House Rejects Net Neutrality

The First Amendment of the Internet – the governing principle of net neutrality, which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment – took a blow from the House of Representatives Thursday.

Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars – and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms – the House voted 321 to 101 for the disingenuously-named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites.

"Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, (Thursday's) vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation." says Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union.

In case there was any question that Kenney's assessment was accurate, the House voted 269-152 against an amendment, offered by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, which would have codified net neutrality regulations into federal law. The Markey amendment would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet – with an "information superhighway" for sites that pay fees for preferential treatment and a dirt road for sites that cannot pay the toll.

After explicitly rejecting the Markey amendment's language, which would have barred telephone and cable companies from taking steps "to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access…services over the Internet," the House quickly took up the COPE legislation.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92. The House's sole independent member, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a champion of internet freedom who is seeking his state's open Senate seat this fall, voted against the measure.

Joining Sanders in voting against the legislation were most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including its co-chairs, California Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, as well as genuine conservatives who have joined the fight to defend free speech and open discourse on the internet, including House Judiciary Committee chair James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, and Intelligence Committee chair Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan.

The left-meets-right voting in the House reflected the coalition that has formed to defend net neutrality, which includes such unlikely political bedfellows as the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, the American Association of Retired People, the American Civil Liberties Union and all of the nation's major consumer groups.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, opposed COPE, while House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, were enthusiastically supported it.

Among the Democrats who followed the lead of Hastert and Boehner – as opposed to that of Pelosi – were House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Maryland Representative Ben Cardin, who is running for that state's open Senate seat in a September Democratic-primary contest with former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. Illinois Democrat Melissa Bean, who frequently splits with her party on issues of interest to corporate donors, voted with the Republican leadership, as did corporate-friendly "New Democrats" such as Alabama's Artur Davis, Washington's Adam Smith and Wisconsin's Ron Kind – all co-chairs of the Democratic Leadership Council-tied House New Democrat Coalition.

The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles of equal and unfettered access to Internet content into federal law. Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the "Save the Internet" coalition that has grown to include more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals is rapidly expanding.

"This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality," says Cooper.

Cooper's correct to be more hopeful about the Senate than the House. But the House vote points up the need to get Democrats united on this issue. There's little question that a united Democratic caucus could combine with principled Republicans in the Senate to defend net neutrality. But if so-called "New Democrats" in the Senate side with the telephone and cable lobbies, the information superhighway will become a toll road.

Comments (107)

1. "But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92."

   Oh but "everything will be different once the Dems re-take the Congress", eh?

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 07:04am

2. Steny Hoyer has done a lot of good things for Marylanders, beyond what has traditionally been considered "pork", and I have cast my share of votes for him. In the last few years, however, he has shown an increasingly clear willingness to cozy up to lobbyists. It's time for him to go.

   And Ben Cardin should start polishing his shuffleboard and bingo skills, too.

   Posted by drhammer at 06/09/2006 @ 07:09am

3. Posted by DRHAMMER 06/09/2006 @ 07:09am | ignore this person

   Doc, I'm sure Gore Vidal will help out, endorsing a "real Democrat" primary challenger to Hoyer.

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 08:43am

4. Figures I guess...what with the growing of internet commerce, the wingnuts were bound to bow to their god Mammon on this too.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 09:14am

5. hey liberty

   it'll be that much easier for you and all the other hamsters to surf porn now.

   (but watch out for them viruses)

   Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:24am

6. Exactly MASK! There's only one real difference because they are all whores for lobbyists. That is, it will take a Democratic majority to expose the criminal activity that has thus far been conducted in secret in an unprecedented power grab. Perhaps that will finally awaken the sleeping giant-- the nearly brain dead American public.

   With republican control over all 3 branches of government, America has become a fascist, if not yet totalitarian, State. The government is literally run by special interests. We're suffering the consequences of this utterly disfunctional government daily. Yet, it's no where near a foregone conclusion that those in power will be voted out. Why? Because corporate interests have also fixed the elections during their reign of terror.

   Posted by paranoid36 at 06/09/2006 @ 09:45am

7. Posted by PARANOID36 06/09/2006 @ 09:45am | ignore this person

   PARRY....if 106 Dems will "sell you out" on "Net neutrality"...

   what's to stop them from "selling you out" on investigating Bush and Co.?

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 10:11am

8. A little more joy to this week of good news for Republicans, eh MASK?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:29am

9. There were 8 Republicans who voted for Net Neutrality, which is alot higher than you would expect of Republicans to vote for something that is good for America. My representatives are good on this issue, but we cant do much about those other ones. Taking away the internet is like taking away peoples guns, people arent going to like it, it is infuriating. Democrats going along with something like this is a disaster, its a major sellout - but whos paying attention? Their disgrace will go un-noticed by the people who are paying attention to gay marriage and immigration, but they have deprived themselves of an opportunity to rise up with the people on Net Neutrality and stop the government from taking away our internet.

   Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:39am

10. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/09/2006 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    No, more like "yet another example of....", how "the Revolution" isn't going to come when/if the Democrats re-take the Congress.

    BTW, anybody who thinks "the Net" is going to be "controlled", isn't keeping up with satellite technology, or fails to remember the old days of "pirate radio stations".

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 10:50am

11. Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 10:50am

    I agree. Got invited to a fundraising shindig for some Democratic nebbish running for something or another. Those who support Democrats around here are such nice people--I really do like them. And I'd like to go because I enjoy their company. But...it's just a social event; it will amount to nothing. Democrats are even worse than the far left, comfortable to occupy a corner of the room, too lazy to get up and fend for themselves, raising their voices only on rare occasions when their wineglasses are empty or a potty break is required. And the worst part is that they care not who refills their glass or wipes their ass. At least the left whines with more gusto, more feeling and with more frequency.

    Maybe I'll go. Or maybe I'll just drink wine at home and sulk.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:27am

12. hey liberty

    it'll be that much easier for you and all the other hamsters to surf porn now.

    (but watch out for them viruses)

    Posted by WILL C. 06/09/2006 @ 09:24am

    Hey WILL, can't you at least wait until the righties post something stupid on the thread before insulting them? I mean, I'm not looking to single you out, but wouldn't it be nice if we at least had a couple of pages of civil debate before the thread spirals into an insult contest?

    There are important issues to be discussed, but there never seems to be much calm discussion around here...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/09/2006 @ 11:33am

13. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/09/2006 @ 11:27am | ignore this person

    I say go and witness how they keep a straight face while bullshitting people. It must be mystifying. I am so fed up with both political parties. Neither seems to actually care about the working class. I wish I had millions of dollars at my disposal to influence law in this country. Oh well one can dream.....

