Just a thought and probably appropriate to the mindless drivel emminating from the left:
How soon we forget! The next couple of years should be interesting.

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:
Things that make you think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR deceptively led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost an average of 112,500 per year.
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
But Wait there's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do
what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It
was not a nine-to-five job, where I took my tie off to take the daily
cash receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day, to a veteran's hospital and look those men .. with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about you?"
For those who don't remember .. During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
I may not like what some people say, but the beauty of free speech is that it allows everyone to know where people stand. How does one define hate speech?
If one is a functioning adult then dealing with people who disagree with you or say hateful things should be part of one's coping abilities. It is freedom of speech not from, freedom of religion not from and freedom of the press not from. Once you begin curtailing a freedom you only set the stage for the loss of all freedoms.
Dennis | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 9:36 am | #

Oh, Dennis, none of the first portion of your little post is attributable to John Glenn, and the exchange with Senator Metzenbaum is from 1974.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/ li..._metzenbaum.htm

How positively surprising that you'll believe everything you read.

Liberals love terrorists!!
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 9:45 am | #

Yes anon, they certainly do.

Here's an easy guide to help you understand your deluded ideologies:

Good for America = Bad for Lefty tools.

Bad for America = Good for lefty tools.

Liberals do indeed love terrorists! Poor misunderstood terrorists.

Say, has anyone in your camp gotten to the root and solved any problems yet? ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL?!

Not a f**king one pal. You're specialists in misery and delusion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now go wanker off.
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 9:56 am | #

I just scrolled down to check yesterdays comments knowing the gates had been open...

Long story short, BRAVO Doc!

You're a class act to be sure.
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:03 am | #

anon, based upon the illogic of your thought process, which confuses attribution with substance, you are not credible.

We do not play by your rules, nor see you as anyone to trust in stating rules.

What do you do for a living?
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:26 am | #

let us not forget the ultimate trump card right now:

Want to know the real reason Castro is so loved by lefties? Because as long as hostilities last between Cuba and the United States last, there's a whole slew of intel and counterintel information that cannot be declassified---dating back into the Cold War.

I don't think the far Left in this country, especially given their love of foreign politics, could have gotten as far in this country as they did in the Cold War without....help from the likes of the USSR. However, any help from the USSR rendered after 1959 or thereabouts was probably disbursed by some Cuban agent, keeping the whole thing under a big classified shroud.

When Castro didn't give in when the Iron Curtain collapsed, the secrets of the Soviet agents were relatively safe from public exposure.

Think about the scandal! Here's a hypothetical situation:

What would happen if it came out that Noam Chomsky paid for his grad school with funds recently converted from rubles? A lot of that "speaking truth to power" crap would start looking like a whole lot of carrying Khruschev's water.

I can see a lot of academia and media frantically distancing themselves from those who get named as being in the pay of the USSR. Americans in the mainstream hate the thought of anything smacking of foreign political influence.
RS | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:34 am | #

Bad for America = Good for lefty tools.

My, that's certainly something to say, considering September 11th was pretty much the best thing that could have happened for the clowns in the Bush Administration.

We do not play by your rules, nor see you as anyone to trust in stating rules.

OK--glad you're on the record as saying that misinformation is A-OK as long as you like what it says.

And you people pretend that liberals are detached from reality.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:54 am | #

Nonresponsive, anon., thus detatched from reality.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:07 am | #

What do you do for a living, anon.?
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:09 am | #

Now, now. Before we go bad-mouthing the leftists, let's all remember how much smarter they are and that everything they do is for our own good.
bugs | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:19 am | #

Yes, the left will defend to the death the rights of terrorists and the religious fanatics of Islam but poor Kramer is politically incorrect and hurt the feelings of his audience so must be silenced. Like the Dixie Chicks were....
Jan | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:41 am | #

uh... I don't understand. Was Richards put in jail for his tirade? No? Has he been sent to gitmo without chance of representation? No? Has somebody strapped a muzzle to his mouth? No? Is he not still free to say or write whatever he wants in any forum...?

Did anybody even yank him off stage that night? No?

I guess the act of leaving the club when racial slurs are being screamed at you is what conservatives mean by "arresting free speech".
Wretched Gnu | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:58 am | #

off thread comment deleted by site administrator.
Wretched Gnu | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 12:06 pm | #

I guess the act of not buying tickets to the Dixie Chicks because they are complete morons is what liberals mean by "arresting free speech".

So WG- why vilify Richards (which the left is doing) and celebrate the hateful chicks? Both are losers in my opinion, but one is considered politically "correct" while the other isn't. Why is that? Does that make any sense to you?
Jan | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 12:16 pm | #

Whether or not John Glenn said the above quoted items or not, aren't the facts stated correct? That's far more important than who said them, and far more thought provoking than dismissing them out of hand because of misattribution.

Anon, even if JG wasn't the source, what's incorrect in the information?
walker colt | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 12:24 pm | #

RS

Interesting theory, but given that there is ample documentation that Teddy Kennedy was collaberating with the Soviets, and that the NY Times was infested with Soviet sympathizers, I don't think new revelations about any leftist being in bed with the communists will even register with the public.
Defense Guy | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 12:52 pm | #

OK see first of all, Gloria Allred is a lawyer. She is going to say whatever she deems necessary in order to try and win a case. Please don't pretend she's out there determining Democratic policy.

J.Peden, I don't think it's any of your business what I do for a living.

Colt Walker, while some of the facts in the email are true, it is silly to compare Iraq with past wars. The thousands of GIs in WW2 died for a noble cause; soldiers in Iraq are dying so Bush can try and save face after his mistake. Other assertions in the email are simply wrong. Far more people are killed in combat each month, those WMDs never did turn up, Bush is most certainly NOT doing a "GREAT JOB", and the comparisons with Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy are contrived and lame. Also, the "Clinton had Osama's head on a silver platter" claim has been debunked again and again and again, but you like to believe it because you want it to be true. That's what you people like to call a "meme", no?

Jan, attacking someone simply based on the color of their skin is wrong. Attacking a president who has done far more harm than good to this country over the last six years is not wrong. You are not one of the smarter commentors here, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:13 pm | #

Mr Anon, I'll bite. Please explain to the uninformed the specific differences in the justifications that make the war with Germany in the 40's noble as compared to the war in Iraq.

If I recall Hitler did not have WMD, nor did he or even could he, attack America.

Pls point out the differences that make that wars losses of 300,000 legitimate and the 3,000 losses in Iraq illegitimate.

Pls contrast the two for us. Thank you
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:32 pm | #

umm... are you actually equating what the Dixie Chicks said -- that they're ashamed of Bush (a powerful politician) -- with what Richards said, which included a nostalgic reference to the days when whites could "put a pitchfork up the a**" of those with zero power?

Do you wonder why poeple think conservatives are cynical?

Isn't it interesting that conservatives don't care at all when people are told to "watch what they say" when they speak against the people who are actually in power, and who actually control the corporations and the military -- but they do get up in arms when people object to violent hate speech against minorities?

This tells you all you need to know about conservatives.
Wretched Gnu | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:41 pm | #

Wr_guy -- If you knew something about history, you would know that the US wasn't going to fight Hitler at all -- it was waiting for France and Britain to do it for them -- until it was forced to fight after Pearl Harbor.

The US was defending itself against an alliance that had attacked it on its shores.

Iraq, you may recall -- in case you watch Fox news, in which case you probably don't -- never attacked the US, and had nothing to do with the Saudis behind 9/11
Wretched Gnu | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:45 pm | #

"Bad for America = Good for lefty tools.

