[Ezekiel]

"Darth Cheney Strikes Back!"

"Pot paging kettle, come in kettle..."
------------------------

In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday accusations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.

Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

The comments were the latest salvo in an aggressive White House counterattack on war critics, launched as Democrats step up their criticism of the war and polls show declining public support for the conflict.

Cheney repeated President George W. Bush's charge that Democratic critics were rewriting history by questioning prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction even though many Senate Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the invasion.

"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.

Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," he said in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom group.

'A PLAY FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE'

"What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war," he said. "The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out."

Bush, whose public approval ratings have reached the lowest point of his presidency, has given two speeches in the last five days blasting Democratic critics and trying to use their support for the war in 2002 against them.

Twenty-nine Senate Democrats voted in favor of an October 2002 resolution authorizing military force in Iraq. Many have since said it was a mistake based on false or misleading information.

Democrats have charged the administration, led by Cheney, manipulated the intelligence on Iraq to justify the war and leaked classified information to discredit critics.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Cheney, was indicted last month for obstructing justice, perjury and lying after a probe into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Plame's husband has said she was outed to get back at him for his criticism of the war.

Administration officials have acknowledged intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty, but say Democrats, Republicans and foreign intelligence agencies all believed Baghdad had deadly weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures -- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers -- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie," Cheney said.

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.

[308win]

He would recognize the animal if anyone would, he stares at one every morning while he shaves.

[TallPine]

and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie
Something like 60% of the population, at last count. All of them leftist anti-american opportunists .... :p It's a pandemic, I tell you! :D

[Biker]

Me? I'm no CIA analyst, but even I felt a bit bad for Powell after watching his UN presentation. A taped up Radio Shack glider that presented a chemical threat to the US mainland?
Good Lord...
Biker

[JohnBT]

Why is it so hard to believe that there are more than a few 'political ploys' going on in and about D.C.? Aren't there always?

And like I care about poll results. The Democratic Party supporters voted against him and haven't had a good word to say about him since day one. And I wouldn't be surprised if half of all Americans don't know who the President even is. Sad but true.

John

[longhorngunman]

I love Cheney:) , he really knows how to get the leftists(defeatists) howling at the moon!

[hso]

A former Army Ranger at work has had a

Bush Lied
Soldiers Die

bumper sticker on his desk for months so I don't think this is a recent phenom in spite of the VP making it sound like it is.

[GoRon]

You guys only hear what you want to hear.

I remember all the talk from Dems and Republicans before the Iraq war.

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists.

Yes LYING.

It seems like everyone has ADD. Just about every single one of our allies intelligence services agreed with this administrations assessment of Saddams actions. He was in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. The democrats saw the same intelligence reports and voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The war resolution contains many reasons for action that have nothing to do with WMD's.

The pathetic whining and insane Bush hatred is enough to make me vomit:barf:

This is the same bunch that will be first to blame the President for NOT taking action if a terror strike were to occur.

For your reference, the reason we are in Iraq:

Iraq War Resolution (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686)

[longhorngunman]

Ron, quite antagonizing the liberals. Don't you know they don't want anything like the truth to ruin their terrific screaming fit they like to have.

[Preacherman]

Folks, please, let's keep the debate on civil terms. Politeness costs nothing, even if one disagrees with someone over something.

Personally, I think the current debate is being hijacked for political ends, certainly by the Democrats, but also to a certain extent by the Republicans. It's clear that almost all pre-war intelligence, from all sources, stated bluntly that Iraq's WMD programs still existed. It's also clear that no verifiable evidence of this has been found since the occupation of Iraq. From this, I think that three questions need answering:

1. Why was pre-war intelligence so flawed, from all sources?

2. What can be done to ensure that faulty intelligence is never again used as a pretext for war?

3. What really did happen to Iraq's WMD programs? We know beyond any possible doubt that they existed, but we still don't know what happened to them, where they went, etc. Are there large supplies of WMD secreted in Syria? In Iran? These are questions that urgently require answers.

I don't blame Bush for acting on the intelligence at his disposal, and I think to suggest that he deliberately lied about it is fatuous in its stupidity. However, the Democrats are trying to make political capital out of this suggestion, instead of getting to the root of the problem, which is - why was the intelligence so flawed in the first place?

[GoRon]

Folks, please, let's keep the debate on civil terms. Politeness costs nothing, even if one disagrees with someone over something.


I am sorry for the heated rhetoric but every single thread about the war is filled with people ignoring what really happened at the time and repeating the Bush lied people died mantra.

We had just been attacked by a middle east group that had widespread support across the whole middle east. To ignore Saddam or let the UN handle him would have been the highth of irresponsibility at our own peril.

[RealGun]

Something like 60% of the population, at last count. All of them leftist anti-american opportunists .... :p It's a pandemic, I tell you! :D

The pandemic changes every week...whatever the press is pushing at the moment. What they push is what people believe, or the press spins it the way they think people want to hear it. In fact, the press determines what off-topic threads start on THR, and many opinions expressed here can be traced directly to whatever spin the press put on an issue. Of course the spin is always "ain't it awful". Good news is no news. Fairness or respect doesn't earn ratings. A peaceful status quo is boring.

What it comes down to is Osama bin Laden wins. The aftermath of 9/11 has everybody really grumpy. They also don't like George Bush because he lacks "star quality", and the Dems lost two elections. Character doesn't matter.

Television has paved the road to oblivion, when "news" and commentary from talking heads becomes entertainment. It has even become a form of comedy on the Daily Show with John Stewart.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to be President or a Supreme Court nominee for that matter. It invites nothing but abuse from ungrateful people daring you to succeed in their best interest.

[grampster]

It could be fairly said that the administration was provided with the conventional wisdom that was available at the time. That led to decisions being made that no one had the courage to take before. Right or wrong, it was decided that we needed to draw a line in the sand. If you can believe the vast bulk of those who serve US in uniform, they support that notion. Remember that wisdom was couched within the infrastructure that was in existence at the time. The Leftists, previously in charge for at least 8 years, provided their legacy at that point.

It would also be powerfully pursuading to find that our own intelligence was backed up by intelligence from nations that we would not necessarily believe were on the same page as us; France and Germany et al, as well as friendly supportive nations.

Decisions were made and many political "leaders" from the opposition party chose to go on the bandwagon. Perhaps due to political considerations of an election cycle? If so, what does that say about their character. However, those "leaders" lost the political power struggle and remain out of power. They believed that would not happen, but it did. They now only have opposition, obfuscation, pettifoggery, demagoguery, convenient memory, playing to American short memory, and out and out lying to attempt to regain power over the sheeple. With power comes the money and the other trappings of power. So they preach division and show the seeds of discontent for the purpose of power. Consider that for a moment. Do they have a solution? I haven't heard one.

A short pause to catch one's breath and think a bit again about what we are hearing from the Left. It again, should make one wonder about the character of those who give aid and comfort to terrorists and put our troops in further harm's way with their shrillness and obfuscation. To what end? To regain power at the expense of our troops and dividing our nation! Why would anyone choose to listen to these rascals?

If they disagree, then give us an alternative that does not involve invoking a repeat of the "Lesson of Vietnam". For those of you who don't remember what that is...it's the worldwide belief that America cuts and runs when the going gets tough and we don't have the stones to finish the job. That lesson was further promulgated by Bush 41's failure to stamp out Sadaam in '91 and the Clinton years. That my friends is the real lesson of Vietnam; America is a paper tiger.

If our elected leadership sees fit to get involved in a thing, then we need to see it through. That is how we reinforce our image. The bad guys will cease at some point with trying to destabilize the world, when they finally get the message that we, as a nation, are not to be contended with in a violent way. The opposition party can only be effective by supporting our nation in ways other than to continue to reinforce that America is a paper tiger. They are firmly engaged in portraying that image as we speak. If we listen to their propaganda, things will get worse. A lesson in world history with a minor in how humans treat each other is in order. Not revisionism. The real McCoy. It ain't pretty. Getting along usually comes with a big stick.

I'm really disappointed in Americans that seem to support the notion that freedom is desirable, whine about their rights in the ether, but who buy into all this propaganda disseminated by the Left, the very people that in the end, would take away our freedom by continuing to nullify our Constititution. We need to fear these traitors more than terrorists as they are killing us with a smile on their face, a pork barrel project and a lie. At least the terrorists have a hatred that is not concealed behind a $2000.00 suit, a $200.00 haircut, a limo and a PAC. :banghead: The beauty is that we can ignore these painted posturers and lobby to get the job done.

