Rove Scandal: Cover Story Slippage

Another part of the save-Rove cover story is not holding.

Once the Plame/CIA leak became big (mainstream-media) news in September 2003--when word hit that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak, which had appeared in a Bob Novak column two months earlier--friends of the White House, including Novak, started saying that Valerie Wilson wasn't really under cover at the CIA and, thus, the disclosure of her employment at the CIA wasn't worth a federal case (or investigation). They claimed that no big wrong had occurred, and this argument also conveniently offered any leaker a legal defense. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a government official can only be prosecuted for disclosing information identifying a "covert agent" whose cover the United States government was taking steps to protect. White House allies asserted that while Valerie Wilson may have technically been a clandestine CIA official, in practice she wasn't. So all this bother over the leak was much ado about nothing.

Novak, for example, downplayed Valerie Wilson's covert status in an October 1, 2003 column, in which he vaguely described how he had originally learned of her connection to the CIA. He noted that after a senior administration official told him that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, he called the CIA:

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

Bush-backers have cited this paragraph to argue that the CIA didn't do much to protect Valerie Wilson's cover. I've heard GOP lawyer Victoria Toensing, who helped draft the Intelligence Identities Act, claim that Novak's exchange with the CIA is proof that the CIA was not taking serious measures to preserve Wilson's cover--which means the law she helped concoct does not apply in the case of this leak.

Should Novak be taken at his word on this point? Until now, the public only knew of his side of his conversation with the CIA. But The Washington Post published a piece on Wednesday that provides the CIA's version of this exchange. And it is significantly different from Novak's account. The paper reports,

[Bill] Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger taken by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

So how many contradictions can you find? Novak indicated he had one substantive conversation with a CIA official about Valerie Wilson and he received no clear signal that revealing her name would cause any significant trouble. Harlow said there were two conversations and that in each one he warned Novak about using her name. (Harlow also said he told Novak that Valerie Wilson had not authorized her husband's trip. Remember, several Rove defenders have maintained that when Rove spoke to Time's Matt Cooper--and told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had authorized his trip to Niger--he was merely trying to make sure that Cooper published an accurate account of what happened. Yet the CIA says she did not authorize this trip. Rove was feeding Cooper misleading information.)

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Rove and the Plame/CIA leak, Bill Frist's latest bone-headed move, and Oliver Stone.

*******

Is Harlow telling the truth? Who, besides Novak and him, can know? But I do know that when I spoke to Harlow a year later and asked about the identity of another covert officer, Harlow would not confirm the person's covert status. How could he? That would be sharing classified information with a reporter. When Novak called, Harlow was in no position to say, "Hey, Bob, you're right, and she's an undercover officer. So please don't reveal her name." All he could have done was to toss out a no-comment (which Harlow was good at doing) or offer a vague warning.

Harlow's account--in which he tried to protect Valerie Wilson from the quick-to-out-her columnist--is as self-serving as Novak's. But it rings true. Am I saying this because of my own bias? Perhaps. But the key thing is that Novak's defense--the CIA didn't give me a strong enough signal--is now in dispute. No one can use Novak's October 1, 2003, column as evidence that Valerie Wilson was not truly a "covert agent."

In that article, Novak also declared that Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA was an open secret throughout the nation's capital. His source for this? Journalist-turned-Republican-operative Clifford May. Novak wrote:

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge.

Indeed, May had written:

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that--but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

Appearing on Fox News Channel, May amplified this assertion:

"I knew this, and a lot of other people knew it...So I think it may be something of an open secret."

"Insiders" were well aware of Valerie Wilson's job at the CIA? "A lot of other people" knew it, too? In the time since May boasted of his access to this "inside" information, what other evidence has emerged that Valerie Wilson's CIA identity was widely know to "insiders" (whatever that means)? I'll answer that rhetorical question: none. Her neighbors have been quoted saying they did not realize she was a CIA employee. (Maybe these neighbors are not "insiders.") And in recent weeks, attorneys for Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have put out the story that neither one of them knew her name. So these "insiders" were not truly in the know. (Oddly--but, then again, perhaps not--May recently tried to turn tables and argue that I am the one who actually outed Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer. First, he said everyone knew. Now he says only I did. It's hard to keep up.)

Novak and May's claim that Valerie Wilson's CIA position was an open secret known throughout Washington has not held up. Novak's claim that the CIA did not wave him off now stands contested. Will either one of them run a correction?

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there.

Comments (231)

1. HEY CORNBALL...THE STORY IS DEAD...NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU BELLYACHE ABOUT IT...EXCEPT FOR THE FACT YOU MIGHT BE TESTIFYING SOON...CANT WAIT FOR THAT...WHAT SIZE ORANGE JUMPSUIT DO YOU WEAR??????

   Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 11:54am

2. The story isn't dead, as much as you wish it was. Posting in all capital letters. Extra punctuation. Are you that worried that Shrub will get damaged permanently during this?

   Posted by Baeller at 07/28/2005 @ 11:57am

3. so Aludra, do you just sit around waiting to flame David Corn or what? You got on this one quite quickly. Also, clearly this story is far from dead as we all still seem to be discussing it. Plus the MSM is publishing further developments. The Shrub in Chief can't even distract the press with a nomination to the SCOTUS. How exactly are you seeing that as a dead story?

   Posted by gearmonkey at 07/28/2005 @ 12:00pm

4. Something else I find funny is the lack of understanding of the law. The ignorance is dripping from the statement that you believe David Corn would be sent to jail. That is wrong on so many different angles. You may wish to lay off the kool-aid.

   Posted by Baeller at 07/28/2005 @ 12:04pm

5. ZERO IS SO SCARED OF ALTERNATE VIEWPOINTS...SOUNDS LIKE A TRUE MARXIST

   Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 12:19pm

6. Mr. Corn: is it foggy in here or what? I have to say you are a master of indirection and insinuation. How on earth could neighbors not be insiders! How on earth could one know someone's wife worked for the CIA but not know her name? These are indeed unfathomable mysteries that defy rational explanation! Hell, I don't know what my neighbor's wife does for a living. And guess what, while I know their first names, I don't know their last! Or even if they have the same one. Someone should call Oliver Stone about all this: there's obviously some insidious conspiracy to keep me in the dark. But, seriously, Dave, you've got to come up with something better than this or the "scandal" is sure to dissolve as soon as the sun rises. So far, we're still waiting for you to offer some definitive statement that Plame was a "covert" operative whose outing might constitute a crime. The "cover yer ass" testimony of Harlow is a long, long way from that, nor does it really have any logical connection to Rove (the fog thickens). Plus, I'd like to know if you can prove it was you yourself who didn't reveal Plame's name? I suspect your efforts to blame others could be a sign of your own guilt. Your denials don't ring true somehow. Wouldn't it be cool if you and Karl were roomies at the federal pen?

   Posted by jeck at 07/28/2005 @ 12:22pm

7. ALUDRA, tone it down. I'm with you on this one but you're just doing what the cornpones do in trying to shout down the opposition. Sarcasm and ridicule are sometimes useful, but one should always make some effort to include meaningful dialogue as well, even if in this case, there is very little new that is meaningful to add. Sure Corn is whipping a dead horse here, but when it's the only horse you have and you feel a need to whip something, what else can you do? I guess pray that all your whipping will somehow bring it back to life.

   Posted by jeck at 07/28/2005 @ 12:36pm

8. What A Dumb Article. Cornballs new insights are questioning peoples versions of events with other peoples unsubstantiated version of events. Did you ever think that Harlow was trying to cover his own mistake? Who knows wjo cares

   The Story is OLD, DEAD, and DUMB. MY NEIGHBORS DON"T KNOW WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. AM I UNDER COVER?

   Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 12:38pm

9. "Tone it down"...... then "cornpones "? I love the consistency! Leave DELUDRA alone she has a right to her hack comments, and besides it's entertaining! You guy are well reperesented here, I gotta tell ya!

   Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 12:48pm

10. " Who knows, who cares...."? The story is old, dead and dumb and yet you're still here providing us with your brilliant observations! Hmmm, interesting! It looks like I've been giving you guys too much credit. Your're not just ignorant, partisan hacks you're ignorant, partisan and Pavlovian hacks!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 1:01pm

11. Why don't we all wait to see what the special prosecutor comes back with.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/28/2005 @ 1:19pm

12. Sounds like there isn't much to report on this today. It's difficult to prove who said what when. However, if Novak claims only one conversation, in person, with a CIA contact, and someone can come up with proof that they conversed twice (seen together for the interview, and the log from the phone call) it would prove Novak didn't reveal one of the conversations for some reason. This would be very damaging to his credibility. I have a feeling that the credibility of anyone involved in this case is going to be put to the test....I'm sure Fitzgerald will get to the bottom of the whole mess soon, and with any luck we'll get satisfaction from the guilty party(s) in court, which is ultimately the point of the investigation.

    Posted by wereverywhere at 07/28/2005 @ 1:19pm

13. NO-NONSENSE, I did say there was a place for sarcasm and ridicule, didn't I? In other words, total consistency. Now if you can't see consistency when it's right in front of you, you have what's called in my former profession as "poor reality testing." I'm here just to see how long it takes your Pavlovian pal, Corn, to stop salivating every time he imagines he hears the bell ring when there's still no food in the dish.

    Posted by jeck at 07/28/2005 @ 1:26pm

14. Wow, there really is an army of Right Wing nutbars out there, and now I know where they hang out. I'm not sure that I follow the claim that this is a dead story, since clearly it's still being written about by both major journalists and also insane right-wing bloggers. Incidentally, am I the only one who gets how OBVIOUS it is that the CIA wouldn't tell Novak flat out "She's a covert op, so don't publish her name. We only tell random journalists who call and have the potential to cause no end of trouble that she's undercover"? This all seems so obvious. Yeah, lots of people who work for the CIA aren't covert. But since covert ops are a huge part of what the CIA does, doesn't it make sense to assume that unless you Know (in a big definite way) otherwise that any CIA employee is potentially involved in covert ops? Especially since it isn't the kind of thing likely to come up in casual conversation. I mean, if you found out your roommate was involved with the mafia, you wouldn't exactly confront him and all of your mutal friends about it loudly and publicly lest he be one of the few people involved in the mafia willing to kill you for making the information public.

    Good work on this story, Mr. Corn. And don't mind the lynch mob, since clearly they can't tell their asses from Rove anyway. Actually, I have a little trouble with that distinction myself...

    Posted by pixxelpuss at 07/28/2005 @ 1:26pm

15. "since clearly they can't tell their asses from Rove anyway"

    CHANGE YOUR NAME TO SOURPUSS

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 1:35pm

16. Lets all just blindly support and follow anyone associated with the party of our political affiliation. History tells us that this always works and is best for the world. ( Soviet union, nazi germany, etc. )

    Posted by danner99 at 07/28/2005 @ 1:43pm

17. "Ignorant partisan pavlovian hacks" - This is Your Brilliant Observation

    See NN I can do it too. You copy a sentence out of someones post and comment on how "Un-brilliant" their observation is while adding nothing yourself...It's just a viscious little circle.

    At least I gave reasons WHY it is a Old, Dead, Dumb story. Shall I copy and paste what you left out? Okay lets do that...

    "Cornballs new insights are questioning peoples versions of events with other peoples unsubstantiated version of events. Did you ever think that Harlow was trying to cover his own mistake? Who knows wjo cares.?"..." MY NEIGHBORS DON"T KNOW WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. AM I UNDER COVER?"

    By the Way NN Here was your last Brilliant Observation from Corns Blog on from the 22nd.

    You must be a 300lb. shut in with nothing better to do. I think you must be the equivalent of that old guy in my neihborhood - growing up - that had tin foil on his windows and listened to the radio in the dark. Maybe you think you are doing a great public service by trying to subvert liberal discourse. You were probably sent here with Liberty by some RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN organization to impose your regressive rhetoric and promote the further DUMBING DOWN of America. GOoD JOB! You have convinced me that there is no hope for Americans if they pursue ignorance with the vengence that you do! How do you find the time? Your missing all those pro wrestling matches and Nascar races though! Hell , what about all the WW-2 war documentatries on the History channel? Oh, now I'm thinking of Liberty, sorry, that really wasn't fair!"

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE 07/27/2005 @ 6:31p

    See a pattern here? Very Intellectual of you. Just for fun I will add in my reply from that same blog (in case you missed it, because you certainly didn't deny it).

    "NN- you are right about 1 thing: I do Like the WWII Documentaries -Something about the free world standing up to evil and winning is appealing to me (im sure you wouldn't understand)

    Not into wrestling- I weigh 230 lbs ( I could use to lose a couple lbs but hey)- I wasn't sent here by any orginzation other than by chance (I stumbled upon all this fun by accident)

    So NN as usual you were wrong on almost every point. As to whether the "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton" talk was PERTENINT or not. I was just responding to jazee's post from 07/27/2005 @ 10:51am. So lay the blame on him for bringing the Adultering, perjuring, appeasing former "Crapmander-in-chief" into the discussion OR are we NOT allowed to reply to you INTELLECTUAL SUPERIOR LIBS? It Seems like you don't appreciate it very much. It must be tough to live in a world where you are smarter than the majority of Americans. On the other hand I do apologize for some of my language I sometimes get carried away and I was (always will be) A Marine (that may explain some of it).

    Since we're into it let me take some Guesses about you?

    I'd say you remind me of someone who would be a happily Devoted lover to your Male Domestic Partner, Possibly a College Professor from the San Francisco area (or Just a full time Activist), a devoted athesist or possibly a lobbyist in favor of partial birth abortions. Not much of a Life since you spend your time on this Blog (seriously get a life) telling everyone how intellectual you are. Definately a hero in your own mind. Since I am sure you didn't serve in any branch of the Military (unless you got past Clinton's Don't ask don't Tell Policy) this (in your train wreck of a mind)is YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY. Have you smoked any good hash today?"

    Posted by JZIMM 07/28/2005 @ 10:34am

    Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 1:45pm

18. As long as Doonesbury, Letterman, Leno, and Stewart are talking about Rovegate, it ain't dead.

    Posted by rickjones at 07/28/2005 @ 1:46pm

19. "As long as Doonesbury, Letterman, Leno, and Stewart are talking about Rovegate, it ain't dead."

    WOO-HOO THATS A LOT TO HANG YOUR HAT ON!!!!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 1:52pm

20. Geez, Louise. So much fuss and nothing behind it. If you're going to argue with a story, put up an argument, please. The detail about neighbors being aware or unaware of Plame's occupation is microscopic. Let it go and address the more important point in Mr. Corn's article: the continuing spiral of misinformation and contradictions arising from the players in this little tale. Now I confess I like a good conspiracy as much as the next nutjob, but I admire Mr. Corn's relentlessness in attempting to find the end of the lies and the beginning of the truth.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2005 @ 2:01pm

21. Don't blindly support, but talk about real stories.

    A good one for example is how neither party has the balls to do the right thing and secure our borders (Although Rep Tom Tancredo of CO has proposed some real legislation that will never get passed but should).

    That would be a weakness you could exploite (although really for both sides). Plame so "Deep Cover" that her neighbors didn't even know her occupation. WHAT A DORK (this is your INTELLECTUAL mouth piece?) Maybe Plame disguised herslef as a copier repairman every day when she reported for work at Langley.

    you Libs are so pleasanlty, pleasingly, pathetically desperate. But thanks because it's really fun pointing that out.

    Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 2:01pm

22. ALUDRA: I'm not hanging my hat, I'm expressing concern. Once a political/legal news story becomes entertainment, more people start paying attention. This could further damage the administration's good reputation for honesty and integrity. They can't afford to drop much farther.

    Posted by rickjones at 07/28/2005 @ 2:06pm

23. Death is not measured by how long people hang around getting drunk and singing all the old songs after the wake. In truth, this story is not so much dead as it has yet to be actually born. So far, it's really only a potential (albeit weakly so) scandal. Perhaps I should suggest we abort the story - that should be something we could all heartly approve of.

    Posted by jeck at 07/28/2005 @ 2:07pm

24. I still think Corn is full of beans.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/28/2005 @ 2:11pm

25. "As long as Doonesbury, Letterman, Leno, and Stewart are talking about Rovegate, it ain't dead."

    And let us not forget the brave men and woman, close to 1,800 who are "DEAD" because of this senseless and misguided war in Iraq via Plamegate!

    To this nefarious cabal in charge, these men and woman were merely pawns in their grand scheme to dominate Middle Eastern oil reserves. Life means nothing to them!

    Posted by Munich at 07/28/2005 @ 2:13pm

26. And let's not forget the 3000 who are "DEAD" because of the senseless and misguided fanaticism of Islam. (What on earth does Plame have to do with Iraq except in the vaguest way after the fact? And where is the oil I was promised when I supported that war? Damn Bush's lies!)

    Posted by jeck at 07/28/2005 @ 2:29pm

27. The level of dialogue in this post today barely passes the whoopee cushion level for nonsense on all sides.

    Every summer the media needs to keep the fires burning on a story that they cannot let die because they lack the volume of "hot" stories that make them money.

    I suggest that in the absence of the report by Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury, this is all wasted energy. There are better issues to keep at the forefront until then.

    Like border security, like serious proposals on both sides to trigger a real advance in new technology that will improve the environment, our serious transportation issues, and create new jobs at the same time.

    There is no doubt much room for both sides of the political arena to engage in serious debate and initiative in these areas.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 2:29pm

28. jIZZM;

    That was good, took you a while to work up to it though! I hope you didn't hurt yourself! I think we all spend too much time here, you're right! As a small businees owner operator and Fishing guide I can pretty much do what I want! ....

    Leave it to a Tolerant, loving , forgiving, Right- Wing Christian to make a gay crack! No, sorry, same great women for 15 years now!.... And a Christian that believes in the teachings of Christ that are apparently lost on most homophobic, Republicans! We are all sinners, and God doesn't really care what the individual act's of sin are. They are just a symptom of our seperation from God. Christ comdemned sinful behaviour , no matter its nature - not the perpetrator. So he didn't distinguish between the severity of gay sex or your lies and deciet. It's all the same.

    Sounds like I had you pegged perfecly, except I was 70 lb's off! My sincerest apologies!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 2:29pm

29. I'm puzzled by why anyone here would want to respond to either Aludra or Love Liberty's ridiculous postings. These two like much of the far right have no desire to discover the facts. Rather they gobble up this administration's talking points fed to them by the likes of Limbaugh and O'reilly, and take them as fact. Any decent from their views they try to drown out by screaming and yelling and calling them liberals and losers: sounds to me the action of a spoiled child. You can reason with spoiled children, but I don't believe you can reason with the likes of these two. They know what's right and everybody that disagrees are idiots. I bet they still believe the Iraq war was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. Such noble and humanitarian goals from people who I bet get a rise when they see the true causalities of war from the safety of their lazy boy chairs, and drape themselves in the American flag to show their patriotism.

    Thomas Jefferson believed that to question ones government to keep them honest, especially in times such as war was the patriotic duty of its citizens. Fortunately, I still believe there are enough people in this county that will wake up from the fear mongering this administration is pedaling to set this county on the right path. When that happens, Aludra and Love Liberty can crawl back into their lazy boy chairs and live the rest of their lives as miserable people reliving their glory days in their heads, living off of their social security that we liberals saved for them. But for now, lets just ignore them.

    Posted by nambo at 07/28/2005 @ 3:07pm

30. NN, you had a pretty good response going to JZIMM, but got a little convoluted in your explanation.

    And a Christian that believes in the teachings of Christ that are apparently lost on most homophobic, Republicans! We are all sinners, and God doesn't really care what the individual act's of sin are. They are just a symptom of our seperation from God. Christ comdemned sinful behaviour , no matter its nature - not the perpetrator. So he didn't distinguish between the severity of gay sex or your lies and deciet. It's all the same.

    If as you so clearly identified, all sin is sin, and you agreed that homosexuality is a sin, then it is not homophobic to label homosexuality as sinful behavior. But the most important point to this is what I detect is that we should be accepting of homosexual behavior since none of us is perfect? Jesus said to repent and go and sin no more. We are supposed to turn from the sin that separated us from God, not create a alternative lifestyle label.

    So, not a bad response but one that is easily misleading to non-christians

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 3:13pm

31. "Thomas Jefferson believed that to question ones government to keep them honest"

    Very True...but he never advocated questioning the goverment for purely political reasons by a bunch of out of power LOSERS. Please go ahead and ignore us REGULAR Americans and keep shoveling the same old CRAPOLLA you LIBS are so good at...We will just march on crushing you all like the grapes you are!!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 3:13pm

32. NN - it wasn't a gay crack. Is was my guess about your lifestyle. It sounds like you're the one who is turning it into an insult. If you're so proud of your parties policies then why would you take my Domestic Partner comment as an insult? Gotcha!

    By the way was that a Typo when your referred to me a jIZZM or are you showing us all what is really on your mind? Kind of wierd to be talking man-to-man about jIZZM.

    I guess you are right. According to your thought process when you get every fact wrong and you Say you had it pegged just right. Sounds like the rest of your arguments. I noticed that you didn't mention any children after 15 years. When do you figure your wife will figure out your true desires.

    Im not Hompphobic. I love the sinner but hate the sin.

    Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 3:24pm

33. By The Way NN - I have a Daytime Job as a Senior Sales Rep. for a Financial Institution and I bet I make more money then you do with both of your Hobbies (ooops Businesses) combined.

    Although I bet you do make good tips with that male massage business (er..small business) you run.

    Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 3:32pm

34. LOVE LIBERTY, I was going to make the same point re homophobia, even though I am not a Christian. And I take exception to NAMBO's description of your postings as ridiculous. I think you are pretty thoughtful most of the time and you generally do a good job not getting lowbrow as NAMBO is wont to do. By the way, I agree it's NAMBO's post on Thomas Jefferson that is ridiculous. It's not unpatriotic to dissent, but dissent is not in and of itself necessarily patriotic. The patriotic dissent argument is pure sophistry. Besides, old Tom had some peculiar ideas among all his good ones. He thought the French Revolution was a good idea and once said he thought America needed a good revolution every twenty years and the spirit of freedom occaisionally needed a rebirth in blood - a tad extreme. But I also think Mr Jefferson would see some similarities in the criticisms he suffered during his administration to those Bush is experiencing now, namely unfounded accusations of scandal. Jefferson was accused of fathering children with his slave Sally Hemmings. Anyone who knows the full story knows this was almost certainly a lie (ie it was probably one of his nephews.)

    Posted by jeck at 07/28/2005 @ 3:40pm

35. My, my, my, you know this story has legs when Turd Blossom rooters are going the personal attack route and trying to change the subject, even going as far as echoing the Bush campaign's "black child" attack against McCain in the South Carolina primary.

    With Bush's poll numbers headed south faster than Lee's army after Gettysburg, how long will it be until the "I don't govern by poll numbers" president asks the Turd Blossom to fall on his sword?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/28/2005 @ 3:54pm

36. "0" You couldn't more in the wrong if you tried.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/28/2005 @ 4:05pm

37. Newsflash: There is still hope for America!

    REPORTER VOWS TO 'KILL SELF' IF CHENEY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT Thu Jul 28 2005 15:32:13 ET

    Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president.

    The newspaper HILL first reported the startling claim on Thursday.

    "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told the HILL. "All we need is one more liar."

    Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does."

    Sorry for the humor interjection; sometimes we just need a little dose of humor to stay human

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 4:29pm

38. Why is it that people reading a new article declare its subject matter dead? If it is dead, why resuscitate it by responding to it. It is certainly a good way to kill a story (or a joke) by declaring you already heard it. It frames a story by changing the discussion from its subject matter to how old or new it is. The whitehouse often responds to questions by saying "we already answered that one" or that the issue is dated. But it is obvious that the questioner never got the answer, or s/he would not ask the question. This is a way of demeaning reporters by implying everbody knows the answer but them when it is obvious to everyone that the question was never answered in the first place.

    Posted by jjd at 07/28/2005 @ 4:33pm

39. USAPRIDE:

    Perhaps then the (liberal) media should stay focused 24-7 on the Natalie Holloway story? You never know how long it'll take to drain that pond! Your banal, usurper "N" chief, he'd just love that now wouldn't he! A missing woman in Aruba trumping treason! Who'd a thunk it!

    Posted by Munich at 07/28/2005 @ 4:40pm

40. "Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president"

    She really has the hots for DICK

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 4:40pm

41. You right wingers are missing the point here. You are saying that David Corn could end up being cell-mates with Karl Rove, but forgetting that Corn did not do anything illegal in writing about this story- if you are arging that Corn should go to jail, then Robert Novak certainly would be there already. Its not illegal for jornalists to out undercover agents, but it is illegal for government officials to furnish that information to journalists, and somebody in the White House (probably Karl Rove) certainly did just that.

    Furthermore, it is not unfair to claim that outing Valerie Wilson was important in the run up to the Iraq War. Remember how it was all about Weapons of Mass Destruction in the beginning. Joe Wilson went to Niger to investigate claims about Saddam trying to get uranium for a nuclear program, and found those claims to be baseless. The motive is clear- they were trying to discredit Joe Wilson by claiming some kind of nepotism or ulterior motive behind his report. And who knows what Valerie Wilson could have been working on that could have further damaged the administrations efforts to invade Iraq. I seem to remember a story where the Americans forced out a man from some South American country who was head of some UN effort to investigate claims about WMD, although i can't remember the exact details- maybe somebody could clarify that point for me. In any case, this has everything to do with the run up to the Iraq War, which was a system of lies and discrediting the opposition by the Administration.

    Posted by jakesteed98 at 07/28/2005 @ 4:47pm

42. "Remember how it was all about Weapons of Mass Destruction in the beginning."

    AMAZING HOW YOU LIBS REWRITE HISTORY..HERES A BIT OF HISTORY MANY OF YOUR LIB LEADERS VOTED FOR AND (IF YOU READ IT) MANY REASONS FOR GOING TO WAR BESIDES WMD..OPEN YOUR MINDS!!!!

    IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

    107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002

    JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

    Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

    Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

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

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

    Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

    Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

    Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 4:53pm

43. It's because the subject is moot. It is because it been rehashed and no one knows the answer for sure. It's because it isn't even important anyway.

    Was this article about the Neighbors not knowing Plames occupation compelling in some form or another? One Guy trying to cover his ass says one thing, another guy trying to cover his ass says something else, and the sad part is that it really not important anyway.

    Obviously the subject isn't literally dead until the investigation is done.

    How about if I re-phrase it and say it is Lame, partisian politics and there are better things to discuss then Plames Neighbors. More and more people are seeing this thing for what it truly is. Political BS and a diversion from more important issues that this country faces.

    That's why we say it is old and dead. What is Corn reporting? That both sides disagree? Don't quit your day Job David...Oooops that is your day job.

    Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 4:56pm

44. MUNICH: No actually I cringe and immediately turn the channel when a story about the happenings in Aruba is shown.

    If you want to talk about treason why would you mention the Plame thing? Treason is a betrayal of your country to the enemy.

    Sounds like more of a lefty thing to me.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/28/2005 @ 4:57pm

45. What a complete cry-baby...thank GOD none of your ilk run this country!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 4:57pm

46. Im pretty sure this story is not over until Fitzpatricks report comes out and the scrambling of flashing cameras and shoved mikes begin... so dont get all too excited just yet Aludra / Jeck *sweet smile*

    Posted by Jazzee at 07/28/2005 @ 4:59pm

47. Hey Aludra, how many misstatements of fact can you find in this?

    President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat Remarks by the President on Iraq Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal Cincinnati, Ohio

    President's Remarks view listen

    8:02 P.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

    Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

    The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

    We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

    Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

    Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

    First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

    By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

    Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

    In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

    We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

    And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

    Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

    And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

    We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

    Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

    Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

    Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

    Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

    Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

    The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

    If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

    Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

    Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

    Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

    Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

    The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

    The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

    The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

    After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

    Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

    The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

    Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

    And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

    By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

    I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

    There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

    Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

    That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

    Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

    On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

    America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

    Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

    Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

    Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

    The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

    We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

    May God bless America. (Applause.)

    END 8:31 P.M. EDT

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/28/2005 @ 5:00pm

48. I dont think the Nation does have a monitor Zero.. although we fondly pat Aludra's head and croon at him to quiet him down, we usually just chuckle, shake our heads and continue the Real conversation thread.

    Posted by Jazzee at 07/28/2005 @ 5:01pm

49. Ummm...What exactly in that resolution can you, to use a well-worn phrase today, hang your hat on? We, the United Nations of America, defended the sanctity of UN resolutions? Poppycock! We went in because we didn't like what the UN appointed inspectors were telling us--that Saddam was without illegal weapons. The resolution attached by Aludra is "about weapons of mass destruction" and is presented as yet another distraction. Why not bring up the stained, blue dress? Why not Chappaquiddick? Or FDR's illicit romance in White Springs? I'm sure these things are all connected and far worse than the unraveling of the tale of an unprovoked war based on false premises.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2005 @ 5:01pm

50. To be fair to Aludra... Ive been to the conservative blogs and forums and most are censored and none of them are as fun as the liberal ones... which may explain why Aludra likes to hang out with us.

    Posted by Jazzee at 07/28/2005 @ 5:03pm

51. ...or, the short version

    First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/28/2005 @ 5:03pm

52. JIZZEL;

    Did you actually try to one up me by virtue of how much money you make. Man, that's a new, all time, childish low for you. Congrat's on furhter revealing the level of discourse that you percieve as erudite. And that comment on children - Man , I must have really hit a nerve! That was perhaps the most hateful thing I have ever heard , even for a republican! I hope you will never know what it's like to go through what we have! The details are something I would never share in a forum like this....

    I may be an arrogant, elitest jerk but you take the cake . You are trully a hateful individual!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 5:03pm

53. I'll be the first to admit it, the Democrats were dumb to authorize the use of force, but the rest of your point is flawed. The UN resolution that provided the legal basis for the war was ambiguious at best, and I seem to remember that the United States was seeking a second resoultion to use force because of the ambiguity of the first, didn't get it, and went to war anyway. What about Powell's pitch to the UN? That wasnt about human rights violations and democracy, it was about WMD.

    I concede the point that the Democrats were and are dumb for their decisions on the Iraq war. Just like with the Patriot Act. Its why I dont vote for them. But when I say the Administration was wrong, and your defense is that the Democrats went along for the ride, it doesnt exonorate the administration. Its a condemnation of both.

    Its like the old phrase they say to kids when they say they did something dumb because other kids did the same. If one person jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge would you jump too? Well, the adminstation jumped first and the Democrats followed. The Administation is full of morons, and the Democratic Party full of cowards. Its not news to anybody.

    Posted by jakesteed98 at 07/28/2005 @ 5:04pm

54. "The Administation is full of morons, and the Democratic Party full of cowards."

    Well to complete your illogical thought... Give me a MORON any day of the week over a frickin COWARD. At least you know the MORON would not be scared to take up for himself or his family & country!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 5:09pm

55. (Love Liberty and Aludra) like much of the far right have no desire to discover the facts.

    I'm on the right (not the so-called "far" right, but still), and I find myself practically obsessed with the facts:

    -The Senate report on the CIA's intelligence gathering prior to the Iraq war concluded that, contrary to Wilson's statements, his wife recommended him for the Niger trip. Wilson is a liar.

    -The same Senate report concluded that many at the CIA believed that Wilson's findings had bolstered rather than undermined the case that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. What's more, even Joe Wilson confirmed that meetings b/w Iraq and Niger took place to discuss "commercial relations" (Niger exports little other than urnaium).

    -The British Government still stands by the assertion that Saddam sought uranium from Niger (see: Butler Report). Saddam is, at present, in no position to buy urnanium.

    -The special prosecutor has assured Rove's attorney that he is not the subject of the investigation, having already testified 3 times.

    -Judith Miller is still in prison and we still don't know who her source is.

    These are the facts that concern right wingers such as myself. When the special prosecutor confirms that Rove didn't break the law, will Mr. Corn give John Stewart some better joke material?

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/28/2005 @ 5:09pm

56. Leave it to Deludra to destinguish between a coward and a moron! just for partisan concern - in case we weren't sure what the differance is. Another meaningful contribution! Maybe a coward is better because at least he has a sense of self preservation and knows when to retreat - perhaps to fight another day. The moron just sticks around where she's not wanted, and takes a beating. Don't take it too literally, it's a joke!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 5:22pm

57. I'm not asking these questions to be argumentative, but because I simply don't know: --did Wilson deny that his wife recommended him and when? --how many at the CIA believed that Wilson's findings were the reverse of what they have been purported to be, and who were these CIA officials? --has Fitzgerald told the press that Rove is not the subject or just Rove's attorney?

    To be argumentative: since "many" at the CIA were telling the White House not to include the Africa reference, at what point do we begin to ignore our own intelligence and follow that of the British? They don't seem to have a special pipeline to accurate information any more than our intelligence services have.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2005 @ 5:24pm

58. Oh, and it's "Jon" Stewart.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2005 @ 5:25pm

59. There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

    Nathanhale wrote: "Hey Aludra, how many misstatements of fact can you find in this?

    President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat Remarks by the President on Iraq Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal Cincinnati, Ohio

    Although addressed to Aludra, I would like to interject. First of all, I had forgotten what a beautiful moving speech that was to many millions of Americans like myself (I'm under no illusion that those who oppose the President had a similar reaction).

    But as Joe Friday used to say, "just the facts maam".

    1. I will concede that our satellite intel on the facilities was now in retrospect, misjudged. That just highlights why our intel folks always prefer to have on resources on the ground.

    2. The tube intel was also flawed, but was in disagreement pro and con among a number of intel groups.

    On all other points, the president made very clear distinctions on the level of threat and the danger of inaction.

    I have introduced on the Nation site in various blogs lately numerous pieces of evidence backing up the President's statements. Not to mention that the entire world believed Saddam still had WMD (I've listed comments by Chirac and others in previous postings). The President stated it better than I in this same address:

    "Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

    Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

    There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein."

    Nothing will be settled by the blog postings on this site or similar ones. Most Nation supporters will remain convinced that the President lied and manipulated Congress into war. Supporters of the President like myself see the evidence as clear and unmistakeable and are glad the President took the action that he did.

    So, what has changed in the past weeks. As I have stated often, future elections will decide and historians 5 years from now may have one view, while historians in 20 years have an entirely different view.

    As the famous philosopher Sonny Bono declared:

    "And the beat goes on"

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 6:07pm

60. Argument with Spam = Spam Squared

    There is no moderator or if there is, it quit. Wouldn't you? Didn't God walk off the job ages ago?

    Corn burns the cobwebs around the lame excuses, pokes holes in the styrofoam defense, and the supreme timewasters here (militia wannabees fearlessly attacking liberal blogs, huzzah troops!) accuse him, predictably, of wasting time.

    Spam-ish paragraph: I do love that the gay gratuities started in here, illustrating the point that Repubs love to talk about homosexuals (and love to love the sinners too, while hating the sin to a bone red simmer). The practical meaning of homophobia is 'fear that you might be homosexual.'

    Anyway, either Rove goes down, or (better) he sticks around like Cheney and Rummy - one more well-known creep that the Admin just wouldn't be itself without.

    I had no idea a 2nd Bush term would actually be fun to watch. And there is an advantage in things getting that much worse - a sudden politicization of people normally willing to let it ride.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/28/2005 @ 6:17pm

61. Intelligence services throughout the world believed that Iraq had WMD, and Bill Clinton said so on many occasions. He also mentioned the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Obviously, the CIA WMD people messed up. Valerie Plame worked for the CIA on WMD. I would really love to know what she has to say about Iraq and WMD, and why the CIA was wrong (and was wrong before Bush became president). And why is The Nation so silent about Judith Miller? All of you guys go nuts fantasizing about what could occur as a result of the Patriot Act, but here we have a case of an American journalist in prison for not revealing a source and it seems to be of no concern to you.

    Posted by RonS at 07/28/2005 @ 6:21pm

62. Liberty;

    The validity of an opinion does have it's basis in one's ability to grasp the facts. If you don't acknowledge even the smplest facts your opinion is worth what I paid for it! ......

    Some of you may remember that the Isrealies " covertly bombed Saddams nuclear facilities in the early 1980'S. This set his nuclear initiatives back ten years at least! Apparently permanently, unless you still buy the yellow cake and cylinders BS!This makes it perfctly clear that he could have been contained indefinitely if we had the patience. We could have periodically "ham-strung him" and it wouldn't have cost us a billion dollars a week and the lives of our soldiers. A little strategic hit now and then, it workd on Khadafi! In fact it only took once to get him in line! So anyone interested in really pursueing logic can devine from this that that this war was unecessary in regards to security issues. WE could have kept him in line, but we wanted other things that only invasion could achieve!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 6:35pm

63. I thought the topic was the Rove scandal?

    I know what you mean Zero. The problem as I and others have stated is that all the talk on these sites becomes meaningless drivel until we have the report in October from Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury. In the meantime, this dialogue is dominated by the level of "your momma" "no, your momma".

    I know most think conservatives are mindless robots, but until the real information is open to the public, it's "innocent until proven guilty" ; a provincial little phrase that has served our republic rather well these past 200+ years. If anyone in the White House is truly guilty of leaking someone who was covert, then by all means they should suffer the consequences.

    I seem to find myself more and more selective as to a good thread to jump into.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 6:56pm

64. Rove, aka Judas says--"I did'nt know his name, I didn't leak his name, all I said was that God had sent his Son on a mission to Israel, and he could be found tonight in the Garden of Gesthemany."

    Posted by gomo at 07/28/2005 @ 7:04pm

65. NN - as you like to say it was just a joke. If you want to sling mud don't be afraid of getting dirty.

    What if I really was 300lbs and I did sit is a dark room all day and listen to the radio? You would have really hurt my feeling also. That's what happens when you "Talk Shit". Thats why I posted your previous comments.

    Buck up Bucko. Keep your chin up. I only brought up the money thing because you were arogant enough to brag that you could be on this log all day because of your small business and your Fishing thing.

    I digress. At some point I will actually get to talk about something that matters besides fighting with you, but right now (since I don't own my owm business) I have other responsibilities to attend.

    Posted by jzimm at 07/28/2005 @ 7:20pm

66. Zero, your points are well made; however my contention on your overall theme of the bigger picture behind "Rovegate" is that it's all going nowhere (frankly, you pretty much admit the same thing in your frustration).

    So, to your overall point then; sure, it keeps the anti-Bush juices stirring, keeps the left side of the ledger pumped up with righteous indignation, and lets media on both sides make a good living.

    But I maintain that it is meaningless until you have an election. That is where we decide these things (or for those who don't vote, relinquish their voice in the decisions). Too many decades, too many politicians, scandals, positive hype, negative hype, and I repeat; "The beat goes on"..Plus I know from your activity today how angry you are at Dems for CAFTA.

    In the immortal words of Kris Kristofferson:

    "Don't let the Bastards get you down"

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 7:23pm

67. GOMO;

    That was the best post on this site! Clever, nice metaphor and pertinent! They'll ignore it though cause it hit's them where they blaspheme. They don't have the chops to build a cogent argument so they resort to spin and hate-speech just like their leaders in Washington. Just think the nickname of one of the most influential Christians in America is the " Hammer ". What a nice sentiment for defining a Christian! These guy's are all about power - not the grace of God. Any one with a soul can see it!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 7:52pm

68. It looks like a few Bush partisans think they can get rid of this story by pronouncing it dead to death.

    Rush pronounced it dead two weeks ago. I wonder if he's still pronouncing it dead.

    As with Mark Twain, reports of the death of this story have been greatly exaggerated.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/28/2005 @ 9:23pm

69. Rove is tree'd, and this fine, but it will go no further than that.

    Don't count on it, Mr. Z - but I will admit, even if he is fired or resigns, Turd Blossom will remain the official Man Behind The Curtain - just from a different location than 1600 Penn. Ave. It would not even surprise me to see Rove theatrically "fired" to make the Chimperor look like an adult in control of and in charge of things.

    I actually believe in Fitzgerald's integrity and devotion to the law and believe we will see charges brought against some in this administration, regardless of who and how powerful they are. Rather than give Ashcroft (or whoever) credit for putting a man with his forthrightness in charge of this investigation, I tend to believe they screwed up, thinking Fitzgerald would tow the company line as payback for his appointment by Bush to the US Attorney of whatever district Chicago falls in - and they now regret doing both.

    Read an interesting piece today - yes, still many unknowns surrounding it - but consider:

    Scott McClellan said he had spoken to both Rove and Libby about the leak and was assured by them they had nothing to do with it. Do you remember these charges from the articles of impeachment against Clinton:

    giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action

    giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation

    These were charges Kenneth Starr adamantly asserted were clear cases of obstruction of justice on Clinton's part when he lied to Albright, et. al. regarding the bj's. I believe all but 3 Republicans voted for impeachment on these charges.

    Now McClellan was certainly a witness and who knows if there were others Rove and Libby assured of their innocence also. Granted, impeachment is irrelevant for these guys, but you gotta love Starr pushing for these charges against Clinton and the GOPers voting in goosest..I mean, lockstep for them. They will be hard pressed to say similar charges shouldn't apply against Rove or Libby if the timelines match up.

    In the end, will it really matter? Doubtful. GW Chimp and his Flying Monkies will still be in control, and the mindless dittoheads will still think he's JC. The rest of us don't need any more evidence to convince us this may be the worst administration in our country's history.

    Posted by kbcarter at 07/28/2005 @ 9:31pm

70. Sorry everyone - spaced out when reading the impeachment charges mentioned in my previous post. Only the second one would apply (the first one was in regards, I believe, to the Paula Jones case).

    Doesn't really matter. One is all that's needed to get you to be the drug addict Limbaugh's butt buddy in the slammer.

    Posted by kbcarter at 07/28/2005 @ 9:39pm

71. As for Jizz:

    For those of you who think this is just a petty little thing, take note! what you have seen here is the real character of those who call themselves conservative Christians. The differance between an arrogant, liberal jerk and a real, small -minded conservative have been revealed . When I assert that you are probably a fat, ignorant guy glued to a computor all day - it actually occurs to me that you might be fat, But I figure that is the least of your problems! OK, not the most mature thing, but rather innocous in the sceme of things. When you respond with vitriol to the tenth power, it becomes obvious that it never occured to you that I might have had children at one time. If it did occur to you then you are the most hatefull person I have ever confronted if it didn't you are simply the most thoughtless. However the fact that your response to my voicing my objection to the level of insensitity was to say, "Get TOUGH" clearly exposes that you are both thoughtless and hateful because you still didn't get it. Perhaps because I didn't spell it out at 5th grade level for you. So there you have it folks, the true emulation of KARL ROVE - full of hate and deceit, win at all costs, no perameters on your behaviour, and completely shameless! But he'll remind you he has a moral agenda - because after all, he's a Christian! Well, I am pretty tough except on that issue but at least it did serve the purpose of revealing his true character.

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/28/2005 @ 9:39pm

72. most of these entries are verbal masturbation. It is amazing that so many have nothing better to do.

    Posted by sevans at 07/28/2005 @ 9:57pm

73. Bush has hired a non-government lawyer (as has Cheney!).There is no attorney-client privilege with a government lawyer.Wonder if Judith Miller is in jail protecting either one of those morons?

