How about using Sander's hot fudge?
Mikey NTH | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 9:50 am | #

So Saddam Hussein knew how to make WMDs, and could have made them at any time, but instead sat back and allowed his regime to be destroyed?

Right.
Joseph | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 10:21 am | #

Im wondering if its possible to find any evidence at this point that wouldnt be spun into oblivion by the left and their MSM buddies.

We find vials of anthrax-- headline-- "ANTHRAX FIND THOUGHT TO BE UNIVERSITY STUDY SAMPLES, POSSIBLY U.S. ORIGIN"

We find nerve gas--headline--"PET EUTHANISATION CHEMICALS UNCOVERED"

We find nuclear warheads--headline--"CUTTING EDGE IRAQI MINING EQUIPMENT FOUND"


If people like John Kerry find it so difficult to apologise for their offensive words, who could imagine them admitting they were possibly wrong about Saddam's capabilities and intentions no matter what the evidence?

That would be blasphemy to any leftist with faith in their reality distortion plans to seat them in power.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 10:59 am | #

Joseph: There's a big difference between the knowledge and the ability to use it. You or I might acquire the knowledge of how to make a nuclear device, but the chances of our actually making one are zero. The Iraqis had the knowledge, and were trying to acquire the materials, but couldn't actually build any with the U.N. looking over their shoulder.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:41 am | #

This reminds me of an incident in "THE GOON SHOW" where they were out in the desert and they rushed into a house. One said "It's a mirage" and another said it wasn't.

Then, the house dissappeared, so they all agreed it was a mirage.

Suddenly you hear "EEEEEEEEIIIIIIII," followed by a large THUMP. They turn to the fellow who just fell from a great height, and say' "Eckles, what happened to you?"

He says, "I was upstairs."

Yes, exactly like those WMD that were all just a mirage.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:44 am | #

Dr. Sanity . . .

Tomorrow is your knee-replacement surgery. May you have a speedy recovery.
Promethea | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:49 am | #

It's elective surgery day, in which we throw out the bum knees!
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:04 pm | #

Chocolate cake?

I thought it was a yellow cake...
Rich | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:08 pm | #

"The Iraqis had the knowledge, and were trying to acquire the materials, but couldn't actually build any with the U.N. looking over their shoulder." -- popdonnely

But, pop, how hard was the UN "looking?" I mean with the UN on the take in the OilForFood scam, just how trustworthy were they?

Futhermore, 'where there's a will, there's a way'. And if anything else, Saddam had the will. He WOULD HAVE found a way. So, as long as he was stonewalling the world, and persisted in arming himself, which he was doing through France, Russia and China, there was no hope of stopping him, only slowing him down. And when WMD are concerned, that just isn't acceptable from someone who HAD ALREADY used whatever weapon he had whenever he felt like it.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:10 pm | #

You don't say? Where did those weapons come from?
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:30 pm | #

Dr. Sanity,

But now the Dems' talking point is they opposed action against Iraq because they've been saying "Iran is the bigger threat in the ME region".
As we should have taken actions against Iran long ago, and Bush targeted the wrong nation.

Let's see how many UN resolution(s) Iran violated? If we took action against Iran end of 2002, we would've gotten worldwide support, none of this "coalition of the willing" would have happened, right? Since everybody approves Iran as #1 target, we wouldn't have a similar bloody mess, this AQ and insurgent problem in Iran, right?
always right | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:32 pm | #

I don't know about wmd's, but I sure would like a piece of cake right now.
Joe G. | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:33 pm | #

Joseph, Saddam thought we wouldn't take him down. He thought that his French, German, and Russian buddies in the UN would veto any kind of military action against him, which is why he openly defied the many, many UN "sanctions" against him. The French, Germans, and Russians, after all, didn't want to lose their cozy business deals they had with Saddam, all "under the table" where they were selling him things that the UN had prohibited to be sold to him.

Saddam apparently even figured that the UN would bail him out after Bush gave his famous "48 hours to comply" speech. Hurray for Bush for doing what should have been done after the first Gulf War--removing Saddam from power.