[Warbow]

Cheney: War critics "dishonest" & "reprehensible"

Wow, that's not a misleading title. :rolleyes:

[yorec]

I remember the reasons, GoRon. I remember well.

We should leave Iraq when the job is done and not a moment before. Still an awful lot of terrorists running around there plying thier trade. Tis a target rich environment and we need to do a lot more shooting before it's all through.

[CAnnoneer]

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists. Yes LYING.

They can only be lying if they know for fact that Bush did not lie, but they maintain he did. Fact is, nobody but Bush knows if he lied or not. Therefore, they cannot be liars.

[shermacman]

Therefore, they cannot be liars.
Whaddaya mean by that? They are liars, pure and simple. The entire Clinton administration, the DemocRATs, the UN and our NATO allies all were convinced that Saddam had WMD's. The morons who spout the Bush lied mantra are deliberately lying about the reasons we went into war. They hate the Bush administration more than the love the free world. They are disgusting, brainwashed fools who parrot the NYT/Boston Globe/LATimes/WaPo propaganda, and they know they are mere tools.

They are lying: they are fools who like to be fooled and they like to try to keep fooling others.

[Lone_Gunman]

The old computer adage applies here: garbage in, garbage out.

The fact that multiple intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD only means they were all looking at the same flawed, and possibly criminally manipulated, data.

I believe Bush put pressure on intelligence agencies to produce or manipulate data that supported his plan of going to war with Iraq. I believe Bush intended to go to war with Iraq before 9-11, and even before he took office. I believe Paul O'neal lost his job over this issue. I believe Bush honestly thought he would find WMD in Iraq, and thus be able to justify his war.

Don't ask me for sources, I don't have anything in particular. This is my personal opinion of the events, based on multiple news stories. I belive this to be true just as much as Bush apparently believed Saddam had WMD.

The Congress shares some blame in this for not being critical enough of Bush's data. At the time though, I think they took the President's word for it, not realizing subterfuge was at hand. Ultimately though, the buck stops at the White House.

Bush could have justified going into Iraq without having to lie, if he had simply said Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement, which clearly they were. But this wasnt good enough for him. He chose to play up the WMD angle, thinking it would get more support.

[junyo]

2. What can be done to ensure that faulty intelligence is never again used as a pretext for war?It really doesn't matter if the intel was faulty, as long as it wasn't deliberately sloppy or manipulated for political ends. If we genuinely believe that someone is a threat we should take whatever steps are needed to remove that threat, period. All the talk now about whether the intel was good, bad, or otherwise is a nonissue. Every single person here would, if they genuinely believed someone was a threat to themselves or their family, if that person consistently behaved as if the were a threat, if they wouldn't respond to requests to simply prove that they were not a threat, put a bullet in them with little to no hesitation. If it later turned out they were mistaken, you'd feel bad about it, you'd try and not make the same mistake again, but you wouldn't fault the action or the tactic. And in the same circumstance you'd likely do the same.

One of the government's black letter jobs is defense, and you don't do defense by giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt. Every threat has to be treated as real and worse case until proven otherwise. You can argue against preemption as a tactic, but to argue that the President should not have acted on intel that darn near everyone in the world thought was correct isn't dishonest; it's plain stupid. If the drunk who wandered into the wrong house doesn't want to get shot, he can a) not drink so much, b) pick the right house, or c) freeze or retreat when I point a gun at him. If Saddam didn't want Iraq invaded he could've a) never stockpiled and used WMDs, b) not invaded Kuwait, c) had a better plan for defending Kuwait, or d) given the inspectors free rein to check where they pleased. The fact the he played chicken with a superpower and lost makes this Saddams fault, not Bush's.

[roo_ster]

Yep, some sure are. There are a few who I respect for their intellectually honest criticism and opposition, but they are getting fewer & fewer.

Most seem to think that everything that happened longer than a week ago never happened and reality can be crafted on the fly to serve present political needs. Well, some of us remember how it actually occurred and call "bull$h!+" when the reality-revisionists play their games. They hate it when they are called on their baloney & descend to accusations of fascism and Naziism against the one so bold as to demand that reality is reality, facts are facts, and neither is made of silly putty. Happened here just last week.

[Standing Wolf]

We should have voted for Cheney and left Bush in Texas.

[CAnnoneer]

We should have voted for Cheney and left Bush in Texas.

I think Cheney likes it the way it is - he gets a higher power-to-liability ratio than if he were the POTUS and is still close enough to the cauldron to throw bones to his friends. IMO he is the smartest of the whole gang, even smarter than Carl.

+1 Lone Gunman

"The Price of Loyalty", the book about Paul O'Neil, is extremely condemning for Bush's administration. I strongly recommend it to everyone, especially those among us who still believe Bush is beyond reproach on all these issues.

[seansean]

junyo wrote:
Every single person here would, if they genuinely believed someone was a threat to themselves or their family, if that person consistently behaved as if the were a threat, if they wouldn't respond to requests to simply prove that they were not a threat, put a bullet in them with little to no hesitation.

Please cite the evidence you have that the thousands of iraqi civilians we(yeah, I said we, we paid for those bombs and bullets) killed acted in this manner....Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., regardless of all their posturing, and the smart intelligence people who knew that, and said so, were shouted down or removed...BTW, there's another middle eastern country that has WMD's(nuclear weapons) and they've violated many more U.N. resolutions than iraq....you guessed it, israel...they get 3 billion of our taxpayer dollars every year....what kind of return are we getting on THAT investment???

edit: 237 misleading statements on the war...
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

[M-Rex]

You guys only hear what you want to hear.

I remember all the talk from Dems and Republicans before the Iraq war.

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists.

Yes LYING.

It seems like everyone has ADD. Just about every single one of our allies intelligence services agreed with this administrations assessment of Saddams actions. He was in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. The democrats saw the same intelligence reports and voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The war resolution contains many reasons for action that have nothing to do with WMD's.

The pathetic whining and insane Bush hatred is enough to make me vomit:barf:

This is the same bunch that will be first to blame the President for NOT taking action if a terror strike were to occur.

For your reference, the reason we are in Iraq:

Iraq War Resolution (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686)


You are now my hero. :D

[javafiend]

Just about every single one of our allies intelligence services agreed with this administrations assessment of Saddams actions.

From the fall of 2001 to at least March 2003, the following officials, and others, made hundreds of false assertions in speeches, on television, at the United Nations, to foreign leaders and to Congress: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Under Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Their statements were remarkably consistent and consistently false.

In fact, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in effect as of December 2001 said that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons; was not trying to get them; and did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program since the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors departed in December 1998. This assessment had been unchanged for three years.

Italy 'warned Saddam intelligence was bogus' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1627509,00.html?gusrc=rss)
John Hooper in Rome
November 4, 2005
The Guardian

Italian intelligence warned the United States about bogus information on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions at about the time President Bush cited them as a crucial reason for invading Iraq, an Italian parliamentarian said yesterday.

Is Iraq a True Threat to the US? (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm)
by Scott Ritter
July 20, 2002
Boston Globe

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.
FULL TEXT OF BRITISH BRIEFING PAPERS REVEALED: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1078)

British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/iraqoptionspaper.pdf): “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.”

The secret Downing Street memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)
The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq's Weapons Programs (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/rickettsmemo.pdf): "Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/rickettsmemo.pdf): "US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing."

"No Credible Evidence" On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/strawmemo.pdf): "There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida."

Prewar report cast doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda connection (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1107/dailyUpdate.html)
A newly declassified document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) shows that, as early as February 2002, there were doubts about an informer who claimed that there was a strong link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The Associated Press reports that the [Bush] administration was alerted that an "Al Qaeda member in US custody probably was lying about links between the terrorist organization and Iraq."

Niger uranium documents exposed as forgeries (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071803G.shtml)
On Feb. 4, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency asked the U.S. government to back up some of the allegations it was making about Iraq's nuclear program.

At that point, the U.S. mission to the United Nations turned the documents over Jacque Baute, an aide to IAEA executive director Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei who was responsible for monitoring Iraq-related nuclear issues.

Once IAEA forensic analysts got them, it became immediately clear that the documents were not genuine. "Within two hours they figured out they were forgeries," said one IAEA source familiar with the material.