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 11:38am

14. By "they", I mean politicians who may be in the room.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 11:52am

15. ZERO, Two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, on this thread the first post (from MASK) seems to be along similar lines as your post from 06/09/2006 @ 12:03am

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/09/2006 @ 12:13pm

16. ah..well. its great to think that we'll soon have corperations filtering all the web sites for us. It's also nice to know that even though many of us wrote and called our congress men, they obviously could give a Sh**. Well, everyone have a good day, cheers.

    Posted by jeyepa at 06/09/2006 @ 12:28pm

17. ahhh, for got to comment, Zero, you made a very good point. Why does the Democratic Party exist? Their betrayal of the people is worse than that of the republicans because they pretend to have the working man's interest in mind. bull*&*&^. We might as well live in a one party police state now, ah, well good day everyone.

    Posted by jeyepa at 06/09/2006 @ 12:31pm

18. by all means go, TJ, don't deprive them of your thoughtful company. (no sarcasm here)

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:43pm

19. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/09/2006 @ 11:27am | ignore this person

    Well, I'd agree about the Far Left and their whining...they've refined it to nearly-Abbott & Costello "Who's on First?" perfection.

    BTW, I found it humorous that though my first post essentially agreed with ZERO...that he's got me on his infamous "Ignore Those Who Offer Alternative Views From Mine" list....LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 1:08pm

20. Good analogy, MASK. I assume you mean that the left is Bud, with full knowledge and understanding, and the rest of the country is the hapless Lou. ;-)

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

21. has everyone noticed yet that Qwest, Verizon, MCI, and others have participated in a vast, domestic spying program operated by the National Security Agency, and that Vice President Richard Cheney just got them all a free ride, without even a subpoena to testify in front of Congress?

    ZERO,

    Could you give a link or more information? I couldn't find anything regarding this.

    I have enjoyed the recent Verizon commercials telling me what a wonderful place of employment it is. Sure. Nothing is more exciting that using private technology to spy on your customers for your government. All I need is to see a billowing flag and to hear Yankee Doodle to get me to quit my job and join the team.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:29pm

22. TJberhrnes1, here is a link from alternet. http://www.alternet.org/rights/33334/, about the domestic spying. try this also. http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0303-25.htm

    Posted by jeyepa at 06/09/2006 @ 1:38pm

23. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/09/2006 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person

    Naw, the Left usually is more like the "World Forum" sketch from Python!

    http://www.montypythonpages.com/index1.htm

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 1:39pm

24. Thanks, Jeyepa and Zero. I still have my online subscription to the NYT yet, funny, never seem to take the time to open the daily email. A simple click, yet the read is usually not worth the physical strain on my index finger.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

25. Zero ---Gloves are off you putrid piece of shit. You pompous ass. You think you have all the answers? I got news for you--Not only do you not have all the answers, your whole political agenda is meant for the scrap heap. The far left which you represent will end up in the scrap heap of history----The only thing I wish is that I could meet you face to face. Then when you spout that BS about how your "fellow citizens are not owed civility" if they happen to disagree with your world view I could stomp your ass into a little grease spot. I'm willing to have civil discourse. I am also willing to compromise on some issues in the best interest of the country. I am also willing to kick your ass for being the insulting,smug, and pompous, windbag that you are. What you don't realize yet is the real problem in this country is people like you on the extremes of the political spectrum---uncompromising, intolerant, pompous, smug, intellectually dishonest, agenda only driven---You are the problem Zero---You.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

26. Lennie, Mask, now now, it's only a blog, repeat after me, it's only a blog. serenity now.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:03pm

27. Johannes---I enjoy having civil discourse with the likes of yourself, New Dawn, and many more, even Will C. I'm tired of the likes of Zero and Chimmy. They are arrogant, smug, and dangerous bastards.The represent the Far Left--the militant left. The Left that has no chance of ever being a real political force in this country (Thank God). They and their counterparts on the political right are the problem. People of good can kind find common ground. Zero and Chimmy are not people of good will---I am happy to say that they are in the minority. I apologize to all on this board (except Chimmy and Zero) for losing my temper.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 2:13pm

28. Zero,

    Umm...wow. Who knew that the vice-president, essentially an unelected position, could actually continue to garner power even as 80% of the country is repulsed by the very concept of his existence? And that his party would help him work against its own leadership structure to aid and abet his indefensible friendships with private companies. How can he be squeezing so many ballsacks at the same time, while lining up his post-veep profit plan in the process?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:14pm

29. should say--people of good will can find common ground

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 2:16pm

30. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/09/2006 @ 1:29pm

    I have a similar request. The last thing I read indicated that Qwest had refused to turn over its records. Everyone else appears to have capitulated.

    On June 7th, Arlen Specter sent a letter to Darth Cheney slamming him for obstructing any hearings on this matter. Here's a link to the letter:

    http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/06/07/cheney.pdf

    Additionally, AT&T, whose servers make up the backbone of the internet, has installed splitters in some of their switching centers which have the capability to create a record or copy of all the internet traffic handled by their servers. They have been installed in rooms that are accessible solely by those with top-level government clearances. This link will get you started:

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,70908-0.html

    Posted by drhammer at 06/09/2006 @ 2:18pm

31. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person

    And this was targetted at me for......what post?

    (Got a pretty good idea of the "importance" of "The Nation" blog in the overall scheme of things, JOHANN)

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 2:28pm

32. Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

    I don't generally share your political views, Len, but

    you do type pretty well for someone with gloves on.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/09/2006 @ 2:28pm

33. Your Far Left agenda has no chance of ever taking hold in this country. Sometimes Democrats will have power and sometimes Republicans. However, your agenda will die on the vine. You will become a frustrated old man. And when you go to your grave (no I'm not hoping, or planning for it) the nation will be better off, because there will be one less uncompromising, insufferable, pompous ass for the rest of us to put up with.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 2:51pm

34. Well, what we need is a strong voter's pressure group that can convince democratic hacks that they better toe OUR line or there is no way they will get elected. We NEED to build this.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 06/09/2006 @ 2:54pm

35. oh, "far left" my ass, by the way. Nobody is talking about instituting communism here.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 06/09/2006 @ 2:59pm

36. LEN,

    It's nice that many people, particularly when looking at a vote such as this, cannot detect much difference between the parties and feel, therefore, that a solid, well-reasoned decision has been made. The problem that exists in this country's political system is obvious, however: it limits debate, and when it is allowed, only two very closely aligned opinions are offered. There are more than two solutions to many problems. And the fact that these are not aired in Congress does not mean that they are any less reasonable; it means only that their isn't as strong a profit motive behind them.

    I don't know what exactly the country would look like if I or Zero or Vic or anyone else from the left were made (oh let's have fun) Premiere for a year or two. And we're not thinking that anything like that will occur. But the hope that additional viewpoints will be permitted greater access to microphones and the airwaves is a start. It's obvious that most Americans are unsatisfied with most of the viewpoints that do get aired, isn't it?