And Joseph, do you really believe Hans Blix was competent to ever find any WMDs? It would have been impossible to ever find anything, as any time the UN inspectors were about to discover anything, the Iraqis would delay the inspectors long enough to move the forbidden items somewhere else.
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:44 pm | #

JIHAD - COMMING SOON TO A CITY NEAR YOU

" 'We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists,' says [French] police union leader Michel Thoomis. 'This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifadah, with stones and firebombs.' So far this year, more than 2,500 police have been wounded in clashes with rioters."
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/arch...-the- Jihad.html
via
http:// atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...ion_issue_.html

If we don't say 'ENOUGH', and soon, it isn't a matter of 'if', but 'when?'
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 1:20 pm | #

"So Saddam Hussein knew how to make WMDs, and could have made them at any time, but instead sat back and allowed his regime to be destroyed?

Right."
Joseph

No, Joseph, Saddam did *not comply* with the U.N. inspections, mooting them over a period of 4+ years, thus showing his intent to do exactly what they were concerned with preventing, and otherwise a pretty big gamble to take when allowing "his regime to be destroyed" was at stake, as promised by the Bush Doctrine.

And now Saddam's life will end ingnominiously, just as it should, as a result of fact and some Iraqi freedom. Bush lied about that feature of Saddam's nature, eh?

Saddam obviously gambled correctly that the U.N. would back down once more - thanks to our French "ally" - and that the U.S. would be stifled, which was a very unperceptive bet. Anyone with any capacity for realistic judgement could see that Bush was going in with or w.o. the U.N..

And, perhaps too generously, Saddam was given a last chance ultimatum to comply, which he flaunted. Why?

You tell us, Joseph, why Saddam played this gamble, if not for his intent to have nukes, as the translated Iraqi documents have also shown. What is the explanation?

Also tell us that the front on the wot is not in Iraq, just as Bush said it would be - the terrorists have made this a fact and have even made their own assertions of this fact. Bush lied about that, too, eh?

[But, I agree with SteveH. The denial/stupidity factor is too dominant for the Faux Liberal, aka, Chicken Dhimmi, perceptions to be confronted by mere fact and logic. The Dhimmis crave death more than facing real life, exactly as their Islamic Masters do. Neither will face themselves.]
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 1:37 pm | #

THE ECONOMY IS FINE, THE REPS ARE NO MORE CORRUPT THAN THE DEMS (a lot less, actually) AND WE HAVE THE ENEMY ON THE RUN, ...for now

WHY EXCHANGE AN ELEPHANT FOR A DONKEY IN MID-STREAM?

If you want to know what the REAL issue is, please see this link BEFORE you vote,
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/ 015779.php
...or you may just hate yourself the morning after.

"Reader Patrick Ishmael is proprietor of The News Buckit
http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/
He writes:

We have posted an abridged version
http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2...ical- islam.html
(Google Video) and a full version (YouTube playlist) of the "Obsession" movie showing on Fox News this past weekend. It's here.
http://www.youtube.com/ view_play...726F774AD4136AF
Everyone should see this before going to the polls, which is why we've linked to them. This is what we're fighting."

Again, courtesy of...
http:// atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...ion_issue_.html
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 1:44 pm | #

Yes, always right, yet another brilliant Dem meme-postulate, an audacious distortion of reality to produce yet another higher truth.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 2:14 pm | #

Joseph,

If Saddam had unleashed any of his WMDs on our troops, it would have done jack to stop a US invasion, and would have written a blank check for us to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age, and crap on the ruins.

Saddam's best hope for coming back to power were his Fedayeen and their Al-Qaeda buddies to act as an insurgency, sap American will, and cause a premature American retreat.
RS | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 2:19 pm | #

ytba, my always curious sister marked the "Obsession" for viewing and saw it on Fox TV. She was rather stunned, even though we have talked about Islamic death worship on many occasions, and the Islamic intent to either kill or enslave everyone they can.

Of course Fox is verbotten to Faux Liberal Cultists. Any curious Fliberal viewing the "Obsession" couldn't mention even doing it.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 2:40 pm | #

Understanding the liberal mind:

"Just because it looks, smells and tastes like a chocolate cake doesn't mean it is a chocolate cake."

"Just because Saddam had a twenty-four year history of buying, building, concealing and using WMD's doesn't mean he was interested in buying, building, concealing and using WMD's."
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 4:34 pm | #

Poor Saddam. He was simply misunderstood. Things were ever so much better when he held the nooses of power. Everybody was polite to one another, almost afraid to sneeze, lest it be misunderstood as an insult to the Hussein family, which invariably led to being grated in an industrial shredder.