My, that's certainly something to say, considering September 11th was pretty much the best thing that could have happened for the clowns in the Bush Administration.

Uh, yeah, sure, whatever you say anon.

I notice you didn't (can't?) dispute "Good for America = Bad for Lefty tools.

Figures.
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:51 pm | #

Anon,
Thanks for the reply. My original question was addressing facts in the email - some of the email is obvious hyperbole. Sorry to not be precise. A couple of points:

1. I don't think it's silly comparing previous wars with Iraq - the comparison was intended to point out that the "Iraq never attacked us" meme (to use the term you used) is irrelevant - other wars we've participated in, noble cause or not, were also entered into without the other side attacking us. In particular, the Bosnia/Kosovo engagement - why is it justified for us to get involved there and not justified in Iraq? And why are we still there?

2. "Far more are killed in combat each month..." Are we talking about civilian casualties because of terrorist attacks, or actual combat? If you are counting the deaths due to the jihadist cowards killing unarmed civilians with car bombs and other IED's, it's an invalid addition.

3. The comparisons with Clinton, Reno, etc., are justifiable in my book as they simply point out timelines. The invasion of Iraq WAS executed brilliantly, and our forces accomplished much in record time. "Holding the fort" is a different matter altogether, and is obviously proving difficult.
walker colt | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:54 pm | #

"Wr_guy -- If you knew something about history, you would know that the US wasn't going to fight Hitler at all -- it was waiting for France and Britain to do it for them -- until it was forced to fight after Pearl Harbor. (It? Very telling)

Nevertheless, LOL!

And there you have it folks, a brilliant shining example of public education in all of it's glazing blory!

Gadzooks!
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 1:58 pm | #

I notice you didn't (can't?) dispute "Good for America = Bad for Lefty tools.


Sorry, White Ringer, when you throw up a silly statement like that with no supporting evidence whatsoever, you don't provide much to argue against. But I, for one, understand that The Bush Administration does not equal America. When Democrats clean up the government and get us the hell out of Iraq, that is "Good for America".

And, frankly, if you won't acknowledge that September 11th was great for Bush (transformed from a doofus to 90%+ approval overnight, parlayed it into the war in Iraq he always wanted), you're too dishonest to debate anyway.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:03 pm | #

Wretched Gnu, repeating your silly mantras doesn't work outside the confines of your Fliberal fantasyland cult.

But perhaps you could enlighten we non-postmoderns as to what "big corporation" means in Fliberalese. I assume you still use the "big" adj., in keeping with Marx's "big industry"?
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:03 pm | #

I'm confused? What did the German's have to do with Pearl Harbor? Certainly we could have solved any issues with the Germans diplomatically as they posed no threat to the U.S.

I note your comments about an alliance. Now, you would not suggest that we should attack one country for what another country did just because they have an alliance? That would be like invading Iraq for what like minded Islamists in Afghanistan did, no? Should we bomb every country that has an Al-Qaeda member in it? Are you suggested that the Germans who were 2 cultures and 10,000 miles away from one another are to be blamed for what the Japanese did? Sounds like Yankee imperialism to me.

As for Britain and France defeating Germany for us, that would be like expecting Britain and France to defeat the Isamists today and particularly silly in view of the fact that by 1941 France was already under the Nazi boot with it's Vichy Govt in place and Britain was a couple months away from the same fate.

My question still stands. What did Hitler do that required the U.S. to expend 300k lives an untold wealth that Sadamm did not? Why could America not localize the conflict to Japan only and send peace envoys to Germany and "bring the troops home"? Why should have America killed millions of innocent elderly and kids in order to defeat a country that never set foot on American soil.

How is Sadam different than Hitler?
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:07 pm | #

Walker Colt--what we did in Bosnia/Kosovo was not based on misinformation or deceit, and we didn't have the flag draped coffins coming home as we do now. And, I might remind you, Republicans to a man yammered on and on about Clinton's spending, and "not having a plan," and "wag the dog," etc. etc. Those same people are now trying to polish the massive turd that is the Iraq War.

As for "combat related killings", I don't even know what year that statistic is from, but we lose a lot more than that each month by any measure.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:09 pm | #

How is Sadam different than Hitler?

The closest Saddam got to Hitler was when he invaded Kuwait. And you know what? When he did that, we started a war and we got him out of there and we won. And it was the right thing to do in just about everyone's opinion.

But then, a decade later, justifying a war based on his slaughtering his own people that he did with America's blessing and its chemicals? That's BS.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:13 pm | #

"And, frankly, if you won't acknowledge that September 11th was great for Bush (transformed from a doofus to 90%+ approval overnight, parlayed it into the war in Iraq he always wanted), you're too dishonest to debate anyway."

Great for Bush?! Uh-huh. So sayeth the all knowing, great and mighty 'anonomous'. I have been bested by a Lefty tool. My head hangs in shame...

Your insides reveal a dark and ugly soul anon. Good luck with that.
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:22 pm | #

Anon - So its not about what is right or wrong, it is really about how everyone else feels. So if France & Germany though going into Iraq was a good idea, then it would be a noble cause?
Corrie | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:24 pm | #

" that he [Sadam] did with America's blessing and its chemicals?"

So, when the Noko's start shooting off nukes at Japan - or anywhere else - will that too be with "America's blessing and it's blessing?

What is it with you lefty tools that you insist on calling America "it"?
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Mr Anon allow me to correct you a touch. "WE" did not WIN the First Gulf War...rather the hostilities were interrupted by a cease fire agreement, which was violated by Sadam when he threw out the inspectors and began to fire missles at U.S. planes patroling the "no fly zone" that was set up a part of said cease fire agreement (otherwise known as an act of war).

So....the current conflict in Iraq is not a "new" war but rather the continuation of the original conflict. Apparently you believe the First Gulf War was legit so maybe we do have some common ground.

I for one cannot understand why we allow the left to form this debate over WMD. It's not a WMD issue for me and it never was. In my mind the cease fire agreement was violated in a significant way and therefor the hostilities were re-nstated...that's it.

Really it's not Bush=Hitler it's Sadam=Hitler

Oh, but the Dr explained projection so I kinda get it now.
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:35 pm | #

Oops, I meant "America's blessing and her "nukes".
White Ringer | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:35 pm | #

"What interests me is the transformation of the Democratic Party into a tool that every major enemy of this country--from the North Vietnamese, to the Soviets, to the Syrians all the way up to the present day-- has been able to use to advance their objectives at the expense of America." -- Dr. Sanity

Well said, Doc, and sadly, it's all too true. It is indeed striking that the most virulently America-hating thugs (Ahmadinejad, Al-Qaeda, Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc., ad nauseam) simply parrot the rhetoric of Democrats to express their hatred of America. Those who wish "death to America" rightly understand that they cannot achieve their objective without Democrat collaboration.

One of the more surreal moments of unintentional comedy was Ahmadinejad's recent address to the U.N. To point out how evil America was, the man who exhorts Muslims to "imagine a world without America" lamented that not enough Americans had health insurance. Much of his America-bashing diatribe was ripped off almost verbatum from Democrat talking points.
GnuCarSmell | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 2:46 pm | #

What do you get when you mix Taliban Islam and really bad objectivism into an echo chamber?

http://news.independent.co.uk/ wo...icle2023831.ece

A solution: Give every Afghani woman an Uzi. Seriously.
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 3:02 pm | #

"--what we did in Bosnia/Kosovo was not based on misinformation or deceit, and we didn't have the flag draped coffins coming home as we do now. And, I might remind you, Republicans to a man yammered on and on about Clinton's spending, and "not having a plan," and "wag the dog," etc. etc. Those same people are now trying to polish the massive turd that is the Iraq War."

