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 3:39pm

     i wouldnt call buddhist monks mainstream either

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:44pm

292. Prediction everyone:

     We will not see LBURWELL post again for a few hours, when he will again resurface to make an argument with no basis in fact.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 3:45pm

293. hypocracy thy name is LIBERAL

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 3:47pm

294. Chimi,

     not only do you perpetuate the view that conservatives hold towards teachers today, that they are mindless socialist parrots, but you are an embarrassment to Latinos/Latinas. I show my wife and other family members (all from El Salvador) the garbage you spew. They just laugh...fortunately as they point out, you are a dying and dead breed of marxist. Central America is thriving in capitalistic development that will make them not only continued strong allies of the US, but great trading partners now and in the future.

     Thanks for your cartoon figure contributions.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/15/2005 @ 3:49pm

295. BUSHRULES=coward

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:49pm

296. LL, that trade agreement was pretty protectionist, its unfortunate that instead of free trade we force weaker countries to abide by certain conditions

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:52pm

297. Noone needs lectures on debating skills from unamerican detestable hypocritical liberal assholes. Thank you

     Posted by ? 11/15/2005 @ 3:27pm

     Brilliant. You "born leaders" lie America into an unnecessary, unjust war that you promptly lose, costing us $1 trillion in the process and now you're bleating like nanny goats that no one should point out your incompetence.

     Why don't you go home and take the other guy, what's his name, the one who loves gloating over his privileged social status, with you?

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 3:52pm

298. FREIHEIT, yep too bad. LL should read some of his works, then he would engage what i have to say, not tell me to grow up, that could go for a lot of other people on here. this has deteriorated into a bunch of shit talking, unfortunate i thought i was going to learn something on here, but its like picking diamond dust out of animal feces

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 3:56pm

299. Chimi,

     not only do you perpetuate the view that conservatives hold towards teachers today, that they are mindless socialist parrots, but you are an embarrassment to Latinos/Latinas. I show my wife and other family members (all from El Salvador) the garbage you spew. They just laugh...fortunately as they point out, you are a dying and dead breed of marxist. Central America is thriving in capitalistic development that will make them not only continued strong allies of the US, but great trading partners now and in the future.

     Thanks for your cartoon figure contributions.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/15/2005 @ 3:49pm

     Actually, the cartoon figure would be your beloved Bushevik at the recent summit in South America. They all acted like someone brought an idiot child along but they couldn't figure out who the parents were.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 3:58pm

300. "Brilliant. You "born leaders" lie America into an unnecessary, unjust war that you promptly lose, costing us $1 trillion in the process and now you're bleating like nanny goats that no one should point out your incompetence"

     Are you advocating re-installing Saddam as leader of Iraq????

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:00pm

301. What some of the more moronic leftwing responders keep leaving out is that the FBI and CIA regularly brief the House and Senate as follows:

     The CIA reports regularly to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as required by the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 and various Executive Orders. The Agency also reports regularly to the Defense Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees in both houses of Congress. Moreover, the Agency provides substantive briefings to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Armed Services Committees in both bodies as well as other Committees and individual members.

     But, you never hear the Dems or the MSM talk about this key fact. No, you libs like those in Congress and the MSM just want to perpuate the lie that Bush hid the real intel from Congress.

     If it weren't so serious, liberals would be laughable in their attempts to distort the truth.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/15/2005 @ 4:05pm

302. LL,

     You are a unique species of idiot. This is a lark for me, yet here you are showing this shit to your family. Are you seriously that lame? My God, man, have those Guanacos take you out for some pupusas and salsa dancing to loosen you up. Cental America developing? If by that you mean the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, then yes. The whole damn country is overrun with mareros moron, Salvatrucha, 13, 18, the whole country is afraid of the children who have no opportunity and thus join the gangs. Some development. And stop hurling the term socialist around you jackass. In the real fourth reich you'll be the first to go.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 4:05pm

303. FREI, i disagree. both parties have virtually ignored the group(s) who attacked us on 9/11, and instead of offering solutions to iraq are playing stupid fucking games while people die.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:05pm

304. I said:"Brilliant. You "born leaders" lie America into an unnecessary, unjust war that you promptly lose, costing us $1 trillion in the process and now you're bleating like nanny goats that no one should point out your incompetence"

     Are you advocating re-installing Saddam as leader of Iraq????

     Posted by ? 11/15/2005 @ 4:00pm

     I'm advocating that America observe the principles that it was founded upon and not go around launching blitzkriegs to "install leaders" of our choosing in other countries that are no threat to us.

     If that sounds strange to you why don't you try reading some American history and then maybe you'll understand why you've been a fool following a gang whose guiding concepts are an amalgam of Communism and Nazism.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:08pm

305. HMAN

     Here is a paragraph from Senator John D. Rockefeller IV's address on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002. This was obtained from the Senator's own website.

     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. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

     As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he has access to all intelligence data, as well as access to CIA analysts and the CIA Director. I think this question is now closed.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 4:09pm

306. What some of the more moronic leftwing responders keep leaving out is that the FBI and CIA regularly brief the House and Senate as follows:

     The CIA reports regularly to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as required by the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 and various Executive Orders. The Agency also reports regularly to the Defense Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees in both houses of Congress. Moreover, the Agency provides substantive briefings to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Armed Services Committees in both bodies as well as other Committees and individual members.

     But, you never hear the Dems or the MSM talk about this key fact. No, you libs like those in Congress and the MSM just want to perpuate the lie that Bush hid the real intel from Congress.

     If it weren't so serious, liberals would be laughable in their attempts to distort the truth.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/15/2005 @ 4:05pm

     Is that the "slam dunk" CIA you're referring to, genius?

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:10pm

307. So if you are so smart, tell me where they [WMD] are. Do you actually think Saddam destroyed them in secret?

     I could give you a long list of warnings about Saddam from both sides of the aisle. Should we now just ignore all those warnings, just because we haven't found the missing stockpiles? These officials had access to the EXACT SAME intelligence as the President, and yet, he is the liar, but they aren't? And what would you have us do now, just free Saddam and say "oops, never mind."? Just looking at all the argumnents presented by Democrats alone would be enough basis for me to justify going to war. Would you like to see all their arguments? It would make your head spin.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 2:29pm

     My head spin? If one of us has been possessed by demonic forces, it is certainly not I. And I don't have to be "so smart". Our Secretary of Defense knew precisely where the weapons were up until the point they weren't there. If you want to ask someone smart, try Rumsfeld.

     If you want a headspinner, try this on for size. It might just be possible that the Republicans AND the Democrats were equally clueless. In the little tussle about who's tougher against terrorists (i.e. someone with dark facial hair), both groups were acting like children trying be grown-ups while staring down those fearsome evildoers in the other hemisphere.

     When tweedledee and tweedledum are presented as options, try for door number three. It can't be any worse and it is almost certainly the best.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 4:10pm

308. LL, one day i would hope you jump out of the name calling game and engage your claim of free trade for central america. I for one dont give a fuck about the democrats , or the GOP for that matter. except for social issues, i see very little difference between them. for one, bush is a social conservative, but he spends more money then LBJ.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:11pm

309. When liberals actually care about defeating our enemies, when they love the historic opportunity unique in America to achieve your dreams based upon your own efforts, when they no longer support Government as mommy and daddy, when they actually develop a spine, then they can be taken seriously; until then, even once having a spine as in military service doesn't count today. It's what you do and who are you today that matters.

     One can only hope that a form of liberalism more reminiscent of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy reappears. Otherwise they might just as well join the French wimps.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/15/2005 @ 4:13pm

310. John Maasch,

     Careful on the sweeping rhetoric. I don't think you can safely say that this country will be overpopulated, underdeveloped and poorly educated because there is the possibility that this country may one day have a Hispanic majority. If I didn't know better I might detect a little antagonism here towards Hispanics. Now, I am not calling you racist but am suggesting that your rhetoric is a bit shrill and could be seen that way.

     Posted by hhemwm at 11/15/2005 @ 4:14pm

311. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he has access to all intelligence data, as well as access to CIA analysts and the CIA Director. I think this question is now closed.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 4:09pm

     Hey, another brilliant post from another genius.

     "Mission Accomplished"

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:14pm

312. Love Liberty,

     I might call your previous posting "empty calories."

     Posted by hhemwm at 11/15/2005 @ 4:15pm

313. "I said:"Brilliant. You "born leaders" lie America into an unnecessary, unjust war that you promptly lose, costing us $1 trillion in the process and now you're bleating like nanny goats that no one should point out your incompetence"

     Are you advocating re-installing Saddam as leader of Iraq????

     Posted by ? 11/15/2005 @ 4:00pm

     I'm advocating that America observe the principles that it was founded upon and not go around launching blitzkriegs to "install leaders" of our choosing in other countries that are no threat to us.

     If that sounds strange to you why don't you try reading some American history and then maybe you'll understand why you've been a fool following a gang whose guiding concepts are an amalgam of Communism and Nazism."

     What is it with you libs???Can NEVER answer a DIRECT question. It s like pulling teeth.

     DO YOU ADVOCATE REINSTALLING SADDM RULER OF IRAQ....YES OR NO

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:15pm

314. LL, like the way you are concerned about solving the problem that is pakistan? and i certainly dont subscribe to some government as mommy and daddy notion.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:17pm

315. LOVE LIBERTY, are you aware of the fact that the CIA and FBI are parts of the executive branch? Just checking.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:18pm

316. Scene 3 Act II

     (After a hard day of landscaping at Red's house where he passes the day like the troll he is while zoning out to Rush Limbaugh on his Walkman trying to feign sophistication, LL hits the Nation blog and keeps a tally of the zingers he steals from his favorite pundits and uses here.)

     LL: "Hey Honey, check this out. There's this asshole Chimichenga here who thinks he's so smart but his wisdom is continually darkened by the incandescence of this large potato that rests upon my neck. Look at what he wrote... Now look at how I beat him up with my acute insight and uncanny wit."

     Ms. LL: "Honey, who is Chimichenga?"

     LL: "I don't know, just some dick somewhere in Latin America."

     Ms.LL: "Do you know him?"

     LL: "No, but he's an evil socialist, check out what this complete stranger wrote on this meaningless blog. Isn't this what you call funny, doesn't it make you laugh?"

     Ms LL: "Honey, did you forget to take your lithium again?"

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 4:20pm

317. DO YOU ADVOCATE REINSTALLING SADDM RULER OF IRAQ....YES OR NO

     Posted by BUSHRULES 11/15/2005 @ 4:15pm

     stupid question. the point is, was he a larger threat to us than al qaeda/pakistan? debate that all day, but THEY attacked us, saddam did not

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:20pm

318. "I said:"Brilliant. You "born leaders" lie America into an unnecessary, unjust war that you promptly lose, costing us $1 trillion in the process and now you're bleating like nanny goats that no one should point out your incompetence"

     Are you advocating re-installing Saddam as leader of Iraq????

     Posted by ? 11/15/2005 @ 4:00pm

     I'm advocating that America observe the principles that it was founded upon and not go around launching blitzkriegs to "install leaders" of our choosing in other countries that are no threat to us.

     If that sounds strange to you why don't you try reading some American history and then maybe you'll understand why you've been a fool following a gang whose guiding concepts are an amalgam of Communism and Nazism."

     What is it with you libs???Can NEVER answer a DIRECT question. It s like pulling teeth.

     DO YOU ADVOCATE REINSTALLING SADDM RULER OF IRAQ....YES OR NO

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:15pm

     If you're incapable of understanding that answer then go read something like My Pet Goat.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:21pm

319. Guess your intellectully incapable of direct answers. Pathetic

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:23pm

320. You're the one who "does not understand how intelligence is provided to Senators and Congressmen." Congress does not view raw intelligance data, they are not allowed to see even the Presidential Daily Brief. They can view the National Intelligence Estimate and some did but that doesn't help much when that is prepared by the administration and has had all the analysis pointing out the unreliability of the fake sources massaged out.

     What you said is a lie and all you're doing now is expanding the lie, just as Bush did in his recent speech. The Republicans are trying to cover up earlier lies by telling more lies and it's not working.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

     Did you make that up? Please show us how Congress had the EXACT SAME intelligence that Bush had?

     You cannot because you are dead wrong. I don't expect you to respond to me b/c you ignored my post debunking your earlier assertion that no prominent politician said the Iraq theat was "imminent," but I will direct you again to my 12:05 post. I could provide you with more facts, but I am sure you would ignore them.

     Posted by HMAN23 11/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

     I'll not hold my breath waiting for the "I was wrong" apologies.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/15/2005 @ 4:23pm

321. Saddam for president of IRAQ...YES OR NO????

     "stupid question"

     Sounds like its too complicated for you nuanced libs to answer

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:25pm

322. FEI, unfortunately the root cause is is not afghanistan or iraq, but in saudi arabia and pakistan. unfortunately for afghans, they have been nothing but a stage for the games between empires and local powers for millenia, be it alexander the great, various persian and turkish clans and dynasties, the mongols, the moguls, the british vs. other european powers as they tried to protect access to india, US vs soviets, etc

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:27pm

323. For those of you who doubt whether Senators have access to raw intelligence data and to CIA analysts, as well as any other intelligence, why don't you call your Senator's office and ask them, instead of reflexively calling me a liar? Why should I do all your research for you? You said no politician called the threat from Saddam imminent, and yet, I gave you undeniable proof of a Democratic Senator saying it. I think my credibility speaks for itself.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 4:27pm

324. Sounds like its too complicated for you nuanced libs to answer.

     hows this for nuanced, too-cowardly-to-show-your-face? FUCK YOU, its a stupid question because no one has advocated that, and I seriously doubt anyone will

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:31pm

325. LBURWELL:

     Yes, you win. That one quote from Rockefeller demonstrates that he had access to the EXACT SAME intelligence as the Bush Administration. I particularly like how he describes the intelligence that he was privy to. Also, because Rockefeller made this statement, every other member of Congress had the SAME EXACT access too.

     Here is some more from Rockefeller: "[P]eople say, 'Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had.' And I'm here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don't have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We don't have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don't release their -- an administration which tends not to release -- not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others -- they control information. There's a lot of intelligence that we don't get that they have."

     Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: "The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does?"

     Appearing on Fox New Sunday, Chris Wallace asked, "What about this question, Sen. Roberts, about whether or not -- the fact is you didn't get the same intelligence. Is that a legitimate concern?"

     Roberts acknowledged: "It may be a concern to some extent."

     Also, did Congress know of the intelligence from the Office of Special Plans?

     Yeah, the question is closed - you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 4:35pm

326. You're the one who "does not understand how intelligence is provided to Senators and Congressmen." Congress does not view raw intelligance data, they are not allowed to see even the Presidential Daily Brief. They can view the National Intelligence Estimate and some did but that doesn't help much when that is prepared by the administration and has had all the analysis pointing out the unreliability of the fake sources massaged out.

     What you said is a lie and all you're doing now is expanding the lie, just as Bush did in his recent speech. The Republicans are trying to cover up earlier lies by telling more lies and it's not working.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

     Did you make that up? Please show us how Congress had the EXACT SAME intelligence that Bush had?

     You cannot because you are dead wrong. I don't expect you to respond to me b/c you ignored my post debunking your earlier assertion that no prominent politician said the Iraq theat was "imminent," but I will direct you again to my 12:05 post. I could provide you with more facts, but I am sure you would ignore them.

     Posted by HMAN23 11/15/2005 @ 3:42pm

     I'll not hold my breath waiting for the "I was wrong" apologies.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 11/15/2005 @ 4:23pm

     What, are you trying to be a laugh riot? The Republican administration fakes up the intelligence, launches a disastrous, not to mention immoral, war, and now you're trying to blame the war on the ones who were given the faked up intelligence by the Republican administration?

     Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Talk about people being duped into wearing suicide vests. You guys would ask for two vests in case the first one doesn't work.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:36pm

327. Sounds like its too complicated for you nuanced libs to answer.

     hows this for nuanced, too-cowardly-to-show-your-face? FUCK YOU, its a stupid question because no one has advocated that, and I seriously doubt anyone will

     I take it by your colorful and intellectual answer, the answer is NO. Good. Then tell me how to achieve "Regime Change" that Clinton instituted in 1998. Did you libs expect Saddam was simply gonna give himself up??If the people revolted against him there would have surely been a bloody mess that would make our liberation of Iraq pale by comparison. So tell me you intellectual giants...just exactly how were you gonna enforce Clintons Regime Change????

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:37pm

328. REDBIRD

     Hey, another brilliant post from another genius.