    Don't get too comfy with the status quo. Not a single country on earth has existed without some kind of major political shake-up.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 3:11pm

37. yeah we're so far left, we're against torture, gulags, illegal eavesdropping, manipulation of intelligence to justify pre-emptive war, sweeping tax cuts for billionaires.....we're just on f**king pluto, ain't we?! and we're so glad we got those HUGE tax rebates! now i can go and invest in that cable network that has been sitting on the back burner all these years!

    Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2006 @ 5:01pm

38. The following statement pretty much sums up "our voice" in this country:

    "Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars – and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms"

    Criminal conspiracy is what that is. With Bill Gates holding our interests, I actually though we had a chance of seeing this through. I seem to forget how much the government despises Microsoft.

    It really doesn't matter whether a Republican or Democrat party is is power, they're one and the same.

    America: Freedom To Fascism [freedomtofascism.com]

    Posted by Bonesaw00 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:13pm

39. TJ---The United States has been around for awhile now and the furthest to the left we have been is FDR and the furthest to the right that we have been is Ronald Reagan. I contend that those two examples are as far as we are going in either direction barring economic disaster (not a down turn--something equivalent to the Great Depression). The Depression gave us FDR----The failed Great Society gave us Ronald Reagan. The National pendelum will move a few clicks left and a few to the right---but it will never swing as far left as Zero or as far right as David Duke. Reason being the strong middle class that exist in America. Nations that have had the political uphevals you describe were without a strong middle class (or suffered through losing a war). Now I know people like Chimmy and Zero are waiting for the revolution---but they will still be waiting when they are old, frustrated and gray. One more thing---My definition of Far Left includes a militant element. A characteristic shown by both Chimmy and Zero---not you.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 6:28pm

40. Zero---Left of the Liberal wing of the Democrat party is pretty damn far left---You have said many times how you are disenchanted with the Democrats since they just don't see the world quite like you want them to. I guess soon they will have no right to be heard either. You go where you want to go---a few will follow ---not enough to matter---now I know why you take the screen name Zero---thats how much you matter. By the way ---Kiss my ASS

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 6:34pm

41. Bones---This came from your website :

    Determined to find the law that requires American citizens to pay income tax, producer Aaron Russo ("The Rose," "Trading Places") set out on a journey to find the evidence. This film which is neither left, nor right-wing is a startling examination of government. It exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America since 1913 when the Federal Reserve system was fraudulently created. Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, a former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents and tax attorneys and authors, Russo connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, and the national identity card which becomes law in May 2008. This ID card will use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips which are essentially homing devices used to track people. This film shows in great detail and undeniable facts that America is moving headlong into a fascist police state. Wake up!

    You can get hammered by both the left and right for this crap. What fun!

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 6:49pm

42. clearly, mosse is a buffoon. ignore button!

    Posted by darladoon at 06/09/2006 @ 7:24pm

43. Damn straight, TJ. And Len Mosse is talking out his butt when he continues to insist it isn't going to happen here. It's already started, it's gaining momentum, and like the Lord, grinds slow but exceedingly fine. Venceremos, suckahs.

    Posted by JRJunior at 06/09/2006 @ 8:34pm

44. What America needs is a "truely leftist party".I'm tired of "Capitalist-Imperialist"racists, murderers and thieves.

    Posted by proudleftists at 06/09/2006 @ 8:36pm

45. People need to remember members of the House of Representatives are not concerned with representing the average citizen --- and that the President of the United States Corporation has declared himself above the law and hell-bent for leather in his desire to control all things. His "free speech zones" and detention camps should foretell the internet's fate. Like so many federal things named for their opposites (to mislead us)the "Patriot Act" was passed without a copy even being read. The C.O.P.E. Act is not about coping for us, but against us. It is statutory law (see the War Powers Act)that the government has declared the public to be the "enemy". The government has no interest in promoting the web's neutrality, just as it has created dominant factors to control the other media with big corporate players. The issue is not Democrat or Republican because they are really one corrupt party of two pincers -- Dempublicans and Repocrats. It's not a matter of being a Republic or a Democracy, for America is neither. It has become a fascist form of corporate socialism like Nazi Germany. The big boys don't care what we say or think as long as we continue to cower, work, and pay their egregious bills with blood, sweat, and tears. I love the free internet opportunities, but it will take much more than talk to put the corporate dragons out of our lives.

    For Truth, Justice, & Liberty for All!

    David McElroy

    Posted by David McElroy at 06/09/2006 @ 9:09pm

46. Hey WILL, can't you at least wait until the righties post something stupid on the thread before insulting them? I mean, I'm not looking to single you out, but wouldn't it be nice if we at least had a couple of pages of civil debate before the thread spirals into an insult contest?

    There are important issues to be discussed, but there never seems to be much calm discussion around here...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/09/2006 @ 11:33am

    You're correct

    let me be the first to usher in the era of calm.

    Ladies... gentlemen... hamsters...

    It's been a good year. I've learned alot. I've laughed alot. But my time here is over. I won't be coming back.

    may all of you find joy, happiness, love, light, warmth and friendship.

    it's time for me to go

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 9:54pm

47. see ya

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 9:54pm

48. :)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 9:54pm

49. Zero---Who knows how far left you are. All you do is rail at the establishment and call who ever disagrees with you a murder, or ridiculous, mindless, and other assortments of derogatory remarks. You are the windbag. A self righteous windbag worse than any southern evangelical minister ever could think about being. You are the one who thinks he doesn't owe his fellow citizens any respect or civility. Fine --you will get none from me. Kiss my ass you good for nothing piece of shit. I will meet you anywhere in this country---Lunch is on me--So come on less than Zero--I know you believe in a free lunch.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 10:36pm

50. Will, I have enjoyed your posts.

    Mossy, you really must find another outlet for your anger. try hitting a pillow with a tennis racket. or just use the ignore button, sometimes one just can't be civil, I understand that, but too much bile is too bitter

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:35pm

51. Johannes--Anger under control. It is selective in nature and only comes out when jerks like Zero decide that they don't owe their fellow citizens any civility or respect. I have tried to have civil discourse with him and Chimmy. But when he says that people who disagree with him on the war aren't really people but peons, or when Chimmy says that more Americans need to die, or when they decide to use other derogatory terms just because a person has a different point of view---all from behind the safety of a computer monitor ---well you can see what happens. I have had tons of civil, interesting, humorous, and educational conversations on this board. I can disagree with someone and still appreciate and understand their point of view. Zero has taken a militant stand that he will not be civil with someone who disagrees with him---Fine---I will do the same for him.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/10/2006 @ 08:05am

