Feingold Tunes in to Antiwar Sentiment

President Bush and US Senator Russ Feingold have taken dramatically different approaches to the traditional August break from Washington intrigues.

Bush has gone into hiding, while Feingold has gone to talk with Americans.

It should not come as much of a surprise that the man who has gotten in touch with the country's grassroots--Feingold--has recognized the need to set a timeline for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. Nor should it be shocking that aides to the man who has cut himself off from the national discourse--Bush--have trotted out tired old excuses for rejecting Feingold's proposal to set a December 2006 deadline for extracting US troops from the Middle East quagmire.

As he has in the past, Bush is spending August in seclusion, holed up behind the security fences that surround his ranch in rural Texas. According to official accounts, he is attempting to read a book about salt and to learn how to ride a bike without falling off. Unofficially, but quite obviously, he has spent most of his time dodging requests for face time with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of one of the more than 1,800 Americans killed in the President's ill-fated invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Feingold has gone a completely different route from Bush. He has traveled extensively, and made himself available to anyone who wants to talk with him about the Iraq imbroglio at more than fifteen town-hall meetings in his home state. What Feingold has heard during listening sessions with constituents across the heartland state of Wisconsin has emboldened him to become the first senator to call for setting a date to end the occupation and bring the troops home.

"I call what I am doing breaking the taboo," the Democrat who is being boomed as a potential 2008 presidential candidate said. "[Most] senators have been intimidated and are not talking about a time frame. We have to make it safe to go in the water and discuss this. A person shouldn't be accused of not supporting troops just because we want some clarity on our mission in Iraq."

Of course, the Bush Administration--which has resisted all efforts to provide clarity as regards the Iraq mission--dismissed Feingold's call by claiming that "It would...send the wrong message to our troops. We are serious about completing the mission, and they need to know that they have our full support. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who, as the President has said many times, would just then have to wait us out."

In fact, there is nothing further from the truth. As Feingold noted, the former chief of Australia's armed forces, General Peter Cosgrove, has been arguing that the foreign troop presence has fueled terrorist activity in Iraq. Noting that Cosgrove has called for foreign troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2006, Feingold said, "Those remarks were constructive, and we need to be having this discussion here at home. I am putting a vision of when this ends on the table in the hope that we can get the focus back on our top priority, and that is keeping America and the American people safe."

While the White House bumbles deeper into the quagmire, it is Feingold who says he wants to take steps to establish an exit strategy that will "undermine the recruiting efforts and the unity of insurgents, encourage Iraqi ownership of the transition process and bolster the legitimacy of the Iraqi authorities, reassure the American people that our Iraq policy is not directionless and, most importantly, create space for a broader discussion of our real national security priorities."

The differences between the Bush and Feingold approaches are easily explained: Bush refuses to listen even to the concerns of the grieving mothers of America's war dead. Feingold, on the other hand, has listened closely enough to recognize that the American people want a way out of the Iraq mess. And while the Wisconsin senator's way may not be the perfect route--as he readily admits--it provides the impetus for a real debate that honest observers of the crisis have been longing for.

Comments (341)

1. Russ Feingold and other principled members of Congress should press for a prompt withdrawal from Iraq, but they shouldn't stop there. They should launch a sweeping investigation into our flawed national priorities and penchant for military adventurism.

   It is outrageous that Congress can "find" nearly $300 billion to spend on a very dubious war, but never adequately funds education, drug treatment, health care, port and border security, affordable housing programs, energy independence efforts or a myriad other worthwhile programs.

   Sure, we eventually will extract ourselves from the Iraq quagmire, but the debacle will re-occur in a few years in some other country unless we change the way the U.S. government does business.

   Feingold and others in Congress should demand fundamental changes in presidential war-making powers, in oversight of the military procurement process, in regulation of lobbyists, in campaign finance rules and congressional ethics guidelines. Only by addressing the roots of these problems can Congress hope to improve the way our nation is governed.

   Posted by aamurphy at 08/19/2005 @ 5:29pm

2. I don't know if it's insanity, but it certainly is dreamy. This is a nice complement to Bush's plan which is no less insane, but certainly a nightmare.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 5:41pm

3. AAMURPHY has done what I could do: list a bunch of things we'd love to see happen without a clue about budgetary issues. FREIHEIT, I wonder if you could speak to the constitutional issues that are in need of a shredder?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 5:57pm

4. FREHEIT----- Excellent post---a fine job of showing that the ignorant, and in some cases childish mud slinging by LITTLE JOHNNY NICHOLS is nothing more than liberal propaganda for the masses. I'm suprised Fidel Castro hasn't hired him as his publicist.--- Len

   Posted by Len Mosse at 08/19/2005 @ 6:01pm

5. I love posts that are reflexively ironic. Well done, Len.

   Nichols could have written his essay in a more mature fashion, pointing out the contradictions of Bush--the what, me worry Bush and the we're at war Bush. So what? Too often those of us who post on this site are too busy doing close readings of each other, looking for little gotcha moments, to get the gyst of an essay or argument. There's really not much to this, honestly. A Democratic senator, who often dares to move to the left on key issues, is actually trying to do so in Iraq. Nearly 3 years late. It seems more pathetic than anything to get worked up about.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 6:08pm

6. Ahh, but Frist would hand over the war powers act to the Prez (especially since he envisions the title in front of his name), while I imagine Mr. Murphy would rather Congress do its job. Not that it has in the last generation or more.

   Just mentioning the WTC and dreamy in the same sentence has literally brought a tear to my eyes.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 6:30pm

7. Freiheit,

   First, I'd like to extend my compliments to you here for taking parts of the article and addressing them rather than blowing out unsubstantiated generalities.

   Second, a counter on this:

   And wasn't one well-publicized strategy of US action in Iraq, to "fight the terrorists there, not here?"

   Uh, well, yes it was, but, you see, there was a small problem with that: terrorists were not operating in Iraq before the war. Due to the weakly-guarded borders, terrorists have been able to slip over to Iraq with the prospect of killing some Americans quite an inviting one to them. And now, Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. So how, exactly, does turning a country into a terrorist-breeding ground deter terrorism? Afghanistan was the correct place for this ""fight the terrorists there, not here"; not Iraq.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 6:36pm

8. Wait. Perhaps I've given you too much credit above:

   But hey, an Australian General said!!!

   Hmmmm, so because it's an Australian general than his statement is automatically unsubstantial? But a piss-poor, lying-through-his-teeth statement from an American VP (you know, the insurgency is in its "last throes") is automatically substantial? Well, with our troops' lives at stake over this, it's so good to know you're not placing politics above their lives.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 6:44pm

9. No, no Constitutional issues needing the shredder. I was pointing out the statement, Feingold and others in Congress should demand fundamental changes in presidential war-making powers...

   Perfectly reasonable being that Bush & Co. lied this country into war.

   That means ammending the Constitution, I think.

   I'm guessing you didn't have a problem with this concerning the gay-marriage ban.

   Replacing the name Feingold with Frist would bring out the shredder on that idea on this blog.

   Well, let's compare the two: one amendment would prohibit two people who love each other from marrying; the other would make it harder for a president to lie the country into a war. I'll leave it to everyone's conscience which amendment would be best for America.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 6:54pm

10. Freiheit, there are no Constitutional Presidential war-making powers; only Congress can declare war. I think the point (not speaking for anyone) is that we've shifted away from the Constitution and there needs to be some fundamental shifting back toward it.

    Posted by Turk33 at 08/19/2005 @ 6:55pm

11. FREIHEIT, Anyone who has read the US Constitution with an effort to remember what is in it (like you and I have) can easily google US Constitution, go to one of the 10 zillion websites returned, and cut and paste the appropriate clause(s). Too easy, really. I much prefer arguing over something that requires thinking through an issue and drawing intelligent conclusions. It's one reason I enjoy the posts of Kevin Collins so much. HMAN23 is good too, and LL is one of the best of the conservatives.

    You'll get no argument from me about our current efforts in Afghanistan, by the way.

    Which makes me think of something else, and I am just musing out loud here since the thought just occurred to me and I haven't made up my mind yet. But here goes: Iraq is not so much a parallel of Viet Nam as it is a parallel of the Soviet situation in Afghanistan. How so? Well, we trained and equipped the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets there. Among their numbers were future Al Qaeda terrorists, including bin Laden. If the Soviets hadn't gone into Afghanistan, it would not have become a "breeding ground" for terrorists.

    Nowadays, the Iranians have turned the tables on us. They are training and supplying insurgents in Iraq, which are fighting a foreign superpower's invasion. Thus, like the Soviets did 23 years before, we have added to the terrorism problem.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 7:38pm

12. It is maybe just a matter of semantics, but I think it is safe to say that Saddam Hussein WAS a terrorist and a significant problem for the region.

    A "problem", you write but not a "threat". Could that be because he didn't possess WMD and was crippled by years of sanctions and inspections? Doesn't make Iraq, then, much of a threat to the U.S., much less the region. As for the Hussein/terrorist label, it's no doubt conveninent because it justifies in your mind the war, but in reality al Qaeda and Hussein had no operational ties, and Hussein was a brutal dictator rather than a terrorist. If you want terrorist countries, try al Qaeda-protecting countries like Syria and Iran and Pakistan.

    Well, we will differ on the breeding ground theory.

    That's our right.

    I haven't found credible statistics to deny or support that theory yet.

    And the sites where you haven't found "credible statistics"?

    I will say that the characterization, "breeding ground" is cool.

    I actually find it frightening, but to each his own.

    It fits the Rumsfeld "drain the swamp" metaphor nicely.

    It actually fits when applied to countries that harbor al Qaeda like Afghanistan and Iran and Syria, not Iraq. But, hey, let's start a war so they can actually come over to Iraq so we can say there are now terrorists in Iraq so we can say it's terrorist-related, so even though another country has al Qaeda operating in it rather than one less, that's progress!

    I'm guessing you didn't have a problem with [ammending the Constitution] concerning the gay-marriage ban.

    Huh? How'd gay marriage get in here?! LOL!

    My fault. Should have read "proposing amending the Constitution".

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 7:41pm

13. Kevin, ACLU on line one! You keep forgetting to include the word "allegedly" in that statement.

    Did Bush & Co say Iraq "allegedly" had WMD? And do I really need to post those lies again just so you can ignore them because you have nothing valid to counter them with? Every time you make me post them, the more people see them. Better think before you write that again.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 7:45pm

14. I applaud Russ Feingold for his "taboo breaking" efforts but feel that he has not adequately addressed the question of urgency. Talking about beginning the withdrawal of American armed forces from Iraq at the end of 2006 completely ignores the rapid unraveling of our military, diplomatic, and economic position in the world today. America doesn't have another year-and-a-half to waste just starting to get unstuck from President Bush's terrible twin tar babies: Iraq and Afghanistan. Where does this awful -- indeed, criminally negligent -- sense of complacency originate?

    I served in Vietnam during the waning years of our tortured, drawn-out withdrawal from that long-lost crusade. As a result of that experience, I clearly recognize the current symptoms of disconnect and disarray in American military policy. As some in America remember, the public turned against the Vietnam War in early 1968, long before our elected representatives got around to finally cutting off funds for the misadventure in 1975. I suppose, therefore, that even though the public has now soured on the whole sorry business in Iraq -- if not Afghanistan, as well -- our elected representatives somehow feel that they still have years and years to fool around looking for their own electoral parachutes before they finally bail out to avoid crashing in the plane with the rest of us.

    Our erstwhile "leaders" -- and we hapless "followers," too -- no longer live in a world that contains such luxurious resources (in time, blood, and money) to waste dawdling while we devolve into debacle. We haven't yet reached the disastrous stage of Dunkirk, Stalingrad, or Dien Bien Phu, of course; but then, those disasters only happened because the British, Germans, and French never bothered to consider their possibility and plan for them. Given the daily deterioration of our situation in the Middle East today, the Iraqis and Afghans (with help from the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and probably the Europeans, too) will simply kick us out of their countries if we don't muster the intelligence and wisdom to leave while we still have something to salvage. A year or two from now, we will have nothing but more blood and billions squandered to show for our folly. We don't have that much time left. Russ Feingold has begun to sense this, while George W. Bush just goes on dreaming of "whatever" and "no matter how long" that "whatever" might take.

    We need to start our withdrawal from Iraq NOW and plan to complete that withdrawal by December of this year, 2005, to coincide precisely with the Iraqi elections establishing their brand new "sovereign" government. We and they can do this and should. Afghanistan can come next -- early next year. Retired General Barry McCaffery has stated that "the wheels will come off" our military by summer of next year if we just keep on "staying the course" (or "curse"). We really ought not to wait for that to happen.

    Posted by Michael Murry at 08/19/2005 @ 8:33pm

15. I merely found it odd that Nichols would quote a foreign military source that fit his argument rather than a US military source. I wonder why...

    Dude, would it have mattered if he'd have quoted a U.S. one? There have been U.S. military brass who've bitched about there not being enough troops in Iraq from the get-go, and Bushies didn't pay it any mind. It was also U.S. brass that contradicted Cheney's false "last throes" claim, yet, again, this has been brushed off, too.

    You're putting too much mileage on that "last throes" quote.

    And that's because...?

    Most Americans can see the challenges in Iraq, and it being, well, like a WAR.

    Yes, so how does this give credence to Cheney's "last throes" statement?

    (War SUCKS by the way.)

    Tell that to Bush: After saying the U.S. was going to war, when the cameras were off he pumped his fists and muttered "Feels good."

    The implied credibility given to the insurgency is wrong.

    And how exactly is it wrong?

    Attempts to French-Resistance up the terrorists is a ballot box loser.

    Oh, I hate it when you check your brain at the door when spewing nonsensical stuff like this. Leveling with the American people about the actual danger our troops are facing over there rather than whitewashing things with "last throes" crapola will resonate with a nation that is growing more and more despondent with the war. And, please, could you save the knee-jerk French stuff for Limbaugh?

    Don't think for moment I haven't read those posts many times, Kevin. It is hoping to find that kind of information that brought me here.

    Then dispute them! Do some looking-up and come back with something that validly counters them. Not even LL, who usually doesn't back down, has backed down in challenging them.

    But, compelling evidence doesn't mean it is true. Proof, Kevin. We need a blue dress. Not conspiracy theories.

    You don't need a conviction from a jury to offer an opinion on what I've presented to you. If you agree with me, say so; if not, say so why. You keep breezing over this in an attempt to not address it, and it fools no one. C'mon, I admit to LL when I'm wrong and when he's made valid points I can't counter. Try doing the same.

    But Islamic Fundamentalism will still be there

    With the Iraq war serving as a recruitment tool for and a breeding ground for terrorists, no kidding.

    laughing outright at our - to them - foolish concept of collateral damage.

    Are you referring to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, or dead troops, both? And how is it "foolish"?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 9:04pm

16. It is interesting.

    What benefit accrues from the president setting a timeline?

    First, it takes away any flexibility to deal with the unexpected. And everything in Iraq has been unexpected. I know people thought it would be difficult, but as regards specifics, I think everyone has been surprised. And clearly the US military has been caught flat footed from time to time.

    That helps those who oppose the president. The more he pins himself down, the more he gets whipped by the left.

    It also helps some other people. But really, that is the reason for all the desire to see a timetable.

    That this is patently obvious is the reason that the democrats have held off until now. Not because they are nice, but because they don't wish to be viewed as total jerks, who are only motivated by politics.

    But as the left continues to chip away at the reasoning ability of the public at large, it becomes more possible.

    That is my conclusion. It isn't about Iraq. It is all local politics.

    Any reasonable alternatives to propose?

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 9:05pm

17. Really, if there is antying goo to come froom Iraq, it may be the recognition on the part of the majority that terrorism is ineffective, and a bad strategy.

    We can hope so.

    Terrorism isn't a random spontaneous expression of rage and hatred. It is a political ,and to some extent military, tool used to advance the agenda of those who sponsor it.

    In Iraq, it appears to be failing.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 9:09pm

18. Ok, one more time (hopefully) to educate liberals about the Presidential authority for war.

    Liberals in Congress during the Vietnam War decided that going back to their own in Truman, Presidents had gotten "out of control" with undeclared wars. Truman in Korea, Kennedy in Vietnam and escalated by Johnson and Nixon. So they drew up what they thought was a way to control Presidents and stop wars they disagreed with from going forward for any extended period.

    Hence, we have the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This has become the true constitutional legislation controlling the introduction and continuation of wars by Congress over "presidential excess of authority". But Every President (with perhaps the exception of the 2 bunglers, Ford and Carter) have ignored the intent of Congress and utilized the vast authority it actually gives a president. You know like Reagan in Granada, Bush I in Panama, Clinton in Kosovo, and now our current President in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Now note please for education purposes the language of the WPR:

    http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

    SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

    REPORTING

    Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-- (1)into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2)into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) (A)the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B)the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C)the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

    Sec. 4. (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

    Sec. 4. (c)

    Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

    CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

    SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

    SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

    SEC. 5. (c)

    Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

    Congress has the authority and power to cut off the funding for the use of military personnel in a war in a single vote. When they continue the funding, they are continuing according the WPR to authorize the president's actions.

    Summary of the Provisions

    Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

    Questions about constitutionality

    The Supreme Court has struck down the 'legislative veto' embodied in Section 5(c) of the Resolution in the case INS v. Chadha (1983). However, in every instance since the act was passed, the President has requested and received authorization for the use of force (though not a formal declaration of war) consistent with the provisions of the resolution. The reports to Congress required of the President have been drafted to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the Presidential position that the Resolution is unconsitutional.

    In other words, this war is legal. The constant wrangling here about tubes, yellow cake, Al Qaeda, etc, are meaningless. Bush met his obligation to consult with Congress (it doesn't require him to present any evidence documenting his reasons), and Congress has continued to fund the war effort. If Congress was truly convinced this is an illegal war, exercise their constitutional duties and carry out the instructions they laid in in the WPR. But they don't and except for a few Democrats, there is no collective Democratic effort to say this war is illegal given the facts I have laid out.

    That is what you who are opposed to the War must actually confront and it is a hurdle I don't see conquered any time soon.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/19/2005 @ 9:16pm

19. Bush had zero foreign policy experience when he entered office. It's no wonder that we are where we are now.

    Frank, by that logic did you suggest that Clinton messed us up around the world by not understanding terrorism, or the impact of his decision to go into Kosovo, or Somalia because he had no foreign policy experience as the governor of a small southern state?

    Were you also against Clinton's first run for president because he lacked the foreign policy experience of Bush Sr.?

    Posted by love liberty at 08/19/2005 @ 9:27pm

20. LL wrote "Ok, one more time (hopefully) to educate liberals about the Presidential authority for war."

    Have you posted this before? I haven't seen it posted by you or anyone else. Must have been before I came here.

    I also didn't know that conservatives are born with the WPA memorized.

    As for the issue of the legality of the war, there are at least two points to make: If the executive branch is correct in its assessment that the WPA is unconstitutional, then machinations by the legislature and executive branch consistent with the WPA cannot make this war legal. Seems a truism that you may have missed...

    I'll leave it up to the reader to guess the second point and add others if they can think of them.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 9:36pm

21. Ll, tThe way to conqour that hurdle is to, "fix the facts around the intelligence", and con Congress and the American people. Give it up. It's a lost cause. There's too much evidence and still no WMD's.

    Evidently Frank, you still don't understand. Bush didn't need to present any convincing arguments including intel (which was the same intel given to the House and Senate by congressional mandate) to go to war. In the absence of a resolution authorizing force or a resolution authorizing funding in event of a potential use of force, Bush has to report to Congress within 6 months of initiating hostile action. Congress can then vote to stop the action, issue an resolution supporting the hostile action and/or continue funding the hostile action.

    That's why I'm trying to show you by law what a waste of energy all these arguments over the evidence all liberals are so fond of debating is in the real world of our government. You can keep carping on it but it is the primary reason why I expend little or no wasted effort debating these subjects (guilty somewhat at the beginning because it was a good mental exercise).

    Last time I checked, America voted their decision last November and the Electoral College (so all you voter conspiracy folks don't get energized) elected President Bush to another term in office. Seems like if the American people truly felt mislead like liberals and some polls suggest, Bush wouldn't be President right now.

    Don't even try to suggest that 61 million people were duped. If they were that gullible, why didn't Ross Perot become president. He was the most popular man in America in 1992.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/19/2005 @ 9:41pm

22. Zero--- The vacation angle is silly and shows a fundamental ignorance of how the Executive Branch works. Do you think the President stops being President when he is in Crawford or any place else. Because of today's technology there is nothing that he can't do in Crawford that he can do in D.C.--most Presidents have not liked living in the Fish Bowl that is the White House. Many of the historic decisions that Presidents have had to make have been made far away from the White House (example; Harry Trumans final ok on bombing Hiroshima came from a ship in the middle of the Atlantic--and Franklin Roosevelt made important decisions from the Presidential Yacht) ---Let it go. Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/19/2005 @ 9:44pm

23. What benefit accrues from the president setting a timeline?First, it takes away any flexibility to deal with the unexpected.

    Very good point. I'm not particularly interested in a specific timeline, but when you have an administration that never sent enough troops over there in the first place (a criticism levelled by U.S. brass) and still sees fit to whitewash the realities over there (Cheney saying the insurgency is in its "last throes" when the brass clearly states otherwise), then, I don't know, we'd like some truth and specifics.

    And everything in Iraq has been unexpected.

    Uh, you're kinda wrong there. It was warned by experts beforehand that not all Iraqis were going to welcome Allied forces with flowers; they warned that an insurgency would result from this and it has. It was advised to secure the borders because terrorists would slip over, but they weren't secured (the priority thing that got secured was the oil fields, of course) and terrorists that were not there before the war are there now. It was advised, as aforementioned, more troops were needed, and there weren't sent. It was advised that U.N peacekeeping troops be allowed into Iraq after major combat was over because our troops weren't trained at peacekeeping. It was advised that Iraqis be put in charge of their own reconstruction, which would have employed many of the unemployed and sent the message that U.S. Big Bidness wasn't a monopoly over there; instead the money for reconstruction's been given to U.S. BB. The list goes on and on.

    I know people thought it would be difficult, but as regards specifics, I think everyone has been surprised.

    "Everyone"? No.

    That helps those who oppose the president. The more he pins himself down, the more he gets whipped by the left.

    And the more they continue to whitewash the situation over there, the more distrust is perceived, which is no doubt adding to the percentage of Americans now thinking it was a mistake to invade.

    That this is patently obvious is the reason that the democrats have held off until now. Not because they are nice, but because they don't wish to be viewed as total jerks, who are only motivated by politics.

    I hope you're not implying that the Republicans aren't motivated by politics.

    But as the left continues to chip away at the reasoning ability of the public at large, it becomes more possible.

    The public has a brain, they have the ability to seek out facts and come up with their own conclusions. Just because it doesn't match what Bush & Co. are pushing doesn't mean their reasoning ability is being diminished.

    That is my conclusion. It isn't about Iraq. It is all local politics.

    Just like politics is what got the U.S. into Iraq in the first place. What comes around comes around, don't you know.

    Any reasonable alternatives to propose?

    Concerning a full-out pullout: without Westerners in Iraq, who would the terrorists target instead? The Iraqis? They're only killing them to spite the U.S. Terrorists weren't exactly pouring over into Iraq to take them out before. And the insurgency is fueled by Iraqis angry over an occupying force in their country, plus those who've lost family members to Allied forces who're hell-bent on avenging those deaths. Pull those Allied forces out, and who would the insurgency be targeting?

    Then again, this war has made Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists. So there are terrorists in Iraq now. Leaving means leaving a country with terrorists in it, and that's not a comfortable thought. And let's not forget that Iraq still has major reconstruction to be done. The solution to this, naturally, is, again, putting Iraqis in charge of their own reconstruction, but U.S. Big Bidness is already doing this, and with the big bucks involved, they're not going anywhere when there's money to be made. Of course, it doesn't help that Bechtel is constructing a company building over there, and military bases are being constructed, too. (It's my take that Bechtel's putting a lot more effort into their own construction than the reconstruction; the longer the reconstruction, the more money to be made and the longer the U.S. will be over there.) This, of course, sends exactly the wrong signal to Iraqis; it only solidifies that the U.S. will be long-into-the-future occupier of Iraq.

    So do I have a solution? No. It's a mess over there filled with Catch-22s.

    Terrorism isn't a random spontaneous expression of rage and hatred. It is a political ,and to some extent military, tool used to advance the agenda of those who sponsor it.

    Absolutely. And it's a lot more complicated than "he hates our freedoms". Where the U.S. incurred al Qeada's wrath is in our foreign policies in the Middle East, not our freedoms. What initially set bin Laden off was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, guarding Arabia because Arabia feared Hussein's army would trek through Kuwait and into their oil fields.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 9:50pm

24. "What initially set bin Laden off was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War"

    WHO GIVES A ROYAL RATS ASS?????IT DIDNT GIVE HIM AN EXCUSE TO KILL 3000 AMERICANS...TRYING TO "UNDERSTAND WHY OUR ENEMIES DONT LIKE US" HAS ALWAYS BEEN A WEAKNESS OF YOU LIBS AND WHY YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH POWER

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 9:56pm

25. Who do you think is the more intelligent of the two, Bush or Clinton?

    Clinton is more intellectual, Bush I consider to have more intelligence. I base this on Webster.

    An intellectual is more concerned with the activities of the intellect.

    Someone who has intelligence has the ability to perceive logical relationships and use one's knowledge to solve problems and respond appropriately.

    I wasn't always the smartest person in corporate America, but my success came from operating like the president. Great problem solvers have high intelligence. Great intellecuals demonstrate high levels of interest in the pursuit of knowledge.

    We have had a number of brilliant failed presidents because some people mistake intellect for the ability to make decisions requiring the appropriate levels of intelligence.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/19/2005 @ 9:56pm

26. "his Presidency was dead in the water before 9/11 happened. Thanks OBL"

    SEE WHY I SAY ITS All ABOUT POWER AND YOUR BITTERNESS THAT YOU HAVE NONE ANYMORE...THE FACT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT STATEMENT PORTRAYS A SICKNESS AND DETESTABLE BEHAVIOUR THAT LIBS CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED WITH THE REIGNS OF POWER EVER AGAIN

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:02pm

27. Kevin, really.

    this line by line thing is tedious.

    I was surprised that S Hussein and his sons were caught and killed as quickly as they were.

    That didn't surprise you, though?

    I was surprised that the country was overrun as swiftly as it was, and with so few US casualties.

    You knew that would happen?

    I was surprised that the "insurgency", led by a foreign national, decided to target iraqis, not americans, in an attempt to cause civil war.

    But you knew that would happen?

    Seriously. Get real.

    Those are the sorts of developments that need to be responded to, that appear to have caught the US military flat footed.

    If you had told me that the US would invade, conquer, and rule Iraq for 2 years, losing less than 2000 men, I would have said, "get real".

    But you knew that.

    I won't bother to line for line your line for line.

    really.

    what tedium.

    Like arguing with my dog. (I don't actually have a dog, that was just a figure of speech)

    (I talk, the dog goes WOOF WOOF)

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:10pm

28. Take a few seconds to think about the meaning of what somebody writes, before clogging the page with that sort of nonsense. OK?