PS: I've just gained a pound by reading about the DbCh cake.
ZZMike | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 4:43 pm | #

SteveH:
We find nerve gas--headline--"PET EUTHANISATION CHEMICALS UNCOVERED"

Or barrels of pesticides found in camoflauged bunkers.
Patrick Chester | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 5:10 pm | #

In fairness, some Democrats do have first-rate minds and should be recognized. Orson Scott Card provides an excellent analysis of the Islamic threat and our greater Middle Eastern policy. It's a must-read.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/war...06-10-29- 1.html
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 5:11 pm | #

To follow up Rich's comment... Joe Wilson visited the Niger Grocery Store and reported that Dr. Sanity never tried to obtain Devil's Food Cake.

Rove, Cheney, or Bush 'outed' Valerie's Oven Flame.

(Hey, not all of us can be Gagdad!)
Steve | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 6:02 pm | #

It is amazing to see how this story is being spun to fit Republican talking points.

The documents which the administration put on the Internet regarding nuclear weapons were all from before the 1991 Gulf War. No news there: everyone is aware that there was an Iraqi nuclear program which ended in 1991.

The newsworthy event was that the administration was so eager to show that there were WMD in Iraq that they put reams of documents on the Internet without vetting them first, over the objections of Negroponte. Needless to say, none of the documents indicated that there was an active WMD program after the first Gulf War. So the administration which loudly proclaims that it is uniquely able to protect us made information about how to build a nuclear weapon in the public domain, available to anyone who can read Arabic.

If Bill Clinton put nuclear secrets on the Internet, we would be hearing about it for the next decade or two. But if George Bush does it: oops, my bad. It’s hard to imagine exactly what Bush could do which would upset the base. If there is no shame there for putting nuclear secrets on the Internet, one has to ask what he could do which would be criticized by his amen corner.

Let’s connect the dots. The GOP was so focused on a PR effort which they hoped would justify this misbegotten war that they put reams of documents on the web in the hopes that someone, somewhere, would find a smoking gun. Not only was there no smoking gun, but they gave terrorists a recipe to make nuclear weapons. Even worse, the GOP is trying to excuse their ineptitude by using the documents as evidence that Saddam was a dangerous man. The fact that his nuclear program was dormant for a dozen years is conveniently ignored. Has there ever been an administration more inept and clueless than this one?
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 7:18 pm | #

"Of course Fox is verbotten to Faux Liberal Cultists. Any curious Fliberal viewing the "Obsession" couldn't mention even doing it." -- J. Peden

LOL Yeah, a highly risky endeavor at best to admit to it, if they even dared to watch it to begin with.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 7:36 pm | #

SPEAKING OF MSM COMPLICITY...

"Washington Post to Republicans -- we were unfair, tough luck"
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 8:10 pm | #

That link is
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/ 015772.php
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 8:13 pm | #

GnuCarSmell -

The best paragraph in OSC's essay you linked must have been this...

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

Rocky, dont forget the Bush administration killed puppies and forced people in nursing homes to work for food.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 8:35 pm | #

Jlawson, Im at a loss to understand how a party can get votes that doesnt voice a plan of what that vote means.

Im figuring the MSM character assasination of GWB for 6 years is worth a good 30% for democrats. They used people like Martha Stewart to practice up on till they figured out how to mould the perception of GWB to be completely absent of reality. There will come a day of reckoning for the utter dishonesty of these people.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 8:52 pm | #

"...everyone is aware that there was an Iraqi nuclear program which ended in 1991."
Rocky

Good point, Rocky. And just how did that happen? Perhaps you could explain.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 9:53 pm | #

How did Iraq have a nuclear program? Perhaps because the Reagan administration had a pro-Iraqi tilt when it was at war with Iran, and they looked the other way when A. Q. Kahn was out selling nuclear technology. Or maybe Reagan and Bush I were just asleep at the wheel.

What we do know is that there was no nuclear program during the eight years of the Clinton presidency.