    Posted by kww355 at 07/28/2005 @ 11:15pm

74. Incidentally, am I the only one who gets how OBVIOUS it is that the CIA wouldn't tell Novak flat out "She's a covert op, so don't publish her name. We only tell random journalists who call and have the potential to cause no end of trouble that she's undercover"? This all seems so obvious.

    No, you're not the only one--it's been obvious to me, too, from the time it was published, that Novak's October article was just CYA for the criticism he was getting for outing a covert agent. Novak's been around long enough to know that the CIA's standard answer to those kinds of inquiries is "no comment." Bottom line: Novak let his desire to carry water for a Republican Administration trump any concern he might have had for national security. And for that he deserves to be roundly condemned.

    Posted by slb at 07/29/2005 @ 12:10am

75. It's because it isn't even important anyway.

    If it's not important, then why are you Rove apologists expending so much energy trying to kill it? If the Wilson's weren't important, then why did they even show up on Karl Rove's radar? No, the more you guys scream about it, the more we know its worth pursuing.

    Posted by slb at 07/29/2005 @ 12:23am

76. I don't get it. Why on earth are conservatives torturing themselves by reading the Nation, never mind Corn, and torturing the rest of us by posting? I don't read Ann Coulter or listen to Rush--the very idea makes me shudder. Why doesn't the Nation enforce the rule posted at the end of this blog? Then maybe it would be worth reading. I don't see the point of slinging aspersions. If the right-wingers would leave, maybe we could have a useful discussion. On the other hand, except for the very intelligent Gomo, and a few others, most of the "liberals" seem to think this "dialogue" is fun. I think it's a bore and a waste of time. I'll check back in a few weeks and see if things have changed.

    Posted by Gomette at 07/29/2005 @ 12:27am

77. Sorry,Gomette,with the exception of a precious few,most of the conservatives on this board just want to preach,rub it in that we lost the election,or call names & think they're cute.I'd welcome a thoughtful discussion from them but have yet to see one.DAVID CORN, CAN'T YOU GET US AN IGNORE BUTTON FOR SOME OF THESE CLOWNS,PLEASE???

    Posted by kww355 at 07/29/2005 @ 01:20am

78. If Beausoleil is really interested in the facts concerning the SSCI's report and Joseph Wilson (which actually is part of a three-page REPUBLICAN appendix to the committee report), he might want to read Wilson's rebuttal of the Republican members' findings here [truthout.org] as well as Sydney Blumenthal's defense of Wilson here [salon.com]. (That last is a Salon.com article; I think you can get to it without a subscription, but only if you consent to view some ads.) Also, I recommend reading Josh Marshall's interview with Wilson from September 2003, available in two parts here [talkingpointsmemo.com] and here [talkingpointsmemo.com]. I myself find Wilson very convincing.

    As for the Butler Report, read here [talkingpointsmemo.com].

    The special prosecutor has assured Rove's attorney that he is not the subject of the investigation, having already testified 3 times.

    I believe what Rove's attorney has said is that Rove is not a target of the investigation. According to the U.S. Attorney's manual [usdoj.gov], "A 'target' is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." Luskin has refused to say whether Rove is a subject of the investigation, "a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation." Subjects have an "Advice of Rights" attached to their subponea, just as a target does, and as a mere witness does not. Subjects of an investigation may become targets if the prosecutor obtains further information on them.

    When the special prosecutor confirms that Rove didn't break the law

    Even if Rove didn't manage to break a law that is, by most accounts, very difficult to break, would you not agree that his conduct, resulting in the outing of a covert agent in time of war, and one that was working in a critical field, for no reason other than the scoring of political points, was very wrong?

    Posted by slb at 07/29/2005 @ 01:35am

79. HOW IT STANDS TODAY

    1. The Novak-Rove name leak was a side-show to prevent discussion of the original string of acts that lead to the infamous Iraq-Niger uranium getting included in the rhetoric used to justify war. The side show may have been deliberately ‘seeded' by the Top Secret State Dept. memo that wound up on Air Force 1 trip to Africa July 7 '03 marking Valerie Plame/Wilson as "S" for secret agent, so that all who saw it could technically be bound not to reveal her identity or role in the affair. A possible charge with built-in deniability. The flimsiness of the evidence must have lead to some discussions somewhere about what to do if the beans got spilled, as Joe Wilson's 7/6 NY Times article did. A copy of the June 10 memo also went to John Bolton who has presumably helped hype the war threat, as it was his style to do. There is collusion between Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the Pentagon, run by Douglas Feith, whose activities were uncovered and documented by New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh, and a special White House Iraq Group chaired by Andrew Card including Rice, Rove, Libby, Stephen Hadley, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and others.

    2. After Wilson's 7/6 article, the WHIG group goes into damage control mode, http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html "Meanwhile, the WHIG is also moving that Sunday to deal aggressively with the Wilson op-ed. They will no longer focus on the too obviously fraudulent claim of an Iraqi purchase of yellow cake-White House orthodoxy before the invasion-but will instead discount the issue, discredit Wilson, and shift blame for the now-embarrassing State of the Union reference. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is to try to downplay and dismiss Wilson's article on-the-record at the next day's press briefing, while Rice and others begin to make off-the-record calls to the media to do the same. While pursuing their own contacts among right-wing reporters and columnists, Rove and Libby are also to work with CIA Director George Tenet in a statement by Tenet taking responsibility for any inaccuracy in the State of the Union passage." This activity generates the side-show coverup. "Before the (Air Force One) party flies out of Andrews Rice is in several meetings with Rove, Libby and other senior aides of WHIG."

    3. Confronted by questions on the matter in Uganda, the Party tries to have it both ways. Bush says "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services"; Rice explains "if the CIA director had said ‘take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone without question." While Tenet is going to say that it really shouldn't have been included. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches," he says next day, "and the CIA should have insured that it was removed." They try to have it all three ways. But building up is a large sector of persons in the know about the deception, on both the U.S. and British side of the pond. 7/12, Libby is leaking "Plame"'s name to Cooper of Time, and somebody is doing the same to Pincus of the Washington Post (in-house "don't blame us, we got stung too" loop?) Then 7.14, the Novak article appears discrediting Wilson mentioning his wife by maiden name as CIA. "At least six reporters" had been told about Plame before Novak's column, Morris quotes an "unidentified WH official" as telling the WaPo in September, Judith Miller presumably among them. She and Bolton are said to be close cohorts.

    4. But the side-show scandal began raging out of control and had to be damped down. Enter the Roberts Supreme Court nomination, and Frank Rich's rich comment: "The agenda of this rushed showmanship – to change the subject in Washington – could not have been more naked."

    5. And the London bombings? Michael Barone sees a link: "Bush Bashing Fizzles "This summer, one big story is replaced by another -- the London bombings July 7, the speculation that Karl Rove illegally named a covert CIA agent, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, more London bombings last week." Now, the Rove side-show is raging through June into July well before London; but, mentioned second in order, almost as if ‘covered' by that terrible event." Did Londoners die to make sure the subject got changed in Washington? Evidences are showing up, insisted on by Scotland Yard, that the 7/7 attackers weren't suicide bombers, but dupes. Nevertheless, Tony Blair is broadcasting that "suicide bombing is wrong, whether in Israel, London or New York", next day. An aide clarifies that the PM didn't mean to deny his own intelligence to the contrary; he was speaking in general terms. Nor, of course, did U.S. officials intend to contradict their agencies about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. But both did it. Also suspicious is the fact that the news media, ABC mentioned especially, published pictures of the stash of weapons found in the car allegedly rented by the assumed would-be 7/14 bombers. Was that a second set-up IN ORDER TO plant the evidence that would throw off those investigating the first atrocity? It fits the pattern.

    6. Barone provides more fit: "But beneath the hubbub (of the three big stories), we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media -- The New York Times, etc., etc. -- to delegitimize yet another Republican administration." See? Its all about getting at them. All of it. "This project has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign. The attempt to delegitimize the Reagan administration seemed at the time reasonably successful. Reagan was widely dismissed as a lightweight ideologue, and the rejection of his nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 contributed to the impression that his years in office were, to take the title of a book by a first-rate journalist, "the Reagan detour." With these people, it will, at bottom, always be about "the 60's". The killer crew Republicans should have been put away for good, then, but since the head of the snake wasn't cut off, it began writhing again. 7. Finally, there is the Israeli connection in all this. A. The source of Blair's origin Iraq-Niger uranium link came from an old Israeli magazine. B. a Mossad- M16 fand a Mossad-CIA faction – with Ahmed Chalabi, Judith Miller, John Bolton, Wm. Safire and neocon Jews who control the mass media on hand – is the most likely source of regular intelligence over-ride. C. The letters accompanying the anthrax poison mailed to liberal Senators Leahy and Daschle show the work of a Zionist zealot masquerading as a Muslim terrorist. Now it is said that Bolton will get a recess-appointment as UN ambassador.

    Posted by neverong at 07/29/2005 @ 05:08am

80. As a reader of BOTH sides (though I admit leaning 'rightist'), I thought what Byron York in NR said was interesting, just because I didn't notice it.

    He said "Rove isn't acting like a guilty man." And he added an earlier statement by Fitzgerald thad Rove was "not a target".

    Yet the talking point on Air America and by Dems, liberal pundits, etc. is "There's a traitor in the White House".

    And ALL of this is eerily reminiscent of the Clinton "scandals" and what Limbaugh and the Hard Right were saying about him and Hillary.

    COULD "Plame-gate" be the Left's "File-gate" (the Craig Livingstone obtained FBI files)...and lead nowhere?

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2005 @ 07:02am

81. In all the hoopla around Wilson and the terrible damage he supposedly did to Bush's claim of Saddam looking for uranium in Niger, I'm still waiting for even one member of the "loyal opposition" to admit that Saddam had ALREADY gotten uranium from Niger in the past. Or that he already had 500 tons of the stuff, or that almost two tons were at least partially enriched. That alone proves Wilson's "report" if not invalid, irrelevent.

    Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 08:23am

82. The 7/28 comment by "Aldura" deserves a little enlightenment on the legal meaning of "Whereas." Both Democrats and Republicans signed on to the Congressional joint resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq ONLY ON THE CONDITION of a formal presidential determination that that (1) there was a continued threat that could not be overcome by diplomacy; and that (2) that the actions taken consistent with the war would be against those responsible for the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

    Because the resolution was unprecedented in its granting of Presidential authorization for war, Congress had insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the President submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, those conditions were present. They insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpiece of Bush's argument for war. I quote the following:

    "---- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and: (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001."

    The joint resolution begins with 23 "whereas" clauses that the president supplied to Congress as introductory or prefatory statements. These are only "legalese" window dressing, opinions at best and not part of the operative provisions. These seemingly declaratory statements have no real meaning, so they are not debated – and are seldom discussed – by Congress. They are part of the joint resolution, but that does not make the "whereas" clauses either fact, or findings of fact, by Congress. The "whereas" statements (as I am sure you already know) are known to legal scholars as precatory clauses – words of entreaty, desire, wish, hope – with no other meaning.

    On March 18, 2001 Bush sent his formal "determination" to the Congress. It is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the President's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law. The determination consisted of repeating verbatim the "whereas" clauses that he himself had supplied Congress in the first place as "findings" by Congress! Thus, like a dog chasing its tail, Bush relied on allegations he had provided Congress for its draft resolution, then turned around and claimed that the allegations were "findings" from Congress itself. He then presented these Congressional "finding" as the basis for his "determination." Congress, of course, had made no such findings, and if it had done so, it would not have required a determination by the President.

    The one exception to this fraudulent, circulatory process was Powell's report to the UN that a terrorist camp in Northeastern Iraq (not under Saddam's control) was affiliated with al Quaeda, adding that public reports indicated that Iraq was harboring a known al Qaeda associate. Powell offered no governmental confirmation of the public reports, and this is all the evidence he could muster. Such a flimsy piece of trickery is unprecedented among presidential determinations, let alone one that leads the nation into a war.

    What makes this all so difficult to bear is that not one of the so-called reasons for the war has shown any basis in fact, as those of us who were against this illegal undertaking already knew. It was already known that Iraq's nuclear program had been destroyed (despite the fact that Rummy and company stated unequivocally that "we know where they are.") The weapons inspectors from the Gulf war and the Hans Blix team had confirmed this. Bush's continued declaration that Saddam "would not allow us into Iraq" was blatantly false. The inspections were well under way and should have continued. Thus we would have avoided this human and financial disaster in the first place.

    Even though Iraq had both chemical and biological weapons at the time of the first Gulf war (conveniently, Bush did not mention that these were supplied to Saddam by Reagan and Bush's father at the time of the Iran/Iraq conflict!) such weapons after twelve years would have been so far degraded as to be useless. In addition, Iraq did not have a delivery system of sufficient power to get such weapons to another country.

    As subsequent evidence has proved, Congress while it may have been ‘privy' to false information that we were not, that august body was irresponsible enough to vote for this resolution without bothering to thoroughly investigate the manufactured claims of the Bush administration. They were guided by the fear created by threats of "mushroom clouds." Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for signing on to what – even at the time – could have been proved false. Frankly, I expect nothing better from the Republicans but am dismayed by the stupidity of the party for whom I generally vote. However, to give them and Kerry credit, they trusted Bush to carry out his part of the bargain and give them the determinations promised in the resolution. His failure to do so may expose him to the charge of failing to carry out his presidential oath and therefore make him subject to impeachment.

    At no time – either before or since the war in Iraq – has the present Administration been able to establish or verify that there was any connection between Saddam Hussain's Iraq and al Qaeda. There were no Iraqi's on the attacking planes on September 11th, they were, in fact, largely Saudis. (With whom by the way Bush Senior and Junior have rather cozy connections!)

    Bin Laden in his messages consistently condemned Iraq AND Hussain, in large part because Saddam's government – bad though it was – was secular rather than Islamic. These two entities were the antithesis of each other in ideology so it was more than a little unlikely that they would be partners in any endeavor.

    With no connection between al Qaeda and no Weapons of Mass Destruction, well over 1700 dead American soldiers, 12,000 severly wounded and even more thousands of Iraqi dead and wounded and a devastated and strife ridden land, what have we got for the billions of dollars we've "invested?" I wouldn't like to invest in a business on the kind of (mis)information that this administration used to take us to war.

    Was Saddam a bastard? Yes, of course, and of the worst kind. Did we need to enter into an illegal and costly war to control him and preserve our own security? Events subsequent to the invasion and occupation of Iraq indicate a resounding "no." Those of us who opposed the war had already done a great deal of reading and research into the matter. It seems that our "liberal" conclusions were "spot-on," as we Brits are wont to say.

    As for democracy and patriotism, such laudable sentiments are only maintainable by objective, reasoned and investigated dissention to any action that a citizen or group of citizens feels may prove injurious to themselves, their community or the nation at large. Blind sheep-like obedience to anyone just because they have ‘authority' is the antithesis of freedom.

    Posted by kmtfsk at 07/29/2005 @ 09:21am

83. Jeck, the fact is that someone forged a memo supposedly documenting that hussein attempted to buy a large shipment of yellow cake from Niger. Whoever did that intended to mislead the American people into war, and that is a gravely treasonous act. And I'll bet you anything it was instigated by Rove, Libby, Feith, or Wolfowitz. That is what we should be investigating. Rove's lies about what he knew and who he talked to about Plame are just the tip of the iceberg.

    Posted by atmur01 at 07/29/2005 @ 09:22am

84. 500 TONS? What do you think 500 tons looks like. Where is it? Did I miss something? I've never heard that we found 500 tons of uranium! That would have been big news! Is that another thing that he has hidden somewhere, like in Syria? .......

    I'll bet he has Jimmy Hoffa hidden somewhere too!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 09:50am

85. KMTFSK, thanks for your thoughtful piece.

    The "war resolution" approved by Congress was necessary to create the big stick that got UNMOVIC back into Iraq.

    I favor impeachment of the president. I'm sure Mr. Bush would favor capital punishment as a deterrent against future presidents who might be tempted to lie this nation into an unnecessary war.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/29/2005 @ 10:05am

86. To Atmur01:

    If you've missed it, I am among those who believe the regime's case for war was a series of deliberate deceptions. However, there is a market for documents (preferably genuine) like so-called memorandum of agreement between Niger and Iraq. This creates an opportunity for somebody to make a quick buck by selling a counterfeit.

    That the document was the work of regime insiders is only one possibility. Another is that it fell into their hands and they promoted it because it told the story they wanted the rest of the world to believe without scrutinizing its authenticity. From what I've read about this particular document, it was not hard to determine that it is a fake.

    The Bush regime policymakers made a decision to go to war and then fixed intelligence and facts around that policy. Any document that supported that end was as good as gold to the policymakers, even if it turned out to be a crude forgery.

    In the end, it makes little difference in their culpability whether they actually forged the document themselves or simply used a document without checking its authenticity. One is outright dishonesty and the other is willful incompetence. Either is a tool of deception.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 10:14am

87. Yeah, 500 tons. Go look it up. Google "Iraq 500 tons uranium" and you'll get lots of good news. And, yeah, some of it really was from Niger (so no forgeries necessary). The fact no one ever talks about it has something, I think, to do with what's called "media bias." Now, should we talk about the tons of dual use chemical weapons precuror compounds discovered at various mutions sites around Iraq? This is all independent of what might have gone into Syria.

    Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 10:27am

88. And I'm still waiting for someone (not a conservative) to acknowledge its existence. I fully expect them to dismiss its importance, but I just want them to have to deal with it.

    Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 10:35am

89. If we really want to understand the nature of these deceptions and their origins in the Republican party we must look at recent history as implied by NEVERWRONG! If you want go back and find the seeds of these kinds of motis operandi read the book " The Trial of Henry Kissinger". ....

    These guys - Cheney, Rumy, and Bush are the demon spawn of the Viet Nam era Republicans that invented the this kind of politicaly, Machiavellian hubris. .....

    And, surprise! G Dubious Bush wanted to appoint Kissinger to a key position dealing with our security. Kissinger , embarassing our Prez again, had to refuse the offer because he knew he couldn't face the confirmation hearings based on recent revelations By Mr. Hitchens.

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 10:41am

90. Five hundred tons? Show me the money, guys.

    One place a right winger loses credibility fast nowadays is to keep talking about the liberal media; it never really existed and it certainly doesn't now. If you want to promote this as fact and cite FoxNews or NewsMax as a source, please find a more gullible audience than this one.

    If Saddam had this material, where is it? You can't find it? That figures. Come up with some convenient conjecture like he handed it off to Syria (or perhaps Iran, but that would really stretch credibility) and that make it believable. It is only to those willing to believe the earth is flat as long as Rush Limbaugh says so.

    Just prior to the war, the Bush regime paraded one spokesperson after another to speak so confidently of Saddam's vast biochemical arsenal, his reconstituted nuclear program and his ties to terrorists. Colin Powell knew how much. Donald Rumsfeld knew where to find it, even if UN inspectors couldn't. It was all a lot of hooey. Most likely, they knew it was a lot of hooey. If these people were really looking for facts, they would have gotten something right; they got everything wrong.

    It's been sixteen months since the invasion and they have yet to produce literally an ounce of evidence that Saddam was a threat to his weakest neighbor, let alone to the United States. Conjecture about the yellowcake Saddam actually had in a propaganda outlet like NewsMax is evidence of nothing except continuing obfuscation, if at a lower level than before. What passes for information on FoxNews and NewsMax isn't going to persuade me of anything, but it might keep members of the choir singing the same tune.

    Thanks but no thanks. Until there's something a lot more credible than this, as far as I'm concerned this 500 tons of yellowcake is in the same place as the Fountain of Youth, Santa's workshop and -- oh, yes -- Saddam's vast biochemical arsenal.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 11:05am

91. 500 tons. Go frickin look it up. Or are you chicken? Better to live in a world of denial? It was in frickin Bagdad. GO LOOK IT UP!

    Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 11:08am

92. I looked it up, Jeck. Then I wrote that post.

    The fable of the "librul media" is one of the fallbacks prevaricators on the right have when all else fails.

    The only denial I see comes from those drank up the cool aid when the Bushies served it up.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 11:19am

93. ACKNOWLEDGED'

    Surely 500 tons of anything qualifies as a "stockpile." And press reports going back more than a decade give no indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S. invaded.

    That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency was finally able to take a full inventory, and suddenly the 500-ton figure emerged.

    Still, experts say Saddam's massive uranium stockpile was largely benign.

    Largely? Well, except for the 1.8 tons of uranium that Saddam had begun to enrich. The U.S. Energy Department considered that stockpile so dangerous that it mounted an unprecedented airlift operation four months ago to remove the enriched uranium stash from al Tuwaitha.

    But didn't most of that enrichment take place before the first Gulf War - with no indication whatsoever that Saddam was capable of proceeding any further toward his dream of acquiring the bomb?

    That seems to be the consensus. But there's also disturbing evidence to the contrary.

    David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector who was hailed by the press last year for pronouncing Iraq WMD-free, shared some interesting observations with Congress this past January about goings-on at al Tuwaitha in 2000 and 2001.

    "[The Iraqis] started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together," Kay said. "And they ran a few physics experiments, re-ran experiments they'd actually run in the '80s."

    "Fortunately, from my point of view," he added, "Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead. ... Given their history, it was certainly an emerging program that I would not have looked forward to their continuing to pursue."

    Kay's successor, Charles Duelfer, also has confirmed that nuclear research at al Tuwaitha was continuing right up until the U.S. invasion, telling Congress in March that Saddam's scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."

    One laboratory at al Tuwaitha, Duelfer said, "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development."

    Still, most experts say that Iraq was nowhere near being able to produce nuclear weapons, which is a good thing, considering how much raw material Saddam had to work with.