The source explained that all the IAEA analysts really had to do was conduct a Google search. The documents purported to be letters between Niger and Iraqi officials in July 2000 and October 2000 that describe an agreement for the delivery of two lots of 500 tons of uranium over two years.

WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml)

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?hp)
The New York Times
Editorial
15 November 2005
To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Further reading: A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385506724/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) by James Bamford.

From Publishers Weekly: After 9/11, Bamford asserts, the Bush administration used the attacks as a pretext for a long-planned invasion of Iraq; a Defense Department intelligence unit was set up to tout trumped-up evidence against Saddam, which, Bamford says, CIA analysts were pressured into endorsing.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I stopped reading right after the "Darth Cheney..." line.

Did I miss anything?

[javafiend]

That should read "Draft Dodger Cheney," Cheney requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"). Cheney dodged military service just like his buddies Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him, so he stayed home and fought the war on bugs) Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh (analcysts) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

[Art Eatman]

I don't understand why the Democrats are so upset with Bush about Iraq. He's merely doing what an icon of the Democratic Party urged, back in 1960 or so: "Go anywhere, pay any price, to further the cause of Democracy."

Dubya oughta do a bit of language study and go to Baghdad, offering the local equivalent of "Ich bin ein Berliner." :)

Art

[M-Rex]

That should read "Draft Dodger Cheney," Cheney requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"). Cheney dodged military service just like his buddies Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him, so he stayed home and fought the war on bugs) Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh (analcysts) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

Don't forget Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and that stumpwart, Dukakis.

Did Mondale or Carter serve?

[Lone_Gunman]

Did Mondale or Carter serve?

Carter was a submariner.

[M-Rex]

Carter was a submariner.

Ah, that's right. I thought I read that somewhere.

Mea culpa.

[RealGun]

The WMD, mushroom cloud fear mongering stressed the tactical reasons for going after Saddam. It is easier to sell, something the voters can understand. The strategic reasons for dealing with Iraq are much more complex, no doubt some off it classified, but Congressional committees surely knew the whole story and have since the beginning, many years ago, pre Bush II. They were probably consulted about how to sell the Iraq invasion. Sen. Warner is chairman of the Defense committee, or whatever they call it, and is a former Secretary of Defense. He knows exactly what is going on. He is also a Republican.

Even if there are good reasons for the Dems to create a big fuss, it would not occur without partisan motives.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Congress is dealing with budget cutbacks at the same time that they are effectively protesting the cost of Iraq and other Middle East operations. They set the stage so that any budget cutbacks that draw protests from affected voters are George Bush's fault. The conclusion everyone is supposed to draw is that they should vote for the Democrat in the next election, like it would make any real difference in foreign policy.

[junyo]

junyo wrote:
Every single person here would, if they genuinely believed someone was a threat to themselves or their family, if that person consistently behaved as if the were a threat, if they wouldn't respond to requests to simply prove that they were not a threat, put a bullet in them with little to no hesitation.

Please cite the evidence you have that the thousands of iraqi civilians we(yeah, I said we, we paid for those bombs and bullets) killed acted in this manner....Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., regardless of all their posturing, and the smart intelligence people who knew that, and said so, were shouted down or removed...BTW, there's another middle eastern country that has WMD's(nuclear weapons) and they've violated many more U.N. resolutions than iraq....you guessed it, israel...they get 3 billion of our taxpayer dollars every year....what kind of return are we getting on THAT investment???

edit: 237 misleading statements on the war...
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/The 'thousands' of Iraqi civilians acted in that manner by allowing Saddam to come to and remain in power. They had the means to end the potential threat and chose not to.

As for the Israel BS, guess what, the UN resolutions against Israel are a) nonbinding i.e. an entirely from the resolutions passed against Iraq, and b) have never had force authorized to enforce them. Helps if you don't get your talking points from the Michael Moore crowd, they're not all the good with actual facts. And even the resolutions were binding, let's look at the threat the Israeli's pose. Israel has actually used it's WMD's how many times? Invaded it's neighbors unprovoked when exactly? How many suicide bombers families have they paid? Yeah, Saddam's Iraqi was a peaceful little country not bothering anyone... :rolleyes:

[longhorngunman]

That's the problem with the Democrats, Art, the man that said that is not the icon of the current Democratic party. Che Guevaera(no I don't know how to spell the little commie's last name), and the living Hugo Chavez are the icons of the current Democratic party.

[Jeff White]

javafiend said;
That should read "Draft Dodger Cheney," Cheney requested several deferments and has been quoted as saying that he "had other priorities than military service"). Cheney dodged military service just like his buddies Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay (he claimed that minorities had taken up all of the slots so there was no more room for him, so he stayed home and fought the war on bugs) Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Elliott Abrahms, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh (analcysts) Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney and Kenneth Starr.

When and where did you serve?

Jeff

[Fred Fuller]

Well, I know it's 'old math' but let's see how it adds up:

POLITICIAN + MOUTH MOVING = LIE

How's that?

lpl/nc

[hso]

Not everyone that had access to the information that the administration acted on saw the evidence that attacking Iraq was needed or that it would further the war on terror.

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1246

http://www.texasobserver.org/images/logohead.gif

Texas Observer: Is it inevitable we will go to war with Iraq?
Ron Paul: I would say the odds are 98 percent. Only a miracle will save us from committing this overt act of aggression. I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden. He will be the beneficiary of it. He hates Saddam Hussein. He has a better chance of getting one of his men [in power] after we cause a lot of disruption over there. And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost. We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control, and to get the oil. I think we have fallen into that trap.

TO: Why haven’t more people seen through this effort to link Hussein to the war on terrorism?
RP: It seems that those who advise the president, those who control foreign policy, need another war for various reasons: whether it has to do with the oil or this principle that we are such good people that we know what is best; our views should dominate. I think they believe it almost like a religion. What has happened is that they have been able to control the propaganda. Even if there are some in Washington who have questioned this–and many of them did question it–the propaganda has been so powerful. All [Congress] had to do was look at the polls and say, "Oh, the polls show that we must do this." I have told others, and I am convinced that if Bill Clinton was doing exactly what the president is doing today, I bet I wouldn’t be a lonely Republican. I bet I would have a lot of Republican supporters on my side.... But now it’s a Republican president, and he can do no wrong.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee

[NorthernExtreme]

javafiend

I suggest that when you look for referances to support your position you use sources other than left leaning news organizations.

To be fair, I'm sure anyone who desperately wants to believe Bush lied can find several reports, memmos, documents, etc.. to support their claim. Just as those who want to follow Bush to what ever end can find the same to support their position.

I ask you, If bush knew there were no WMD's and that every fact he used could be prooved wrong, why in the world would he go to war in Iraq?

The simple fact that you have all those articles (written over the course of several months) at hand and ready to referance tells me you are a busy beaver and very interested in seeking the truth. Could you please quickly respond with as many articles countering the argument that Bush lied?

I would hate to believe you are here at THR as a troll. But I'm sure you will prove me wrong by responding as quickly with all the pro Bush articles you researched in your search for the truth.

Regards,

[Ezekiel]

I stopped reading right after the "Darth Cheney..." line.

Did I miss anything?

"Yup". I'm learning at lot.

And "Darth Cheney" is a good line. I basically stole it from some witty guy on THR who sub-texted Cheney's opposition to recent torture legislation with John Williams's way cool Darth Vader theme. (I'm not even original!)

[BigG]

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists. +1

[seansean]

POLITICIAN + MOUTH MOVING = LIE

I agree...

junyo: Of course iraq wasn't a "peaceful little country", what matters here is whether they were a threat to the U.S., and they were not, and the bush admin. lied and said they were. Th ends do not justify the means. As far as israel, I know it's a hot-button subject, I'm not gonna go flame war over it but,I'm just saying look deeper at the israeli/U.S. relationship. The likudniks are only pretending to be our friends...and it doesn't make me an anti-semite to say so.

[R.H. Lee]

Cheney's telling it like it is. Those same Democrats are on record making public statements that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological WMD and supporting military intervention and regime change. They, and their supporters, are most assuredly lying and dishonest hypocrites of the worst order. Anybody who buys into this particular criticism of the Bush administration is ignorant, completely untrustworthy and deserving of utter contempt.

[seansean]

Cheney's telling it like it is. Those same Democrats are on record making public statements that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological WMD and supporting military intervention and regime change. They, and their supporters, are most assuredly lying and dishonest hypocrites of the worst order. Anybody who buys into this particular criticism of the Bush administration is ignorant, completely untrustworthy and deserving of utter contempt.