Needless to say, you ignored my point, which is that the Bush administration released nuclear secrets as part of a failed PR campaign. Not that I expected you to respond: even for the amen chorus, it's sometimes hard to defend the indefensible.
Rocky Rococco | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 10:24 pm | #

"Needless to say, you ignored my point,..."
Rocky

Rocky, you have no point. Apart from being able to feed yourself, at our expense, you are insane.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:13 pm | #

And you are an idiot.

Faced once again with incontrovertible evidence that the administration is completely inept and feckless -- putting instructions for building a nuclear bomb on the Internet -- all you can do is call names. I have a very valid point: the government should not be helping terrorists build nuclear weapons. If anyone is insane, it is those who voted for these clowns.
Rocky Rococco | Email | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:26 pm | #

Lot of urls to be found if you simply google 'building atomic weapons'.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/...wfaq/ Nfaq4.html is a good one to start with.

This section collects material in the open literature to provide a coherent survey of nuclear weapons technology. Everything in this section is in the public domain (not the same thing as being unclassified however), or is reasonable extrapolation or speculation based on public domain material. It was prepared without my ever having had access to any material on nuclear weapons not in the public domain. Much of the source material has been in the public domain for decades. Lest I be accused of providing instructions for building atomic bombs, I will point out that the discussion is general in nature and nowhere are detailed designs described. The actual construction of even a simple device requires specific dimensions, masses, and specifications of composition. I do not provide these, nor have I ever seen or attempted to prepare such a detailed design.

The minimum mass of fissile material that can sustain a nuclear chain reaction is called a critical mass and depends on the density, shape, and type of fissile material, as well as the effectiveness of any surrounding material (called a reflector or tamper) at reflecting neutrons back into the fissioning mass. Critical masses in spherical geometry for weapon-grade materials are as follows:

.....................Uranium-235 Plutonium-239
Bare sphere:.........56 kg...... 11 kg
Thick Tamper:........15 kg....... 5 kg

The critical mass of compressed fissile material decreases as the inverse square of the density achieved. Since critical mass decreases rapidly as density increases, the implosion technique can make do with substantially less nuclear material than the gun-assembly method. The "Fat Man" atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 used 6.2 kilograms of plutonium and produced an explosive yield of 21-23 kilotons [a 1987 reassessment of the Japanese bombings placed the yield at 21 Kt]. Until January 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that 8 kilograms would typically be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. Subsequently, however, DOE reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to 4 kilograms. Some US scientists believe that 1 kilogram of plutonium will suffice.

SteveH:

I don't get it either. Seems to me like the party platform's pretty much composed of hot air and nebulous promises to do things differently. Well, that's fine, but I'd like some hard specifics on what "differently' means.

And they're notably absent. As will be my vote for Democrats...

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:05 am | #

Rocky, the Bush administration released captured documents that PROVE Saddam was seeking nukes. Why? Because the moonbats kept clamoring that there wasn't any proof.

Now, if you *really* believe Saddam wasn't trying to get nukes, I've got some prime swampland to sell you!
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:36 am | #

1) The information which was released by the administration included a level of detail which was not previously available on the Internet -- it is incorrect to state that there was nothing new in the disclosures.

2) The documents pre-dated the 1991 Gulf war. Did Saddam try to get nuclear weapons before 1991? Yes. Was there an Iraqi nuclear program in the dozen years following the first Gulf war? No.
Rocky Rococco | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:46 am | #

Try Ghiradelli instead of Hershey's sometime.
Solomon2 | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 2:23 am | #

Rocky, are you suggesting that some govt beaurocrats posted material without fully understanding what was in the material? Or are you suggesting Bush and Carl Rove had a secret meeting and decided to give terrorist a heads up on nuclear warheads so neocons would be assured a viable enemy to keep people in fear?

I think youve been watching too much MSM and following lock step their lead of building on the "Bush is stupid" meme. Theres not a human being alive that would not look like a blathering idiot if his whole existence was disected and portrayed in only the poorest of light for the purpose of character assasination.

I think i'll reserve my judgement till Americans once again have the wonderful experience of a President like Jimmy Carter. Bush will then look like an absolute genius.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 4:25 am | #

If the "Death By Chocolate" cake ever receives international condemnation , consider me part of the Axis of Evil.

Vote Democrat if you prefer high taxes, recession and a weak military. And Burkha's for your daughters.
sgtted | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 9:01 am | #

"Rocky, are you suggesting that some govt beaurocrats (sic) posted material without fully understanding what was in the material?"