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:12pm

29. LL,

    Bush didn't need to present any convincing arguments including intel (which was the same intel given to the House and Senate by congressional mandate) to go to war.

    The "intel" that was cherry-picked to be given, yes. The "intel" that suppored their view, yes. The intel that contradicted it, no. Was the intel that negated the aluminum tubes/nuclear claim with the conclusion that the tubes weren't thick enough to serve as nuclear centrifuges given? No. Was the intel that negated the UAVs/chemically-attack-the-U.S. claim with the conclusion that the compartments weren't big enough to hold the chemicals and the maximum range was only 300 miles? And let's not forget the blatantly false "6 months away from a nuclear weapon" claim, when in the IAEA report it was "6 to 24 months" and was pertaining to before the first Gulf War.

    Seems like if the American people truly felt mislead like liberals and some polls suggest, Bush wouldn't be President right now.

    That's extremely naive, LL, and you know it. Are you referring to the American people where 70% ignorantly believed Hussein was behind 9/11? Who went scrambling for duct tape after that Homeland Security warning that was issued a mere two days after the U.S. press finally started to get around to reporting that forged Niger/uranium document? If all of our citizens were sufficiently informed, you might have a point; but, alas, they are not. (There are still people out there who think Iraq was behind 9/11, for cryin' out loud!) You're also naively overlooking something else: that there are Americans who suspect or know they were duped by Bush & Co. regrading the war and just don't care. Yes, you can vent all you want that this is bollocks, but you can't validate that it is any more than I can validate that it isn't. There are those who are enticed by tax cuts and anti-gay-marriage enough so they're more than willing to overlook this. And if you think they'd never put the troops second, consider, simply, the lack of Republican outrage over not all the soldiers being adequately equipped. I don't recall much outrage being spewed at this. Now, if Gore were president, you would have heard Repubs screaming themselves shrill over it; never happened with Bush in the helm. Why? Because a good many choose to ignore facts when they reflect negatively upon Bush; just like the facts were ignored by a good many Democrats concerning the Waco fiasco that happened under Clinton's watch.

    You're trying to paint a rosy picture of all Americans being well-informed and impervious to manipulation and political-party-priority allegience.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 10:14pm

30. There's that drunk at the end of the bar again. YOU SSSICK LIBSSSSS WILL NEVER RUN THE COUNTRY!!!!!! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK BUT I HANG OUT HERE ANYWAY TO SHOUT!!!!!

    Posted by proudlib at 08/19/2005 @ 10:14pm

31. President Bush is probably about as smart as former President Clinton. (it seems to me)

    Clinton was a lot more personable.

    Intelligence is not as important as wisdom and character.

    I think, by the way, that in many respects President Clinton did pretty well.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:15pm

32. ALUDRA, I agree with you completely that there is NO REASON that bin Laden can use to justify killing 3000 people on 9/11, and trying to understand the problem is not the same as justifying the attack.

    The reason people try to understand why terrorists hate us is for the following:

    "It is impossible to solve a problem with the same level of knowledge that created it" - Albert Einstein

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:15pm

33. Personally, like many americans, it is not the ability or intellect of a candidate which would make me vote for him, as much as the policies he would advocate.

    Only reason I voted for President Bush.

    (I think he was smarter than either of his opponents, but so what?

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:17pm

34. )

    forgot that...

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:18pm

35. Aludra,

    WHO GIVES A ROYAL RATS ASS?????

    Only those who choose to acknowledge relevant facts as opposed to those who prefer generalized soundbites from Bush & Co.

    IT DIDNT GIVE HIM AN EXCUSE TO KILL 3000 AMERICANS

    In his mind, it did.

    TRYING TO "UNDERSTAND WHY OUR ENEMIES DONT LIKE US" HAS ALWAYS BEEN A WEAKNESS OF YOU LIBS

    And why exactly is it a weakness? Please explain.

    AND WHY YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH POWER

    Or another 9/11 will happen under a Democrat White House again. Oh, that's right.....it's a Republican White House 9/11 happened under!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 10:20pm

36. There is, I suppose, a minimum standard of intelligence, below which a candidate would be a hazard.

    But I don't think that is the case with the present administration.

    Just an opinion.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:20pm

37. JONB, Actually I was surprised Hussein's sons weren't caught sooner.

    And I expected an insurgency against our troops. Hell, that is the only option because they can't survive our military's power in conventional battle.

    And I was not surprised that the insurgency targeted Iraqis, either. I've seen it before: Catholics vs. Protestants in N. Ireland. No surprise at all...

    I was not surprised the country was overrun so quickly, either. Although I did expect more casualties during the assault on Bagdad. That was about the only surprise to me.

    I KNEW there were no WMD and would be surprised if any are found...

    I guess this isn't really a debate post - just answering some questions you directed towards KC

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:21pm

38. .

    Feingold Tunes in to Antiwar Sentiment

    If joining the chorus of the anti war sentiment is the basis of Senator Feingold's yodel then he is betraying his duties.

    A responsible United States senator does not tailor America's national security policy to the demands of creatures like Cindy Sheehan. She epitomizes the lies, bigotry and demagogy of left and right extremists. It is no accident that David Duke is among her strongest supporters.

    There is however sense and utility in firm US voices noting that America's engagement in Iraq is not open-ended.

    The constitutional convention must break its deadlock and achieve a workable compromise. If it does not and extension follows extension, then a true quagmire will be in the offing. That will be the slippery slope. That must be avoided. Iraqis need to agree NOW on a workable structure for their country. So that the new Iraq can begin to take shape and so that the new Iraqi army now being built, will have something to fight for.

    The various factions have settled down to haggling and bickering like the carpet merchants they are at heart. That is easier than making hard decision. That is the modus operandi of the region. Every coterie thinks there is no rush, the US will keep things in shape, it can get its way by being stubborn.

    One of the problems in Vietnam was Saigon's political generals who never stopped seeing the war as a chance at personal enrichment and advancement. They never got around to putting need national survival first. Because they were sure the US was their backstop. The did not have to worry, the US troops would not let them lose.

    Something like that is involved in Iraq nowadays. Her politicians don't feel the hand of - do or die- at their throats, that this is a fateful hour requiring selflessness. They feel themselves in the catbird seat. There is the sense that the US is stuck with the job of defending them and won't allow anything bad to happen.

    A loud, responsible voice - that the US is itching to pull its troops out - is useful here. Those Baghdad politicians need to be disabused. They must realize, they don't have forever, now is the time to reach agreements. The solid walls of a new Iraq must begin to rise now, post haste, while the US is still around to shelter the work. Before long they will find the Americans gone and themselves sitting cross legged alone, behind piles of words and at the tender mercies of the brutal old Baathists and the ferocious new Islamist thugs.

    That is the one legitimate and justifiable reason for Feingold's present tune. It could prove useful, even very necessary. But if it is merely a chiming in with the lunatic screeching of Sheehan, Duke and The Nation's kooks, then woe onto us.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/19/2005 @ 10:22pm

39. KEVIN YOUR REPLY TO ME WAS LAUGHABLE. IT WAS NO REPLY TO THE FACTS WHATSOEVER...

    WHAT ABOUT THE 500 TONS OF URANIUM THAT WAS CARRIED OUT OF IRAQ AFTER MAJOR HOSTILITIES...1.5 TONS ALREADY ENRENCHED ENOUGH FOR A NUCLEAR DEVICE....HOW BOUT THE CENTRIFUGE THAT WAS BURIED IN THE BACKYARD OF ONE OF SADDAMS SCIENTISTS???NOT TO MENTION ALL THE CHEMICAL SHELLS THEY DESTROYED...ARE ALL THESE EXAMPLES OF SOMETHING RUSH LINBAUGH DRILLED IN MY HEAD?????

    HOW BOUT A CREDIBLE RESPONSE THIS TIME

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:25pm

40. JONB, One more thing. The reason KC does that line-by-line reply stuff is that you conservatives make so many mistakes that that is the only way he can correct all of them.

    This is a typical problem I encounter when debating one of my conservative friends. He says so many things that are either wrong or completely stupid that I spend all of my time correcting his errors and hardly ever get to present logical ideas to him.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:25pm

41. KC,

    And your point is? (that's a joke my friend)

    My own point is that I am not troubled by the events of protesters, or lower poll ratings, or Downing Street Memos, or the voluminous attempts here and elsewhere to paint the president as a liar and warmonger.

    We have engaged in this conversation enough that you know I had indicated in numerous threads (along with the relevant explanations) that I had all the justification for this war that I needed. I have seen nothing to dissuade my opinion. If anything, my visits to sites like this and the arguments I have seen put forth have only strengthened my belief in this war and the overall war on terror.

    Maybe that's why I don't engage in back and forth's as much with you as others. We both are firmly ensconced into our positions and are rationale behind those positions.

    But I always enjoy your arguments with everyone here!

    got to run..see you on this or another repeat of more of the same~~

    Posted by love liberty at 08/19/2005 @ 10:26pm

42. "He proves that just about every word out of a wingers mouth is easily refuted"

    HE PROVES NOTHING

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:26pm

43. Well, ILP, that makes sense.

    I think it is important to understand what causes a problem, in order to solve it.

    But I do not think that we can properly understand why Osama is so hot about the USA, by listening to what he says.

    Not necessarily.

    That would be like thinking President Bush went into Iraq, because he was after WMD. His story changed after the situation changed, Osama's situation (with respect to the things he has stated as grievances) has not changed yet.

    Especially, in this case, I don't think Osama really cares to help Americans understand his animosity.

    I have a number of theories as to why he has declared war on the USA, but really, I lack the information to know which is correct.

    I do think it is true, that if the US removed all troops from the middle east, and stopped supporting Israel, it would either cause him to change his attitude, or his justification for it.

    Hart to say.

    What is your opinion?

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:27pm

44. ALUDRA, Do you have a link to a site to back up the Uranium info?

    The reason I ask is, Fox News loves to back the president. So if even Fox News won't report it, I have a tough time believing it is true.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:28pm

45. Hey FrankGrits-- Does your monikor mean that you are from the south? If you are, how do think the democratic party is going to make inroads in the south? Do you think it will be accomplished by moving the party further left? As to your conjecture that Bush just takes orders from some unstated place (I guess you are one of those who believe that Bush is Cheney's puppet) --you don't really believe that do you? I know you are just using that as another dig at Bush--right??? I mean please tell me I'm right? Because if you truly believe that I just need to leave you alone in your own little world. Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/19/2005 @ 10:29pm

46. Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:08 p.m. EDT

    The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention

    By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

    That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

    Story Continues Below

    The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

    First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.

    "The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.

    "The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

    Well, almost none.

    The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

    The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

    Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

    And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

    "A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

    Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

    Or did it?

    The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

    In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

    "I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

    And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

    Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

    "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

    "The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

    Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

    If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

    One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

    Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

    "In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:29pm

47. I have a friend who graduated west point with Wes. Clark.

    If I believe what he says, I think that the troops were better served by the commanders they had. Might just be "class envy" though. (a pun!)

    But my point is, that in a real war, the enemy does things you don't necessarily expect. And even succeeding more than you expect can cause huge problems.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:30pm

48. Sorry ILP...It came from new york times artical

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:30pm

49. JONB, If what you say about OBL is true, why did he give an interview with an ABC reporter in 1998 to explain his reasons clearly?

    For more info, go to

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:31pm

50. this line by line thing is tedious.

    Explain why exactly.

    I was surprised that S Hussein and his sons were caught and killed as quickly as they were.

    That didn't surprise you, though?

    I was surprised that the country was overrun as swiftly as it was, and with so few US casualties.

    You knew that would happen?

    Nice try, but you weren't referring to unexpected positive things in your previous post but unexpected setbacks, and that's what I responded to and which you haven't addressed -- as usual. And, no, I wasn't surprised at Iraq being swiftly overrun by the greatest military force in the world against a country crippled by years of sanctions. Hussein and his sons being captured? Yes. Now, care to address what I put to you above about experts predicting the setbacks that the U.S. is encountering over there? Didn't think so.

    I was surprised that the "insurgency", led by a foreign national, decided to target iraqis, not americans, in an attempt to cause civil war.

    Talk of civil war was made before the war, too.

    Those are the sorts of developments that need to be responded to, that appear to have caught the US military flat footed.

    Translation: I can't handle the fact that the setbacks cited by Kevin were predicted before the war yet denied by Bush & Co., so I'll just avoid addressing them.

    If you had told me that the US would invade, conquer, and rule Iraq for 2 years, losing less than 2000 men, I would have said, "get real".

    You left out "occupy". And there are many who knew perfectly well the U.S. was going to be there not only 2 years but much longer, and we've been proven correct. Deal.

    But you knew that.

    And you didn't.

    I won't bother to line for line your line for line.

    Yeah, it takes a lot of effort to throw out BS because you refuse to validly counter matters you don't want to deal with.

    what tedium.

    You avoiding addressing what I've presented to you? Yes, that's tedious.

    Like arguing with my dog. (I don't actually have a dog, that was just a figure of speech)

    More like "arguing with someone whom I can't validly debate with".

    (I talk, the dog goes WOOF WOOF)

    Bush says sit, you sit.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 10:33pm

51. Where was the uranium post pasted from?

    Posted by proudlib at 08/19/2005 @ 10:34pm

52. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:35pm

53. ALUDRA, Thanks for the information. I need to do more research, though, before I will agree with the statement in the article that says

    "If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor."

    There are a lot of factors to weigh.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:37pm

54. The last presidential election wasn't a referendum on the war.

    It was a referendum on the domestic policies of the democratic party.

    Especially on moral issues, like the parading of perversion.

    So it wasn't the war, and it wasn't the economy.

    The left lost on character.

    They are so far gone, that a president who got the country into a war with no good rationale, with no exit strategy, and a hostile press, and who endured a significant economic recession, with a jobless recovery, was elected with a clear majority.

    Even in Ohio, where the economy was in the toilet.

    Because the progressive view of america's future makes most people want to puke.

    Sorry for being so blunt, but it is just the facts.

    It didn't help that kerry was such an unappealing candidate.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:37pm

55. Thank you ILP for having an open mind. Of course thanks for your service

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:38pm

56. (I don't entirely agree with my dismal presentation of the Presiden't first term, but YOU do) lol

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:38pm

57. ALUDRA, Were you joking about the article being from the NY Times? If so, that is funny!

    If not, I am confused. I can't find anywhere on the newsmax website that credits the article to the NYT...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:41pm

58. ALUDRA, Believe it or not I've been out of the navy for 14 years and you are the first person to ever thank me for my service. I really appreciated that.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:42pm

59. FRANKGRITS, I provided a link a few posts ago. If you want to hear why, straight from the bloodthirsty thug himself, check it out. Of course, as someone pointed out, he could be lying about his motives.

    Anyone who can kill 3000 people and gloat probably doesn't have much problem lying to manipulate the gullible.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:44pm

60. "The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

    The artical was based on NYT reporting. Sorry for the confusion. The information is accurate. There are other posts if you care to read them.

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:45pm

61. I think President Clinton worked pretty well with the congress.

    Didn't get into any stupid wars. (And I think that is good)

    The Family Medical leave act was a good thing.

    The lowering of trade barriers was a good thing.

    He seemed to have a talent for getting people to agree with him.

    His picks for the court were very bad. But cunningly so.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:47pm

62. "Is that good enough for you? It is way too simplistic for me"

    If someone says they hate your guts and want to kill you....where are the shades of grey???

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 10:47pm

63. Frank, I don't take what President Bush says at face value, any more than I take what Osama says at face value.

    What the president says is true, though not very specific.

    Exactly which freedoms and values?

    I don't know the exact context where the President said that. I don't lisdten to political speeches much, as they rarely contain any useful information.

    I also don't think that the president considers that to be a full complete, and accurate explanation.

    Actually, at this point, I think the USA is a useful foil for Osama.

    He is after bigger game.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:52pm

64. (bigger according to his world view)

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:53pm

65. Most times, leaders are saying things for the benefit of their organization. To attract and keep supporteres, to encourage them, to get financial support.

    Same for Republicans.

    Same for Democrats.

    Same for terrorists.

    Same for leaders of Liberal Grassroots Movements.

    Same for leaders of Conservative Grassroots Movements.

    It is all about building and consolidating power.

    Not about getting outsiders to understand.

    Just my opinion.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 10:59pm

66. Remember the Bugs Bunny Cartoon, where Marvin the Martian is going to dis-integrate earth, because it blocks his view of venus?

    It is all about perspective.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:00pm

67. The whole "gay marriage" thing.

    (A civil union is just a marriage in drag...)

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:02pm

68. People generally don't care about others private lives.

    But there are limits to what they will accept in public life.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:03pm

69. Aludra,

    Thanks for the article:

    Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

    "Could be used" if it were sufficiently enriched. It wasn't. Why? Because Hussein's enrichment facility was destroyed by U.N. inspectors in '95 (and this according to Republican ex-inspector Scott Ritter).

    And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

    Again, "could". And it only could if it could be enriched, which it couldn't.

    "A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

    Again, "could". And this is Iran we're talking about, not Iraq. Last I checked, we didn't invade Iran.

    The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

    We didn't invade Iraq under the pretense of "WMD programs" but "WMD".

    In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

    "I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

    Why not after '97?

    And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

    Ah, again we're back to "program".

    Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

    But not actual, suitable nuclear centrifuges.

    "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

    (yawn) "Program" and "ambition". Not possession of nuclear centriguges.

    "The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book.

    Yes, an actual nuclear centrifuge is. But as we know, Hussein didn't have any.

    "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

    (double yawn)

    Again, a program.

    Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons.

    Partially-enriched uranium doesn't cut it. And, again, the reason it was partially rather than fully enriched? Because the enrichment facility, again, was destroyed.

    And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

    For the umpteenth time, "could" -- and only "could" with a functional enrichment facility, which Iraq no longer had do the dastradly U.N. inspectors.

    If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

    The only undisputed facts are that Hussein had some partially-enriched uranium, which isn't worth diddly for nuclear-weapon purposes unless it's fully-enriched which can only be done with an operational enrichment facility Hussein didn't have, and that there were was a "program" for fully-enriched uranium and not possession of it. And, of course, a whole lot of "could"s.

    There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

    Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

    "In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."

    No one ever disputed that Niger was a logical place for Hussein to attain it; the dispute was over whether Hussein had recently sought uranium there. And, mind you, he was never even accused of actually acquiring it but seeking to to acquire it. And this helpful article does a great job of backing up that he didn't. After all, if he already had 1.8 tons of it, then why would he want more if he couldn't fully enrich it. It's be like having 1.8 million bullets but no guns to shoot them, and then going and trying to acquire more bullets. Would that make sense? Of course not. Ditto Hussein seeking more non-enriched uranium.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/19/2005 @ 11:06pm

70. JONB, So will you agree to gay marriages being legal if they are all private ceremonies?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 11:09pm

71. JonB wrote:

    "If you had told me that the US would invade, conquer, and rule Iraq for 2 years, losing less than 2000 men, I would have said, "get real"."

    Not if you were one of the 2000 killed. But then, you never planned on serving in the military, and especially not in Iraq based on a false premise.

    I despise the argument that because the number of deaths aren't at Vietnam levels that it's been a successful war. Our technology is far different than in the 60's and 70's, of course we're going to have less dead soldiers. Never mind that jungle warfare is vastly different than desert and urban warfare.

    The war was based on a lie. Never forget, the war was sold on the premise that Iraq had wmd and America could not wait for diplomatic channels because we needed to avoid evidence of those wmd in the form of a "mushroom cloud". The premise has changed numerous times because wmd were never found. Saving Iraqis. Spreading democracy and freedom. Those would not have been persuasive arguments to the U.S. public to send American troops to Iraq, and the current administration knew it. Hence, the trumped up charges of wmd as scare tactics for the U.S. population.

    Lies.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/19/2005 @ 11:10pm

72. Since when KEVIN did you become a nuclear scientist????Would you still doubt that he could enrich enough uranium after he set off a bomb???Please....

    I can also provide info showing clearly they DID discover a REAL CENTRIFUGE" not blueprints.

    This of course discounts the fact of numerous tonnage of chemical shells the US Army has removed. The Illegal Missles he owned.. Plenty of WMD stuff. But You LIBS arent interested in the truth because you have your minds made up...YOU HATE BUSH...Fine.

    Its working great for your side so far

    Posted by aludra at 08/19/2005 @ 11:13pm

73. KEVIN COLLINS, Nice reply, one thing I would add for consideration:

    In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger

    In the 1980's Iraq was trying to create a nuclear power program for electricity, not bombs. He was cozy with the Reagan administration at that time, so this part is really meaningless.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 11:13pm

74. I really credit the balanced budget and the surplus to Reagan.

    It takes a while for things like that to "trickle down".

    But at least he didn't spend the surplus on military adventures.

    And he was well liked.

    Though I'm not sure being well liked at the UN is a good thing for a US president. And his friendship with Arafat I did not see as a good thing.

    But all in all, he was quite competent.

    Martin Luther refers to good government as a "common grace", and then says " I would rather be governed by a competent Turk, than an incompetent Christian".

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:14pm

75. I may be wrong about the "not bombs" part of the last post. Still, it is irrelevant because he was a "friend" of the Reagan administration.

    But I still have to mull this over before I make up my mind about the whole thing. I didn't know about the yellowcake before and I like to take my time on issues.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 11:15pm

76. JonB wrote:

    "I really credit the balanced budget and the surplus to Reagan.

    It takes a while for things like that to "trickle down"."

    How long does it take "things like that to trickle down"? How much trickles down? From whom and to whom do those things trickle down?

    General statements with no statistical evidence.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/19/2005 @ 11:19pm

77. JONB, Holy smokes, man, you are just plain wrong about the budget surpluses. How many have you had on a nice Friday night?

    And I apologize for not backing up this post with facts and reasoned arguments this time - it would just take way too much time, the post would be 5 feet long, and of course it is off topic.

    Not to mention, it's Miller time... "See" you all next week, I hope.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 11:19pm

78. Oh well.

    Not everybody likes chocolate, even.

    Of course, if you think those things are OK, frank, then I suppose your attitude toward me, for not thinking that, could be viewed as bigotry.

    And if you would like to make everybody who views perversion as perversion change to be like you, well, that would be intolerance.

    It all comes down to what sort of world you want to live in.

    in 2004, the "great silent majority" cleared its throat. apparently.

    But keep thinking its the war.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:22pm

79. ILP

    You may well be right about the budget surpluses.

    I don't pay much attention to that sort of thing.

    So I suppose I should give President Clinton credit for that as well.

    Good for him.

    Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:24pm

80. I believe in calling it like I see it, and I have to say Bush has GOT to do something about a real exit strategy. This type of horse manure just won't cut it, it really never has cut it:

    ""Win -- That's our exit strategy,""

    from: UPI Security & Terrorism, June 24, 2005 Iraq exit strategy unchanged.

    It's such a cop out, and actually rather insulting to the intelligence of Americans to simply say "win, that's our exit strategy". What a load of bull! Both parties, as well as most Americans want something real and concrete (including me) "More in Congress want Iraq exit strategy." The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News), June 11, 2005

    I'm starting to doubt whether the only quasi exit strategy put forth by Bush has any real chance to work:

    "No exit strategy; Iraq's security forces. (Few of the new Iraqi forces seem willing to stand and fight)"

    The Economist (US), Jan 15, 2005 v374 i8409 p43US

    I found this insight very interesting: "Regardless of the Iraqi elections, there'll be no coming home for America until Iran's nuclear-minded jihadist regime is neutralized."

    from: American Spectator; Feb2005, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p16-21, 6p

    Could it possibly be that the reality of the situation is that we won't be able to leave Iraq and the region until we deal with the terrorists funneling in from other countries like Iran and Syria?

    Further evidence to support this theory can be found here: "RUMSFELD: IRAQ NEEDS TO TALK BORDER ISSUES WITH IRAN, SYRIA"

    FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database; 07/27/2005

    "Iran Arrests 200 in Sweep For Terrorists."

    :New York Times; 7/17/2005, Vol. 154 Issue 53278, p12-12, 1/9p

    And if this really is at the heart of the Issue, why don't we hear anything more substantiative from Bush and crew other than "we are going to win"

    I have joked before about taking the war to Iran and Syria, perhaps it's time we really look at that as a possibility, as those areas are where many of the terrorists are coming from.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 12:20am

81. Damn insomnia!

    I read through Aludra's linked article (aka artical). I'm not thoroughly comforted by Kevin's emphasis on "could" because I think "could" in the hands of Saddam is a pretty scary thing.

    But the article is really mishmashing a number of different time periods without clarification. It provides no dates of discovery or removal. It indicates that the US wrote a paper about he movement/removal of uranium, but it also mentions weapons inspectors.

    "The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found 'some 1.8 tons' that they 'classified as low-enriched uranium.'" If this is the case, why would the lead inspector (whose name escapes me, but dear lord the man was all over the tube when he presented his report) have failed to declare his discovery? Why only a "paper"? Why has Bush and McClellan and Cheney (oh my!) failed to mention it?

    The article cites Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, as a souce. This is impressive since Oelrich is not an unblinking Bush supporter and represents a group of some stature. But what I think is odd is that the article also quotes Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Why go to a group associated with environmental causes instead of a group associated directly with nuclear weapons?

    So many questions. I'd like to see the NYT article directly. I subscribe online and don't remember seeing it.

    What I love most of all is Newsmax's belief that "The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein." Yes, that's right. The administration can run Rice and Cheney to the Sunday morning shows full of shock-and-awe statements that are big on scare and little on evidence. But when they really have something to crow about, well, they'll just bide their time. Maybe Andrew Card says it's not the right time of the season to talk about yellowcake.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2005 @ 04:07am

82. Thanks for giving us something to gnaw on, Aludra.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2005 @ 04:09am

83. I keep hearing that setting a deadline sends the wrong message. I think it sends exactly the right message - 1: to our troops the message is JOB WELL DONE (Mission Accomplished). You got rid of Saddam and removed the Baathists from power, you've given the Iraqi people the time to establish a new constitution, a democracy and a new army, and moved Iraq a long way on the way to reconstruction. Thank You and Welcome Home. 2. to the Iraqi people the message is WE'VE DONE OUR PART NOW STEP UP TO THE PLATE. We've removed the horrible dictator and his minions from power, we've rebuilt schools and much of your infrastructure, we've given you time to establish a constitution and have elections. In 18 months we are going to leave and so you better get your act together quick. We will have sacrificed 2000 of our citizens lives, have over 12,000 wounded and have spent $300 billion in this endeavor. That is enough, now it is your turn and your responsibility to preserve your democracy. 3. To the insurgents and the world at large: WE ARE NOT HERE FOR THE OIL OR TO CONQUER OR TO OCCUPY. We came to bring democracy to Iraq. We have done so. We are now going home.

    I would think that conservatives, more than anyone, should realize that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more dependent upon us they will become (remember the problems with welfare).

    Posted by RichardOpie at 08/20/2005 @ 07:19am

84. Richard,

    "I would think that conservatives, more than anyone, should realize that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more dependent upon us they will become (remember the problems with welfare)."