Uhhhh....we still have troops in Bosnia, right? Amazing how you lefties ignore that little gem.
Steve H | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 3:05 pm | #

And what deceit, pray tell, was used to get us into Iraq? WMDs? We found many WMDs that were never accounted for by Hussein, and there was more than enough futzing around prior to the invasion for Saddam to have gotten Elvis out of the country.

Support of terrorism? That's not in dispute.

so what was lied about?
RS | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 3:16 pm | #

Steve H,
Think: bang for the buck.

Sorry, OT:
If the Bush administration had removed his latest tax reforms for the rich (since the economic pump has been primed) for the sole purpose of funding an expanded war on terror including a complete border fence, the Republicans would still be in power.
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 3:18 pm | #

Hey uh Wr-guy...Germany declared war on the United States in support of Japan. That was the alliance being referred to. The Axis alliance.

So "What did Hitler do that required the U.S. to expend 300k lives an untold wealth that Sadamm did not?"...was to declare war on us and begin attacking American shipping.

A little education can go a long way. You ought to try some Wr-guy, it might help you understand the world.
Ed | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 3:33 pm | #

Wretched Gnu - You folks really don't have much to say. Except to insult those who disagree with you.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 4:14 pm | #

We have troops in Bosnia, but we abandoned Afghanistan and Somalia. And we have seen the consequences of abandoning those two countries.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 4:16 pm | #

"that he did with America's blessing and its chemicals? That's BS"

Unless you can demonstrate that Saddam killed people with America's chemicals and blessing, your remark is BS.

You people repeat the same stories over and over without any evidence.

And incidentally, three Presidents in a row used force against Saddam Hussein. And during Clinton's Presidency, Democrats were decrying Hussein and calling for his ouster. But of course, it's all Bush's fault.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Thanks for you comments Ed. I know a little bit about German anti-shipping operations which actually began before the "Declaration of War". See the USS Reben James and the Kearney

Meantime, are you saying as long as an ambassador does not submit a formal written "declaration of war" then there can be no war? And by extension do you suggest that absent Germany's declaration of war we should have not entered the European theater? I'd love to have your opinion on this.

It should be easy to understand that much as in civilian life, one can form an legal agreement by means other than by a writing, one can also declare war by means other than by a written declaration. For example, by attacking another nation's military by shooting AA missles at them while they patrol a duly constituted no-fly zone, or by violating the terms of an existing cease fire by kicking out inspectors, or even pray tell by sending hit squads to kill duly elected government officials. These actions are called "Acts of War" and are the functional equivalent to a "declaration of war".

Further, almost ALL wars fought during the 20th century were fought absent a formal declaration of war including Bosnia who by the way formed Islamic SS units to fight for Hitler during WWII.

I still maintain there is little if any functional difference between Sadam and Hitler. they did the same thing and a formal declaration of war does not change the obvious.
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 4:28 pm | #

Is there any conservative here who disagrees with the following statements?

"The Bush regime" is not the same thing as "America"

"George Bush's war on Iraq" is not the same thing as "America"

"Right-wing nutjobs" are not the same thing as "America"

* Who do conservatives think they're fooling when they say that liberals prove that they hate America just because they hate them, the right-wing nutjobs?

Believe me, I as a liberal have more affiliation with "America" than any conservative on this board.
Wretched Gnu | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 5:13 pm | #

Wretched Gnu,

I'm a free thinking moral conservative (mostly) who believes that both political parties are businesses first, public servants a very distant second.

*America is about competency. The Bush regime is about politics.
*George Bush's war on Iraq is an example of good intentions/bad planning.
*Right-wing nutjobs have value when it comes to focusing on some threats to American interests.

I think you'd have to go to a paleo site to get more responses (Chuck Baldwin, AmCon, possibly John Coles..)
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 5:36 pm | #

Have to qualify the second *.

If Bush's intention was to ruthlessly, pragmatically, demonstrate to the world the incredible evil Muslims can do to each other, then he's been a brilliant planner.
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 5:38 pm | #

Hey. Just thought I'd mention how you shut off the comments on your "Neoconservatism can save us from the evils of Postmodernism! Liberals bad BOOGA BOOGA!" posting yesterday.

It's fine and totally within your right to shut off the comments - after all, it's your blog to begin with.

But to shut off all comments, hide the comments that were made, and then insult the posters when they have no means to respond to your insults - well, that's messed up.

Just be aware that, in addition to running from any logical discussion of your article, you are now guilty of the worst sort of name-calling to avoid arguments that you have accused us double-plus-ungood Liberals.

Feel free to delete this comment too. I'm just letting you know that you are doing these things in public, and it doesn't make you look any better.

Please repent, wake up, and be open to logical discussion of your thoughts. You just may learn some things. It's actually possible that you might not know everything. Anyway, if you and the Neocons are so much smarter and better and more knowledgeable than everyone else, what have you got to lose? Won't your arguments always win?

That's logical, right?

Just sayin'.

Anyway, best of luck, in all sincerity.
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 6:06 pm | #

Oh, someone asked for evidence of US selling Saddam chemical weapons, and for support for Saddam's regime after Saddam gassed people.

here you go:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ secu...usseinindex.htm

http:// discuss.washingtonpost.co...attle022703.htm

"...the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s."

Please note that the above statements have never been disputed by the current Bush administration, even though they are extremely embarassing.

Here's another good quote for you:

http://www.zmag.org/content/show...cfm? ItemID=2285

"The United States provided the Government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including: chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system guidance equipment", to quote the conclusions of a 1994 report conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs ("U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War").

Also note:

The assistance continued even after "Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq"...[resulting in] casualties estimated to be between 2500 to 5000 in the town of Halabja alone in March 1988. (Patrick E. Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas", NYT, August 17).

And most interesting:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ usdo...iraq80s90s.html

1984...According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[17]

1989...When one American firm twice contacted the CD [Commerce Department] with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.[56]


Note that Halabja and its Kurdish population was gassed by Saddam in 1988.

Please read the above information. It is all backed up and documented, and once again, NO ONE in the Bush administration disputes it. It's historical fact.
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 6:34 pm | #

As for "other presidents have gone after Saddam", I choose the argument used by none other than George W. Bush's father.

Ex=president George H.W. Bush wrote and published this essay in "Time" in 1998:

"Reasons Not to Invade Iraq"

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil...bushsr- iraq.htm

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Gee. I guess George H.W. Bush must be some sorta commie leftist peacenik, huh?
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 6:37 pm | #

"Please read the above information. It is all backed up and documented, and once again, NO ONE in the Bush administration disputes it. It's historical fact."

Uh ... thanks jim. As you stated, it's historical, why would anyone dispute it? My second question is ... what's it have to do with the Bush administration? Clinton's administration didn't dispute it either. It's "historical" ... right? Bush and Clinton had nothing to do with sales of chemical munitions ... did they? No? Thanks.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 6:42 pm | #

Darwin, I just state that so forcefully because I've come across so many conservatives who are shocked and surprised at this information. Including "popdonnelly " on this board.

Yes, Reagan and Bush sr, and many of Bush jr's staff including Rumsfeld and Cheney supported Saddam, and continued to let US companies sell dual-use materials even after Saddam gassed his own people.

I doubt Clinton did, if for no other reason than that would have been after the 1st Gulf war. But, show me some solid documentation and I'll accept it.

What these facts show is that basically we don't give a crap about Saddam's people and we never have. So any arguments about wanting to remove Saddam 'cause he was so bad to his people, are clearly a joke.
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 6:58 pm | #

And to me what it really illustrates is how much members of our government would prefer to forget the past, and have us think that Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, and the Ayatollah Khomeini just sprang up from nowhere like villainous henchman in a 'B' movie.