    THERE YOU HAVE IT!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 11:19am

94. Thank you, NO-NONSENSE, that's all I needed. Yes, the uranium was not an immediate threat. Saddam wasn't actively working on the bomb and apparently hadn't been for some time. Still, he had the goods. And if given enough time, who knows what he would have done with it. Whether it justifies invasion, well, there will always be room for argument on that score.

    Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 11:27am

95. The 500 tons is misleading. The quality of the ore plays a huge part in whether enought wepaons grade material can be extracted. Even an amount as larg as 500 tons may not produce enough pure material to produce fissionable isotopes. Whether right-wingers believe it or not the possibility of Saddam producing a bomb was nearly non-existant and this corrupt administration was dead set on going to war regardless. Bush & Co. are true scumbags and should all be impeached and removed from office. People who support Bush & Co. are bozos.

    Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/29/2005 @ 12:00pm

96. Yeah, I'll be the first one to say I'd never heard of it, MEA CULPA! However, INTENT was never the issue. We knew he was a bad guy! The question was capablity and probability. Apparently his possesion of this stuff was known but not perceiced as a threat in of itself. Certainly, it would cause concern had his abilities progressed to a certain point, Which again, I pointed out could and had been contained as the Israelies proved in the early 80's when they did a strategic hit on the facility and set him back indefinitely!.....

    If the intent to develop nuclear capability is now a reason to attack a country , we are going to be very busy. I prefer the Israeli method to all out war!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 12:11pm

97. Frankgrits - You're like a broken record regarding "Ill concieved and Unnecessary war". Bush did the right thing. Sorry that soldiers have to be away from their family and friends. Believe it or not most people in the Military join because they WANT to serve their country not just for the educational benefits. Grow a spine.

    This is for you

    This Is written by John Kerry in 2002 - how odd

    It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

    All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

    I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

    Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

    I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

    He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

    The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

    Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance.

    Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 12:12pm

98. NO-NONSENSE, better to intervene before they get em than try to do it later. See North Korea. Of course, if a stable democrary chooses to develop nukes, well, we have less need to worry. After all, as much disagreement we have with the French, I don't think they're going to nuke us. But we do also have to worry about places like Pakistan where who knows what kind of goverment they might have next week. (Part of the complicated thinking we must persue in pushing these guys to do more in the hunt for Bin Laden. Can't afford to let the Muslim radicals get the upper hand or we are screwed.) I think the general idea of trying to push democracy in this region is important, not necessarily by invasion. No matter how hard we try, we aren't going to keep these people nuke free forever.

    Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 12:25pm

99. I have a question- If most of the media is owned by large corporations and derive their income through advertising from other business concerns - then how can the media be considered liberal ?

    Posted by danner99 at 07/29/2005 @ 12:39pm

100. Jeck

     I understand the assertion. I just dissagre with the recklass way our administartion has dealt with the problem. Nothing to fear from democracies? Why didn't Turkey give us access for the invasion. Why is Venezuela preparing for war with us at this very moment?.....

     And , yaeh we can keep them nuke free if we are vigilant and make sure that it is understood that there will be consequences for providing militaristic aid to countries that pose potential problems.......

     Problem is, then we've gotta look in the mirror and we don't want to do that. Hell, we've been arming these guys like Saddam for a long time -sewing the seeds of our own future headaches!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 12:51pm

101. NN - You FEAR Turkey for got giving us access during the invasion (how many sleepless nights?) Venezuela can prepare for the next 100 years and it won't matter. I don't hear republicans or democrats "chiming in" about Venezuela right now.

     Oh believe me we can and do look in the mirror but the difference is that it doesn't need to paralyze us now. Hindsight is 20 - 20. Most people agreed with arming the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets (since Carter didn't do anything before) and it was in our strategic Interest after (oddly enough) Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran, who was our best ally in the region, which led to the current regime in Tehran which is 10 times worse then anything the Shah did. We needed Iraq to Balance Iran after Carters disaster. So yes lets look in the mirror.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 1:19pm

102. NO-NONSENSE, I didn't say we had nothing to fear from democracies, just less. And I agree we shouldn't be arming potential unstable regimes as a general rule. Now that the basic cold war (except china) is over we should have less of a need to play realpolitik games. Does Venezuela really want to go to war with us? I haven't heard that - frankly, not as much democracy there as we would like. And with Turkey, non-cooperation ain't the same as outright war. As for keeping people nuke free, I really don't believe that's possible without a viable organization like the UN (not the actual UN but like the UN was supposed to be.) And are we truly prepared to follow through with consequences when rogue nations don't comply? We did in Iraq but only after more than a decade of dissembling and a little extra incentive brought on by 911. Take Iran right now. Even Bush doesn't seem to want to do anything - what kind of sunshine cowboy is he?

     Posted by jeck at 07/29/2005 @ 1:39pm

103. Regarding Iraq - this is what I can't understand. Clear your heads and think for a minute. What if we didn't take out Saddam and he did hook up with some sort of terrorist faction to do harm to us.

     All of you on the left would be screaming from the mountain tops that GWB didn't do anything about Saddam. You would have cited all the same intel, that you now ignore, saying that Saddam had the capability and motive. This would have been used to chase GWB out of office for inaction in the face of such an obvious threat to our country.

     After 9/11, how could any POTUS "not" take action against this type of "real" threat. In order to not take action, you would have to completely ignore any and all intel and trust Saddam would be a good little dictator and not get involved. How could "anyone" holding the position of responsibility of the POTUS not act to protect the country and remove the threat.

     Bush didn't connect the dots! He ignored the FBI, CIA and world intel about how much of a threat Saddam was!

     It is the height of hypocrisy.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 1:49pm

104. The Right's ability to rationalize anything Bush does is truly amazing. How much more do you need before you acknowledge that he spoon-fed the public a bunch of b.s. to justify this war? Give me a break, most people hold their own children more accountable for their behavior. If my son came up with a justification for something that later had as many holes as Bush's pre-war intelligence, he'd be grounded in a hearbeat - so would yours.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 2:11pm

105. I just now registered so that I could add some information about Iraq's purchase of 500 tons of uranium from Niger.

     This uranium was legally purchased in **1982**. Between 1979 and 1982, Iraq also purchased uranium from Italy, Russia, France, Portugal and Brazil. Iraq was not banned from purchasing uranium until 1991.

     http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-facts-042502.htm

     After the first Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had all highly enriched uranium (what you need to build a nuclear bomb) shipped out of Iraq to Russia. The remaining uranium was sealed and stored in the Tuwaitha facility, under the control of the IAEA. It remained that way until the second Gulf War. The IAEA left Tuwaitha shortly before the US invasion.

     Tragically, in the period after the invasion, US forces did not guard this facility, and it was looted by villagers who wanted the barrels (!).

     http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/06/07/2003054307

     Posted by 9patch at 07/29/2005 @ 2:23pm

106. A "what if" is not a "real" threat. One goes to war against real threats, not what ifs.

     That is why the Bush doctrine of "preemptive" (actually preventive) war is unworthy of support. It is nothing more than open justification to go to war against any other nation at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

     If Saddam were the threat Bush and his crew said he was, I was would have supported taking him out. He wasn't and I didn't. If there's any hypocrisy in that, I fail to see it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 2:24pm

107. The entire intelligence community said Saddam was a threat and the president reported it to the nation as reason to go to war.

     How is that being spoon-fed?

     Something like 77 senators voted to give GWB authorization to use force against Saddam as he saw fit. Among these were Kerry and Clinton. They, and many other democrats evidently were spoon-fed too.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 3:01pm

108. the dems voted for it because they did not care if we killed innocent people or if there were weapons or not. it seemed to them to be expedient and a win/win. don't hold up what a powerless, ethically challenged, bunch of cowards did as evidence of the validity of this war. that's senseless.

     they were not spoonfed. they had the resources and knew that saddam, with or without weapons, was in no real way an immediate, or even future threat to us. kerry? please. brave? ya gotta be kidding, he shot some poor peasant in the back and we think he's ready to "report for duty"? their votes were calculations --they gambled and lost. simple as that.

     Posted by dabar at 07/29/2005 @ 3:12pm

109. Both parties voted to authorize based on the information they had access to.

     I don't think they wanted to simply go out kill a bunch of people.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 3:39pm

110. Pride;

     Yeah because we wanted to believe our prez! And again, like Viet Nam we were lied to!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 3:51pm

111. >b>To USAPride:

     When they tried spoon-feeding me, I spat it back in their faces. I had already eaten something more nutritious than neoconservative cool aid.

     You're correct that many congressional Democrats don't get off the hook about this, either. Those who supported Bush, and I will include Senators Kerry and Clinton in this judgment, look foolish.

     There were valid reasons to challenge the case for war being presented. One would hope so, since it turned out to be so wrong. For example, months prior to the war, Scott Ritter [salon.com], the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, stated that at the time inspections ended in 1998, most of Saddam's WMD capability had been destroyed and that the shelf life of what remained would have expired before the spring of 2003. It was known to the intelligence community that General Hussein Kamel [middleeastreference.org.uk], the head of Iraq's weapons program, stated that Iraq's biochemical weapons were destroyed shortly after the end of the 1991 war. Even reports associating Iraqi intelligence and September 11 hijackers were debunked [news.bbc.co.uk].

     As for what the intelligence showed, public pronouncements on that are suspect. Since the war, stories of how intelligence was cooked [newyorker.com] have emerged; however, those of us who were paying special attention prior to the war were aware of the politicization of intelligence [guardian.co.uk].

     The "librul media" greatly failed the public during this period. Those watching CNN and reading Judy Miller's front page fiction in The New York Times were just as misinformed as people who watch FoxNews and read NewsMax.

     However, a steady diet of the British press, some internet sources of what I call "fringe establishment" outlets such as The Nation and even, although often taken with a grain of salt, some left wing alternate media could give one a better picture of what was happening. It wasn't a pretty picture, but it was a picture that has been confirmed by official documents from the British government of policymakers making a decision to go to war independent of any facts that justified it and then proceeding to "fix" facts and intelligence to fit the policy.

     Not all of us got it as wrong as most congressional Republicans and some congressional Democrats. I will go to my grave confident that I joined millions of others world wide in the winter of 2002/03 marching against Bush not as a knee-jerk pacifist but as an informed citizen.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 3:54pm

112. The "entire intelligence community?" Do some research because you are dead wrong.

     Some pre-9/11 quotes for you:

     February 24, 2001: "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capacity with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Secretary of State Colin Powell.

     July 29, 2001: "We are able to keep his [Saddam's] arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Condoleeza Rice

     After 9/11, this intelligence, of course, changed. The lead-up to war caused a well-documented rift bewteen the White House and many factions within the CIA, especially concerning the reliability of the uranium/Niger story. The White House's purge of the CIA in 2003-2004 took care of the troublesome voices, and is also well-documented.

     And what gives you the impression that I am defending Clinton's and Kerry's votes? Our representatives should have known better - certainly Clinton, since she sits on the Foreign Intelligence Committee. As far as I am concerned they were cowards for following so blindly along - too worried they would be labeled soft in the aftermath of 9/11. However, Bush pushed the agenda, and was spoon-feeding them as well. Keep in mind that the vote was not an affirmative vote for war, but one granting Bush the authorization to do so, if he saw fit (I admit, maybe a fine distinction). However, this was always Bush's war. I am less sypathetic to those who gave Bush his authorization. But, his deception to the citizenry (who because of an obvious lack of direct knowledge must rely on leaders' representations), especially any person who signed-on to fight over there is the larger outrage.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:00pm

113. As a bit of an aside, here is a link to a fairly comprehensive chronology of events leading up to where we are on the Plame/CIA matter.

     There are many threads to this tale, but I thought this was a great overview>

     http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:06pm

114. Any arguments from the right wingers here justifying this illegal war are specious. Saddam was a threat? Iran and N. Korea were (and are) MUCH bigger threats. Saddam was CONTAINED. Here was practically NO threat to the US. This war is about primarily 4 things: 1) OIL 2) a permanent US militray presence in the Mideast 3) neo-con dreams of American world hegemony and 4) Dubya needing a war to make up for his many personal shortcomings, kind of like Viagra. ALL justifications for this was FAIL.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:10pm

115. Excuse me, "war" , not "was". Also, George W. Bush is the biggest fraud, liar and crook EVER to inhabit the White House. He and Cheney should BOTH be impeached.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:15pm

116. I don't feel you are defending anybody's vote. But you guys are telling me that everydody except your click was swayed by misinformation from the administration. C'mon, that's just plain silly. Even I don't believe GWB is slick enough to pull that off.

     Please don't tell me up brought up Scott Ritter as a valid source for accurate information - yikes! Can you say bribe.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 4:15pm

117. Saddam was "contained" because he was surrounded by 250,000 red-blooded Americans.

     Kinda hard to get yer groove on with that looking over your shoulder.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 4:20pm

118. To Hman23:

     It's interesting that the right wing spin is "Clinton thought Iraq had them" but conveniently ignores the fact that the Bushies themselves said Saddam was no threat until after the September 11 attacks provided them with a pretext make a reality of PNAC's wet dream of invading and occupying Iraq.

     Even those who thought Saddam was something more than a paper tiger agreed that he was a contained threat. Meanwhile, while the neocons diverted US military resources in Afghanistan to go into their colonial misadventure in Iraq, al Qaida and the Taliban regrouped [news.bbc.co.uk].

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 4:20pm

119. Scott Ritter was not "bribed". That was part of another White House smear campaign. Scott Ritter was absolutely right, just as Joe Wilson. And, no, Saddam was contained because of the no-fly zones, UN inspectors and international cooperation aside from US troops.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:26pm

120. usapride:

     Believe GWB is that slick - at one point 70% of the public believed Huessin was behind 9/11.

     Scott Ritter? I don't see him a source for the article I posted. Authored by Roger Morris, with research by Gary Leupp. Am I missing something here? Anyway, which facts do you refute, and what's your basis?

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:27pm

121. But the "swimmer" (burp!) said that the war was thought up down in Crawford before GWB was even in office.

     Then why would they talk down the threat from Saddam once they arrived in Washington?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 4:29pm

122. Please don't tell me up brought up Scott Ritter as a valid source for accurate information.

     And why not? He cast doubt on the Bush regime's claims of Saddam's biochemical arsenal. Ritter's criticism of these claims were given even more weight just prior to the war when UN weapons inspectors found no significant violations of UN resolutions.

     Or do you have some evidence to suggest they, too, were bribed? Were the US teams that turned Iraq upside down after the war and found nothing also bribed?

     If you think they were wrong, sir, I suggest you grab a spade, catch the next plane to Baghdad and start digging around for that missing biochemical arsenal. As huge as we were told it was, it shouldn't be too difficult to find.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 4:30pm

123. HMan - If Bush spoon fed us BS to sell the war what was John Kerry doing in 2002 when he wroet his letter in 2002 ? - see my post from 12:12 am.Will you PLEASE answer that.

     You Libs are so bent that you keep loosing that you are like broken records repeating the same asnine rhetoric over and overlike the good "intellectuals" you are

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 4:31pm

124. An arsenal of WMD can fit in a fairly small room.

     It don't take much.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 4:33pm

125. Jack Rabbit -

     "The Taliban Regrouped" - The General in Charge of US Forces in Afganistan recently reported that the Taliban are so "Broken" that they are resorting to recruiting 13 and 14 year old or forcing households to give up 1 sone for the "cause".

     Face it. We're winning - which is horrible news to you libs. The easiest way to piss off a Liberal is to defend the United States. How does it feel to be a party that has to hope for bad news or create your own BAD NEWs since you don't have any policies yourself.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 4:37pm

126. One more thing usapride:

     It's not that me and my "click" knew all along the intelligence was as bad as it was, and everybody who believed it was somehow swayed. This isn't "I told you so; look how smart I am." I personally wouldn't have supported the war even if his representations turned out to be true. The problem is that it is now coming out that most of the facts underlying Bush's rationale for war have turned out to be false, and that it appears his administration deliberately mislead the public, instead of making the best argument for war based on reliable and true evidence or honest reasoning. If he would have done that, I could have at least respected him, even if I disagreed.

     If I miscalculated things in my job as poorly as Bush and his gang, I'd be canned like that. Now admittedly, we can't impeach every president who turns out to be merely inept, but, in this case, they guy should be gone. He pressed issues that his administration knew were phony, and his course resulted in a billion-dollar war, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldier, not to mention the powderkeg he has lit in the so-called "War on Terror," and a diminished credability for the US amongst even our own allies. I'd say his performance evaluation warrants immediate termination, but that's just my opinion.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:47pm

127. A reminder of what The Nation magazine and others on the Left thought about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act back in 1982

     http://slate.msn.com/id/2123411/

     Posted by RonS at 07/29/2005 @ 4:49pm

128. Ex Hoosire - you say Bush is the Biggest Liar, crook fraud!!!!

     Oh My...just remember you opened it up.

     Lets look back with nostalgia at those times that Bill Clinton made us Proud to be Americans:

     Clinton (as governor of AR) propositions Paula Jones and Expose his Dick to her. Clinton's running around exposing himself to low level government employees. Then when she filed an ASSAULT CHARGE Clinton PAID Paula Jones $850,000 to dismiss the Suit! Clinton made his own bed. If it wasn't for that payoff and Clinton's total lack of character and integetity then Ken Starr would never have begun to investigate Clintons sex life. Therefore no Monica story, no white stains on the blue dress, we wouldn't have been subjected to the imagery of our happily married "Commander in Chief" using a cigar on a INTERN while he was on "Company Time" (Although when you take a look at Hillary one can almost sympathize with Billy Boy).

     Did you forget about the graceful way he extradited himself from that??? "I Did Not have sexual relations with that woman"

     PERJURY - He had his Law License Suspended.

     The biggest F^%@# disgrace of a president we ever had...Mayve you are too young to remember. Your comments would lead one to believe that you could be that young

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 4:49pm

129. I don't fancy myself as being naive - who does? But how is it possible to lie about everything to everybody and get your way?

     This line of thinking that GWB lied his way into a war just don't wash in todays world. Too many checks and balances in place.

     And no, I didn't drink the Kool-aid. I'm very skeptickal and have issues that I disagree with GWB on. He's not perfect, but who among us is?

     It would be nice if we could all get on the same page for a change and make some real progress. Enough of the "gotcha" routine.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/29/2005 @ 4:56pm

130. Why is it that all right wing nut jobs always come back to the "Clinton lied too!" defense of the unbelievably corrupt Bush administration. Clinton lied about an affair, Bush lied about the need for war. Clinton's lie caused no deaths, Bush's multiple lies led to the death of nearly 2,000 American soldiers and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi men women and children. Rove is a proven liar and a trator to his country who has placed partisan politics above national security and should be fired, period. Should Bush be fired too? Probably, but let's take one trator at a time.

     Posted by novelguy2 at 07/29/2005 @ 5:00pm

131. "Clinton's lie caused no deaths"

     Yeah perhaps he didnt kill anyone...But ask Juanita Broderick and she will tell you LIBS she was brutally raped by that pervert Bubba. Proud of that??? Bush doesn't lie like you traitorous LIBS do..... But who cares what you nutbags think anyway

     Posted by aludra at 07/29/2005 @ 5:14pm

132. To JZimm:

     The Taliban regrouped in Afghanistan during the time that the Bushies were preparing to invade Iraq. I linked to an article to document that. Deal with it.

     We're winning - which is horrible news to you libs. The easiest way to piss off a Liberal is to defend the United States. How does it feel to be a party that has to hope for bad news or create your own BAD NEWs since you don't have any policies yourself.

     As a veteran of the US Army, I resent those remarks and any others that would impugn my patriotism simply because I happen to disagree with you on a good many political issues.

     We have a right to disagree and we should do so civilly. To suggest that one who disagrees with you would regard what ought to be good news for Americans as bad news is way out of line.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 5:15pm

133. So it was OK for Clinton to strike at Iraq in 1998 because he said they had WMD's? Was he telling the truth, or did Clinton lie?

     Posted by RonS at 07/29/2005 @ 5:15pm

134. What ever happened to Rove's male prostitute, who he had given white house press credentials and also spent nights sleeping over at the White House.

     Posted by danner99 at 07/29/2005 @ 5:16pm

135. I Blame Clinton for 9/11...He let BinLaden go free 3 times...So he indirectly killed 3000 Americans...Proud of that???

     Posted by aludra at 07/29/2005 @ 5:18pm

136. JZIMM, I read your post. Sorry, but I have to dissuade you from your knee-jerk reaction that I blindly agree with everything any Democrat does. Did you read my post? I made no apoligies for Kerry, and I did not vote for him either.

     As for the subtsance of Kerry's letter, where's the bogus evidence cited in his letter? The only potential I see is "And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them." I don't know what Kerry was privy to or not, but if he knew of the dubiousness of the intelligence and made such a concrete statement, than, fine, I agree, he played some role. The rest seems pretty general to me. It reads more like an op-ed article than a statement of facts. As I said in my previous post, if Bush had stuck more to this line of reasoning, I would have disagreed with going to war, but I couldn't attack him for being dishonest.

     We "Libs" may be whiners in your mind, but to the victor go the spoils, as well as the notion that "The buck stops here." No matter what letter Kerry may have wrote, who was giving state of the union addresses, press conferences, presentations at the UN? Oh, yeah the Bush administration. Who is our frickin' president and leader? Oh, yeah, Bush.

     So tell me JZIMM, I can be critical of a Dem like Kerry, how about you? What's your assesment of the job Bush has done as Commander-in-Chief? Please answer me that one. All you GOP drones seem do do is answer questions about your own president by pointing to Dems: "oohh!!! look what the Dems said too!!" Gimme a break! You got the presidency, so take the accountability that comes with it.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 5:20pm

137. Let me say that I do not blame Clinton for 9/11, and I think he was right to strike Iraq in 1998, as well as the strikes against Al Qaeda in the Sudan. Also, Americans of all different political beliefs, Republicans, Democrats, and Communists, were united against fascism during World War II and I wish we had that same unity today against the Islamic fascists.