    I couldn't agree with you more here. And you're right, I am a conservative and the last thing I want is them becoming dependent on us. More welfare.. more illegal aliens wanting to enter America.. More of my tax dollars being used to rebuild Iraq..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 09:51am

85. All this exit strategy talk is pointless. We are not leaving, no matter how the White house parses it. Any talk of limited withdrawal or exit strategies coming from this adminstrationis simply to pacify those who are really naive. WE will be baby sitting these guys for the forseable future. The only thing Bush dreads more than watching body bags coming home is the prospect of a civil war, total collapse and the proof that this was all a big mistake- if we were to leave........

    I don't think it's going to happen in any shape or form because the consequences of our leaving would prove all of his detracters right.

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/20/2005 @ 11:09am

86. Oh, and, as for their dependency on us ......... TOO F'N LATE PAL! Wake up and smell the coffee! .....

    As for the stupid comment about illegal aliens, I won't even dignify that one! Your Prsident has racked up the largest deficit ever, and your worried about a few unlikely Iraquis coming here and milking the system? Man , you really are a genious!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/20/2005 @ 11:18am

87. "Wake up and smell the coffee! ."

    I did, it's Maxwell house, how about yours?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 11:30am

88. LL - In other words, this war is legal. The constant wrangling here about tubes, yellow cake, Al Qaeda, etc, are meaningless. Bush met his obligation to consult with Congress (it doesn't require him to present any evidence documenting his reasons), and Congress has continued to fund the war effort. If Congress was truly convinced this is an illegal war, exercise their constitutional duties and carry out the instructions they laid in in the WPR. But they don't and except for a few Democrats, there is no collective Democratic effort to say this war is illegal given the facts I have laid out.

    That is what you who are opposed to the War must actually confront and it is a hurdle I don't see conquered any time soon.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 08/19/2005 @ 9:16pm

    The war in Iraq may be legal, but is it a Just War? My answer is no; it is an unjust war constructed upon a licentious and perverted political foundation. The Iraq adventure is doomed to fail, regardless of any spinning of a Pyrrhic victory by the Bush Administration and its supporters.

    mali principii malus finis

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 11:39am

89. I would think that conservatives, more than anyone, should realize that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more dependent upon us they will become (remember the problems with welfare).

    Richard,

    Based upon your conclusion, have Germany, Japan, and South Korea become dependent on the US? I seem to recall reading something about them being major economic powers in the world. Sixty years now in Germany and Japan, and over 50 years in South Korea.

    Don't take this as supporting a similar length of presence in Iraq. Just pointing out the weakness of the argument.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 11:40am

90. KEEPING TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG: Russ Feingold is one of the few Democrats in the Senate that I respect.(There are even fewer Republicans: Chuck Hagel) I completely agree with the previous post by Richardopie. Putting the erroneous and dishonest reasons for this war aside, now is the time to say we got rid of Saddam and we are turning the country over to Iraqis to decice what kind of nation they want. A billion dollars and much blood per week is a high price to keep paying. I think we have paid enough.

    Posted by philbq at 08/20/2005 @ 11:46am

91. typo: decide

    Posted by philbq at 08/20/2005 @ 11:46am

92. A question that hasn't been answered but is in dire need of one.

    Why is the Bush Administration delaying the capture of Osama bin Laden?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 12:06pm

93. OR,

    Just is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously you need to see an opthamalogist and get the chips out of your eyes. (just a little humor)

    When is a war just by the criteria of Just War Theory?

    In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force: (Jus ad Bellum)

    Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;

    Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

    Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

    Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not.

    Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

    Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

    Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

    I could lay out a reasoned and factual support for each of the criteria indicated. You and others opposed could equally lay out the opposing position. I have seldom if ever seen or studied a war that did not have a significant segment of the population that was opposed on the Just War grounds or even that no war could ever be a just war.

    I will cite a recent study which also used WWII as a test model:

    http://web.mit.edu/ssp/spring04/berinsky.htm

    To test WWII, I have looked at a series of polls and compared, for those that backed FDR versus those that opposed him, people's support for the war given how informed they were. A poll from 1941, before the U.S. joined the war, showed that people who approved of FDR exhibited a steady increase in support for helping England, at the risk of getting involved in the war, given their level of information. By contrast, those opposed to FDR were significantly less supportive of helping England given their level of information, though the slope of this curve is not negative. I speculate that in 1940 this curve might have been negative, given the greater prominence of isolationism as an opposition platform.

    Another poll from 1942 asked whether or not the US Army should be sent abroad and whether or not America should take an active part in world affairs after the war is over. Both FDR and Wilkie supporters showed an increasingly positive response for given levels of information. Another poll from 1943, which asked whether the US should play a larger role in world affairs and take an active part in an international organization after the war, shows a similar trend. And importantly a Roper poll from February 1944, after US had started taking significant casualties, again showed that people with different politics continued to remain on the same page given their level of information. To control these tests by looking at a domestic issue, the same poll asked, "should the next administration work with businessmen or take care of the people," and supporters of FDR showed sharply differing opinions given information level than did Republicans.

    This affirmation of Zaller's theory begs a number of questions. What are the conditions under which elites remain unified? Perhaps arguments that have been made about the mass public (aversion to casualties, cost/benefit analysis, etc) can be applied to elites. Can we develop a unified theory of public opinion and war? Are there important implications for theories of democracies at war? Are their any applications for policy? To illustrate the importance of this issue to policymakers, Peter Feaver states, "The Beltway wisdom is that public support collapses in the face of casualties, and by casualties I mean fatalities." Marine Lt. Col. (Ret.) Gary D. Solis, on the other hand, argues, "We've never been as casualty-averse as either the politicians said or the military thought, but that can change in an instant."

    The just war argument thus, while interesting does not bring an conclusions to the argument. As noted in the study, my opening statement holds true; it is in the eye of the beholder.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 12:16pm

94. I too respect Russ Feingold for his stance against the death penalty. The death penalty is immoral and needs to be taken off the table. Besides, it's an easy out for someone facing the rest of their natural lives behind bars.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/20/2005 @ 12:16pm

95. LL,

    I took the opthamologist comment in the humoruous light that it was intended. Press on.

    You appear to be the only conservative on this blog who has engaged his brain by not sticking it up his a--.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 12:21pm

96. Love Liberty

    What criteria would you consider need to be necessarily met before the U.S. pulls it's troops out of Iraq? What time frame do you think that crieria can reasonably be accomplished?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/20/2005 @ 12:24pm

97. LL- The just war argument thus, while interesting does not bring an conclusions to the argument. As noted in the study, my opening statement holds true; it is in the eye of the beholder.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 08/20/2005 @ 12:16am

    Au contraire my worthy opponent. The conclusion as to whether a war is just or not doesn't depend on the "eye of the beholder".

    Moreover, your argument seems to counter the usual conservative mantra; that everything is absolute, black or white, but never relative to one's point of view.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 12:30pm

98. URMY;

    The criteria is when Corporate America is sufficiently entrenched and we finally start to reap the benifits of their vast oil reserves. With the chaous now, who knows but you can be sure it won't be any time soon!.... Like I said before, we're not leaving, like we never really left all those places tha LIBERTY mentioned. OK, well we did leave JAPAN but not until we helped rebuild it under the MARSHALL PLAN. Germany and Korea, I'm pretty sure we still have bases in those countries, or we did until very recently.......

    So, without something like a MARSHALL PLAN we will be there longer than necessary, that you can be sure of!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/20/2005 @ 12:35pm

99. A question that hasn't been answered but is in dire need of one.

    Why is the Bush Administration delaying the capture of Osama bin Laden?

    And of course you have evidence to back up this charge?

    We know with reasonable certainty that Bin Laden is either in the Dir region of Pakistan or in Iran, with most intel favoring the Pakistan location.

    As to the why we haven't gotten him, either you are ignorant about Pakistan or are for the sake of your partisan arguments ignoring the facts. I include the following article which is inline with other intel sources I read from the region.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45634

    Where is Osama bin Laden?

    His whereabouts cannot be pinpointed by official military and intelligence sources, despite the drones that fly day and night over the Afghan-Pakistani border. Nor can his hiding place be determined by members of the media, who continue to provide c-notes to Pashtuns and Tajiks for useless information.

    Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living in the valley of Dir within the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. He has been there since he escaped from Tora Bora in December 2001.

    To substantiate this claim, the mercs produce shabnamas or "night letters" that are circulated among the various tribes within the frontier. The night letters contain updates of Osama at work and play and photos of the al-Qaida leader with Maulvi Sufi Mohamed, an old and revered Muslim scholar, who maintains a Taliban-style rule over the valley of Dir with public executions of adulterers, homosexuals, apostates and Christian infidels.

    Mercs point out that news of Osama's whereabouts was even published on the front page of the Daily Ummat, the leading Urdu language paper of Karachi, on Aug. 10, 2003. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. defense department – let alone the U. S. intelligence community – took heed of the article with the smiling face of the great emir before the invasions of Waziristan.

    Dir remains within the Malakand Pass, the site of some of the fiercest skirmishes under the British Raj. A Pakistani army fort still stands where the young Winston Churchill shot down rebels and received a citation for heroism. Ironically, it now serves as the headquarters of the leader of the Mujahadeen who has unleashed a wave of terrorist attacks against Great Britain.

    Despite the bounty, bin Laden remains not only safe and secure in Dir but also free to travel to other parts of the country, including regular trips to Peshawar and the smuggler-infested bazaar town of Rebat at the center of "the Devil's Triangle," the conjunction of the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.

    No Muslim will dare to capture or kill him – not even a squadron of elite military personnel from the Musharraf government, let alone a group of professional bounty hunters. It is the duty of all Muslims to honor the revered leader of the Mujahadeen, who has been ordained to bring forth the Day of Islam.

    What's more, bin Laden is protected by milmastia – the Islamic code of hospitality that demands protection for fellow Muslims who seek shelter in their country – even if such protection means risking their lives. Believing Muslims know that the $25 million reward comes with the price tag of apostasy and eternal damnation. Mercs point out that Pakistani soldiers and ISI officials are even unwilling to collar Osama and his cohorts when they appear in Peshawar. They don't want to go to hell for money or Musharraf.

    Bin Laden remains protected by yet another factor. Any concerted attempt by the United States to invade any part of the North West Frontier Province by crossing the 680-mile border between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to capture the world's most wanted man will be met by the resistance of the vast majority of 20 million Muslims who inhabit the formidable area.

    Such resistance could lead to the toppling of the Musharraf regime with the result that Pakistan, with its arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, would fall under the control of the radical mullahs, who wait in the wings.

    At present, the way to Dir, according to the mercs, remains strewn with the bodies of would-be bounty hunters. They have been cast in the pines beside the dirt road. All have been tortured, stripped naked and castrated. Their eyeballs have been plucked from their sockets; their ears have been hacked off; and their tongues have been ripped from their mouths. Notes have been strapped to the groin of every victim. "Do not be angry or shocked," the notes say in Pashtu. "These are the bodies of agents of the USA."

    Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 12:36pm

100. Aludra and WMD - A quick google for the Tuwaitha nuclear facility reveals some basic facts. The 2 tons of low-enriched uranium discussed in the newsmax article were under IAEA seal at the time of the U.S. invasion. U.S. troops did not secure the facility for six weeks. The facility was looted by local Iraqis (apparently to get building material) and no one knows if all the material was accounted for. The US flew the uranium out of the country secretly. What? No dancing for WMD "discovery"? Here's one article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32195-2004Jul6.html

     Posted by tmag at 08/20/2005 @ 12:38pm

101. LL - And of course you have evidence to back up this charge?

     The fact that bin Laden is still free is self-evident that Bush et al have delayed his capture. Why?

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 12:43pm

102. Aludra,

     Since when KEVIN did you become a nuclear scientist????

     That's the thing: this article was so easy to take apart by a non-nuclear scientist like myself. But uranium is not a new subject for me: I looked into it right after the Niger-uranium claim, rather than closing my mind down and accepting of whatever Bush & Co. spewed out.

     Also worth looking into is another kind of uranium: Depelted Uranium, commonly referred to as DU. It's nulcear waste that's put into artillery shells. It offers greater penetrating force but also, and more importantly to Big Bidness, a cheap way of disposing of nuclear waste. But there's a problem with this: it can cause cancer when even so much as a single particle of this stuff gets into the body, and since the stuff has a half-life of 4.5 billion years (that's the same age of the solar system, mind you), it's quite durable. After the first Gulf war, in regions with heavy DU exposure, cancer cases went from 30-40 a month to 300-400 a month among Iraqis; and it's not just Iraqis who're affected by DU, of course -- some of our soldiers who were in these regions have come down with cancer and other health problems. There have been people pushing for the banning of DU for years, but most of the government haven't taken any steps to do this, sadly enough. Even more sadly, the mainstram media hasn't sen fit to make people aware of this -- just like they didn't Bush & Co. heinously having our troops forgo mandatory predeployment physical and psychological exams before going to Iraq.

     Would you still doubt that he could enrich enough uranium after he set off a bomb???Please....

     As usual, Aludra, when your lame-o argument is torn to shreds and thrown back into your face, you spew out more nonsensicalness. Make a bomb from what? Enriched uranium. Hmmmm, without a functioning enrichment facility, how exactly would he do that, as I've pointed out? Don't quit your day job, genius.

     I can also provide info showing clearly they DID discover a REAL CENTRIFUGE" not blueprints.

     Hmmmm, and Bush & Co. havem't trotted this out in light of all the non-WMD hoopla? Doesn't sound too smoking-gun-ish, does it?

     This of course discounts the fact of numerous tonnage of chemical shells the US Army has removed.

     Shells from already-fired chemical weapons from long ago. Sorry, Aludra, but a used shell is not a weapon.

     The Illegal Missles he owned. Plenty of WMD stuff.

     Then you better go talk to George "You Disarm Or We Will" Bush, because he said "we" were "dead wrong" on WMD -- when, actually, "we" does not include some experts who disputed this before the war.

     TJBEHRENS1,

     I'm not thoroughly comforted by Kevin's emphasis on "could" because I think "could" in the hands of Saddam is a pretty scary thing.

     Well, if the guy had a nuclear weapon and could be willing to launch it at the U.S. even while knowing Iraq would get nuked by us in return, then "could" would indeed be scary. But being that he had almost 2 tons of non-fully-enriched uranium and no functioning facility to enrich it, then the uranium he had was about as harmful as baking flour, which I don't find the least bit scary.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 12:43pm

103. LL-As to the why we haven't gotten him, either you are ignorant about Pakistan or are for the sake of your partisan arguments ignoring the facts. I include the following article which is inline with other intel sources I read from the region.

     I don't think that I'm ignorant about Pakistan, but Mr. Bush said he would smoke'em out and that they (bin Laden et al) were wanted dead or alive.

     Instead of doing what he said, the 'war' in Afghanistan lingers on with no real and concerted effort to really capture bin Laden.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 12:48pm

104. Love Liberty

     Please address the important questions posited to you from my 12:24 am post today.

     Thank you.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/20/2005 @ 12:58pm

105. Its interesting that there is no progress being made in resolving our withdrawal from Iraq yet the insurgents are have a great time in their new funpark. They are coming from all of the terrorist training camps around the world to play.

     We are at the crossroad if we stay will the situation change? Most likely not our (GW's) special interests will still be trying to protect their oil contracts while stealing the Iraqi oil funds (8.8 bil missing from Coalition Authorities accounts in 03) for the work not done to replace the Iraqi infrastructures, your tax dollars at work.

     Since this is speculation defining a withdrawal strategy will : 1) Obviously put pressure on the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, weather this means a civil war or a common concession remains to be seen. 2) The threat of a terrorist commonwealth may drive the global community to step up to the plate and take part if only for their own survival or the satisfaction of rubbing dirt in Bush's face for his follies and failures.

     The next issue a withdrawal would create would be the world court investigations into the "war crimes" which would be perceived by those who's toes are being held over the fire to support our special interests. Unfortunately GW's head would be fair game, another reason for the delays in discussing an exit strategy.

     But at least we could bring our troops home and be able to give them a rousing cheer for a job well done because they did their job above and beyond all reasonable expectations, the American people will not again hold the failure of the administration over the heads of our troops like we did in the 70's with the troops returning from Vietnam.

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/20/2005 @ 1:07pm

106. What criteria would you consider need to be necessarily met before the U.S. pulls it's troops out of Iraq? What time frame do you think that crieria can reasonably be accomplished?

     1. The draft constitution must be approved by the people of Iraq in the overall number of regions as prescribed by the interim government (see article 61c of the CPA below)

     http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

     Article 61.

     (C) The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of the voters in Iraq approve and if two-thirds of the voters in three or more governorates do not reject it.

     BTW, I highly recommend that all sides actually read this document. Many will be surprised at it's contents.

     2. When (and I hope like everyone it is approved) the Iraqis approve the constitution and elect new representatives and leaders in December 05 or January 06, we should then be prepared to initiate a timetable for withdrawal.

     3. If as according to the testimony of General Petraeus recently, the Iraqis continue their current progress in readiness training of military and police units, there will be a steady draw down of US troops throughout 2006

     4. A small number of troops will remain for 2-5 years (I would think between 5-10k)

     5. There is a plan to put a semi-permanent base in an insolated area of the southern border area of Iraq for the war on terror. For those who would cry imperialism, please try and remember that we have similar arrangements for strategic purposes in England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Japan, Qatar, Diego Garcia, and the Azores to name a few. We don't try and control any of those countries so there is no justification for the accusation that we would do differently in Iraq (unless someone is being racist towards Iraqis suggesting they are less mentally competent to negotiate such an agreement).

     Could all this blow up in the US's face? Of course, but I am confident based upon the quality of our US forces and the historic level of competency of the Iraqi people. This is a generally modern and educated culture (especially compared to other Arab nations). There is a concern should a regional conflict break out over the next year with attacks on Israel (just witness the small missle attacks yesterday from Jordan against both US Naval forces and Israel).

     One added note: the future role of the UN, the EU, and neighboring Arab countries remains murkey. I personally hope they all get more involved as these events transpire.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 1:23pm

107. ORAIBI1952,

     "Why is the Bush Administration delaying the capture of Osama bin Laden?"

     I'm not sure if you are asking this question yourself (as it is in bold) or if you are quoting the question asked by someone else.

     The framing of the question is extremely biased, in that the assumption is being made that the U.S. already somehow knows where Osama is and is delaying in his capture.

     Some people, particularly those in the military still actively searching for him (including my brother-in-law, a green beret in the Waziristan border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan), might be offended by this outrageous question.

     The area is extremely difficult to cover, even with modern day surveillance, and as the article states, for someone that wanted to "get lost" from society, this would be the place to go.

     "A Troubled Hunt."

     Newsweek; 5/30/2005, Vol. 145 Issue 22, p44-45, 2p, 2c

     ""That is an area where, if the people don't want you to be caught, you can stay for a very long time," says Haqqani, a former diplomat now at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington. "Even with modern surveillance technology, bin Laden could end up being like the Fakir of Ipi.""

     also:

     U.S. News & World Report; 5/10/2004, Vol. 136 Issue 16, p30-36, 7p, 2 maps, 6c, 1bw "THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN."

     which states: "If anything, there are far too many tracks--narrow goat paths and steep, rock-strewn ravines, through which a single man and a handful of bodyguards can pass virtually without notice. This, say several senior military officials assigned to find bin Laden and, if necessary, kill him, is where the al Qaeda leader and other members of his terrorist organization spend their days and nights. "Why would you be on the Afghan side of the border," asks a commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan who deals regularly with the Pakistani military, "if you had good sanctuary on the Pakistani side, and all you had to do was pay the tribal leaders?""

     Additionally what makes the search even more difficult is the lack of participation and help from Pakistan:

     "Refusal of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow U.S. troops into Pakistan to search for terrorist leader Osama bin Laden."

     U.S. News & World Report; 5/31/2004, Vol. 136 Issue 19, p30-31, 2p, 1c "Sniffing Out Trouble."

     As a matter of fact the biased framing of the question reminds me of the Time Magazine article that pointed out that it was no coincidence that Kerry asked the question in nearly the same manner during the Presidential debate:

     "It was inevitable that Democratic challenger John Kerry would sling out the questions during the debate: Where in the world is Osama bin Laden, and why hasn't the U.S. captured him?"

     Time; 10/11/2004, Vol. 164 Issue 15, p44-44, 1/2p, 1c "How hard are we looking?"

     Again, I wasn't quite sure if you personally were asking the question ORAIBI1952, but I will ask you if you were and who ever posed the question if you weren't:

     Could it possibly be that the asking of this biased question is simply due to your hate for Bush, or are you really naive enough to think that the Bush administration is "delaying" the capture of Osama?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 1:27pm

108. Good points DYCEL8R. I'm opposed to the Iraq war, but troops are doing their jobs. No reasonable person should hold against the troops the responsibility of the government. Troops are following orders and doing their legal duty. The administration is to blame for sending troops into harm's way for an indeterminate amount of time without a clear goal.

     Look at the parallels with a domestic policy issue of the current administration.

     Regarding education: the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools adhere to certain education guidelines to receive money. The children have to pass standardized tests at a certain rate and most of the money given to the schools has to be spent in federally mandated ways, with no discretion given to local school boards. This is because the federal government wants to see verifiable and measurable progress, otherwise school systems can constantly make excuses for why enough children are not making adeuqate progress according to yearly goals.

     So why no verifiable and measurable goals according to timelines in Iraq? If the No Child Left Behind Act is as successful as the Bush administration posits, why not take the same model and apply it to Iraq? Troop and police recruitment and training can be measured. Building of infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, sewers, etc can be measured. Anything can be measured, if one so wishes. But the current administration does not wish to hold themselves to a goal or standard, because they'd have to admit the goals in Iraq are too distant in the future for most Americans to want to back them. Or, if they did make measurable goals and didn't reach them, they'd have to admit failure and ask for help, which of course this administration is highly unlikely to ever do.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/20/2005 @ 1:41pm

109. LL

     I hope you're correct that a timeframe for getting the troops out of Iraq is provided by the administration once the Iraqi constitution is approved and Iraqi elections occur. However, like you noted, that's not necessarily going to happen at the end of this year or beginning of next. But I will stay hopeful that it occurs soon so the Bush administration can use that as a reason to get troops out of Iraq. The U.S. will certainly set up a base in Iraq. That is not unreasonable considering we have them all over the world. However, after the Gulf War did the U.S. set up a military base in Kuwait or the Middle East?

     My biggest concern is the "readiness training of [Iraqi] military and police units". That is kept vague with no measurable goals provided. We need some quantifiable information, to put pressure on Iraqis to take the reigns away from us, and to truly show the world we don't want to be there, but are forced to be there because specific goals haven't been reached. I can easily see the goals constantly changing to the Bush administration saying the Iraqis need more numbers of military and police, more weapons, more training, etc. When is enough, enough? Measurable goals will go a long way toward showing the world we truly want the Iraqis to be in charge of Iraq, instead of having our large military presence there for as long as we see fit.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/20/2005 @ 1:53pm

110. OK-Again, I wasn't quite sure if you personally were asking the question ORAIBI1952, but I will ask you if you were and who ever posed the question if you weren't:

     Could it possibly be that the asking of this biased question is simply due to your hate for Bush, or are you really naive enough to think that the Bush administration is "delaying" the capture of Osama?

     Todd

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 08/20/2005 @ 1:27pm

     First of all, many thanks for the service of your brother-in-law to our nation. His service and those of all the other military people are beyond reproach.

     And, it because of people like your brother-in-law that I asked the question that I did. I find it impossible to accept the fact that we can expend so many resources and lives on capturing Saddam Hussein, who did not attack us on 9-11, but cannot capture Osama bin Laden.

     There must be a reason that we won't expend the same efforts to capture bin Laden that we expended to capture Hussein.

     I find people like you to be biased if they do not ponder the question, "Why is Bush delaying the capture of bin Laden?".

     My question may seem a little bias to you and I understand your observation, but if my question is biased it is not for the reasons you suggest; it would be based on long-years of military service and the fact that I know we could capture bin Laden any time we put our minds to it. So why isn't the Bush Administration putting forth a real effort to capture bin Laden?

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 2:02pm

111. The only exception to my statement of reproach for military people would apply to the senior leadership in Washington D.C.; I believe they have failed the troops and the American people.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 2:05pm

112. ORAIBI1952,

     "My question may seem a little bias to you and I understand your observation, but if my question is biased it is not for the reasons you suggest; it would be based on long-years of military service and the fact that I know we could capture bin Laden any time we put our minds to it. So why isn't the Bush Administration putting forth a real effort to capture bin Laden?"

     So I guess the answer then is you are naive enough to think that we are somehow "delaying" his capture intentionally?

     you also said:

     "it would be based on long-years of military service and the fact that I know we could capture bin Laden any time we put our minds to it."

     Well since you state as "fact" that you know we could capture Bin Laden any time we put our minds to it; please enlighten us that are less smart than you.

     How exactly, would you capture Bin Laden, since of course you in "fact" know how we can?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 2:07pm

113. You capture bin Laden by:

     1. Bringing sufficient resource to bear in order to capture bin Laden. 2. Not fighting an unnecessary and bogus war in Iraq. 3. Being honest with the American people about your aims.

     To paraphrase a former Air Force Chief of Staff, who was speaking about Iraq when he uttered the statement that I offer in quotation, and it can apply to the capture of bin Laden as well; "we have to many troops in Iraq to lose, but not enough to win".

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 2:15pm

114. The quote should have read; "we have too many troops to lose, but not enought to win".

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 2:17pm

115. Kevin wrote:Also worth looking into is another kind of uranium: Depelted Uranium, commonly referred to as DU. It's nulcear waste that's put into artillery shells. It offers greater penetrating force but also, and more importantly to Big Bidness, a cheap way of disposing of nuclear waste. But there's a problem with this: it can cause cancer when even so much as a single particle of this stuff gets into the body, and since the stuff has a half-life of 4.5 billion years (that's the same age of the solar system, mind you), it's quite durable. After the first Gulf war, in regions with heavy DU exposure, cancer cases went from 30-40 a month to 300-400 a month among Iraqis; and it's not just Iraqis who're affected by DU, of course -- some of our soldiers who were in these regions have come down with cancer and other health problems. There have been people pushing for the banning of DU for years, but most of the government haven't taken any steps to do this, sadly enough. Even more sadly, the mainstram media hasn't sen fit to make people aware of this -- just like they didn't Bush & Co. heinously having our troops forgo mandatory predeployment physical and psychological exams before going to Iraq.

     I'm sure I will set off somthing of a firestorm of responses to this post, but I happen to have some rather expert insight into this subject. I am going to provide some anecdotal evidence rather than the proverbial comparisons of statistical data. My insights have real world, real lives facts to present in countering the popular arguments.

     I was one of the engineers who redesigned and oversaw production of the current Cluster Bomb (CEM) that contains DU and replaced the old Rockeye cluster bomb from the Viet Nam days.

     We worked for years in that design and production without any medical incidents nor (to the best of my knowledge) have any of the workers either in the production and assemby, or those like myself who walked the test grounds examining the effects of acceptance tests experienced any of the effects put forward by groups opposing its use.