Yes. However, I wouldn't blame this on unnamed "government bureaucrats." The PR effort was directed by Congressional Republicans, in an effort to justify an invasion for non-existent WMD. The Director of National Intelligence protested that this was a risky thing to do. Bush overrode Negroponte. So if you want to ascribe blame, it would go to Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Blaming it on faceless government bureaucrats is a convenient way to deflect criticism from those who insisted on this program.
Rocky Rococco | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 9:50 am | #

Rock, It's also quite amazing to see how the left back-peddles like mad.

Peden was asking you how it was that Saddam's nuclear program ended in 1991 - not how he aquired a program pre-1991. I think anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that question. Then you go on to say "the Bush administration released nuclear secrets as part of a failed PR campaign." OBJECTION! Pure speculation. You also seem not to understand the difference between an active and inactive nuclear program. In one breath you claim that Iraq did NOT have a nuclear program in the dozen years after the Gulf war and in the next breath you'll say "none of the documents indicated that there was an active WMD program after the first Gulf War

Alluding to the Docs analogy, just because I have cake mix in my cupboard doesn't mean I plan on making a cake. I mean really, It’s hard to imagine exactly what any terrorist could do which would upset the left base.

And you want to talk about spin? Listen to yourself "So the administration which loudly proclaims that it is uniquely able to protect us made information about how to build a nuclear weapon in the public domain, available to anyone who can read Arabic." That my friend is pure, unadulterated leftist spin.

And this particular day is going to be spinning like a dryer on steroids by the left. I'm pulling for the battered elephant. The closing bell couldn't come soon enough.

Godspeed and God bless the USA!
Ghost of Josey Wales | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 10:11 am | #

"Try Ghiradelli instead of Hershey's sometime."
Solomon2 11.07.06 - 2:23am

I'm strictly Dove dark, myself.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 10:27 am | #

Uh, no.

If Peden's question was why did the Iraqi nuclear program end with the Gulf War, then the answer is simple: the sanctions prevented Iraq from acquiring the material to make a bomb. The sanctions worked. This argues for a continuation of the sanctions, not for an invasion.

As for "what any terrorist could do which would upset the left base:" well, lots of things. Nobody is suggesting that Hussein was a poor misunderstood soul. He was a vicious tyrant, in the same class as Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot. However, the question is whether we should have invaded or not, not whether leftists are "upset." We did not invade Russia, China, or Cambodia, as the strategy of containment (or mutually assured destruction, or whatever you want to call it) worked.

Re "the administration which loudly proclaims that it is uniquely able to protect us made information about how to build a nuclear weapon in the public domain, available to anyone who can read Arabic:" no spin there. It's all fact. The adminstration tells us at every opportunity that it is keeping us safe. They put information on building a bomb on the Internet. What spin?
Rocky Rococco | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 10:37 am | #

DELUSIONAL LEFTISTS IN DENIAL

More, from Caroline Glick...

"TODAY US voters are going to the polls. The outcome of the Congressional elections will be critical for determining whether the war can be won, and what the future holds in store for American Jewry. Today the American people will decide whether they want to have a political discourse that will expose mistakes in order to correct them and so enable the war to be prosecuted to victory, or if they prefer to deny that the war exists, and so ensure defeat and cataclysmic bloodshed.


There's a whole LOT more in the article, but the bottom line is that a vote for the Democrat Left, is a vote for "radical" Islam to defeat America.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:19 am | #

the link that should have gone in my last post...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat...icle% 2FShowFull
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:21 am | #

...more on the Islamofascist enemy

"It is the blend of two radical world views: Islamism and Arab nationalism. Call it National Islamism. The last time there was such a synthesis it brought together right-wing nationalism and left-wing populist socialism. The doctrine called itself, appropriately enough, National Socialism. It is best known by the German version of those two words, Nazism for short."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat...icle% 2FShowFull

But, if you believe the Left, "there is no Islamofascist threat." Yes, I think 'delusional' is the appropriate adjective here.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:25 am | #

What spin? Ha! You know Rock, we could dance all the live long day - back and forth, back and forth. Trouble is, we're listening to two very different songs and today, I don't much feel like getting my toes stepped on nor stepping on yours for that matter.