52. Many of you on this site believe that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Consider the following:

    Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/10/2006 @ 08:21am

53. I am running to fill Bernie Sanders' US House seat in VT. You might note, while you are noting this good vote of Bernie's, that he also voted for the first move by Congress toward war with Iran and regime change there....and also voted for a cut off of all funding for the Palestinian Authority in the last few weeks. What do you make of that? I know Bernie personally, so I do understand it. (I've known him since 1971.) Do you? Dennis Morrisseau Running AT Congress (in VT) (802) 645-9727 PO Box 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775 www.2LTMorrisseau.com

    Posted by dmorso at 06/10/2006 @ 08:30am

54. LEN,

    Kinda old news. There's what some people thought--even some classified as liberal. And then there's what the inspectors were finding, the trumped up evidence presented by Powell, and the fabrications and forgeries that were used to buttress the administration's desire for a fight. Finally, beyond all that, there is the question of why it was in our interest to lead a rag-tag assembly of military representatives from other nations rather than join with the broader international community in an effort to contain Saddam and protect the Iraqi people.

    And then in a final finally, there is the question of why this issue occured to you as you visited this thread.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 09:25am

55. Lennie, when other people are illmannered towards us, it is tempting to respond in kind. however schoolyard taunts and threats of violence, which are ludicrous in a forum of pseudonyms, do nothing but reflect poorly on both sides. I'm not trying to lecture you, or single you out, I have been guilty of some of the same. let's remember, this forum is primarily entertainment of an intellectual political sort, and schoolyard taunts just aren't much fun.

    the ignore button is the escape valve of the pressure cooker of debate. I use it mainly to protect myself of childish over reaction. we can't alsways play nice, but we can always make an effort not to give in to immaturity.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 09:29am

56. Tj, you are correct. as Jonathan Tassini put it, the dems who voted NO on the war had the same information and were subject to the same war hysteria as those who voted yes, yet they chose peace over war. it is from their ranks we ought to choose our next pres candidate.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 09:33am

57. Jonesy, so you knew something I didn't. my congratulations. this however did not invalidate my points, nor sanitize your snide appearance on this forum. you might try answering the question of how many bombings, and why that would invalidate my points.

    I too get some glee with gotcha rhetoric, but I attempt to be civil about it. that said, I welcome your contributions, just ease up on the snide, too much pepper spoils the soup.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 09:36am

58. sorry wrong thread, my bad

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 09:42am

59. LM

    Well, since you've gone "Rese-ian" let me return the favor; from the Seattle Times 9/4/04

    WMD existed in "virtual reality"

    By CHARLES J. HANLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2003

    U.N. weapons inspectors, left, and Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate members visit a Baghdad storage facility in this photo taken Feb. 5, 2003, just hours before U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared at the U.N. Security Council to offer evidence of alleged Iraqi attempts to hide banned weapons.

    The story of the weapons that weren't there, the "WMD" tale, is still unfolding in a long post-mortem -- of lingering questions about accountability, of revelations from investigations, leaks, first-person accounts.

    More than two years after their nation went to war in Iraq, 52 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration deliberately misled them about the presence of weapons of mass destruction there, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in June.

    Hans Blix, United Nations inspector, calls it Washington's "virtual reality," which he says eventually collided with "our old-fashioned ordinary reality."

    Now, drawing from findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other official investigations, from U.N., U.S., Iraqi and British documents, from Associated Press interviews and on-scene reporting, from books by Blix and others, it's possible to reconstruct, step by step, much of the "ordinary reality" of this extraordinary story, one that changed the course of history.

    The story unfolds

    May 1991 -- U.N. inspectors entered postwar Iraq and began destroying chemical weapons and dismantling Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, which never built a bomb.

    August 1995 -- Defector Hussein Kamel, in charge of Baghdad's unconventional arms, detailed the secrets of Iraq's former biological-weapons program for U.N. interrogators. He insisted all chemical and biological arms were destroyed in 1991.

    December 1998 -- The U.N. inspectors withdrew from Iraq in a dispute with President Saddam Hussein's government over access to sites. Questions remained about possible hidden stockpiles of chemical arms or bioweapons.

    Jan. 20, 2001 -- As George W. Bush was inaugurated president, the CIA was reporting, "We do not have any direct evidence" that Baghdad was rebuilding its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

    Jan. 30, 2001 -- Bush focused his first National Security Council meeting on Iraq, ordering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to study possible military action, according to ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

    advertising April 10, 2001 -- A classified CIA report said Iraq was shopping for thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, said to be potential cores for centrifuges to enrich uranium to nuclear-bomb strength.

    April 11, 2001 -- The U.S. Energy Department's centrifuge experts disagreed, saying the tubes' dimensions weren't well-suited for centrifuges. Department analysts suggested they were meant for making conventional artillery rockets. The U.N. nuclear agency later told U.S. officials the same.

    May 20, 2001 -- Iraqi diplomats in Kenya informed Baghdad that a Ugandan businessman offered uranium for sale, but they turned him away, saying U.N. sanctions forbade it.

    June 2001 -- A shipment of Iraq's aluminum tubes was intercepted in Jordan. The news upset Baghdad's military industry chief, Abdel Tawab Huweish, who needed them to make artillery rockets. He then ordered tubes of a different metal be found, he later told U.S. arms inspectors.

    June 2001 -- Northern Iraq's al-Kindi factory got a government order for trailer units to make hydrogen for weather balloons. An Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball" had been telling German intelligence Iraq was building bioweapons labs atop truck trailers. But the Germans informed U.S. intelligence that Curveball was a possible alcoholic and "out of control."

    Sept. 12, 2001 -- The day after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, White House talk was of "getting Iraq," even though U.S. agencies found no Iraqi link to the al-Qaida terrorists, according to Richard Clarke, ex-White House anti-terrorism chief.

    Oct. 7, 2001 -- U.S. forces attack Afghanistan.

    Feb. 6, 2002 -- CIA Director George Tenet told Congress his agency believes Saddam "never abandoned his nuclear-weapons program," but he cited no evidence of an imminent threat.

    Feb. 12, 2002 -- In a classified report, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said a purported Niger government document told of an Iraqi deal to buy 500 tons of uranium concentrate from that central African state. A transcription of the document contained errors, suggesting forgery, that should have been easily detectable.

    March 2002 -- Ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson, sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate the uranium allegation, reported back that he found no basis for it. State Department intelligence said the alleged transaction was implausible.

    March 2002 -- U.S. analysts, apparently unaware satellite reconnaissance was doubled over suspected Iraqi chemical-weapons factories, thought they were seeing increased activity at the sites, rather than increased surveillance.

    April 2002 -- Workers in Iraq's western desert smelted down the last equipment from a long-defunct uranium-enrichment project.