Ouch....does that mean I don't get a christmas card this year?:neener:

[TallPine]

It really doesn't matter if the intel was faulty, as long as it wasn't deliberately sloppy or manipulated for political ends. If we genuinely believe that someone is a threat we should take whatever steps are needed to remove that threat, period. All the talk now about whether the intel was good, bad, or otherwise is a nonissue.
I'm glad you said this ;)
It sounds just like the apologies for the "no-knock" raids on American citizens based on some informant. Break down the door, tear up the house, maybe kill a few people ... oops, we find no dope, but we "genuinely believed" there was dope in the house so it was all justified. :rolleyes:


Every single person here would, if they genuinely believed someone was a threat to themselves or their family, if that person consistently behaved as if the were a threat, if they wouldn't respond to requests to simply prove that they were not a threat, put a bullet in them with little to no hesitation. If it later turned out they were mistaken, you'd feel bad about it, you'd try and not make the same mistake again, but you wouldn't fault the action or the tactic. And in the same circumstance you'd likely do the same.

No, I would not, and furthermore I did not (even though I would have liked too ;) ).
In that case, I would be the one in prison now instead of my former neighbor. And you would have been all discussing the shooting case while I sat in jail, and saying how "you can't take pre-emptive action against your neighbor even if you think he might hurt your family."

Only governments can do things like that and get away with it. :(

[CAnnoneer]

Israel has actually used it's WMD's how many times? Invaded it's neighbors unprovoked when exactly? How many suicide bombers families have they paid?

I agree that Israel is not a threat from that point of view. But, I still eye with great displeasure the billions we the taxpayers have been giving them every year for no apparent practical reason. I have yet to hear anybody among the mainstream politicians stand up and ask the simple question: "Are we getting our money's worth in supporting Israel?"

What I see is all sorts of US political fundraising organizations whose only purpose is to buy politicians and exert pressure on the government for the sole purpose of furthering Israel's interests regardless of their alignment with the US interests. They are so brazen and idiotic so as to televize their conventions and virtually spell it out. Methinks these lobbyists should be asked if they are first American and then ethnic, or the other way around. In the latter case, the honorable thing for them to do is surrender their US citizenship and assume Israeli one. Same goes for those who secretly keep their Israeli one while becoming US citizens, although the US naturalization laws specifically prohibit double citizenship (along with hereditary titles etc.).

I'd rather see the 3 billion per year returned to the taxpayers. Okay, I am dreaming - we know govt hates giving money back. So, let them just spend it on something prudent, e.g. finding cure for diseases or developing energy independence technologies.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Before somebody shrieks "You dirty, closet anti-semite!", I should mention that two thirds of my best friends are Jews and proudly so.

[CAnnoneer]

Ouch....does that mean I don't get a christmas card this year?:neener:

That's right, no apples and cheese baskets for you either! :D

But, joviality aside, just because the Democratic leadership are a bunch of despicable pansy political opportunists with the memory of a gnat and the integrity of a cuckoo does not mean that their criticism in the particular case is unfounded. There are quite disconcerting testimonies on record both by Clarke and O'Neil that should at the least raise both eyebrows of the staunch Bush supporters.

[TheEgg]

I didn't read all the posts in this thread -- because I have heard it all before.

I pointed out about a year or year and a half ago that you could hear in the distance the sound of the stampeding sheep.

The stampede has now over-run us.

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

And our enemies understand this very well, even if the American people don't.

[Ezekiel]

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

That is a very interesting theory, one I'm going to have to think about...

[sicorican]

I don't understand this...

There were plenty of Democrats saying the same exact things that Bush said, but they were saying it as far back as 1998. Was the Clinton administration "manipulating" the intelligence then too? Were they forcing the intelligence agencies to "massage" the data for their own political ends?

Here are just a few examples:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

So, it would seem clear, at least to me, that the only things the opposition has to offer are hypocrisy and revisionism. It's just interesting to me that so many otherwise clear-thinking and intelligent people fall for this tripe so often. And not just the D's! The R's are just as guilty of spinning and "revising" events when it suits them.

We'll never know how much of the intelligence used by president Bush was just taken at face value from the Clinton administration. Just like we won't know how much of it was gathered after Bush's election but before he had a chance to replace the Clinton appointees in the intelligence community with his own. But so many prominent D's were saying the same things that Bush said while Clinton was still in office, that their charges that Bush lied are pathetic and transparent, at least to me...

[BigG]

I pointed out about a year or year and a half ago that you could hear in the distance the sound of the stampeding sheep.

The stampede has now over-run us.

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

TheEgg has got it down.

[jcoiii]

WMD = more than just nuclear......:rolleyes:



I found, by chance, this interview given by a purported weapons inspector. I say purported because every bit of news or information we get today cannot be absolutely trusted. So, you can believe one side or the other. Rhetoric after the fact from one side who hates the other is not sufficient for a basis of fact.

Editted b/c the link wasn't working. Grrr.

[RealGun]

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.

I think of it as them having long ago losing interest after the shock and awe was over and the news reports were no longer entertaining. It is more an issue of war as entertainment and retribution than it is of "pain". They have moved on from experiencing the Iraq invasion as a transference of post 9/11 outrage. They would not have been particularly interested or supportive had it not been for 9/11, so it was very convenient to try to make a connection.

I believe we belong in Iraq, but I will not say that the sales pitch was entirely above board. It was a sales pitch, caveat emptor.

[NavyDoc]

javafiend

I suggest that when you look for referances to support your position you use sources other than left leaning news organizations.

To be fair, I'm sure anyone who desperately wants to believe Bush lied can find several reports, memmos, documents, etc.. to support their claim. Just as those who want to follow Bush to what ever end can find the same to support their position.

I ask you, If bush knew there were no WMD's and that every fact he used could be prooved wrong, why in the world would he go to war in Iraq?

The simple fact that you have all those articles (written over the course of several months) at hand and ready to referance tells me you are a busy beaver and very interested in seeking the truth. Could you please quickly respond with as many articles countering the argument that Bush lied?

I would hate to believe you are here at THR as a troll. But I'm sure you will prove me wrong by responding as quickly with all the pro Bush articles you researched in your search for the truth.

Regards,

Javafiend "searcher for truth?" :what:

[Old Dog]

The American people are incapable of enduring any sort of pain any more, political, economic, anything.
I strongly disagree. While TheEgg may may trumpet his opinion of his countrymen, I prefer to believe in the resiliency, resourcefulness and capabilities of our people. We'll get through this spell.

Frankly, those who wish to believe that the administration lied to get the U.S. into Iraq remind me of the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial, who decided to believe that several hundred members of the LAPD, LA emergency services workers and the LA DA's office all manufactured evidence in an attempt to frame O.J. for a double homicide.

[Manedwolf]

I am sorry for the heated rhetoric but every single thread about the war is filled with people ignoring what really happened at the time and repeating the Bush lied people died mantra.

We had just been attacked by a middle east group that had widespread support across the whole middle east. To ignore Saddam or let the UN handle him would have been the highth of irresponsibility at our own peril.


1. We were attacked by al-Quaeda, based mostly in Afghanistan, headed by Osama bin Laden. NOT IRAQ. Repeat. NOT IRAQ.

2. Osama is still alive. Five years later. Afghanistan, the Taliban ARE STILL fighting back against US forces. Didn't finish the job there.

3. Attacked Iraq. WHICH WAS NOT A THREAT at the time. NO WMDs. Repeating that as well...NO WMDs. Where's those photos they had that showed where they were for certain, hm?

4. We had the goodwill of the world after 9/11. That's GONE now. Now, after Abu Ghraib, et al, we're the bad guys.

5. Aren't YOU sick yet of Bush being a broken record and even mentioning 9/11 in Katrina response speeches? How about using Veteran's Day to not even attend a single WWII/Korea/etc...thing, but instead to use the day for partisan political speeches saying it was 'bad' to criticize or even question his decisions? How un-American was that?

Attacking Iraq because 'a middle east group' attacked us would be like someone attacking the US because 'someone in the Americas' based in, say, Guatamala, attacked them.