At least you didn't (sic) me to death in your reply.

God Bless America.
Ghost of Josey Wales | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:30 am | #

A while backe, Rocco said he was voting for "Arnold."

And what does a vote for Arnold represent?

Not waiting for "the big one" to knock California into the sea, but taking matters into their own paws, and strangling it to death. first.
http://cheatseekingmissiles.blog...armie- laws.html

Is that called, Califorenasia?

Sorry, Arnold, but if you keep these shenanigins, I don't think you'll 'be back, unless of course there are a lot more Roccos out there.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:50 am | #

Well, I agree with the last statement (God Bless America), and I'll be the last guy to step on anyone's toes, including yours.

However, it amazes me that anyone can look at the Bush presidency and see anything except complete disaster. This adminstration has had no significant achievements in six years, and many failures. The fact that its record is appalling is beyond serious debate.

I'm not even a leftist -- I voted Republican this morning -- but some things are clear as day to anyone who wishes to see them.
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 11:51 am | #

DO WE REALLY WANT TO EMULATE EUROPE, AND SIGN THE KYOTO SUICIDE PACT?

"KYOTO NIGHTMARE LOOMS: RUINOUS ENERGY POLICY PLUNGES EUROPE INTO DARKNESS

A small outage metastatizes -- showing there is no spare capacity"
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/stor...4729442& ft=exLg

via:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
as was the one above about Arnold's folly, where the author quite rightly says:

"Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists"

VOTE REPUBLICAN, AS IF YOUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT, BECAUSE IT DOES!
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:00 pm | #

MORE ON MSM DISINFORMATION PUTSCH

http://theconalt.wordpress.com/2...ction-coverage/

Caution, read sparingly. This stuff is a moderately effective purgative.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:03 pm | #

"I'm not even a leftist -- I voted Republican this morning -- but some things are clear as day to anyone who wishes to see them."
Rocky Rococo (11.07.06 - 11:51 am)

Rocky, after all the wierd things you've said, it's hard to believe that. But I hope it's true.

If you've just been playing 'devils advocate', you haven't been making that at all clear.

Neverteless, if you were, you are correct that there ARE plenty of things wrong, not with all (though some) of what Bush wants to do, but mostly with the way he's been doing them. (I find most of your comments don't deal with those in any meaningful way, though).

BUT, we can't have that essential debate, primarily because the obstructionist leftist Dems and MSM are diverting national attention away from the important issues. And, leading up to the election, that is also not the appropriate use of our time, as anything negative about Reps only helps the Dems, who really are MUCH worse in just about every way.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:17 pm | #

...then the answer is simple: the sanctions prevented Iraq from acquiring the material to make a bomb. The sanctions worked. This argues for a continuation of the sanctions, not for an invasion.

The sanctions were working. Thanks for the laugh Rocky, that's a good one.
Defense Guy | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 12:46 pm | #

I’m not playing Devil’s advocate – I believe in what I write. And I did vote for Arnold for governor this morning (and last year I voted for his propositions, all of which lost).

I’m not sure what “important issues” the “obstructionist leftist Dems” (as though the GOP wasn’t “obstructionist” when Clinton was in office) and the media are diverting attention from. The war, the budget deficit, terrorism, the economy, and educating our kids are the important issues of the day (to name a few). How exactly are Democrats and the media diverting attention from them?

As for the sanctions: Iraq had an active WMD program before 1991. This program was essentially dormant for the twelve years when sanctions were in place. If it wasn’t the sanctions which prevented Iraq from developing weapons, what would you attribute it to?
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 1:14 pm | #

"However, it amazes me that anyone can look at the Bush presidency and see anything except complete disaster."

Sorry Rock, that's just beyond bizarre - cha-cha-cha.

What amazes me is anyone can't look at Bush - for all of his human flaws - and not be proud to say "this is my President of the United States! We are at war with those who seek to destroy us and I stand by his side".

Can one imagine saying the same about a *gag* President Gore or Kerry?

You probably could Rock and I would no doubt find that just as bizarre.
Ghost of Josey Wales | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 1:14 pm | #

"If it wasn’t the sanctions which prevented Iraq from developing weapons, what would you attribute it to?"

Nice try Rock. First off, Iraq WAS developing WMD after 1991 and secondly, "sanctions" only slowed Hussein's ambitions.