We armed Saddam and put him in power over his people. That's a fact. We recruited Bin Laden, set up his financing network and terrorist training camps so he could give the Russains trouble in Afghanistan. That's a fact. Meanwhile in the 1970's - and under Nixon through Jimmy Carter - we backed the Shah, who so abused his people they overthrew him. And then we put him back in AGAIN. Until finally the people supported an unreasoning theocratic regime, just because the Iranians felt safe that the Iranian theocrats wouldn't bow to the US.

Then of course Reagan secretly sold military weaopns systems to Iran - thus negotiating with terrorists. But that's another story called Iran-Contra...also historical fact.
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 7:03 pm | #

Well jim, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure jimmah "peanut" carter wishes he could have done things differently too. Reagan sided with saddam because numbnuts carter sold out our ally the shah in iran to the fanatical ayatollahs.

Like I said, hindsight is wonderful, too bad our foresight isn't as good. It never is and never will be. people will always do what they think is best at the time and really have no way of knowing how things will turn in the future. Shit really does "just happen" sometimes.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 7:19 pm | #

But to shut off all comments, hide the comments that were made, and then insult the posters when they have no means to respond to your insults - well, that's messed up.

She might be low on time, trying to run a business, have emotional ties with her regulars, etc..
I once got banned from my favorite website at that time because (I much later found out) the ‘village troll’ I’d been insulting was in reality, the owners girlfriend. Such is life.

On the other hand, I did learn a thing or two..
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 7:21 pm | #

Shit really does "just happen" sometimes.

From a pragmatic perspective, I think where the administration screwed up was by not having multiple fallback positions at the ready in case the WMD, “freedom and liberty”, and ‘wealthy Islamofascist caliphate prevention’ reasons fell through. I might have sold the mushroom cloud visual image to the masses but then listed (made available) every other reason I could think of to cover my butt just in case. It’s their hubris and lack of foresight that disturbs me, because the bad guys have already proven they have no limits when leveraging their position. I'm just a working schmuck - these guys are supposed to be highly qualified professionals.

Oh well. A lesson learned for the future.
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 7:41 pm | #

Who on the left, exactly, is advocating that the government punish Richards? Because for your post to make any sense that would have to be what happened.

You know that it's possible to criticize something someone said while still defending their right to say it?
Josh | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 8:16 pm | #

The statement in Dr. Sanity’s post which asserts that liberals are uninterested in defending free speech rights when it is hateful to minorities is factually incorrect. The two major relevant Supreme Court cases are Brandenburg vs. Ohio, which concerned hateful speech by the KKK, and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, where the town of Skokie, Illinois, refused to allow a parade by the American Nazi party. (One sixth of Skokie’s population at the time was holocaust survivors). In both cases, the ACLU filed briefs on behalf of the speakers/marchers (i.e., supporting the legal right of hateful speech and demonstrations). In both cases, the Court supported the ACLU position and included hateful speech as among the classes of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Rocky Rococo | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 8:16 pm | #

I would also like to state that your assertion that the left is in bed with terrorists is a ridiculous strawman. No doubt you are referring to many liberal's criticism of the lack of rights for terrorist suspects. Rights exist to protect the innocent accused of terrorism, and there have dozens of documented cases of innocent people being held for years on suspicions of terrorism by the administration.

Believe it or not, many actually do think rights and the rule of law are important, and they aren't trying to destroy America. This post was the most ridiculous piece of hyperbole I've ever read.
Josh | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 8:28 pm | #

Well jim, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure jimmah "peanut" carter wishes he could have done things differently too. Reagan sided with saddam because numbnuts carter sold out our ally the shah in iran to the fanatical ayatollahs.

Reagan was also cutting secret deals with those same Ayatollahs. Selling weapons to people who have publicly stated their commitment to US downfall. That's Iran-Contra for you. Which means we were selling weapons to both sides in a war. But that's a side issue...

Regardless of all that...you'd think we would have learned by then.

I mean, it wasn't even hindsight in 1980. In Cuba we supported the de facto dictator Batista, because he was good for US business - until he so ripped off his own people that Castro got in power. I'm not defending Castro - he's a straight-up tyrant also. I'm jsut saying, it seems like the US gov't is refusing to learn from our mistakes.
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 8:51 pm | #

From a pragmatic perspective, I think where the administration screwed up was by not having multiple fallback positions at the ready in case the WMD, “freedom and liberty”, and ‘wealthy Islamofascist caliphate prevention’ reasons fell through.

americafirst, it sounds like what you're saying is that you wish the Bush administration had more good lies in place.

It’s their hubris and lack of foresight that disturbs me, because the bad guys have already proven they have no limits when leveraging their position. I'm just a working schmuck - these guys are supposed to be highly qualified professionals.

I can agree with all of those points - but what bothers you is their hubris in their lack of preparation for lying - and not their lack of preparation for actually have a sound *truthful* basis for going in?

Please tell me I'm misreading you.
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 8:54 pm | #

Jim: What I asked was for corroboration that the U.S. gave Iraq chemical weapons and blessed the use of them by Saddam. The fact that Saddam used such weapons does not mean this country was responsible for them - except perhaps in your mind.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:00 pm | #

Jim, you have asserted some facts that indicate the country gave Iraq help in which war against Iran, but you haven't substantiated that this country knowingly supplied or willingly participated in chemical warfare. It's one thing to give a government bombing coordinates. It's another to tell them to drop chemical weapons.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:07 pm | #

Well, we continued to give aid to Saddam even after he used chemical weapons against the Iranians.

But yeah, the whole "We know he has chemical weapons because we kept the receipts!" argument is a half-truth, at best. Saddam used equipment bought from US companies to produce chemical weapons in the '80s, but I don't know to what extent US officials knew about this considering the same equipment can be used to produce a wide array of products, including pharmaceuticals.
Josh | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:20 pm | #

We did not arm Saddam. That is out and out bullshit. The USSR armed Saddam. We died capture one single US manufactured weapon over there, but we sure got alot of Soviet block weapons and modern Russian ammunition. Germany and France were also supplying Saddam with weapons and materiel up to the time we invaded is 2003. Thats why they didn't want us to go in.

I've heard two stories on *who* gave Saddam chemical capabilities. One is the "rumsfeld did it" line. the other is that many different nations sold him pieces of what he needed. Since most left wingers and their far right soul mates like to tout the first one, I tend not to beleive it as the left is notorious for lieing thru its teeth.
sgtted | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 10:36 pm | #

Buzz Kill:

Except Israel of course which is the one rallying point behind which, every US dollar is totally expendable and every life is as canon fodder.

Technically, I could call you anti-Semitic for that remark. And why not? I've been accused of Islamophobia on even slimmer evidence, many a time.

And I notice you come over here to slag on the Gagdad, instead of having the courage of your convictions and saying it to his face. What are you, afraid of him?
Rorschach | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:08 pm | #

Here's a graph on where Saddam's weapons came from.

http://www.solport.com/roundtabl...ives/ 000082.php

The information came from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/ar...rms% 20Transfers

Pretty ugly. Russia, especially - though China and France did pretty well on arms sales also...

Josh - you can use an Erlenmeyer Flask to do simple chemical experiments or brew up simple chemical warfare agents. You can use it to incubate vaccine stocks, or culture anthrax. You can break it - and use it to cut someone's throat.

Saddam bought a lot of stuff - and if some of it could be used to create chem agents... well, there's not much of a difference between a legit agricultural pesticide and a nerve agent.

