Amen! Dr. Sanity, you have become my favorite blog read. You do "tell it like it is"! (Are you related to the late Howard Cosell? 
)
I really look at the anti-Bushies as being "on the other side," i.e., "the enemy, and am wary of what they'll try next.
PS do you know of any single gals in Ann Arbor who hold the same beliefs as you (gals preferably around 50)? I'm tired of dating all of the lefties in town. 
Art. Even better than that, this an example of degenerate art, in the best sense of the word.
Life isn't about crafted images, wishful thinking or romantic images and notions.
Like the cubists, impressionists, etc., you tell it like it is and make reality evident. From where I sit, that is much needed fresh air.
Marx as Mahdi. I like it.
Insane?
I prefer the term batshit-crazy.
It's funny and appropriate, because they are so mean.
What's funny is that the leftists don't realize they've crossed a line that there is no going back on, now.
They're on a road to a sort of endless nowhere, that will literally make their lives completely meaningless and contentless.
And that is funny!
It's what you get when you side with a soviet or you are one.
Don't know how many people here watch "The Apprentice"...but increasingly, our political culture reminds me of one of the really bad Apprentice teams; one of the ones where they devote so much focus to their awful relationships with each other that they have little time or emotional energy left to actually do the task.
Do you all remember all the liberals who slammed George W. Bush immediately after 9/11, when he declared war on terrorism and took out the Taliban looking for Osama?
Of course you don't, because it never happened. Democrats and Republicans were truly united, back when Bush was doing the right thing. Karl Rove's speech about how "liberals wanted to show compassion and restraint" was offensive to every rationally-thinking American; that line was lifted from a moveon.org email that pretty much said hey, we have to fight back, but let's just not turn the whole Middle East into a glass parking lot.
No, liberals only took issue when George decided to invade Iraq. Whether they "lied" or they didn't, the war has been a travesty. How long has it been since Bush proudly declared that we found the WMDs? Or "Mission Accomplished"? Whether they are intentionally misleading or not, the truth is that they are wrong about just about everything, and as such it is an Administration that cannot be trusted.
Mitzell, I believe you are incorrect. I remember dire warnings about the "brutal Afghan winter" from Democrats of the more moderate brand, and accusations of impending genocide from those further to the left.
I just posted this comment over at Winds of Change on a similar thread re this whole crazy mess.
My dear Mr. Watson there is a bigger game afoot!
There is a growing consensus in some corners of the Blogos that Saddam's WMD went to Syria with Russian assistance before GWII.
What we may be witnessing is a good ole game of Texas Hold'em. Pieces of this puzzle have been around for awhile but for obvious reasons and also a case of too blind to see, the LL and the MSM have not followed the leads to track down this story e.g. The Plame Affair, Bush Lied, People Died, Cheney Quailgate, the Iraqi "non" civil war a reverse case of Wag the Dog, The CIA Leaks (Gee the CIA is openly at war with the CNC), and now Katrinagate.
[...]
Read More
and
Here
I try to say a bit on what Dr. Sanity said so well in my blog today at independent-conservative.com. The history of the "Movement" ground to a halt when Reagan was elected and the print and electronic media back then were just as biased, but not quite as dishonest as the MSM is today.
As a couple of my blogs say, the removal of WMD did occur, perhaps as late as June 2002, and the consensus of intelligence agencies was unanimous that Saddam possessed them.
For the media to continue to refuse to investigate WMD, to support every Dem effort to demonize the GWB administration, and to scream "all in" at every Texas Hold 'Em opportunity will eventually convince a majority of Americans that these deluded newsies are simply mentally ill, perhaps suffering from the mass psychosis the hard-left demonstrates on almost every possible occasion.
But the MSM are using Stalin and Hitler techniques, which is that the BIG LIE repeated often enough will convince a majority out there that where there's so much smoke.......
Dismissing leftist intellectuals (such as Katha Pollitt, for instance)as narcissistic psychopaths is an amazingly ignorant statement for a psychiatrist. I'm almost ashamed to say I graduated from the University of Michigan.
rocketsbrain, the "blogos" can come to a consensus on whatever they want, does that make it true? There also seems to be a large contigent of bloggers that believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Getting a free blog from Google does not make one an expert, sir.