     "Mission Accomplished"

     I am getting tired of educating you. Do you know why he went on that aircraft carrier and gave that speech with that banner? Because General Tommy Franks asked him to. The men on that ship's mission WAS accomplished, and he wanted the President to do that in order to boost morale for the men on that ship, as well as the men who would still face danger.

     There was another reason Tommy Franks asked the President to do that, and in that way. France and other countries had promised their help with Iraq once major combat operations were concluded. General Franks wanted the announcement to be newsworthy, so that they would get the signal that it was time for them to help. Unfortunately, those countries lied to us, and we have been stuck taking care of the mess in Iraq by ourselves, even though we were promised they would help.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 4:38pm

329. I take it by your colorful and intellectual answer, the answer is NO. Good. Then tell me how to achieve "Regime Change" that Clinton instituted in 1998. Did you libs expect Saddam was simply gonna give himself up??If the people revolted against him there would have surely been a bloody mess that would make our liberation of Iraq pale by comparison. So tell me you intellectual giants...just exactly how were you gonna enforce Clintons Regime Change????

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:37pm

     ignore this person CLICK!

     . . . on grounds of irrelevance.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:40pm

330. LBURWELL:

     For those of you who doubt whether Senators have access to raw intelligence data and to CIA analysts, as well as any other intelligence, why don't you call your Senator's office and ask them, instead of reflexively calling me a liar?

     You made the claim - back it up.

     You said no politician called the threat from Saddam imminent, and yet, I gave you undeniable proof of a Democratic Senator saying it. I think my credibility speaks for itself.

     In a previous post you said: "And let us not forget that the only prominent politician who declared the threat from Saddam Hussein as "imminent" came from Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee."

     I responded: Your focus on the word imminent is lame. I notice you carefully used the words "prominent politician." No doubt because you choose to ignore that "imminent" was how Fleischer, McClellan, and Bartlett described the Iraq threat to the public.

     And what is your big point - that the word imminent was not used by Bush and his Cabinet? Maybe you are technically correct, but there are obviously synonyms, which were used repeatedly by the prominent folks in the White House. How do "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", and "unique threat" grab you?

     You have never responded - so I think this says it all about YOUR credibility.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 4:41pm

331. I am getting tired of educating you. Do you know why he went on that aircraft carrier and gave that speech with that banner? Because General Tommy Franks asked him to. The men on that ship's mission WAS accomplished, and he wanted the President to do that in order to boost morale for the men on that ship, as well as the men who would still face danger.

     There was another reason Tommy Franks asked the President to do that, and in that way. France and other countries had promised their help with Iraq once major combat operations were concluded. General Franks wanted the announcement to be newsworthy, so that they would get the signal that it was time for them to help. Unfortunately, those countries lied to us, and we have been stuck taking care of the mess in Iraq by ourselves, even though we were promised they would help.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 4:38pm

     Too bad they couldn't get all that on the banner

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 4:41pm

332. LBurwell,

     Of course you are logically pointing out many of the libs hypocracies and outright lies. But they are not interested in the truth..they are interested in bringing down bush and regaining power no matter how much they hurt our country in doin that. They are disgracful scum and should be ashamed of themselves. They will get thiers very soon I predict. The truths are coming out and will show the American people what anti american assholes they truly are

     Keep the faith my friend

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:43pm

333. REDBIRD

     Hey, another brilliant post from another genius.

     "Mission Accomplished"

     I am getting tired of educating you. Do you know why he went on that aircraft carrier and gave that speech with that banner? Because General Tommy Franks asked him to. The men on that ship's mission WAS accomplished, and he wanted the President to do that in order to boost morale for the men on that ship, as well as the men who would still face danger.

     There was another reason Tommy Franks asked the President to do that, and in that way. France and other countries had promised their help with Iraq once major combat operations were concluded. General Franks wanted the announcement to be newsworthy, so that they would get the signal that it was time for them to help. Unfortunately, those countries lied to us, and we have been stuck taking care of the mess in Iraq by ourselves, even though we were promised they would help.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 4:38pm

     I feel sorry for you but I've read enough of your blind foolishness to last a lifetime. Bye, Bye, I'm signing you out.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:44pm

334. "ignore this person CLICK! "

     Ooo another Stalinist leftist nitwit ignores me...Im so hurt...

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:44pm

335. "ignore this person CLICK! "

     Ooo another Stalinist leftist nitwit ignores me...Im so hurt...

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:44pm |

     Awwwwww. We can get you one of those band-aids with the little purple hearts on it. That's your favorite right?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 4:46pm

336. Who cares about whether or not they all saw the same intelligence or whether or not some Dems voted for the war. The corporations who run the country wanted the war and the politicians molded a case for one. We need the oil, and we want the power and leverage that come with having our hands on the spigot of the world's second largest oil supply on earth. This gives us more power to influence the economies of Japan, China and western Europe while fueling our own gluttonous society, not to mention provide us another market for US companies who want to Americanize the Middle East and put women in Levis instead of burkas. You guys who don't see this are naive, the US deals in power terms, plain and simple, it's one of the few cards they have left to play in world affairs. Don't be so foolish to talk of doing it for the poor Iraqis, we bombed those poor saps for 13 years while starving their country, which resulted in the death of over one million people. They are just as expendable as the US GI when it comes to business. I just wish people would be upfront about it instead of wrapping the whole charade in terms like 'freedom, democracy, liberation", or twisting God's words to justify our atrocities. The US is great at making war and killing large numbers of people if necessary to get the government, resources, territories or whatever we want. They've proved it time and time again. When something works, you go with it.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 4:47pm

337. what the fuck does "clintons regime change" have to do with anything

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:47pm

338. Too bad they couldn't get all that on the banner

     Posted by WILL C. 11/15/2005 @ 4:41pm

     Yikes! The mark of Zorro!

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 4:48pm

339. Oh I forgot...with you history revising libs...the beginning of time started after Bush was elected

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:48pm

340. FREI, it may be borderless , but it has a bank, and it has a weapons provider. if you want to keep arresting the kids selling dime bags on the street corner and ignore the millionaire drug kingpin openly doing business, then go ahead.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 4:49pm

341. Oh I forgot...with you history revising libs...the beginning of time started after Bush was elected

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:48pm

     No, actually the beginning of time started with the Clinton administration.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 4:49pm

342. Yikes! The mark of Zorro!

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/15/2005 @ 4:48pm

     Settle down

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 4:51pm

343. No, actually the beginning of time started with the Clinton administration.

     "what the fuck does "clintons regime change" have to do with anything"

     Make up your minds

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:51pm

344. Make up your minds

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:51pm

     I beleive you've mistaken us for country music line dancing robots.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 4:53pm

345. LL:

     Either your call for me to apoligize is because you are relying on LBURWELL's so-called smoking gun from Sen. Rockefeller (I cannot believe you would find his evidence persuasive)

     OR

     You think you have me by virtue of the simple fact the FBI and CIA give periodic briefings to committees of Congress. If this is your point, I don't think so. If you can point to when those briefings occurred, who in Congress had access, what intelligence was delivered, whether it was the raw intelligence or just a summary allowed by the Bush Adminsitration (remember, CIA and FBI are executive agencies), and show that it was the EXACT SAME intelligence that Bush had, then you win. Of course, I do not think you can make that claim - indeed, that is what PHASE II of the Senate investigation is supposed to be about.

     However, many posters, including myself have provided information showing that much of the intelligence was not shared - for example the Presdient's Daily Briefings, intelligence gathered by the WH OSP, intelligence covered by Bush's 2001 order limiting certain intelligence information to 8 members of Congress, and various other DoD, CIA reports, classified NIEs and raw intelligence. You have no idea who saw what, but many claim that the version of the intelligence that many in Congress saw were "white papers" omitting qualifiers and other dissenting views.

     Even Sen. Roberts has said that Congress did not have the same intelligence as the WH.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 4:56pm

346. Yes The WH Had more damming intel than congress yet the LIB senators voted for the war. What they saw was good enough for them

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 4:59pm

347. Yes The WH Had more damming intel than congress yet the LIB senators voted for the war. What they saw was good enough for them

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:59pm

     And they are going to pay, damn them.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:01pm

348. "ignore this person CLICK! "

     Ooo another Stalinist leftist nitwit ignores me...Im so hurt...

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 4:44pm

     Yeah, "Stalinist leftist nitwits" like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the ones you've never heard of.

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 5:02pm

349. Is "bushrules" currently serving in Iraq? If not, does he plan to enlist? If he can't enlist, is he going to send his children over there?

     I notice how Norman Podhoretz never mentioned the biggest smoking gun in the "Shrub Lied" cannon - the so-called "Downing Street Memo." Especially the part about "intelligence is being fixed around the facts."

     I also notice that not only did Iraq not have WMD's, but they didn't have Osama bin Laden either. Remember that guy? Nobody in the White House seems to.

     There were inspectors in Iraq before the invasion, and save for a few quibbles they overwhelmingly came to the conclusion that there were no WMD's or reconstituted nuclear weapons program. This has been found to be correct by Shrub's own inspectors. There was also the biggest worldwide protests ever on a Saturday before the war, protesting the imminent invasion. I took part in one. It's tragic that Shrub didn't pay attention to anyone except those who were saying exactly what he wanted to believe.

     Posted by don handy at 11/15/2005 @ 5:04pm

350. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were patriots unlike you anti-american assholes

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:05pm

351. "I notice how Norman Podhoretz never mentioned the biggest smoking gun in the "Shrub Lied" cannon - the so-called "Downing Street Memo." Especially the part about "intelligence is being fixed around the facts."

     Anybody ever find the original document and not some leftwing hack copy???I doubt it...Another red herring

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:06pm

352. BUSHRULES, as for Clinton, he clearly kept the same policy that Bush I and Reagan had. As recall, when Saddam gassed the kurds, we did not want the UN to take action. as for his invading kuwait

     "If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn," Lawrence Koth, a former US assistant defence secretary

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:06pm

353. The real issue is not whether deposing Saddam was a good thing. Of course it was. But if you jump in the ocean, you ought to know how to swim. The policy failures that have followed the decision to invade are colossal and have made the position of the United States in the world far worse than if we had left the tyrant in place.

     Unfortunately, the Democrats are hipped on painting Bush as a liar. They would do better to paint him as an incompetent boob. There's no shame for any Democrat in saying that he voted to support the President in removing Saddam. The shame is all Bush's for the shockingly awful job he did and continues to do.

     I don't think the public cares greatly that the case for going to war was oversold, but it cares tremendously that continued occupation is a disaster. And that, not the distortions that were put forward to justify the invasion, is the real reason Bush's popularity is in the toilet.

     Posted by appskpetic at 11/15/2005 @ 5:07pm

354. "Clinton, he clearly kept the same policy that Bush I and Reagan had"

     That is an outright LIE...Clinton instituted in 1998 by Madelin Halfbright "Regime Change" in IRAQ. You libs dont even argue with facts anymore. Pathetic

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:09pm

355. "It's tragic that Shrub didn't pay attention to anyone except those who were saying exactly what he wanted to believe."

     This is what you do when you're a Republican with a guilty conscience. You close your eyes and ears to reality and accept lies as your truth by mere dint of repetition. Anything else would be unAmerican.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/15/2005 @ 5:09pm

356. You libs dont even argue with facts anymore. Pathetic

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 5:09pm

     If you could get the names right...

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:10pm

357. so, regime change...by attacking? nope. economic sanctions. same policy as before?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:11pm

358. and i dont give a fuck about clinton, bushrules, so i dont know what your point is

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:11pm

359. "so i dont know what your point is"

     That is my point...you dont know or look the other way...you willing to look to history as long as it dont invlove Clinton. I guess if I was a LIB, I would be ashamed of B.J. too.

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:13pm

360. so, regime change...by attacking? nope. economic sanctions

     Wasnt one of you libs earlier saying the santions hurt IRAQ people???Now your advocating that policy..Cant even keep your reasons straight. And I say again......

     Then tell me how to achieve "Regime Change" that Clinton instituted in 1998. Did you libs expect Saddam was simply gonna give himself up??If the people revolted against him there would have surely been a bloody mess that would make our liberation of Iraq pale by comparison. So tell me you intellectual giants...just exactly how were you gonna enforce Clintons Regime Change????

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:16pm

361. C'mon LBURWELL we are all waiting for you to back up your claims. I tried my Senators - got the answering machine.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 5:19pm

362. ok, lets look at clinton. if he thought he could get regime change with sanctions, he was clearly wrong. bush 1 could have had regime change when we had troops on the ground, why didnt he choose it? clearly, clinton did not learn from bush 1. bush 1 knew chaos would ensue in the power vaccuum left after saddams removal, and left him there. if clinton seriously tried overturning him, be glad he failed. if sanctions would have overturned saddam, it would be the same thing as if our troops had under bush 1. only americans wouldnt have lost there lives. bush 2 clearly didnt listen to his father though either

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:19pm

363. just exactly how were you gonna enforce Clintons Regime Change????

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 5:16pm

     Paraglide you into Baghdad?

     It works on paper

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:19pm

364. BUSHRULES, where did i say i was for those sanctions? and i think anyone who thinks sanctions could topple a regime is naive. so what the fuck are you asking me? how would i enforce clintons regime change? what does that mean?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:21pm

365. "bush 1 could have had regime change when we had troops on the ground"

     Another nitwit attempt to rewrite history...did you forget your beloved UN only gave the US the mandate to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 91...not from IRAQ. How about opening a history book... might help make you not look so stupid

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:23pm

366. might help make you not look so stupid

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 5:23pm

     It worked for him

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:24pm

367. what does the UN matter? you are seriously telling me bush 1 couldnt have taken out saddam, regardless of what the UN thought? of course he could have, just like his son did. im not naive enough to think the UN can stop anyone from doing much of anything, especially not the us military

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:25pm

368. Good night LBURWELL and LL - I see you have had enough for one day.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 5:29pm

369. what does the UN matter? you are seriously telling me bush 1 couldnt have taken out saddam, regardless of what the UN thought? of course he could have, just like his son did. im not naive enough to think the UN can stop anyone from doing much of anything, especially not the us military

     Your faulting Bush 1 for NOT going against the UN mandate???. You libs cant make up your minds for shit. Its like arguing with children. How boring and a waste of time

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:31pm

370. Its like arguing with children. How boring and a waste of time

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 5:31pm

     We of course always welcome you to leave

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:32pm

371. REDBIRD

     This is the very last time I am going to educate you. You are going to need to buy a book or a newspaper or something. You said:

     The Republican administration fakes up the intelligence, launches a disastrous, not to mention immoral, war, and now you're trying to blame the war on the ones who were given the faked up intelligence by the Republican administration?

     Intelligence is gathered by intelligence agencies. Yes, they are part of the Executive branch, but they are not political appointees. In fact, the head of the CIA at the time was appointed by Clinton. Much, if not all, of the intelligence produced by these agencies, as we have clearly and unmistakenly shown you, is provided directly to the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as other committees - BY LAW. So it is not possible for the administration to "fake it up."

     By the way, I'm not trying to blame the war on anyone, I was for the war, for many more reasons than just WMD's.

     HMAN

     You refer to a statement made by Rockefeller now, that he did not have access to all the same data. He is saying that to cover himself for the statements he made prior to the war. He seemed awfully sure of himself that Saddam was a bad guy, even though he didn't have access to much intelligence. The truth is, if you are not a member of the Intelligence Committee, you may not have as much access as the members do, but Rockefeller has access to ANY AND ALL intelligence that he wants, and if he is not satisfied, he can push until he gets it. He can talk to any analyst he wants. He has equal powers that the chairman of the committee has, including subpeona powers, for that very purpose, so that no one can say that intelligence given to Congress, and especially the Intelligence committee, has been "cooked."

     Let me ask this: how did this administration "cook" the intelligence of other countries? Did we invade other countries' intelligence agencies and change all their documents and brainwash all their analysts? What about the fact that Putin warned us that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack against us? Did the administration pay him to say that? What about warnings from King Hussein of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt that Saddam planned to use chemical weapons on our troops? Did the administration go put a gun to their heads to say those things? Why did Saddam's troops have gas masks? Why did Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton support the war? You can't say they were fooled by the administration, they were the administration at one time. Was Bob Woodward lying when he said CIA Director Tenet went into Bush's office and declared "it's a slam dunk!" when Bush asked him if he were sure that Saddam had WMD's? I could go on and on, but surely it is clear that if Bush lied, he had to have hundreds, if not thousands of other co-conspirators in on that lie. Doesn't seem likely for a guy that you guys seem to think is so stupid, now does it?