It's all about the intent. The intent of Saddam wasn't peaceful.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:11 pm | #

If Saddam bought chemical precursors in the 1980's, wouldn't the presence of the same precursors in 2002 and 2003 indicate that he was still interested in chemical weapons?
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:15 pm | #

And as to WHY we don't seem to learn from our mistakes re foriegn policy...

We don't have continuity in government worth shit. Every 2-4-6 years we take a new bunch of assholes and toss them in to sink or swim. Those who manage to keep swimming (get re-elected) eventually rise to the tops of their respective parties - and all THAT means is that they floated while other sank - not that they are terribly good at the sort of foresight that could avoid problems.

And each one of them thinks they're smarter than the next. They keep making the same old mistakes - in new ways, to be sure - but they're the same old mistakes time after time.

Promises notwithstanding - you can depend on any politician to do what they think is best to get them through the next election. The results of their decisions 20-40 years later might not be that great? Why should they care? They most likely won't be in office then anyway, so who gives a shit? Go for the immediate good, because as a politician your MOST important job is to get elected and stay in office.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:22 pm | #

"Well, we continued to give aid to Saddam even after he used chemical weapons against the Iranians."

In hindsight, we can probably all agree that helping Saddam was a bad idea. But perhaps we can all agree that he was a bad guy.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:24 pm | #

Popdonnely -

It could also mean he learned enough from the samples he got to create his own precursors...

And that, to me, would indicate that he either wanted to become a ME insecticide mogul, or he was wanting to use them on unruly citizens.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 11:24 pm | #

We did not arm Saddam. That is out and out bullshit.

I was referring to the billions in aid we gave to Saddam to help fund his war with Iran. This was a war of aggression which Saddam started.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...SAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

JLawson: My main point was that it wasn't the US government giving this stuff to Saddam, it was US companies selling it to him. I've never seen anything to suggest that the Reagan administration had any hand in it, but if you could show me a source that says otherwise I would be happy to see it.

If Saddam bought chemical precursors in the 1980's, wouldn't the presence of the same precursors in 2002 and 2003 indicate that he was still interested in chemical weapons?

Of course Saddam was probably interested. The question is whether he was capable of producing them or had the international communities efforts throughout the 1990s kept him from creating a program. The evidence then and now show that he was contained.
Josh | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 12:52 am | #

Just keep bashing em with the truth and perhaps we'll see someone submit the first liberals head exploding on youtube from contorted thought processes.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 7:55 am | #

The term "hate speech" is the contemporary equivalent of Stalin-era laws (you do know that the Soviets misdeeds were all *legal*?) against "anti-Soviet activity." The concept is a bald illustration of the totalitarian aspirations of the Western left. Define any opinion those who would rule us disagree with as hate speech and punish the speakers, thereby frightening many in your opposition into silence.

Our anti-war factions are close to making our society one that merits no defense, as the only moral polity is one dedicated to defending individual rights, not individual aspirations.
Brett | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 8:18 am | #

Ok, let's see a show of hands:

Who here actually thinks that Michael Richards' nostalgic cry for the days when whites could "put a pitchfork up a nigger's a**" is morally equivalent to saying that one is "ashamed to be from the same state as Bush"?

Here comes conservative "morality" for ya, steaming hot...
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 10:52 am | #

And who exactly is trying to take away Michael Richards' right to free speech?

Is it YOU, Anonymous?
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 11:23 am | #

Yeah, America from time to time has armed various groups and countries that turn out to be ultimately less than perfect.

Some notable examples:

We armed China in it's war with Japan, Then fought them in Korea a couple of years later.

We armed Russia in a colossal way in it's war with Germany, then fought the cold war a few months later.

It's called a "nuance", get it or is everything black and white for the party of "nuance".

Would anyone suggest that we should not have given arms to the Chinese or the Russians during WWII?
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 1:11 pm | #

Popdonnely, you state: What I asked was for corroboration that the U.S. gave Iraq chemical weapons and blessed the use of them by Saddam.

My comment upstream in this very page says,

"http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ usdo...iraq80s90s.html

1989..."When one American firm twice contacted the CD [Commerce Department] with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.[56]"

Got that?

AFTER Halabjah in 1988, a US company had concerns, went to the US Commerce Department. And the Commerce Department CONVINCED THE COMPANY to sell dual use materials to Iraq.

So, no, I guess Iraq didn't receive a box of chemical weapons stamped "US Dept. of Defense" on them.

And no, the US didn't give Saddam a written permission slip he could produce in court.

But after Saddam gassed his people, and the US Gov't. gave Saddam even more money, and then went to the lenghts of convincing US companies to sell dual-use materials to him - doesn't that seem like arming him to you?
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 1:40 pm | #

And as to WHY we don't seem to learn from our mistakes re foriegn policy...

We don't have continuity in government worth shit. Every 2-4-6 years we take a new bunch of assholes and toss them in to sink or swim.

Agreed as far as that goes...but their advisors are in many cases the same. And everyone has been aronud to see these mistakes. Bush Sr. was old enough to remember Batista and Castro, as well as the Bay of Pigs fiasco and then Viet Nam. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and I believe Feith have been in or aroudn the White House in some capacity since Reagan.

But it as it is. We're just going to have to keep eyes on all these car salesman that want to have power over us.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 1:45 pm | #

If Saddam bought chemical precursors in the 1980's, wouldn't the presence of the same precursors in 2002 and 2003 indicate that he was still interested in chemical weapons?

Sure. I don't think anyone disputes that he was still interested in them.

The whole question is whether or not Saddam had any of them, or even an existing program to make them. After repeated inspections, all impartial evidence indicated he did not.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 1:48 pm | #

Well if he did not have a huge stockpile of chemical weapons to unleash on US troops...that would mean the US got in there at the right time, no? Especially if he was "interested" or maintained a capability to make them.

Certainly, we knew he had them in the past in as much as he had used them and I believe he actually threatened to use them against U.S. troops. The alternative I guess is to wait for his arsenal to be proven by use which most would want to avoid that.

Remember he had a nuke plant in 1990 that was destroyed by Israel.

The inspectors actually did find a few hundred chemical warheads these past few years.

Actually it has been speculated that Saddam's generals "inflated" their WMD capability in reports to Saddam to keep their heads.

Hate to go back to WWII again but Hitler had delusions of "superweapons" that did not exist as well.

Nevertheless, better intel would have helped sort this out but our CIA has looked more like FEMA in this regard.
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 2:39 pm | #

I think the Intel was there, but the Bush administration didn't want to listen to it because they had already decided to take Saddam out.

The UIN inspectors did find some weapons - just none worth invading for. They had almost finished investigating when Bush invaded anyway - and the UN inspectors had to leave or get bombed.

So I don't think it's the case that the US got there in the right time - there's no reason why we couldn't have just kept inspecting Saddam endlessly until he died of old age. Instead we have thousands of US soldiers dead, i think now over 20,000 wounded, maybe for life, tens maybe hundreds of thousands of dead innocent civilians, Al Qaeda's prestige and recruitment increased, Taliban resurgence in Afhganistan resulting from our loosened grip...you know the drill.

On top of all this, it turns out there were war games in 1999 that predicted all the trouble that could happen if we invaded - but that information was just ignored and we invaded anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...s.ap/ index.html

Sigh.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 2:48 pm | #

"there's no reason why we couldn't have just kept inspecting Saddam endlessly until he died of old age."