And come on, if there were any WMDs, or if the Bush Administration did anything right before Katrina, or if Cheney was somehow justified in shooting a friend in the face...then Fox News, Sean Hannity etc. would be all over it. The infamous "liberal media" isn't covering it? Fine, YOU tell us the real story. Just don't be making stuff up because you want it to be true.
One more thing...please correct me if I am wrong...but it sure sounds like you WANT terrorists to have WMD's, perhaps killing Americans here or overseas, so you can say "ha ha told you so," as opposed to being shown that perhaps those pesky liberals were right.
Who is it that hates America, again?
Shortly after George Bush took over, I met a Whitehouse reporter socially. An older lady who'd been covering the Whitehouse since Ford. I asked her opinion of Bush. She didn't like him. Seems he had a nasty habit of just popping into the pressroom without notice when some reporters weren't about.
Imagine that, the President of the United States speaking to the press just any time he wanted. Apparently, there is, I mean was, a protocol that must be obeyed to ensure the press feel appropriately important. Imagine the arrogance to think he could run around like he was in charge.
I believe what drives the press batty is that President Bush will make decisions, take responsibility for his actions, and, God forbid, stand behind his decisions even when they are unpopular. But his greatest sin is that he deals with the world as it is, not some Utopia construct.
I only object to your characterization of Bush pre-9/11 as at best mediocre. He was in fact well on his way to a top tier. He killed the ABM treaty, which removed the Soviet Union from the minds of the left. He took us out of Kyoto, which will do more to solve emissions issues than Kyoto ever would.
He's been badly maligned but by lazy people. The naysayers are getting a dispproportionate amont of the airtime. This should not be confused for real analysis.
And, although its post-9/11, he took on the leftward skew on the courts and was more affective than any other Republican (Clinton did just fine getting lefties on the court).
Other than that, good article.
Mitzell,
I use Powerblogs that I do pay for. Anyway I'm not making this up. Check what I say out.
Just Google or check my blog what Iraqi General Sada says about Saddam's WMD in his new book Saddam's Secrets.
Intelligence Summit, Part IV - WMD to Syria With Russia's Help
A Must Read!
Kobayashi Maru continues with his excellent series on the recently concluded Intelligence Summit. BTW the WSJ has a related feature article today that I will link to shortly.
In short there is clear and convincing evidence that Saddam's much sought WMD went to Syria with the help of the Russians. The next question is why this administration is not shouting this from every mtn top in America - the Iranian poker game of Texas Hold'em.
Read it All
You now have the power at your fingertips that the "little" guy has never had in world history e.g., re Instapundit's new book An Army of Davis.
RBT
And to think, BDS was brought about by a small group of disfunctional people back in the 1960's who were high on LSD and had hallucinations that imposing collective Marxism upon free people was an American right.
We humbly bow before the venerable fumigatress of the malodorous left-wing stink tank, the right honorable Dr. Sanity.
rocketsbrain, I'm afraid you're giving yourself too much credit. Just because you all go back and forth hat-tipping one another and quoting the same stuff does not make things become real. I read everything, and don't see the "clear and convincing evidence." Ironically, the Kobayashi Maru blog's subtitle is something about "reprogramming no-win situations," and that is what you are all doing here--you are desperately trying, years after the fact, to justify our government's various WMD claims. This evidence all comes down to an Iraqi who wants to sell a book?
Sorry Mitzell, but you are incorrect as usual. Why do you go away and spew your lies somewhere else? Or is this all about you and how much trouble you can cause. You've said the same thing for ..oh, I don't know...every single thread you've commented on. We don't buy your crap. You wouldn't know a fact if it smashed you over the head; and with your last dying breath you'd gasp,"Bush lied" so you could be assured of a place in liberal heaven.
If y'all will indulge me this observation?
Some people don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome... they enjoy every second of it.
Sorry Jan, just because you don't like me doesn't mean I'm not right. I am more than willing to debate whether there are WMDs, and my evidence (Saddam didn't use any WMDs, we didn't find any WMDs, or statements to the UN have been proven false) is much more convincing than your evidence (an Iraqi wrote a book and people are quoting it on blogs).
Also, I'm not a liberal, thank you.