     You guys accuse me of lying, I provide proof I'm not, you accuse me of another lie, I provide more proof to the contrary, it is getting old. My point in all this is that going back and trying to play "gotcha" by trying to find some obscure document somewhere that contradicts what some other document says, just so they can say that Bush lied is a monumental waste of time. Why don't you guys answer the important question I posed to you:

     Where are the WMD's that everyone, Clinton, Bush, everyone said that Saddam had, but are now unaccounted for? Don't you think it is important to know that?

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 5:32pm

372. Miller, Bush1 had allies, arab allies, and he knew that they would not support regime change, just kicking him out of Kuwait. he also suspected that removing Saddam might have some undesirable consequences, see Bush2. and yes, the UN does matter, it's not perfect, but it is a forum of world opinion. Bush 2 takes the UN seriously when it's convenient for him and ignores it and all of our allies too, when not.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:34pm

373. Burwell, the facts and the intelligence were fixed around the policy, see Downing St. memo

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:35pm

374. So it is not possible for the administration to "fake it up."

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 5:32pm

     Perhaps "Make it up" is a better choice of words?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:36pm

375. unless it was impossible

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:37pm

376. REDBIRD, I put you on ignore, you have not provided any substance, you simply called me names. At least HMAN tries to back up what he says with a fact now and then.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 5:38pm

377. Your faulting Bush 1 for NOT going against the UN mandate???.

     hey dumb fuck, im not faulting him for anything. im merely stating a fact, which is if he wanted to take out saddam no one could have stopped him. keep drawing idiotic implications out of what i say, and then calling me stupid, its pretty funny. i say what i say, what you think it implies is up to you, but calling me stupid for what you think i imply is pretty funny

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:39pm

378. WILL

     I was using someone else's words when I said fake it up.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 5:39pm

379. Miller:"hey dumb fuck"

     you're going to have to work on your manners, ask your mom

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:42pm

380. JOHANNESROLF

     The Downing Street memo was a third hand account of a conversation of lower level staff. If it had had legs, something would have come from it by now. Besides, you put one third-hand memo against the mountains of other evidence, the mountains win.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 5:42pm

381. let me make myself clear about the UN then. in the case of the first gulf war, the UN didnt matter in that regardless of what they decided upon, no one would have stopped bush from taking out saddam. thats what i mean by they didnt matter.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:42pm

382. "hey dumb fuck, im not faulting him for anything"

     Then shut the FUCK UP nitwit if you dont know what your talking about. You just look like a stupid fool with you blather and spew

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:42pm

383. dumb fuck was aimed at bushrules, who is now too cowardly to use his name

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:43pm

384. Let me ask this: how did this administration "cook" the intelligence of other countries?

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 5:32pm

     I don't know of anyone other than administration sources that can or has confirmed foreign source Intel. Unless you are suggesting that the Intel services of other countries routinely brief the press on what they know?

     I don't think so. Which brings us back to fabrication.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:44pm

385. You just look like a stupid fool with you blather and spew

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 5:42pm

     but you were leaving

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:44pm

386. Man, I leave this site for a few weeks, and the level of conversation goes right down the toi-toi...what the hell IS it with you people? Why are you even responding to the fascist Bush-suckers? They are constitutionally incapable of admitting they're wrong, and in fact attack the hardest and nastiest when they know that they ARE wrong.

     Look, to save you folks a lot of typing and agita, here's the reality of the current situation: Bush is at least a sociopath, possibly a full-blown psychopath, and NO ONE in his administration knows the first thing about saying to the American people that they made a MISTAKE about anything. It's true that some Dems voted for the War Powers Act, but the one point that no one has made in any of this is that the people who now oppose the war are able to see that the facts in the matter have CHANGED - what Bush wants us to do, according to his speech on Vets' Day, is stand with him as he continues to make the same mistakes over and over - he acknowledges that the intel was flawed, but he says, inaccurately, that the Congress had the same intel he had and voted with him. But this completely ignores the fact - undeniable even to fascists - that the reasons given for the war were WRONG and remain wrong to this day. So we're supposed to support him in continuing to screw up? I don't think so.

     And somewhere way back near the beginning of this thread someone, probably BushRules, made the assertion that Bush's job approval rating was at 46% according to Zogby. It ain't so - there may be some question in the polls on which he got 46% of something, but his overall job approval rating is not above 38% on any national poll in the past 2 weeks, and more than one poll had him at 36%. And that honesty number keeps dropping. So please, don't throw numbers around like you know what you're doing - someone might notice!!!

     Rich Miles:Where Were They When We Needed Them? [truthout.org]

     Posted by RichMiles at 11/15/2005 @ 5:45pm

387. WILL

     Huhh???? OK, we say over and over again that our intelligence is backed up by the intelligence of other countries - if that were false, don't you think those other countries would say something, especially countries like France and Germany who were making millions off Iraq and didn't want to go to war?

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 5:46pm

388. Only if you look at hack lib polls...and yes Zogby this week has Bush at 46%. Sorry your campaign of lies has fizzled out

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:47pm

389. appskepetic:"The real issue is not whether deposing Saddam was a good thing. Of course it was.

     the real issue is whether deposing Saddam was worth it, considering the cost, I would submit it wasn't and isn't, as we are still paying a terrible price

     I have yet had a single person explain to me what the benefit of the Iraq war is to the AMERICAN people. not a one.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:49pm

390. eventually you libs will get it

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:50pm

391. good one bushrules, start an argument with me about clinton, who i never mentioned, then call me stupid a bunch of times because you draw far fetched implications about what i say according to your stereotypical view of liberals or some such thing. and learn how to talk, i still have no fucking clue what you are asking about enforcing clintons regime change, you need to elaborate on that a little more, and be clearer about what you are asking

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:51pm

392. "OK, we say over and over again that our intelligence is backed up by the intelligence of other countries - if that were false, don't you think those other countries would say something, especially countries like France and Germany who were making millions off Iraq and didn't want to go to war?

     those countries did say something, they said they didn't want to go in on this futile and illegal war. their people protested, most of the world did. I have yet to see evidence of a german company involved with oil for food but have seen several US ccompanies' involement

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:52pm

393. Ever heard of Marc Rich...Clinton's little criminal that he pardoned???

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 5:54pm

394. LBURWELL, the documents italy gave the US and Britain claiming recent attempts by saddam to get uranium seem to be forgeries. the IAEA, and several US agencies seem to think so.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:55pm

395. yep, marc rich, whos lawyer was scooter libby

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 5:55pm

396. Huhh????

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 5:46pm

     The only verifiable claims made buy any foreign Intel service that I have heard are the forged Niger documents from Italy and the British assertion that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger.

     That's it. Every other claim made about foreign Intel assessments has come from administration sources and the wingnut pundits those claims were repeated to so they could be repeated over and over and over...

     As to your question of why foreign governments don't speak out, I would imagine it's for the same reason that democrats on the senate and house Intel committees don't speak out.

     They can't

     It's classified

     Of course there may be other verifiable claims other than the two I mentioned but I am not aware of them.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:57pm

397. Maasch:"Johannes,

     BTW, I still have my great grandfathers ID card( from above post).. very strange..the man looked exactly like Santa Claus...

     A little German/American history there.."

     I did not get the point of the anecdote, since you didn't make a point, you just flung it out there

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 5:57pm

398. Ever heard of Marc Rich...Clinton's little criminal that he pardoned???

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 5:54pm

     ever hear of "Scooter Libby"? His lawyer for the pardon?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 5:59pm

399. HHMEW,

     "Careful on the sweeping rhetoric. I don't think you can safely say that this country will be overpopulated, underdeveloped and poorly educated because there is the possibility that this country may one day have a Hispanic majority. If I didn't know better I might detect a little antagonism here towards Hispanics. Now, I am not calling you racist but am suggesting that your rhetoric is a bit shrill and could be seen that way. "

     Posted by HHEMWM 11/15/2005 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person

     Not a racist statement at all. All I am saying, is if the current trends continue with the unfettered immigration from our Southern Border is not checked, we will be over run with simple numbers of people. Now Hispanics really have nothing to do with the equation, they just happen to be the ones coming in illegally..Immigration is a great way to revitalize our country, however, it is one thing to have many illiterates in English and skilled in some manner come here for a better life to build, but many of the people coming here now are illiterate in their own country and skilless, which may build a permanent underclass and all the problems this contains. Unchecked the underclass population will trend towards the very thing many of the illegal immagrants are fleeing...no demand or jobs for unskilled people. Especially in an industrialised society requiring highly educated work forces.

     This is not a racist view, it is just looking at the mathamatical trends.

     Incidently, my brother-in-law, D Martinez, is more educated than myself. He is 2nd generation from Mexico and his family INTEGRATED INTO THE AMERICAN melting pot. I use him as an example.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 6:06pm

400. no name, bushrules , whatever you are called. sorry i dont pray at your altar to bush. i will also point out the fuck ups of clinton, the UN, bush 1, reagan, cater, ford, nixon, johnson, kennedy, eisenhower, truman, etc etc etc. i have no attachment to any stupid politician, they work for me, not the other way around. if they fail to do their job, i will continue to criticise, no matter what party they are in and what ideas, policies, etc they claim

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:12pm

401. johannes,

     I just thought the Id card of my great grandfather(German enemy) you night have found interesting...no point really..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/15/2005 @ 6:12pm

402. "i will continue to criticise, no matter what party they are in and what ideas, policies, etc they claim"

     Bully for you...like anyone cares

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 6:14pm

403. so bushrules admits he cares only about bush, and protecting bushes ass, not whats good for america, americans, or anything else. thanks for admitting it. no point in discussing anything with you, because by default anything bush does is correct, and anything anyone else does or says is wrong.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:18pm

404. " cares only about bush, and protecting bushes ass, not whats good for america, americans,"

     I think what Bush is doing is EXACTLY what america needs. So there is no conflict except with nutty liberals

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 6:19pm

405. Maasch, I would have found it interesting with just a little more information.

     I know that you are a caring person, it's just that there is this other guy who posts with your name, and about him, I have my doubts. he has a way of demonizing the "other", and it is that I object to.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:21pm

406. the Downing street memo was an asessment of the HEAD of british intelligence. the mountains of evidence that Bush did NOT cook the intelligence have turned out to be molehills. try again

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:22pm

407. I think what Bush is doing is EXACTLY what america needs. So there is no conflict except with nutty liberals

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 6:19pm |

     Isn't it wonderful that we live in a country were everyone gets express his or her opinion

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 6:23pm

408. Miller, well in that case... let's try to elevate the tone here. it's good to ignore.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:24pm

409. WILL

     What about resolution 1441? It dealt with WMD's. It passed unanimously. Obviously, other countries would not sign on to it if they did not also feel Iraq has WMD's. And I doubt they would sign on based on just our intelligence, they would look to their own intelligence agencies to make their decision.

     And I don't get your point about it being classified - Senators on both sides of the aisle spoke extensively about them before the war.

     HVMILLER

     The document was shown to be a forgery, but no one has disputed the claim that agents of Iraq met with leaders of Niger about possible trade deals - Niger doesn't have much else to trade. This meeting was confirmed by Joseph Wilson, and gave the CIA further confidence in the notion that Saddam was seeking uranium from them.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 6:25pm

410. LBURWELL, the meeting was about trade, the official from Niger said he thought it was going to be about uranium, but that was his opinion. was he right? i wouldnt doubt it. the problem is niger doesnt control that uranium, a french mining consortium does, how that bears on whether iraq could have got any had niger agreed to the trade is another matter.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:31pm

411. members of congress cannot be impeached. source:J W Peltason "Understanding the constitution"

     yes it would be nice to impeach Cheney and Bush, but it's not going to happen. what can happen is that the GOP agenda is shot to hell, that they will lose control of both houses.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:31pm

412. Have you read resolution 1441? If so, did you understand it? It identified faults with Iraq's reporting of its weapons and called for more reports and inspections. Did they think that Iraq might have had WMD? Yup. Did it threaten Iraq with invasion if it was unsatisfied with how reports from the inspectors proceeded? No. Inspections proceded, reports were made to the UN, and the United States and its ragtag version of the A-Team entered Iraq without UN authorization.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 6:32pm

413. Where did Saddam get the 500 tons of uranium of which 1.5 was enriched yellowcake???Maybe Cheny sold it to him in some kind of grand conspiracy

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 6:33pm

414. "what can happen is that the GOP agenda is shot to hell, that they will lose control of both houses"

     More liberal wet dreams

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 6:34pm

415. What about resolution 1441? It dealt with WMD's.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 6:25pm

     What about it? Resolution 1441 addresses Saddam noncompliance with other UN Resolutions. It makes no difinitive statement that he still has WMD. Read it for yourself http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 6:34pm

416. The Republicans lied and they're trying to cover it up with MORE lies.

     Hart feels deceived the White House hasn't established that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a connection to al-Qaeda.

     "I bought the whole line. The president told me something and I believed him," Hart said. "But Brian and I have this nagging fear that it is going to come to nothing. We want something meaningful to come out of this for John. This is the big tragedy for us, and to think he was lied to by his government and sent over there ill-equipped and unprepared is very upsetting."

     "I used to be a Republican until they killed my son," Hart said. "Killing my boy was the last straw."

     She wants American troops brought home.

     http://tinyurl.com/8op8o

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 6:35pm

417. Burwell, are you seriously thinking that the WMD will still be found? you are defending something even the administration has long since given up on. reminds me of the japanese soldier found 20 years after the war who didn't know it had ended.

     Rumsfeld, that swine, said we know where the weapons are, around Baghdad and up in Tikrit. have you thought about going over there yourself and looking there, Burwell?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:36pm

418. yeah 500 tons of yellowcake that was already there, since what, the 80s?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:36pm

419. TJB

     Why would they write a resolution asking someone to account for weapons they didn't think he had? My point was that they obviously thought he had WMD's or they wouldn't have signd on to a resolution asking him to account for WMD's. I only brought it up because WILL asked how I knew other countries thought he had WMD's, and the resolution semed like the easiest way to prove that they did.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 6:36pm

420. hey bushrules? are you fiscally conservative? if so please explain to me bushes economic policy and how that is or isnt fiscally conservative

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:37pm

421. as for wet dreams, bushrules, just admit the obvious, that you want to fuck the president

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:38pm

422. LBURWELL:

     You were the one who said that ALL senators have access to the same intelligence. I am glad, at a minimum, that you have backed off that claim. But like I said to LL, IF it is shown that Rockefeller had access to the same intelligence and made those statements, he is just as guilty. But, that is what Phase II of the investigation is all about, and from what I have read, it is hard to support a claim that Congress was given all of the information.

     How do you explain the following:

     1. That information from Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans was not shared with Congress?

     2. That the President's Daily Briefings were not shared?

     3. That Bush was relying on information from Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, the raw intelligence for which was not shared with Congress?

     4. Bush's 2001 executive order that limited intelligence to only to 8 congressional leaders?

     5. Congress was not given the Energy Department's dissenting opinion in 15 assessments of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program?

     6. The October NIE classified report was delivered to Congress at 10 pm on October 1, the night before Senate hearings were to begin. Senators could look at it on-site. They could not take a copy - only a white paper, an unclassified summary of the NIE, which mentioned no dissents and removed qualifiers and even added language to distort the severity of the threat. Several senators requested declassification of the full-length version so they could reveal to the public those dissents and qualifiers and unsubstantiated additions, but their request was denied. Consequently, they were put in the difficult position of not being able to use specifics from the classified NIE to explain their opposition to war without revealing classified information.

     7. As further evidence that not all intel is shared equally, how do you explain how the classified intel re: CIA prisons was only distributed to a meeting of Republican Senators?

     While I think that some amount of classified intel was shared, it cannot be the case that all of it was shared. What was selected, deselected, and why are the big questions.

     As for what Rockefeller or any other member of Congress said in public, I think it is more likely that they were not as much making an assesment of the intel themselves, but were relying on the words of those in the executive branch. When Bush and others say things like there is "no doubt," people in Congress should be able to rely on that. Simply because they may have repeated it in public does not necessarily prove that they poured over all of the intel that Bush had at his disposal.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 6:38pm

423. LBURWELL, no matter if the story is true or not, using forged documents to make your case is a bad idea, ask dan rather

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:39pm

424. JOHANNESROLF

     I believe the WMD's were taken to Syria. There were reports of a caravan of trucks going there just prior to the war. Where do you think they are? Unless our intelligence from before Bush was wrong, there are unaccounted for WMD's somewhere. I do not believe Saddam destroyed them without telling anyone.