     Posted by RonS at 07/29/2005 @ 5:22pm

138. "What's your assesment of the job Bush has done as Commander-in-Chief?"

     THE BEST PRESIDENT SINCE REAGAN AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS ONE OF OUR BEST PRESIDENTS OVERALL

     Posted by aludra at 07/29/2005 @ 5:24pm

139. RONS:

     What do the strikes Clinton ordered in 1998 have to do with whatever threat Iraq posed in 2003? I'm not justifying or condemning the 1998 strikes, I just don't see much relevance. Besides, the 1998 strikes was one finite action, not all-out war and occupation. Much different responses. Whatever intelligence was thought to justify action in 1998, Clinton did not commit to a full war. It seems to me that going that much farther in 2003 justified stronger evidence of a direct threat.

     And again, why are Clinton's actions or lack of honesty a genuine explanation for what Bush has done? It's like a hit-man defending himself by saying other people in his organization used to deal drugs. I may have defended Clinton during the Starr investigation on some counts, but I did not do it by bringing up Watergate. (This may be less directed to you RONS, and more at other recent posts, because at least you brought up the specificity of Clinton's strikes on Iraq, although I still disagree somewhat with the relevance)

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 5:47pm

140. Deludra and DARTH JIZZM back again!.....

     Two comic book heroes-with super powers of denial, and hate -speech. They have force fields of ignorance. No logic can penetrate, no reason is strong enough to disuade them! If all else fails they just put their fingers in their ears and sream I can't hear you over and over!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 5:50pm

141. HMAN23: No, I do not join with the others on the Right who bring up Clinton's scandals in order to defend Bush on Iraq, and I really do not understand what their point is, so I entirely agree with you there. But I do have a problem with the fact that the Left gave Clinton a pass on his military actions. Also, the point I was trying to make was that Clinton believed that Hussein had WMD's in 1998 and I do not think Clinton lied. And the difference between 1998 and 2003 is only five years. There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his WMD's during that time. (You can argue about allowing more time for inspections to work, but that is irrelevant to the "Bush lied" rhetoric). Also, had the 9/11 attacks occurred in 1998, I would hope that Clinton, believing what he did about Iraq and WMD's, would have committed to a full war against Iraq.

     Posted by RonS at 07/29/2005 @ 6:01pm

142. pride, "I don't think they wanted to simply go out kill a bunch of people."

     "wanted to" is overstating it, they did not care. ask madeline albright again if she thought it was worth it,,,,.that is; the lives lost from bombing. and she sat there with that faux thoughtfulness back then regarding the sanctions that killed more children than died in hiroshima*... and said "yes, the price was worth it". do you think that the arab world thought it was worth it? do you think that democrats in both houses recoiled at the statement? or ingnored it and had a steak and a martini?

     and, i'll reiterate: based on the material they had, saddam was not a threat that requried the kind of murderous rampage that followed from their cowardly capitulation to known lies from known liars.

     *stahl's point

     Posted by dabar at 07/29/2005 @ 6:08pm

143. ALUDRA:

     Do you care to elaborate? I figure because you USE ALL CAPS I WILL NEVER CONVERT YOU, but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 6:10pm

144. To RonS:

     Thank you for that post at 5:22. We have more common ground than you think.

     One of my problems with diverting resources from Afghanistan is that it detracted from a fight against Islamic fascists who present a genuine threat to us that Saddam, bad as he was, did not. One could argue all day that Saddam was not an Islamic fascist; of course, he was a secular fascist and a particularly brutal one. The one and only good thing about the invasion of Iraq is that he's gone. Obviously, I do not share any sentiment that Saddam's brutality by itself justified the invasion, but if there had been a bona fide threat from Saddam, then ousting him would have been high on the list of ways to deal with it.

     I think the two best things that could happen to Iraq right now are a withdrawal of foreign troops and somebody putting a bullet through Zarqawi's head. I have faith in the Iraqi people's ability to solve their own problems.

     Getting way off topic, I'm watching the situation in Iran cautiously. We are agreed that Iran should not have nukes. However, I am skeptical that military action will be wise. If you think Iraq has been no cakewalk, then consider:

     * Iran is over twice as large as Iraq geographically and has two and a half times the population;

     * While by no stretch of the imagination should Iran's Islamic republic be considered a democratic form of government, there is a concept of government at the consent of the governed that was not at all present in Saddam's Iraq. Consequently, there is even less reason to suppose US troops will be greeted as liberators by Iranians with roses and candy than there was to expect any such thing in Iraq. If anything, Iranians will feel an even greater need to resist a foreign occupation than have Iraqis.

     In addition, whatever credibility Mr. Bush and his aides had two and half years ago is a casualty of the Iraq invasion. As long as the neocons just seem to be itching for a fight, I'm not willing to take anything they say at face value. I would want any claims they make about Iran to be supported by solid evidence or independent verification.

     So, in light of this, I seek your views on how to proceed with Iran.

     Let me add that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, although he was wrong to downgrade the importance of terrorism prior to the attacks and wrong to do little or nothing about reports he received about Osama's plans in a daily briefing over a month prior to the attacks. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that more prudent measures from Mr. Bush prior to the attacks would have prevented them.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/29/2005 @ 6:23pm

145. Clinton got brought into the argument not because "He LIed Too" - Bush didn't lie. I was using Clinton as an example of what a Liar really looks like.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 6:26pm

146. This is like dumb and dumber! Did you really ask Deludra to elaborate. Are you a masochist? Are you really going to entertain that non-sense? You'all deserve each other......

     I'm out!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/29/2005 @ 6:30pm

147. RONS:

     I understand your point, but I guess we disagree. Assuming 9/11 happened in 1998, and the evidence Clinton had at the time was what it was (and he believed it), I do not think that 9/11 alone would justify an invasion. It seems now we are talking more about the doctrine of pre-emptive war to protect national security. I suspect we disagree about the rationale for applying the doctrine to nation-states, as opposed to pre-emptively eliminating terrorists posed to attack our interests, which I agree with. My difficulty is applying that doctrine, even taking 9/11 into account, to Iraq is that there was little evidence, if anything, to link Hussein with 9/11, certainly not the amount of justification that would warrant an invasion in my mind, whether we are talking about 1998 or 2003.

     Admittedly, I may have given Clinton a pass in 1998 based on the limited response it was, but I truly believe I would not have if his decision had been a war of the present scope. One of my current criticisms of Bush is the proportionality of his military response to the threat posed. But, I asked you for a reasoned response, and I appreciate you giving me one.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 6:36pm

148. No-nonsense:

     Just looking for a little humor beofre I head out.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/29/2005 @ 6:38pm

149. JACK RABBIT: Thanks for your reply. I am very happy to see that there are some on the Left here who understand the fight we are in. I entirely agree with you regarding Iran. I was fortunate years ago when I was living in Berlin to meet Iranian exiles, mostly Communists and Socialists. Surprisingly, they were not anti-American (I had expected them to be, with good reason). I think we need to encourage and support a peaceful regime change in Iran. The Iranian people have been moving away from the religious fanatics, and a military occupation would probably drive them back.

     Posted by RonS at 07/29/2005 @ 6:40pm

150. "You'all deserve each other......

     I'm out!"

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE 07/29/2005 @ 6:30pm

     Yeah Out of the closet. What a flamer. The man with the low sperm count continually referes to my screen name as Jizzm. Weird for a man to repeatedly talk about sperm with other men.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 8:12pm

151. Rons - I also agree about peacefule regime change in Iran. I also believe that a Democratic , and thriving Iraq will greatly expidite that process.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 8:14pm

152. Hman23- First of all, the reason I pointed to Clinton's past scandals was not to defend Bush. I don't believe Bush lied so I wasn't defending him. I was responding to Exhoosier who said:

     "George W. Bush is the biggest fraud, liar and crook EVER to inhabit the White House. He and Cheney should BOTH be impeached."

     Posted by EXHOOSIER24 07/29/2005 @ 4:15pm

     Talk about the Collective POTS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. That's how Clinto became a topic.

     It is so simple minded to say in (hindsite) "We didn't find WMDs therefore Bush Lied"

     Thats why I posted Kerrys comments as well. People on both sides of the spectrum thought there were WMDS or at least could be. What is so hard to understand?

     Bush didn't lie. I DO BELIEVE he was trying to make a case for going to war. He needed to. He acted out of duty to protect our country and to further our strategic interests. He had every right and legal justification due to Sadaams continued violations of the 1991 Gulf War Treaty, not to mention the fact that we thought that he did have WMD's and could sell them or give them to Al Quaeda {there may or may not have been a link between Sadaam and Al Quaeda, but regardless "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"}. The Possibility was too great to ignore.

     Add to that the possibility of spreading democracy to the middle east {which I believe is the ultimate weapon against terror} and the side benefit of removing a brutal, murdering, raping, chemical weapon using regime. WMDs were the the best reason (and even though wrong) and the reason the administration used the most. To me that reason in itself was enough. Bush could not sit by and HOPE that they didn't have WMDS and HOPE that they wouldn't give them to terrorists. I think Bush went to war for all of the above reasons that I listed above, Probably the 3 most important reasons are 1) The Danger of the POSSIBIlTY of Iraq obtaining and using or spreading WMDs 2) The opportunity to spread Democracy in the Middle east - which will ultimately be the death of radical Islam 3)The fact that we were justified to do so.

     Im not some simple idiot who believes that we invaded Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi's, although that is was a nice side benefit. And I am also not some simple idiot that believes we invaded Iraq for the Oil {just pull up the tankers and start pumping and we won't have to pay for oil - what a joke).

     You asked me:

     "JZIMM, I can be critical of a Dem like Kerry, how about you? What's your assesment of the job Bush has done as Commander-in-Chief? Please answer me that one. All you GOP drones seem do do is answer questions about your own president by pointing to Dems: "oohh!!! look what the Dems said too!!" Gimme a break! You got the presidency, so take the accountability that comes with it."

     I will answer -

     I think Overall Bush has done an excellent Job. My main complaint is that he hasn't done enough to secure our border with Mexico, but with the political atmosphere in this country, and the DANGER that losing an election and having the next Generation of Appeasement Minded Democratic leader in the Whitehouse during such a crucial time in history poses, I can understand the difficulties he faces with that subject.

     I hope that answers your question

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 8:56pm

153. Hman23 - Oh by the way. Another Critique of My Own would be that I think I would agree with Frist about Stem Cell Research.

     Am I just a simple blind lamb who thinks Bush can do no wrong?

     Posted by jzimm at 07/29/2005 @ 9:10pm

154. A friend (right wing)recently read some German history and asked me how could those people blindly follow Hitler. I just asked how can so many people blinly follow Bush. He became po'd and tried to tell me I was comparing Bush to Hitler. I tried to explain I was not comparing Bush to Hitler, just the followers.

     Posted by Friscodog at 07/29/2005 @ 11:39pm

155. Here here, Frisco. Sticks and stones, as far as I'm concerned. I think there is almost as much story to the attempts by certain trolls to hijack David's articles as there is to the content of the articles themselves. If there was no story here, Rover's minions wouldn't expend the brainpower. The amount of effort they put into their comments screams "Oh crap, we've gotta cover our asses and smear smear smear!" to anyone who's taken Psych 101. I'm actually kind of glad they don't realize this, because every post they submit just gives more credence to the story.

     Rock on, David.

     Posted by FeithHealer at 07/30/2005 @ 01:14am

156. Here here, Frisco. Sticks and stones, as far as I'm concerned. I think there is almost as much story in the attempts by certain trolls to hijack David's articles as there is to the content of the articles themselves. If there was no story here, Rover's minions wouldn't expend the brainpower. The amount of effort they put into their comments screams "Oh crap, we've gotta cover our asses and smear smear smear!" to anyone who's taken Psych 101. I'm actually kind of glad they don't realize this, because every post they submit just gives more credence to the story.

     Rock on, David.

     Posted by FeithHealer at 07/30/2005 @ 01:15am

157. Yeah Great Important Story. Earth Shattering. World Changing. I like the one the other day where Corn uncovered the fact that Plames Neighbors Didn't know her Occupation.

     Smear Smear and Psyche 101 - It's funny that from the Opposite viewpoint I can say the same. Rock On David. This is the best policy you libs have come up with in years..

     What you don't realize is that to the majority of americans you are making your desperation obvious. Whatever. You are the Intellectuals aren't you?

     Posted by jzimm at 07/30/2005 @ 02:42am

158. Feeling betrayed, lied to, is a common experience.

     Posted by gomo at 07/30/2005 @ 03:48am

159. Feeling betrayed, lied to, is a common experience.

     Posted by gomo at 07/30/2005 @ 03:48am

160. Feeling betrayed, lied to, is a common experience.

     Posted by gomo at 07/30/2005 @ 03:49am

161. Feeling betrayed, lied to, is a common experience.

     Posted by gomo at 07/30/2005 @ 03:49am

162. What kind of Red Stater Gacy do some of these troglodytes think they are, besides a recipient for the suppository of lies that their alimentary canal so willingly counter-clockwise swirls? The point is to think of a way to get out of the situation that the US has drawn themselves into via Administrational hubris. Surely even the slackjaws can see that. If those that can't look at the problems arisen from pro-Bush self-flagellation objectively, then they're not worth giving the steam off one's piss. There's things far more relevant and interesting than cancerous knuckle-draggers to be distracted by.

     Posted by TSOL at 07/30/2005 @ 04:47am

163. JZIMM: How are you the authority on what the "majority of Americans" think? What's your source for that? Considering how Bush's approval ratings are going in the tank, and there has been a shift in poll numbers indicating more and more poeple are beginning to question Bush's overall honesty and whether he deliberately mislead the public pre-war build-up, I'd say your proclimation rings rather hollow.

     BTW, I read you other post last night. I think from the majority of my other posts, you can deduce that I disagree with your justification for pre-emptive war based upon mere potential (No.1). Spreading democracy was never a justification before the war (No.2). Your last point (No. 3) is unconvicing because it is entirely circular.

     Posted by Hman23 at 07/30/2005 @ 09:55am

164. friscodog-

     Some difference between the followers of the Nazi Party And Bush Followers (Im embarased to have to point out for you but you obviously can't / won't see for yourself).

     The German population after WWII were suceptible to Nazi Nationalism, and Propoganda due to their devastating defeat and economic turmoil after WW1. They didn't have the same kind of open discourse and LIBERAL MEDIA like THIS BLOG to express their view or freedom of the Press that enables AMERICA HATERS such as you to express their child like shallow pieces of shit like you.

     Here's your rudimentary understanding. Hitler was a leader - Bush is a leader to (even though they are two totally different eras, different ideology, and morality, and goals of the respective "regimes")

     By the way if it were really good comparison wouldn't Bush have an approval rating of 85%? Does 55% of the voters = BLINDly Following Bush to you? Maybe to you only the Bush followers are the blind ones. You're an ignorant hack and we all know what you were insinuating with your comparison.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/30/2005 @ 10:05am

165. The ongoing saga of Darth JIZZM!

     In this episode we find Darth Jizz beating a dead horse. He's a little squirt so he has to get his magic ladder of hate so that he can rise to the occasion. He pounds and pounds on the dead horse and screams, " MY NAME IS JZIMM NOT JIZZM" , Why doesn't anyone respect me?

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/30/2005 @ 10:16am

166. Hman23 - I guess it's pretty obvious because Bush has been elected by a Majority of American's. At the time we invaded Iraq 62% of americans agreed with the decision to invade Iraq (are you reqiring a simple majority or a quorom????).

     Polls currently are about 50-50 but they change daily with the news reports. We are 1 bullet to the head of Zarqari or Bin Laden from another 10 point bump.

     Again my justification for was wasn't based on mere potential it was for all the reasons I mentioned.

     Of course spreading Democracy wasn't the public selling point for the war. WMD's were, and I don't mind that fact. but it still is another reason all in itself (but would have been justified if that were the only reason).

     I guess if you disagree with our Justification for invading Iraq then you are propbaly someone who believe there is never Justification for America to take pre-emptive action to defend herself.

     You would have us Hope that Sadaam didn't have WMDs when intelligence suggested otherwise (See Kerrys for proof that that was the belief in Washington), The we should HOPE that they didn't sell or Give Weapons or assistance to Al Quaeda, Then we can Hope that our homeland Security is good enough to stopp all terrorist activity.

     I guess you wouldn't be satisfied with our right to protect ourselves until there was a mushroom cloud over New York City.

     Sorry Hman23 - too much at stake. way too much. Grow a spine. We are winning.

     Posted by jzimm at 07/30/2005 @ 10:32am

167. GROW A SPINE!

     Don't worry about the brain though! Apparently the spine is all you need if your a rebublican......

     Check out this grammer! This is some of the worst sentence structure I have ever seen! It looks like a quote from G Dubious Bush himself! The first one isn't even a sentence is it?.....

     WMD's were, and I don't mind that fact. but it still is another reason all in itself (but would have been justified if that were the only reason).

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/30/2005 @ 10:46am

168. JIZZ'

     Spend an extra hour or two thinking about what your going to post! We all make typo's but damn! Look at this one ,........

     We are 1 bullet to the head of Zarqari or Bin Laden from another 10 point bump.......

     How about, "...... away from anther 10 point bump."

     A high school diploma would have helped in your effort to enlighten the world!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/30/2005 @ 11:03am

169. To No-Nonsense:

     Some people are just hopeless. They drank the neocon cool aid and drank deep. Bush and his didn't lie when they fixed facts around the policy and a quagmire is a sign of wise leadership and inevitable victory. And up is down and black is white.

     Obviously, we are living a world defined by Orwellian language where colonial occupation is liberation. For people like Bush and Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, words are just empty units of wind to be tossed about when it suits one's purpose. The more abstract the word -- like freedom, victory, sovereignty, or democracy -- the better to load it with one's own meaning.

     Victory? It looks more to me like what the Bushies are planning in Iraq is following the Aiken doctrine: Just declare victory and get out. I'm not really complaining. It's the best thing to do when there's no victory that can be achieved. Let's just hope what is achieved is good enough to keep terrorists contained.

     Democracy in Iraq? Humor me. I certainly hope it happens someday, but it won't if the neocons have anything to say about it. Democracy is a state citizenship is equal, universal and inalienable. The only democracy the neocons believe in the kind where the people can make any laws they want as long as those laws don't interfere with the right of transnational corporations to loot the national wealth. The only sovereignty the neocons believe in is the kind they handed over to Iraq a little over a year ago, where foreign troops guarantee the government's survival.

     The "democracy" emerging in Iraq looks very much to me like a kinder, gentler Islamic republic than the one next door in Iran. A state that defines the degree of a citizen's right to participate in public affairs by his adherence to a particular faith as defined by some council of stuffy old men is no democracy. However, it is a vast improvement over Saddam's brutal tyranny. Moreover, if the government of the new Iraq can wrest enough sovereignty from the neocons, void the decrees of the US colonial governor general Bremer and assert Iraqi control over Iraq's natural wealth, then it will also be one hell of a lot better than designs Bush and his aides for Iraq had when they went into it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/30/2005 @ 12:04pm

170. . . . and before No-Nonsense points out my typos . . .

     First paragraph:

     Some people are just hopeless. They drank the neocon cool aid and drank deep. Bush and his aides didn't lie when they fixed facts around the policy and a quagmire is a sign of wise leadership and inevitable victory. And up is down and black is white.

     Last paragraph:

     The "democracy" emerging in Iraq looks very much to me like a kinder, gentler Islamic republic than the one next door in Iran. A state that defines the degree of a citizen's right to participate in public affairs by his adherence to a particular faith as defined by some council of stuffy old men is no democracy. However, it is a vast improvement over Saddam's brutal tyranny. Moreover, if the government of the new Iraq can wrest enough sovereignty from the neocons, void the decrees of the US colonial governor general Bremer and assert Iraqi control over Iraq's natural wealth, then it will also be one hell of a lot better than designs Bush and his aides had for Iraq when they went into it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/30/2005 @ 12:21pm

171. Rabbit;

     Don't kid yourself! We went there for a reason and we're not leaving empty handed. Remember, they said the oil would pay for the war. Well, it's going to take a long time for Corporate America and the oil industry to set up shop and get things moving. They have to establish some level of security first and that is going to take some time, obviousely. This is all about good old fashioned imperialism and Globalism - the NEO-CON way! That means it's going to be messy because they're not real hot on planning!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/30/2005 @ 12:23pm

172. To No-nonsense:

     You're right. This is also in the back of my mind and should be in the back of everybody's mind: Is their idea of withdrawal or troop reduction any better than their idea of democracy, sovereignty or victory?

     `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

     Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

     `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

     `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

     --From Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/30/2005 @ 12:43pm

173. NN - thanks for pointing out my typos and grammer errors. I was in a rush to spend time with my Kids.

     Since we have already deduced that you are a flaming homo you wil never have to worry about that responsibilty.

     Still refering to me as Jizz? Seems that is all you have on your mind (and probably all over your face for that matter).

     That's funny. I expected the Iraq for OIL theory from you. That is the simple and mundane angle that I would expect for such an Intellectual "Fishing Guide" such as yourself (did that take a high school diploma?). You are a simple, low sperm count bafoon (is bafoon spelled with one "f" or 2? {Get your dictionary and let me know) of a fishing guide.

     I'm going to spend the day with my kids so don't take my absence personally. I will be back to read and laugh at you asnine comments this evening. Until then enjoy you weekend splitting you time between this blog and you other favorite site "Male Friend Finder".

     Posted by jzimm at 07/30/2005 @ 1:18pm

174. To No-Nonsense:

     I wouldn't bother responding to Mr. Zimm's 1:18 post. It's clear that he's only attempting to trap you into flame fest with a personal attack. It is very loathsome of him to behave so. On a more tightly moderated board than this seems to be, that post would most likely be removed and rightly so.