United Nations Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
Where Are the Pentagon Papers?
Also, why is it that liberals/leftists/Democrats/BDSers are more prone to believe that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he did not have WMDs, yet do not give President Bush the benefit of the doubt when he says the NSA program only targets terrorists? There is something very wrong with a person who gives more leniency to an oppressive, murderous, lying, terrorist-supporting dictator than to the President of the United States. When the Bush Administration defends itself with facts about the NSA program, they must be lying. When Saddam Hussein plays games with the weapons inspectors and keeps them from thoroughly doing their job in searching for weapons, LLLs and BDSers give him the benefit of the doubt. There is something very wrong and illogical with that mentality.
Also, something to keep in mind, WMDs were one of MANY reasons to go into Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and government. Iraq is to the Middle East terror network what bin Laden is to al Qaeda. Hussein harbored terrorists in Iraq, had terrorist training facilities in Iraq and financed Palestinian terrorism. This alone was reason enough to take him out, regardless of WMDs. The prospect of him having WMDs, with his ties to terrorist organizations, made him a potential threat. He was known to hate America, he was known to be sympathetic to al Qaeda and harbor al Qaeda terrorists and had links to terrorism throughout the 1990s. Not to mention his attempt to assassinate a United States President. All of these justified his ouster. We can haggle whether or not military action or how much military action was needed in order to do this, but there should be no debate about the fact that it was United States policy to Liberate Iraq since 1998 and it needed to be done.
Michael, your sources are simply not credible. Complain about the "liberal media" all you like, but Fox News, Washington Times etc. would have been all over that stuff if it were true. Much of the content of the first article has been discredited, and the second article is an interview with someone who believes there were WMDs in Iraq? Great, well I don't.
Proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden.
I don't deny that Saddam was a pretty terrible guy, but it was not worth the sacrifice of thousands of American troops to stop people in the Middle East from killing one another. And it's pretty naive to think that anything we do is ever going to stop people in the Middle East from killing one another.
Saddam Offered Asylum to bin Laden
Proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden? Come on. There's plenty of proof that *we* worked with them both.
Mitzell - We did not go to the Middle East to stop people from killing each other. We went there to make sure they did not expand their killing to other nations in the West, specifically the United States. Practically every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMDs. The only debate was whether or not to overthrow him through military force or through sanctions or diplomacy. Diplomacy did not work throughout the 1990s and the UN Oil-for-Food Program revealed that Saddam was not trustworthy. So diplomacy was off the table. Saddam needed to be overthrown. And he would not go quietly. So he would have to be thrown out by force. Which requires some sort of military action.
John Derbyshire on National Review Online The Corner Blog believes that we should have gone into Iraq, taken out Saddam and the government, leveled the place, then leveled Syria and Iran and then got the hell out and left the Middle East to pick up the pieces. His thought is that a country in shambles cannot get organized enough to strike at the United States. In the short run, this may have been fine and saved a lot of American lives, however, think of the hatred the Middle East would then have for America had that been done. After rebuilding, they would probably feel they had a score to settle.
I do not claim to know the correct answer, but I also will not entrust national security to the United Nations or the word of a dictator.
"There is plenty of proof that we worked with them both."
That was past American policy. Prop up "friendly" dictatorships as a way of supporting the lesser of two evils. Taliban forces were used to drive out Russia and Iraq was supported against Iran. However, history has proven that that strategy did not work. The new Bush Doctrine states that we will no longer support dictatorships in the hopes they will just be isolated and leave the rest of the world alone. We will try to spread democracy and freedom as an alternative to oppression and terrorism. It may not work, but I feel it is a much better alternative than continuing to support dictatorships and hope they leave us alone. We have already learned that it does not work.
Also, with regards to Saddam's links to bin Laden ... The point is that there are links at all. The media and the Democrats were talking about intelligence which pointed to some sort of relationship between Saddam and bin Laden in the years leading up to 2003. All of a sudden, after we invaded Iraq in 2003, the media and the Democrats changed course and asserted that bin Laden and Saddam had never had any ties. This is disengenuous as best, deliberately lying for partisan reasons at worst.