     Add to the Cluster Bomb, my work with the 25mm and 30mm ammunition with DU penetrators. Here there is even more conclusive evidence that under most circumstances DU will not contribute to the cancer levels, leukemia or other negative health claims of the opponents of DU.

     I participated in countless firings of these rounds as did many of my co-workers. Further, the production facility which was located in Southern California was converted over to single family homes more than a decade ago. There are no reports of increased cancers or related illnesses from the ground table or the soil itself.

     Given the nature of things in California, if this was ocurring it would be page 1 in the press and television media.

     There are other related factors which I consider far more contributory in Iraq than DU while not totally discounting the possibility of a small level of contribution.

     Although most of you will dismiss this study from the Dept of Defense, nevertheless, here it is for those will to read it.

     http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/statements/nato_011002/index.htm

     I probably just descended even further into the "despised conservative" category for some of you. However, I was proud of my job as I know I helped develop weapons that saved many american lives in combat.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 2:24pm

116. ORAIBI1952,

     dictionary.com defines "theory" as:

     Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

     This then my friend:

     "1. Bringing sufficient resource to bear in order to capture bin Laden. 2. Not fighting an unnecessary and bogus war in Iraq. 3. Being honest with the American people about your aims."

     is a theory, not a fact, at the end of your steps, there is still no absolute guarantee that Osama will be caught.

     fact on the other hand, according to dictionary.com is defined as: "Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case."

     Therefore the only way to "prove" your theory as "fact" would be to produce Osama himself.

     Therefore you have a fine theory, but it absolutely is not fact my friend.

     For someone who is so keen on making arguments that are based on logic and fact my friend, I must say this one is worse than extremely weak. As a matter of "fact" it's just plain wrong.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 2:29pm

117. Todd,

     There you go again; you can't win the argument on facts so you attack the messenger.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 2:49pm

118. ORAIBI1952,

     Funny..

     When reading your response:

     "There you go again; you can't win the argument on facts so you attack the messenger."

     I was thinking the EXACT same thing..

     = )

     Love you bro...

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 3:00pm

119. LL,

     Here are some links where I've read about DU:

     http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/duupdate.htm

     http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

     http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du.html

     http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/17/1050172706047.html?oneclick=true

     http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

     Dr. Doug Rokke was an Army health physicist assigned in 1991 to the command staff of the 12th Preventive Medicine Command and 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. Rokke was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from his research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department, and sent to the Gulf to take charge of the DU cleanup operation.

     Today, in poor health, he has become an outspoken opponent of the use of DU munitions.

     "DU is the stuff of nightmares," said Rokke, who said he has reactive airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts and kidney problems, and receives a 40 percent disability payment from the government. He blames his health problems on exposure to DU.

     Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems.

     Rokke said: "Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.

     "This whole thing is a crime against God and humanity."

     Speaking from his home in Rantoul, Ill., where he works as a substitute high school science teacher, Rokke said, "When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy, and we got trashed."

     Rokke, an Army Reserve major who describes himself as "a patriot to the right of Rush Limbaugh," said hearing the latest Pentagon statements on DU is especially frustrating now that another war against Iraq appears likely.

     "Since 1991, numerous U.S. Department of Defense reports have said that the consequences of DU were unknown," Rokke said. "That is a lie. We warned them in 1991 after the Gulf War, but because of liability issues, they continue to ignore the problem." Rokke worked until 1996 for the military, developing DU training and management procedures. The procedures were ignored, he said.

     "Their arrogance is beyond comprehension," he said. "We have spread radioactive waste all over the place and refused medical treatment to people . . . it's all arrogance.

     "DU is a snapshot of technology gone crazy."

     And I'm assuming that this production facility you worked at was thoroughly cleaned and by people who wore suitable protective gear. The thing is, Iraq is not one big facility that can be properly cleaned, and, of course, our troops and the Iraqis aren't wearing suitable protective gear. I hope you're right that DU isn't harmful, but others have their doubts.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 3:22pm

120. The Principles of War

     The Principles of War are frequently mentioned as a valuable, ingrained, check list toward achieving success.

     I. Objective - Every military operation should be directed towards a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective.

     II. Offense - Seize, retain and exploit the initiative.

     III. Mass - Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time.

     IV. Economy of Force - Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.

     V. Maneuver - Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power.

     VI. Unity of Command - For every objective, there should be unity of effort under one responsible commander.

     VII. Security - Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage.

     VIII. Surprise - Strike the enemy at a time and/or place and in a manner for which he is unprepared.

     IX. Simplicity - Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to insure thorough understanding.

     Source: David H. Hackworth, Col. (1930-2005)

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 3:23pm

121. Frank----What part of the country are you from? Do you really believe the sterotypes of the south that you described? If you do, liberalism will never make inroads in the south and the democrat party will be destined for more defeats. ---Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/20/2005 @ 3:28pm

122. Kevin,

     People like LL can substitute their arguments for DU being safe with arguments that were used to claim Agent Orange did not harm the troops.

     I'm pretty sure those arguments for Agent Orange not harming the troops no longer hold water. We will find out the same thing with DU ammunition.

     Oh by the way, people that argue DU is safe should visit some of the sites on the Navajo Reservation and nearby lands where uranium was mined. I hope they wear there protective gear before entering the site.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 3:36pm

123. KC,

     I have read much of the opposing documentation and testimony from a broad range of sources. I have listened to Joyce Riley, the former military nurse and her campaign against DU.

     I would not attempt to dogmatically state that no one handling DU would ever contract cancer of other devastating health conditions. I am trying to inject a little balance into the subject and suggest that it is not as black and white as some on the left would portray it.

     Also, we never wore protective gear during testing other than normal safety glasses. and safety boots. Those working with the penetrators in mfg and assembly did wear more protective clothing that is required with low level radiation work.

     As to the cleanup, one reason for citing it is that there was no massive excavation of the land where the test rounds were fired to the best of my knowledge. This would seem to downplay the dire warnings stated by some about the effects on the groundtable.

     One added note: War consists of many decisions involving trade-offs. One of those decisions by our military planners has been that the reduction in battle risk for US forces in using DU versus any known exposure related health hazards was substantial.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 3:39pm

124. In the interest of civil discourse and accuracy may I suggest the following: Instead of "You damn liberals are traitors to your country" How about "I believe your protest of the war is counter productive": instead of "Bush lied us into war" How about "In my opionion Bush either intentionally or unintentionally used false information to make his decision on going to war with Iraq": instead of "Bush is a murder" how about "the decision to go to war in Iraq has caused the death of many Americans and Iraqi"; -----You get the Idea---try not to submit your opinion as fact, it's not.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/20/2005 @ 3:47pm

125. Bush lied and Americans are dying because of his lying.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 3:50pm

126. Frank,

     "LEN MOSSE, My moniker comes from my days of playing baseball at my University. I always got clutch hits. My teamates gave me the nickname True Grit, later shortened to just plain Grits. the way to make inroads in the south is to get all the red-necks away from NASCAR and into a classroom and then show them in little words how they are being conned. while we're at it we'll give them all little confederate flags to wave around. then we'll call all the homosexuals, faggots and give them some chains to tie to their pick-ups to drag some nigras around with. We'll pat them on the back and tell them who to vote for. I think that will just about do it. Or, we can do what Bill Clinton did and talk to them about hope. they'll respond favorably either way. we just can't make the mistake of running a Ma. liberal again."

     Wow, talk about condescending..

     With this type of crap you aren't going to sway many, if any, conservatives to change their opinion of progressives and agree with you on issues.

     No, you will just further allow, and help force, the divide between Red states and Blue states to widen.

     Perhaps that's your goal, I'm really not sure.

     I thought blogs like this were about the exchange of ideas without attacking people.

     Man you didn't just attack one person, you attacked all conservatives that like to watch Nascar, and labeled them as morons with the "little words" comment.

     Are you just trying to pay us back, because we used to be mean to black people, and we still discriminate against homosexuals?

     What's the deal bro?

     In a nutshell, I'm asking, where's the love that dove progressives are always talking about sharing with the world?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/20/2005 @ 4:06pm

127. Not a bad effort but you still aren't quite there OARIBI1952. How about: I disagree with Bush's decision and if he had done what I wanted him to do Americans would not be dying in Iraq.-----Or-- I believe President Bush misled the nation and now we are in a war where Americans are dying. Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/20/2005 @ 4:12pm

128. ROTFLMAO

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 4:21pm

129. One added note: War consists of many decisions involving trade-offs. One of those decisions by our military planners has been that the reduction in battle risk for US forces in using DU versus any known exposure related health hazards was substantial.

     The problem I see with this is that no one bothers to inform our soldiers of this. They're the ones being exposed to it; not the ones in the cushy seats back in the States who aren't. If there's even the possibility of health ramifications from exposure to DU, then the soldiers should wear suitable protective gear in areas where DU is released to the atmosphere (and there's one vet of the first Gulf War who came back home with very high uranium in his system who was stationed in Saudi Arabia and was never in Kuwait or Iraq, thus raising the possibility that the released-to-the-atmosphere area isn't necessarily limited to where DU-munitions were fired), and I don't give a damn how much it costs. Wanna raise taxes to fund it, go right ahead. If the enemy has exploded a chemical weapon, then naturally our troops are going to be outfitted in chemical suits; but when DU-munitions are consistently fired, they're not suited up. You can argue that, say, sarin gas is considerably more potent and will adversely affect someone a whole lot quicker, but that still doesn't change that DU is a potentially-dangerous agent that can affect that someone, too, and they're never aware that they're exposed to it, much less that it even exists. Maybe you see that as impractical, that the soldiers are exposed to adverse stuff all the time over there (I can only imagine the stuff they were breathing in when the oil fields were on fire) and that they couldn't suitably fight if wearing the necessary chemical-protective gear, which would mean they'd be protected from DU but be made vulnerable due to their inability to maneuver with the necessary agility while fighting, which would result in a Catch-22, of course.

     Either way, I think you'll agree it was inexcusable that Bush & Co. had our troops forgo mandatory physical and psychological exams before going to Iraq. I'm sure you know, Clinton had this enacted so as to avoid what happened to a lot of vets from the first Gulf War: having disability benefits denied due to lack of proof that their ailment was due to fighting overseas. With these pre-deployment tests, soldiers have in their record what they did and, most importantly, what they didn't have before deploying; so if they come back with something, their pre-deployment file can show that they either had this before they deployed -- which would disqualify it as a military-related disability -- or after -- which would qualify it as such. A veterans-paid ad denouncing the Bush administration on this was set to run in The New York Times, but apparently someone at the Times leaked it to the administration, who coincidentally announced before the paper hit the street in the morning that they'd be giving post-deployment exams. So not only would the post- exams be practically useless in light of there not being a pre- one to compare it to, but they were merely done with scorecards and questionaires, rather than blood tests and the like, which can detect foreign pathogens. Unconscionable, this. So when Bushies spout their "support the troops" stuff, it's quite hypocritical. And, LL, how many people know about this? Very few. So when you previously brought up that the majority of the voters picked Bush and that means they don't feel manipulated by him, how can they not feel manipulated over something like this that they have absolutely no knowledge about? A well-informed public this country is largely not comprised of. Thank goodness I'm not limited to the mainstream media or choose to be limited by it.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 4:53pm

130. Kevin,

     I'm happy to see you critique LL's "trade-off" comment.

     Your point is right-on, and I would add that it is for financial reasons that the troops aren't told - VA healthcare and that kind of thing.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 5:03pm

131. Well, I wasn't necessarily rejecting his trade-off defense, only that perhaps things could be done to lessen the what he called the lesser side of the trade-off.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 5:21pm

132. Kevin,

     I didn't interpret your critique as rejection of the trade-off comment - what LL says about trade-off is true as it is with most other endeavors.

     The point I was making was that the U.S. Govenment does not tell the troops about some dangers for financial reasons. I understand and accept the trade-offs that have to be made, but I don't accept not taking care of the troops.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 5:39pm

133. Totally.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 5:40pm

134. War is a damn dirty and destructive business and in reality even the 'winners' don't really win; they just temporarily come out on top.

     I don't think Bush ever really understood war for what it really is; if he did understand war and went forth as he did in Iraq, then he is an ogre worst than words can describe.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 5:43pm

135. The following is a quote from my friend Stuart, posted on another site:

     The truth about Iraq is slow to sink in because people do not want to believe that the President is lying. I mean, who really wants to think that? A lot of people can't see that if several media sources are saying the same thing, how this can be a misrepresentation of the truth. Most people are decent, hardworking people who wouldn't themselves mishandle a public trust and can't see that anybody else would either. To cross the line is actually pretty radical for most people.

     However, once people have absorbed the truth, and have awakened to the possibility that they have been lied to and manipulated, their anger may be aroused.

     We may see this process demonstrated here. I don't know that the toothpaste will go back in this tube.

     Stuart was responding to another poster comments about protesting the war in Iraq.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 5:49pm

136. That depleted uranium is a radiological hazard seems unlikey.

     That it is a heavy metal poison is well documented, and the effects of that are well known.

     While breathing the dust created when the stuff burns would cause a significant organ dose to the lungs, the latency between radiation exposure and lung cancer diagnosis is (if I remember correctly) 10 years or so.

     Actually, I would like to get my hands on some of the stuff. It is wonderfully dense, and would make good counterweights. The radiation is pretty much all Alpha, and a good coat of latex paint will stop it. Not that the dose is very high. I think that is why the EPA does not categorize Depleted Uranium as a radiological hazard. It is classified as a heavy metal poison, though. Like Lead, Mercury, Cadmium. But it could be very useful commercially.

     The problem is, because it makes such good bullets, it is a controlled substance. Because the only folks who have it are those with Uranium refining capabilities. And it does make good bullets.

     Posted by jonb at 08/20/2005 @ 5:59pm

137. Hman23

     Hope you are scrolling this site as it is here where I will post my response to your questions regarding the US as an "imperialist power".

     For everyone else, forgive my long post but Hman23 has persisted in the inquiry and I promised so it is only fair that I respond.

     1. Do you consider the foreign policy of the United States, during the past century or so, and certainly since the end of WWII, to be consistent with those of an imperialist empire? 2. If so, is this justified and how?

     First of all, your framing of the sentence is nearly impossible to answer adequately. You can be imperialist but not an empire and the same applies in the converse construction.

     We certainly would not be considered an empire in that we have not taken possession of any foreign nations and maintained that possession. The US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico had no nation state to conquer, and certainly did not have an economic system. Hawaii of course is always to open to debate in this area, but you would be hard pressed to find many except some small hardcore groups who want to secede from the US. The Philippines did fit that definition for a period of time but of course they are now an independent nation struggling to find their own way (I know a lot about the Philippines having lived there and still overseeing 11 churches there currently).

     As to Imperialism, by the specificity of the definition, virtually any major economic power in the world today including China is an imperialist.

     I would instead posit that being imperialist isn't by definition always a bad thing. Certainly, Alexander the Great did much to advance civilization through his conquests. Europe owes a great deal to the Roman Empire in bringing some critical elements of civilization to broader Europe and England (roads, baths, governments). If you ask the indiginous Taiwanese people (I lived there for some time), they will tell you that they were appreciative of the benefits from the Japanese Imperialistic occupation compared with the Chinese who currently dominate.

     I also would refer you to Prof. Niall Ferguson the Historian at Harvard and MIT who has written extensively on the same theory that no all imperialism is necessarily bad.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

     Niall Ferguson (April 18, 1964--), born in Glasgow in Scotland, is a well-known and widely published British historian of modern imperialism. Ferguson is incumbent Professor of History at Harvard University and is currently Herzog Professor in Financial History at Stern School of Business, New York University, and Visiting Professor of History and Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, University of Oxford. He is a specialist in financial and economic history.

     Ferguson has earned a reputation as a revisionist who challenges many of the long-standing orthodoxies in history. Ferguson's wide profile in journalism and his revisionist reputation has led him to be compared to A. J. P. Taylor, though the comparison is not entirely apt: there is a very wide gulf between both the beliefs and methods of Ferguson and Taylor.

     In his 2001 book The Cash Nexus , Ferguson argued that the popular saying, "money makes the world go 'round," is wrong; instead he presented a case for human actions in history motivated by far more than just economic concerns. In the same book, Ferguson made a case against those historians such as Paul Kennedy, who argued that the United States was a politically and economically over-stretched power on the verge of collapse. If anything, Ferguson argued that United States was not sufficiently involved in the affairs of the world. In his books Colossus and Empire, Ferguson presented the British Empire as an essentially benevolent institution and expressed regret that the modern U.S could not be like the 19th century British Empire.

     3. Do you think, judging from your knowledge of American history and conflict, that the will and force we seem to consistently impose (sometimes unilaterally) upon the rest of the world, is in some fashion responsible for the terrorist acts and other U.S. hostilities we see today?

     First of all I disagree with your premise that we consistently impose our will and force on the rest of the world. That kind of rhetoric usually comes from sources like Chomsky, Zinn or the various hardcore socialist and communist organizations.

     Terrorism is primarily caused by radical Islamists bent on establishing Islamic government throughout the world.

     Last month a Muslim Cleric in London Sheikh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi, it calls for the replacement of British parliamentary democracy with "a new civilisation based on the worship of Allah", attacks the Conservatives for being "in the hands of an illegal Jewish immigrant from Romania" and speaks of the "near-demented judaic banking elite".

     The Centrality of Jihad in Islam By Lawrence Auster FrontPageMagazine.com | August 20, 2004

     All thoughts of pacifying Islam by assimilating it into the global democratic system must fall down before a simple, terrible fact: Jihad--holy war against all non-Muslims--does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi (quoted recently at FrontPage Magazine), "Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them." World peace, according to Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam."

     Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."

     In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains, by the way, why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims.

     And Israel's existence which the US will always support is reason enough for the terrorists to hate Israel, all Jews, and whoever supports them.

     Israel's Existence is Forbidden by Islamic Law On May 3, 1999, Yasir Arafat's official Palestine Authority (PA) radio station (Voice of Palestine) broadcast the following religious sermon (at Jerusalem's Al Aqsa mosque) instructing all Muslims that Israel is part of Palestine and that Israel's survival is "forbidden by religious law:"

     The land of Muslim Palestine is a single unit which cannot be divided. There is no difference between Haifa and Nablus, between Lod and Ramallah, between Jerusalem and Nazareth. The division of the land of Palestine into cantons and the recognition of the occupation is forbidden by religious law, since the land of Palestine is sacred Wakf land for the benefit of all Muslims, east and west. No one has the right to divide it or give up any of it. The liberation of Palestine is obligatory for all the Islamic nations and not only for our Palestinian nation....All Israeli politicians across their entire political spectrum, regardless of their labels, they all have a single Zionist view embodied in the occupation of the land and the establishment of the Zionist entity at the expense of the Muslim Palestinian land....Allah shall free the captives and the prisoners, Allah shall grant victory to our jihad warriors.

     Islamic Jihad leader, Ramadan Abdalla Shalah says [Mid-East Mirror, November 10, 1996):

     In the end Israel will disappear as the Koran states. From the standpoint of the Koran, there is no place for Israel and its existence is not justifiable.

     Another Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, said [Jerusalem Post, May 25, 1997]:

     Islam does not permit giving up one inch of Palestine and states that Palestine belongs to the Muslims, belongs to the Palestinian people, not to the Jews. Bartering land is not liberation and is not permissible in Islam.

     In Jan. 1995, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz Bin-Baz, ruled that Islamic law does not rule out peace with Israel - on condition that it is a temporary peace, until the Moslems build up the [military] strength needed to expel the Jews.

     The Hamas Charter instructs: "We [all Palestinians] know the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise... 'I swear by that [sic] who holds in his hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill.'"

     4. How is the American empire to not follow other past empires by eventually collapsing under its own internal politics, external over-reaching, and eventual bankruptcy?

     That is a hypothetical that no reasonable person could respond to. First of all, as I stated at the beginning, the US is not an empire in the true definition of the term. The nature of the world and who global economics functions today along with a military strength that the Romans, Alexander, or Genghis Khan could only dream of, dispel old theories about the conditions that dictate the rise and fall of an empire.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 6:01pm

138. I do think if I was exposed to a bunch of it burning, I would be concerned.

     Long term, the stuff is incredibly dense, even as an oxide. So the idea of it blowing around in the wind seems unlikely.

     If I recall it is about 22 grams per cubic centimeter (Help me out, I'm not sure)

     Mercury is only 13.7, (if I reall correctly) just for a perspective.

     Posted by jonb at 08/20/2005 @ 6:02pm

139. Excellent post, LL

     Posted by jonb at 08/20/2005 @ 6:06pm

140. I do think that many who are under the influence of Islam would prefer to lead peaceful lives, and don't want much to do with jihad.

     Posted by jonb at 08/20/2005 @ 6:09pm

141. Jonb,

     Thanks for your added comments on DU. I didn't want to overextend an already long post with that information. The point about heavy metal toxicity is especially poignant.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 6:11pm

142. JonB - That depleted uranium is a radiological hazard seems unlikey.

     How do you know whether DU is a radiological hazard or not? What do you mean by radiological hazard?

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 6:42pm

143. LL,

     Do you consider DU to not be a radiological hazard?

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 6:44pm

144. LL or JonB,

     Either of y'all care to comment on the Bush administration having had our troops forgo those mandatory pre-deployment physical and psychological exams before going to Iraq?

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 6:47pm

145. Comments on the charges that Bush has cut benefits and has otherwise abandoned the Veterans.

     This is more urban myth put out by Democratic talking points and winding up throughout the internet.

     The recent Whitehouse request to increase VA medical benefit services was submitted to Congress last month to meet the increased needs over the previously submitted budget estimates.

     http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_7_14_05.pdf

     The overall budget has increased yearly under President Bush and has been increased again for 2006 by 3% before the July 2005 amendment noted above.

     http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/budget/veterans.pdf

     Here is the game the Democrats are playing as noted on their House Democrats website:

     http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/

     Democratic Budgets for 2005 and 2006 Properly Funded Veterans' Health Care June 30, 2005 -- Unlike the Republican budgets, the Democratic budget alternatives offered on the floor of the House this year and last year would have sufficiently funded veterans' health care for 2005 and 2006. Unfortunately, both were defeated with almost every Republican voting against them.

     Last week, the Administration revealed to Congress that the Department of Veterans Affairs had a 2005 funding shortfall for veterans' health care totaling $1 billion and an unspecified shortfall for 2006. Consequently, the President is forwarding an emergency supplemental funding request to finance the 2005 shortfall and an amended 2006 budget submission to increase funding for next year. The Administration has characterized these shortfalls as a surprise and attributed them to faulty workload modeling when developing the original budget requests. Unfortunately, to many of us, these shortfalls came as no surprise. Each year, the Administration has underestimated veterans' health care workload and cut funding below the levels needed to keep pace with inflation. Veterans groups and Democrats have recognized the shortfalls in the President's budgets and proposed more funding to ensure veterans received the health care they need. If Democratic proposals were accepted, VA would not be in need of emergency supplemental funding or in need of submitting an amended budget.

     What they are saying is that the budget should anticipate spending more than the VA estimates, in case there isn't enough rather than a supplemental or emergency funding authorization.

     The dispute is over methods, not any real reduction in spending on Veterans health care which has increased by nearly 20% under President Bush.

     Added note to Kevin,

     I guess I'm old school, but we didn't need pre-deployment physical and psych exams in the old days. Somehow the generations before us got through also without them.

     We had those exams when we went in or in my particular example, I had additional psych exams when I volunteered for Special Ops. That was fun messing with the Psychiatrists heads during the exam.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 6:49pm

146. Do you consider DU to not be a radiological hazard?

     It is by definition a very low level radiation cotaining substance. We get it from depleted uranium sludge, in other words, waste from nuclear energy sites.

     Depleted uranium (DU) is uranium which contains a reduced proportion of the fissile isotope U-235 and (usually) the highly radioactive but rare isotope U-234, compared to natural uranium. During the Manhattan Project depleted uranium had the codename tuballoy, a term that is still occasionally used.

     Natural uranium contains nominally 0.7110% U-235 (+/- 0.1% variation) and 99.28305% U-238 (and 0.0054% U-234), while depleted uranium contains only 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent U-235.

     Depleted uranium is also used in a number of civilian applications, generally where a high density weight is needed.

     Such applications include sailboat keels, as counterweights and sinker bars in oil drills, gyroscope rotors, and in other places where there is a need to place a weight that occupies as little space as possible. Tungsten could be used instead, but it is much more expensive.

     Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium counterweights (a Boeing 747 may contain 400–1,500kg)

     Hope this provides some additional clarification

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 6:56pm

147. Just wanted to make sure that we agreed that DU was radioactive material.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 6:59pm

148. LL,

     I guess I'm old school, but we didn't need pre-deployment physical and psych exams in the old days.

     Well, that's not surprising being that this, as I wrote above, was enacted under the Clinton administration in '96.

     Somehow the generations before us got through also without them.

     Well, good for y'all. But this doesn't address that these exams were enacted to prevent our soldiers from being unfairly denied disability benefits from a military-related ailment.

     We had those exams when we went in or in my particular example, I had additional psych exams when I volunteered for Special Ops. That was fun messing with the Psychiatrists heads during the exam.

     I'm glad you see fit to try to add amusement to this matter while not addressing that these exams -- whether you approve of them or not -- are mandatory exams that Bush & Co. had the troops they purport to support forgo. So they're mandatory, they're there to benefit afflicted soldiers, and you just brush this off as not a big deal. I find that quite sad.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 7:01pm

149. Russ Feingold is one of the only US Senators asking for to develop an exit strategy and timeline to bring our troops home from Iraq; rather than build bases and indefinite occupation like most of the hawks in both parties apparently want. If this goal is ever going to be accomplished, we need more people like Feingold in the Senate. Here in PA, Gov. Rendell has endorsed conservative treasurer Bob Casey to run against Santorum and tried to deprive us of a primary. Casey won't even say whether he would or would not have voted to authorize force in Iraq, but says we now need to stay the course. But there is hope. A progressive democrat named Chuck Pennacchio is running a grassroots campaign to win the primary and beat that right-wing nut Santorum. Whether or not you live in Pennsylvania, we could use your help. http://www.chuck2006.com

     Posted by daveinphilly at 08/20/2005 @ 7:04pm

150. Kevin,

     When I entered the service, many years before 1996, I had to take a physical, and I had to take physicals on a recurring basis, at specified intervals, throughout my service years.

     The intervals for the physical that I took were based on the hazards that I was normally exposed to as part of my duties.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 7:05pm

151. BTW,

     I have been using VA medical benefits for 34 years and have had better care with the VA then civilian services (got my Veterans Universal Access Identifican card right in front of me now-for those who doubt, Vets will know what I', saying). I think the VA care is better than that of most of the world.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 7:05pm

152. LL,

     I find it pathetic that you continue to dodge the matter I've put before you here. And we're not fooled by your bringing in the Bush-isn't-cutting-veteran's-benefits stuff as a smokescreen to try to distract from this. You're fooling no one, and you're giving yourself a tremendous black eye by dodging what is a very serious matter.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 7:13pm

153. LL,

     Now that debated extensively and passionately, I wish to say; welcome home.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 7:17pm

154. Excerpts from the Salt Lake City Tribune article,"Rocky's call to protest Bush makes vets see red":

     Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson called for "the biggest demonstration this state has ever seen" to protest President Bush's appearance Monday before a national veterans convention. "This administration has been disastrous to the country," Anderson said Friday. "If people could organize and speak out in an effective manner from the reddest state in the country, that would garner a lot of attention." In an e-mail Wednesday to about 10 activist leaders, the maverick mayor of Utah's capital called for a diverse demonstration to greet Bush when he speaks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the Salt Palace Convention Center. The mayor plans to join the protesters.