     If he can't come up with anything better than a McCarthyesque attack on the patriotism of anybody to the left of Attila the Hun or a suggestion that one's sexual orientation has some relevance to the argument one is making, then it is an indication that his own case is bankrupt. Desperate people resort to desperate measures -- like guilt by association and other red herrings.

     If Mr. Zimm is the man he claims to be, then he will be man enough to admit his behavior is out of line and apologize to you and the other participants of this discussion board.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/30/2005 @ 2:21pm

175. RABBIT:

     Jizz is just out of his league here. He's pathetic! He's drowning in his own avarice

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/30/2005 @ 2:38pm

176. Let's go easy on Jizzm - maybe his kids ain't done got been too right.

     Posted by TSOL at 07/30/2005 @ 2:59pm

177. First you say BUSH will do this: "Obviously, we are living a world defined by Orwellian language where colonial occupation is liberation."

     Then you say BUSH will do this: "Just declare victory and get out."

     Which is it NITWIT??? You LIBS can't make up your minds about anything anymore. What a pathetic pack of socialistic LOSERS you all are....

     Posted by aludra at 07/30/2005 @ 4:05pm

178. To FrankGrits:

     So much for the brave talk we hear from the rightist contingent here about they are going to just walk over us for the next generation or so. That talk is nothing more than bravely whistling past the graveyard.

     Bush is the most crooked president (for want of a better word) in US history and that is becoming more clear to more people. And, whether anyone on that rightist contingent believes it or not (or believes it and is just afraid to say it out loud) Bush and his aides misled the nation into a quagmire in Iraq with a pack of deliberate lies. That, too, is becoming more obvious to more people.

     Hopefully, the Democratic leadership that followed Terry McAuliffe will rise to the occasion in 2006 and take back the House and at least cut into the Republican majority in the Senate. Let's hope the days when the Democrats, led by McAuliffe, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory are past.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/30/2005 @ 5:06pm

179. "2006 and take back the House and at least cut into the Republican majority in the Senate."

     Who is swimming in the Clinton Kool-aid NOW?? Can't you see a ship sinking when your on it??? What delusional fools

     Posted by aludra at 07/30/2005 @ 6:10pm

180. Also, who gives a Rats Ass about LIBS polls anyway....Unlike Clinton who stuck his finger in the air whenever he needed to make a decision, Bush has convictions and doesn't worry about stupid polls. Remember it was your libs media saying Kerry was gonna trounce Bush in 04..Where is Kerry now, FRANCE????

     Posted by aludra at 07/30/2005 @ 6:12pm

181. It just shows the way polls questions are asked; especially about the eoconomy. I know Frankgrits and others are always slamming the economy, however the figures don't lie. This is close to the reflection that the general public gets from the media who constantly distorts the performance of our economy.

     Our economy is doing great. Yes, the deficit is still there but declining at a faster rate than forecast. Yes, we have a trade deficit that has been growing for nearly 30 years. However:

     1. Economy is growning the 2004-2005 at annual rate between 3.6 and 4.0%..which is considered robust.

     2. Unemployment is at 5% and declining

     3. Housing starts remain high and home ownership by African-Americans is at a record high

     4. Inflation remains low (even with high energy prices)

     5. Adjusted for inflation crude oil is still 35% below historic highs

     6. Wages and salaries have been on the rise and outpacing inflation since the 3rd quarter of 2004

     7. Our economy is still significantly outperforming Europe (with double digit unemployment and reduced productivity)

     8. Manufacturing is significantly up in production, hiring, wages, and reduction of inventories (based upon BLS, CBO, and Manufacturing Industry Analysis all in agreement).

     I am one conservative who smiles every day when I hear or read the naysayers about how bad things are and how the Dems are about to take back control and "turn things around".

     In 45 years of following and working in politics, I have only had 1 election where I was really off and 2 that nobody could figure.

     1960 with Kennedy-Nixon ----nobody knew how it would turn out

     1968 Nixon-Humphry---same thing

     In 1992 many of us conservatives bolted the party over the senior Bush (I voted American Taxpayer '92 and '96), but I thought Bush senior would still do better.

     Frankly, unless the Republicans run a moderate in '08, the Red States will once more carry the day....so, I will keep on smiling.

     Posted by love liberty at 07/30/2005 @ 7:33pm

182. Jack Rabbit - No I won't apologize to Nosense. I just sticking to a theme. nosense likes to refer to me as jizzm so why is it wrong for me to question his sexual preference?

     NO SENSE. If you're out there answer me this question.

     If Bush went to Iraq for oil what was his goal? To secure our strategic interests? To take over Iraqi oil fields? To drive up the price of oil and line his pockets somehow? To drive down the price of oil and improve our economy?

     Please! for once answer a question and show some depth behind your answer other than saying "Bush was an Oil Man - Iraq has Oil - we invaded Iraq for oil"

     I know that a direct question that will cause you to actually think (if that is possible) will take hours for you to be able to reply to but start seaching the web for your favorite canned answers, and let me know what you come up with. {I can imagine the panic going through your diminutive little mind, but breath deep and lets see what you've got

     Posted by jzimm at 07/30/2005 @ 7:52pm

183. What a delightful way to waste 45 minutes! Although there are some interesting comments -- even from/by some of the right-wing, nut-case troglodytes, most of the commentary is drivel. Regurgitation of RNC/WH/Limbuagh/O'Reilly "talking points" really doesn't pass muster as reasoned argument. FYI: "Down" is NOT "Up"; "Black is NOT "White"; "Right" is NOT "Left"; "War is NOT "Peace"; etc. (See Orwell, George: 1984) Obviously, if the Novak-Rove-Libby-Rice-Plame-Wilson issue/story was a "dead issue/story", then why are the sychophants busting a gut to convince everyone that it is? Truly amazing, and, up to a point, highly amusing!

     Posted by bobwalters at 07/30/2005 @ 7:59pm

184. Thank you, Mr. Walters. Let me try to get this back on topic

     For those who have forgotten, the topic is the investigation of the leak of a covert operative's identity.

     1. Any criminal indictments in this case will probably go no higher than Rove or Libby. If Bush or Cheney are indicted, I'll eat crow (and love every bite). However, Rove and Libby will sell their mothers before allowing any harm to come to Bush or Cheney. They are going to make sure Bush and Cheney's fingerprints are off the evidence and their deniability plausible.

     2. The case against the accused will be narrow. Much of the discussion on this thread and on most threads at The Nation on this topic is about whether the motivation for unmasking Mrs. Wilson involves the cover up how pre-war intelligence was fabricated; I believe it does, but so what? If a case brought against Rove or Libby under the Espionage Act can be proved at all, it could likely be proved without going too deep into that motive. The prosecutor will establish that the accused were angry at Ambassador Wilson over publishing his piece in The New York Times and that his wife was unmasked as a result of their campaign to discredit him; they had press contacts; they talked to journalists like Novak and Cooper on a regular basis. Motive, means, opportunity. Only a presidential pardon (unfortunately, all too likely) will save the accused from an extended vacation at Club Fed.

     3. The RNC talking points are red herrings. Most people here (your humble servant included) think that the notion that Rove was trying to prevent Cooper from printing a false story is a lot of steer manure. Well, let's just suppose it's true for a moment. It does Karl Rove absolutely no good. The law says it is a crime to unmask an undercover agent; it doesn't make an exception for cases like this. Rove or Libby or whoever is accused will have to defend himself by casting doubt on the prosecution's case, not asserting the nobility of his motives. If she were doing something improper, as the RNC talking points suggest (again, that's a lot of hooey, but we're suspending disbelief for the moment), he shouldn't have taken it to the press; he should have taken it to the DCI. If Rove couldn't take it to the DCI himself, he might have taken it to his boss, who, one might suppose, had access to the DCI.

     So, in the end, it's Bush survives, Rove fries and no one uncovers the big lies.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/30/2005 @ 8:58pm

185. Bob look at the major news sources. The story is dead. It's lame. But for you Libs it the next best thing to a sucessful terrorist attack.

     party on losers

     Posted by jzimm at 07/30/2005 @ 10:25pm

186. jzimm "child like shallow pieces of shit like you." Thanks, you make my point very well

     Posted by Friscodog at 07/30/2005 @ 11:27pm

187. " MY NAME IS JZIMM NOT JIZZM , I don't know why they make fun of me"! " You guy's are all homo's and losers"! ............

     I think this guy was left alone too long as a child!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/31/2005 @ 11:25am

188. " THE STORY IS DEAD, THE STORY IS DEAD, THE STORY IS DEAD , THE STORY IS DEAD I TELL YOU" .............

     " NOW , LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT......... CLINTON, CLINTON , CLINTON ,CLINTON " !

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/31/2005 @ 11:32am

189. 4 LINKS TO HOLOCAUST AMERICA

     1. Rove scandal – 2. London bombings – 3. Israeli/Zionist Jew agenda – 4. suicide bombs in America

     Context beginning July: World Tribunal on Iraq http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=falk Iraq war situation; outcry to BRING HOME THE TROOPS! – The problem of how to get by with what they have done. RUNNING FROM THEIR LIES

     The point: to prepare to confront those responsible for igniting global hatred of US and who intend to kill anyone who stands up for the truth about them.

     Links. 1. The Rove scandal was a side-show to call attention away from use of known falsehoods used to justify invasion of Iraq. (uranium buy from Niger; mobile bio-chemical weapons lab). John Bolton helped hype evidence in re Iraq and Iran to justify attack.

     The ‘leak' of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name and role in Joe Wilson's appointment to investigate the Niger uranium link was a coordinated manipulation of the media of communication to frame public discussion of the events Wilson's 7/6 article exposed. Mainstream media figures Novak (CNN), Russert (NBC). Cooper (TIME), Kristoff (NY Times), Pincus (WaPo), and Miller were leaked to, Miller having been already involved in colluding with Ahmed Chalabi to spread disinformation in re mobile bio-chemical labs.

     But this side show itself became too hot to handle. Ergo …

     2. London bombing I. -The attack was by native Britons who died in the blast, not necessarily suicide bombers, but possibly "dupes", according to authorities. Nevertheless, over objections by Scotland Yard, PM Blair announces "Suicide bombing is wrong whether in Israel, London or New York." The point is clearly to link suicide bombers in Israel to his country and America, going beyond what his intelligence confirmed.

     - US media echoes and amplifies the connection, repeatedly raising the spectre "When will it happen here?"

     -A "mastermind" is reported behind the "al Quada like" attack.

     Comment . The PR handling of the tragedy is consistent with it being another side show to spread the terror that started with the Palestinian intafada against Israel. The claim from many that it was in response to Blair's support of Bush's war in Iraq is heatedly – and absurdly –denied by 10 Downing St..

     London Bombing II.

     -clearly ‘masterminded' for maximum terror effect, with ominous date (7/7-7-21 – an English fortnight) associations. The ‘bombs' don't detonate, and the captured Muslim claims the intent was not to kill but ‘only' terrorize (as if he knew in advance that all of the detonation devices would fail? -- then why pack real explosives, with many more ‘found' in the rented car?).

     - those captured in London are displayed world wide with public nakedness. Decency prohibits such even for jailed criminals, and it is most humiliating to Muslims. But sexually titillating to male homosexual interests (and abhorred by those who hate them) so it drive the hate level upward..

     - The trail takes the investigators to Italy, as if to spread the terror without further killing. Ex-CIA director John McLaughlin is talking about "the new al Quaeda", with "one person" organizing "a few others" in "loosely organized cells" all around the globe. "The Global War on Terror", CNN's headline blares (Wolf Blitzer report, 12 am 7/31)

     Comment: this is consistent with those captured being plants arranged by the real masterminds (a jihidist "mastermind" named ‘Ibrahim" is announced, quickly) coordinating both attacks from deep behind the scenes, and deep inside the anti-terrorist agencies.

     3. Israeli/Zionist Jew link.

     Although no link whatever is established between the intent of those arrested for attacking to target Israeli/Zionist Jew interests, except through talk of suicide bombers, the mainstream media is saturated with it. Just as after 9/11 is isn't just America that is attacked, it is "America and Israel'; just as the DC sniper wasn't just gunning down Americans in the street prior to the '02 election, he was letting us see what Israeli's face all the time on a daily basis (said repeatedly, with empathy).

     -Who got Blair to overcall his own Scotland Yard men and link the first blasts to suicide bombers? This is consistent with a M16/Massad/CIA faction pushing their language in, at the top of the hierarchy, when those below know better. This is the same pattern in Iraq war buildup when Rumsfelt's Office of Special Plans boys, led by Douglas Feith, corrupted normal Pentagon intelligence, and the WHIG ("White House Iran Group") overcalled Wilson and many other's (even George Tenet' later admission) admonition "Don't say that; its wrong" on Iraq's alleged aluminum buy from Niger. (Led by John Bolton via Condaleeze Rice?)

     -The connection between Larry Franklin's ‘leak" of US materials on Iran to AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) is not just consistent with, but exemplifies the pattern of using government agencies to shape public perception in the interests of Israel's Zionist Jew faction. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=rozen They want to see the US overthrow Teheran and free Iran's people; bestow democracy, like in Iraq.) It should be called treason, and those involved given Jonathan Pollard sentence served in Guantanamo.

     -There remains the November '01 anthrax poisoning, the deadliest weaponized strain being sent to liberal Senators Leahy and Dashle (who apparently didn't mind all that much, to judge by the fuss the made. Or didn't make. If they didn't care enough about themselves to demand answers it looks like they might consider others potentially suffering the same.) The enclosed printed letters, ordinarily treated as a decisive forensic clue, unquestionably implicated a Zionist psychotic, masquerading as a mad Allah Akhbar chanting Islamist, linking Israel and America as targets. Why hasn't this been discussed by anyone in government or the mainstream lapdog media? Until it is, common sense can only assume the existence of traitor moles inside both, and everything else done in the name of "security" a staged side-show, with planted evidence.

     4. WHEN A SUICIDE BOMB HITS HOME, IT WILL INAUGURATE HOLOCAUST AMERICA

     Relief will have to be found from the devastation in Iraq soon. Those responsible for it are those devised George W. Bush's foreign policy ("neocons" – the Zionist Israeli Jew faction, helped by Catholics like Bill Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrict, Rudolf Giuliani), those who voted for him, those who executed the plans, and those who sold the lies to the public. (Karl Rove, lapdog media et al). And, the corporate fascist entities these individuals and groups serve.

     Not responsible will be: first, those who have opposed what has been known to be going on continuously, since the '00 election was stolen by Catholic judge Scalia, and Bush "bait –switched" compassion into ‘faith'. By right of being right, they should now emerge to take charge of the fall-back from Iraq, BEFORE THE SUICIDE BLAST. Whoever participated in any way, particularly sniveling Democrat party cowards who let John Kerry kill the anti-war movement in '04, are too compromised to be allowed government employment.

     When a suicide bomb blast goes off – and may all pray it won't pace Catholic FBI directly Mueller's declaration "its inevitable", who speaks ex cathedra on such matters if anyone does: may he be wrong, and judge according to higher law for having said it – there will be two kinds of people who die. One is those responsible for Iraq. I would judge, on principles of justice, that they have it coming. will get what they have meted out. The others will be killed by what they have opposed. Their families will be manipulated into blaming Arab/Muslim/Islamic militants, jihadists, fundamentalist radicals, led by Bin Laden, al-Zarquari, or whoever evil, vile, America-Israel hating terrorist-de-jure lies at hand. The true enemies of America, however, are the ones who gave the Muslims cause for seeking revenge; in the case of 9/11, George Bush Sr. for desecrating the Saudi Arabia home of Mecca, in contradiction to bin Laden and the laws of decent respect for other's religion. No people of any country could be expected not to exact revenge for that. The families of those killed in the next blast, who don't deserve it – and all citizens, turning against those who support the others led by his son – should blame them and their vehicle: the Republican party. Forever, implacably, unto death, which they have decreed.

     Posted by neverong at 07/31/2005 @ 8:59pm

190. When it comes to the topic of Karl Rove on Nation blogs, I tend to sit on the sidelines and watch.

     Why? Because many of you play so rough when it comes to this stuff that if you could, you'd turn things so bloody that it would be the equivalent of that scene in "Godfather II" where Michael Corleone has all of his rivals killed while attending his godson's christening. All family business would be settled and bodies would be scattered everywhere. I'm all for free speech, but put the knives down, kids.

     But I decided to weigh in because this is the umpteenth blog entry that I've seen on Rove, the Valerie Plame outing, and his part in it and I have one question.

     Should Rove go to jail, what will it mean, if anything?

     While I understand that what Mr. Rove is accused of is some pretty serious stuff, the question that I have is, what actually changes if he's made to do the perp walk for it? One of my favorite columnists is the San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Morford and he brought that point up recently. I tend to agree with his contention that Rove's arrest won't do anything to change the situation that this country finds itself in regarding Iraq, the economy or anything else for that matter. George W. Bush will still be president, John Roberts will probably be the next Supreme Court justice despite believing that putting a 12-year-old in handcuffs for eating a french fry on the Washington DC Metro is okay, and John Bolton will probably end up our ambassador to the United Nations, making our ostracization from the world community almost complete.

     In other words, whether Karl Rove gets to walk out of prison in a knitted poncho a la Martha Stewart means nothing in the end.

     If progressives are searching for something to concern themselves with, may I suggest damage control instead of the Rove preoccupation?

     Now what do I mean by damage control? Here's what I mean. Bush and his administration are with us until 2008 and Congress will be controlled by Republicans until at least 2006. Between now and then, a lot is going to happen that, let's face it, a lot of folks ain't going to like.

     But until 2006, progressives should ask how does one keep the damage that has been done and the damage yet to come to a minimum? How do you make it so that the battle that you'll need to fight when you get another shot at being in charge, (something that will happen because the pendulum that is this country tends to swing violently the other way when it's placed at one extreme or the other) isn't so uphill that you find you lack the strength?

     While I understand that putting Turd Blossom (and what grown man would really allow himself to be called that by anyone professing to be a friend?) in an orange jumpsuit would be a pleasant diversion to a lot of folks, it is just that, a diversion that keeps progressives from focusing on the real work at hand.

     While I appreciate being kept up to date on this matter, I also refuse to follow the bait and switch that it represents. In other words, I suggest that we start reading the entire newspaper, not just the front page.

     Posted by edwriter at 08/01/2005 @ 03:13am

191. EDWRITER.....you're right AND wrong.

     The "Rove snipe hunt" is a two-fold strategy. One, it gives the Hard Left something to do, while the Democrats manage Roberts' nomination and sign off on CAFTA, the Energy Bill, etc. (without worrying too much about being 'targetted' on it later).

     Two, it helps to cut into the Republican edge on "national security/defense", which has been a 30-40% point loser for the Dems since Jimmy Carter. Without "Rove damaged national security by 'outing' Valerie Plame", the Dems walk into 2006 the same way they did in 2002.

     Remember, if Max Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam vet, can be painted as "soft on terrorism" and LOSE....there's STILL something powerfully "wrong" about national security and Democrats. And even if it fails, it leaves Dems with the phrase "Questions still remain about Rove and...." for 2006.

     Posted by Mask at 08/01/2005 @ 10:01am

192. edwriter

     I suggest you dwell more on the front pages, which have told a continuous story of what happens when sick puppies like Rove/Guckert/Bolton/Shaivoheads run the country. If you don't see what "making Rove do the perp walk" would amount to (confronting the psychokiller Re-pubes) you must editorialize for the Cath-'o-Jew Times; or maybe the Outback Ostrich Press. You don't make any connections at all, do you. (e.g., Bolton apparently passed Valerie Plame/Wilson's bona fides up to Rice, now he confronts world governments for the US in the UN for the Zionist supremacists. If Rove was charged that would come out.) No wonder 85%+ of the word hates us. Its because of people like you. Who wouldn't.

     If (or When, according to Catholic FBI chief Mueller, speaking ex cathedra-- "its inevitable") your kind will be the ones who deserve to get killed, because you will have have contributed to bringing them here by your superciiious, peurile, psychokiller-friendly way of being. Too bad others who never had a chance to be will die too.

     "Whe hate is the truth, the truth is hate."

     Posted by neverong at 08/01/2005 @ 2:52pm

193. So is Neverong the voice of the fake Left, or the real Left?

     Posted by RonS at 08/01/2005 @ 4:44pm

194. Wow Neverwrong.

     Your response to my posting would indicate that when it comes to me, my politics or anything else regarding how I feel on topics regarding the Bush Administration, your name is a wee bit off.

     I'm no right winger by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, I'm someone that believes in thinking things through in totality. If that makes me wrongheaded in your eyes, I'm sorry.

     I also still say that while the public embarassment of Karl Rove and the Bush Administration might make folks feel pretty good in the short run, what's it going to mean in the long run? The focus should be on keeping the long run damage to a minimum so that it can be easily and quickly repaired when the time comes. I say that we should read beyond the front page of the newspaper because the little bits of news that are important but no one knows about until its too late to stop them are located there.

     I know that it's easier to focus on the lightening rod issues. But by doing so, you miss a whole lot of forest for the sake of the trees. When the forest is burning, chopping down a tree in the name of saving it doesn't mean jack.