Not entirely true -- both the economic sanctions against Iraq and the continued presence of American troops in the region were already a major sore point between America and the Middle East, to the level of being a big part of al Qaeda's recruiting pitch. And I doubt a clean bill of health from the UN inspectors would have made the sanctions or troops go away -- with Saddam's history, and ego, we'd probably expect him to have all those WMD scientists he'd kept on payroll all this time restart his programs as soon as the heat was off.

And when Saddam did finally take the big dirt nap (after another several decades of punishing sanctions, Oil-for-Food fraud that kept aid away from the Iraqi people, and bribery of Security Council members), I'd say odds are either his psychopath sons would have taken over, or the government would have fallen and we'd see what we're seeing now. And who do you think would get stuck sending in "peacekeepers" to clean up the mess?

WRT the pre-Iraq predictions on what would happen after an invasion, personally I'd also like to see what the internal predictions were regarding the Afghanistan campaign.

Part of our intel problem seems to have stemmed from relying on defectors and exiles for our data (all of whom have motives to falsify and exaggerate WMD claims, since removing Saddam takes the price off their heads). Add that to 12 years of Saddam behaving like a man with something to hide and I can see where one would conclude Saddam had more stuff stashed away than he had. And, IIRC, even the Security Council members who disagreed with the war agreed more or less with our intel conclusions and just didn't agree it warranted an invasion yet.
Matt | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 4:02 pm | #

True, the economic sanctions against Iraq and the troops in Saudia Arabia were a sore point for much of the Middle East. In fact Bin Laden claimed that the US troops in Saudi Arabia were one of the main things that turned him against the US in the first place.

They both were just not near as much of a sore point as our current invasion and occupation. I'm sure we can both agree on that.

As a side note, I understand we've actually had to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia - which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted....

There was bad potential there - but continued inspections seemed to be working quite well at keeping Saddam contained and neutered.

Also our allies agreed with our intel conclusions that Saddam was interested in WMD's - they also disagreed with any conclusions that Saddam had any worth invading for.

From the UK paper trail, they sussed out that Bush had already decided to invade regardless of Saddam's actual WMD's - "the facts were being fixed around the policy"...so the Brits basically came aboard to get a piece of it. Just as most of our other European allies were ex-Warsaw pact nations that sought the US' help in entering NATO. It was quite a transparent quid-pro-quo...

As a result of how we've dealt with Iraq, we've turned something that could have been a benign tumor that could have been safely dealt with later, into something that is a definite and spreading malignancy - without actually removing any part of the problen.

Like chopping off a hand to pull out an inconvenient splinter - and the stump is now getting infected...
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 4:30 pm | #

Ironically, I wrote a novel with content like this (The Weapon). It was completed before Sept 11, but didn't get on the shelves until last year.

I got lambasted for attacking those poor widdle wiberals. Others seemed to think I was endorsing the terrorists. I guess liberals read into a story what they hope to get out.

Which, looking at the world around us, we can confirm as true.
Mike Williamson | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 4:37 pm | #

BTW: as a 22 year veteran who's served over there, I'd like you liberal whiners to BUGGER OFF! and stop pretending you care about the troops. Because almost every time a soldier comes out and says he or she supports Bush and the war, you then start in on the "Warmonger" and "I hope you die" rant.

Stop claiming to be a cheerleader and let me do my job. Thank you.
Mike Williamson | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 4:39 pm | #

Uh...dude. Project much?

I am a liberal. I don't call soldiers warmongers, have never called a soldier a warmonger, and have never told anyone I hope they die. Unless you count people who've cut me off in traffic. In which case I technically didn't "tell" them,as they probably didn't hear me, even though I may have been screaming pretty loud.

Also my father is a Republican-votin' conservative Viet Nam veteran, volunteer, in-country.

And he sees we need to pull the soldiers out because it's going nowhere.

I guess he's lying when he says he doesn't want to see soldiers die? He's just in it for the Bush hate?
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 5:24 pm | #

"there's no reason why we couldn't have just kept inspecting Saddam endlessly until he died of old age"

Rehashing this is useless. We had every reason to go in and take his ass out without 9-11 and the threat of WMD, which by the way, every western leader and intelligency agency thought he had. That's includes our "leaders". Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John kerry and he list goes on.

Saddam had violated nearly every UN resolution and the terms of his surrender agreement. Coalition forces would have been justified under UN resolutions to remove him. Not to mention the massive Oil for Food scandal that involved France, germany, Russia, China and even one US firm.

The mere fact that the democrats who believed he had these weapons later tryed to back out of their statements shows how much they care for their political careers and not the U.S.

Their actions did nothing but embolden an enemy to continue to fight. Once the crack in a united US front was found they continued to take advantage of it by using the treasonous US press and the terrorist ally Reuters and the AP.

They knew if they continued to rely on the demoicrats to splinter the American will they would eventually win. Thanks scumbag democrats.

I have no idea what jim is trying to prove by saying the US provided Saddam with "chemical weapons". Get over it.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 5:33 pm | #

"I guess he's lying when he says he doesn't want to see soldiers die? He's just in it for the Bush hate?"

Get real. No one wants to see soldiers die, but they do. War is a dangerous business. Just being in the military is dangerous. Serviceman die every year in training. The Air Force alone loses pilots and aircraft every year in realistic training to ensure they're up for the job.

Why aren't you up in arms over drunk drivers? They kill more people in one year than the number of US fatalities in Iraq. Why not mad as hell about illegals in this country? They kill more citizens than we've lost in Iraq.

Your equivalency bull is just that ... bull. What do you want ... Iran to become the predominant powerhouse in the Middle East? That's what's going to happen if we follow all your chickenshit "pull them out now" crap.

We don't know how to fight wars anymore because the public at home has lost their balls. It takes will, determination and a fighting spirit by not only those in harms way, but those at home to win the fight. You dishonor those who fight now and those who have died by your pussy attitude.

WWII would have been a shambles if we had listened to people like you. Of course back then there were very few gutless people like you.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 5:55 pm | #

How many talking points...

a) Hillary et al voted as they did, on the information that the Bush administration gave them.

The Bush administration hid information and analyses that went against their predetermined conclusions, and exaggerated information and analyses that did.

Just to pre-empt challenges on this fact, here's some sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...1501813_pf.html

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/new...e.cfm? id=248339

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...- ke_n_9635.html

b) The mere fact that the democrats who believed he had these weapons later tryed to back out of their statements shows how much they care for their political careers and not the U.S.

Uh...no.

What it proves is that after inspections by UN EXPERTS, who are paid proffessionals with many years of experience, who then had direct physical access to Iraq, found nothing.

The fact that nothing was found, led many Democrats to conclude that there wasn't anything there worth invading for.

Then Bush invaded anyway.

Why am I "rehashing" this? Because you guys appear to still be resisting the facts.

Even now, as more soldiers get shot up every day.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 6:23 pm | #

They knew if they continued to rely on the demoicrats to splinter the American will they would eventually win. Thanks scumbag democrats.

Darwin, your very interesting conspiracy theory that us losing in Iraq is the Democrat's fault, is once again shot to hell by something else I've also posted on this very page.

The 1999 War Games assessment that it would take at least 400,000 soldiers on the ground for a viable occupation and transition of authority in Iraq.

Here it is again, if you'd like to read it:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...s.ap/ index.html

Military experts tell us clearly that the US will need at least 400,000 soldiers to MAYBE succeed, and the Bush administration goes in anyway.

Then suddenly it's surprising that the experts were right? Somehow it's the Democrats fault that the experts correctly interpreted reality, and were ignored?
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 6:28 pm | #

Get real. No one wants to see soldiers die, but they do.

OK, good. Thank you for acknowledging that no one, liberals included, likes to see soldiers die.