We can debate the seriousness of the relationship and the ties of bin Laden to Saddam, but there is evidence and reporting of ties between the two. As far back as 1998 and 1999 in the "mainstream" media. The same media which lies about these ties today and gives fuel to the "Bush Lied!" mantra of the LLLs.
Sure diplomacy worked in the 90s. What did Saddam do after we took him out of Kuwait (which was the right thing to do)? I'm sure there were some minor ties between Saddam and bin Laden, but they also thought of one another as infidels. And bin Laden's the guy who attacked us, and he's still at large. And bin Laden also has ties to Saudi Arabia, UAE and every other two-faced "ally" we have over there. And getting back to the original point, it is disingenous to claim that Democrats fight everything that George W. Bush does. I don't remember anyone objecting to going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. I sure didn't.
Mitzell - There were plenty of "dissenting" voices within weeks of our going into Afghanistan calling it a "quagmire" and such. I will look up the sources for this info, but the "unity" after 9/11 was very short lived. A matter of weeks. However, the calls for taking the War on Terror to Saddam and Iraq was bipartisan within months of 9/11 as well. John Kerry was one of the first to say in an interview after 9/11 that we need to next go to Iraq. Whether or not he was right, the point is that the "Bush Lied!" mantra is disingenuous.
Afghanistan as Vietnam - October 31, 2001
Our Latest 'Quagmire' - November 19, 2001
This was less than 2 months after 9/11 and a mere weeks after we started our campaign in Afghanistan. Already saying it was Vietnam and a quagmire. That's not unity.
Those last two "Anonymous" posts are mine.
After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam made a corrupt deal with European Nations in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal, he was arguably tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he violated practically every UN Sanction put on his government and then kicked weapons inspectors out in 1998, forcing the Clinton Administraion to declare that Liberation of Iraq was to be official US Foreign Policy in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Yeah, diplomacy was working wonders throughout the 1990s.
You asked what Saddam did after we pushed him out of Kuwait, from the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, #6-#12:
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(
On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
I wonder if lizzards ever stage 'debates' with each other.
As if there is really anything to debate.
For the lizzards, once they have their lie, their false debate, they never move on as long as they have takers.
It keeps people immobilized and allows them to continuously frame the debate.
It's important to remember they have no concern with actual truth.
These internet people are interested in subverting, creating a fog, muddling. They're perniciously evil.
But remember that a person who does this for a living, has no life.
They are dedicated true believers fighting for a utopia that cannot actually ever exist. And from experience after experience when it does momentarily exist, it is nothing more than a murder fest of death and tyranny.
They want a canibalistic North Korea, of a destitute Cuba or Soviet slave pen.
It must be awfully unsatisfying for them to simply watch us living our lives.
No Hype Needed: Saddam, al-Qaida linked"
In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade." Seventy-seven senators apparently agreed — including a majority of Democrats — and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: " ... Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
The bipartisan consensus about this unholy alliance was not based on intriguing but unconfirmed rumors of meetings between Saddam's intelligence agents and al-Qaida operatives such as Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Nor did the senators or the president ever claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead, the Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.
More importantly, one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack. And after the U.S.'s successful war against the Taliban, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the present murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, reportedly escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.
All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That's why both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas — terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s — were in Baghdad prior to the U.S. invasion and why the families of West Bank suicide bombers were given $25,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.
This is why the War on Terror needed to be brought to Iraq. All Senators who signed the 2002 Joint Resolution agreed.
Sure, Saddam was corrupt, uncooperative, and violated sanctions. One could say the same of just about every other Middle Eastern nation, some of which we'd NEVER wage war against. Al Qaeda was in Iraq? Al Qaeda is probably everywhere.
I am not saying Saddam didn't do lots of bad things--he certainly did--but I don't believe he has had WMDs since he gassed his own people way back when, and I don't believe anyone would have supported this war without the unsubstantiated WMD claims.
And, while surely there are some good things to be said about Saddam being out of power, I don't think the ends justify the means (2300 Americans dead and counting, thousands of innocent Iraqi casualties, growth of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and throughout the world).
Mitzell - I can appreciate your honesty in admitting the reality of Saddam and Iraq and his possible ties to al Qaeda, but still not thinking that the ends justify the means. While I disagree with your position, you are at least consistent in recognizing the facts, but disagreeing with the course of action taken.