How can you be so blind? Who exactly are you trying to defend anyway?
Ghost of Josey Wales | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 1:25 pm | #

BREAKING NEWS

"In wards 7, 19, 51 in Philly, PA, the crowds are going wild. Inside several voting locations, individuals have poured white out onto the polling books and the poll workers are allowing voters to go into the polls and vote without first registering. Several individuals are on hand demanding that voters vote straight Democrat.

RNC lawyers have headed to the scene of the incidents, which are occurring in mostly hispanic precinct locations. The District Attorney has also been contacted.

More from the ground: Reports of voter intimidation by son-in-law of Philadelphia City Commissioner in 19th Ward. Carlos Mantos is not allowing Republican poll watchers with valid poll-watching certificates monitor polling places."
http://www.redstate.com/stories/ ...ng_philly_fraud

And there will be more, and nearly all will be by Demokratskis.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 1:33 pm | #

NOTES:

1. The MSM will probably (ie., almost certainly) NOT report on the many election problems, or, if they do...

2. They will only focus an what few problems, or alleged problems, Republicans cause, and or....

3. They will have to report any massive problems, but when they don't say who the instigators were, you can be sure they were Dems.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 1:47 pm | #

"Democrats Tax You When You Die: A Majority Of House Dems Voted At Least 23 Times Against Full Death Tax Repeal. (Congressional Quarterly Analysis)"
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.asp...ad.aspx? ID=6716

Well, now, I hate to admit it, but I think that makes perfect sense ...IF your a Demokrat, cause...

...if you have the right to "vote", you should certainly have to pay taxes.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 2:53 pm | #

“What amazes me is anyone can't look at Bush - for all of his human flaws - and not be proud to say "this is my President of the United States!”

I don’t remember you guys saying this about Clinton. In fact, you tried to impeach him, despite his “human flaws.” This despite (or because of) the fact that he was enormously popular – with an approval rating roughly double Bush’s – and he presided over eight years of peace and prosperity.

“Iraq WAS developing WMD after 1991” They were? Then where are they?
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 4:56 pm | #

Dance on Rocky, dance on.
Ghost of Josey Wales | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 5:49 pm | #

no dancing -- to quote Joe Friday: just the facts --
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 6:08 pm | #

"However, the question is whether we should have invaded or not, not whether leftists are "upset." We did not invade Russia, China, or Cambodia, as the strategy of containment (or mutually assured destruction, or whatever you want to call it) worked" Rococo.

We should have invaded. Each and every one of the those God forsaken places. We fucked up a long time ago listening to you fucking liberals. That's why we're in the fuckin mess we are now.

That's why liberal = loser. Forever.

Suck on that.
vansinnig | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 9:05 pm | #

"I don't remember you guys saying this about Clinton. In fact, you tried to impeach him, despite his 'human flaws'." -- Rocco

1. We weren't here when Clinton was teaching Ms. Lewinski how to "smoke" cigars.

2. "human flaws" come in different kinds.

---a. There's the kind that a person owns up to, and tries to work on - or at least aren't criminal. That's the Bush category.

---b. Then there are the kind that are morally reprehensible or criminal. We don't tolerate the "human flaws" of the liar or the sexual pervert. (they gets disbarred from practicing law, and loose the respect of DECENT people).

Clinton's DELIBERATE perfidy cannot be equated with Bush's worst folly. The fact that you don't seem to understand that indicates to me that you really don't gave a good grasp of what is involved here.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.07.06 - 9:05 pm | #

Oh please. Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern and lied about it. George Bush launched a war of choice to find non-existent weapons which led to the deaths of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocents. There is no comparison.

There is a reason why the Republicans got reamed in the elections today. The disgust with George Bush has caused multi-term GOP Congressmen to lose their seats. (By contrast, the Dems picked up seats in Clinton's sixth year). The rest of America figured out that George Bush is the worst President in our lifetimes, or perhaps ever. Perhaps some day you will come to that realization as well.
rocky rococco | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 12:43 am | #

No, Jimmy Carter is the worst president in our lifetimes. He presided over double digit inflation, unemployment and a post "cut and run" hollowed out unmotivated military that while under his direct direction, was unable to rescue 52 American hostages from a 3rd world country. In fact it was America's performance during the Carter years that gave the Islamofacists their first idea that they really could defeat America. President Carter's impotence actually gave birth to the terrorist-islamist movement we are fighting today, proving in effect that the further you run from a problem the bigger it gets.