Why aren't you up in arms over drunk drivers? They kill more people in one year than the number of US fatalities in Iraq.

Why aren't you up in arms about them?

If drunk driving had as easy a solution as forcing our government to face factual reality, I would love to be working on that.

But my real commitment is to truth and factual reality. Which is what leads me to be making the arguments I'm making.

Why not mad as hell about illegals in this country? They kill more citizens than we've lost in Iraq.

I'd be interested in statistics about this. But let's say for the sake of argument that was so.

Does that still mean invading Iraq is a good idea? It's not like we can only do something about immigration OR the counter-productive occupation of Iraq. WHy not do something about both?

As a side note, illegal immigration is ridiculously simple to solve. All we have to do is pass a law offering jail time for any bosses of any company that hires ANY illegal aliens to work for them.

Do that, and watch those jobs for illegal aliens dry up. And without those jobs, illegal aliens have no more need to come into our country.

Will the GOP or the Democrats pass such a bill? Hell no! Our companies make way too much money off of illegal immigrant labor.

Instead all you hear is a lot of play-tough nonsense about fences and border patrols. As if they even keep drugs out.

Listen: the GOP is playing you. They are telling you what you want to hear, like any used car salesmen.

And how do you know when someone is lying to you? When what they say does not match the verifiable facts of impartial professional experts in the relevant fields.

What do you want ... Iran to become the predominant powerhouse in the Middle East?

Of course I dont' want that. Please explain to me how invading Iraq has made that situation less possible.

That's what's going to happen if we follow all your chickenshit "pull them out now" crap.

Please explain to me how getting our soldiers caught in a civil war, with all the rest of the Middle East hating us, helps us against Iran's influencing the Middle East.

Please note that the experts, including the most recent Baker Group report, disagrees with you and wants the US to start slowly backing out.

Please explain why these paid experts, most of them Republican, are wrong.

The rest of your post is unworthy of you.

Listen:

I DON'T WANT SOLDIERS TO DIE FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Do you?

Do you think it's possible for some wars to be good ideas, and other wars to be bad ideas?

I think sending soldiers to war should require at least the same amount of honest research as buying a new car. Don't you?

I supported and continue to support the war in Afghanistan. Don't you? You realize because of the mess in Iraq we're losing in Afghanistan, and the Taliban has had a resurgence, right?

Look again at the 1999 estimate I cited. The entire occupation of Iraq was doomed from the beginning, because we didn't go in with enough troops - ACCORDING TO THE PAID MILITARY EXPERTS.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 6:47 pm | #

My point is the terrorists (read Iran) may not have continued to provide material, weapons and support had they perceived a strong will and united American front. The military was and is fighting the war on the third front, the media ... the second front, here at home ... and the first front being Iraq itself.

I'm sorry that which is crystal clear evades you. I'm not saying mistakes weren't made because they were. Mistakes are made in every conflict ... even the "bad" guys make mistakes which is surprising considering how porous our national secrets are and how willing the press is to print them. But when you have active parties, organizations, individuals and the entire media brow beating the public day in day out about how "bad" things are ... the will is sapped. Thus the enemy becomes encouraged when it sees how discouraged the Americans are, they've studied Vietnam and they know just what to do and they're doing it. Congrats.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 6:53 pm | #

"Listen: the GOP is playing you. They are telling you what you want to hear, like any used car salesmen."

I'm not going to spend time trading bullet points and links with you and instead focus on two things.

Your above statement: Nowhere have I stated my political preference. My posts deal directly with conflict and what will win it and what will lose it. I don't take it lightly when we have men and women in harms way. No matter what party one belongs to, no matter whether one thinks it is right or wrong, it is incumbent on every American citizen to support their efforts. This does not mean you can't disagree, or voice your opinions. What it does mean, especially for politicians, that even though they may disagree with the war and it's handling, they want us to win and will do everything required to make that happen ... even if it means (gasp!) showing support for the President. I would expect the same from either party. The object of the game is to win and bring our men and women home, not score cheap political points.

Secondly, I'll restate what I said earlier. If we don't change our attitudes ... we will lose. We have the most powerful military in the world but we can't win shit if the American public isn't behind it 100%.

"We don't know how to fight wars anymore because the public at home has lost their balls. It takes will, determination and a fighting spirit by not only those in harms way, but those at home to win the fight. You dishonor those who fight now and those who have died by your pussy attitude."
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 7:08 pm | #

I'm not saying mistakes weren't made because they were.

Darwin, my very point is that the very start of the Iraq occupation, itself, was a clearly avoidable mistake.

And that once entered, the conflict is doomed from it's start. And this assessment is not coming from dilettantes or "Liberals" - this assessment came to the government from THE GOVERNMENT - from paid expert professionaly military strategists.

Do you get that?

These are people who have dedicated their lives to learning and undertanding military geopolitical strategy. These people are not you or I, who have interest but do other things with our day jobs - but people who have dedicated their lives, AND spent their lives understanding how these things tick.

Their expert understanding is that it would be a mistake to invade Iraq if it was done with less than 400,000 people - and even then, it would be iffy.

So to blame those who point out the conflict is going badly, for CAUSING the conflict to be going badly - is to go against the viewpoint of PAID PROFESSIONAL experts in military geopolitical strategy.

Do you get that?

They said in 1999 that the conflict would not work with less than 400,000 soldiers - WHETHER OR NOT anyone else, including Democrats and Liberals, said the war wouldn't go well.

I'm telling you that WHETHER OR NOT we change our attitudes, we will lose.

The only thing that might change the outcome, is if we got up to 400,00 soldiers in there.

And that just levels the playing field to something that COULD work.

I wish it were different. I would love to bring peace and Democracy to the Middle East. They need it. Their people need it. They are humans just like we are. They should have a right to have some hand in the determination of their fate, just as we are blessed to have.

But this is f***ing reality. You can't make a toaster out of stones, and you can't make a viable people-driven democracy where people have the God-given, human-denied right to choose their own fates. It just can not and will not happen under the present circumstances.

That's just how it is.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 10:13 pm | #

Let's talk about what it could take. Let's talk about what could make it happen.

I think Democracy in the Middle East would take - a class of traders who are free to trade anything that the people want.

What would it take to create that?

I think:

a) a culture where religion is based on the needs of the citizens, and not on the dogma of the leaders

b) a rewards system where people receive money based on how much their efforts and ideas benefit those around them

How could we bring this into being? Any takers?
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.01.06 - 10:17 pm | #

"Do you get that?"

Hey jimbob ... You ever been in the military? Didn't think so. I wouldn't bet all my money on a military "assessment". For starters, they're always padded and present worst case. Secondly, this 1999 assessment you worship was based on a fully functional Iraqi force who was willing to fight. Get over it. The pentagon is crammed full of assessments for any possibility you can dream up. Just because a "paid military analyst" drew it up doesn't mean it's gospel.

The Normandy Invasion was drawn up by "military planners" and for the most part it was a disaster. If the press and traitors we have today were around then, Eisenhower would have been fired, jailed and hung.

I don't blame the military, they're doing a magnificent job. I blame the media and people like you for encouraging the terrorists to keep going. That's the part that the Pentagon forgot to include in their assessment. The fact that the democrats, the media and liberals like you would fracture the unity of the American people and embolden the asswipes of islam to keep it up because they know what happens when the Amnerican people lose their will. The politicos pull out.

Thanks ... good job. Get a job as a military planner for China, we can use all the help we can get with them.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 8:23 am | #

"What would it take to create that?"