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 6:41pm

425. And I don't get your point about it being classified - Senators on both sides of the aisle spoke extensively about them before the war.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 6:25pm

     People say a lot of things. If senators on both side of the aisle were repeating statements about foreign Intel sources then the Intel must be declassified. Which means a freedom of information request should get it for you.

     I'll be very happy to wait to continue this conversation after the paperwork comes through

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 6:43pm

426. LBURWELL:

     Regarding your point on foreign intel - whatever the particulars of the intel were, it was plainly not material enough for countries like Germany, France, Russia and China to back us in the decision to go to war.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 6:43pm

427. LBURWELL,

     Does the US have intelligence linking Syria to the weapons? I ask this not as a challenge, but as a straightforward question. If there is intelligence to this effect, I would assume that it has been shared internationally to build support for an international action against Syria. Is this what you would anticipate as well?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 6:45pm

428. [Apologies for long cut/paste from Kevin Drum 11/14/05 Washington Monthly]

     Did the Bush administration mislead the country during the runup to the Iraq war? It's true that they turned out to be wrong about a great many things, but that doesn't answer the question. It merely begs it. Were they sincerely wrong, or did they intentionally manipulate the intelligence they presented to the public in order to mask known weaknesses in their case?

     The case for manipulation is pretty strong. It relies on several things, but I think the most important of them has been the discovery that the administration deliberately suppressed dissenting views on some of the most important pieces of evidence that they used to bolster their case for war. For future reference, here's a list of five key dissents about administration claims, all of which were circulated before the war but kept under wraps until after the war:

     1.

     The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.

     What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.

     2.

     The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war.

     What We Know Now: The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about." Link. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link.

     3.

     The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.

     What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.

     4.

     The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address.

     What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were "completely implausible." Link.

     Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was overruled. Link. Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director George Tenet admitted publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link.

     5.

     The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.

     What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link.

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/15/2005 @ 6:45pm

429. LBURWELL, i would assume they were materials, not functioning wmds if he moved them. further, if they suspected these trucks of moving them why wasnt anything done? if i was going to invade a country, watching its borders for suspect activity and doing something about it would definitely be part of my plan

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:46pm

430. "whatever the particulars of the intel were"

     I thought Bush Fabricated the particulars....

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 6:46pm

431. Burwell:"I believe the WMD's were taken to Syria.

     and I believe in the tooth fairy. that is just absurd, the US has satellites taking photos etc. they saw the missiles in Cuba in the 60s, they would have seen Saddam trucking. and they would have been trumpeting that fact, you my friend are a loon

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:48pm

432. hey no name, thanks for the input on economic policy. also, tell me what you think should be done about pakistan for giving nuke materials to n. korea and iran, and for funding the taliban and al qaeda , and possibly the 9/11 hijackers

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 6:50pm

433. Drones to reach the US from Iraq? who could possibly have believed this? you need intercontinetal ballistic missiles ro reach the US. Saddam didn't have them, end of story

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 6:51pm

434. I do not believe Saddam destroyed them without telling anyone.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 6:41pm

     He told his mom. Doesn't that count?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 7:00pm

435. I thought Bush Fabricated the particulars....

     Posted by 11/15/2005 @ 6:46pm

     you thought...

     First mistake

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 7:04pm

436. This meeting was confirmed by Joseph Wilson, and gave the CIA further confidence in the notion that Saddam was seeking uranium from them.

     Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 6:25pm

     I just heard Wilson speak a few weeks ago. What he said doesn't jive with wath you just said. What you said only jives with what the wingnut pundits said.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 7:16pm

437. Drones to reach the US from Iraq? who could possibly have believed this?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/15/2005 @ 6:51pm

     Would you like me to post my "ignore" list?

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 7:17pm

438. WILL, google "national security archive". they have all the FOIA docs concering it, i read the one on niger. iraqi businessman(men?) talked to an official in niger concerning more trade between the two countries. the official from niger suspected it was about uranium. thats about the extent of it.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 7:21pm

439. Drones to reach the US from Iraq? who could possibly have believed this?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/15/2005 @ 6:51pm

     Would you like me to post my "ignore" list?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/15/2005 @ 7:17pm

     Maybe it's just the Wild Turkey gobbling through my fingers, but this is the funniest thing I've read or heard all day!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 7:23pm

440. Intelligence is not an exact science - some analysts believed for sure he had them, some were more skeptical. Hindsight is great for those who do not have to make the hard decisions. We have a shadowy enemy who would love to get its hands on WMD's, and if we waited until we had 100% proof that Saddam had them, and was planning on sharing them with terrorists, it may have been too late at that point. That was the point made by many Senators, on both sides, prior to the war. If you were the President, and had to make that hard decision, you would ask the one guy who should know better than anyone, the CIA Director, and he said it was a slam dunk. If you want to blame someone, blame him for the faulty intelligence.

     Imagine the reverse. Imagine the CIA Director tells him it's a slam dunk, and Bush ignores him and does nothing. Then months later, terrorists hit us with WMD's. You guys would be screaming bloody murder for Bush not protecting us.

     Or imagine we went in and found WMD's. Don't you think all these Senators who are saying Bush lied would instead be bragging on how they knew it all along and were glad they signed on to the war? They get the luxury of playing both sides, the President doesn't get that luxury.

     The fact is, we're there now, and we need to finish as quickly and as effectively as we can, and get out with the fewest casualties possible. If we succeed, and Iraq is a democracy and an ally, it could be of great benefit for the world for many years to come. Running around screaming "Bush lied" does not help. It makes the enemy think that just a few more attacks, and we will turn tail and run, and they will have a new base of operations, one with lots of oil to fund their terrorist activities, instead of heroin. I do not see where the constant harping on pre-war intelligence does us any good. You guys already got the result you wanted, we will always be very skeptical in the future whenever an administration tells us we have to go to war based on intelligence. Maybe the gotcha game will make you feel good, but it will do nothing to better the future of our country or the world. I wish we could all show a little more unity, if for no other reason than for the safety of our troops. I respect those who were always against the war, it is a respectable position. But we can't go back and take a mulligan now. Let's finish this war in a positive way, and then work to make our intelligence agencies as good as possible, so that we can always trust what they tell us. That benefits everyone, on both sides, and allows future Presidents to have the intelligence they need so the decisions they have to make won't be so hard or so controversial. I personally think the President made the best decision possible based on the information he had, you may disagree, and who knows, you may be right, only history will know for sure, but we can't go back and have a do-over. But this re-hashing of the intelligence is being done for political purposes only, and I find that to be disgusting. Or to quote Senator Harry Reid "Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first."

     Posted by lburwell at 11/15/2005 @ 7:31pm

441. Drones to reach the US from Iraq? who could possibly have believed this?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/15/2005 @ 6:51pm

     Would you like me to post my "ignore" list?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/15/2005 @ 7:17pm

     Maybe it's just the Wild Turkey gobbling through my fingers, but this is the funniest thing I've read or heard all day!

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 11/15/2005 @ 7:23pm

     This was funnier: Posted by WILL C. 11/15/2005 @ 4:41pm

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 7:33pm

442. Close call.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 7:37pm

443. LBUR, it would be nice if this all took place in a vacuum. but even granting the following points which are being debated , did that make saddam a bigger threat than al qaeda? if saddam was trying to build a nuke, if he was collaborating with al qaeda, if he was intent on attacking the US. well, al qaeda attacked. bin laden was a guest of the taliban , who were funded and armed by pakistani intelligence, with saudi funding. pakistan DOES have nukes, and has helped north korea, iran, libya, and possibly saudi arabia in acquiring them. it also offered to help iraq with them. how many times has the head of the pakistani intelligence or the head of the pakistani nuke program met with the taliban? bin laden or his representatives? did the indian govt give evidence to the us govt that one of its generals, who was here during the week of 9/11, had financial ties to mohamad atta? should we take pakistans word that that is all they did with nuclear proliferation and that they promise to stop?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 7:39pm

444. *the possible evidence the indian govt had was that a pakistani general had ties to 9/11, my previous post was unclear, upon reading it , it might seem i meant in indian general

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 7:43pm

445. Hman are you serious? Did you just strat following the news yesterday.

     Regarding your point on foreign intel - whatever the particulars of the intel were, it was plainly not material enough for countries like Germany, France, Russia and China to back us in the decision to go to war.

     What a dope. The French, Russians and the UN were bought by corruption from the Oil for food program Shroeder was trying to win elections by hating America.

     I'm glad Paris burned. They got what they deserved. The french thought that they could by a free pass from Islamic voilence by opposing war in Iraq.

     please don't throw out the stupid "Our Allies and the UN didn't back us" bullshit.

     Posted by jzimm at 11/15/2005 @ 7:44pm

446. Posted by LBURWELL 11/15/2005 @ 7:31pm

     Imagine earth no heaven

     It's easy if you try...

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 7:45pm

447. Posted by JZIMM 11/15/2005 @ 7:44pm

     Jzimm!

     You came back to spurt out a few of your "organized" thoughts

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 7:47pm

448. is pakistani intelligence the paymaster and controller of al qaeda like they were the taliban? how much saudi money was or is going into pakistan? was al qaeda more likely to get a nuke from saddam or pakistani intel? how much money is al qaeda getting from the poppy fields in afghanistan?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 7:47pm

449. well, al qaeda attacked. bin laden was a guest of the taliban , who were funded and armed by pakistani intelligence, with saudi funding. pakistan DOES have nukes, and has helped north korea, iran, libya, and possibly saudi arabia in acquiring them. it also offered to help iraq with them. how many times has the head of the pakistani intelligence or the head of the pakistani nuke program met with the taliban? bin laden or his representatives? did the indian govt give evidence to the us govt that one of its generals, who was here during the week of 9/11, had financial ties to mohamad atta? should we take pakistans word that that is all they did with nuclear proliferation and that they promise to stop?

     Posted by HVMILLER 11/15/2005 @ 7:39pm

     What did you expect the Republicans to do- put American national interests in front of personal interests?

     Posted by fromredbird at 11/15/2005 @ 7:47pm

450. David, Admirable restraint in that you didn't bust his chops for that pure propaganda line "an enemy determined to destroy our way of life." Actually it has been US bombers who have consistently, since GWI, been destroying the Iraqi way of life, along with the actual life of about a million or two Iraqi citizens. Yet we're all just stupid liberals who attack the wonderful President... duh.

     Posted by johnfeden4 at 11/15/2005 @ 7:48pm

451. if the french and russian were bought with the UN oil for food money alone they are a pretty cheap bribe

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 7:49pm

452. By The way. Here is something you won't here much about in the MSM. It's a thank you AD's placed by the Kurds to the American People...Or should I say to the Republican Party.

     Kurds Campaign Thanks U.S. for Liberation

     www.newsmax.com A group representing Kurdistan thanks America for liberating that nation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship of terrorism.

     "The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say ‘thank you for helping us win our freedom. Thank you for democracy. Thank you America."

     The print and broadcast advertisements are sponsored by the Kurdistan Development Corporation, an organization created by the government of Kurdistan to encourage international investment.

     The ad campaign began Monday in the United States with ads in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News Channel. Ads begin airing Nov. 14 airing in Europe.

     The group describes Kurdistan as a place "where peace and prosperity have reigned since liberation from Saddam Hussein." Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan's High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media's largely negative coverage of Iraq.

     "We feel the mainstream media," she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news."

     "We're not saying that the media doesn't tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it's not the whole truth, or the whole picture."

     "The truth is that while there is violence," she continues, "there are big strides being taken towards democracy in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan. There are vast sections of Iraq, and again particularly Kurdistan, where the region is safe, stable, and people are getting on with their lives, doing business, trying to build a future."

     Indeed, not a single coalition soldier has died in Kurdistan since March 2003.

     Rahman worries, however, about suggestions that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

     "If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States," she says.

     The current peace and prosperity is a welcome change from conditions under Saddam Hussein, who targeted the Kurds throughout his rule.

     Among other atrocities, Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds, a majority of which were women and children.

     Following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and the United Kingdom established "no-fly zones" in northern Iraq to prevent continued bombing of Kurdistan by Saddam. Kurds ran a semi-autonomous government under the protection of the "no-fly zones."

     Kurdistan President H.E. Masoud Barzani thanked President Bush for his dedication to Iraqi freedom in an Oct. 25 visit to the White House. "It was a brave decision that you have made," Barzani told the president, "you have liberated a people from a dictatorial regime that has hurt a lot of people."

     Rahman goes further, calling President Bush a "hero."

     "The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan," she gushes, "admire President Bush's courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America's international partners."

     Rahman says there is no question that the decision to liberate Iraq was just.

     "Saddam Hussein was a tyrant," she notes, "a dictator who committed genocide against the people of Kurdistan ... To get rid of someone like that, there should be no question."

     In addition to the advertisments, the group maintains a Web site, www.theotheriraq.com, expressing its gratitude to the U.S. and the value of Kurdistan to the world community.

     Posted by jzimm at 11/15/2005 @ 7:50pm

453. Does no one take issue with the Commander in chief giving a partisan stump speech, blaming the democrats for weakening Americas resolve in the war, to a captive audience of US soldiers? It smacks of coersion and abuse of power. While Cheney is being hecled in Knoxville, Bush forces service members to listen without the right to complain, comment, or protest. WOW, WHAT A LEADER GO BUSH GO!

     Posted by ALTADOFF at 11/15/2005 @ 7:59pm

454. JZIMM, duh. the freedom of the press is part of checks and balances. the first newspapers were around to criticise monarchy, in other words to critique government rule, not be public relations departments. i have no doubt the kurds are happy saddam is gone. the kurds in turkey will be happy im sure when they are no longer oppressed as well.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 8:02pm

455. My point was that all we typically hear is the doom and gloom from you libs. Whats wrong is success in Iraq that hard for you to handle?

     I know it must suck to have to hope for our faliure in order for your party to have a chance (albiet a slim one) for political success.

     Posted by jzimm at 11/15/2005 @ 8:20pm

456. Posted by JZIMM 11/15/2005 @ 8:20pm

     More condomnation.

     but no climax

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 8:24pm

457. Which one of you chicken hawk supporters wants to look in the eyes of the hundreds and possibly thousands of American soldiers that will be dead before this so called war is over and place the mark of death on their chests? Either you people are nuts are so blinded by your 'ideology' that you are no longer to be considered patriots. I wonder how you manage to sleep at night? Don't answer that. It's just a rhetorical question. These are our soldiers! You were making the same crazy arguments when our death count was 100...500...1000...1500...2000... What number of American deaths do you consider too much? There has to be a number. It can't be all of them. In this war, either we're going to kill them all or they're going to kill us all. If we're not bankrupt before that happens, which one do you prefer?

     Posted by D1od1o at 11/15/2005 @ 8:25pm

458. JZIMM, which party is my party? its news to me i have a party. as for success, i have no doubt alot of people are happy saddam is gone. I seem to recall alot of talk about mushroom clouds and al qaeda prior to the war, little about human rights for others. where were the republicans or an american for that matter when saddam USED that gas? i dont recall reagan tripping over himself to invade. sorta like sudan now. and rwanda under clinton. and even if not one more person died in iraq, and everyone got along tomorrow, what did that have to do with bin laden? and 9/11? did it stop saddam from giving nukes to iran and north korea? ohhh pakistan already did that. so it stopped bin laden and mullah mohamed omar from hiding in iraq. ohhh no they are in pakistan. it stopped iraq from funding al qaeda and the taliban. nope, again thats pakistan. ohhh it brought AQ Khan to justice for giving nukes to everyone . oh, nope hes still in pakistan. dont confuse what saddam did to his own people as a threat to us. thats my problem.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 8:30pm

459. JZIMM,

     If they wanted to get the MSM to broadcast their ads, all they had to do was ask and fork over the cash. Blame the MSM for not covering stories but voice your blaming only in rightwing outlets? It seems more likely that they are appealing to those who still remain in the pro-war camp and, therefore, seems rather shammy. Who's paying whom for these ads?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 8:31pm

460. oh yeah, i thought the MSM was covering bushes policy in a positive light. oh , wait, it turned out some of those people were being PAYED $250,000 to be mouthpieces.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 8:34pm

461. JZIMM,

     What sucks is that we have accomplished something I thought would never happen in my lifetime: my country invaded another country without provocation and after the invasion had no idea what to do. This sucks. A big thank you shoutout to you and your party.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/15/2005 @ 8:34pm

462. JZIMM, when our govt does it primary job, and protects me by putting out of business those who attacked us and their financial backers, then maybe i will listen to what good came incidentally out of this. i was too busy trying to dig through all the bullshit about saddam nuking a us city, wondering what the fuck that had to do with the people who attacked us.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 8:41pm

463. burwell:"Imagine the reverse. Imagine the CIA Director tells him it's a slam dunk, and Bush ignores him and does nothing. Then months later, terrorists hit us with WMD's. You guys would be screaming bloody murder for Bush not protecting us.

     well, that's pretty close to what happened before 9/11. Bush is told BinLaden seeks to attack in US. and he went on vacation, bingo

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 9:09pm

464. yeah, bush was ok with AQ Khan giving nukes to iran and n korea as long as he apologized on tv. im screaming bloody murder for bush no protecting us

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 9:27pm

465. yeah, bush was ok with AQ Khan giving nukes to iran and n korea as long as he apologized on tv. im screaming bloody murder for bush no protecting us

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 9:29pm

466. damn internet connection

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 9:30pm

467. good grief you fools are just laying in your own excriment and it stinks too...keep blaming bush for all your woes...you'll be even more marginalized than you are now...I for one would welcome that

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 9:31pm

468. that's excrement

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 9:33pm

469. Willc. Don't be stupid. You can do better. An alliance with fascist dickheads will not make you more successful down the road. Why not try an alliance with goodness and truth?