We had better hope the Democrats don't usher in a repeat of the "cut an run" 70's or you will really find out what a "broken government" can do to the U.S.
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 10:38 am | #

Rocco fantasizes

"Oh please. Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern and lied about it."

Now, let's see what he left out:

"Oh please. Bill Clinton....

...had an affair with an intern

and a WHOLE BUNCH of other women, and they weren't all consentual, either
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/ clinton_scandal/49771.stm

(busy little beaver, eh?)

...and lied about it."

to a federal judge, so that
["...if ever there were a case for disbarment, Clinton's is it. If perjuring oneself before a federal judge, suborning the perjury of others, and otherwise obstructing justice is not enough, then nothing can ever warrant disbarment."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/ar...006/ ai_n8908937]

Sheesh!

And that doesn't even scratch the surface of his "legacy."

Check these out...

Clinton's "war of choice" to open a foothold for Islamic terrorists on Europe's doorstep:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/art...es/ DCH109A.html
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art...sp? art_id=10114

Some of his other scandals:
http://www.greaterthings.com/New...dals/ index.html
(this next is very thorough)
http://www.alamo-girl.com/

So, "please" yourself, dude!
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Now, as to the "war of choice" with Iraq which the leftists insist "shouldn't have happened" because "Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA."

BUT

What they don't tell you, because they probably don't know, because the MSM thought it wasn't important!

"...people who get their news from the [NY]Times may not know about the contents of documents [captured from Saddam after the war] that have already been released.

1. One lays out plans for "Blessed July," an Iraqi regime-sponsored terrorist plot targeting Western interests in northern Iraq and Europe.

2. Another mandates that the Iraqi regime pay foreign terrorists in the country at the same rate it paid its homegrown terrorists in the Saddam Fedayeen.

3. Yet another details an offer from Hamas to stage suicide attacks against Americans.

4. Still another presents a detailed plan for "utilizing" Arab suicide bombers. ...

And there are other interesting documents that have not yet been released, but whose existence has been reported here and in other publications, as well as in official government reports.

5. There's the one that
confirms Saddam Hussein's Iraq trained thousands of non-Iraqi terrorists from 1998 to 2003.

6. And the one that shows the Iraqi regime provided money and weapons to Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines.

7. And the one that lists hundreds of jihadists imported from Gulf countries before the war.

8. And the one demonstrating that for a decade, ending only with its overthrow, Saddam Hussein's regime harbored and financed the man who had mixed the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the native Iraqi Abdul Rahman Yasin. It's a document that might be relevant to the national debate--now in its fifth year--about whether Iraq is part of the war on terror or a distraction from it. And yet the Times has not once mentioned it in its pages."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklyst...alarm& printer=1
ytba | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 6:51 pm | #

Re Clinton: if adultery were sufficient to disqualify someone from the Presidency, then FDR, JFK, Eisenhower, LBJ, and (by rumor) Bush I and Nixon shouldn’t have been in the Oval Office either. I’m not here to defend Clinton’s promiscuity, but to be perfectly frank, if I were President and could have basically unlimited sexual access to whomever I wanted, I would stray also. Maybe you too. My point is simple: if the choice is between adultery and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there simply is no comparison. Clinton and Lewinsky were consenting adults. Nobody in Iraq consented to have us drop bombs, destabilize the country, or take a baseball bat to a beehive.

Re Saddam: whenever I see an attribution to “documents that have not yet been released, but whose existence has been reported” in a polemical magazine – either left or right – I’m skeptical. Whether these are real plans or pie-in-the-sky schemes is uncertain. I don’t dispute that Iraq gave money to terrorists – but so do other Middle East countries. I don’t dispute that Hussein was a bad man who did bad things. However, it has never been American foreign policy to invade countries because they were led by despots. The fact is that there are other countries which posed (and still pose) a far greater threat to us than Iraq ever did, and the end result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is to make us (and the English) far less safe than we would otherwise be.
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.08.06 - 7:08 pm | #

What the hell ever Rocky.
Ghost of Josey Wales | Email | Homepage | 11.09.06 - 9:57 am | #