And personally, I feel the only people ignoring facts are generally those who can't see ANYTHING but their own party loyalty. Not the overwhelming conclusion that's getting more and more apparent..which are that yes, the administration DID cook and cherry-pick the intelligence they were given to favor a pre-existing agenda. And went to war when it didn't need to, getting 2000 troops killed to establish an...islamic republic. Uh..yay?

[TheEgg]

RealGun has an interesting alternative explanation to mine -- I will think about that.


I prefer to believe in the resiliency, resourcefulness and capabilities of our people. We'll get through this spell.


I really hope that I am wrong and Old Dog's more optimistic view will prove to be true. But I doubt it.

[scottgun]

Attacking Iraq because 'a middle east group' attacked us would be like someone attacking the US because 'someone in the Americas' based in, say, Guatamala, attacked them.


It would be like attacking a ruthless dictator in Germany when we were bombed by the Japanese. :rolleyes:

The previous administration had the same intelligence information and drew the same conclusions. Prior to the war both parties saw this information and made the decision to attack Iraq. Sadam refused to allow weapon inspectors to facilities and had plenty of time to move in the lead up to war. You've got all your talking points down, but repeating them over and over doesn't make them true.

[Manedwolf]

"Darth Cheney Strikes Back!"

"American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures -- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers -- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie," Cheney said.

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.

Yeah, all that "harsh realities of combat" is stuff that ol' "Five Deferrments" Cheney would really be familiar with, right?

[Manedwolf]

You've got all your talking points down, but repeating them over and over doesn't make them true.

Ought to tell Scott McClellan that one! :D

BTW, here's an article excerpt from 2003 to reminisce about:

"Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops."

Guess Rummy never read Sun Tzu.

[scottgun]

Ought to tell Scott McClellan that one! :D

It seems like both sides have perfected this art. Too bad an "honest debate" is out of the question at this point, its all political mud slinging now, again, from both sides.

[Manedwolf]

It seems like both sides have perfected this art. Too bad an "honest debate" is out of the question at this point, its all political mud slinging now, again, from both sides.

I'll agree with that. My take on the matter is that the PNAC neocon cabal are engaged in trying to cover their own asses, the true conservatives have been silenced or sidelined, and the democrats are being spineless jellyfish about it all. Aside from a few possibly too-little-too-late bits like what Chuck Hagel just said, I'm disgusted with the lot of them.

Enough corruption. Enough politics. Enough cover-your-ass-if-you-cover-mine. Enough obfuscation. And using Veteran's Day for partisan sniping, that WAS shameful of Bush to do that. I was stunned. Anyone on either side really should see that. I recall that day being one of things like WWII warbirds flying over DC in a missing-man formation, of elderly vets in their VFW caps being simply told "Thank you" by a commander-in-chief and ceremonies at Arlington. That was just wrong. I'd say that no matter what party the president at the time was.

I think the American people, and especially the troops deserve CLEAR answers to things. Not muddled constant moving of the goalposts and fuzzy "I didn't know I knew that when I knew I didn't know what I knew." crap.

[Camp David]

I love Cheney:) , he really knows how to get the leftists(defeatists) howling at the moon!

VP Cheney seems easy to understand and clear; I believe the Democrats are being traitors and should be charged as such during wartime... such actions as they are engaging in, while we have troops in harms way, makes them guilty... it would be nice to charge a few Democrats and put them away!

[Biker]

VP Cheney seems easy to understand and clear; I believe the Democrats are being traitors and should be charged as such during wartime... such actions as they are engaging in, while we have troops in harms way, makes them guilty... it would be nice to charge a few Democrats and put them away!
Although no Democrat, I have recently left the Repulican party. My question to you is, at what point do we suspend the right to Free Speech? When do we stop asking important questions? If your post was meant in jest, sorry.
Biker

[grampster]

I have appreciated the views of Old Dog and The Egg in the past. (I would appreciate Old Dog more if he would give me the keys to the cabin in the UP,heh) What they say here is not as contradictory as it may seem. I think both viewpoints have merit. The general public has a short attention span thus both opinions are valid. We are like a flag blowing in the wind as a people. That is probably because leadership, public and private, in these days seem to not be providing leadership, only obsfuscation and demagoguery on the one hand and obfuscation and greedy manipulation on the other. I think as a people we may have become optimistic pessimists. We want things to go right, but we just can't believe it can happen; so we waffle.

I think we need to be more careful about what we believe, both on the Right and the Left. Trouble is, the media, the venue that is supposed to cut through all the BS and provide us with access to the truth, has chosen sides and all we get from them is more of the above.

[Manedwolf]

VP Cheney seems easy to understand and clear; I believe the Democrats are being traitors and should be charged as such during wartime... such actions as they are engaging in, while we have troops in harms way, makes them guilty... it would be nice to charge a few Democrats and put them away!

Dude, if that isn't meant to be humorous sarcasm, you need to start practicing stiffarm salutes and working on your singing voice for official state propaganda songs to be broadcast in the mornings. :scrutiny:

The right to dissent is one of the things all those guys in the 1770's fought for, you know? It's one of the main reasons the revolution STARTED.

[Manedwolf]

I think we need to be more careful about what we believe, both on the Right and the Left. Trouble is, the media, the venue that is supposed to cut through all the BS and provide us with access to the truth, has chosen sides and all we get from them is more of the above.

I think all we get from the corporate media now (and both Hamilton and Lincoln WARNED about corporations!)...is fluff infotainment that tips in whatever direction will get more ratings.

[ghost squire]

Oh wow. You guys are hilarious.

You cannot sit there and tell me you didn't know deep down that Saddam had chemical weapons, at the very least. He used them to kill thousands of Iranian soldiers, and his own people! Do you think he didn't hide them before we invaded?

http://www.theodora.com/maps/new8/iraq_satellite_nasa.jpg

Comeon now thats a whole hell of a lot of sand to dig through.

That said, what are you guys smoking? For you anti war people, heres a little advice: its a red damned herring!

Chew on this: If Bush did know where they were, would he say? No, think about it, its keeping millions of his opponents occupied, thinking where and not WHY. My guess is that we will suddenly discover piles of chemical and biological weapons just before his term is up, or perhaps never. Maybe when his successor takes his place.

Say he reveals where they are just this day. What would happen? Liberals would have to insert foot in mouth for a while, then what? They would stop being befuddled by the details and take a look at the big picture, start doing some credible research.

Most anti-war people are like rabid little dogs, barking this and that and taking hold and never letting go of every issue they can get a hold of. You truly aren't worthy adversaries, and I'm rather disappointed. Heres some advice that I hope will liven things up: Stop foaming at the mouth, making fools of yourselves about idiotic red herrings like Scooter Libby, sit back and smoke a cigar. Look at what is really going on, bide your time and strike when you have a overwhelming plethora of damning information.

[Camp David]

The right to dissent is one of the things all those guys in the 1770's fought for, you know? It's one of the main reasons the revolution STARTED.

Dissent is not what the Democrats are doing now; they are traitorous or treasonous to the nation while it is at war, and putting the troops at war in greater danger. The leading Democrats, guilty of treason at very least, should be arrested.

By the way, the Constitution refers to Treason this way: "Deserting your allegiance or duty to leader or cause or principle." Based on that definition and wartime powers, the President should arrest a few leading Democrats right now!

[Camp David]

at what point do we suspend the right to Free Speech?

See my post above Biker: Dissent under Free Speech is not what the Democrats are doing now; they are traitorous or treasonous to the nation while it is at war, and putting the troops at war in greater danger. The leading Democrats, guilty of treason at very least, should be arrested.

[jcoiii]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Try this one. This is the report from/by (not sure which) the Director of the CIA. I have not read nearly all of this.

This report relays the findings of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The files comprising the PDF edition of this 1,000-page report are extremely large and, in practice, available only to visitors who have a broadband connection. The HTML edition is available to all, regardless of connection speed.
Above are the first lines on the webpage.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Bush could have justified going into Iraq without having to lie, if he had simply said Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement, which clearly they were. But this wasnt good enough for him. He chose to play up the WMD angle, thinking it would get more support.


Ya know...he could ahve done that and gotten away with it in the post september 11 hysteria.

I supported the decision to go to war...nukes in NYC? VX in El Paso? Thats some scary stuff. But there hasn't been anything.

Like a kid at christmas, I wanted to see what daddy had brought home from the WMD store...but turns out the shelves were empty. Also like a kid on christmas who wanted a pony and got a pencil, I am not happy. I don't believe in santa no mo. You want my vote on something other than Osama's head on stake????