     Only a suggestion, Beavis,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 11/15/2005 @ 9:33pm

470. When I see the word Bloppy...I hear the sound of one of my turds hitting the water of my toilet....Sounds fitting

     Posted by at 11/15/2005 @ 9:39pm

471. Im sorry, BUSHRULES is so convinced he is right hes over in iraq fighting for what he thinks is right. i wont speak ill of him ever again

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 9:40pm

472. Willc. Don't be stupid.

     Posted by BLOPPY 11/15/2005 @ 9:33pm

     Sorry Bubba

     It's a must when frolicking with the wingnuts. You've got to speak the language of butts in the seats.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 9:53pm

473. Good to see you Bloppy, I was wondering where you went.

     JZIMM: Your right. You got it all figured out sport. You got any proof that the money behind the Oil for Food influenced the decisions of the government? I thought all your righties laughed at conspiracy theories based on the evils of corporations influencing government.

     You are duped, dope.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/15/2005 @ 9:55pm

474. i think the money was pretty insignificant relative to alot of other things. i would think they didnt want us in their because they didnt want us having control over almost 10% of the worlds oil.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 9:58pm

475. Miller, what are you talking about. we have to buy oil, the europeans have to buy oil, Saddam was selling oil, no matter what happens in Iraq, somebody is going to buy that oil

     the europeans just saw that this war was a bad idea. they tried to warn us, they stayed out of it. no this is all US' baby and we are going to have to get out of it, to save OUR country if not Iraq

     Bush went to war for domestic consumption, no not oil, votes. they thought it would be easy and he would cruise to re-election, they were half right

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:22pm

476. Zimmy:"Whats wrong is success in Iraq that hard for you to handle?

     success in Iraq? the kurds had autonomy from Saddam since the 91 war, what with the no fly zones etc, so that's not exactly a success story. 2000 american dead, no that's not a success story either, 40,000 Iraqi dead, damn not a success story, $200 billion spent over there, some of it stolen by iraqis, not a success story, you guessed it

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:28pm

477. JOHAN, was pointing out the oil is a more significant thing than the small amount of money from oil for food. If you bother to watch, a race is on for oil. china has armed oil setups in sudan. exxon said this year in their report that non-opec oil may peak in the next 5 years. over 60% of oil is in the middle east. oil gains more and more importance as every second ticks by.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 10:34pm

478. HVMILLER, do you honestly believe the Saudis are happy with the possibility of a democratic Iraq?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:32pm

     Controlled by a puppet regime in DC? Oh yeah and with all that money to buy the "right" kind of politicians, you know the corrupt kind that screw the population and make democracy look bad, yup.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:40pm

479. European socialists, as well as the american left are against the war in Iraq because they clearly see the danger of its success to liberalism in the west.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:36pm

     You lose a lot of sleep making this stuff up don't you?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:42pm

480. Frei, you must be joking. the whole world does not revolve around Iraq and our stupid president's adventurism there. you are a clown, there will not be a stable, capitalistic Iraq for decades, and socialism is doing quite well in europe and in the US. what do you think that drug benefit for seniors is? socialism. you're going to have to do a whole lot better before you can sit at the table with well informed smart people, baby

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:42pm

481. the saudis are a repressive dictatorship. what they fear most of all is an islamist revolution such as occurred in Iran and Algeria, for example. you are borderline incoherent and your understanding of both history and geo politics is lacking

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:45pm

482. FREI, the saudis funded the jihad against the soviets in afghanistan. like other similar countries, they then had these warriors sitting around with nothing to do but think about toppling the saudi monarchy, and they pay them money cause trouble elsewhere. the saudis have a contract with the us govt, we will not allow them to be toppled. they play a dangerous double game, and so does pakistans govt. i have no idea how the saudi govt feels about a democratic iraq, they may be more concerned about a state next door with an iran influenced shia majority then they are about saudi subjects wanting democracy

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 10:47pm

483. JR

     Sorry for breaking in on your riff. Sometimes these guys are so absurd that I can't help but laugh at them.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:47pm

484. If the US was as corrupt as you say, long ago we would have employed our military and technological superiority to waste the leadership of the middle east and simply taken the oil that without the technology of the west would still remain in the ground

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:46pm

     Why long ago?

     Why not five years ago?

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:49pm

485. all you torture apologists out there you should be real happy now that they've found the torture chambers of OUR Iraqis, I guess our training of the iraqis is working out real well.

     I think it's useful to remember that this war was not sold on the basis of liberating anyone, iraqi, kurds, it was sold on the basis of fear, pure and simple, all else is window dressing

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:49pm

486. FREI, the free market that will exist in iraq will be tilted towards whats good for corporations, not iraqis.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 10:50pm

487. you might also remember that ALL arabs liked Saddam just fine, he gave them a sense of self respecct, something they've been lacking for centuries

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:50pm

488. Frei:"f the US was as corrupt as you say, long ago we would have employed our military and technological superiority to waste the leadership of the middle east and simply taken the oil that without the technology of the west would still remain in the ground"

     are you really that stupid, or are you just trying this on for size?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:52pm

489. hey will, no apology necessary, no apology accepted, I love hearing from all god's chillun, specially the smart ones, such as yourself

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:54pm

490. torture chambers of OUR iraqis? could you point me towards what you mean JOHAN, maybe a link or something?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 10:54pm

491. Instead, Iraqis envision a Iraq that leverages their own natural resources in a democratic and free market environment. The potential of Iraqis to live the kind of life you and I take for granted is there. Or are you unhappy with your life?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:46pm

     The last congressional delegation that went to Iraq needed kevler vests and helmits just to get around the green zone and they didn't get to talk to regular Iraqi's.

     But you, sitting here in America, know just what's on their minds.

     With powers like that, you could rule the world!

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:55pm

492. Danke schoen meinen freund

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:56pm

493. Frei:"The potential of Iraqis to live the kind of life you and I take for granted is there.

     are you willing to work to ensure this for every living soul in the world? why stop with Iraq? are you advocating for the US to make that happen all over the world or just for countries with large oil reserves. you are a corrupt SOB, baby

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 10:57pm

494. Will C. Give me just one political upside for the american left if the United States is successful in Iraq. Just one. What would Harry Reid say during the celebration of Iraqi independence?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:56pm

     We get to bring the troops home.

     We get to stop blowing our cold hard cash on war

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 10:59pm

495. Miller do you read the newspapers? try the AP, and I quote

     Some Apparently Tortured Detainees Found 47 minutes ago BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister said Tuesday that 173 Iraqi detainees -- malnourished and showing signs of torture -- were found at an Interior Ministry basement lockup seized by U.S. forces in Baghdad. The discovery appeared to validate Sunni complaints of abuse by the Shiite-controlled ministry.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:00pm

496. Danke Schoen MEIN Freund

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:57pm

     That was for JR

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:00pm

497. Frei, why don't you answer posts, instead of snide remarks. I mix in facts and ideas with my snide remarks

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:01pm

498. And you can't stop it.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 11:02pm

     Anything that can be started

     can be stopped

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:05pm

499. Frei, what about that drug benefit? answer the questions or you're history. the world is not easily divided by socialism and capitalism, and only simple minds attempt to do so.

     and why are you shilling so hard for capitalism, you are not Richie Rich or George Gotrocks?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:06pm

500. Hi Will C. I know, cuz we aren't friends, but I do respect your posts. It is der Freund, therefore you would say mein Freund, not meine freund. And in german all nouns are capitalized.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 11:04pm

     Thanks

     It's been many years since I've taken german.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:06pm

501. Frei, I wouldn't brag about german

     Danke Schoen MEIN Freund "mein" should not be capitalized as it is not a noun

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:57pm | ignore this person

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:07pm

502. If the US was as corrupt as you say, long ago we would have employed our military and technological superiority to waste the leadership of the middle east and simply taken the oil that without the technology of the west would still remain in the ground

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 10:46pm

     The islamic countries have always had corrupt leaders in the past, and the times they rallied together were the crusades and against the mongols. they had no problem toppling their leaders then and giving power to someone who could organize military resistance to the crusaders or mongols, and i think the same thing would happen now. i doubt any US administration thought it would be possible to invade and occupy saudi arabia, iran, and iraq. plus pumping out oil on top of it, the oil is still pumping at below pre-war levels

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:07pm

503. neither should "schoen", the Danke is ok, but you only got half right, D+

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:09pm

504. Will, it's the sentiment that counts, my friend

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:09pm

505. THanks JOHAN, hadnt seen recent news. FREI, one component of free market capitalism is free labor markets, in other words labor mobility, which sure doesnt seem to be the reality. i also doubt people like chalabi care about free markets. also, iraqs main natural resource is oil , and there is definitely not a free market in that

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:12pm

506. by lack of labor mobility i meant worldwide

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:18pm

507. FREI, when you say capitalism i assume you mean "market" capitalism, and when you say socialism i assume you mean "planned socialism" as in lack of markets?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:31pm

508. The beauty of capitalism is that it is driven by the wants and needs of millions of individuals all driven to care about each other out of self interest.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/15/2005 @ 11:22pm

     Care about each other out of self interest.

     I don't think that's a widely held view of capitalism

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:31pm

509. I know the Enron story

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:34pm

510. Frei, at last something almost to the point.

     let me count the ways of socialism: unemployment insurance-socialism, medicare, medicaid-socialism, federal flood insurance- socialism, disability insurance-socialism, social security-socialism, as the name says

     I don't need no textbooks, I haven't been in school since '69.

     the fact is that the american people like their socialism very much and woe to the politician that fucks with that.

     and one more thing, Reagan did not bring down the berlin wall, no way, no how, and he did not win the cold war either. what he did do was get out of the way.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:40pm

511. WILL, so you like price manipulation in the energy market and fraudulent accounting?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:42pm

512. WILL, so you like price manipulation in the energy market and fraudulent accounting?

     Posted by HVMILLER 11/15/2005 @ 11:42pm

     No I like a regulated market economy that includes toothy oversite.

     No more Enrons.

     Still a free market

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:43pm

513. oh and socialized insurance invested in a government run stock index fund

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:44pm

514. It's time the markets started working for all of us

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:45pm

515. yeah, tax cuts for oil companies that are making record profits wouldnt seem to be working for all of us

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:51pm

516. nope

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:52pm

517. socialism-a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates the the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

     the regulated part describes the US system. the only purely socialsit country is Cuba, as far as I know, every other country it's a matter of degree

     Frei, when you say you favor smaller gov't do you include the military establishment in that?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:53pm

518. JOHAN, thats the debate, was the soviet union, socialist, state capilist, or just bizzaro dysfunctional

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/15/2005 @ 11:56pm

519. What's crazy about the debate is that one side of it, "The Right", can't seem to grasp any middle ground. It's either all capitalist or all socialist.

     Liberal Democracy isn't all of one thing. It's all things, making up one thing. E Pluribus Unum.

     If we take the best qualities of all economic theories and apply them as they can best be applied for the maximum good for us all

     We could have one kick ass country.

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:57pm

520. probobly won't happen in my lifetime

     Posted by Will C. at 11/15/2005 @ 11:58pm

521. hey folks there is no free market.

     take sugar, the world price is considerably lower than the US price, which is set by the gov't at the behest of the domestic sugar lobby very high. that's why almost none of the soft drinks use actual sugar, too expensive, fructose corn syrup cheaper and better for Archer midlands daniels, worse for us. you see Frei it's no use posting when you don't understand this stuff thank you for the compliment, which you then took away with the other hand. I don't mind, I'm only incidentally writing this stuff for you, my audience is the well informed readers and posters, hell. they can correct me and have.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/15/2005 @ 11:58pm

522. Miller, Marx describes socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, the soviets were commies, no doubt. if that oil money had kicked in a bit earlier for them, maybe they could have made a go of it. now they appear to be a kleptocracy, as are we by and large, see taxcuts fior the rich with funds stolen from the poor and needy, and our corporations like ENRON, worldcom, the stock market boys etc

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 12:03am

523. another thing is opening a market gradually, like china has been doing, as or shocking it, like russia did. shocking worked in some instances but clearly not in russia.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 12:05am

524. corruption was common in the soviet era also, they called it "blat". also, i know the soviets claimed to be marxists, and communists, etc, how close they followed marxs economic theories is a whole other matter. "blat" was the black market, but a market none the less. alot of the factory planners etc used blat to get things done if they needed material and there was a govt shortage

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 12:10am

525. miller, in russia all the means of production was owned by the state. that is no longer so, the mafia now owns it all, hence kleptocracy.

     you are correct with the corruption, we've got it too. the workers in those gov't factories put it this way:" we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 12:14am

526. JOHAN, i understand the state owned the means of production. but the state was an offshoot of the communist party bureacracy. whether thats public ownership of the means of production or not is up to the reader to decide. FREI, as for oil company CEOs, they seemed to blab about supply and demand, but oil is not a competive market. they sure didnt offer to give the tax cuts back, which they clearly dont need

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 12:26am

527. it would be interesting to see if there is a refinery bottleneck, and whether it was deliberate or what.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 12:30am

528. FREI, appreciated. read most of his "conquests and cultures" recently, will finish when i get some time. i liked it, interesting read. i didn't take your suggestion as any kind of insult. im familiar with that book, in that ive looked through it, may read it one day. i agree economic literacy for the masses would benefit this country.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 12:51am

529. Sowell is good, but he pales in comparison to Haywood Jablome.

     Posted by chimichenga at 11/16/2005 @ 12:56am

530. yeah, he made some wonderful contributions to economic theory and popularizing the field of economics, that Jablome guy sure did

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 01:11am

531. Will C,

     Have you ever read Basic Economics by Sowell? It's a good read.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 11/16/2005 @ 12:29am

     No

     Posted by Will C. at 11/16/2005 @ 02:15am

532. That you still think "Reagan was THE supporter of Saddam" and that you "have demonstrated that" is perfect proof of your confused condition. Posted by NACL 11/15/2005 @ 11:23am | ignore this person

     I believe I have demonstrated that. Reagan's support was not just the military assistance he did provide Saddam – which was less conventional weaponry and equipment than that supplied by the Brits and Germans - but included his failure to stop the Iraqi dictator from using chemical and nerve agents against the Iranians and Iranian loyalist within Iraq. Are you going to tell me Reagan didn't know that Saddam was using these weapons at that time?

     Furthermore, why is it unfair, incorrect and dishonest to charge you with siding with Saddam when the US sought to eject him? Posted by NACL 11/15/2005 @ 11:23am | ignore this person

     There is such disingenuousness about the Johnny-come-lately outrage by BushII that it screams phoniness and ulterior motives. In the 15 years since the Iraq-Iran war ended, the Iraqi has been defanged, declawed and militarily neutered from Gulf War I, the UN sanctions, and No-Fly Zones. The shelf life of some of these weapons has evaporated. This does not excuse his actions in the 1980s, but provides the world community additional options to deal with him without having to start a war.

     The most sympathetic view of Bush's invasion of Iraq is an indictment of Reagan's failure to stop Hussein from using weapons available to him at the time back in the 1980s when he could have easily done so.

     When Hussein attacked Halabja in 1988, the US State Department thwarted both a US Senate investigation and UN resolution by stating falsely that Iran was partly at fault. This only encouraged Saddam to step-up his oppression.