    July 23, 2002 -- In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair's inner Cabinet was told by Britain's intelligence chief, fresh from high-level Washington talks, that war against Iraq had become inevitable and U.S. intelligence was being "fixed" around this policy. Blair had pledged British support for war, if the U.S. first tried to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq.

    Mid-2002 -- U.S. air attacks on Iraqi defenses were sharply stepped up, under cover of patrols over Iraq's "no-fly zones."

    Aug. 26, 2002 -- Vice President Dick Cheney told a veterans' convention, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

    September 2002 -- A classified DIA report said there was no reliable information on any Iraqi chemical or biological weapons.

    Sept. 8, 2002 -- The aluminum-tubes story was revived in a front-page New York Times article, in which unnamed U.S. officials said Iraq sought the equipment for uranium centrifuges. It said nothing about U.S. and U.N. experts who believed the tubes were meant for rocket casings.

    Sept. 12, 2002 -- Bush, at the United Nations, called on the world body to take action on Iraq. He, too, cited the tubes as proof of danger.

    Sept. 16, 2002 -- Saddam announced U.N. inspectors could return to Iraq.

    Sept. 24, 2002 -- Britain published an intelligence assessment saying Iraq "has made progress on WMD," but offering no conclusive evidence. Senior British government analyst Brian Jones later said leaders told the experts there was "other intelligence" they couldn't see, but none ever emerged.

    Oct. 1, 2002 -- U.S. agencies produced a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded, "Iraq has continued its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs," but offered no conclusive evidence.

    Oct. 10-11, 2002 -- Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq.

    Nov. 27, 2002 -- U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq.

    December 2002 -- Saddam informed his senior generals in secret meetings that Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons.

    January 2003 -- Over two months, U.N. experts in Iraq had inspected 13 "facilities of concern" from the U.S.-British intelligence assessments and found no signs of weapons-making.

    Jan. 28, 2003 -- In his State of the Union address, Bush claimed Iraq sought African uranium, sought aluminum tubes for centrifuges, and built bioweapons trailers. But State Department intelligence called the "Niger uranium document" a probable hoax. State had joined Energy Department experts in viewing the tubes as likely rocket casings. And German intelligence had warned the CIA that Curveball, source of the trailers story, was an unreliable "waste of time."

    Feb. 5, 2003 -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a presentation to the U.N. Security Council, repeated many of the same questionable claims.

    March 7, 2003 -- The U.N. nuclear agency exposed the "Niger document" as a forgery. Its experts earlier, in a firsthand inspection, found Iraq's aluminum tubes to be poor candidates for centrifuges.

    March 17, 2003 -- On national television, Bush told the American people there was "no doubt" Iraq had "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

    March 20, 2003 -- U.S. armed forces bombed and invaded Iraq. Rumsfeld said of Iraqi WMD, "We know where they are." But none was found.

    April 19, 2003 -- An equipment-packed trailer seized in northern Iraq was said by the CIA to be one of Curveball's supposed bioweapons trailers. But tests found no trace of pathogens or toxins. It was one of the hydrogen-making trailers built under the 2001 al-Kindi contract.

    Mid-2003 -- The Bush administration line shifted from claiming Iraq had WMD to claiming it had WMD "programs."

    May-December 2003 -- David Kay's Iraq Survey Group arms hunters, poring over documents and suspect sites, interrogating scientists, found neither weapons nor programs.

    December 2003 -- In a Washington meeting with CIA chiefs, Kay ran into "an absolutely closed mind," he says, especially on the subjects of tubes and trailers.

    Jan. 23, 2004 -- Kay resigned as chief inspector, saying, "The weapons do not exist."

    Feb. 12, 2004 -- Tenet flew secretly to Baghdad, telling U.S. arms hunters, now under Charles Duelfer, that Iraq has WMD and they should find them, said senior inspector Rod Barton.

    March 2004 -- British intelligence urged Duelfer to put nine "nuggets," past unsupported allegations, into an interim report, Barton said. Duelfer rejected them as "fool's gold," Barton said.

    Sept. 30, 2004 -- In an election debate, Bush maintained, "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming."

    Oct. 6, 2004 -- Duelfer's final report, conveyed to the CIA on Sept. 23, is made public. It says Iraq disarmed 13 years earlier, in 1991. ______________________________________________________________________

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2006 @ 09:52am

60. and to continue...

    Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

    By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01

    On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

    The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

    A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

    The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

    The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

    None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

    "There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world." Primary Piece of Evidence

    The story of the technical team and its reports adds a new dimension to the debate over the U.S. government's handling of intelligence related to banned Iraqi weapons programs. The trailers -- along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was claimed to be a nuclear weapons program -- were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.

    Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Last year, a presidential commission on intelligence failures criticized U.S. spy agencies for discounting evidence that contradicted the official line about banned weapons in Iraq, both before and after the invasion.

    Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

    "Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

    Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

    The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

    Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.

    By autumn, leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group were publicly expressing doubts about the trailers in news reports. David Kay, the group's first leader, told Congress on Oct. 2 that he had found no banned weapons in Iraq and was unable to verify the claim that the disputed trailers were weapons labs. Still, as late as February 2004, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet continued to assert that the mobile-labs theory remained plausible. Although there was "no consensus" among intelligence officials, the trailers "could be made to work" as weapons labs, he said in a speech Feb. 5.

    Tenet, now a faculty member at Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, declined to comment for this story.

    Kay, in an interview, said senior CIA officials had advised him upon accepting the survey group's leadership in June 2003 that some experts in the DIA were "backsliding" on whether the trailers were weapons labs. But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader.

    "If I had known that we had such a team in Iraq," Kay said, "I would certainly have given their findings more weight." A Defector's Tales

    Even before the trailers were seized in spring 2003, the mobile labs had achieved mythic stature. As early as the mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations chased phantom mobile labs that were said to be mounted on trucks or rail cars, churning out tons of anthrax by night and moving to new locations each day. No such labs were found, but many officials believed the stories, thanks in large part to elaborate tales told by Iraqi defectors.

    The CIA's star informant, an Iraqi with the code name Curveball, was a self-proclaimed chemical engineer who defected to Germany in 1999 and requested asylum. For four years, the Baghdad native passed secrets about alleged Iraqi banned weapons to the CIA indirectly, through Germany's intelligence service. Curveball provided descriptions of mobile labs and said he had supervised work in one of them. He even described a catastrophic 1998 accident in one lab that left 12 Iraqis dead.

    Curveball's detailed descriptions -- which were officially discredited in 2004 -- helped CIA artists create color diagrams of the labs, which Powell later used to argue the case for military intervention in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council.

    "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell said in the Feb. 5, 2003, speech. Thanks to those descriptions, he said, "We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like."