Gimme the pony.

[PaulV]

Link deleted. Information is discussed in another thread.

[Lone_Gunman]

I disagree with almost everything the Democrats do, but protesting this war is not treason in my opinion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dangerous person who does not value our way of life..

[Old Dog]

Lone Gunman said protesting this war is not treason in my opinion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dangerous person who does not value our way of life..and, I agree that protesting the war is not treason ... but -- having now been deployed over there 3 times -- I cannot abide those who protest the war, who have not been there and have no idea of what's going on over there other than what they've learned from the mainstream media or (gasp) the internet. This kind of protest is not treason, simply stupid and meaningless...

[ghost squire]

It may not be treason but it hurts America, and hurts all the people we are helping over there, and helps all our enemies.

[RealGun]

It may not be treason but it hurts America, and hurts all the people we are helping over there, and helps all our enemies.

In any case, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of Americans denouncing such a form of disunity in our wartime leadership, especially when the tone is blatantly partisan.

[Lone_Gunman]

The right to protest is not predicated on a need for any particular knowledge.

The majority of Americans have not been to Iraq, nor do they need to have been to protest. A majority are beginning to see the folly our war there.

In 30 yrs, the Iraq war will be judged to have been just as useless as Viet Nam.

[javafiend]

"Go anywhere, pay any price, to further the cause of Democracy."

Such sentiments crashed in the jungles of Southeast Asia. And I suppose you could think that US foreign policy is aimed at promoting "democracy" only if you ignore the historical record (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html). The US has violently overthrown elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Laos, Chile, and numerous other countries; armed and directed death squads; fomented unnecessary civil wars; armed and supported genocidal dictatorial regimes.

During the 1990s the US ally Turkey was waging war against its Kurdish population with the support of the US gov, and yet it was barely reported in the US media.

Right now Colombia is the worst violator of human rights in the Western Hemisphere, and it is also one of the largest recipients of US aid. Studies by Lars Schoultz and Edward Herman show that US foreign aid tends to flow to governments with the worst human rights records.

Spare me the cant about US committment to "freedom," "democracy," "human rights." :barf:

M-Rex writes regarding draft dodgers:
Don't forget ... Al Gore
Wrong. Al Gore enlisted in the US Army on Aug. 7, 1969, and carried a rifle in Vietnam.
You may sit down now, Rex.

The strategic reasons for dealing with Iraq are much more complex, no doubt some off it classified,

The strategic reasons for going to war are classified?

The 'thousands' of Iraqi civilians acted in that manner by allowing Saddam to come to and remain in power. They had the means to end the potential threat and chose not to.

What do you think of the men who helped the Saddam's Ba'ath party come to power? Former CIA officer Roger Morris said that the 1963 coup was a US gov operation. See Roger Morris. "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, 14 March 2003. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm)
What do you think of men who helped Saddam stay in power (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)? The US, UK and France all assisted Saddam's regime with credits, arms, intelligence, etc.

Junyo writes:
As for the Israel BS, guess what, the UN resolutions against Israel are a) nonbinding i.e. an entirely from the resolutions passed against Iraq, and b) have never had force authorized to enforce them

Well guess what! The US never receved UN authorization to invade and occupy Iraq.

Invaded it's neighbors unprovoked when exactly?

See Israeli invasion of Lebanon, 1982. Read Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0896086011/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance)by Noam Chomsky.

Jeff asked:
When and where did you serve?

There was no draft when I turned 18, but there was draft registration. I registered for the draft in accordance with the law. Should I have volunteered? Part of me wishes that I had just so I would have gotten greater insight and understanding of the military ethos. At the time, however, I had strong philosophical disagreements with the US gov about its involvement in the areas where we were most likely to invade (Central America).

One thing I did NOT do: advocate for war while avoiding military service myself, and therein lies the difference between Dick Cheney and me.

I suggest that when you look for referances to support your position you use sources other than left leaning news organizations.

Did you see that I specifically referenced and posted links to declassified government documents?

To be fair, I'm sure anyone who desperately wants to believe Bush lied

To claim that Bush lied one must believe that Bush had a passing familiarity with the truth. I kinda doubt that he did. He prolly believes whatever is convenient for him to believe. What do you call it when you believe your own lies? Nonetheless, I think that a culture of dishonesty pervades the White House. (What else is new?)

The simple fact that you have all those articles (written over the course of several months) at hand and ready to referance tells me you are a busy beaver

I spent a few minutes using Google.

I would hate to believe you are here at THR as a troll.

Every once in a while I write a letter a reporter or editor criticizing their coverage of Second Amendment issue. Sometimes I even post a copy of the letter here. The same people who denounce me as a "leftist" will give me high-5s for my writings on gun issues. Hey, I'm the same person, OK? When I post my thoughts at DemocraticUnderground, I've gotten denounced as a racist, a rightwinger, a heartless capitalist, blah blah blah....mirror image of what the lazy ideologues here do, except with one very big difference. The mods here at The High Road have never cancelled my account for being too strident - just locked a few threads here and there.

The L&P section of THR is infiltrated with a bunch of lying propagandists.

More ad hominem from the Bush personality cult in lieu of actual reasoned argument.

So, it would seem clear, at least to me, that the only things the opposition has to offer...

Democrats aren't much of an opposition. Ron Paul has had a truthful, principled and consistent stance over the years. I wish he were president.

It would be like attacking a ruthless dictator in Germany when we were bombed by the Japanese.

We attacked Germany after Germany declared war on us.

Prior to the war both parties saw this information and made the decision to attack Iraq.

Wrong. Bush released the parts of the National Intelligence Estimates that supported his case while he held back the parts of the NIEs that cast doubt on the parts that were released. And that's dishonest.

I believe the Democrats are being traitors and should be charged as such during wartime... such actions as they are engaging in, while we have troops in harms way, makes them guilty... it would be nice to charge a few Democrats and put them away!

We must follow our leaders blindly if we are to remain a free people! Sieg Heil!

He used them to kill thousands of Iranian soldiers, and his own people!

Yeah, that was back in the 1980s when he was still an ally of the US government. We're talking about 2001. (Here's your sign (http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/heresign.htm).)

Camp David writes:
By the way, the Constitution refers to Treason this way: "Deserting your allegiance or duty to leader or cause or principle."

Pull over, buddy, fact police. See Article II, Section 3, Clause 3. (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Further reading: The Iraq War Reader : History, Documents, Opinions (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743253477/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance). I'm about half way through this book, and it's a must-read. Chapters written by Ann Coulter, Christopher Hitchens, George H. W. Bush, Noam Chomsky, and numerous other across the spectrum.

[MrTuffPaws]

Javafiend, you are awesome. Thank you for taking the time to tell the truth to those that either don't know, or refuse it.

[Old Dog]

Thank you for taking the time to tell the truth to those that either don't know, or refuse it.
Well, Javafiend's "version" of the truth ... It's quite one thing to cut-and-paste little factoids from one's internet research, quite another thing to actually make an argument without having to resort to little swipes at other forum members such as "here's your sign," (boy, that's really the high road) and these two jewels: We must follow our leaders blindly if we are to remain a free people! Sieg Heil! and You may sit down now, Rex.
Now, what does this have to do with the war in Iraq? Right now Colombia is the worst violator of human rights in the Western Hemisphere, and it is also one of the largest recipients of US aid.Javafiend, put your statement into context. Yeah, we've given Columbia large amounts of aid, specifically for counter-narcotics. If you're gonna talk about foreign aid, better include ALL the aid the U.S. doles out, in the form of grants, loans, economic aid, food aid, Peace Corps, etc.
Al Gore enlisted in the US Army on Aug. 7, 1969, and carried a rifle in Vietnam. Too good to pass up ... yeah, Vietnam all right; where he was a non-combatant journalist who, by his own account: "Much of his time was spent writing press releases, playing basketball, hitchhiking to Saigon to visit an Army buddy and occasionally, Gore says, smoking marijuana."
To claim that Bush lied one must believe that Bush had a passing familiarity with the truth. I kinda doubt that he did. He prolly believes whatever is convenient for him to believe. What do you call it when you believe your own lies? Nonetheless, I think that a culture of dishonesty pervades the White House. (What else is new?)Well, still trying to find the "facts" in this statement ... (By the way, "prolly?" More academic slang, I gather)

[shermacman]

I have one word for the resident moonbats:

Noam Chomsky

That is not a reference any more than quoting the NYT editorial page. You are quoting propaganda in your propaganda.