Savagely killing the tryants and despots of the middle east and letting the rest of the muslim community know that we're not gonna take their psychotic crap anymore. Step out of line and we'll blow the fuck out of their cities and holy sites. Let them know in no uncertain terms that if they again attack the west or try to impose their cult of death on anyone, we will eradicate them from the face of the earth. If they can handle that ... it's live and let live.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 8:27 am | #

Darwin - it's not the Iraq invasion that required 400,000 troops. The Iraq invasion was a complete and total success.

It's the OCCUPATION that the study shows requires at least 400,000 troops. The study said they would need that many, to keep the peace and provide for an orderly transition of government.

This assessment isn't affected by the strength or weakness of the Iraqi military, because it is talking about how many soldiers are needed to hold the country ONCE THE INVASION HAS SUCCEEDED.

Aer you saying it's just a complete coincidence that the 1999 assessment said we needed 400,000 to make it work, and right now it isn't working, just like the assessment predicted?

Come on.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 4:15 pm | #

Come on, Darwin. I thought being Republican and Conservative was supposed to be about accountability, and personal responsibility.

The Bush administration you voted for got us into Iraq, and has run Iraq with almost no Democratic involvement.

Stop blaming the messenger for the mess.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 4:18 pm | #

OK, Darwin. Let's start savagely killing the tyrants.

First on the list is Saudi Arabia. Then Jordan, Syria (who's been torturing people for us), and Turkey (our NATO ally who has been brutally persecuting Kurds). Then there's Pakistan, the Islamic military dictatorship that has nukes and has been distributing them via AQ Khan to other nations, probably including North Korea.

Which of those should we start with?

And how do we do this without uniting the rest of them against us?
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 4:20 pm | #

"It's the OCCUPATION that the study shows requires at least 400,000 troops. The study said they would need that many, to keep the peace and provide for an orderly transition of government."

Look buddy, as far as I'm concerned you can wipe your ass with your 1999 "assessment". You know as well as I that there was no way in hell the United States would field 400,000 troops in Iraq. I told you before "assessments" are padded for the benfit of the "analyst". In addition, 400,000 troops were recommended for a "hostile" civilian population which for the most part wasn't.

Give it up, I don't give a shit how long you wanna live in the past and play armchair quarterback. It's the present I'm dealing with, get with the program.

"The Bush administration you voted for got us into Iraq, and has run Iraq with almost no Democratic involvement."

First of all, you have no idea how or if I voted. Secondly, you're wrong, the democrats were and are mostly certainly involved. They have used Iraq as a political hammer from almost the get go. At the first inkling of a problem they smelled political blood and disregarded the men and women in harms way and went for the political kill. They had target fixation on Bush and didn't care what they did or who they hurt. Get Bush, Get Bush, Get Bush. Iran is still peeing in it's pants over they way the dems played the US right into their hands.

War is fucking hell and it's quite obvious the democrats have no stomach for anything other than saving their own worthless hides.

When this country faces it's conflict for life and death that political correctness and liberal policies are leading us to ... it won't be nancyboy democrats and liberals saving us and spilling blood.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 5:04 pm | #

"Which of those should we start with?"

We start by cleaning up Iraq and Afghanistan by killing these butchering "insurgents" as quickly and mercilessly as possible. After that ... I couldn't care less. Let's hit them all at once, or better yet, let's let some "patriotic" democrat make the call. That would be interesting.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 5:08 pm | #

jim, please take my attitude with a grain of salt. Although misguided, you've responded civily. Nothing infuritaes me more than the actions of the democrats after 9-11.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 5:34 pm | #

Well Darwin, I think your anger is misdirected, and I really want you to see that the Iraq war was a flawed venture from the beginning.

But yes, it's good to have a civil discourse about it, and thank you for your part in that. Hopefully we can all get closer to the same viewpoint some day soon, and all work together to move this country forward.

'Cause all of us really want what's best for the country; we're just differing in what's the best way to go about it.
jim | Email | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 12:25 pm | #

"Well Darwin, I think your anger is misdirected, and I really want you to see that the Iraq war was a flawed venture from the beginning."

My anger is not misdirected. Had you been in the Presidents shoes after 9-11 with all the forebodings coming from world leaders, intelligence agencies and last but not least, democratic leaders themselves, you could have very well decided on the same course of action.

However, any talk of whether we should have gone into Iraq is academic. My point has always been that the actions taken by the left, particularly the democratic leadership was vile, selfish and treasonous. The democratic party put it's own self interest above the nation as a whole (not to mention the Iraqi people) by using the war as a means to an end ... regaining power. Having accomplished part of their goal with the help of the traitors in the media, they now set their sights on destroying what's left of this great nation and the world. This is all done to change the population of the US from an innovative, inventive self reliant one to one whose existence depends on the few in power. Once accomplished, very few will have the will or desire to challenge the democratic royalty. The enemy within ...
darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:34 am | #

TEST
ytba | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:14 pm | #

DISINGENUOUS "JIM'S" REFERENCES ARE GARBAGE (PART THE FIRST)

Just one example is his use of "facts" gleaned from "CASI - Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq"
jim | Email | Homepage | 11.30.06 - 6:34 pm |

They [CASI] are a partison pro-terror, anti-America, anti-Israel group whose purpose is to seed doubt about the valididty of America's actions, and to work to undermine our resolve to pursue them.

http://www.casi.org.uk
This is a group at the University of Cambridge, UK and it is promoting some of the most disgusting lies about Israel it has been my misfortune to read. Check out
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undo.../s2000- 1119.pdf
that info is from...
http://www.masada2000.org/Peace-...ace- Groups.html
(A partisan pro-Israel, pro-America, anti-terror group which also lists many other terror advocacy groups to watch out for. Nothing wrong with "partisan" as long as your right.)

"jim" or ahmed or machmud or whatever is not your average leftist troll; He provides references, and seemingly well reasoned arguments. Unfortunately they are based on faux "facts" from sources known for their lack of reliability, to put it mildly.

I've already debunked his NSA fictions on another thread.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:15 pm | #

DISINGENUOUS JIM'S REFERENCES ARE GARBAGE (PART THE SECOND)

"PRE-EMPT" THIS!

"jim" -- 12.01.06 - 6:23 pm

...or ahmed or muhmude or whoever it is, continues not playing straight when "he" says...

"The Bush administration hid information and analyses that went against their predetermined conclusions, and exaggerated information and analyses that did.

Just to pre-empt challenges on this fact, here's some sources:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...1501813_pf.html
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/new...e.cfm? id=248339
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...- ke_n_9635.html

He "pre-empts" nothing with those empty pieces of garbage...

his ref to carl levin's disinformation
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/new...e.cfm? id=248339
any of the following easily expose him, and his "references" for the complete bullspit that they are...

"Only those who have their hands over their ears while shouting "La-la-la, I can't hear you" continue to deny that Saddam's regime supported terrorism."
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/ 013670.php

see also...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/arc...ives/ 013438.php
http://www.nationalreview.com/ mu...00310210934.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co...06/ 550kmbzd.asp

I'm not even going to dignify the ultra-left huff'npuff post with a comment.

The washington post article is just pro-dem anti-bush inuendo. By NOT discussing the actual evidence we DO have that Saddam was a terror philanthropist, the W.P. is excercising a form of "propaganda" that doesn't actually involve lying, just witholding vital information for the purpose of giving the reader the impression that it doesn't exist.

...and I'll bet ole "jim" knows that, too.

I have more links on the topic, if anyone wants them.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:20 pm | #

darwin | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:34 am |

yeah, and that "jim" is one of 'em.
ytba | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:32 pm | #

"jim's" NSA fictions debunked here...
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...90826115320483/
ytba | Email | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:33 pm | #