    The trailers discovered in the Iraqi desert resembled the drawings well enough, at least from a distance. One of them, a flatbed trailer covered by tarps, was found in April by Kurdish fighters near the northern city of Irbil. The second was captured by U.S. forces near Mosul. Both were painted military green and outfitted with a suspicious array of gear: large metal tanks, motors, compressors, pipes and valves.

    Photos of the trailers were quickly circulated, and many weapons experts were convinced that the long-sought mobile labs had been found.

    Yet reaction from Iraqi sources was troublingly inconsistent. Curveball, shown photos of the trailers, confirmed they were mobile labs and even pointed out key features. But other Iraqi informants in internal reports disputed Curveball's story and claimed the trailers had a benign purpose: producing hydrogen for weather balloons.

    Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats. Project leaders put together a team of volunteers, eight Americans and a Briton, each with at least a decade of experience in one of the essential technical skills needed for bioweapons production. All were nongovernment employees working for defense contractors or the Energy Department's national labs.

    The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. By that date, the two trailers had been moved to a military base on the grounds of one of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces. When members of the technical team arrived, they found the trailers parked in an open lot, covered with camouflage netting.

    The technical team went to work under a blistering sun in 110-degree temperatures. Using tools from home, they peered into vats, turned valves, tapped gauges and measured pipes. They reconstructed a flow-path through feed tanks and reactor vessels, past cooling chambers and drain valves, and into discharge tanks and exhaust pipes. They took hundreds of photographs.

    By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not.

    "Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

    There...do I win?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2006 @ 09:53am

61. LEFTOFCENTER 06/10/2006 @ 09:52am

    LEFTOFCENTER 06/10/2006 @ 09:53am

    If anyone still needs a reminder that supporting this war is entirely a matter of lying to yourself, there you go.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/10/2006 @ 10:13am

62. Thanks, LOC, for not taking the weekend off.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 10:24am

63. good summary, Lefty

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:55am

64. Look out, Florida. Tropical Storm Alberto seems to be forming and aiming for you. This little, unexpected storm will be teaming up with embedded Florida storms Jeb and Mel to cause unnecessary fear and damage with widespread destruction forecast. Residents of Florida are urged to cease all electronic forms of communication as these will be disrupted by Alberto; in addition those residents in a persistive vegetative state should have their feeding tubes removed as soon as possible, as actions by these three storms will make the insertion of feeding tubes a permanent situation. The gay residents of South Beach are urged to move underground (no easy feat is such a low state) as the storm seems peculiarly focused on them, as well as ex-felons and other minority groups. Cuban-American residents and evangelical Christians, on the other hand, will be welcome to roam the land as they choose and, in fact, can already cast their votes for Katherine Harris in the general election, as the storm will, inexplicably, not impact these residents negatively. Stay tuned for more details

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 11:21am

65. very creative, TJ

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 11:41am

66. Conservatives, dumb you, you think the government is only trying to take the internet away from liberals.

    Posted by conshame at 06/10/2006 @ 1:10pm

67. Thanks guys...just galls my ass when we hear the crowing "you can't prove he lied" when its all over the damned news. Just have to actually pull their fingers out of their ears and going LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA or maybe read the news rather than the same old tired BS....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2006 @ 1:49pm

68. Zero & TJ

    Here's new one I found helpful for perspective:

    http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0610-20.htm

    Posted by drhammer at 06/10/2006 @ 4:02pm

69. "a" new one...

    Posted by drhammer at 06/10/2006 @ 4:03pm

70. That's a great little article, Dr. Reminds me that a laissez-faire economy is most accurately pronounced "lazy fair" economy.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 4:49pm

71. will c.

    what the fuck was that all about? u better be joking!

    Posted by loveloki at 06/10/2006 @ 6:44pm

72. good one, tj

    Posted by loveloki at 06/10/2006 @ 6:46pm

73. Can one make the case that President George W. Bush "lied" or "misled" or intentionally "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq and WMD in order to lead us to war? Sure, if one possesses a visceral anti-Bush mindset coupled with a willingness to ignore powerful arguments in favor of the war:

    -- Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, during a press conference last week, said "Many months before (the) Iraqi action, I met (the) predecessor of (chief U.N. weapons inspector) Hans Blix in Warsaw. . . . He told me (a) very important thing: that Saddam had these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons. Because to have such (an) impression that he has mass destruction weapons is a part of his doctrine, to keep . . . power in Iraq and to be strong in the region. So I think it's very difficult today to judge how it was when he . . . decided to continue this project of mass destruction weapons. . . . Absolutely, Iraq is ready to produce if it's necessary to keep the power of and dictatorship of Saddam and to play such (an) important role in the region."

    -- In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

    -- French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed."

    -- Former Clinton CIA director R. James Woolsey, in a Wall Street Journal article, made several points -- that Saddam possibly intentionally misled the world into thinking he still possessed WMD to keep his status as a power player in the region; that stockpiles of WMD possibly remained only to be destroyed at the last minute; that WMD-related material "probably" entered Syria months before the war; that Iraq admitted making 8,500 liters (8.5 tons) of anthrax, which if reduced to powder, could fill a dozen easily portable suitcases; and that "Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear," with a decade worth of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, "including training in poisons, gases, and explosives."

    -- Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that based on the pre-war intelligence, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought.

    -- Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "

    -- Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

    The near pathological contempt so many hold for President Bush clouds their ability to put themselves in the commander-in-chief's shoes. On Sept. 11, in America, over 3,000 people lost their lives. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein continued to defy United Nations Security Council resolutions to come clean. He flouted the U.N.-sponsored Oil-for-Food program, diverting the money from its intended purpose.

    Critics quite properly accuse the U.S. intelligence community for failing to connect the dots and thus prevent 9/11. After the first Gulf War in 1991, the advanced nature of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program shocked intelligence analysts. Nuclear bomb testing in India and Pakistan came as a surprise, as did the advanced nature of Iran's and Libya's WMD programs. By all means, the U.S. intelligence failures call for serious soul-searching, and possibly housekeeping to improve accuracy.

    But, in the case of pre-war Iraq, the president's critics suggest the following: Cross your fingers, hope for the best, and run the risk of another attack on American soil, this time possibly with chemical or biological weapons. No, the president acted upon the best available information and properly discharged his responsibility as commander-in-chief.

    There--do I win?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/10/2006 @ 10:18pm

74. "run the risk of another attack on American soil, this time possibly with chemical or biological weapons."

    c'mon Mossie, this one has a long beard. Saddam did not attack us, could not attack us. repeating the same crap over again doth not make it so.

    what we are doing in Iraq does nothing for the risk of another attack, quite the opposite.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:29pm

75. enough with WMD, not even Bush believes that fairy tale anymore and has stopped peddling it.

    did you not get the memo?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:32pm

76. The near pathological contempt so many hold for President Bush clouds their ability to put themselves in the commander-in-chief's shoes. On Sept. 11, in America, over 3,000 people lost their lives. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein...