[coylh]

What's a moonbat?

I don't know much about Noam Chomsky except for a vague sense that he's a cunning ling... you know... nevermind. But I did hear him give a couple lectures on the radio and he seems like a smart fellow.

[CAnnoneer]

People like Coultier and Chomski make their money and support their careers by writing what their respective readerships want to see. Thus neither are of any significant documentary value.

I trust the accounts of Clarke and O'Neil far more because
1) they were "there"
2) they are out of the game and thus have nothing further to gain/lose beyond what we do.

Both accounts produce a chilling portrait of Bush & Assorted Toadies Inc. I have yet to see any post by Bush supporters in this thread that satisfactorily explain away both accounts.

[Kim]

chromsky-------------Sorry it makes me disbelieve anything you minght say. To me he is an educated,nut professor. In real life I think he claims he is an anarchist libertarian or some such monster nonsense. Never has liked a damn thing about the USA except becoming rich(due to capitalism which he hates) writing weird left wing drible and spreading it to the gulliable.(think of an older but more educated cult figure like Michael Moore) I will give you credit for being duly indoctrinated by the finest. Chromsky????????? -----I don't know if I should scream or laugh. I would also add he is a cult leader kinda like Medina Bengiman(sp) or Larouche.:scrutiny:

[macavada]

I trust the accounts of Clarke and O'Neil far more because
1) they were "there"
2) they are out of the game and thus have nothing further to gain/lose beyond what we do.

I haven't read Clarke's book yet, but I definitely agree with your assessment of O'Neil's account. I just wish he had gone with an unknown ghost writer instead of Suskind. While the facts are all accurate, as O'Neil approved all that was printed, Suskind's background and editorial slant somewhat detract from the independence of the story. However, I don't think that in itself is enough to undermine the credibility of O'Neil's story. By the way, I like Suskind's editorial writing.

[Art Eatman]

javafiend, sorry I didn't label my mild sarcasm. :)

One problem I have with your relating of admitted facts (well, generally I'll accept your version) is that there seems to be no understanding of the WHY of actions taken by such as the CIA or other US Government entities. It's as though there were no logical reasons.

There's no context, no "people factor", which is an ongoing problem with many threads such as this one. No "big picture" understanding of the times in which the various policies were put into place that led to the actions taken.

At my age, a lot of what folks think of as "history" is merely a sequence of events during my lifetime, and I sometimes feel like Elmer Keith: "Hell, I was there." I generally see things somewhat differently, which is the curse of a halfway decent memory.

:), Art

[M-Rex]

M-Rex writes regarding draft dodgers:[

Don't forget ... Al Gore
Wrong. Al Gore enlisted in the US Army on Aug. 7, 1969, and carried a rifle in Vietnam.
You may sit down now, Rex.

You may want to check your facts, Mr. Wizard. Al Gore carried a note pad for 5 months, then received a mysterious 'early out'.

He did, in fact, enlist on August 07, 1969. Then he sat at Fort Rucker, Alabama doing who knows what until January 8, 1971, when he arrived in Vietnam to write newspaper articles. He was discharged on May 24, 1971. Granted, though...he did serve. Mea culpa.

- The Washington Times National Weekly Edition Nov. 28 - Dec. 4, 1994

So, with much respect, you may roll up your patronizing, pseudo-intellectual attitude and cram it in the posterior orafice of your choice.

[tube_ee]

I haven't read Clarke's book yet, but I definitely agree with your assessment of O'Neil's account. I just wish he had gone with an unknown ghost writer instead of Suskind. While the facts are all accurate, as O'Neil approved all that was printed, Suskind's background and editorial slant somewhat detract from the independence of the story. However, I don't think that in itself is enough to undermine the credibility of O'Neil's story. By the way, I like Suskind's editorial writing.

I just finished "Against All Enemies." It's a pretty absorbing read, except for the final chapter. That gets a little too much into the details of bureaucracy for my taste... Kind of like reading an org chart, or stereo instructions.

But his description of operations undertaken during the Clinton years against al-Queda in general and Bin Laden in particular are fascinating. The FBI, and Louis Freeh in particular, come off looking like incompentent buffoons much of the time. I also was fascinated by the idea that Clinton wanted to send spec-ops teams into the camps in Afganistan. General Shelton , JCS, shot the idea down.


"Hugh, what I think would scare the s**t out of these al Qaeda guys more than any cruise missle... would be the sight of US commandos, Niinja guys in black suits, jumping out of helicopters into their camps, spraying machine guns. Even if we don't get the big guys, it will have a good effect." Shelton looked pained. He explained that the camps were a long way from anywhere we could launch a helicopter raid. Nonetheless, America's top military officer agreed to "look into it."

--From Against All Enemies

If you want a clear, concise, non-tin-foil-hat account of the whole arc leading up to 9/11 and the war in Iraq, give it a read. Even if you agree with Bush. Even if you despise Clinton, as many here do.

Back on topic, I'll record a vote as saying that there is NO time, war or otherwise, that an American citizen's disagreement with his government is treason, or should be supressed. Ever. Under any circumstances. That way lies fascism.

--Shannon

[Cosmoline]

I have no love for GW's administration, but now that we are in we have to stay in. No choice. The enemy is killing people in order to cause discontent and to the extent people call for a pullout, they are doing exactly what the enemy wants. The politicos who now oppose the war had their chance to stop it before it started, but instead they acted like lemmings and gave a nearly unanimous thumbs up. Too late now.

[tube_ee]

As to whether we must stay, now that we're there... I'm not sure I buy that argument.

If the predictable results of staying are worse than the predictable results of leaving, you leave. Pretty simple.

If it's the other way 'round, you stay. Also pretty simple.

Where it gets sticky is if the results of leaving and of staying are equally bad, but different in detail. What do you do then?

A working definition of "victory" in this war would be nice, too.

Is an elected Iraqi government victory? What about the form of that government, and what about it's policies?

If there is a freely elected, Shia-dominated, anti-American, pro-Iranian Sharia theocracy, is that victory? I don't think so, not from our perspective at least.

Its clear that the pre-war fantasies of the Project for the New American Century are never going to happen. Anybody care to lay odds on an Iraqi-exile dominated government that is pro-American, grants us permanent land bases, pulls Iraq out of OPEC, and signs exclusive oil deals with us? So if that is still the definition of victory, we've already lost.

What about three independent states, divided up by an ethnic / religious war? This is one of the most frequent arguments for our staying in. I figure, if there's gonna be a civil war, and it's not unlikely, given the history of the place, there's gonna be one. I, for one, don't care to see my brothers and sisters who still wear the uniform caught in the middle of it.

It's all water over the dam now, because we're there until 2009 at the least, but its looking more and more like we should have "declared victory and gone home" after the capture of Saddam and the final reports of the ISG. "We did what we came to do, and now it's on your shoulders, Iraq. Whatever government you come up with, you can come to us and ask for help rebuilding your country, and we'll give it." That wouldn't have been "cut and run," and we could have gotten the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc. in on the deal.

I fear that it may be too late for such a solution now.

--Shannon

[BigG]

To my knowledge the interests of the USA on an international level has never been human rights or democracy for all. Those are cunning little bits of disinformation released to mislead the gullible. Anybody who seriously believes (apparently quite a few) those are core values of our foreign policy probably still believes in the tooth fairy.

[rock jock]

In 30 yrs, the Iraq war will be judged to have been just as useless as Viet Nam.
How do you know Vietnam was useless? Unless you can go back in time and evaluate all the permutations of of the possible outcomes from our involvement/non-involvement, you really have no idea. Iraq makes that case even more so. You cannot possibly predict what would events have happened in the Middle East and what effect those events would have had on the world if we had not taken out Saddam.

[NorthernExtreme]

Support: 2+2=4
Anti: 2+2=5
Support: No it does not = 5, it =4
Anti: It does not=4 or 5, it =3.76
Support: No it doesn't = 3.76 either, it =4
Anti: If it doesn't = 3.76 it must equil 946,765.346.32
Support: 2+2 has always = 4, always has, always will.
Anti: I'm tired if you narrow minded jerks telling me what to think. I said it's 17.



I give up!! I guess if a person is so JADED against anything that isn't a DEM position (at the time) there is simply no helping them. I guess we'll just have to wait till the DEM position turns around to support action in Iraq (again). Then we can argue when it turns against it (again).