     Lastly, I don't need a lecture from you as to my motivations for protesting Bush's wrong-headed invasion of Iraq. After the damage our military inflicted on Saddam's military in Dessert Storm, after the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq, after the enforced No-Fly Zones by US and UK pilots, after the UN and US weapons inspectors didn't find any WMD, after Colin Powell's final sales job before the UN was so soundly refuted; only a damn fool – aided by a mostly-unquestioning press and rubber stamp Congress- would believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US.

     Let me correct myself: only a damn fool or a neocon would believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. Tell me, NACL, how are your plans coming along for a New American Century? Are you giddy over the 2000+ American lives your scheme has cost this country so far?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/16/2005 @ 03:31am

533. In his past betrayals of his former friends, the Podhoretz attacks on Hannah Arendt for telling the truth about the Holocaust are perhaps the most poignant. Arendt discovered, much to her surprise, that it was not simply a black and white case. Some Jews were complicit in the genocide. Nazis, even prominent Nazis, were sometimes less motivated by insane anti-semitism than they were bland functionaries, no more "liable" in the narrow sense, than were Stanley Millgram's students who pulled the switch past "dangerous" levels of "electrical current" at the urging of "experimenters." To Podhoretz, this was heresy, and it needed to be quashed. Arthur Lindemann,in a review of "Ex-Friends," wrote: "It is finally hard to understand how a man of Podhoretz's intelligence and sophistication could have assumed, with complete inner sincerity, such an ultimately dogmatic and anti-intellectual stance. In particular it is difficult to understand how he could have continued, again, with complete inner conviction, to maintain that he was entirely right and (Arendt) entirely wrong."

     Well, the problem is simply that Podhoretz is a whore. He needs to defend Bush, and while accusing Dubya's detractors of "selective" presentment of the facts, he is far more selective than are they, when he presents his "rebuttal."

     Above, Podheretz grudgingly concedes, "Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq."

     The only way we can can believe that Bush believed all that horseshit, is to believe instead that he's an ignoramus. Of course, an excellent case can be made for that assessment. He's admitted he doesn't read newspapers. He's admitted he depends entirely on his henchmen to tell him what's important in the world, without bothering to verify it from any external source. Bush was the cretin who, sitting with Kofi Annan in the White House, said on national television that we had to attack Saddam because "he wouldn't let the inspectors in." Bush must have been the only man in that entire building, including the custodians, who didn't know that the inspectors were actually there in Iraq, and that his administration ordered them to leave before he commenced the illegal invasion and bombing of that country. Podhoretz's concession "for the sake of argument" paints him for the fool he is.

     Not content with simply defending the moron, Podhoretz energetically spins Fitzgerald's Libby indictment, to wit: "This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not."

     That's not it simply, of course. What it is simply is an indictment for perjury brought because Libby certainly and repeatedly lied, and in doing so told a host of contradictory stories meant to cover up his (and probably Cheney's) involvement in betraying a CIA agent and her network of informants in retaliation for Plame's husband's debunking of the Niger yellowcake myth.

     Podhoretz returns to defending the indefensible: "All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Mr. Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam's stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Mr. Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it...?"

     Everyone, indeed. Anyone who bothered to read reports for Europe, instead or relying on hacks and sycophants like Judy Miller should have know the "intelligence" was bunk. When these lies were told on Fox "News" or on C-Span, rarely one went by that I didn't label as mendacity. For my efforts I was thrown out of my health club for daring to call the president a liar as the words drooled from his mouth. But tell lies he did, over and over and over, as did Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Powell in virtually every appearance they made.

     Norman continues: "And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq--the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy--have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals."

     Whoops! It's the treachery of those who would keep us from "bringing democracy to Iraq," and all that other nonsense that has been subbed in for the nonexistent WMD and the fallback "al Qaida connection." "American ideals," in Norman's feverish brain, must equate to making the world safe for Halliburton, the Carlysle Group, for torturers and murderers of bound and gagged prisoners, for those who ordered the white phosphorous and napalm to be dumped on the hapless residents of Fallujah. "American 'nobility'," must mean ignoring the wishes of the 90% or so (polls of Iraqi show repeatedly) who want us out of Dodge.

     "BushRules" is an appropriate term for the sophmoric poster of Podhoretz's drivel. Give us a break.

     Posted by Eugene_Debs at 11/16/2005 @ 07:15am

534. Frei, no comment on the enumeration of socialism in this country?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 08:34am

535. frei, Reagan wasn't even president when the Berlin wall fell

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 09:12am

536. Frei, when you're not so busy at work you may want to tell us how Reagan had anything to do with the wall coming down.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 10:23am

537. Frei, the fact is that the people enjoy their "socialism", care to take a stand on that/

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 10:25am

538. Reagan was the alzheimer president, out of touch, rambling, unable to tell fact from fiction.kind of like you Frei

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 10:26am

539. Frei, some nifty spinning here:"As for the enumeration of socialism in this country, from rent control to the minimum wage to corporate welfare, I see problems caused by good-intentioned politicians obtaining "greater good" votes and corporate contributions.

     smooth segue between rent control and minimum wage to corporate welfare, as if they were part of the same phenomena. not very convincing

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 10:33am

540. what attacks? hey if Reagan is a subject off limits to you why bring him up? go check out a history of the cold war. I have. most historians reject the partisan idea that Reagan "won" the cold war. and some of his statements definitely hint at mental imbalance, such as referring to episodes from movies he acted in as if they had happened to him. not to mention trading arms for money for contras, who were our terrorists.

     any way you never responded to my asking why you are shilling for capitalists, I take it you work for a living. if you cannot sewe the difference bettween corporate subsidies and the minimum wage then you may be as braindead as your so admired Reagan.

     also your interpretation that the socialism, which is pervasive here is what the PEOPLE want, not something foisted on them by politicians..

     now for some real attacks, you are so ill informed, so willy nilly doctrinaire that I won't waste my time with you, bye

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 12:12pm

541. While I am as angry as many others about the President's pre-war distrortions, I can't help but wonder why more Democrats in Congress (not to mention much the media) didn't make more of an issue of the uncertainty of the intelligence in 2002. It's easy to pile on now because the President's numbers are in the toilet. But we really ought to direct our anger at how so many of the Democrats have bailed on progressivism, and their support of the war is more evidence of this. It's time for a real opposition party, one that actually has an agenda. The national Democratic Party hasn't been a progressive force in a very long time.

     Posted by Neilk at 11/16/2005 @ 1:12pm

542. I'm putting Bush on "IGNORE".

     What audacity! To rush our troops to war on the basis of "cherry-picked" evidence, bomb tens of thousands of civilians, many innocent human beings, then put on a flight suit to declare "Mission Accomplished" while the entire country is thrust into chaos?

     He did as much to New Orleans. Dead bodies floating in the streets while he's on a fund-raiser and the crony head of FEMA is worried about what shirt and tie he should wear to a press conference. I'm really happy that Brown's no longer on the federal payroll and Libby and DeLay have been indicted.

     But what about the other turkeys? We should roast them all so we'll all have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

     Hey, Fitzie! Do your thing! Get Rove, Cheney and Bush too, and if you decide to run for President, you can count on my vote.

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 2:20pm

543. What is the US doing in the Middle East? The large majority of American taxpayers are concerned with issues here at home. If the Bushies want to hold hands with the Saudi princes, let them do it on their own time. I'm sure that anyone with half a brain will agree that Bush doesn't have the slightest clue as to how to accomplish his childhood dream of being a "War President". Maybe his mother encouraged him? Only his mother could love him. OK. Send the whole family to Baghdad and bring our troops home while they try to figure it out over there. If they're detained in Abu Ghraib, I won't call. They did it to themselves and can suffer the consequences.

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 2:35pm

544. Bush Out, Sanity In. I'm sick and tired of being embarrassed before the World by this guy and no longer afraid to say it.

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 2:39pm

545. Francis, you are mistaken, Brownie is still on the federal payroll, as a consultant to FEMA at 140,000 a year, a shameful fact to be sure

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:02pm

546. Frei, one parting shot. that you cannot see a big difference bewteen the minimum wage and corporate werlfare shows that you cannot distinguish between a worker and a corporation, thus showing yourself as a person without feeling for your fellow man

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:05pm

547. Johannesrolf, You're wrong. Michael Brown is no longer on the federal payroll. And if he is still being supported by our tax dollars in some surrepticious manner, I'd like to see this process outed. Michael Brown is a TOTAL SCREW-UP who doesn't deserve the sweat off the American Brow.

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 3:30pm

548. francces, it is you that are mistaken, chump, next time google before you challenge:

     Results 1 - 20 of about 943,000 for Michael Brown on federal payroll. (0.88 seconds)

     Sponsored Links

     Payroll Federal Find information & links about Payroll Federal. Free! Payroll.B2BListings.net

     Government Payroll Center Government payroll learning center & vast payroll services, made easy. www.my-payroll-services.com

     Payroll A complete Website dedicated to free Payroll info. all-free-info.com

     Federal Payroll? Brief and Straightforward Guide to Payroll wisegeek.com

     CBS News | Brown Still On FEMA Payroll | September 27, 2005 11:30:06 (CBS/AP) Former FEMA director Michael Brown is continuing to work at the ... Brown came to symbolize the halting federal efforts to rescue victims of the ... www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2005/09/26/katrina/main886323.shtml - 55k - Nov 14, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:36pm

549. (CBS/AP) Former FEMA director Michael Brown is continuing to work at the Federal Emergency Management Agency at full pay, with his Sept. 12 resignation not taking effect for two more weeks, said Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke.

     CBS News Correspondent Gloria Borger reports that Knocke told her that technically Brown remains at FEMA as a "contractor" and he is "transitioning out of his job." The reason he will remain at FEMA about a month after his resignation, said the spokesman, is that the agency wants to get the "proper download of his experien

     now unless his status has changed in the last few days....sorry about calling you a name, that was unnecessary

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:40pm

550. (CBS/AP) Former FEMA director Michael Brown is continuing to work at the Federal Emergency Management Agency at full pay, with his Sept. 12 resignation not taking effect for two more weeks, said Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke.

     CBS News Correspondent Gloria Borger reports that Knocke told her that technically Brown remains at FEMA as a "contractor" and he is "transitioning out of his job." The reason he will remain at FEMA about a month after his resignation, said the spokesman, is that the agency wants to get the "proper download of his experien

     now unless his status has changed in the last few days....sorry about calling you a name, that was unnecessary

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:40pm

551. the double post was not for emphasis, but rather inadvertent

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:42pm

552. Johannes,

     I believe Brown was removed from the payroll last week--could be wrong.

     In terms of the original point of this essay, should we address the evidence that we used chemical weapons against Iraqis, using as an excuse that for over a century many other countries have used the white phosphorus agent? Again, what is our measuring stick for morality? It would seem to be the lowest of the low, a pretty miserable standard for the country that, by all rights, should be the standard bearer of the highest of the high.

     These childish, careless hooligans need to be pantsed and chased out of town.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 3:42pm

553. I don't listen to Republicans. Forgive me, but I know them well, having many in the family, mostly men who care only for tax cuts and though they care about clean air and water, they'll flip-flop on these issue when it comes to tax-cuts for themselves. And if they can get to claim more than one golf club on their taxes, WOW!! I can get a discount for BOTH of my gold club memberships with this Jerk as President. Whoopee!! Screw the military and their flack jackets and armour for their trucks. I wanna be RICH!

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 3:43pm

554. Johannes,

     Brown off payroll [cnn.com]

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 3:47pm

555. TJ, did you read my response? let's do the math. sept 12 was two weeks away from his "retirement" from FEMA, that would make it around sept 24th, a month after that resignation brings us to nov. 24th, today's date? nov 16th

     I'm sorry to be picayune, but I would appreciate citations when challenge on facts, we ALL can be wrong

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:48pm

556. TJ and Frances, I stand corrected, google wasn't quite on the job

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:52pm

557. Frei exposing the BIG lie that got us into the war is a big lie? you are getting desperate, the world has passed you by.

     the canard that the minimum wage is bad for workers is both illogical and has been exposed numerous times

     I have seen no concern for others in your posts

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:56pm

558. perhaps you can name those unintended consequences:

     "Minimum wage laws have unintended consequesces that most harm those it intends to help."

     you have not told us why you are shilling for big capitalism

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 3:58pm

559. Hi Frei,

     Wonder how you resolve our concerns about the use of chemical weapons during the pre-Mission Accomplished portion of our Iraqi adventure--fooling ourselves into worrying that it would be Saddam who would use them--with our use of chemicals that burst into flame when exposed to the air? Even if you believe that we entered Iraq for legitimate reasons, do you believe that we have conducted ourselves in a way that has been positive for the US, Iraq, and the Middle East in general? And if so, what would it take for you too say, "That's it! We've crossed the line and we need to stop before any additional harm is done."?

     Thus ends the questions. For now.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 4:23pm

560. Freiheit:

     I for one don't throw the word "lie" around to describe the situation. I think there are only a couple of isolated instances where I would go that far, and I am not even sure they were statements by Bush (if I remember correctly, they were Condi and Cheney). But anyway, I agree that saying "Bush lied" is an oversimplification. However, apart from posters on blogs or letters to the editor or some editorials, that is not how it gets played out in the MSM. There, it is framed in terms of Bush misleading or misrepresenting, which I do think is a more accurate way to describe it.

     On eadditional thing I have noticed is that when the term "lied" or "lie" is used, more often than not it is someone on your side of the debate that is interjecting the term. It is a clever attempt to frame the debate because it has the benefit of raising the degree of culpability (i.e. it takes a lot more to prove a lie as opposed to a misrepresentation or misleading statement), but it is not an entirely accurate way to describe the argument.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/16/2005 @ 4:41pm

561. FREIHEIT,

     You're sounding like the IDers and their wails against evolution with your "where is the evidence?" You can choose not to read or believe the evidence, but the blatant disregard of intelligence that did not support the We-must-stop-Iraq-before-they-attack-us mantra is there. It has been listed in these blogs ad nauseum with a pretty heavy emphasis on the "nauseum" part.

     How about this instead of "Bush lied": "This administration was either extraordinarily incompetent at analyzing intelligence or it (as a whole, not necessarily just Bush) disregarded intelligence that did not fit into their plans for war."? Does this ring true?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 4:45pm

562. Naw, lied.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/16/2005 @ 4:55pm

563. .

     SEATTLESCRIBE 11/16 @ 03:31am

     You keep repeating, that you have "demonstrated" that "Reagan was THE supporter of Saddam" but you never explain how and where you performed that demonstration.

     Reagan's support was not just the military assistance he did provide Saddam – which was less conventional weaponry and equipment than that supplied by the Brits and Germans - but included his failure to stop the Iraqi dictator from using chemical and nerve agents against the Iranians and Iranian loyalist within Iraq.

     Saddam did not get "less" conventional weaponry from the US than from Britain or Germany (who were themselves minor suppliers compared to Russia, China and France). Saddam got virtually no conventional weaponry from Reagan. The exception, components for cluster bombs, were illegally sold. The Justice Department hauled the supplier into court, for an embarrassing trial.

     Now you claim, this military assistance, was by way of the US not preventing Iraq from engaging in poison gas warfare.

     That is laughable for numerous reasons, not least, because, Saddam was into constant use of poison gas since Nov 1980, just two months into the war, whereas the United States did not even have diplomatic relations with Iraq until November 1984. You ask again, as in past posts:

     Are you going to tell me Reagan didn't know that Saddam was using these weapons at that time?

     Of course he knew, which was one reason Iraq was classed a rogue and why we had no diplomatic relations with her. Clearly the US could not control Iraq. Not even Russia and France, her allies and military suppliers, could. Our communications were so bad an Iraqi F-1 killed 37 US sailors and almost sank the USS Stark with an Exocete. Nevermind that, even had we had influence on Iraq, we had no responsibility for protecting Iran which called us the Great Satan, held our diplomats hostage for 444 days and threatened the Gulf's oil and to control our economic jugular.

     Iraqi has been defanged, declawed and militarily neutered from Gulf War I, the UN sanctions, and No-Fly Zones. The shelf life of some of these weapons has evaporated. This does not excuse his actions in the 1980s, but provides the world community additional options to deal with him without having to start a war.

     None of that is true! The Security Council, the UN inspectors, Blix, the world's intelligence services, including those of France and Russia, the US Senate, no one was certain Iraq had been declawed. Everyone suspected the opposite.

     Certain was that Saddam had played a cat and mouse game for 12 years. He had not kept his agreement to cooperate with UNSCOM. He had accepted the loss of $100 billion in oil revenues rather than make himself transparent. He had not accounted for dozens of Scuds and tons of dangerous materials, enough to stock a massive WMD arsenal. He then had kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Moreover elBaradai, the head of the IAEA, emphasized that Iraq retained a large technological infrastructure, valid bomb designs and ample know how. If it could buy or steal fissionable material, nuclear weapons were not beyond its means. (It had in 1981 and again in 1991 been within reach of the bomb.)