    That's all you have to say, LEN. You lose. And the rest of the country has joined you.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 11:07pm

77. LM

    ...the president acted upon the best available information and properly discharged his responsibility as commander-in-chief.

    The timeline and news items above actually indicate he did not act as if he ever read the information. But as he barely reads anything that is not surprising I suppose.

    There--do I win?

    Uh, no, but thanks for playing!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2006 @ 11:29pm

78. what we are doing in Iraq does nothing for the risk of another attack, quite the opposite

    I believe that what we are doing in Iraq neither diminishes or increases the chance of attack from terrorist in the short run. Apparently you think that if we had not attacked Iraq then we would be less of a target from terrorist. Terrorist do what terrorist do no matter what you do---just ask the Canadians. They didn't attack Iraq--didn't matter ---what did they get---a major Islamic Jihad terrorist plot to blow up government buildings.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/11/2006 @ 09:12am

79. LeftofCenter-----Google Clinton 98 Iraq------- Read----------Game over

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/11/2006 @ 09:37am

80. LM

    Apparently you are playing a different game...as your little snippet is unrelated to the Dubya "Lies to War". But as long as you are trolling in that lake, let take a dive shall we. Go here to see the arming of Iraq by Reagan and Bush Sr. prelude

    (Might make good reading for NaCl as well who avows that such events ever occurred)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/11/2006 @ 09:53am

81. ....and of course your limp return never addresses the fact that Dubya DID lie...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/11/2006 @ 09:54am

82. Lefty---Why because you said so? Give me a break. If Bush lied then so did all the others that I gave you--including Bill Clinton. For your scenario to be true you would have had to have had Clinton, Bush, Albright, Gore, ETC.ETC.ETC.---together in a grand conspiracy. Now I know Plunger and Rese go for that sort of thing, but I didn't know that you did also. The Bush lied thing is nothing more than a political rallying slogan from the left. It not only cannot be proven---it can be shown by the prima facie evidence (statements made by democrats and other world leaders prior to the invasion of Iraq) that it is untrue. Game Set Match----Turn out the lights the party is over and the Fat Lady has sung.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/11/2006 @ 8:18pm

83. Oh boy, now they want to give the information superhighway a corporate supertollbooth. If this BS passes, I think we can pretty much forget about ever seeing this site again.

    Posted by time4nothin at 06/11/2006 @ 8:34pm

84. LM

    If Bush lied then so did all the others that I gave you...Uh, so what - they ARE politicians. If their lips are moving they are likely lies involved.

    because you said so? No - because the intel experts pre-war said so. So apparently you read none of the last link. Not my words....Too bad your mind is closed to non-kool-aid talk.

    For your scenario to be true you would have had to have had Clinton, Bush, Albright, Gore, ETC.ETC.ETC.---together in a grand conspiracy Comes in the the WTF category. Since when does 1+1=cheese? Sadaam had disarmed, said he did and couldn't prove it. He was mostly bluster and little substance. However, inspectors agreed that no WMDs. Dubya did not. Don't see where the Clinton admin comes into that 5-6 years after they went out of office.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/11/2006 @ 11:53pm

85. in your dreams, Mosse, in your dreams

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 5:17pm

86. another quote list [rotten.com]

    Len,

    Since you like paste n' post lists, feel free to click on the above. There's a very simple flaw in your posts on this score: only one person (with numerous, incompetent accomplices in the executive and legislative branches) decided to take his mistaken beliefs seriously enough to order an invasion of Iraq. The others, to my recollection, determined that the evidence at hand did not justify such an action. Of course, this goes without saying. But of course you are ignoring just the same.

    P.S. I notice you did not offer the website from which you swiped your quotes. Rightwingnews.com? A site promoting Ann Coulter? Nice. Full disclosure: I went to rotten.com. No better, but, hey, least I'm fessing up.

    And I noticed this Quote of the Day at the bottom of rightwingnews.com: "I'm a small-government guy, so my default position on any issue is that, generally speaking, I'm on whichever side the government's not." Mark Steyn. Wouldn't that mean that Mr. Steyn would always be as much a pacifist as I? Such Anti-Americanism from a throughly red, white, and blue drenched website. Hopefully this is the type of trash that will be taken out once we get the telecoms involved in the net.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/12/2006 @ 6:15pm

87. Wrong website---wasn't that one---forgot which one--but not that one.

    "The others, to my recollection, determined that the evidence at hand did not justify such an action. Of course, this goes without saying. But of course you are ignoring just the same."

    I'm not ignoring it ---you just changed the subject---now you want to talk about whether it was a good decision to invade Iraq. The subject before was whether Bush lied about going into Iraq. I showed prima facie evidence that he did not. You now change the subject and say that he is the only one who used that evidence as a pretext for going into war. Neat trick. If you now feel that he made a bad decision, but didn't lie----well OK---We can discuss if he made a bad decision. But the Bush Lied crap is nothing but a bumper sticker and rallying cry for leftist.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 08:22am

88. Johannes---Your entire premise is that there was this huge conspiracy to lie the American people into war. This from a guy who you think is dumb. Sometimes the simplist explanation of things is the correct explanation. They were fooled by the intelligence---Game Set Match---turn out the lights the party is over and the fat lady has sung

    Also sorry about the Rove thing---I guess your dreams don't come true.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 08:29am

89. I showed prima facie evidence that he did not.

    you did nothing of the kind, Mosse. there was a huge conspiracy to go to war against Iraq, that has been exhaustively documented.

    the history of this war has been written, and you cannot change that no matter how you try. the majority of americans believe they were lied to.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:53am

90. The majority of Americans believe in the Bible---but the left criticizes that belief every day.

    Huge conspiracy----Now I know the deal ---You are in the Plunger and Rese crowd. If there was a huge conspiracy then Clinton, Blair and Bush were in on it together. I bet you believe the CIA killed Kennedy don't ya.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 09:48am

91. "History of the war has been written"

    Please---an accurate history of this war won't be written for ten or twenty years. Anything written now is pure political propaganda.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 09:49am

92. Anything written now by me is pure political propaganda.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:54am

93. A majority of American thought the Spanish blew up the Maine-----they were wrong.

    A majority of Americans thought that Japanese Americans were a threat to National Security in 1942 so they favored FDR's decision to place them in internment camps. They were wrong.