     The mayor's message drew a howl of outrage from Mike Parkin, senior vice commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars Atomic Post 4355 in Salt Lake City. ''Excuse my French, but - that son of a bitch!'' he said. "It makes the mayor look very, very unpatriotic. It makes him look despicable." Parkin said such demonstrations, particularly against the Iraq war, give comfort to America's enemies and will be particularly offensive to the 13,000 to 14,000 veterans gathering at the convention. "I voted for the son of a bitch and I'll never vote for him again," said the Vietnam War veteran.

     Anderson disagrees with that measure of patriotism. "Patriotism," the mayor said, "demands that people speak out when we see our government officials acting in such anti-democratic and deceitful ways to the people of our country." He also said: "I don't understand people simply blindly going along with the sort of deceit and utter cruelty of this administration. It's not just we have the right to speak out, but we have the obligation to speak out when we see misconduct on the part of the government. The most patriotic thing we can do is stand up against the misuse of governmental power."

     Meanwhile, peace activists already were gearing up for the president's visit. Erin Davis, a veteran who opposes the war in Iraq, predicted at least 1,000 anti-war activists would begin gathering in Pioneer Park early Monday. The demonstration will be joined by a national group of military families who oppose the war.

     Source: SLC Tribune online.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 7:31pm

155. First some added corrections to Democratic myths from Factcheck.org

     http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

     Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith. February 18, 2004 Modified: February 18, 2004

     In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: "He's cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country."

     It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

     Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

     As to Veterans being denied disability claims; I have heard just as probably the rest of you have the testimony of veterans on various left leaning programs. I will not attempt to even suggest that everyone gets their claim approved and paid in a timely and accepted manner. That doesn't hold true of civilian claims, much less veterans.

     However, if you would investigate, you would find that the Bush Administration has invested heavily in improving the process including the appeals process.

     For 2003 and 2004, approximately 14% of initial claims were denied. This figure is before the appeals process. 2003 39% were appealed and 44.4% in 2004. 58% of appeals went back for procedural rework.

     In actuality, that means that somewhere between 6-8% of Veteran Disabiility petitions were denied. Even that figure is probably lower due to additional appeals avenues.

     I am linking the testimony to Congress that this data comes from.

     http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05655t.pdf

     I hope KC that this throws additional light on the subject. There are many ways sometimes to get to the same destination. Clinton obviously had good intentions in the pre-exam requirement. It doesn't however mean there aren't alternative ways to get the same desired result.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 7:36pm

156. Administration to increase VA healthcare funding

     Congress Daily PM, Tuesday, July 12, 2005

     APPROPRIATIONS

     White House To Ask $2 Billion More For Vets' Health Care

     The White House is preparing as early as Wednesday to formally ask Congress for nearly $2 billion more to cover unanticipated veterans' healthcare costs, which is higher than earlier estimates yet still not enough to meet increased demands, according to critics. Part of the amended FY06 budget submission would provide an additional $300 million to offset increased utilization of healthcare services for this fiscal year, while the rest would go toward filling gaps in coverage anticipated for next year. The new aid request comes on top of a $975 million FY05 supplemental currently pending in the Senate. The House quickly approved the funds before adjourning for the July Fourth recess. At that time, House Democrats wrote to President Bush calling for a supplemental request of $1.3 billion, which they argued was necessary to cover the current year funding gap -- and which the White House now acknowledges is the correct target.

     Nonetheless, the aid request for FY06, which comes to nearly $1.7 billion, does not factor in an estimated $600 million in costs VA officials have told congressional staff would be incurred if lawmakers do not accept White House proposals for new user fees to pay for healthcare services. Since the White House proposals -- unpopular with lawmakers because veterans would be paying more out of pocket -- would essentially lower demand and thus long-term care and utilization costs, sources familiar with the discussions said the real FY06 funding gap is closer to $2.3 billion, since Congress will not go along with the increased user fees. _____________________________

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 7:42pm

157. LL,

     I appreciate you responding, but I'd like a yes or no answer to this question: Being that these exams were and still are mandatory -- not optional -- was the administration right in having our soldiers forgo them? Whether you think they're useful or not useful is irrelevant; we're talking about something that is mandatory (and let's not forget that when the administration got wind that that ad in the Times was going to come out, they didn't defend their decision by saying, "Hey, we don't think these mandatory exams are necessary. Here's why.", they quickly went public with their post-deployment scorecard announcement). Yes or no?

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 7:44pm

158. Kerry blisters Republicans, touts Democratic comeback at state level By David Ammons, AP Political Writer | August 19, 2005

     SEATTLE –John Kerry, last year's unsuccessful Democratic nominee for president, was back on the campaign trail Friday -- this time promoting a Democratic resurgence at America's state capitals as the party attempts to rebuild.

     After blistering Republicans on everything from Iraq to health care, the Massachusetts senator said Democrats have an opportunity to rebuild simply by addressing the concerns that affect people's daily lives -- energy, transportation, health care and security.

     His comments came before 750 Democratic state legislators attending the National Conference of State Legislatures. He announced plans to campaign and raise money for Democratic legislative candidates across America.

     He may use those chits for a new White House bid, but said in an interview that he's taking his political plans a day at a time.

     Read the rest of this entry » http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=288

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 7:50pm

159. [blog.thedemocraticdaily.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 7:54pm

160. OR,

     the user fees apply to middle income veterans (approx 40k per year income). Any vet making under $25,200 is not subject to the new fees.

     Also the fees include raising prescription prices from $7 to $15. Most Americans would love that kind of deal.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 7:55pm

161. Kevin,

     I'm going to have to plead for help on this one. Multiple varied attempts to retrieve the information you are driving at has come up blank for me.

     Give me more detail so I can respond. Thanks

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 8:18pm

162. Kevin,

     I did see where you were on this with equal anger in October 2004 at Ian Williams website:

     Let's also not forget the Bush administration having had our troops forgo mandatory pre-deployment physical and psychological exams before leaving for Iraq. Clinton had these mandated in ‘98 so as to avoid what happened to the first Gulf War vets: being denied disability benefits because there was no medical record of the afflicted soldiers not having had their affliction before going overseas. Heinous and unconscionable, this.

     But until toe-the-liners with their head in the sand wake the hell up and make themselves aware of relevant information like this instead of obsessing about reality TV and shopping, our troops will be getting more of the same.

     Posted by Kevin Collins on October 25, 2004 at 10:33 AM

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 8:27pm

163. LL,

     Yes, it's "anger". So sorry for being more than a bit POed over this treatment of our soldiers. And I'm even more POed that the sitting-on-the-sidelines mainstream media had their thumbs up their butts in not bringing attention to this. Here are some responses to what you wrote above while I look for what you've requested:

     In actuality, that means that somewhere between 6-8% of Veteran Disabiility petitions were denied

     That's very encouraging, but I certainly hope any soldier making up that 6-8% were not denied because there was no medical record confirming that they didn't have the ailment before they deployed, and they were denied because of this. And I'm not quite tracking that 6-8% you cite:

     For 2003 and 2004, approximately 14% of initial claims were denied. This figure is before the appeals process. 2003 39% were appealed and 44.4% in 2004. 58% of appeals went back for procedural rework.

     I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this term "procederal rework" in the appeals process. Does this mean that these 58% of appeals were decided in the appealer's favor, or that they were merely sent back to be "reworked" to determine if they'd go in the appealer's favor?

     And...

     the user fees apply to middle income veterans (approx 40k per year income). Any vet making under $25,200 is not subject to the new fees.

     OK, so a veteran making the whopping pre-tax income of $25,200 is subject to it.

     Also the fees include raising prescription prices from $7 to $15. Most Americans would love that kind of deal.

     OK, so in a nutshell: Their copays have doubled. Wait, scratch that: technically, they've more than doubled. And "love that kind of deal"? LL, the last time I had insurance through a company my non-vet self paid a $15 copay, too. I expect our vets to pay less than I do in light of their sacrifices. So under this administration when poverty levels are increasing, they give away deficit-contributing tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires who don't need them while doubling the copays of veterans whose households could be skirting the poverty line. I don't call that even remotely "compassionate".

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 8:37pm

164. An aside:

     LL's reference to income in his post to me inspired me to look at median incomes. The following is what I discovered.

     The median income for American families has gone down in terms of real dollar value (i.e., discounted for inflation).

     The Sept 2002 Census Bureau reported that median income in 2000, discounted to 2001 dollars, was less than median income in 2001; for Americans to be progressing vice regressing economically, usually the reverse is true. So the average American really is losing economically under the Bush Administration's economic policies.

     LL - thanks for the inspiration.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 8:37pm

165. Kevin,

     If you read the full testimony of the link I had included and am linking again, perhaps you will better understand. And yes, it does mean that the appeal determined in those cases that there were technical glitches with the appeal, not substantive.

     Also, these benefits are for those veterans who have no other health provider.

     Every Veteran is important but it seems like you have made a major emphasis out of a small number of people statistically. I know that is how crusaders behave, but is there something missing in your heated attacks on this subject that I'm missing?

     Are you looking for a more socialized medicine approach to this country?

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 8:56pm

166. Median Family Income (source: Census Bureau)in 2003 dollars:

     2000 - $54,191

     2001 - $53,421

     2002 - $52,864

     2003 - $52,680

     Median family income for 2003, in 2003 dollars, is 2.8 percent less than it was in the year 2000.

     I want some more of the Bush Administration's economic policy; that way the average American can get to the bottom of the economic ladder as fast as possible.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 9:03pm

167. oops, forgot to include the link again

     http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05655t.pdf

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 9:07pm

168. The army is planning on keeping more than 100,000 troops in Iraq for four more years.

     Source: [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 9:08pm

169. LL,

     Give me more detail so I can respond. Thanks

     Here's the directive:

     http://www.ha.osd.mil/policies/1999/clin9902.htm

     And here's a story about it (tried to find a "nuetral" publication"):

     http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-03/05-01-03/a02wn019.htm

     At a House hearing in March, Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., said the Defense Department was not following the law because soldiers were not getting physical exams before deployment.

     (Shays also said at a Congressional hearing on this on March 25, 2003: "From my standpoint, you're not meeting the letter of the law, clearly, and I don't think you're meeting the spirit of the law.")

     And here's the GAO's report:

     http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031041.pdf

     Also, here's a statement from Steve Robinson, the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center:

     "At the 11th hour and the 59th minute, it appears that DoD has averted a public relations nightmare by changing certain aspects of the deployment policy for soldiers. Someone must have gotten wind that this ad by TomPaine.com was going to run. It took two congressional hearings, 15-to-20 newspaper articles and well-placed ad in The New York Times to make the DoD bend to the will of the American people as expressed in Public Law 105-85."

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 9:10pm

170. Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 9:12pm

171. BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni Arabs complained Saturday they were being sidelined in talks on the new constitution only two days before the deadline and warned that their community will reject the document if it is submitted to parliament without Sunni consent.

     Sunnis complain of being cut out of talk [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 9:15pm

172. Four more years hell; we'll probably be in Iraq for another decade.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/20/2005 @ 9:17pm

173. Also, these benefits are for those veterans who have no other health provider.

     Well, I expected that. And a lot of vets who have incomes barely above the poverty line I don't expect to have another health care provider.

     Are you looking for a more socialized medicine approach to this country?

     Please, LL. I stated no such thing. I'm not talking about non-vets in this country. I'm talking about vets who don't deserve to have their copays more than doubled. And, no, I'm not saying we should shower each and every one of them with yachts and mansions. But for their sacrifices, I believe if we can borrow money from foreign countries to pay for tax cuts for the rich than we can come up with the money to keep these copay payments where they were before the doubling of them. That's all.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 9:25pm

174. Bush supporters start camp countering war protesters

     CRAWFORD, Texas A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up in downtown Crawford today. It counters the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch. The camp is named "Fort Qualls" in memory of 20-year-old Marine Lance Corporal Louis Wayne Qualls. He was killed in Iraq last fall. His father, Gary Qualls of Temple, said his 16-year-old son also wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.

     Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, California, started the war protest August Sixth off the road leading to Bush's ranch. It has grown to about 100 core participants, and hundreds more from across the nation have visited, many staying a few days.

     Sheehan remained today in Los Angeles, where she flew Thursday after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. Some demonstrators say that her mother has some paralysis on her right side but is in good spirits, and if she improves Sheehan may return to Texas in a few days.

     Sheehan had refused to leave until Bush talked to her or until his monthlong vacation ended.

     Copyright 2005 Associate

     Posted by aludra at 08/20/2005 @ 9:37pm

175. Orai....this is the very mess that GB-1 didn't want to happen. I am incredulous at the thought that the architects of this current disaster understood their objective so poorly. They seem to think that everyone will want to "be like us" and this is obviously a myopic and simplistic logic. Islamic nations to a one have theocratic / autocratic political structure....their religion is their culture is their political belief system. We cannot expect them to unlearn their entire way of life.

     All we have done is depose one madman and replaced him with 10,000 up and coming lunatics. Of course, add in the destruction of their entire infrastructure and they have S-O-O much to be thankful for dontcha know!

     btw: check this out....http://geodude.home.mchsi.com/bush_blues.html

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2005 @ 9:59pm

176. LL Good point about Germany, Japan and South Korea, although there are certainly some major differences between each of those instances and Iraq that render the historical analogy you make weak as well. I was being a little tongue in cheek about the dependence on the US and my analogy to welfare, which is also at least a little different than the situation in Iraq. Now that you mention it though, it seems that to a certain degree Japan, and certainly South Korea, still depend on the US to defend them in the event of an attack. Anyway, the dependence comment was hardly the main point of my post, which was to counter the notion that Feingold's proposal "sends the wrong message". I was making the case that given the circumstances, a date certain for withdrawal could be a positive development. That doesn't mean I believe it will happen, anymore than President Bush and his people really believed there were WMD in Iraq.

     Posted by RichardOpie at 08/20/2005 @ 10:43pm

177. Are you looking for a more socialized medicine approach to this country?

     Please, LL. I stated no such thing

     I wasn't accusing Kevin, just asking.

     Also, taxcuts are not spending, they aren't borrowing. A taxcut is merely returning to someone the money they earned and paid to the Government. It's their money.

     I have fought against the Income tax for decades and will continue to do so until we eliminate the 16th Amendment which is a socialist scourge on America.

     I support the fair tax iniative to abolish the income tax, capital gains, and inheritance taxes and replace them with a national sales tax.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 11:08pm

178. ORAIBI1952-----It is a very hard game to play with economic numbers. I think people can make them say what ever they want. I went to the U.S. Census Bureau website and found the folowing: Median Family Income adjusted for inflation: for 2001--$50,844 for 2002 $51,742 and for 2003 $52,273. The economy is growing at a very nice rate, jobs are being created. As always we still have many economic worries: housing bubble in some communities/states, increased energy cost, loss of manufacturing jobs, but we have always had worries and of course many have been more serious in times past. We have always weathered the storm and come out on the other side stronger. Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/20/2005 @ 11:23pm

179. LL:

     Thanks for your response, but I have to say you must either be a lawyer or have testified as a witness in numerous proceedings. :) I do not make my posts as perfectly phrased as a thesis (this is afterall just a blog).

     I won't clutter this thread too much longer on this topic, but you do not seem to want to acknowledge that our foreign policy actions have consequences for us down the line (other than to acknowledge that our support of Israel probably plays a role). I am not saying the U.S. is ALWAYS to blame, but your hypothesis that Islamic militancy would exist on its own initiative seems like a a dressed-up version of "they are crazy." It's convenient for us to believe that the reason for Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with what we have ever done, because it obsolves us. Sorry, but I find it easier than you to acknowledge that a terrorist may take arms against the U.S. for reasons broader than your definition of Islam - because his family was the victim of collateral damage, or he was tortured by either a U.S. soldier or a government the U.S. put in power, or because he belongs to a population that has been repressed by a U.S. puppet government put in place so American companies could broker favorable deals for the country's resources.

     Regarding your earlier points, I think the subjugated would disagree that imperialism is not always "such a bad thing."

     We may not be a classic empire like Britain or Rome was, but given today's technology we do not need to be. We do not need to maintain possession of entire nations as Rome or Britain did. The only possession we need is foreign military bases.

     It seems to me that your upshot is that we have the ability, and we should do whatever we want with our might, because any response is not related. I disagree, it's much more of a relative system than you seem to make it.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/20/2005 @ 11:23pm

180. LL---I too am interested in the fair tax plan. I would support a pilot project in a state or community to see if could work for the entire country. However, I believe democrats will work with all their might to defeat even a test project. They are worried that they would lose the class warfare issue. Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/20/2005 @ 11:26pm

181. Hman

     Well, it would be appropo for most of the world to come to the conclusion that the terrorists are crazy since no rational human being would indiscriminately murder innocent human life.

     That was not the intent or purpose of my response but after thinking about your subsequent response, it is most appropriate to call anyone committing such atrocities as "crazy".

     I stand by my conclusion that the terrorists would continue to act given their interpretation of the Qu'ran and Israel's existence.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 11:48pm

182. It's been an interesting and challenging day! hope everyone enjoys what is left of the weekend.

     Mahalo!

     Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 11:50pm

183. Also, taxcuts are not spending, they aren't borrowing. A taxcut is merely returning to someone the money they earned and paid to the Government. It's their money.

     Then you might want to take that up with the Bush administration which has had to go to foreign banks to borrow from to pay for those tax cuts. And, though you may not believe it, The New Republic's front-page story a week or so ago called "The New New Deal" makes a semi-persuasive case for a national sales tax, as well as an equally semi-persuasive case for a single-payer health-care system. Worth reading if you can find it.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 12:12am

184. LL, The problem with replacing income, inheritence, and capital gains taxes with a national sales tax is that it is a fundamentally un-Christian thing to do. It would create a disproportionate burden on those who can least afford to absorb it. This country would never support switching to such a system because of the strong Christian tradition of charity. Now, I know this isn't a direct form of charity, but talk of a consumption tax would create a large number of stories about starving children and elderly folks while wealthy capitalists would be able to vastly increase their horde. Doesn't sound like a popular idea to me.

     Posted by MeanGreen at 08/21/2005 @ 02:39am

185. LOVE LIBERTY:THE SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG IS RUSS FEINGOLD AND THE WAR. I know how much you enjoy blathering on endlessly about your entire right-wing agenda (tax cuts for rich people,etc.), but if you must insert yourself into our venerable respected liberal magazine website(as a subscriber, I subsidize the free speech you enjoy here ), please limit your comments to the subject at hand. (I think you come here because you like to talk to intelligent people, and your right-wing friends are boring.)

     Posted by philbq at 08/21/2005 @ 06:10am

186. Phil,

     "(I think you come here because you like to talk to intelligent people, and your right-wing friends are boring.)"

     I know your not talking about me bro, I not boring!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 09:14am

187. MeanGreen----the proposals for a national sales tax that I have seen reimburse those who are currently not paying income taxes so that they remain in the same status of not paying income/national sales tax. Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 09:42am

188. LEN MOSS: THIS BLOG IS ABOUT RUSS FEINGOLD AND THE WAR. I know you rightwingers get a woodie at the thought of eliminating taxes on rich people, but stick to the subject!

     Posted by philbq at 08/21/2005 @ 09:54am

189. The Kurdish representatives at the negotiations for the new Iraq constitution are complaining that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq pushed the Kurds to agree to allow Islamic law to be supreme in the legal framework of the constitution. This is intended to satisfy the Shiites who want a government ruled by Islamic law. Sunnis make the same charge that the U.S. ambassador was rushing them to agree to the supremacy of Islamic law to meet the deadline and complete the constitution. It is becoming clear that the U.S. is willing to abandon its previous goal of a secular Iraq to get any agreement, even if it means a government and society ruled by Islamic law. RIGHTWINGERS: are you satisfied with this?

     Posted by philbq at 08/21/2005 @ 10:10am

190. Len Mosse-ORAIBI1952-----It is a very hard game to play with economic numbers. I think people can make them say what ever they want. I went to the U.S. Census Bureau website and found the folowing: Median Family Income adjusted for inflation: for 2001--$50,844 for 2002 $51,742 and for 2003 $52,273. The economy is growing at a very nice rate, jobs are being created. As always we still have many economic worries: housing bubble in some communities/states, increased energy cost, loss of manufacturing jobs, but we have always had worries and of course many have been more serious in times past. We have always weathered the storm and come out on the other side stronger. Len

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/20/2005 @ 11:23pm

     Len - Your post was very instructive of your point about numbers being manipulated. Very sly of you to pose the numbers, in your post the way you did.

     But sense we need to get back to Russ Feingold and Bush's numbers in Iraq, I cease my comments on your post about how Bush's Census Bureau can manipulate the numbers.

     It is better to focus on how Bush and his totalitarian government subordinates are manipulating the numbers, and facts in Iraq; and why Russ Feingold is right in demanding that a deadline be set.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 11:28am

191. Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

     Hagel Says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam [new.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 12:22pm

192. PHILBQ----No Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 12:40pm

193. PhilbQ--- Excuse me, let me make that more clear-----------NO-------- Sincerely Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 12:41pm

194. ORAIBI1952----Let me get this straight. You use the U.S. Census Bureau for your post and its fine. I use the U.S. Census Bureau for my stats and it's not---all of a sudden it becomes Bush's Census Bureau. So I guess the deal is all stats and materials that make the republicans and Bush look bad are accurate and tell the whole truth, and all the stats and materials that say something else are inaccurate. PLEEEEEEEEEEASE tell me that you are not that far over the edge.----Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 12:48pm

195. ORAIBI1952----After reviewing your post further, I think you are over the edge---"Bush's totalitarian government"--Give me a break---enough with the theatrics---If that were true half the people on this board would be in jail. You do your cause a disservice when you say things like that---No one in their right mind can take you seriously. ----Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 12:52pm

196. Len,

     Just like all conservatives; attack the messenger when you don't have any real answers.

     Your failure to see the flaw in your numbers reasoning and word definitions tells me a great deal about you too.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 1:01pm

197. ORAIBI1952---Where is the flaw? It says adjusted for inflation. I got those numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau--the same organization you said you got your numbers from. Also --where I have attacked the messenger. All I asked was were you really that far out there? Because if you really believe that we exist in a "totalitarian government" you are in my opinion "over the edge", or "out of touch with political reality" in your political thinking. I did not attack you as a person in any way. I attacked your political reasoning. I am sorry that you can't handle people disgreeing with you and take it as a personnel attack.---Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 1:12pm

198. What was the base year for the inflation adjustment? How does it compare to the numbers presented in my post; that is are we comparing apples to apples or oranges to apples?

     Totalitarian - state or government where one party or group maintains complete control and refuses to recognize all other political parties.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 1:18pm

199. OARIBI1952---Because the numbers are adjusted for inflation, and were inclusive for the years 2001,2002,2003, we are comparing apples to apples. Your definition of totalitarian still does not apply to this country. If you think that it does, then I think that you are not in touch with political reality, and your statements will do a great disservice to your cause.----Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 1:26pm

200. Enough is enough, say Bush supporters of Crawford protests

     By Thaddeus DeJesus Tribune-Herald staff writer

     Sunday, August 21, 2005

     CRAWFORD – The president's supporters are rallying behind a new slogan: Enough is enough.

     Critics of the peace movement and war mom Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford by car and by motorcycle Saturday to show support for President Bush and the Iraq war. In one demonstration, about 350 bikers buzzed the camps arranged by Sheehan and other demonstrators calling on the president to be accountable for the war. PEACE MOM'S PROTEST

     Cindy Sheehan gets a hug from her spokesperson Michelle Mulkey after getting word her mother, Shirley Miller, suffered a stoke in Calfornia. Sheehan and her sister, DeDe Miller, immediately left the camp Thursday.

     While the day was relatively quiet at the peace camp entrenched near the Western White House, Bush's supporters gathered in downtown Crawford.

     "The silent majority has arrived and, hey, the cavalry's on the way," said local businessman Bill Johnson, who sat atop a horse during a separate pro-Bush rally of about two dozen. "Believe me. Don't think it isn't. Because, you know, we can take it, and take it and take it ... and at some point in time, there needs to be a response from America."

     Johnson alluded to a forthcoming caravan scheduled to arrive in Crawford next Saturday after snaking through the southwest from San Francisco. The event, called "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy," is being led by a mother who has a Marine son.

     Sheehan, however, was present Saturday only in spirit. She remained in Los Angeles, where her mother is recuperating from a stroke. A statement released on behalf of Sheehan said that the earliest she could return to Texas is Wednesday.

     Sheehan has become a public face in the grief caused domestically by the Iraq war. Her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed April 2004 in an ambush attack in Baghdad. She has become both lauded and reviled for her vocal criticism of Bush's Iraq policy. She has called on the president to meet with her to discuss the war and the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

     Sheehan's cause incensed Army Sgt. Anthony Farr, a combat photographer from the 39th Infantry Brigade, based in Little Rock, Ark.

     Farr was wounded when a bomb hit his military vehicle in Iraq as it approached an overpass. Now, Farr uses a cane to walk and is receiving post-traumatic stress disorder treatment at Fort Hood.

     "If we leave right now, it makes us feel like we're the cowards, that we're running away," said Farr, who was in Crawford Saturday. "We need to be doing what's right. We're there, and we need to finish the job."

     Sheehan's vigil and the growing sense that the Iraq war was a mistake, according to recent national polls, has put President Bush on the defensive.

     During his weekly radio address Bush linked the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the catalyst for the war on terrorism, which he said includes Iraq.

     "They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail," said Bush, according to a transcript.

     Critics contend that no proof has been established to Saddam Hussein with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Judging by some of the signs at Sheehan's camp site, some of the peace protestors aimed arrows at Bush on that issue.

     Carol Carrillo, 40, of Fort Worth, came to Camp Casey to lend her support to the anti-war voices. Originally, Carrillo said she planned to arrive in Crawford with a larger group, but some members cancelled after hearing news that Sheehan wouldn't be at the camp.

     Still, Carrillo said she believes Sheehan has opened a dialogue on the Iraq war. The anti-war demonstrators numbered about 200 Saturday.

     "Look at all the people that are here," Carrillo said. "They're not going anywhere."

     That also serves as fuel for the other side.

     James Vergauwen, 59, of Windthorst, Texas, said Sheehan's absence won't dissuade the president's supporters to embark for Crawford. The Vietnam War veteran sat at the edge of the town's main intersection with his Harley-Davidson motorcycle at his back on Saturday as bikers swirled around him.

     His own personal experiences coming home from Vietnam influenced his decision to come to Crawford to show support for the troops and the president. Years ago, Vergauwen was returning from his tour of duty and he was greeted by anti-war demonstrators at the San Francisco International Airport. As he walked by in his uniform, someone threw a bag of human excrement on his neck.