     When Hussein attacked Halabja in 1988, the US State Department thwarted both a US Senate investigation and UN resolution by stating falsely that Iran was partly at fault. This only encouraged Saddam to step-up his oppression.

     Wrong. As the Iran/Iraq war drew to a close some US officials wanted to try for normal relations with Saddam and to extract him from the Soviet camp. That effort came to be spelled out in 1989 on page two of the National Security Directive (NSD) #26.

     The Halabja attack embarrassed that rapprochement effort and NIA official initially suggested the Iranians were the culprits. But within weeks the US was speaking of an Iraqi atrocity and a congressional subcommittee held hearings on it. The US was the only govt to do so.

     I don't need a lecture from you as to my motivations for protesting Bush's wrong-headed invasion of Iraq.

     You mean, you don't want to be held to account for collaborating with fascists.

     That certainly was also the tune of the French and all the others who collaborated with the Nazis. But they had an excuse. They were occupied. They had a knife at their throat. They were exposed to a propaganda machine that did not permit contradictory information. And they had no precedent for their situation.

     You don't have those excuses. You knew you were supporting a mass murderer. You knew he had spewed endless lies to justify his aggression against Iran, Kuwait, and his own people. You knew he could not be trusted to speak the truth or to act honorably. Yet you chose to believe him and to agitate against efforts to end his reign.

     It is pathetic to see your twisting and turning, your repetition of lame argument, your claims to facts that are obviously not facts.

     You either have the integrity to recognize that you erred, or you don't. Everyone can be misled. But when the truth becomes obvious not everyone can change his mind. That is a question of character.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 11/16/2005 @ 4:56pm

564. FREI!

     You've been watching old tapes of Ari Fleischer! How cute and unexpected to take my question about US conduct and converting it into a response about the Dems! Admirably done. Yes, well, hmm...I was of course wondering more about people who possess the power and influence to affect both this country and our relationship with the rest of the world, i.e. Republicans. But that's okay. I know that we will not agree on that score.

     I've read your previous posts in which you write (as do a few others who haunt this site) that the left has put itself in the position of rooting for the insurgents, otherwise its point that this war was a mistake will be, uh, pointless. Applying this kind of win-lose scenario to the Democrats is, I think, not far off course, because they have been reduced to nothing except "what the GOP is against". I don't think this is the situation for the left. The purpose for being against the war is not about being against the Republicans. It is about being against the war. I was as relieved as anyone that the trip to Baghdad was such a stroll and was hoping, as incorrectly as everyone else, that the flight and landing of Top Gun Bush actually did mark the end of the violence.

     But...here we are. 2.5 years, 2,000+ dead Americans, countless dollars spent in Iraq rather than paying off the Chinese. How much is this worth? I want it to end not so I can feel better about my position, but so I can feel better about my country and the rest of the world. I'm happy to be wrong. Well, not happy, but willing to admit it. It will be interesting to see if Western Meddling in the Middle East, Part CCXVII (an approximation) is any more successful than the previous CCXVI. But my concern is that those running this affair have no understanding of what they are doing.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 5:19pm

565. «As noted above, the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should--but only after Bush had promised to go to the United Nations in an effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, who, it turned out, was telling the truth when he denied his government possessed WMDs.» This is a canard, and I find it difficult to understand why Mr Corn and other «liberal» writers repeat it. The truth of the matter - i e, the voting on the so-called Iraq War Resolution (H J Res 114)] - can easily be ascertained, both with regard to the House of Representatives and with regard to the Senate. To make a long story short, of a total of 207 Democratic representatives in the House, a substantial majority, 126 voted against the resolution, whereas 81 voted in favour. In the Senate, a small majority of Democrats, 29 in all, voted for, while 22 voted against it. Thus, while some Democrats did indeed abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities on the question of War or Peace (Article I, Section 8) and were unable or unwilling to see through the Administration's spin in October 2002, a majority - 148 to 110 - upheld these responsibilities and were willing to face the political costs of doing so. Thus, to state that «the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should» is wrong. Why continue to repeat the lie told by Bush & Co, when the truth is so easily available ? And why fail to make the necessary distinctions between Democrats and Democrats - surely the Nation, which has said that it will not support the campaigns of Democrats who do not call for a withdrawal from Iraq, is capable of seeing that they are not all the same ?...

     PS : Note also that six Republicans and one Independent in the House voted against the resolution. Three representatives, one Democrat and two Republicans abstained from voting....

     Posted by mhenriday at 11/16/2005 @ 5:29pm

566. Freiheit:

     I'll give you that no Saddam is a plus, but are there any minuses resulting from the war? For many that oppose the war, it is not that a world without Saddam is not a plus, it is that the costs outweigh the benefits.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/16/2005 @ 5:30pm

567. FREI, you are assuming a few elections means a an "established liberal democracy". unfortunately it requires much more than that. why are the shia militias no longer in arms against us? maybe they realized they can gain control through elections, since they are the majority. do the elections mean we do not have a low level civil war behind the scenes? i think evidence for both lies in the torture chamber the shia militia, who are now given legitimacy as the iraqi army, set up. if one group decides it gains legitimacy through elections, instead of fighting, and then decideds to liquidate another group, you have a civil war nonetheless. elections do not make a democracy, and can just as easily give a patina of legitimacy to violent thugs.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 5:44pm

568. Posted by FREIHEIT:

     CDIFRANCES, are there any blacks in your family? Because I'd like you to use their behavior to paint the behavior of all blacks the same way. ...mostly BLACKS who care only for tax cuts and though they care about clean air and water, they'll flip-flop on these issue when it comes to tax-cuts for BLACKS. And if they can get to claim more than one golf club on their taxes, WOW!! I can get a discount for BOTH of my gold club memberships with this Jerk as President. Whoopee!! Screw the military and their flack jackets and armour for their trucks. I wanna be RICH! Goodness, the left can stereotype!... (Haha, that's a joke because by stereotyping the left as stereotyping I'm a hypocrite!) Moral relevance rocks!

     I don't know if there are any blacks in my family, FriedHigh, but if there are, I'd like to meet them. I've known all kinds of people in my life, and if you think that color makes a person good or bad, better or worse, smarter or dumber, you're sadly mistaken.

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 5:45pm

569. http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

     "Just your best guess: Do you think U.S. troops or government officials have or have not tortured prisoners in Iraq or other countries?" Form A (N=491, MoE ± 5)

     -----------------Have-----------Have Not----------Unsure

     11/11-13/05----74----------------20----------------6    

     "Would you be willing or not willing to have the U.S. government torture suspected terrorists if they may know details about future terrorist attacks against the U.S.?" Form B (N=515, MoE ± 5)

     -----------------Willing------NotWilling--------Unsure

     11/11-13/05-----38-------------56--------------6

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/16/2005 @ 5:46pm

570. TJ says, as his knuckles scrape the pavement, "Bush lied. Cheney is evil. Rumsfeld is a blowhard. Condi has a nice smile. Together they will bring about the end of this great American experiment, leaving Iraq and the whole Middle East in chaos and flames."

     Is that better, FREI? To quote you, ";-)"!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 5:55pm

571. The truest benefit to never having gone to war will also never to be known minus 2000 plus dead and counting.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/16/2005 @ 5:57pm

572. So, Fried, you're asserting that political affiliation is as meaningless as color? Being a Nazi Fascist is as innocuous as being black, white, yellow, red or brown? Thanks for stating your point. However, I strongly disagree. Skin color is not chosen as is political affiliation. No one is born a reactionary or progressive. This is a matter of personal choice, at least where I come from.

     Posted by cdifrances at 11/16/2005 @ 6:21pm

573. a black nazi would look like quite a fool

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 6:31pm

574. nazis look like fools anyhow

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 6:41pm

575. makes you wonder why some intelligent people bought into all that malarkey

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 6:45pm

576. i guess breathing room sounded like a good slogan

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 6:51pm

577. such a contradiction, some of the best minds of that era were german, and most of them left. contrast the hieghts of the human mind and the lows of that level of systematic industrialized violence

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 7:00pm

578. Were getting ready to tear you anti-american liberals new assholes:

     CHENEY FIGHTS BACK Wed Nov 16 2005 18:56:46 ET

     Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery Tonight by Vice President Cheney

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: "As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.

     In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.

     And the suggestion that's been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...

     Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

     They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn't afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

     Those are facts.

     What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

     The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

     We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.

     We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

     Were sick of you liars and were coming after you

     BIG TIME

     Posted by at 11/16/2005 @ 7:38pm

579. As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.

     -Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio (Republican) Dec. 19, 1941

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 7:49pm

580. come after me, you are too cowardly to even state your name! laughable.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 7:50pm

581. I see cheney of course doesnt mention what he used to, that saddam had a working relationship with al qaeda.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 7:56pm

582. hv,

     "some of the best minds of that era were german, and most of them left"

     How do we know they were left? I agree they were the best minds of the era..even their military accomplished amazing results. Werner von Braun a lefty?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/16/2005 @ 8:03pm

583. JOHN, i meant left as in left germany. as far as politics...alot of the marxist frankfurt school were students of heidegger, who was a member of the nazi party, so go figure.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:07pm

584. Hv,

     Sorry for missunderstanding...too many hours on plane today.... kinda burned out today.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/16/2005 @ 8:14pm

585. well, my sentence lent itself to ambiguity it seems, now that i look at it. i would say , though, that most of the great minds were of jewish background, i doubt hitler liked that very much

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:16pm

586. Many for sure,

     I have always admire the "German" orgnung and discipline thing...seem to noticed a similarity between the Jewish stereotype and the German stereotype...similar drives and outlooks, which is why turning on the Jews by the Germans is puzzling. Had they not(Nazis) turned on the Jews, we could well have lost the war and we would posting in German now...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/16/2005 @ 8:22pm

587. but then again hitler thought both capitalism and communism were both jewish plots to take over the world

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:23pm

588. Jewish, no

     take over the world, yes...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/16/2005 @ 8:25pm

589. yeah, the fascists lost enrico fermi and albert einstein, among other physicists.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:25pm

590. odds are pretty good they would have had the bomb and not us

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:29pm

591. I see cheney of course doesnt mention what he used to, that saddam had a working relationship with al qaeda.

     Posted by HVMILLER 11/16/2005 @ 7:56pm

     Is this a reference to our veep's performance last night? I write this with full sincerity: How dare that bastard call anyone dishonest! The "Bush lied" thing requires subtlety to work its logic. But Cheney's denials of his most salacious, debunked statements are pure mendacity. Son of a bitch looked like Lionel Barrymore in "It's A Wonderful Life" all dolled up in his monkey suit.

     Boy, sometimes it feels good to type like that.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 8:32pm

592. With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...

     Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005 12:15 p.m. EST New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

     Bush Hails Taiwan as Model of Freedom Zarqawi's Intel Network Trumps U.S.' Congressman Blasts GOP Leadership New Docs Reveal Saddam Hid WMD

     Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

     The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.

     In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."

     Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.

     Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include: • Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)

     • Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents

     • Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)

     • Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

     • Ricin research and improvement

     Knock His Head Right Off Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own! New Stock Market Report - Limited Time Offer! Real Estate rockets in the Balkans!

     • Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam • Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

     • Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

     • Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

     • Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals

     • [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)

     Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:

     • Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

     • Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity

     • Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq

     • Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals

     • Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

     • [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims

     • Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

     While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.

     It's possible, he writes, "that the 'Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity' was critical of one or another Taliban policies. But it's equally possible, given Uday's known role as a go-between for the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, that something more nefarious was afoot."

     "What was discussed at the 'Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government' in November 2000? It could be something innocuous. Maybe not. But it would be nice to know more."

     Hayes also notes that an additional treasure trove of evidence on Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaida may be lost forever.

     "When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts," he reports.

     "As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources."

     Posted by at 11/16/2005 @ 8:33pm

593. do you read anything besides the weekly standard? any non-neocon conservative magazines?

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:42pm

594. and if the standard is so concerned about state sponsorship of ala qaeda, why dont you dig me up what they have to say about AQ khans relationship with al qaeda, and what pakistani generals had ties to mohamed atta, while your at at

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:44pm

595. Cheney's going down--- BIGGEST TIME! History will write: VP of Most Corrupt US Administration Ever. It's already unraveling so he's coming out of his snake hole in the ground slithers in and out.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/16/2005 @ 8:47pm

596. oh, i bet you avoid other conservative magazines. for instance pat buchanans american conservative called this war "the weekly standards" war. go call pat buchanan a lying liberal asshole, please

     http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_21/article.html

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:49pm

597. http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_21/article.html oh and here, where buchanans magazine has a story about the italian government forging the niger documents and spoon feeding them to the white house through the office of special plans. buchanan is such a lying liberal asshole

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 8:54pm

598. Those of you who think Cheney is going down are clueless.

     This guy has been at the top of the heap for more years than anybody ever has. This is not a dumb man. No matter what you may wish, the VP will be just fine. Like he always has been.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/16/2005 @ 9:09pm

599. i dont think anyone is questioning cheneys ability as a political operator

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/16/2005 @ 9:11pm

600. anybody caught the breaking story about the IRS and that episcopal church in southern california?

     then there was the dissapearing post on rothberg's less than fabulously posted upon blog.

     i was checking up on my post there (the only one at the time) when i saw this nastily introduced and ended posting supposedly of a threatening speech by the VP promising to fight back and "get" the opponants of the neocons. smelling blood, i hacked out a rant of my own, including only the first and last lines by someone called "Big Time", and by the time i had posted it - POOF - it was gone, leaving me looking like the nut i may very well be....

     am i in trouble???? lol

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2005 @ 9:19pm

601. Then what are they ?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/16/2005 @ 9:20pm

602. Crooks. Big time.

     Posted by Bushfools at 11/16/2005 @ 10:31pm

603. Top of the heap? Quoting New York, New York? Pretty unlikely tune for our rugged Rocky Mountain veep, wouldn't ya think? Such a rugged man, he is. And he's been on "top of the heap" for what? Nearly 5 years? Goodness! What's the record, USAPRIDE? Share with us your knowledge of USA history.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 10:56pm

604. And, please...no cutting and pasting from sites found while Googling. Your time begins...

     ...Now!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/16/2005 @ 10:56pm

605. Frei:"The benefits may indeed never be known. Say, for instance, that the UK and France had acted against Hitler in the mid-30's. Who would have known what was avoided? Or what it may have caused?

     this is another one of your harebrained posts. when exactly should france and england have done something about Hitler? in '33 ? he was the legitimately elected leader of a sovereign country. in '36? on what basis. you're pretty cavalier about these things. nobody in their right mind wants war, except for... but he's not in his right mind

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 11:52pm

606. Frei, one more thing about the minimum wage. if you cannot have more sympathy for the poor, poor worker, who sees his paycheck diminish every year, than you do for the multi million dollar corporation which gets millions in hand outs, then you are not a human being. homo sapiens perhaps but not truly human. think about it and get back to me

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/16/2005 @ 11:54pm

607. ALL OF YOU WAR CHEERLEADERS: Read the editorial in today's N.Y. Times (Thursday) on the war. It says it all. The Times has supported the war and stops short of calling for immediate withdrawal(I disagree). But the editorial lays out the facts and cuts thru the bullshit: the country is heading toward fragmentation into three hostile regions, ensuring instability. The current constitution is unacceptable, and provides no rights for women or minorities. The current government needs to know that the clock is ticking and it must achieve self-sufficiency soon, or the U.S. will pull the plug. (I would pull the plug now) The N.Y. Times is not the Nation-it is the establishment. If you warloving Bush dittoheads don't see the writing on the wall, you are braindead. The war is reaching its end- one way or another.

     Posted by philbq at 11/17/2005 @ 08:04am

608. TJ, I remember reading that you were coming toNYC to take in the new moma, check out a new, very small museum devoted to german expressionism called the Neue Gallerie, very fine

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 09:12am

609. here's one for the" let's torture 'em" crowd. are you going to defend the torture chambers in Iraq, where OUR iraqis tortured the anti Iraqis?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 09:39am

610. .

     PHILBQ 11/17 @ 08:04am

     Read the editorial in today's N.Y. Times (Thursday) on the war. It says it all. The Times has supported the war and stops short of calling for immediate withdrawal(I disagree).

     The NY Times' anti-Bush editorials are notorious. They sizzle and spit in their own fat. That board and its head, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., have been endowed by God with the ability to type and publish, but denied the ability to think.