    Polls don't make you right.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 09:55am

94. but the left criticizes that belief every day.

    they do? where?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:55am

95. Anything written now by me is pure political propaganda.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 09:54am | ignore this person

    Don't put yourself down like that Johannes. I believe that you are a genuinely good guy. I believe that you truly believe that you were lied to. But an investigation of the facts does not hold up that view point. The Bush lied montra is nothing but a bumper sticker rallying cry----Much like "REMEMBER THE MAINE" :)

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 09:59am

96. "REMEMBER THE MAINE" :) that was a lie too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:08am

97. but the left criticizes that belief every day.

    they do? where?

    Do I really need to point out the countless critical remarks that are made towards people of faith? If they believe that homosexuality is a sin they are criticized, if they believe that abortion is a sin they are criticized, if they believe in the rapture they are criticized and made fun of, if they believe that pornography is a sin they are criticized, if they believe in the virgin birth they are criticized, if they believe in heaven and hell they are criticized-----the list goes on and on----if it's not based in Science then it is criticized. And it is not just a criticizm of people of faith being politically active it is a criticizm of their beliefs as being backward and narrow.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:08am

98. Yes "Remember the Maine" was a rallying call that was based on an untruth----just like "Bush lied" is a rallying call based on an untruth. That's why I used it---thought you would see that. My bad.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 10:10am

99. the religious aren't criticized for their beliefs as much as they are criticized for attempting to shove those beliefs down the throats of everyone else. in their churches they may be as moral and as bigoted as they like, but in the social sphere we follow a higher authority, the US constitution.

    thank you Mask, for not suggesting I go back where I came from. that shows some discernation on your part.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:17am

100. Mask, let's table the discussion of Bush lied for now. even more important is: was the war a good idea, and how is it going?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:19am

101. Are you having a conversation with Mask that I don't know about? I will respond however: If I would have known then what I know now about WMD I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq. I would have supported regime change (assassination). However, I did not know then what I know now-----I still feel that it is better for the World that Saddam is gone. I still feel that we can be successful in Iraq (success being defined as a democratic government in Iraq that can defend itself from insurgency allowing Americans to leave and only requiring American military help if it attacked from outside --Iran). I am also a believer that if successful in Iraq the Middle East will have a seed of Democracy planted within the barren wasteland of autocracy. This is a good thing and could lead to a safer Middle East.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 11:01am

102. Johannes----too many have crossed the line of just criticizing "for attempting to shove those beliefs down the throats of everyone else". They portray religious people as bigoted as you implied in your post. I am a religious person. I am also a sinner---I am also a believer in "Hate the Sin and love the Sinner". Many want the religious to deny their beliefs and not say that a sin is a sin---it is the responsibility of a Christian to call a sin a sin---it is also the responsibility of a Christian to admit that all are sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God, including themselves. I have fallen short much too often---but there is still hope for me yet. How about you?

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/13/2006 @ 11:10am

103. LM

     re:...beliefs as being backward and narrow.

     When they try and pass of mysticism in public schools (as in KS Board of Ed among others) as an alternative to accepted science, then yeah...it does mean you are trying to shove backward and narrow ignorance down the throats of children. And doing so does a grave disservice to the country in general.

     TJB

     re: LM's I showed prima facie evidence that he did not. ...and I showed "prima facie" he did, and all LM could say was "Well, if he did Clinton did too" Powerful refutation that! (snicker, snicker)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 12:13pm

104. "I am also a believer that if successful in Iraq the Middle East will have a seed of Democracy planted within the barren wasteland of autocracy."

     how is it going so far Mr. Wishful thinking? that's a pretty big IF

     " I would have supported regime change (assassination)."

     c'mon now, is that the american way? that would not have accomplished much, but then neither has a full blown invasion. it's refreshing to hear one right winger say that they wouldn't have gone to war had they known WMD was bogus.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 12:47pm

105. Mosse, show me the word SIN in the constitution.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 12:49pm

106. Mosse, you can bandy the word sin in your church. you cannot force me to join your church. so keep this sin jazz out of the public and secular sphere, else you become an american taleban like liberty.

     in Jerusalem in the orthodox neighborhoods, rabbis have thrown stones at passing cars on Saturday. you see it's a sin to drive on shabbat. in Afghanistan liquor stores are bombed because, you guessed it, it's a sin to consume alcohol. here in america, god loning christians shoot doctors providing abortions to women who request them, because it's a sin, and our god tells us to murder people who sin. get the picture?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 12:54pm

107. I'm not ignoring it ---you just changed the subject---now you want to talk about whether it was a good decision to invade Iraq. The subject before was whether Bush lied about going into Iraq. I showed prima facie evidence that he did not. You now change the subject and say that he is the only one who used that evidence as a pretext for going into war. Neat trick. If you now feel that he made a bad decision, but didn't lie----well OK---We can discuss if he made a bad decision. But the Bush Lied crap is nothing but a bumper sticker and rallying cry for leftist.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/13/2006 @ 08:22am

     Hey, Len. Get your own friggin' blog if you want control of the subject. You brought up an age-old topic out of your nether region. Allow me to pull one out that is at least from an adjacent orifice.

     You have two and only two possibilities from which to choose. The first is that the American people are the most royally stupid bunch of creatures the Western world has seen. We snicker and snort when we watch those uncivilized folk in the third world rally around an obvious bit of propaganda. And when given the opportunity to demonstrate our superiority, we... The second possibility is that the administration and the mainstream media gave the populace little option to conclude anything other than that Saddam was a threat to us and, given the most extreme level of fear of domestic attack since Pearl Harbor, was a major hurdle to overcome on our way to victory in the war on terror. Quote Clinton, Albright, and any Democratic member of Congress you like. Not a one of them convinced anyone that an invasion of Iraq was necessary because it was an imminent threat to us. That was done by the administration and it matters not whether it was the thin, quivering lips of our president or the saliva-clinging meatchops on Ari Fleischer or any of the other mouthpieces spreading the word that the Iraqis are coming, the Iraqis are coming. It was not only a stupid move to invade Iraq. But to do so while still attempting to hunt down bin Laden and quell the warlords in Afghanistan was a clear sign to most that Afghanistan and Iraq were different fronts in the same war. This is wrong.

     When the subject was under your control, you imply that all the Democratic morons who preceded Bush or jumped on his bandwagon to hell confirmed what Bush was saying. To a point. But it is one thing to see a dark, shadowy figure on the other side of the room and believe him to be a threat. It is another to start shooting at the threat before realizing that he's old and unarmed. I'll happily agree that anyone who supported blasting away in spite of the evidence should be given a lifetime timeout in a remote corner of the country. But it doesn't excuse the words or actions of Bush.

     [What we have done is made it very easy for any military action on our part to become part of the war on terror. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see followers of al Qaeda suddenly springing to life in Mexico should we continue to stoke that issue into a military problem.]

     So...lies. Are Americans stupid or Americans in tune with what they hear and see? Please account for the errors made by millions of our fellow citizens.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/13/2006 @ 12:57pm