It would have been better had more people been as honest as that prior to the war, and also have given some alternate course of action to be taken with Saddam and Iraq. Considering there was bipartisan support to overthrow Saddam, bipartisan agreement that he had ties to al Qaeda and terrorists and bipartisan suspicions that he had WMDs or would use his ongoing WMD programs to aid terrorists, invasion seemed the only plausible solution. I do not recall anyone coming up with anything better other than weapons inspections. However, for the sake of argument, if the weapons inspectors were given a year to search and found nothing, Saddam should still have been overthrown because of his support of terrorists, terrorist training camps in Iraq and his links to harboring al Qaeda operatives. The focus on WMDs (or lackthereof) has whitewashed all these other reasons for taking out Saddam.
However, I appreciate that you offer an honest opinion that you do not believe the ends justified the means we used. Unfortunately, as was the point of this post, not many in the media nor in the Democratic party have been this honest about the debate on Iraq.
If the media and the Democrats were to put forth all the evidence that was concrete prior to the 2003 invasion ... the terrorist training camps, the ties to bin Laden, the ties to al Qaeda, the harboring of terrorists, etc ... I believe the majority of the American people would have supported invasion, even without the WMD info. That was a mistake made by the Administration to frame the main reason for going to war to be because of the possible WMD threat. However, this basis was given, prior to 2003, by both Democrats and Republicans and by the media in 1999-2001. Unfortunately, after the Administration used WMD as the main reason to justify the war, those opposed to Bush jumped at the opportunity to discredit his entire administration and Presidency based on the lack of finding WMDs. They conveniently swept their support and the terrorist ties under the table and screamed "Bush Lied!" as their new mantra. Again, as many have said, this was completely disingenuous.
I would not take issue with liberals or Democrats or the media if they would consistently present all the facts and just come to a different resolution of the problem. But too many of these groups are flat out lying about their past statements and about the facts or are keeping facts from the public.
I have wondered throughout this war effort how the American public's support of Bush and the war effort would if there was accurate reporting of our progress and success as well as accurate reporting of the justifications of going to Iraq. No doubt many would take your view that it was still not justified, however I do believe support would be much higher were all the facts common knowledge among most Americans.
Mitzell, you have repeatedly used the premise that the country was unified after 9-11, but Bush squandered it and subsequently accused Democrats of disunity, as a basis for your contention that it is not the Democrats abandoning Bush, but Bush's moving into a path of folly which creates our current divide.
On this thread and others, you have repeatedly been presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of quotes from the MSM, and later by Democratic leaders.
You have consistently avoided commenting on this, and it seems to be foundational to all else you claim.
I grant that for a brief period after 9-11, there were statements of unity from prominent Democrats. The criticism of Bush did begin immediately, but it was from the far left, and I don't hold most elected Democrats responsible for that.
However, that unity ebbed rapidly, as evidenced by the articles above. The criticism expanded beyond the far left well in advance of any changes in the Bush policy. By Feb 2002, Byrd and Daschle were sharply criticising Bush on his Afghanistan policy -- a policy which they had supported in November 2001, and retrospectively in 2004 claimed to have supported. (The retroactive support was designed to contrast their 2004 criticism of Bush with their supposed earlier support.)
The idea that there was post 9-11 unity is based on the emotional response of the people and their politicians for a few weeks. It was business as usual soon enough. Suggestions to the contrary are retrospective rewritings of the facts by Democrats. It was easy to observe and keep track of, because it had been predicted by conservatives as early as October 2001.
To which quotes are you referring? The war in Afghanistan could have been criticized--we didn't get bin Laden, and we still haven't gotten him. But it was not the same fervent anti-Bush attitude that is held by many Americans today.
Fascinating. Are you going to answer the point now?
Are you going to provide me with the quotes to which you refer? It's been four and a half years since 9/11, and bin Laden hasn't yet been caught. You don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to criticism of a war on terror.
Oh please. He will never answer the point. He will just keep on saying his mantra. He will never address any issue that is brought up. HE IS A TROLL. HE IS AN IDIOT. HE IS A F***ING TRAITOR AND TRIES TO TELL US HOW PATRIOTIC HE IS REGULARLY. HE IS SIMPLY A LEFTARD INCAPABLE OF REAL THOUGHT AND PARROTS WHAT HIS MASTERS SAY.