     Thus this latests editorial spins this:

     (T)he United States Senate cast a vote of no confidence this week on the war in Iraq. And about time.

     The actual content of the resolution, passed on a vote of 79 to 19, was meaningless. The Senate asked the administration to provide regular reports on progress in Iraq, and took the position that next year should be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty." It was a desperate - but toothless - cry of election-bound lawmakers to be let off the hook for a disastrous military quagmire.

     That, those geniuses consider a vote of no confidence!

     Posted by nacl at 11/17/2005 @ 10:09am

611. NACL,

     "There you go again," distorting facts and inveighing against those who recoil at the abuse of American ideals by corrupt US politicians.

     "Of course he knew, which was one reason Iraq was classed a rogue and why we had no diplomatic relations with her," you wrote. Wrong again. In 1982, Team Reagan removed Iraq from the State Department's list of nations deemed to be terrorists. Rummy went to Baghdad with a letter from Ronnie offering to restore diplomatic relations, thus the infamous picture of him and Saddam shaking hands.

     I attempted to point out to you previously that "support" comes both directly and indirectly. The reaganites provided direct support such as sharing intel with Saddam on Iranian military positions, etc. Additionally, it aided the regime indirectly through illegal arms shipments and encouraging other nations to redirect US military weapons and equipment to Iraq. Cannons, choppers, bombs and other military equipment were transferred to Baghdad from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait. Reagan personally asked Italy's prime minister to do the same thing. Howard Teicher referred to this as a "policy of nods and winks."

     Of course, by now the whole world knows that Reagan broke the law through a scandal known as Iraqgate. Even your fellow traveler, William Safire, called this scandal a "systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders…."

     Your blind allegiance to the neocons demonstrates contempt for our constitution. If the neocon agenda goes unchecked, these bastards will ultimately turn our country into a fascist state. Your obsessing and fact-twisting about a non-threat like Saddam demonstrates blindness – perhaps intentionally – to our real enemy bin Laden and his terrorist network that gets stronger by the day under Bush's stewardship.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/17/2005 @ 10:38am

612. NACL: So at least you now admit that the Iraq occupation is a "disasterous military quagmire". Well, I.m glad you finally agree with me. At least you are no longer in the "Love Liberty"-rose-colored unreality of "everything is progressing fine"camp. As to the N.Y. Times being "anti-Bush", who do you think was pushing the "Saddam has WMD" bullshit? The N.Y. Times. They don't want to be seen as anti-Bush. Read their editorials, and THINK! (As you always say) The brilliant columnists Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd are more partisan, but they are always right. And that's why you rightwingers hate them so much. Too bad. Take a look at the polls: Bush is a tar-baby...even Republicans are running away from him.

     Posted by philbq at 11/17/2005 @ 10:45am

613. frei, what are those unintended consequences? second time I ask, and no you still don't get it, you are a incompassionate prig,

     the torture salvo was not aimed at you, just the torture apologists who have been polluting these pages

     you are incapable of actually answering any of my points. that Hitler thing for instance. your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my statement nothing. but that is your m.o. and I'm really done with you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 11:42am

614. Like the 'threat' of communism, fear and the possibilty of an 'another' attack on the U.S. after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, caused the previous and current administrations to see the possibility of WMD by Iraq. However, Clinton stopped short of 'regiem change'.

     Bush went to war with Iraq for his own reasons. It could have been revenge, oil, security for Israel or any number of reasons. Whatever the case, he was going to have his war come hell or high water.

     Yes, demorcrates also believed in the terrorism threat. Our country was attacked after all. But Bush promoted his case for war by manipulation of Intel. It had to be that unless he is really too stupid for words as this was a problem from the get go with intel. people as well as Weapons inspectors telling the administration that WMD were not found and it was doubtful that Iraq was building chemical and biological weapons.

     And he used this bogus information, fear, patriotism etc in order to go to war. The U.N was releuctant and it was called irrelevent, some Eruopean countries weren't ready to jump on his bandwagon and they were called old Europe. Heck, just show his displeasure, we came up with an add campaign against the French. French Fries henceforth will be known as Freedom Fries. How pathetic. I think the Pres. used the philosophy behind these words:

     "Naturally the common people don't want way; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country,"

     Said by Hermann Goering to a German speaking Intel officer and Psychologist, Gustave Gilbert on April 18, 1946 at the Nuremberg trial.

     "Tell them they are being attacked" Connecting al-Quida with the attack on 9/11, Iraq having weapons that can reach the U.S. etc.

     "Denounce pacifist for lack of Patriotism" The outing of Plame, the cute little sound bites on television showing flags on houses on a quite street in America shortly after the attacks and accusing critics of irresponsbility as they continue to do.

     "Exposing the country to danger" Attacking Iraq based on manipulated intel and fear tactics to bring the American people to their knees.

     Posted by Nevis56 at 11/17/2005 @ 11:51am

615. Nevis, I believe Bush went to war to secure his re-election, and it worked.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 12:03pm

616. I'm interested, in a psychological-profile sense, in how these Bushloving dittoheads like NACL keep their fanatical devotion to Bush in spite of the facts. It's very creepy to me, as I have never had such a devotion to any politician. Clinton certainly wasn't holy to me. Example: After voting to give Bush a congressional fig-leaf to attack Iraq, now most leading Demos (Kerry, Edwards,Biden, etc.) are trying to weasel out of their vote by saying "Bush didn't give us proper intel. If I knew now ...blah,blah,blah." This is dishonest! I'm not reluctant to criticize a Democrat. If they violate what I think are core principles, I say it. That's why I don't understand this fanatical support of a politician named Bush.

     Posted by philbq at 11/17/2005 @ 12:19pm

617. I received this email yesterday from one of our heroic soldiers in Iraq who has stated the case for Iraq beautifully (not sure if he wrote it or got it from someone else):

     Do you close your blinds?

     From a person who's there, in the midst..........

     The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war...My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation. My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window.

     He said "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

     "I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

     "OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."

     Our son giggled and said "OK."

     "Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.

     "OK Dad, I'm pretending."

     "Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son....what do you do?"

     "Dad?"

     "What do you do son?"

     "I'd call the police, Dad."

     "OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw, but they refuse to help. What do you do then son ?"

     "Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

     "They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

     "But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

     "I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

     "Daddy...he kills them?"

     "Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

     "Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.

     "Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.

     "But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

     "WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son star ts to cry.

     "OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"

     "What Daddy?"

     "He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

     "Daddy..."

     "WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I'd close the blinds, Daddy."

     My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him. "Why?"

     "Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who need them...and they won't help.... You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself Daddy... ..I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds.... so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

     I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's questions and he says... "Son"

     "Yes, Daddy."

     "Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door... "WHAT DO YOU DO?"

     My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY, DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

     I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his chest and hugs him tight, and says... "It's too late to fight him, he 's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the way. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before it's too late." my husband whispers. THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen, son, THAT is one of the greatest atrocities in the world.

     "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."

     This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school in America. Of course that won't happen, so we'll use the internet. If your blinds are closed, do nothing with this email. If they are open, I do not need to tell you what to do.

     GOD BLESS!!!!!!!!!! Steven R Chandler, CMSgt 332 ELRS/Vehicle Management Flight Balad Air Base, Iraq

     Posted by love liberty at 11/17/2005 @ 12:24pm

618. I'm interested, in a psychological-profile sense, in how these Bushloving dittoheads like NACL keep their fanatical devotion to Bush in spite of the facts. It's very creepy to me, as I have never had such a devotion to any politician. Clinton certainly wasn't holy to me. Example: After voting to give Bush a congressional fig-leaf to attack Iraq, now most leading Demos (Kerry, Edwards,Biden, etc.) are trying to weasel out of their vote by saying "Bush didn't give us proper intel. If I knew now ...blah,blah,blah." This is dishonest! I'm not reluctant to criticize a Democrat. If they violate what I think are core principles, I say it. That's why I don't understand this fanatical support of a politician named Bush.

     Posted by PHILBQ 11/17/2005 @ 12:19am

     Because after reading your posts for months now, it is obvious you still don't understand the gravity of the war on terror and Saddam's role in it.

     It is not that we accept everything that Bush does/doesn't do, it is that this war overrides all other issues. We disagree with Bush on a number of issues. However, unless we stay on the offense against the terrorists, a defensive posture is assured of being a losing proposition. I want my grandchildren to have some hope for the future. Bush's convictions to stay the course despite the liberal naysayers and the wimpish anti-war sentiments, gives me hope that we can at least hold back this evil, and perhaps even defeat it.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/17/2005 @ 12:30pm

619. Phil, that is indeed a good question? one that I haven't heard raised before in quite that way. good post

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 12:30pm

620. I just realized what's so creepy and eerie about the fanatical Bush followers who infest this website: it reminds me of the fanatical devotion to Hitler. Even as the war was being lost, the Reich never wavered in their love and support for the Great Leader. That is the feeling I get from these Bush zombies. Facts don't matter, everyone who criticizes the war is disloyal, the Great Leader is always right. But reality came crashing in on Hitler, as it is for Bush. Still I am always amused by these Bush zombies,like NACL. They are the useful idiots for Bush.

     Posted by philbq at 11/17/2005 @ 12:32pm

621. Phil, my favorite Hitler footage is when in the last days, he inspected the troops, a few old men and a bunch of high school students, just heart breaking, poignant beyond belief.

     I fear you are correct, and we will have to watch this sad slow denoument for thee more years, that too is hearbreaking

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 12:41pm

622. Phil, the other side of the coin is why do "they", read us, hate him so much?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 12:43pm

623. "LOVE LIBERTY" ---I am going to speak to you honestly. Please try to put aside your Bush blinders. It is obvious to most everyone in the world that Saddam had no connection to Bin Laden, and they dispised each other. Saddam feared Islamic fundamentalists, and snuffed them out in Iraq wherever he could. Invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with fighting Islamic terrorism. But now, with the occupation of an Islamic country, Islamic terrorists are being inspired and created every day in endless numbers. If you are a rational man , you will see that this occupation is counter-productive to a real "war on terror". You and all like you have been deceived into supporting a stupid, disasterous invasion/occupation and nation-building, which is inflaming Islamic terrorism. The answer, for any sane person, is to remove U.S. troops now. As in Vietnam, if the client government has legitimacy, it will stand. If not, it will fall. But withdrawal is the only rational path.

     Posted by philbq at 11/17/2005 @ 12:49pm

624. There are a number of 'bad' dictators etc that are not democracies but dictatorships love liberty, that Bush et el have no problems with. China, a communist country despite it's capitalist capital, Sauda Arabia, home of the majority of the hijackers that attacked this country and North Korea, just to name a few that Bush is willing to 'look the other way' but then again North Korea doesn't have oil, China has the markets and Arabia generally controls oil exports and price, so it must be ok for the U.S. to want to get rid of troublesome countries that have something we want. In the case of Iraq, that would be security for Israel and oil futures.

     It is known, and has been known for a long time that Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S., did not have WMD and did not have Chemical or biological weapons at the ready, as weapons inspectors and some intel people have told the administration. It did pose a threat to Israel and they did threaten Bush's daddy. The war for Iraq most likely was planned long before 9/11 but 9/11 gave him the opportunity to become a war time president, because he knew that Americans will support a president who looks like he's trying to protect us.

     The reality is that Bush has said that he has a 'calling' to bring democracy to the world and he doesn't care how he achieves it. The reality is also that Bush has put us in more danger today than we have ever been in before, limited the freedoms of private citizens in order to be secure in the forms of roving wire taps and spying on what people are taking out of the library or doing on the internet.

     In the meantime, detainees are held without trial for years at a time and many are being abused. The CIA have covert secret prisons in east europe and all they are concerned about is 'who told' and the Geneiva Conventions, which we signed, is being ignored.

     Like Ben Franklin said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

     Posted by Nevis56 at 11/17/2005 @ 12:54pm

625. LL,

     That's a very sweet tale. Does it have any reference to what has occurred in the last three years? Sounds like Dr. Phil more than a story intended for an intelligent audience.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/17/2005 @ 12:54pm

626. TJ, your last post intrigued me and I temporarily disabled my LL ignore setting, to read what you were referring to, gag, vomit

     my computer is back to its ignore setting in a hurry. you have more stomach than I

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2005 @ 1:10pm

627. .

     SEATTLESCRIBE 11/17 @ 10:38am

     "There you go again," distorting facts and inveighing against those who recoil at the abuse of American ideals by corrupt US politicians.

     You dare speak of "American ideals," even as you support an insurgency that machine guns voters and denounces free speech and religious toleration? You, who support killers and fascists, think you are in a position to call US politicians, corrupt?

     Endlessly waving the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam is not an argument. It is the gesture of a moron without an argument. Deal with reality. Deal with Churchill shaking Stalin's hand. Deal with the US giing Iraq satellite intelligence to end the Iranian threat to our access to the Gulf's oil. Deal with Iran deeming the US the Great Satan and imprisoning our diplomats.

     You flourish, "Iraqgate" but don't realize that that was a financial scandal involving an Italian bank's misuse of agricultural guarantees which the justice dep't uncovered, prosecuted and punished. (The reprehensible Reagan scandal involved the illegal funding of the Contras against the Sandinistas.) As to Teledyne and all the US weapons and equipment you claim were directly and indirectly shipped via Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc., deal with the fact that the Swedish inventory of Saddam's 1991 arsenal found, less than 1% had a US provenance. Yes, all US weaponry that found itself into Saddam's hands from all sources never amounted to more than 1% of his total strength. Yet you still claim, America "was THE supplier of Saddam."

     Worry about your scant supply of common sense. You talk about my -

     "blind allegiance to the neocons demonstrates contempt for our constitution."

     What neocons are you talking about? And what violations of the Constitution?

     You are an ideology spitting slogans and labels who can never back up his cheap and stupid charges. Calling others blind, fact twisting and obsessed won't work. It was you who supported a murdering despot. It is you who now seek the victory of the most ferocious fanatics since the Khmer-Rouge killed people for wearing eyeglasses.

     You are a fascist collaborator. Get back under you rock. Slink down into your hole. Be glad that you are too brainless to realize, your head has been kicked in.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 11/17/2005 @ 1:22pm

628. Love Liberty - Where on earth did you dig up that sentimental load of revisionist crap? I can just imagine you and your ilk wiping away a manly tear as you read this ridiculous rationale for war, pitched to the intellect of, well, of someone who continues to support Bush.

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/17/2005 @ 1:22pm

629. NACL - Please explain how SeattleScribe or anyone else posting here has supported a "murdering despot". Please explain your notion of fascist collaborator. If your explanation is that anyone who doesn't support the administration is therefore supporting the enemy, then you are without question a non-patriot simpleton. Oh, and brainless to boot (or kick in).

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/17/2005 @ 1:26pm

630. .

     PHILBQ 11/17 @ 10:45am

     So at least you now admit that the Iraq occupation is a "disasterous military quagmire". Well, I.m glad you finally agree with me. . . The N.Y. Times. They don't want to be seen as anti-Bush. Read their editorials, and THINK!

     That is funny. Like with every good humorist your words become funnier with every sentence. Each contributes a new dimension.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 11/17/2005 @ 1:28pm

631. TJB,

     What you and JR ignored is that this was an attempt by one of our soldiers in Iraq to communicate how much he believes in his mission in Iraq. At the core, all of this is about people, not just "intellectual audiences". That both of you lack any appreciation for the view of a soldier in Iraq is hardly surprising. It reflects what most conservatives maintain, that under the surface of the "we support the troops, that is why we want them brought home now" liberal comments, most of the liberals on this site actually hold our troops in contempt.

     The comments of both of you are truly indicative of the blindness to the very real war against evil in the world by liberals. Pacifism has never worked against absolute evil and never will. You cannot negotiate with absolute evil, there are no terms of compromise that evil is willing to consider.

     This is the essence of the political dichotomy that divides our country today (and most of the world). It is not that Bush supporters are kool aid drinkers who blindly follow his path. It is our world view and our understanding of the true nature of today's terrorists and the only true course we see, to at a minimum contain it from our shores, and at best defeat it in total destruction (a very daunting task admittedly).

     Many of us saw in Saddam, someone who was a real threat to Middle East stability and thus also to US security and world stability. How to resolve that is indeed open to debate. I chose the route the president chose, long before he became president. I believed in it then and believe my opinion has been validated by events there and throughout the world ever since. Liberals see a different result because of their world view.

     I understand most of the vitriol that comes from libs here. I have learned to ignore most of it (with some occasional outbursts of anger). But what can never be accepted or even condoned is the aim of libera