     The experience still angers him today and he said he hopes today's veterans don't have to endure that treatment. As for Sheehan, Vergauwen said he supports her right to free expression, but wonders what would have happened to her had she lived in Iraq and called Saddam Hussein a liar, as she has Bush.

     "We wouldn't have heard of her any more," he said. "They would probably find her head in a deep freezer.

     Posted by aludra at 08/21/2005 @ 1:32pm

201. If you'll provide the Census report that you used, then I can look up the inflation base-year information for myself.

     Knowing the base year is important in determining whether or not we are comparing the same data. If you look at my post, the data stated the base-year for discounting inflation.

     We agree to disagree on the totalitarian issue.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 1:33pm

202. Figure 1. of the 2003 Census Report shows real median income declining after year 2000; whereas it incresed for every year of the Clinton Administration.

     Source: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States:2003 [census.gov]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 1:52pm

203. Listened to Feingold on Meet the Press today and I must say, he didn't really impress anyone including the liberal "I want to be the next Rather" David Gregory.

     Even a harsh Bush critic like Dem Carl Levin wouldn't outright support Feingold's proposal.

     I think this continues to be a DOA item given that there is no enthusiasm for it with most of the Senate Dems.

     I do predict that once the draft constitution is ready to got to the voters in Iraq, the wave of terrorist violence against Iraqis will trigger a new call for the timetable by liberals. It seems that's what many (not all so some of you don't get in a twit)on the left every time they are faced with the enemy's efforts.

     We will be right here going through the same exercise.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 2:04pm

204. TOTAL TRASH

     Posted by andersog at 08/21/2005 @ 2:15pm

205. Reasons we are in Iraq [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 2:29pm

206. I do predict that once the draft constitution is ready to got to the voters in Iraq, the wave of terrorist violence against Iraqis will trigger a new call for the timetable by liberals. It seems that's what many (not all so some of you don't get in a twit)on the left every time they are faced with the enemy's efforts.

     Hmmmm, I don't recall liberals like myself setting a timetable for Afghanistan, where the "war on terror" was properly focused until Bush & Co. wrongly shifted gears to non-9/11-involved/non-WMD-possessing Iraq. Please, LL.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 2:39pm

207. Oh, LL, you might want to have a stern word with the Army. After all, they stated yesterday they're going to be in Iraq for 4 more years. I didn't graduate college, but that sure seems like a timetable to me.

     :)

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 2:41pm

208. KC,

     The subject was Iraq, not all enemy events worldwide. I also was very careful to not make my statement inclusive of all liberals.

     However, it does raise a very legitimate question. If it is so important to have a timetable for Iraq, why isn't it equally important in Afghanistan and Bosnia?

     I haven't heard any Democrats calling for timetables in those nations (someone may have, but it sure hasn't played in the media on sites like the Nation).

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 2:46pm

209. "I don't recall liberals like myself setting a timetable for Afghanistan, where the "war on terror" was properly focused"

     This is the fallacy of the LIB point of view. Like Afghanistan is the ONLY front on the war on terror. Or that terrorists are everywhere on the planet EXCEPT IRAQ before the war. It doesn't take much scratching of the LIBERAL surface before it all falls apart. But NUTTY LIBS like you and Cindy prove the point everyday. FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!!

     Posted by aludra at 08/21/2005 @ 2:53pm

210. Oh, LL, you might want to have a stern word with the Army. After all, they stated yesterday they're going to be in Iraq for 4 more years. I didn't graduate college, but that sure seems like a timetable to me

     KC,

     I usually expect some of the more impulsive bloggers to write a comment like that. I didn't expect it of you because of your usual thoroughness. I have been hoping someone on the left would make this comment this morning.

     Headlines are often deceiving and once more some have fallen prey to a headline not being accurate to the actual facts.

     The Army said they are "prepared for 4 more years as a worst case scenario". That is normal military planning to prepare for a wide range of scenarios. The pertinent paragraphs backing up my point are pasted here with the bold punctuation my own editorial emphasis.

     Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq Aug 20 5:49 PM US/Eastern

     By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer WASHINGTON

     The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq _ well over 100,000 _ for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.

     In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers.

     Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped.

     http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/20/D8C3QATG0.html

     I enjoy our debates KC because they are usually based upon reasonable debate of the facts. This one evidently just slipped by your usually detailed mind.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 2:56pm

211. KC,

     Don't buy that worse case garbage that DOD is spewing forth; worse case with the Bush Administration war team has become the normal situation.

     Or as we called in the military-hood - SNAFU.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 3:15pm

212. Please pray for Vicky Field's son and keep their family in your thoughts. John

     From: Vicky Field

     Subject: My son has been shot in Falujah.

     I wanted to get everyone to pray for my son Chad. Today, Sunday, I got a call from the Army that my son had been shot in the head. I am asking for all your prayers. He was in a Humvee going through Falujah fighting and a gang of militia fighters fired on the Humvee and hit Chad in the head. The driver got him out of the city and took him to Baghdad. He was in fatal condition, but now has been upgraded to stable critical. His dad and I are on standby to fly to Washington then on to Germany as soon as the military calls us to go. The Army is trying to stabilize him enough to fly to Germany and at that time we will leave.. Please pray that my son will not have brain damage and that he will be restored and healed by the blood of Jesus, and the grace of God. I ask for you to pass this prayer request on so there will be many prayer warriors praying for him. Thank you so much.

     God Bless,

     Vicky Field

     Granbury, Texas

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 3:20pm

213. Vicky,

     " Please pray that my son will not have brain damage and that he will be restored and healed by the blood of Jesus, and the grace of God."

     I do pray in Jesus's precious Holy name that your son will be healed. By his strips we are healed. I thank you for your sons service to our country and will add him to our prayer list of soldiers to pray for.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 3:35pm

214. It would be a breath of fresh air to see some reporter have the courage to mention President Eisenhowers departing speech and his reference to the Military Industrial Congressional complex and its power as the prime-mover for continuing war profiteering. Edward R. Murrow, where are you? Does the Right wing echo-chamber and its 'Ministry of Propaganda' have everyone in their back pockets??

     Posted by dstff6 at 08/21/2005 @ 3:36pm

215. Posted by dstff6 at 08/21/2005 @ 3:36pm

216. The subject was Iraq, not all enemy events worldwide.

     Sorry, but in this...

     on the left every time they are faced with the enemy's efforts.

     ..."the enemy's" came off to me as U.S. enemies in general.

     I also was very careful to not make my statement inclusive of all liberals.

     Well, you just wrote "the left", not "some on the left" or "many on the left". But, hey, I've written all-inclusive stuff like that pertaining to righties, too.

     However, it does raise a very legitimate question. If it is so important to have a timetable for Iraq, why isn't it equally important in Afghanistan and Bosnia?

     Legitimate question, and I'll try to answer it as someone who doesn't necessarily support a timetable. The people who are pushing for it will probably say that unlike Afghanistan and Bosnia, Iraq is a mess that doesn't seem to be getting any better, when in actuality the situation that's a mess should be the one not to be given a timetable since the situation isn't stabalized enough. Some of it comes from the administration's habit of painting a more more cushy picture than the reality that's actually going on over there (their continual downplaying of the "last throes" insurgency is a major example); some with Iraq never having been a necessary war in the first place due to its non-operational ties with al Qaeda, not to mention the non-existent WMD; some that the violence is spurred by U.S. occupation and that with the departure of that occupation there will be no one the insurgents and terrorists will be particularly agog over killing. (I know someone can counter that Iraqis are being killed, too; but this is only because it's to defy the U.S.)

     I haven't heard any Democrats calling for timetables in those nations (someone may have, but it sure hasn't played in the media on sites like the Nation).

     Well, consider this: While one could speculate that those on the left who aren't pushing for a timetable on Kosovo aren't doing so because it was a Democrat who got us into that, it kind of breaks down when applied to the no-timetable on Afghanistan, which is correctly seen as a legitimate target on al Qaeda and seems to be much better controlled then Iraq (which isn't to say that there aren't hurdles to be leapt over there, either). Yes, there are indeed terrorists in Iraq who've slipped over the weakly-guarded border, who, because of the war, have been given the opportunity to come on over and try to kill some Americans; and with terrorists over there, the thought of leaving naturally doesn't seem like a good one. But these are terrorists who wouldn't be over there in the first place if it wasn't for the war. Will staying there longer take some of them out? Sure. But I don't have much confidence in the Iraqi police force. The administration keeps saying how many Iraqis are in the force, but they conveniently nelgect to mention that only some of them have actually completed the training, and even there this doesn't inspire much confidence for three reasons: one, I've read that their training is hurried and takes no more than a week, which inspires little confidence, just as it would if a cop in a major U.S. city -- or, hell, even in a small town -- were given such paltry training; two, not all of the recruits have joined out of some undiluted passion, but merely to earn a paycheck -- with a good many I bet embittered ones from the disbanded national army; three, with the low pay and far-from-undiluted love for the U.S., they're susceptible to bribery and corruption (after all, being part of the force is, in the eyes of both the terrorists and the insurgents, being part of the U.S.; and they're not going to be too willing to die for this).

     So the U.S. can stay, but with Iraq now a breeding ground for terrorists and having only a partially-manned Iraqi police force now and even a fully-manned one in the future, I don't really see any end in sight because, for the reasons I stated above, the terrorists will continue to operate over there; and if we continue to stay because of the terrorists, then that means our continued presence will guarantee continued actions from the insurgents.

     That's my take. A solution? I'm not going to give one, because it's a mess over there loaded with Catch-22s.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 3:45pm

217. LL,

     I'll freely admit to jumping the gun on that one. I'd caught the headline on Yahoo News last night at a bar when I was more than halfway through a pitcher of Pabst and hadn't read the text of the story.

     Guilty as charged, sir. (How about time off for good behavior, though?)

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 3:47pm

218. I'm not a particularly religious person, but Chad, buddy, my best of wishes and hope to you.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 3:50pm

219. For those who aren't privy to Eisenhower's Military Industrial Congressional Complex speech:

     http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 4:27pm

220. "For You O'Democracy" by Walt Whitman

     Come, I will make the continent indissoluble,

     I will make the most splendid race the sun ever shone upon,

     I will make divine magnetic lands,

     With the love of comrades,

     With the life-long love of comrades.

     I will plant companionship thick as trees along all the rivers of America,

     and along the shores of the great lakes, and all over the prairies,

     I will make inseparable cities with their arms about each other's necks,

     By the love of comrades,

     By the manly love of comrades.

     For you these from me, O Democracy, to serve you ma femme!

     For you, for you I am trilling these songs.

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

     For Chad, may he recover; and for his family, may they be blessed with his recovery.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 4:51pm

221. Frank,

     "onight at 8pm on CNN, watch 'DEAD WRONG'. Colin Powell's prewar presentation on WMD's in Iraq to the UN. Mandatory viewing for all Republicans."

     Do you assume all Republicans think we were right about the WMD arguments and data that supported it?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 5:53pm

222. No, but we do think you're closing your eyes to the exaggeration and manipulating of the data.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 6:00pm

223. Frank,

     "In any event, you'd probably never see this investigative report on Fox News."

     Frank, you aren't suggesting that the only the right leaning Fox News is the only biased network are you?

     Because I haven't seen any coverage on CNN or the BBC of the "You don't speak for me Cindy" caravan and tour

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 7:17pm

224. Todd,

     Think before you write (as I myself learned this morning with the Army/4-year thing):

     http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/19/bush.neighborhood.ap/index.html

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 7:35pm

225. Kevin,

     Good for them, they got this one right. I think you got my point, CNN tends to lean just as left as Fox News does right.

     That's why one must watch a variety of different news sources, and read a variety of different internet news sites and listen to a variety of different news channels on radio and then make up their own mind on issues.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 8:22pm

226. Todd,

     I kept up on the '04 campaign trail very closely, and every time a story popped up that was negative on Bush, CNN ran it, and when one on Kerry popped up, CNN ran it. Personally, I think the mainstream media in general is gutless and therefore useless. Thank goodness for the Internet; the thought of relying on any mainstream media channel for my news sends shivers down my spine.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:41pm

227. KC provided the link and

     DSTFF6 wrote:

     It would be a breath of fresh air to see some reporter have the courage to mention President Eisenhowers departing speech and his reference to the Military Industrial Congressional complex and its power as the prime-mover for continuing war profiteering

     This ranks in the top 10 of misquoted and misunderstand presidential speeches in our history. First of all, Eisenhower mad no mention of "continuing war profiteering". Secondly, his speech was not anti military industrial complex. It noted the need for the military industrial complex given our changed world and to ensure that it doesn't infringe on our democratic processes and liberties.

     Please note his actual context:

     A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

     Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

     Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

     This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

     In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

     We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

     That is completely different than Dstff6 and many before them have twisted Ike's words to fit their anti-war stance.

     Now, since the subject was raised, I don't hear the same people raise what Ike considered another danger; Gov't employees dominating scholarly research, and science. Bet that surprises some of you on the left. He's right of course and it is way out of control. But I would rather you see his concern and how prophetic he was:

     In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

     Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

     The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

     So, thanks to Dstff6 for raising up President Eisenhower's wonderful speech. It just happens to be a different focus than uniformed liberal professors and left wing groups who never bothered to actually read the speech continue to misrepresent.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 8:49pm

228. LL,

     What did you think of my 3:45p post? I'm no military expert, but I wondered if you thought it had any merit.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:59pm

229. Frank-Todd, I hope you are watching this report. It's pretty damning to the Bush Adminstration and reveals why Colin powell wanted nothing more to do with George Bush. Dubya , Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, and others need to be held accountable. It's time for the right to come out of denial and admit failure.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/21/2005 @ 8:47pm

     I find it disgusting to see Tenet, et al rewarded with the Freedom Medal. I don't think Powell will ever get one; not that he is deserving of it either.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 9:01pm

230. Now let's see if the President is man enough and moral enough to admit his error and apologize to the country, then tender his resignation forthwith.

     (stifles laughter)

     Frank,

     When you've returned from Fantasyland, please give me a call.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:07pm

231. Oh, and concerning that timeline, when Bush & Co. were spewing that when-the-violence-increases-that-means-we're-winning stuff, that just adds to want to get out of Iraq. I mean, you can't have a hell of a lot of confidence in an administration to manage such an arduous task over there when they're saying stupid crap like that to us over here.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:12pm

232. Frank,

     The toadies of a totalitarian group are being rewarded. However, I believe that the general American public is becoming aware of what the Bush Administration truly stands for.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 9:12pm

233. Frank,

     I imagine you had to intensely cross your eyes to keep from laughing when you typed that, I'm sure.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:13pm

234. Frank,

     Oh, don't get me started on "F-911". Parts of it were very incisive, but Moore blew a lot of opportunities in it that were can't-misses. If it'd been of the galvanizing, devastating likes of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" I'd have been cheerleading it every second of every day.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:16pm

235. ORAIBI1952,

     Sadly, I think a lot of the pro-Bush ones have long been aware but just don't care and stick their heads in the sand. It's called "willful ignorance".

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:18pm

236. KC,

     I agree with the willful ignorance description. It fits right in with the religious right sermonizing about ideology in the guise of preaching spirituality.

     There will be a reckoning, and right soon.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 9:22pm

237. Couldn't watch it. I can't view CNN video on my laptop for some damn reason, and I don't darken the door to my motel room until after 10 when it cools off -- it's got no AC.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:31pm

238. The reckoning will begin with citizens demanding accountability.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 9:43pm

239. Frank,

     "Todd, I hope you are watching this report. It's pretty damning to the Bush Adminstration and reveals why Colin powell wanted nothing more to do with George Bush. Dubya , Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, and others need to be held accountable. It's time for the right to come out of denial and admit failure."

     The CNN story did bring forth a lot of evidence by many sources that gives a lot of credence to the failures of the Bush admin. I have never appologised for Bush. I will state again as I have stated many times, I voted for Bush merely becuase he was the lessor of two evils in my mind.

     Specifically on the war, I agree the "eminent threat of WMD"'s argument is seeming more wrong and wrong to me every day, including with this CNN story.

     That doesn't however mean I have changed my position on the need for regime change in Iraq.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 9:58pm

240. Has anyone read Vanity Fair's article, "All Roads Lead to Rove" by Michael Wolff?

     The article talks about how the press colluded to suppress stories about the Bush Administration. It would be nice to read excerpts of it.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 10:00pm

241. some that the violence is spurred by U.S. occupation and that with the departure of that occupation there will be no one the insurgents and terrorists will be particularly agog over killing. (I know someone can counter that Iraqis are being killed, too; but this is only because it's to defy the U.S.)

     KC,

     Overall a good set of observations. I disagree obviously with a number of your conclusions, but I only want to comment on the ones I think most important to engage in now (I have already made my "final" observation on the whole reasons for war subject earlier on Peter Rothbergs post).

     I think you are mistaken when you state that the insurgents are killing Iraqis just to defy the US. I'm looking for a more recent update but the point is still made by the following interview between CNN and the Iraqi Interior Minister in June of this year.

     In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005.

     According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there have been 307 U.S. fatalities in combat during the same period.

     The ratio as I recall from hearing the daily news reports is fairly similar. I don't believe that any fair assessment given the more than 20-1 ratio of Iraqis to Americans would indicate that it is to "defy the US". Clearly this is to intimidate the Iraqi people and the transition government, so that whether it is the Baathists or Islamic Fundamentalists, each wants to run the future government. That is a clearly a power struggle, that cannot be allowed to win. It is also clear that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want to peacefully determine their future.

     I noted in a previous posting (not sure if this one or Peter Rothbergs), that if you take the most liberal estimates of 100,000 insurgents, that represents less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the Iraqi people. That is just one reason (and a pretty sound one at that) why they must not be allowed to dictate Iraq's future.

     Second point:

     I've read that their training is hurried and takes no more than a week

     The Training program for Police is 10 weeks and there is an additional literacy program for those candidates that cannot pass the literacy program.

     http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil/headline3.htm

     Some progress reports on reconstruction etc, that get little media play

     http://www.dod.mil/news/Aug2005/20050820_2493.html

     For everyone: Whether you agree or not with our mission in Iraq, I do suggest you visit the official web page for the Coalition effort. You can at least view info first hand and determine what you want to believe for yourselves.

     http://www.mnf-iraq.com/

     Thanks again Kevin for intelligent dialogue.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 10:16pm

242. Guys, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't own a television (well, my son has one for playing his X-Box, but it isn't hooked to anything else).

     So I couldn't watch the show.

     By and large, I don't see much difference between the networks. Too little information, too much spin.

     If you recall, I have never said that the basis for engaging in Iraq was well thought out, or well presented.

     In fact, I concluded there must be more that the congressiional leaders were shown, which was classified, for them to go along with it.

     And I paid attention. It was clear they had nothing they were willing to share with the general public.

     But I voted for President Bush in 2004. Didn't vote in 2000.

     By the way, the continued support for the war in the congress on both sides of the aisle (and Kerry was as big of a hawk as Bush, the only difference was he claimed to be smarter.) might lead an observer to conclude that there is information which has still not been made public, which provides a reasonable basis for the war.

     We don't know everything, you know.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:18pm

243. Jon,

     Kerry acted like a hawk but he really wasn't. This is a guy who voted against the first Gulf War, for cryin' out loud, and that had a greater justification than Gulf War II. Kerry only voted for it for political reasons, just like did in voting against that $87 billion -- he did that because Howard Dean was the front-runner at the time who had a consistent stance against the war. (Note: Republicans labeling Dean "anti-war" was quite inaccurate in that he had supported Gulf War I.) In fact, I take exception to liberals labeling Dean a hawk just because he supports keeping troops over there; this isn't a hawk-ish position, but one based on what he believes makes the most sense now that the U.S. is already over there.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 10:41pm

244. well, frank

     I felt sorry for Colin Powell at the time.

     The bit about "Anodized" aluminum tubes was particularly embarassing.

     (Like Saddam couldn't get ahold of some sulfuric acid if he wanted.)

     So while I doubt there was "no spin": THERE IS ALWAYS SPIN! I don't think i would have been surprised much by this documentary.

     Colin Powell looked like he was going through hell. And it also appeared to me that he didn't believe the evidence for WMD's was any good. Just from watching him, that was my conclusion.

     The deomcrats should recruit him as a presidential candidate. He could win.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:43pm

245. Your comment about President Clinton is accurate, Frank.

     Though I do wonder, what President Clinton would have done after 9/11 were he in office.

     We will never know. Though I have heard that Bill Clinton is not particularly critical of this war.

     Is that true?

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:46pm

246. I posted this on Peter Rothbergs site earlier today:

     The whole sub-level debate that continues in all of the Iraq related postings here is rather pointless.

     With some few exceptions, nearly every left leaning person that posts here objected to war with Iraq even if it were 100% proven that Saddam had WMD. They would and do cite containment, the use of UN inspectors (nearly worthless if a nation the size of Iraq really wants to hide it's efforts), and even the "evil" sanctions imposed by the UN as better options than war.

     So, the constant back and forth on the evidence or lack thereof (depending on your viewpoint) is meaningless.

     The war did happen, so whether to start it has no meaning, unless you are one of the liberals who believe you will one day get your dream impeachment and international war crimes trial for Bush, Cheney, and their Administration Cabinet and Staff.

     The only true debate now is how to best see this through to completion, what signifies completion, and what are the steps in concert with completion to see the US out of Iraq.

     I have posted several times in response to questioning how I see the sequence of events necessary. I would like to see some constructive input from the left side. Other than the get out immediately, I have seen very little (the get out immediately is not constructive, even in the eyes of nearly all of the Democratic leadership).

     1. It must provide for a reasonable opportunity for the Iraqi people in their pursuit of self-determination.

     2. It must address how you see the current and future involvement for the US in Iraq, both for meeting point one and in terms of reconstruction.

     3. What is the international role?

     4. How does the US and Iraq convince the UN and other international bodies and other nations to become more involved in Iraq when they have been hesitant up to outright dismissive to this point?

     I look forward to some constructive dialogue (hopefully). The get out immediately crowd are those unwilling to think through the consequences, relying instead on emotionalism.

     I posted this in light of Frankg's obsessions with this whole justification aspect just as has evidently been done again this evening with the whole CNN report. I won't be watching it (first I even heard of it) for the obvious reasons I have outlined in this post.

     And yes, as I have stated and documented on many occasions, the war was completely justified. I support it 100% and have yet to see anything other than speculative evidence or evidence subject to multiple interpretations that would lead me to have any doubts. Further none of the so-called lies had anything to do with the fundamental reasons that I saw for the war. They have never been dismissed as illegal or without basis. They have only been disagreed with on judgment basis that the disagreeing indivdual would not have started the war on that basis.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 10:48pm

247. LL,

     The Training program for Police is 10 weeks and there is an additional literacy program for those candidates that cannot pass the literacy program.

     http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil/headline3.htm

     Well, you'd think if it were 10 weeks then it'd definitely be 10 weeks -- no ifs ands or buts about it. But when I come across another thing that contradicts that...

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55070-2004Sep27.html

     "In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct."

     ...one naturally tends to doubt what's supposedly the official real-deal over there.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 10:50pm

248. Your cooments on Dean and Kerry make sense, Kevin.

     My point, though, was that while they play partisan politics a bit, (with Feingold being a good example) real support for the war has been pretty monolithic.

     Even the "principled stance" of those in the congress who oppose the war appears to be predicated on the fact that their position will not be adopted by the majority.

     And they know it, before they take that position.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:52pm

249. My vote is the Post got it wrong.

     It wouldn't be the first time.

     Anyone want to dig in and find out?

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:56pm

250. It could be one of those 8 weeks in classroom, 2 weeks training on the streets deals.

     How would one find out?

     (Still betting against the post, though.)

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:57pm

251. Kevin

     Oh I see!

     Your link is from September, 2004.

     Since then, they probably figured out that 8 weeks didn't cut it.

     Make sense?

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:00pm

252. Though I do wonder, what President Clinton would have done after 9/11 were he in office.

     He would have hit Afghanistan, as any president, Democratic or Republican, would have done -- excepting, that is, Dennis "Everything Can Be Solved With a Hug" Kucinich.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:00pm

253. Frank

     In my experience there is always spin.

     It may not be as much.

     I didn't say it was bad.

     Philosophically, I always expect spin.

     And experientially, I always see spin.

     That is all.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:05pm

254. KC,

     As usual there is a genuine explanation for the difference. The Police college in Baghdad is 10 weeks. The training in Jordan was 8 weeks. The article you cite is from Sept 2004 (from Walter Pincus who gets many things wrong and is a known anti-Bush journalist) before the Baghdad Police College was completed and training shifted to the Bagdhad location.

     Eighty-five students who made it through the training faced a final challenge before graduating – the police entrance exam – with 84 receiving a passing score Aug. 4. Three of the students are serving police officers who are now in a position to retain their jobs, while 81 will shortly begin the 10-week police basic training program at the Baghdad Police College.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 11:14pm

255. LOVE LIBERTY:STOP DODGING MY QUESTION> In my previous posting today(Sunday, I asked for any supporter of the war, especially you, to tell me if you will be satisfied with the new Iraqi constitution if it installs a government ruled by Islamic law. Since your crowd has been selling the idea of a secular democracy, I would like to know if an Islamic theocracy is now acceptable. I await your response.

     Posted by philbq at 08/21/2005 @ 11:18pm

256. Since then, they probably figured out that 8 weeks didn't cut it.

     My goodness. Researching this is a doodle, because a surprise comes up almost every time. I checked this, and an '03 article does say 8 weeks, which of course is older than '04, so your conclusion perhaps has some merit. But then there's this:

     http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/2/200247.shtml

     "Training is supposed to last 3 months but is being compressed to 8 weeks. Training includes human rights education, coursework in individual liberties and the 'non-use' of torture, Bremer said."

     So it was supposed to be 3 months, got reduced to 8 weeks, but is now 10 weeks according to LL's link. So it's not like it started out at 8 and then went to 10, but started at 13 weeks then to 8 weeks then to 10 weeks. And the literacy requirement has merit being that a previous 5-week study of the training cited this as a considerable demerit.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:18pm

257. LL,

     See my post above. This seems to state that it was 8 weeks for Baghdad. And I wasn't aware of Pincus' politics. I tried citing from a source that I thought was neutral.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:23pm

258. LL, "So, the constant back and forth on the evidence or lack thereof (depending on your viewpoint) is meaningless." Dialogue in the National interest is never meaningless. How did you become so jaded?

     Of course dialogue is good. That is not the point.

     First of all, it is meaningless as I indicated in the fact that arguing whether something should or should not have been done after it has been done is pointless. It did happen. So, the argument cannot change that circumstance.

     In sound debate, there is a recognition that the path to proving your point(s) and winning the overall debate is to focus on those issues/points where there is an opportunity for a clear decision.

     The debate over the war cannot be resolved as I pointed out on the decision whether to wage the war, because both sides are firm in their conviction on virtually the same sets of evidence. In our debates, there is no 3rd party to validate a winner and a loser.

     The area where we can all legitimately engage in serious debate is on the future because it is undecided as of this moment.