Correction Mitzell, when Clinton was in the Oval office he had the chance to capture bin Laden but instead he allowed his balls to be blown to bits by an intern.
Further, anti-American sentiment is an ideal created by theocratic and kleptocratic governments designed to distract their populace from recognizing the failure of their own leaders.
The experience of living in Moscow, Russia in 1991 gave me plenty of reason to know that Saddam had acquired all sorts of weapons along with the knowledge of 'how to hide' those weapons when I learned back then that the Russian mafia was selling to Saddam all the things you believe he doesn't have. The absence of something does not prove it never existed, it may just not be where you expect it to appear. The thing that really solidified my knowledge is when I return to NYC in 1992 and a year later the WTC was bombed. Two of the bombers were Iraqi, one received santuary in Baghdad shortly after while the other was captured (then subsequently released) in Qutar with documents identifing Al Queda members. Unfortunately, Clinton allowed the Yasin brothers freedom and they too have never been brought to justice.
In other words you don't have a leg to stand on at all, especially those standing with blind hate.
Also, here is an example of how Saddam was cooperating with Weapons Inspectors and was completely open and honest about the Weapons he had: 30-40 Iraqi Jets found buried in the sand
Yeah, this guy was trustworthy.
I referred to the articles linked by anonymous 2:50. I reported to you about statements by US Senators. I am not sure what quotes you are asking for. The exact wording would make no difference. My contention is that the criticism of Bush was not driven by his actions, but by partisan politcs, because of the Timing of the comments. The time-frame for the invasion of Afghanistan and all the actions and reactions thereafter is a matter of history, not opinion. By the timing of the Senatorial and MSM comments, not enough had actually occurred for criticism to be meaningful. What difference would the wording make?
bin Laden is pretty irrelevant. If you're hanging your criticism on "no bin Laden/Bush squandered national unity" those are slender threads.
You know, Bushhitler-Who-ALWAYS-Lies could really explode a lot of Anointed/Enlightened heads with one sentence:
"This statement is a lie."
> And bin Laden's the guy who attacked us, and he's still at large.
Mitzell, Bin Laden is DEAD -- D - E - A - D -dead.
His worm-eaten corpse is lying somewhere in the Afghan mountains under a half-mile of rock.
This is evinced by the fact that he hasn't been seen in anything new in around 3-4 years now, and the only "appearances" he's made have been on undatable videotapes making speeches which, instead of sounding like *anything* he's ever written or said, were rather obviously written by Michael Moore or someone channeling his porcine spirit.
In short, he's dead, and anyone with a clue knows it. Were he not, he would long since have made another fire-eating damn-the-infidels speech in a video.
Why hasn't the Bush Admin exposed this as the truth, when they would have to know?
Simple: Dead, Bin Laden is a potential martyr. As-is, in some inchoate form of "who knows where he is"? he fades from existence.
P.S.:
WHACK!
> Mitzell - I can appreciate your honesty in admitting the reality
Don't worry, Michael -- watch -- in three days, he'll be claiming once more to the contrary. That's how liberals work. Anything which doesn't fit the template is regularly and systematically purged from the claimstream.
Arguing with Mitzell is a total waste of time if your sole goal is to change his mind. It's not gonna happen, it's all frozen and immutable as so much granite.
That said:
1) Good work blowing him out of the water.
2) Think of it as two things, when you start to really see how futile it is:
a) your responses are actually written for anyone sitting on the fence who doesn't know any better but wants to learn
b) others can use your links and arguments in debates elsewhere
c) you're refining your own thought processes and arguments to see if they still fit the available data.
d) think of it as a sort of game of Whack-a-mole. Mitzell and his ilk toss up a mole and it's your job to whack its head.
OK, that's four things that started as two.... LOL.
Don't worry, Michael -- watch -- in three days, he'll be claiming once more to the contrary. That's how liberals work. Anything which doesn't fit the template is regularly and systematically purged from the claimstream.
AKA "oceania has never been at war with eurasia".
(Which Orwell based on an actual incident.)
Commenting by HaloScan.com