     Posted by edwriter at 08/01/2005 @ 5:04pm

195. rons,

     i'd say s/he's of *a* left. but what's real/fake left anyway? it's clear that n.r. has a streak of democratic thread running through his rap. right or wrong about this biz is almost aside from the point/s that are clear: they are up to no good. really no good at all.

     i've said before, to my friends here in nyc, that the religious right complains about the decay of morals in the land of sodom (brooklyn, sanfrancisco, etal,)...but due to their lack of imagination, and experience with life, others, difference, the rest of the world... they don't know the half of it. if they knew what the people really do here -- with each other/s -- they'd faint.

     i suspect that to those of us who are civil types, those of us on a/the left--those who believe in decency, can't even begin to imagine what our leaders have been up to in sum. much like the right, our imagination prevents us from believing the extent of the behavior of these murderous psychopaths (not psychotic, sociopathic) because the truth would make us sick. i don't know if n.,r is wrong about this stuff, but i do think that the truth is worse than anything we want to know about.

     Posted by dabar at 08/01/2005 @ 6:27pm

196. "Your response to my posting would indicate that when it comes to me, my politics or anything else regarding how I feel on topics regarding the Bush Administration, your name is a wee bit off."

     So, how? (..do you 'feel' in the chimp et al?) Coy and shy on this point now goes with fatuous, vapid, supercillious peurile. (edwriters often mistake these for breadth of insight.)

     Anyone who isn't against them is for them, their choice, not mine or yours. Whine at your readers, not here. I don't think I'm off at all. You, or your type, are the ones responsible for the carnage, terror, suffering -- and the will-be bodies -- and how can you live with that?

     "I'm no right winger by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, I'm someone that believes in thinking things through in totality."

     Good God man. Then why don't you do it? (link: Rove-Bolton) If you have the will to think in terms of totalities, it must be incompetence or psychological deficit.

     Try this: think "Rovism". Like Karl Rove is a malignancy to be destroyed wherever found. You have the snake's head under your hoe. Let 'im go?

     Posted by neverong at 08/01/2005 @ 10:07pm

197. Also re "murderous psychopaths (Not psychotic, sociopathic)"

     No -- "sociopathic", in general, especially here, only has metaphysical application through unconscious group-fantasies of individuals, Societies are constructs with a life of their own only through individual's mental contents. When the unconscious group fantasies are widely shared, the group manifests the behavior that acts them out.

     The specific unc group-fantasies acted out by the chimp chumps are found in the psychology of the Schreber case discussed by Freud. He was a German judge of late 19th who went bug-ass nuts the day he was supposed to assume duty, hallucinating that God was was pursuing him to re-birth the race by anally raping him at night, which he experienced with 'voluptuousities". He was surely abused by his father, a noted "Pediatrician" in Leipsig, I think. Through its analysis Freud discovered the link beween paranoia and homosexuality.

     Anyone who reads his 1923 "The Economic Problem of Masochism" finds, near the end, a description of what the pictures of naked, faceless *sses stacked at Abu Ghraib represent -- the end product of that collective way of being of Judge Schreber neocons who fantasize Daddy is gonna bugger them if they don't bugger towelheads. "We have translated the words 'unconscious meaning of guilt' as meaning a need for punishment by some parental authority. Now we know that the wish to be beqten by trhe fatehr, which is so common, is closely connected witht he other wish, to have some passive (sexual) relatins with him, and is only a regressive distortion of thr latter" ..."These fantasies are in complete accord witht eh real conditions sought by the masochistric perverts.. the situations are in fact onlyu kind of make-beleive performance of the phantasies-- their manifest content is of being pinioned, bound, beaten, painfully whipped, defiled, degraded..."

     That is the psychosis that has been working its way out, historically, "under God" -- the God" of the abused Schreber chimp fetus worshippers. OH! LORD! GIMMED STRENGTH! Socially, the outcome is the passive - aggressive (sadistic/masochistic) nice people all around. They love everybody. Except, what they mean by "love" is what Pappy gave them up the yahhole, which they gladly offer you. What the mean by "love" is hate. They are the abused abusers.

     When hate is the truth, the truth is hate.

     Posted by neverong at 08/01/2005 @ 10:54pm

198. THE ABOVE RANTINGS ARE THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF HORSE MANURE I HAVE READ ON THIS CRAZY HOW FAR HAVE YOU PEOPLE GONE OVER THE CLIFF...AMAZING

     Posted by aludra at 08/01/2005 @ 11:06pm

199. Posted by dabar at 08/02/2005 @ 02:04am

200. laardoo The way you are is why the america deserves to get destroyed.

     Stay away from them all, people. They want to die.

     Posted by neverong at 08/02/2005 @ 07:34am

201. OK, now I understand. Neverong is the voice of the Left today.

     Posted by RonS at 08/02/2005 @ 08:11am

202. I'm sorry...but does anybody else find this a little "odd"?--

     "....sick puppies like Rove/Guckert/Bolton/Shaivoheads run the country. If you don't see what "making Rove do the perp walk" would amount to (confronting the psychokiller Re-pubes) you must editorialize for the Cath-'o-Jew Times; or maybe the Outback Ostrich Press. You don't make any connections at all, do you. (e.g., Bolton apparently passed Valerie Plame/Wilson's bona fides up to Rice, now he confronts world governments for the US in the UN for the Zionist supremacists. If Rove was charged that would come out.)" ----NEVERONG

     Posted by Mask at 08/02/2005 @ 09:05am

203. To RonS and Mask:

     Just to let you in a little secret, there are certain posters whose offerings I usually just pass over as worthless rants. While most of these ranters come from the right, not all of them do.

     Enough said.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/02/2005 @ 10:51am

204. Comment:

     "odd"? I'd guess. Condensed truth must sound that way to habitual liars, deniers, sycophants and spongebob squarepants pols.

     Scroll on by boyz. Have faith in God. He's always on the Left or Right of every issue.

     (when the "Left", so-called, gets itself some American balls, I will try to identify. Model: Joseph Stalin, fine looking man if there ever was one. We can be so lenient with traitors here, though, like he was.)

     Now lets go to Bolton, who is associated with CIA agent, Novak (remember the topic?)

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/tom-hayden/is-robert-novak-an-agency_3749.html

     Hayden belongs to the pathetic old Left, you may recall. ...no, I guess you don't, but I do. I was there. As beyond-liberal (but not SDS; just American -- difficult concept, I know) professor at an upstate liberal arts college, I was the only faculty member who stood on the step of the admnistration building in '70 to block military recruitment on campus. We did it. You have done nothing. Which seems to match what you are. Here is one of Mr. Sell-out's 'rants' on Arianna's.

     "I am distracted from the trials of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper because of the larger shadow of Robert Novak, whose apparent immunity from prosecution is unexplainable. Is Novak the protected asset of one of our intelligence agencies?

     It may be that his musings over the past 45 years merely parallels the inner world of the intelligence community, but his present protected status is eerie.

     He's not really a journalist, nor is he a party liner. But over the years there has been a pattern. I remember in the civil rights movement when he wrote 1963 columns alleging infiltration of the movement by "far left" elements (as recalled in his own recollections, May 15, 2003). Who were his sources?

     Then during the anti-Vietnam movement, he and partner Rowland Evans were the first to write that Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had drawn up a secret and sinister plan to "sabotage the war effort" by draft refusal, a "calculated effort to illegally undermine" the Johnson Administration. On cue, Senator Stennis of Mississippi rose on the floor the next day to ask the government to "jerk this movement up by the roots and grind it to bits." (Oct. 14, 1965 column, Herald Tribune). Such evidence is enough to indicate that Novak enjoys the company and perhaps is a fellow traveller of intelligence agency sources he's interviewed over the years. But it is well-known that the CIA and FBI have paid covert media "assets" over the years. Novak's recent bizarre silence, and his enjoyment of immunity despite being the source of Bush Administration leaks against Valerie Plame, point more clearly than ever to a special relationship which compromises his ethics as a journalist. Perhaps protecting their own, the media has done little to investigate Novak. It should begin now. Will anyone try to out Robert Novak, or would that reveal too much?"

     Way too much. They can't even allow it to be referred to.

     This link between Novak and the United States Central Sh*t-for-brains Agency goes over to Bolton's appointment, to which blog I turn. (Why wasn't Corn assigned to cover Bolton's backdoor insertion?)

     Posted by neverong at 08/02/2005 @ 2:14pm

205. Uh, NEVERONG....

     Isn't the CIA the "good guy" in this scandal?

     Posted by Mask at 08/02/2005 @ 4:18pm

206. neverong wrote: Hayden belongs to the pathetic old Left, you may recall. ...no, I guess you don't, but I do. I was there. As beyond-liberal (but not SDS; just American -- difficult concept, I know) professor at an upstate liberal arts college, I was the only faculty member who stood on the step of the admnistration building in '70 to block military recruitment on campus. We did it.

     Well, now I understand your hatred better. Knowing this brings up old memories of the bitterness many of us vets had because of people like you. Your treason against our nation was directly responsible for the deaths of many of my buddies over in Nam. The VC took great comfort and determined to stall the peace process because of people like you.

     It's a frightening thought that our educational system actually hired people with your mindset. I'm thankful I didn't have any professors with your hatred of America and everything that has made this nation great.

     Old radicals never die, they just get tenure.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/02/2005 @ 5:14pm

207. yikes......... ummm so about valarie and spying (left right debates degenerate so predictably)

     i am the only guy here that thinks if your really a moral liberal perhaps you wouldnt be so enflamed about outting a spy, i mean lefties (me included) have for so long spoken out against the cia and covert operations that it seems ridiculous to get all huffy now that a conservative leaked it. comeon guys lets stick to our guns. (i'll admitt though if its proved that the action was illegal, i perhaps wont be so sad if rove gets prosecuted, but my stance is kinda a party thing and i think the rest of the left might as well admitt it is for them too)

     xoxoxoxoxo

     Posted by la volte at 08/02/2005 @ 6:34pm

208. No, Vietnam vet, its the other way around.

     Its me who loves America, and liberty, and you who obeyed the masters instead of refusing to serve, who killed the best part of it. If you were over there, you don't even know what was going on here. The fact that when you got home you didn't see and turn against those who put you in that position shows you have no sense of what America even is -- or was, before your baby boomer generation ruined it, in obedience to the buggerers.

     It is twisted insanity to say we who tried to call off the killing were resposible for it. Who was responsible for it was Nixon Re=pubes, just like the one's responsible for this one are Bush and his supporters, who will have to be reckoned with like Hitler did the Jews at some point. May it be soon. Becaue now you have brought your gooks home -- of which you are lower, since they were fighting for their own country and you were fighting for nothing.

     Go to hell.

     Its not just memory. Its been the same thing all along, and its time for a reckoning. For all of it.

     Posted by neverong at 08/02/2005 @ 7:06pm

209. "Your treason against our nation was directly responsible for the deaths of many of my buddies over in Nam. The VC took great comfort and determined to stall the peace process because of people like you."

     i think it had more to do with the 1000+ year history of the vietnamese people fighting off one group of imperialist scumbags after another. your pink ass gets there... and all of a sudden there's war? wake up white people! they're better warriors because it's part of who they are/were. ya can't win a war with the heart of father-knows-best. oh, and on top of that, the deaths of my friend's parents, your friends, and all of the million/s(?) or so vietnamese (who are powmia too, bitch)... had to do with our leaders selling us out, not jane (as lofty and powerful as that hot chick was) fonda. dream on. want to blame someone? blame the people that sent you there.

     "It's a frightening thought that our educational system actually hired people with your mindset. I'm thankful I didn't have any professors with your hatred of America and everything that has made this nation great."

     don't know about neverong, but i don't hate america. love it. it's the politics, regressed spirtituality, and ahistoric worldview you embrace that i hate. hate america? you must be trippin'! fwiw, i'm a big fan of jefferson. you oughta go back and read him, carefully.

     Posted by dabar at 08/02/2005 @ 9:54pm

210. October 15, 1969 - The 'Moratorium' peace demonstration is held in Washington and several U.S. cities.

     Demonstration organizers had received praises from North Vietnam's Prime Minister Pham Van Dong, who stated in a letter to them "...may your fall offensive succeed splendidly," marking the first time Hanoi publicly acknowledged the American anti-war movement. Dong's comments infuriate American conservatives including Vice President Spiro Agnew who lambastes the protesters as Communist "dupes" comprised of "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."

     Regarding testimony of US POW's in North Vietnam and anti-war traitors:

     Jane Fonda wasn't the only one: Tom Hayden, Ramsey Clark and others had visited Hanoi and met with selected U.S. prisoners of war. Those prisoners who refused to see them were tortured.

     Colonel James Kasler said that those prisoners meeting with delegations who came to Hanoi were handed the questions and answers, and the prisoners had to go in and perform. He said the prisoners were tortured to rehearse what should be answered, and that many times the prisoners were tortured again, just to show the others what would happen to them if they failed at the conference.

     Commander John Fellows said, "I personally hope that the people who came to Hanoi representing the dissident groups in our country can some day be brought to trial on this, or forced to answer for this. I feel that I personally stayed two extra years because of the groups that kept pressing and pressing for a split in our country."

     Captain James Mulligan said, "If I had my way, I would personally like to see them tried, convicted, and sentenced for what they did to me and my friends in Hanoi. They tried to use my family against my country, and tried to deprive me of my legal rights under the Geneva Convention. And the media -- why do you think we're so disturbed by the New York Times? While Harrison Salisbury was sitting in Hanoi, me and other guys were being tortured. And I know that he knew nothing about it. He was completely duped."

     Captain Harry Jenkins said, "Probably the press is partly to blame for this -- the items that were covered, that were talked about. Americans are an impetuous people. We haven't the patience."

     Lieutenant Commander John McCain (now a U.S. senator from Arizona) said, "These people, Ramsey Clark, Tom Hayden, and Jane Fonda, were on the side of the North Vietnamese. I think she only saw eight selected prisoners. I was beaten unmercifully for refusing to meet with the visitors."

     Major Harold Kushner said, "I think the purposes of Fonda and Clark were to hurt the United States, to radicalize our young people, and to undermine our authority."

     Major Norman McDaniel said, "I think that the division on the war, what ever amount of it existed, did in fact prolong our stay there."

     Major Jon Reynolds said, "I have always maintained that the anti-war movement in the United States lengthened our stay. It was a source of strength to the North Vietnamese."

     Colonel Robinson Risner said, "I feel beyond any doubt that those people kept us in prison an extra year or two. Not just the people demonstrating, but the people who were downing or bad-mouthing our government and our policies. There is no doubt in my mind, and it was very evident to all of us, that the communist's spirit or morale went up and down along with the amount of demonstrations, protests, and anti-war movement back in the States. I could not see stopping aid to the countries I knew needed the aid. I could not see abandoning our friends and allies."

     Colonel Alan Brunstrom said, "We felt that any Westerners who showed up in Hanoi were on the other side. They gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and as far as I'm concerned, they were traitors."

     And the icing on the cake from the NV themselves:

     Dinh Ba Thi, the representative of North Vietnam in Paris, expressed his "warm thanks to all socialist countries of national independence and all peace and justice-loving peoples, including the American people who have supported and helped our people in its just struggle. The victory gained today is also theirs."

     Bui Tin, the colonel of the North Vietnamese Army who demanded and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, later talked about the war and said, "Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9:00 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war, and that she would struggle along with us."

     Now tell me how you traitors didn't help kill more of my buddies, friends I grew up with. The enemy loved you. And tell that to the many South Vietnames friends I have who saw their families slaughtered in the takeover by the NVA..I have listened to their stories of how they escaped the genocide of the communists. There are no feelings too strong for the wrongs committed by you and your fellow traitors.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/02/2005 @ 11:39pm

211. Is any of that supposed to show the Vietnam war was justified? What.

     The Vietnam war was started by Catholics -- the US and South Vietnam had two young, gungo-ho presidents, Kennedy and Diem, and the Catholics were beating back the Buddhists. It was an old missionary country, lots of Cathos in the north.

     This was not understood at the time, at all; not widely undestood since. It is spelled out by Avro Manhattan's excellent work Vietnam-Why We Went, if you can find it anymore. http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/vietwhygo.html

     Every war the US has got involved in abroad has had a Catholic origin. Who would have ever thought the Jews would pitch in with them and Reagan. Just shows the collective level, I guess. But I admired many in the 60's: Abbie Hoffman, Dylan, many others. Even then, though, on campus, there was a right-wing Zionist Jew contingent working on plans to tikkun their olam by selling arms to China, etc., and arranging to holocaust the Middle East. These were the Perles, Wolfowitches, Podwhoretzim, Krystalnackers, Feiths, Murdochs, Fincklesteins (Arthur), and a supporting cast of student artists, criminal moles, National Review 'Jew boys', if the term ever applied, and controllers of American mass media of communication from top to bottom. Spining their left and right, both sides, till it always comes up 50-50, take your pick, Zionist state of Israel always comes out on top. The Pope has forgiven them of their sins, already. And Catholic convert Novak, to stay on topic, is CIA.

     Posted by neverong at 08/03/2005 @ 12:51am

212. ll, i gots 3 words for you: dien bien phu

     sorry about being off topic.

     Posted by dabar at 08/03/2005 @ 09:35am

213. Liberty'

     You guy's are so intellectually challenged that you can't see the forest for the trees! You place your military code of loyalty above all else. If you could step back and be objective you would see that the very people like Kerry that you call traitors - were ultimately trying to reveal the insanity of the war and end the exploitation of loyal Americans like yourself. Just as they are today - our governemnt exploited the patriotism of fine young Americans and through their lives into the abyss! And those who dared to expose the reality that almost everyone recognizes today ( that VIET NAM was a sham ) - you call them traitors! That means that most of Americans must be traitors in your warped mind. Ultimately, the protesters in America brought pressure on Johnson and then Nixon that helped lead to the end of the war, and they saved the lives of guys just like you! So, call me a traitor! My first allegiance is to the truth and that means I have a Christian ( moral ) imperitive to end the senseless waste of human lives and it exceeds childish, fraternal loyalties......

     Lastly, has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe the enemy want's you to believe that protesters enbolden them so that you will turn on your own. Come on, are you really going to use the propaganda of your enemy to support such a stance? That is really sophamoric! If you bought it - it worked for them as simply way to cause division and it's still working today.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/03/2005 @ 11:02am

214. EXCUSE ME!.... I need to slow down.....

     ...... our governemnt exploited the patriotism of fine young Americans and threw their lives into the abyss.

     If you bought it - it worked for them as simply a way to cause division and it's a tactic that is still working today.....

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/03/2005 @ 1:35pm

215. Any blindly inflammatory comments posted here are probably placed there by a new group of propagandists who specifically ignore facts and post on sites such as this one to try and disredit reputations. Ignore them. Just like children, if you ignore their screaming long enough, they'll shut up. A true patriot would want to know the truth if their representatives did something dubious. It's just that simple. Please ignore the BOLD printed propaganda because someone's more than likely getting a pay check to annoy you. Don't fall for it.

     Posted by connorlrar at 08/03/2005 @ 5:15pm

216. Any blindly inflammatory comments posted here are probably placed there by a new group of propagandists who specifically ignore facts and post on sites such as this one to try and disredit reputations. Ignore them. Just like children, if you ignore their screaming long enough, they'll shut up. A true patriot would want to know the truth if their representatives did something dubious. It's just that simple. Please ignore the BOLD printed propaganda because someone's more than likely getting a pay check to annoy you. Don't fall for it.

     Posted by connorlrar at 08/03/2005 @ 5:20pm

217. You guy's are so intellectually challenged that you can't see the forest for the trees! You place your military code of loyalty above all else. If you could step back and be objective you would see that the very people like Kerry that you call traitors

     Well NN, try and bear with us since we are so stupid, I guess we need you to educate us if possible out of our ignorance. If I click my heels and promise to say 3 times "I love socialism", can I be accepted?

     I have stated before, I spent a little time in Vietnam Vets against the War from '71-'72; I met Kerry and I know what a traitor he was then. I don't need the Swift Boat vets to tell me, I heard him face to face with my own ears. I saw the stuff sent to our chapter from Kerry and the other leadership; pure marxist garbage. They threw me out when they found out I was actually a Republican.

     I have no respect for those misguided (and the many marxist) protestors who drove the US to wimp out on fighting a true war and abandoning millions of people to communism. The war was right and we should have fought to win and said we don't care what the protestors say, there is too much at stake. I thought Nixon would do it but he wanted too badly for the American people to love him and he went bonkers instead.

     At least with Reagan and Bush we have 2 presidents willing to show the world our toughness in adversity, not a Jimmy "forgive me for being lustful and weak" Carter.

     There are no monuments or holidays to the Neville Chamberlains of the world. They are just footnotes that leave a bad taste.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/04/2005 @ 12:59am

218. Posted by David Booth at 08/04/2005 @ 6:14pm

219. Maybe a historical perspective is in order. Some of it parallels what's happening today. Is history repeating itself??

     I saw this review.

     "Return of the "L" Word: A Liberal Vision for the New Century." by Douglas S. Massey, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University.

     Liberals often point to race as the wedge issue that broke apart the New Deal coalition, and of course they are right. As important as race is to understanding the collapse of liberalism, however, it is only half the story. Opposition to civil rights was only partly based on race. As paradoxical as it may seem, resistance was also based on class, for by the 1970s the ruling elites of the Democratic party had grown arrogant, self-righteous, and callous toward the sensibilities of the working class.

     As the civil rights movement shifted out of the south, liberal democrats naturally encountered resistance from entrenched social and political interests in northern cities. Rather than acknowledging the sacrifices that were being asked of working class whites and their political bosses, and attempting to reach a political accommodation that offered benefits to counterbalance them, liberal elites treated lower class opponents as racist obstructionists to be squelched using the powers of government. Rather than outlining a political argument to explain why desegregation was in their interests and providing money to ease the pain of transition, liberals turned to the courts and executive branch to force working class whites and local political bosses to accept whatever changes they mandated from above.