     Therefore my posting is not jaded at all, but one might almost say "progressive" since I am looking for areas of agreement on the future, without relying on past or "traditional" approaches.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 11:24pm

259. Frank,

     I'm watching CNN's encore presentation of "Dead Wrong", and it the lies that are described in the story are more appalling the second time than in the first showing.

     The lies to gain support for attacking Iraq were far worse than the Tonkin Gulf lie.

     The totalitarian bastards suppressed any information that didn't fit their objectives.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 11:25pm

260. Frank,

     Apology accepted.

     (By the way, I'm halfway through a pitcher of Pabst at the Bodega bar. How wonderful Wi-Fi is!)

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:28pm

261. Note: In my 11:18pm post I meant to communicate that the 5-week study concluded that illiteracy among the police was a demerit, not the literacy requirement.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:31pm

262. KC,

     Per your post, it was 8 weeks in Jordan while waiting for the facility to be built in Baghdad. Since I took my information directly from the training command itself, the current figure of 10 weeks would have to be assumed to be correct.

     As an added point, remember, you were saying in your original post that you heard it was only 1 week. So if the program was 8 weeks for a while and now is 10 weeks, the obvious point is the training program is far more extensive than you had heard.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 11:35pm

263. Funny, I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton.

     Except, I do see a rationale for invading Iraq.

     It isn't all that strong. And we will see what the final outcome is.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:37pm

264. LL,

     The 1-week thing was obviously wrong. I was just trying to find some consistency in the training periods. So we can all agree it was supposed to be 3 months, moved to 8, and got 2 weeks added to it, right?

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:40pm

265. Correction: Should read "...moved to 8 weeks,"

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:41pm

266. Frank,

     Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are not stupid; just liars.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/21/2005 @ 11:44pm

267. Jon,

     Funny, I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton.

     What's this in reference to?

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:44pm

268. Frank,

     "That's why Cindy Sheehan is asking why. After tonight's presentation, she is probably more motivated than ever. Can you blame her now?"

     Nope, and she has every right to ask the tough questions, just as the other mothers that started the "You don't speak for me Cindy" protest have the right to support their sons fighting in the war, and the war in general.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/21/2005 @ 11:47pm

269. If The President were to admit he was wrong about the WMD's, I think that could be a good thing.

     I think it might help a little, with some people who can't seem to get past that.

     But, at the same time, there are those who would press for more admissions of error, malfeasance, and incompetemce.

     It is hard to say if in general it would be helpful.

     If I were him, I think I would say I was wrong.

     But while I think by now The President knows he was wrong about the WMD's, generally

     I do not think he would agree that the invasion was a mistake.

     I really don't think he sees it that way. I am somewhat undecided myself as to whether I see it that way.

     And since (if I am right) he doesn't think he was wrong to go to war, it is unlikely he will apologise or admit he was wrong for that.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:48pm

270. Imagine going to war on what that nut 'Curveball' said.

     Well, sadly, Kerry did -- even though I've explained the reasoning behind this, but have also previously made clear that he didn't have the intel that contradicted the administration's claims but only the cherry-picked intel that supported them. And, by the way, I still don't buy Kerry's BS that he granted Bush authority to declare war because he thought he'd exhaust all options. If someone as non-experienced in Washington, D.C. as I knew Bush was hell-bent on war and wasn't going to use it as a last option, surely veteran-D.C. player Kerry knew.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:50pm

271. Just a question:

     What would the geopolitical situation be today, if President George Bush had not decided to invade Iraq?

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:53pm

272. Todd,

     just as the other mothers that started the "You don't speak for me Cindy" protest have the right to support their sons fighting in the war, and the war in general.

     I'm a bit drunk right now, but watch that shit about "the right to support their sons" stuff. Those who oppose this war don't not support our troops. I get tired of that kind of nonsensical crapola.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:54pm

273. Frank, there is always spin.

     Most people don't notice the spin in stuff they agree with.

     I do, usually. Which makes me more cynical than most people.

     Some people don't even see the spin in Rash Lindbaugh.

     Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:57pm

274. LOVE LIBERTY:STOP DODGING MY QUESTION> In my previous posting today(Sunday, I asked for any supporter of the war, especially you, to tell me if you will be satisfied with the new Iraqi constitution if it installs a government ruled by Islamic law. Since your crowd has been selling the idea of a secular democracy, I would like to know if an Islamic theocracy is now acceptable. I await your response.

     Sorry Phil, I just noticed your post. I obviously on a personal level, would hope that the new government is not set up as a Islamic Fundamentialist State.

     Fortunately, that doesn't appear to be a possibility (unless the Islamic terrorists win). The inclusion of Sharia (Islamic law)as a foundation for guiding Iraqi law is just as logical as Judeo-Christian laws guided the formation of US law.

     So, I have no problem with what the Iraqi people are doing in using Sharia to baseline their laws. That does not set up a Theocratic government as you wildly charge.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 12:00am

275. Well, folks.

     I gota work tomorrow.

     So all of you have a blessed evening.

     And thank God if you don't live in Iraq.

     Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 12:01am

276. It's interesting all the debate from Left and Right about "exit strategy." We may reduce numbers or announce an end to operations in six months, a year, four years, but that will be only a question of the size of our deployment there because we will not fully withdraw. We will establish permanent military bases, just like we did after the first Gulf War in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Incidentally, Love Liberty, this is one of the reasons Al Queda cites as a basis for why they attack us (not simply because the Koran says they should kill nonbelievers).

     I think that the reason Bush was not so concerned about developing an exit strategy before the war was because he wasn't planning on ever really leaving, at least without our footprint.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:01am

277. John,

     What would the geopolitical situation be today, if President George Bush had not decided to invade Iraq?

     Uh, you would have Iraq as contained as it was before, with a brutal dictator sharing the world with a lot of other brutal dictators who, like him, don't possess WMD and who we haven't taken action against. You'd have more troops in Afghanistan, and very likely bin Laden's head on a platter. Iraq wouldn't be a breeding ground for terrorists, other countries would give our intel a whole lot more validity when it was needed to confront an actual threat to the U.S.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 12:02am

278. Kevin,

     "I'm a bit drunk right now, but watch that shit about "the right to support their sons" stuff. Those who oppose this war don't not support our troops. I get tired of that kind of nonsensical crapola."

     If you can't make a better argument than that, perhaps you should wait till tomorrow when you are sober...

     = )

     Particularly the part "Those who oppose the war don't not support our troops".

     A little testy there bro..

     1) I didn't say you don't support the troops 2) I was merely making a point that the Left (and Cindy) have the right to protest against the war while supporting the troops if they wish (you can't make a factual argument stating that ALL leftists that oppose the war support the troops by the way) and to ask questions, and the Right (those that support the war including the mothers that started "You don't speak for me Cindy") have the same right, and just as much right to pitch camp right next to Cindy's group if they want.

     I'm tired of the Left thinking they are the only ones with the right to protest, because the protest is against the war.

     The msm as well shows it's bias in this regard as they will normally give much more air time and attention to the "anti war" crowd. While ignoring Pro America rallies [e-thepeople.org].

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 12:05am

279. You know, we would hope they'd all get saved and set up a real democracy based on biblical principles.

     That probably won't happen.

     I will be satisfied with any stable, non hostile government that the people of Iraq want. It is up to them.

     For the sake of those, both american and iraqi, who have sacrificed so much in this war, I do hope that they form a government which provides security, freedom of religion and expression, opportunity for individuals to prosper and have normal lives.

     Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 12:08am

280. LL:

     "I stand by my conclusion that the terrorists would continue to act given their interpretation of the Qu'ran and Israel's existence."

     I find it hard to believe that if you study history as much as you claim, that you would lump all terrorists into one ideology. Didn't the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis have something to do with the fact that the U.S. helped oust Iran's nationalist prime minister in 1953 and replace him with the Shah? What about the 1995 attacks in Riyadh, or the 1996 attack at Dhahran? Bin Laden himself has stated that one of his primary objections is to expel American from it military installations in Saudi Arabia. Even this administration seems to understand that the presence of our military forces in Saudi Arabia is a central cause for Al Queda's attacks. Indeed, Rumsfeld announced a couple of years ago that all combat forces would be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia.

     No, I would say that the reasons for terrorism go much deeper than an interpretaion of the Koran.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:18am

281. OKSG:

     I don't think the Pro-America point of view is getting short shrift at all. I just read an article in Newsweek regarding Bush's meetings with families of those killed. It was a great fluff piece.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:24am

282. Frank,

     I swore I wouldn't watch the CNN report because I had a good idea what it would constitute. As usual, CNN manages to even lower their bar for good journalism.

     I predict the ratings for this will be nearly non-existent.

     The program was a joke. Filled with innuendo, 3rd party analysis, interviews and comments not only out of context but in the example of David Kay, missing his warnings about Iraq being even more dangerous than we thought, disgruntled former state dept employees (who BTW are usually moderate to liberal career govt employees-and the State dept has the worst reputation across Administrations for getting it right when it comes to war and being decisive). Than you add Dems in the interviews, left wing former CIA agents who have been gone from the company for years (one of them has been gone for nearly 30 years). Some of my best buddies at the company were moderates so that comes as no real surprise.

     For another more complete view of David Kay's Assessment

     David Kay: Exclusive interview Chemical, biological, nuclear programs ‘rudimentary'

     By Tom Brokaw Anchor & Nightly News Managing Editor NBC News Updated: 7:16 p.m. ET Jan. 26, 2004

     David Kay, who resigned last week as the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, now says he didn't find stockpiles of WMD -- or evidence of a nuclear program well under way in Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- and he blames it on a greatly flawed intelligence system and analysis.

     When I met Dr. Kay in Baghdad last summer he showed me the bales of documents he was confident would lead to the weapons. But instead, he says, Iraqi scientists told him Saddam's WMD program was in chaos.

     David Kay: They describe in Iraq that was really spinning into a vortex of corruption from the very top in which people were lying to Saddam, lying to each other for money; the graft and how much you could get out of the system rather than how much you could produce was a dominant issue.

     Tom Brokaw: You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.

     DK: There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it's quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area. But in chemical, biological and nuke, it was rudimentary.

     TB: David, as you know the vice president of the United States and Secretary of State Powell say, "We still don't know the end result. We could still find these weapons."

     DK: Well, Tom, let me explain how we came -- how I came to a different conclusion. If there weren't stockpiles of weapons, there must have been a production process which required plants, required people and would have produced documentation. But we have seen nothing that would indicate large-scale production.

     TB: And no scientist who testified to that.

     DK: No scientist, no documentation nor physical evidence of the production plants.

     TB: Intelligence report says ... "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with range in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

     DK: Well, I think it's got elements that we have certainly seen are true. The area that it's probably more seriously wrong in is in the nuclear area.

     TB: But as you know, the vice president and, to a lesser degree, the president of the United States, raised the nuclear threat as a reason that the United States had to go to war against Iraq.

     DK: I think the weight of the evidence -- was not great.

     TB: David, as you know, a lot of the president's political critics are going to say, "This is clear evidence that he lied to the American people."

     DK: Well, Tom, if we do that, I think we're really hurting ourselves. Clearly, the intelligence that we went to war on was inaccurate, wrong. We need to understand why that was. I think if anyone was abused by the intelligence it was the president of the United States rather than the other way around.

     TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat -- a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?

     DK: I think that's a very accurate description.

     TB: But an imminent threat to the United States?

     DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It's not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.

     TB: But as you know, the administration and its supporters, not just suggest, but insist that there was a real connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations that would be a threat to the United States.

     DK: Look, I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists. What we did find, and as others are investigating it, we found a lot of terrorist groups and individuals that passed through Iraq.

     All in all, a pretty pathetic attempt that will only embarrass CNN. Some producer will probably lose their job after the ratings and critics do their thing. CNN is already making the broadcast virtually nonexistent on their website.

     If Bush were to apologize because of this show, I would join millions of conservatives in demanding his resignation because he would have obviously lost all his reasoning capacity.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 12:25am

283. JONB:

     "For the sake of those, both american and iraqi, who have sacrificed so much in this war, I do hope that they form a government which provides security, freedom of religion and expression, opportunity for individuals to prosper and have normal lives."

     You forgot, and "will allow lucrative contracts to American energy companies, and allow us to install a dozen military bases."

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:26am

284. that's it, I'm out of here. I have a life besides this log and my better half is telling me I need to take my mother in law home.

     Mahalo

     Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 12:30am

285. LL:

     Have a good night, Can't say I am surprised by your critical review of the CNN piece. I guess you won't get your head out of the sand until someone unearths a tape recording of Bush saying, "Well, fuck the intellingence, we're going to war."

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:34am

286. Frank,

     "Todd, If you can convey to me in some other way than, "Kill all the terrorists", your reasons why this regime change is our problem, maybe we'll find some common ground"

     1) Although yes, the U.S. in essence helped prop Saddam up in the early years (which was a mistake) and yes, we funded him weapons to fight Iran (another mistake), he still turned out to be a bad dude.

     Inside Saddam's Torture Chambers [news.bbc.co.uk]

     Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam's torture chambers [usatoday.com]

     New video reveals real torture scandal [worldnetdaily.com]

     Saddam was torturing people, this is unethical, immoral and the something that I thought the U.N. was supposed to do something about or at least prevent.

     This is one reason we should be at war with Iraq, to take Saddam out of power (which we have done.)

     Your next question will be "Well Todd what about all the other evil tyrants in the world, why haven't we taken them out of power?"

     To answer that question before you ask it. I don't know, I do however think we should seriously consider it, if it would be in the country's best interest and ours, we probably should.

     2) Education: When the regime fell, approximately 80 percent of the nation's 15,000 school buildings needed rehabilitation and lacked basic sanitary conditions. [heartland.org]

     Additionally from the same source "Within four weeks, most schools were opened and students were preparing for their final exams. The national exams were held in all regions of Iraq with very little delay or disruption. National exams at all levels, but especially the exit exams at sixth, ninth, and twelfth grades, are high-stakes exams and Iraqis respect them.

     Teacher salaries were raised from $5 a month to a starting salary of $60 and an average of $300 a month.

     A new Minister of Education was appointed who quickly assembled a new senior staff. Some 12,000 teachers and administrators who had been members of the now-banned Ba'ath Party were fired.

     USAID has rehabilitated more than 2,500 schools and trained 33,000 high school teachers in effective and modern classroom management.

     UNICEF and USAID distributed school supplies to more than 5 million students and reprinted textbooks, after removing much of the propaganda from the previous regime.

     The U.S. Congress has allocated $70 million to rehabilitate 1,000 additional schools, and the World Bank has allocated another $60 million. These funds set the stage for school reconstruction for the next three years.

     The U.S. and other donor nations have pledged an additional $150 million for textbook revision, teacher training, and other non-construction projects. Teachers, for example, need to be trained in a variety of teaching strategies to ensure all students learn.

     The Ministry of Education has revised curriculum in the areas of civic education, history, and religion and has appointed a new national curriculum commission to revise curriculum in all subject areas."

     3) terrorism:

     There are some indirect links between Saddam, his regime and terrorism in the world. Saddam has aided terrorism at the very least financially, and has some other links I will argue below.

     "This article reports that the U.S. officials acknowledged that vast sums stashed abroad by deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein are unaccounted for and probably are being used to finance insurgent groups as well as terrorist activities around the globe. In testimony before a joint hearing of the House International Relations subcommittees on oversight and investigation and the Middle East and Central Asia, the officials said at least $262 million is being held in Syrian banks alone."

     from: Saddam's Money Fuels Terrorism Worldwide, Officials Say. CongressDaily AM; 7/28/2005, p11, 2p

     "Discovery that four sons of Saddam Hussein's half brother have provided financial support and weapons to groups that have attacked coalition forces."

     from: WHITE HOUSE WEEK. U.S. News & World Report; 8/1/2005, Vol. 139 Issue 4, p8-8, 1p, 1c

     "Over the last three years, starting even before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and groups close to him developed a sort of underground railroad to smuggle zealous fighters from Europe through Turkey and Syria into Iraq--and home again, if they survived. Now those recruits have been joined by a stream of young Islamists from Western Europe who are making their own way to the battlefield."

     from: JIHAD EXPRESS. Newsweek; 3/21/2005, Vol. 145 Issue 12, p34-36, 3p, 2c

     "detailed allegations that the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda terrorists led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Reason al-Zarqawi had taken sanctuary in Iraq; Description of al-Zarqawi's terrorist operations; Claims of alleged al-Zarqawi's lieutenant Azmi al-Jayyusi on the bombing of Jordanian intelligence headquarters.;"

     from: Did Colin Powell Hit Bull's-Eye? Human Events; 5/10/2004, Vol. 60 Issue 16, p1-8, 2p, 1bw

     "Claim of United States President George W. Bush's administration that al-Zarqawi is the link between al Qaeda terrorism and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein; Sources close to Jordanian intelligence say al-Zarqawi has gone back and forth across the Iran-Iraq border since Saddam's regime fell. According to a Jordanian intelligence briefing made available to NEWSWEEK, al-Zarqawi crossed the Iranian border after being wounded in Afghanistan in late 2001, was treated, then stayed in an Iranian safe house in the same town as fugitive Qaeda leaders. Later al-Zarqawi traveled to northern Iraq, Syria and Turkey. But he supposedly returned to Iran around March 2002, at which point he was "arrested" by Iranian authorities. Some Jordanian investigators believe that a high-ranking Iranian intel official then established a relationship with him to provide aid."

     From: Following Zarqawi's Footsteps in Iran. Newsweek; 10/25/2004, Vol. 144 Issue 17, p6-6, 3/4p, 2c

     4) Oil for Food scandal. It is well known that Saddam was illegally selling oil through Syria, in direct violation of U.N. sanctions.

     "Considering that we are talking about two state-sponsors of terrorism--Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Syria-- it is critical that we fully understand

     -- the scope of Syria`s involvement in the Oil-for-Food debacle;

     -- that we identify the nature of its involvement and warning signs that it was circumventing sanctions and manipulating the process; and

     -- that we also identify where the U.S. went wrong-- all of this, in an effort to avoid a repetition of past failures and mistakes.

     In 1996, the Oil-for-Food program was instituted with the goal of providing food to impoverished Iraqis, funded by the sale of Iraqi oil.

     Far from providing the Iraqi people its intended humanitarian assistance, the arrangement became astonishingly corrupt, with U.N. and other foreign officials and governments systematically abusing the system and receiving hefty sums of money in kickbacks from the Iraqi regime.

     Thus, the oil-for food program became the biggest heist in recent history."

     from: U.N. OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM,FDCH Congressional Testimony; 07/27/2005 authored by ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

     5) The possibility that he could have been the next Hitler:

     "If the greatest danger may be doing nothing, does that mean pre-emptive action is justified? In retrospect, any reasonable person would say that pre-emptive action against Hitler, either by fellow Germans or Western countries, would have been a blessing. One of the reasons my recently published novel, "Last Stop Vienna," offers a "what if" history of Hitler in the 1920s is to suggest that he could have been--and almost was--stopped on any number of occasions before seizing power. But since this was a time when much of the world hadn't begun to recognize the danger Hitler represented, such an act wouldn't have been recognized as the history-changing event it would have been. Truly effective pre-emption is rarely appreciated."

     from: Iraq and the Lessons of History. Newsweek (Pacific Edition); 4/7/2003, Vol. 141 Issue 14, p46D, 1p, 1bw

     "The comparison to Hitler accurately describes Saddam. Whether we follow the same destructive path of non-violent appeasement Europe chose when dealing with Hitler, or take a proactive approach, remains to be seen."

     from: Appeasing Saddam is dangerous USA Today; 10/04/2002

     "Calling, in effect, for "regime change" throughout the Arab world, Zuckerman compared Saddam Hussain to Hitler, declaring that we "should not be constrained by concerns about a postwar strategy, what one commentator calls the ‘and then what?' thesis, namely, that the next stage after Saddam's fall is too daunting. Nobody had a strategy for postwar Germany before Hitler was crushed. It was enough to say then, as it is now about Saddam, that removing him is far better than not."

     The repression of Saddam's regime, stated Zuckerman, has not been "seen since Stalin."

     from: Agitation for Iraq War Raises Question: Who Really Speaks for American Jews? Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; Nov2002, Vol. 21 Issue 8, p77, 2p

     6) I still believe that a democratically elected Iraqi government, even if it's one dominated by the Muslim faith, would still be more willing to open up fair trade with the U.S. for Iraq's oil.

     There's my reasoning for supporting this war, and none of it has to do with WMD's that would have simply been a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 01:26am

287. Frank,

     Oh, and I left off number 7. "We are killing terrorists"

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 07:09am

288. LOVE LIBERTY: In a government ruled by Islamic law, women have sub-human status on issues of marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, etc. I believe in freedom, LIBERTY, and equality for all people, including women. You obviously care nothing about women's rights, since you are happy to abandon them so you war supporters can paste together a flawed constitution and claim the war was a success. In years past, women could walk down the street in a skirt without a male relative. Now it is rare to see a woman without a scarf. This war is turning a secular country into a fundamentalist theocracy. And it is a theocracy when Islamic law is supreme over the judicial system, in spite of your evasions. By the way, the word "god" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, and many of the Framers were not Christians. Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, and many others were deists, who view nature as the manifestation of God. And even then, the Christian fundamentalists were trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Just like the Taliban...So this nation was founded on secular principles. It will be sad hypocricy to see U.S. blood and money used to set up an Islamic theocracy in Iraq, closely aligned with Iran.

     Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 07:56am

289. LOVE LIBERTY: I should have added "christian fundamentalists, like you, were trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else...just like the Taliban."

     Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 08:00am

290. LOVE LIBERTY: Although you are a Christian fundamentalist Taliban warlover hypocrite, I still think you're a nice person. Just misguided and deluded.

     Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 08:18am

291. phil,

     "Although you are a Christian fundamentalist Taliban warlover hypocrite, I still think you're a nice person. Just misguided and deluded."

     That's ok, even though you are a panzy, terrorist excuse making, secular, misguided and deluded liberal, we still like you too = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 08:29am

292. "Liberal: favoring individual frreedom, generous, tolerant..." - Webster's Dictionary...I'll accept that. Pansy? Well, supporting a stupid, disasterous war does not make one a man... it makes a fool.

     Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 09:27am

293. Liberal: that's spelled "freedom".

     Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 09:28am

294. The reason supporters of the war who are Christian fundamentalists are willing to accept an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq is that you are all the same: religious fanatics, brothers of the Taliban. But the war was justified (the reasons change daily) on the principle of creating a secular democratic nation with equal rights for all, including women. If you now abandon those principles, you are a hypocrite.

     Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 09:41am

295. OKSG:

     Your six points are pretty flimsy:

     1. We funded Hussein weapons that he used not only on Iran, but on his own people we now are so interested in freeing. When audits of Hussein's arsenal came after he fell, why do you think Bush redacted over 6000 entries? Because those weapons were tracable directly to us, I suspect. As far as supporting a tyrant and then flipping when the costs outweight the benefits, this is commonplace and shows that our oft-cited rationale of spreading democracy is an empty illusion. Of course we would prefer to deal with a democracy like our own, but as long as a regime is friendly to American corporate and military interests, we really do not care how the populace of that nation is treated. Look at our current relationship with Uzbekistan and Khazakhstan. These nations have atrocious human rights records.

     2. A noble goal, but hardly a good reason to justify an invasion.

     3. The terrorism connection is speculative at best. The articles you cite even admit that. Further they describe al-Zarqawi's connections post-invasion, which hardly prove a connection before the war. Hussein's sons support the insurgency? Because they were fighting against the invading U.S. forces to begin with, this is hardly surprising. This doesn't make their actions morph into terrorism simply becasue you attach that label. I would say their behavior is more anti-American than jihad.

     4. Food for Oil. The article you cite begins with an instruction that "we must fully understand." Thus, this is not authoratative of anything in my mind.

     5. Hussein could have been the next Hitler. Gross overstatement and pandering. There is no evidence to even begin to compare the two. Any attempts are insanely uniformed. Since Gulf I, Hussein gave no indications that he desired or had the ability to expand Iraq's influence or territory. Comparing Hussein to Hitler is no more than a disingenuous attempt to arrouse an emotional response. Oh he's like Hitler; then we must get rid of him.

     6. You finally hit it here. Although I disagree with the means, this is certainly, in my mind, the primary reason we went to war.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 10:18am

296. Hman,

     "Your six points are pretty flimsy:"

     In your opinion they may be, you certainly have the right to your own opinion.

     Those reasons however are all the justification I need to feel very comfortable with my support of war in Iraq.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 10:29am

297. Frank - KEVIN COLLINS, What difference 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, the end result is the same. They all get blown to bits by a suicide bomber and the music goes round ans round.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/21/2005 @ 11:23pm

     Frank - I agree totally with your sentiments expressed in the above quote.

     To debate how long training takes is a waste of time; and moreover the training issues supports the fact that the Bush people did not have an effective plan for Iraq post Hussein - just a bunch of buffoons is leading the United States' Iraq War effort.

     No strategic thinking at all from the Bush people; just more of "stay the course".

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 11:20am

298. Frankgrits - JONB, If there were no WMD's, there was no imminent threat.

     Frank - Even if Iraq had WMD there was no imminent threat.

     The imminent-threat-from-Iraq argument was another false and deceptive issue; originated and propagated by Bush's ideological spin-meisters and believed by the naive and/or the deceptive and willful ignorant.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 11:30am

299. Well OKSG, good for you. The way we are heading, our government will provide you with a steady diet of endless conflicts to support. You are just the citizen they want: gullible, afflicted with historical amnesia, and unattached from what we do in the world so long as the benefits to the American system keep flowing.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 11:33am

300. CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF August 17, 2005

     To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

     Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

     We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

     Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

     I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

     The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

     Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

     Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

     These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

     But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

     On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

     Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.

     COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

     Posted by aludra at 08/22/2005 @ 11:38am

301. HMAN,

     I see that Todd has moved the goal posts off the playing field, but at lease he realizes that the WMD argument was a lie.

     Click on the link below for an understanding of how Bush et al keeping changing the reasons for going to war from Iraq.

     Ben Sargent's Aug 20 political cartoon [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 11:40am

302. Hman,

     "Well OKSG, good for you. The way we are heading, our government will provide you with a steady diet of endless conflicts to support."

     Good, as this is pretty much what I said, when I said in the 1:26a.m. post:

     "Your next question will be "Well Todd what about all the other evil tyrants in the world, why haven't we taken them out of power?"

     To answer that question before you ask it. I don't know, I do however think we should seriously consider it, if it would be in the country's best interest and ours, we probably should."

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 11:50am

303. OK...do you really think we should go around "whacking" those we disagree with? This means we are putting ourselves on the exact same level as those we conquer. Apparently empire-building is okay by you? (As long as its "good for the country" then...) Hell, lets just nuke the capitols of all oil-producing Islamic Republics and quit the BS then...roll in and secure what is "in the best interest of the country" and get rid of all those stinking terrorists and the countries that breed them....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 11:54am

304. ORAIB...if you like that cartoon, take a peek at this one!

     http://geodude.home.mchsi.com/bush_blues.html [geodude.home.mchsi.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 11:57am

305. Left,

     Thank you. I appreciated the sarcasm immensely. Hope you enjoyed Ben Sargent's editorial cartoon.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:06pm

306. Leftofcenter,

     "Hell, lets just nuke the capitols of all oil-producing Islamic Republics and quit the BS then...roll in and secure what is "in the best interest of the country" and get rid of all those stinking terrorists and the countries that breed them...."