     The arrogance and self-righteousness of liberal elites manifested themselves in yet another way. The same liberal architects who promoted civil rights and social welfare also prosecuted a costly foreign war on the basis of lies, deception, and subterfuges that callously abused the faith and trust of the working class. As subsequent tapes and archives have clearly shown, liberals in the Johnson administration--including the president himself--manufactured an attack on U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authorization for military intervention in Viet Nam. Then they systematically lied to voters about the costs and consequences of that engagement and its ultimate prospects for success.

     The Vietnam War forcefully underscored the fact that liberal elites made the decisions while working class whites paid the price, thus reinforcing a politics of class resentment manipulated so effectively by conservative Republicans. The soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam were disproportionately drawn from the America's working and lower classes. The sons and daughters of upper middle class professionals--the people who held power, influence, and prestige in the Great Society--by and large did not serve in Vietnam. They avoided military service through a combination of student deferments, personal connections, and a skillful use of medical disabilities. Tellingly, once the system of student deferments was abandoned and the children of the upper middle class faced the real risk of being drafted through random assignment, direct U.S. participation in the war quickly ended.

     To blue collar workers in the north and poor whites in the south it looked like liberal lawmakers favored the war as long as someone else's children were serving and dying as soldiers, but as soon as their precious offspring were put at risk, they quickly ignored the sacrifices of the working classes, forgot about the 60,000 dead, and abandoned hundreds of POWs and MIAs in their haste to leave Vietnam. The ultimate result was the evolution of a working class mythology of sellout by unpatriotic liberal elites ("America haters"), epitomized cinematically by the movies and roles of Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, and Clint Eastwood, whose tag lines were appropriated to great political effect by Ronald Reagan.

     Aside from the betrayal of public trust, the Vietnam War also contributed to the demise of liberalism through fiscal means after 1968. Economically, Johnson's attempt to support guns and butter without raising taxes laid the foundation for inflationary spirals and stagflation in the 1970s. The 1973 oil boycott would have dealt a serious blow to the U.S. economy under any circumstances, but the fiscal excess of the Great Society combined with the Vietnam War turned what in Europe and Japan were severe but manageable recessions to a disastrous brew of inflation, unemployment, and long-term recession in the United States.

     A particular challenge to liberals stemmed from the fact that high rates of inflation in the 1970s produced rising nominal wages but declining spending power in real terms, causing a serious problem of "bracket creep" in the federal tax system. In the course of the 1970s, more and more Americans were pushed by inflation into income tax brackets that were originally intended to apply only to the very affluent. Middle income Americans were working harder for less money in real terms, but were being taxed at higher and higher rates.

     High inflation also brought about an escalation in the value of real assets, particularly housing. Families with modest incomes suddenly found themselves owning homes--and paying real estate taxes--far above what they could really afford. Rather than sympathizing with the plight of middle class families struggling to pay taxes in an era of stagflation, however, liberals viewed rising tax revenues as a source of easy money. Bracket creep and asset inflation offered liberal legislators a seemingly costless way to raise taxes steadily without ever voting to do so.

     But there were costs. The unwillingness of Democratic legislators to adjust tax brackets or accommodate the inflation of housing prices set the stage for a middle class tax revolt. As is often the case, the revolution began in California. By a large majority, voters in that state passed Proposition 13 to cap property taxes permanently at unrealistically low levels. Riding the wave of middle class anger and resentment, won a landslide victory over the hapless Jimmy Carter in 1980, and one of his first acts was to cut tax rates sharply and to reduce their progressivity. When combined with a massive increase in defense spending, these actions shut off the flow of money that had financed the expansion of liberalism. Following a path that led from intervention in Vietnam to hyperinflation to bracket creep, liberal Democrats, through a remarkable combination of arrogance and self-righteousness, dug their own graves in the 1970s and created the political conditions whereby conservatives could achieve their cherished goal of "de-funding" the New Deal.

     During the 1980s and 1990s, as liberal Democrats began to be driven from the public sphere by the politics of race, combined with their own self-righteous blindness and arrogance, they responded in unproductive ways. Liberals retreated to the confines of academia, where under the banner of postmodernism, deconstructionism, critical theory, or more popularly, "political correctness," they prosecuted what became known as the "culture wars." In the course of this new campaign, liberalism on campus became an Orwellian parody of itself, suppressing free expression to ensure liberal orthodoxy and seeking to instill through indoctrination what it could not achieve politically at the polls.

     To the delight of conservatives everywhere, liberals often ended up in attacking each other--seeking to unmask a white male as a closet racist, and ferreting out the last vestiges of racism, sexism, classism, and ageism wherever they might remain, even in the nation's most liberal quarters. Authors such as Dinesh D' Souza, Alan Bloom, Roger Kimball, and Robert Bork had a field day lampooning the tortured logic, breathless rhetoric, and impenetrable jargon offered up by the priesthood of postmodernism, further alienating liberals from their base among the poor and working classes. Anyone who has ever tried to digest a postmodern tract quickly realizes that contempt for the uninformed and un-elect is built into the corpus of critical social theory.

     Although liberals accomplished great things during the first three quarters of the 20th century, thereafter they stumbled badly. When they encountered resistance to black civil rights among poor and working class whites--some of it racially motivated some of it not--rather than dealing with the resistance politically, liberal elites sought to impose solutions from above by taking advantage of their privileged access to judicial and executive power. Then, rather than telling Americans honestly about the likely costs and consequences of a military intervention in Southeast Asia and trust them to make the correct decisions, they used lies and deception to trick voters into supporting an unwinnable war that was fought mostly by the poor and working classes; and when the war came too close to home, they quickly forgot about the lower class combatants and their sacrifices they had made. Then after liberals' attempt to support guns and butter set off hyperinflation to erode the real value of wages, they callously thought up new ways to spend the windfall of tax revenue rather than adjust tax brackets to relieve the unsustainable burden on the middle class. Finally, when faced with political revolt because of these misguided policies, they retreated into arcane ideologies to wage a rearguard cultural insurgency from the safety of the ivory tower. Is it any wonder that liberals lost the public trust?

     Posted by Infiniti at 08/05/2005 @ 01:10am

220. The public trust will be won back by honest hardworking blue collar liberals like myself who dont back either party out of some misguided kneejerk cheerleading response. It doesnt take anything more than an honest look at the situation in America and an fair and honest look at the administrations actions to see that they have gone way too far and are, as we speak, LOSING the public trust. 9/11 was a big boon for the Republican party- Well, they got their war, much good it will do America. For those of us who believe that this Administration is hurting America, we must continue on as we have, speaking openly and eloquently about the problems that Americans face and exposing hypocrisy on both sides of the fence. Yes, the democratic party would be stronger if they acted like Republicans and defended all their members no matter what their misdeeds. But by and large, We aren't going to do that, because we realize that this is not us against "them" the way that neocons like to whittle down every situation. We have to be true to ourselves and the American ideals of freedom and honesty. And to be honest, I cant really call myself a democrat, as I have never been affiliated with that party, only the Republican party as a younger, less wise man, (even was a dittohead for a little while- oh, the shame.) I did vote for Kerry, because some simple facts: Kerry WENT to VietNam. And any grunt that was there can tell you that makes a big distinction. He never had to go. We all know that. But he did. And he spoke out against it- cause it was a dumbass decision that killed 48,000 people on our side, i couldnt tell you how many vietnamese it killed, and all for nothing. Did losing in Viet Nam cause Communism to take over the planet? not quite. The point is, Republicans now control everything, and they have got no one to fight with but themselves. Everythings going to hell in a handbasket, and they are running out of liberals to blame it on... They have the power. So, unfortunately, we are forced to hold out for a few good republicans to look past their corporation-stuffed pockets, forget the Republican Team and focus on the UNITED STATES Team- So cross your fingers, keep getting the word out to the public that the CONSERVATIVE controlled media isnt, keep doing the good work. America is slowly waking up out of the sept 11 shock-induced coma it was in. Bush and the Republican party's free pass to loot the World for their benefit is almost over. As more and more regular joes find, the democratic party is the only party that gives a damn about THEM, not just their votes and their money.

     Posted by Fade at 08/05/2005 @ 11:06am

221. Great post, fade.

     Are you THE fade? -- as in "the butcher", off OD board (elsewhere, I presume)

     I thought you were an Iron Cross Bill Poole ete-gouger.

     What these pseudocons have done is narrowed the grammar of all issues to "Left or Right", put stoggies and patsies on both sides to make all cuts come out 50-50, then declare war on "extremism" as "terorist".

     THAT is what has happened. There must be not only a break with both parties, as you well see, but with the entire framing of political (even scientific, now) reality in their terms. The pathethic dems/libs -- as in the correct, but pablum based entries here (sorry, guys)-- simply don't have it in them to see through the grammar, or to even use its resources to forcefully mount a challenge (=play the reversal game, like Rove).

     This time, everyone who supported Bush after they knew he was lying has got to go down, and I mean hard.

     Posted by neverong at 08/05/2005 @ 1:44pm

222. This whole Valerie Wilson issue is so bizarre that I cannot imagine a good reason for the White House to leak the identity of a CIA agent. I mean, so what if Valerie Wilson's husband exposed the truth about yellow-cake uranium in Niger? Intelligence--even in the best of times--can be wrong. Yet to go to these lengths isn't just wrong--it's arrogance and stupidity multiplied on a grand scale. One can hope the American people are watching and will remember come election day...

     Posted by Uriah43 at 08/05/2005 @ 2:39pm

223. These connections, some in the open, others behind the scene, lead to the blog below (just finished; found at:http://sidthomas.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-ny-times-killed-steven-vincent.html

     1. Rove - Novak (established -- Novak likely CIA asset) 2. Novak - Larry Franklin ("Israel Lobbyists Facing Charges in Secrets Case" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/politics/05inquire.html?pagewanted=all) (not certain: "unnamed journalist" cited leaking to Franklin to Aipac)

     3. Aipac to AEI (American Interprise Institute - focus of sewage) to Bolton, to Steven Vincent ("Journalist Killed in Iraq (who) Admired Kerouac" - NY Times 8.3 -- naming Michael Rubin of AEI as mentor)...

     Thursday, August 04, 2005 How the NY Times killed Steven Vincent

     http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/opinion/31vincent.html?

     Original article that did him in:

     July 31, 2005 Switched Off in Basra By STEVEN VINCENT Basra, Iraq …… "Mufeed al-Mushashaee, the leader of a liberal political organization called the Shabanea Rebellion, told me that he felt that "the entire (police) force should be dissolved and replaced with people educated in human rights and democracy." "Unfortunately, this is precisely what the British aren't doing. Fearing to appear like colonial occupiers, they avoid any hint of ideological indoctrination: in my time with them, not once did I see an instructor explain such basics of democracy as the politically neutral role of the police in a civil society. Nor did I see anyone question the alarming number of religious posters on the walls of Basran police stations. When I asked British troops if the security sector reform strategy included measures to encourage cadets to identify with the national government rather than their neighborhood mosque, I received polite shrugs: not our job, mate." …… "Meanwhile, the British stand above the growing turmoil, refusing to challenge the Islamists' claim on the hearts and minds of police officers. This detachment angers many Basrans. "The British know what's happening but they are asleep, pretending they can simply establish security and leave behind democracy," said the police lieutenant who had told me of the assassinations. "Before such a government takes root here, we must experience a transformation of our minds." In other words, real security reform requires psychological as well as physical training…"

     Comment: In other words, sensitivity training. To take care of *ucking *ssholes like Vincent (after all, other people have religious convictions, too)…. they use a white Toyota Mark II. "An Iraqi police lieutenant, who for obvious reasons asked to remain anonymous, confirmed to me the widespread rumors that a few police officers are perpetrating many of the hundreds of assassinations - mostly of former Baath Party members - that take place in Basra each month. He told me that there is even a sort of "death car": a white Toyota Mark II that glides through the city streets, carrying off-duty police officers in the pay of extremist religious groups to their next assignment."

     That was Sunday. Wednesday we get: American Journalist Is Shot to Death in Iraq Plus: Journalist Killed in Iraq Admired Kerouac

     There's some meaty stuff in this one: "He was abducted in that city on Tuesday and was found dead off a highway with gunshot wounds to his head. "Vincent left for Iraq in the fall of 2003 to investigate the terror of daily life there. He paid his own way, traveling without bodyguards and staying for two months at a time. "Vincent ''liked being on the edge of intense experience,'' said friend Steven Mumford, a New Yorker who had been Vincent's roommate in Baghdad last year. … "Vincent was raised in California and had just graduated from Berkeley in 1980 with a degree in English ''when, heeding the siren call of the big city -- and my dream to become the next Jack Kerouac,'' he hitchhiked to New York …. ""Vincent had exposed himself to more danger than most journalists," said Michael Rubin, an Iraq expert for the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, who separately traveled some of the same Iraqi routes as Vincent and reviewed his book." --And …

     "Vincent had apparently feared for his safety, telling Mumford last month in an e-mail that he ''had a lot of information which, if published in a major venue, he could get killed for it,'' Mumford said." Enter the New York Times (back to top)

     ((Meanwhile, not to let him upstage the horror: further up the Tigris and Euphrates that weekend… Bomb Kills 14 U.S. Marines in Iraq)) *****

     Now, Thursday, comes: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/international/middleeast/04journalist.html

     U.S. Journalist Who Wrote About Police Corruption Is Abducted and Killed in Basra "…An officer in the Basra police department said Mr. Vincent had been working on an article about the role of policemen in the recent assassinations of former Baath Party officials. … "… (he) believed that the American-led invasion of Iraq was justified and part of a much larger campaign against what he called "Islamo-fascism." "But he also said he was deeply disappointed by the failure of the United States and Britain to enforce their visions of democracy here. It was the duty of journalists, he said, to expose the pitfalls of the rising tide of Shiite Islam in Iraq in order to awaken the Bush administration to the kind of nation it was helping to create."…. ***** Comment What has happened here is self-evident, justifying the title. But embedded in the story about the man who loved Art, Kerouac, intensity of ‘living on the edge' and dedicated to the good cause of freeing women from Shiite oppression, are these connections: American Enterprise Institute (et al)'s ongoing initiative to keep Basra's Shiite's from aligning with Iran in common cause against the threat from Israel and the United States. (its new president being falsely linked by this most, most insidious propaganda terrorists to the ‘78 hostage crisis)

     "Rubin believes Vincent was killed for his opinions: "He angered people by telling it like it is." Oh, yeah. Just like Jack Kerouac.

     Then there was this touch by the one-eyed one's cable news networks: use of the word "blogger". It was mentioned over and over by CNN/MSNBC as the reason he was killed, although nothing in the stories related to him blogging. Almost as if to say "this is what bloggers get; you blog this, you die". In other words, using Stephen Vincent's death, which they caused, to threaten whoever saw through it with murder if they put it up on-line. Lot ‘o bang for that thar buck.

     The over-all pattern here, shifting to the broader course of discussion, is the mentality of those who are behind the curtains of this production – the neocon Jews et. al. inside the NY Times, U.S. government, cultural grammar. It is the same as the abolitionist's rhetoric in the 1850's. The Southerner's were Basra, to Northron Rubin-Vincents. With their own ways, religious heritage, culture. But that demanded reform in the name of morality (blacks here become women over there). Well, maybe so. I don't ordinarily defend lynching. But there were men, some of them in my family background, who picked up their guns, endured incredible hardship, suffering and sacrifice of all dreams of a future, to let them* know it wasn't going to happen that way. I assume there are some of that cut of cloth in Basra today, maybe even in the Old South, underneath the Re-pube sell-outs to Likkud. At least I used to think…

     **** (excerpt: note use of "evangelical" which Southern Protestants have allowed Northern media dominated by Catholic and Jew religions to impose on them. I warned against this from '01 on. Give away the name for your heritage, give away control over what you are called … to those who will gladly kill in that name, then you will be to blame:

     http://www.us-civilwar.com/abolitionist.htm : Evangelical Influences

     "Although antislavery sentiment had existed during the American Revolution, and abolitionist Benjamin Lundy began his work early in the 19th century, the abolition movement did not reach crusading proportions until the 1830s. One of its mainsprings was the growing influence of evangelical religion, with its religious fervor, its moral urgency to end sinful practices, and its vision of human perfection. The preaching of Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor in New England and the religious revivals that began in W New York state in 1824 under Charles G. Finney and swept much of the North, created a powerful impulse toward social reform--emancipation of the slaves as well as temperance, foreign missions, and women's rights. Outstanding among Charles Finney's converts were Theodore D. Weld and the brothers Arthur Tappan and Lewis Tappan."

     Posted by jones at 08/05/2005 @ 3:32pm

224. nr,

     "What these pseudocons have done is narrowed the grammar of all issues to "Left or Right", put stoggies and patsies on both sides to make all cuts come out 50-50, then declare war on "extremism" as "terorist".

     i thought that this switch in terms was nothing more than an attempt to distance themselves from their once proud tag of extremism. as the dems push > prolife (jackson helping to violate terry/michael schiavo's constitutional rights) the reps are reading it right: this country is, in fact, not as religioustext-thumping as the media and blatheringheads on tv would have us believe. so. frist supports fed$ for murdering those little humonculouses clearly and visibly living inside stem-cells... bush with nothing to lose wants to relive scopes, and all of them are saying that the emeny is being an extremist. it is how the cabal is seen by an increasing # of people. i think they're hip to it.

     Posted by dabar at 08/05/2005 @ 4:55pm

225. oh, and a wager: this little imbecilic book (at least as it's author describes it) that is being trotted out on the talkies-- written by a certain quite closeted gay senator named rick santorum-- will come back to bite them in the ass. any takers?

     Posted by dabar at 08/05/2005 @ 4:58pm

226. dubar.. yep ... getting JJ aboard the shaivo/Guckert express was moral genius (cough), but I'm not sure I got your point. More Rove reversal imho, using other's ideals to kill them with (as if Jesse still had bloodbrain circulation).

     'suckpoop Santorum' he is known as where I* come from. Didn't know he had a REAL BOOK come out, though (cough).

     He's opus dei, by the way.

     (note on namechange: Jones is neverong -- they made me re-register and change the tag.)

     Posted by jones at 08/05/2005 @ 8:25pm

227. by defining extremism as something they say they oppose, they expect that they won't be viewed as "extremists" themselves. i think they're right to be worried about the public's associations of their deeds with an "out-there" politics. this is a word association plot. reps and dems do this..."war on extremists = them, not us" it's all advertising.....ya gotta hand it to them. they put a stripe on a piece of shit and sold it. until now. i think that their fear, which may be well founded (my hopefulness) is that their extremism is showing. it not the reality, stupid, it's the image. they take this stuff seriously--that's the rove expertise.

     i saw chomsky on this issue. maybe a bit of a stretch, or not, but he suggested that bush's malapropisms are staged. he's just a regular, amiable country boy right? or is it blue-blood, north-eastern, elite, ivy educated--probably-a-lot-more-articulate-than-he-lets-on kinda guy. i think there's something to this. it's all about sales. sales is all about word games and associations. there's much more on this, but it's late...

     Posted by dabar at 08/06/2005 @ 12:46am

228. DABAR, Gotta say...THAT is a new one!

     "Bush isn't inarticulate, he's cooly calculating his malapropisms as a sales technique." LOL! Chomsky just made "inoperative" nearly SIX years of liberal and Democrati paradigm concerning Bush.

     Maybe on purpose...given that the "Bush is dumb" thing hasn't WORKED in six years, maybe NOW claiming he's a diabolical genius who only ACTS like a "good ol' boy who stumbles over his words" WOULD give the Dems and libs an "out" for how he keeps beating them!

     I always thought that was a rather dumb "line" for them to follow....from elections to the Iraq War vote. "Bush is an idiot...but he defeats 'more intelligent' candidates like Gore and Kerry....AND he fooled Kerry, the Dems, etc into voting for war. Yet, Democrats are more intelligent than Dubya."????

     Posted by Mask at 08/06/2005 @ 08:15am

229. the left made the same mistake with reagan (other than the last few years when he became actually demented--that's not a lack intelligence, he was ill). being a sociopath is not an indication of cognitive deficit, it's a psychological problem.

     it's fairly common knowledge that when bush speaks to groups of business people, all that bbq eatin', nascar-y twang disappears. fwiw, i do not think he's a very sharp tack, he's a lazy thinker, simple minded in many ways, and a slithery opportunist. but innately stupid? probably not.

     Posted by dabar at 08/06/2005 @ 10:33am

230. "Bush is an idiot...but he defeats 'more intelligent' candidates like Gore and Kerry....AND he fooled Kerry, the Dems, etc into voting for war. Yet, Democrats are more intelligent than Dubya."????"

     sorry, missed this. no, not at all. my view is that not a single senator, congressperson, or candidate actually believed that saddam, in his state, was a real threat to our national security. a problem, maybe, but a threat? feh, not hardly. kerry had his reasons for voting for authorization (political expedience) and the neoconpeople had theirs (erl).

     Posted by dabar at 08/06/2005 @ 2:37pm

231. Great article Mr Corn. This subject really seems to bother the right wingers on this discussion group. It appears it is far from a dead story. Bush's house of cards is starting to fall down. Now Novak is on the run, the CIA disputes his rendition of a phone call. Then Bob conveniently has an outburst before being grilled on CNN. Sure hope Old Bob doesn't have a heart attack before this is all over. He can have one afterwards. Libby and Rove are in it up to their ears. Bush has now appointed one of his college buddies as Fitzgerald's new boss. Do you think the president wants to influence Fitzgeralds investigation?(sarcasm) Good old George Bush that hard working son of a bitch, off on another 5 week vacation. He has spent 20% of his term on vacation, a real work horse. What do you expect from someone who spent his time supporting the Vietnam war snorting coke, smoking dope and getting drunk. The president is a worse liar than Scott McClellan. Sorry I won't be staying for the spam onslaught. C'YA!!

     Posted by rjvanden at 08/06/2005 @ 10:08pm