     Come on man, give me a little credit, that's NOT what I said.

     What I'm saying is what would have been the outcome IF we had gotten involved in Rwanda before the atrocities that happened… happened?

     What if we had gotten involved and could have changed what happened in Bosnia BEFORE they happened?

     What would have happened if we would have performed a "regime change" in Germany in 1938 – 39?

     What would have happened if we would have performed regime change in the U.S.S.R with regard Stalin, before the atrocities that happenend… happened?

     I know these are all what if's and speculative, I think however an argument on these what if's can be made for the need for pre-emptive force that changes regimes.

     I know liberals don't like the idea of pre-emption (is pre-emption a word?) Oh hell if it's not I just made it up. Unfortunately there is no way that History will tell what WOULD have happened with Saddam campared with what we know as fact that DID happen after we allowed Hitler to come into real power.

     I didn't say anything about oil producing Islamic republics, what I said was "if it was in the country's best interest (I.E. the citizens living under the dictators rule) AND the best interest of the U.S."

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 12:08pm

307. "Well Todd what about all the other evil tyrants in the world, why haven't we taken them out of power?"

     Todd, that's not my next question because it is pointless to even discuss. Neither Democratic nor Republican administrations care about evil tyrants so long as they are friendly to U.S. interests. Hell, we put some of them in power, and turn a blind eye to any human rights abuses. That's why the notion of Hussein as evil dictator rationale has always been a red herring; even Bush focused on WMD and 9/11 before the war (until WMD and and Al-Queda links were proved wrong). We always knew what he was; and even aided and armed him throughout the 1980's because he was viewed as anti-Communist and could balance the scales of power against Iran. It was only after the fall of Communism and his power grab in Kuwait that he became more of a liability to U.S. political and financial interests. It has never had anything to do with his human rights abuses. That is a cover story to make Americans feel better about themselves.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:21pm

308. Todd,

     I'd have responded last night, but the battery life ran out.

     I didn't say you don't support the troops 2) I was merely making a point that the Left (and Cindy) have the right to protest against the war while supporting the troops if they wish

     "If they wish"? What in the world...?

     (you can't make a factual argument stating that ALL leftists that oppose the war support the troops by the way)

     Just like you can't make a factual argument that ALL Bushies that say they support the war are only doing so to toe the George "The U.S. Will Not Engage in Nation Building " Bush line at the expense of the troops.

     and the Right (those that support the war including the mothers that started "You don't speak for me Cindy") have the same right, and just as much right to pitch camp right next to Cindy's group if they want.

     Show me where a leftie has said they don't have the right to ask questions and pitch camp there. Show me.

     I'm tired of the Left thinking they are the only ones with the right to protest, because the protest is against the war.

     (groan)

     Again, show me where the Left has said they are the only ones with the right to protest. You wrote that you're "sick of it", as if you read and hear this a lot. Pray tell, provide us with these supposedly numerous times where lefties have been saying what you claim.

     The msm as well shows it's bias

     Oh, like CNN, which you claimed didn't run the pro-war rally outside Bush's ranch when it in fact did?

     in this regard as they will normally give much more air time and attention to the "anti war" crowd.

     And that's probably because anti-war crowds tend to attract more attention than pro-war crowds because they're bigger and more grandiose and far from subdued. Rallying against something is always going to garner more eyes and ears, regardless of whether all those eyes and ears agree with it. Good gracious, during the Clinton-impeachment period, the amount of air time given to politicians and citizens crying for impeachment far outnumbered air time given to Clinton's supporters. When a story involves a person or group going against a politician, of course it's going to be given more air time, because it represents a conflict, and conflict is the heart of any drama, and drama is what the media pushes for ratings.

     While ignoring Pro America rallies

     Ignoring, huh?

     http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1801186

     Do your own search-engine work for others, and you'll see they're being far from "ignored".

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 12:30pm

309. Hman,

     "Todd, that's not my next question because it is pointless to even discuss. Neither Democratic nor Republican administrations care about evil tyrants so long as they are friendly to U.S. interests."

     I agree, which is why I posted in my argument for pre-emption above using examples of Rwanda, and Bosnia.

     Although not in the U.S. direct interest, involvement in Rwanda would have been in the worlds best interest. Why did we not get involved? Because it did not directly affect the U.S. This was an egocentrically driven decision by the U.S. and we made a morally reprehensible mistake. We should have gotten involved. Actually, in my opinion, I would argue that a pre-emptive "regime change" could have prevented the human loss of life and atrocities from occurring.

     I'm not trying to critique past administrations Republican or Democrat, I'm simply laying out an argument and strategy for the need for pre-emptive attacks that result in regime change to prevent human rights atrocities.

     And if we kill some terrorists along the way, that's always a good thing. I know they feed liberals this crap about all people are innately equal and "good" in nature, however that's a bunch of crap.

     There does exist evil natured people, and they need to be dealt with, so as not to allow other people to be treated inhumanely or killed by the evil doers.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 12:37pm

310. Kevin,

     http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1801186

     It's ironic you bring that one up...

     I lived in Katy (suburb of Houston at the time, and personally attended that one with my family)

     We bought the little American Flags, waved them, sang "God Bless America", and Lee Greenwoods "Proud to be an American".

     Ate hot dogs, and apple pie.

     Said the pledge of allegiance (including the under God part) and had a grand old time.

     You should have been there, you would have enjoyed it, because of course the rally was not "pro war" or "anti war" as per KPRC spokeswoman Melissa Brezner who said: "This is not antiwar and it's not pro-war. It's not leaning either way"

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 12:48pm

311. If we did not get involved in Rwanda, why would think that humanitarian aims had anything to do with Iraq?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:50pm

312. Hman,

     "If we did not get involved in Rwanda, why would think that humanitarian aims had anything to do with Iraq?"

     I didn't say that the Government, i.e. the Bush administration said humanitarian aims did..

     I said that I, ME, MYSELF, I support the war efforts in part because Saddam was treating his people inhumanely (including murdering them in torture chambers).

     And I said that the government SHOULD care about those things in the present, and the future, and then made an argument to support pre-emptive action that results in regime change based on on what our lack of action has allowed to happen in the past.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 12:53pm

313. OKSG, Actually we did try to make a regime change in the Soviet Union before Stalin - and got our asses kicked. Along with the Brits we sent in troops to helpt the White Russians against the Red Russians.

     Those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 12:54pm

314. I hope everyone notes how Todd portrays pro-war rallies as being Pro-America, while the reader is left with the image that the anti-war rallies are anti-American.

     Todd's kind of rhetoric is Joe McCarthyism/George Bushism at its very best, and most demagogic.

     It is a subtle attempt to make anti-war protesters appear to be unpatriotic and anti-American.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:55pm

315. OK....sure I pushed the concept well past the edge. But that is to make the point....who decides what is in the best interests of that nation? Are we the moral compass of the world? Sure we deposed Saddaam, but in doing so Iraq is damned near in the Bronze Age now and will likely wind up a conservative Islamic Republic again. Who decides which "tyrant" should fall, or how we should define evil or tyrant for that matter.

     And as you noted...hindsight is perfect. It is so by defintion though. Do you suppose there are Native Americans who wished they'd have sunk that first silly ship in the harbor and beheaded those first coupla loads of Pilgrims. That certainly would have changed the world as well - and in a way some would view positively.

     After all, evil to a large degree is a matter of perspective. It is a slippery slope my friend.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 1:00pm

316. OKSG wrote I know they feed liberals this crap about all people are innately equal and "good" in nature, however that's a bunch of crap.

     There does exist evil natured people, and they need to be dealt with, so as not to allow other people to be treated inhumanely or killed by the evil doers.

     Who are the "they" that "feed liberals all this crap..."??? Do you think that just because right wingers like you sit in church every Sunday morning and get told how to think, and what to think, about human nature and other things, that liberals must go someplace and get indoctrinated and brainwashed just as you do?

     Well, speaking for this liberal, I don't. I think for myself, research things for myself before forming opinions about them, and if I don't know about a topic I don't talk about it so much until I get edumacated on it.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 1:05pm

317. And another thing! One of the things many liberals don't like about evangelical christianity and the politicians that get elected by its followers is all this talk of "evil" and "evil doers." That is all a bunch of b.s. I can't stand hearing a bunch of self-righteous zealots passing judgement on people that they don't know and don't understand. Quit playing God, I say.

     What you call evil and selfish about human nature is just survival instinct being acted upon. It is not a moral question really as much as it is people just reverting to their more uncivilized, primitive selves for whatever reason.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 1:11pm

318. Leftofcenter,

     "Are we the moral compass of the world?"

     I think we should let countries do as they please as long as no one is being slaughtered at the hands of a dictator, in the case that they are, yes, I think our "moral compass" should trump theirs.

     "After all, evil to a large degree is a matter of perspective."

     That's the problem with a liberal philosophy, that evil is a matter of perspective.

     Are you then saying that Hitler's actions could be argued as NOT evil based on perspective?

     How about those of Mussolini or Stalin?

     Heck, how about Saddam, could an argument be made that his torture chambers were NOT an unethical and immoral abuse of human rights based on one's perspective?

     No my friend, there are absolutes in this world. There are things that are RIGHT and WRONG.

     And I think at the very heart of the problem, in terms of the difference between those that support the Iraq war and those that don't, is the difference between those that think evil can be justified based on perspective and those that believe in an absolute right and wrong.

     If you want to make excuses for evil by saying it's a "matter of perspective" you go right ahead, I most definitely will not.

     Love you bro = ) and as always enjoy our discussions.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 1:19pm

319. physics,

     "edumacated" isn't in the diktionary, but I'm sure you new that.

     Sincerely,

     Todd the Dum Konservative.

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 1:24pm

320. Todd - Todd the Dum Konservative.

     Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 08/22/2005 @ 1:24pm

     Todd - I don't consider you dumb, except maybe like fox. However, I do consider your blind and zealot-like support for Bush, and people who blindly follow Bush, to be dangerous to America.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 1:30pm

321. Physics,

     "One of the things many liberals don't like about evangelical christianity and the politicians that get elected by its followers is all this talk of "evil" and "evil doers." That is all a bunch of b.s. "

     I'm sorry man, but I couldn't disagree with you possibly any more on this.

     See my post to Leftofcenter regarding evil/good, right/wrong.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 1:32pm

322. The reasons for Iraq have become so warped over the years and on this blog. I figure a timeline might help soem people with convenient amnesia.

     - In 1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)was created (William Kristol, Richard Perle, Dick Cheey, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and others). The PNAC lobbied intensly for regime change in Iraq, waiting for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Peal Harbor" that would mobolize public opinion.

     - In the hours following 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld called for an immediate assault on Iraq.

     - On September 12, 2001, Rumsfeld suggested at a cabinet meeting that Iraq "should be the principle target of the first round in the war on terrorism." Bush was advised that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible."

     - Within a week of 9/11, Condoleeza Rice directed members of the NSC "to think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundementally changes American doctrine, and shape of the world, the the wake of September 11th."

     - At this time, we had not even determined that 9/11 was the work of Al-Queda.

     - The 2001 edition of the Department of State's "Pattern of Global Terrorism" listed no acts of global terrorism to Iraq.

     - The Downing Street Memo revealed that on July 23, 2002, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

     - During 2002 and 2003 the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans began cherry-picking intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq. See http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0506-06.htm.

     - On October 7, 2002, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft "that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons." The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

     When the list was submitted in early 2002, the manufacturer's distributor determined that the U.S. mapping software would not be included in the autopilot package, and told the procurement agent in March 2002. By then, however, U.S. intelligence, which closely followed Iraqi procurement of such material, had already concluded as early as the summer of 2001 that this was the "first indication that the UAVs might be used to target the U.S."

     When a foreign intelligence service questioned the procurement agent, he originally said he had never intended to purchase the U.S. mapping software, but he refused to submit to a thorough examination, according to the president's commission. "By fall 2002, the CIA was still uncertain whether the procurement agent was lying," the commission said. Nonetheless, a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 said the attempted procurement "strongly suggested" Iraq was interested in targeting UAVs on the United States. Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

     By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

     In an intelligence estimate on threats to the U.S. homeland published in January 2003, Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency and Army analysts agreed that the proposed purchase was "not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. homeland."

     - On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.

     The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, would later tell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case was weak," according to a 500-page report released in 2004 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

     - Bush said in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was working to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

     More than a year later, the White House retracted the statement after its veracity was questioned. But the Senate Commission on Intellience's report makes it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president's speech, analysts at the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium information. Bush went ahead with that portion of his speech anyway.

     - Bush also said in his State of the Union address, "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."

     The Intelligence Commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had serious questions about "Curveball," the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on Hussein's alleged mobile biological facilities.

     The CIA clandestine service's European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball's material would be in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

     On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

     - A week later, at the UN, Powell said, A week later, Powell said the information on mobile labs came from four defectors, and he described one as "an eyewitness . . . who supervised one of these facilities" and was at the site when an accident killed 12 technicians.

     Within a year, doubts emerged about the truthfulness of all four, and the "eyewitness" turned out to be Curveball, the informant the CIA station chief had red-flagged as unreliable. Curveball was subsequently determined to be a fabricator who had been fired from the Iraqi facility years before the alleged accident, according to the Intelligence Commission and other Senate reports.

     - (Lifted from a post by Jack Rabbit) Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, was willing to testify before any committee that at the time the inspections ended in late 1998 almost all of Saddam's biochemical weapons capability had been destroyed and that anything that was not destroyed would have been well beyond its shelf life by the time that the invasion was planned (Fall 2002).

     - (Also lifted from a post by Jack Rabbit) After Mr. Powell delivered his presentation to the UN Security Council (February 5, 2003), documents were released that showed that General Hussein Kamel, director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, ordered Iraq's chemical weapons program shut down and destroyed shortly after the end of the 1991 war. This information was in a document which Mr. Powell used for other bits of information in his presentation. Powell did not reveal that General Kamel ordered the destruction of Iraq's chemical weapons.

     There are probably some other facts people could add, butone thing is clear to me: It was not bad intelligence; we were not motivated by human rights concerns to oust an evil dictator; there were no WMDs, no nuclear capabilities. We were lied to, plain and simple.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 1:41pm

323. Oraib,

     "Todd - I don't consider you dumb, except maybe like fox. However, I do consider your blind and zealot-like support for Bush, and people who blindly follow Bush, to be dangerous to America. "

     I don't blindly follow Bush, I have critiqued his administration particularly regarding the way they have handled the war on terror including Iraq many times, you can easily read many of my posts that will back this statement up.

     I do however believe based on the evidence of Saddam and his treatment of his people, his possible and plausible financial aid given to terrorism, and his failure to adhere to the ceasefire agreement that was part of UN 688, that the war in Iraq is justified.

     I just wish we had a better commander in chief in place to oversee the war. And I don't think John Kerry would be a better man.

     Colin Powel would be a better man/woman, or perhaps Norman Swarzskopf or even Condi Rice, or perhaps even Joe Lieberman, John McCain.

     I don't make apologies for Bush's handling of the war, I do justify our actions in Iraq.

     The two issues can be separated.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 1:44pm

324. OKSG, I read your reply Leftofcenter. Doesn't apply to my argument nor to my approach to human behavior.

     I hold this truth to be self-evident: People should follow the golden rule when dealing with other people. Anything outside of the golden rule is "less than optimum" behavior at best. Some of that behavior can be called impolite, some is downright wrong, some of it is criminal, monstrous, despicable. It depends on what the behavior is.

     Cutting in line is not following the golden rule, but that is merely rude. Gassing your own people with VX is monstrous, criminal and despicable.

     But once you start talking about "evil", "evil doers" and "the evil one", not only are you bringing a religious perspective to the conversation (namely your religious perspective and not necessarily the religious perspective of most people in this world) but you also run the risk of externalizing your own bad behavior. For example: "It's not me - the devil made me do it" or "It is my sinful nature and there's nothing to be done" and other lame excuses.

     But my own personal liberal perspective does not make room for nor does it excuse the crimes of Hitler or Stalin or Saddam or anyone else who commits crimes and atrocities.

     In short, you are wrong :-)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 2:06pm

325. Physics,

     "Todd is wrong" is not the in the dictionary, I looked it up.

     Todd the Dum Konservative = )

     No really, I appreciate your rebuttal, but we will have to respectfully disagree on this issue.

     Love you bro,

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 2:24pm

326. Todd,

     Thank you for clarifying your support of Bush.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 2:53pm

327. "Thank you for clarifying your support of Bush."

     You're welcome, I'm no "Bushite", however I am a conservative Christian.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 2:55pm

328. Todd,

     Your declaration to be a "conservative Christian" begs the following questions:

     How does a "conservative Christian" differ from a Christian? What attributes of a "conservative Christian" are different from the attributes of a Christian?

     I ask the above questions with the greatest of sincerity.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 3:11pm

329. ORAIBI1952,

     "How does a "conservative Christian" differ from a Christian? What attributes of a "conservative Christian" are different from the attributes of a Christian? "

     There are many different types of Christians according to church statistician George Barna and his group:

     From: Political Ideology which states:

     · 41% identify themselves as conservative (31% nat'l) · 44% identify themselves as moderate (48% nat'l) · 8% identify themselves as liberal (12% nat'l)

     Some of the differences between Christians, Born agains and Evangelicals tend to be more conservative as compared to other Christians:

     From:

     · By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation. (2002) (For more information, see the Press Release titled "Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings" from Feb 12, 2002) · One third of born again adults (33%) say that abortion is a morally acceptable behavior, compared with 45% of all adults, 4% of evangelicals, and 71% of atheists and agnostics. (2004) · Born agains are twice as likely as are non born agains to chose to describe themselves as "pro-life" (65% to 32%, respectively). (2001) · 30% of all adults consider having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex a morally acceptable behavior. (2004) · 14% of Elders, 32% of Boomers, 41% of Busters and 40% of Mosaics consider having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex a morally acceptable behavior. (2004) · About half of all adults (49%) contend that homosexuality is due to non-genetic factors such as upbringing and environment, one-third say people are born gay (34%), and the remaining 17% are not sure. (2001) · By a 2-to-1 margin (62% - 30%) adults disapprove of clergy marrying gay couples or blessing their marriage unions. (2001)

     Therefore not all Christians agree on issues such as abortion, Born Agains and Evangelicals tend to be more conservative and believe abortion is wrong. Other Christians are more liberal in their thinking on abortion and other social issues.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 3:29pm

330. That above post was supposed to have the link to Barna's website as well: http://www.barna.org

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 3:30pm

331. Todd (OK)....aren't we as a nation awfully selective about which dictator where, when we decide to act? I mean if the rationale for preemptive war *is* pure of heart as your post seems to indicate, then why not every ruthless dictator. There have been evildoers closer to home...particularly in the Carribean, and African nations. Yet we somehow seeem to wind up focused in the Mideast, or occasionally Europe (well, in North Korea as well, but testing nukes is of concern to all...of course only *we* are allowed to do that, but that is a whole new thread I suppose.)

     As far as Hitler...sure, I too think there are some clear right/wrong scenarios. Saddaam....well, we put him in power and didn't seem to care alot about him until he laid claim to Kuwait previous to BushWar 1. I think we can agree that one *was* about oil. We ignored his abuses for decades until it interrupted our economic interests and then we grew a conscience? I'm not buying it.

     As far as perspective....history is the winner's tale. By definition they always are the "good guys", which makes the enemy "bad". (You sure wouldn't call yourselves the "bad guys, would you?) This is a basic historical precept and not a "liberal thing."

     I think there is a fundamental difference in the world views of far right / far left by and large. Right tends to the polar / absolutes and left looks at things as shades of grey. It sure is what killed Kerry's chances in my estimation. Always trying to overanalyze things, where Dubya "said what he said"...didn't really matter how stupid it was.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 3:31pm

332. Lofcenter,

     "when we decide to act? I mean if the rationale for preemptive war *is* pure of heart as your post seems to indicate, then why not every ruthless dictator"

     Yes, that was what I was saying when I said in my 1:26a.m. post "Your next question will be "Well Todd what about all the other evil tyrants in the world, why haven't we taken them out of power?"

     To answer that question before you ask it. I don't know, I do however think we should seriously consider it, if it would be in the country's best interest and ours, we probably should."

     We are selective, and that is hypocritical. We SHOULD look at other dictators and consider pre-emptive action if the action could keep the next Hitler or Saddam from coming to power.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 3:55pm

333. OKSG:

     Here is a great pre-emptive strategy - don't help put them in power in the first place.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:00pm

334. Hman,

     "Here is a great pre-emptive strategy - don't help put them in power in the first place."

     I couldn't agree with you more...

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 4:21pm

335. Todd,

     Re: My question on the differences in Conservative Christians and Christians

     Thanks for the information.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:56pm

336. OK....If that is the case (Team America, World Police), it is not just our business, but instead it should be a UN (or other multinational) action. I know UN gets lots of bad rap in these venues, but these issues are of concern to all. We claim to be the leader of the free world. That is only true if we are actually leading. Seems we are rather a rogue element with respect to the rest of the world these days...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 5:09pm

337. The UN as a problem solver? Worse than a joke; millions in the US will enter the streets in celebration the day we finally decide to pull out of the UN and then get the UN out of the US.

     This so-called body of global harmony and peacemaking can't even after 9 years approve a resolution condemning terrorism. Why, because of the Arabs. This is the draft paragraph that they object to:

     We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism.

     Why because it would condemn terrorism like that committed by Hamas, the PLO, and others against Israel.

     Hman and others who seem to sympathize with these terrorists, there you go. That is your comrades in hate against the US, Israel, and Jews.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 9:59pm

338. To all of you pseudo-intellectual RIGHTIES that would attack John Nichols for his "fair & balanced" piece here you need to WISE up!

     DUBYA' is on a "scheduled vacation"? WTF are you talkin' about! Even if it were really "scheduled", as you say, what would stop a vacationing fake-Texan from New Haven CT to stroll on down the path, SS in tow of course, to meet with Cindy? I mean he did send her son to the proverbial meat-grinder disingenuously labeled "Iraqi Freedom" - didn't he? If you're on vacation you can still greet visitors can't ya'? I mean Cindy is part of the (d)emo in (d)emocracy isn't she? He works for Cindy (and us) - right?

     Dude - this is his M.O.! This poor excuse for a president went into hiding during 911!!! I mean, sure hiding from the public, I can understand that during a national emergency like 911. But to hide from your Vice President??? Remember that Mr. Halliburton (Cheney) said he tried contacting DUBYA' to give shootdown orders but claimed that AF-1 radio was down? Jeez! How stoopid does he think we are! They contacted LBJ on AF-1 in the middle of the Pacific Ocean regarding JFK in Dallas TX in ‘63. You mean to tell me Mr. Halliburton couldn't even call DUBYA' on the friggin' FOOTBALL? Wow now that really makes me feel nationally secure - not!

     Come on… It is just good politics for DUBYA' to get off of his lazy butt. With Herr Rove in tow, walk down the path. Meet with Cindy. Lay down some disingenuous sound bytes and belch out some mindless Rovian talkin' points. He can even wear his not-so-secret T-Loop private link to Rove like he did during the Bush/Kerry Debates. Answer no real questions from the press (like he likes to do). Then stroll back to the house with his immaculately unstained Niemann Marcus Stetson on his noggin'.

     I mean if he is going to setup JEB or Neil as the next 2008 presidential candidate he's gonna' have to handle damage control better. This will hit the popularity polls negatively. So he's doing his family a great disservice. At least send his little brother JEB up the path like he did with Colin Powell during the Tsunami disaster. JEB needs all the face time he can get if he's gonna' be the next president… According to RUMMY Iraqi will still be at war with US for another 12 years! That's at least 2 more Bush terms. Hey... maybe Dubya can pull a FDR and push for a term-limit amendment and go for another term! Either that or get the California governor Herr Arnold elected!

     SPOOKY

     The NATION has an irritating habit of closing down topics just when they get really interesting. I know they have server space limitations. I can't believe that they closed the PATRIOT ACT topic on my last post about actual PATRIOT ACT civil rights violations. Therefore I would like to invite any truly DEEP THINKERS who are into "gestalt" (forest & trees/big-picture thinkin') to use the GOOGLE Group* called GESTALT7 to continue THE-NATION closed topics or to start their own quasi-political/current events diatribes. Well read "Cranks", intellectual RIGHTIES, All LEFTIES, all neutrals are all welcome. Pro-OBL "Habibs" and scum-spammers are not. So feel free to exploit the place to continue your bipartisan thought-process threads that get closed out here. You can sign up for a free GOOGLE GMAIL account if you want to remain anonymous. I would like to assume that when topics get summarily closed out or you want to make contact with a really interesting poster for a more in depth conversation, you'll instinctively jump over to GESTALT7 to post your-well-thought out POV...

     :-) ONLY DEEP THINKERS NEED JOIN (-:

     *http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Gestalt7

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/23/2005 @ 3:07pm

339. Funniest thing I ever read by Frank Grits yesterday at 1340 hours EDT reposted here in case of premature THE-NATION topic closure: GESTALT7 ( http://babyurl.com/IGexiT )

     Reference:

     1) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Gestalt7

     2) Baby URLS (Makes long URLs into small ones since THE-NATION seems to have turned of url tags or something crazy): http://www.babyurl.com

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/23/2005 @ 3:46pm

340. Great post about IRAQ TIMELINE by HMAN23 yesterday at 1341 hours EDT reposted here in case of premature THE-NATION topic closure: GESTALT7 ( http://babyurl.com/84n1U1 ). I aptly renamed it "Iraq Timeline for Amnesiacs" - by HMAN23

     Reference:

     1) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Gestalt7

     2) Baby URLS (Makes long URLs into small ones since THE-NATION seems to have turned off url tags or something crazy): http://www.babyurl.com

     3) http://www.dictionary.com Please go here and save it as your FAVORITES. It can really help those who are spelling or semantically-challenged.

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/23/2005 @ 3:58pm

341. If that was directed at me then yes I do but I don't need you lookin' up my skirt that much. I use different or slightly different psuedonyms. I don't want to use my "real name" for obvious reasons. That is a good segway to my Google group: GESTALT7 at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Gestalt7 That gives me a great idea. Maybe I'll copy and paste some of my crazy diatribes from other forums (after I clean them up) and post them there. I intentionally picked GOOGLE as I did not think anyone here would have any qualms about them. They are free and painless to join. And totally anonymous. I also added a very interesting invention of mine which rivals VH-1's POP-UP VIDEO. I call it C-SPAN Live Chat. I'm surprised Brian Lamb hasn't thought of it. I hope others will visit and play with it. I even set up a website to automate the process. It would be a hoot to Lampoon Bush in a chat room LIVE while we group watch him at C-SPAN. It even uses GOOGLES beta GCHAT function... I love GOOGLE!

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/24/2005 @ 4:23pm