Regards,

[Art Eatman]

tube_ee, a working definition of victory is a lead-pipe cinch: An Iraq which doesn't need our troops to deal with those called "insurgents". That is, a viable police infrastructure. And, enough of a military to discourage "adventurism" by the Iranis.

The results of our levaing before such a system is in place have been discussed at length: Briefly, it would encourage such as Al Qaida in the belief that we have no will for staying any course. It would be the same sort of psychological boost as bin Laden publicly stated resulted from our "running away" from Mogadishu. It would put us back into the view, "Paper Tiger", throughout the middle east--with all the bad results therefrom.

Art

[Cosmoline]

If we leave the terrorists win and we lose. Period. Advocating a pullout is advocating support for the terrorist's primary goal. The more antiwar sentiment comes out at home, the more the terrorists will try to kill people. The war was never about forcing our troops out through combat. They know they don't have a chance of that. Their attacks are all about swaying public opinion. They firmly believe that if the US bleeds enough we will run like cowards. AQ has been yapping along those lines since we left Somalia. They were right about the Euroclowns. Are they right about us?

[Biker]

I believe that we should never have invaded to begin with, but now that we're there, I can't ever see us leaving-at least not for a couple of decades. The Iraqis will not be able to stand on their own for at least that long.
Biker

[tube_ee]

tube_ee, a working definition of victory is a lead-pipe cinch: An Iraq which doesn't need our troops to deal with those called "insurgents". That is, a viable police infrastructure. And, enough of a military to discourage "adventurism" by the Iranis.

Art

If that's your definition, then the next question becomes, what is the best way to achieve it?

First, the insurgents / guerillas / partisans / term-du-jour:

1. To the extent that the insurgency is an Iraqi nationalist phenomenon, it is about getting rid of a foreign occupying army. Staying put isn't going to help get rid of those people, and will tend to bring more of them into the fight. Whether it's "for their own good" or not, some are going to fight against foreign troops on Iraqi soil. Such movements have proven notoriously difficult for the occupying power to defeat. So what do we do? Staying in seems more like a merry-go-round to me. We kill a few, a few more come out, repeat forever. It's happened before, it can happen to us.

2. There is a component of the insurgency that is using the general geurilla war to pursue factional ends. Those groups, and the conflicts they arise from, are going to be there regardless of the presence of US troops. This one's a wash, as far as US presence is concerned.

3. There's the "foreign fighters" component. These guys will probably engage America in some theater of another, no matter what we do, so I guess Iraq works as well as anywhere else, for them. For us, well, it's good to kill those guys, but it may not make as much sense if it keeps our guys in the crosshairs of groups 1 and 2.

Iraq / Iran relationships: If Iraq holds together as a single state, it's government and foreign policy will be dominated by Shia muslim parties that have already shown themselves to be quite pro-Iranian. The Kurds won't care much, as long as they get to keep their "Kurdistan" and their oil fields. They'll cut a deal.

If it splits up, the Shia South will go towards Iran even more quickly than the whole state would. So Iran gets something out of this, no matter which way it goes.

Just because Iraq gets a freely-elected, strongly armed government (if it does) doesn't automatically mean that's a good thing from our perspective. If that government becomes a pro-Iranian Sharia theocracy, will it have been worth the cost in American blood and treasure? I'm elvaluating this solely on the basis of US interests (as I see them), and I'd have to say "no." I'm not saying that's what will happen, but you'll have to admit, it's not that unlikely.

--Shannon

[RealGun]

So, all we are interested in is watching the shock and awe show. Heaven forbid that troops on the ground would be needed. It's amazing that people would expect the current operation to be the quick in and out of Desert Storm.

The current fuss about Congressman Murtha's immediate pullout proposal is really the press making more out of it than it is. I won't have to point out that the press and the Dems are in lockstep, sniffing for any blood in the water. This fuss and its ridiculous concept could serve the purpose of causing people to confront what would realy happen if we left now and what that would mean. To me, it means Osama wins and terrorism works.

[MrTuffPaws]

How do you know Vietnam was useless? Unless you can go back in time and evaluate all the permutations of of the possible outcomes from our involvement/non-involvement, you really have no idea. Iraq makes that case even more so. You cannot possibly predict what would events have happened in the Middle East and what effect those events would have had on the world if we had not taken out Saddam.


Is that your argument?

[Ezekiel]

To me, it means Osama wins and terrorism works.

Is Osama in Iraq? :banghead:

I know, I used this in another thread, but I still like it.

Invading Iraq is like invading my brother's house, after I bloody your nose, on the theory that I "may have some clothes there."

Or, another metaphor:

We've just purchased (invaded?) a drug house down the street because we fear dealers in the neighborhood and it is harming our property value. After owning it for a few months, we find that it is both a money pit and is not positively effecting our status in the community or increasing our safety. (It seems the ringleader spends time at a different house next door.) Do we keep throwing $$$ at it?

To be brutally honest, I could EASILY be wrong here and history could make me look the fool: fine. But a sitting Vice President attempting to quash critics by calling them "dishonest" and "reprehensible" is bunk. Until Darth Cheney removes articles of the Constitution, he hasn't a leg to stand on.

[Old Dog]

Or, another metaphor:Um, wouldn't that be an analogy?
Anyway, you can hardly compare a war to a house ... The nature of much of the criticism of the war is dishonest and reprehensible, since the critics are now engaging in quite of bit of revisionist history and have decided to criticize some of the very facts and processes that previously led those same critics into initially supporting the invasion of Iraq ... They don't possess any more information now than they did before, save that no actual WMDs have actually been discovered (although a plethora of evidence revealing the prior existence of Saddam's active WMD program and Iraq's strenuous efforts to get rid of the WMDs prior to the invasion).

[Ezekiel]

Um, wouldn't that be an analogy?
Anyway, you can hardly compare a war to a house ... The nature of much of the criticism of the war is dishonest and reprehensible, since the critics are now engaging in quite of bit of revisionist history and have decided to criticize some of the very facts and processes that previously led those same critics into initially supporting the invasion of Iraq ... They don't possess any more information now than they did before, save that no actual WMDs have actually been discovered (although a plethora of evidence revealing the prior existence of Saddam's active WMD program and Iraq's strenuous efforts to get rid of the WMDs prior to the invasion).

"Could be."

I conceed viable points and look forward to further debate.

Um, do you trust the previous "facts" and "processes"? That's pretty key...

[Old Dog]

do you trust the previous "facts" and "processes"? That's pretty key...As it happens, yeah, for the most part ... And since I've done my time over there, I'm more convinced than ever that we should stay the course.

[javafiend]

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell

People like Coultier and Chomski make their money and support their careers by writing what their respective readerships want to see.

This form of argument is called Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html).

I have read their books and exchanged letters with both Coulter and Chomsky. I think that they are both sincere.

coylh wrote:
I don't know much about Noam Chomsky ...

You can always read his books. A good place to start is Rogue States : The Rule of Force in World Affairs (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0896086119/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

kim wrote:
chromsky-------------Sorry it makes me disbelieve anything ...spreading it to the gulliable.

More ad hominem from the girl without a spell-check. Admit it, kim, you haven't ever read one of his books, have you? You think that the shadows on the wall of your cave (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm) are reality, and anyone who promises to bring you outside into the light of day is a "leftist" who "hates America."

Art wrote:
javafiend, sorry I didn't label my mild sarcasm.

Ya got me. :p Sometimes I can't tell who is being ridiculous on purpose around here.

Art wrote:
One problem I have with your relating of admitted facts (well, generally I'll accept your version) is that there seems to be no understanding of the WHY of actions taken by such as the CIA or other US Government entities. It's as though there were no logical reasons.

Fair enough. Each one of those covert actions is so complex that you could write a dissertation on it. Each one of them is the subject of a book, or several books. I can provide book titles to assist in your exploration.
The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565849361/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance)by Peter Kornbluh.
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471265179/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by Stepehn Kinzer.
Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, Revised and Expanded (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067401930X/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by Stephen Schlesinger.
The CIA in Guatemala :The Foreign Policy of Intervention (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0292710836/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by Richard Zimmerman.
Contra Terror in Nicaragua : Report of a Fact-finding Mission: September 1984-January 1985 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0896083128/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by Reed Brody.
Washington's War on Nicaragua (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0896082954/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by Holly Sklar.
American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in Guatemala (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0862322596/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) and
American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0862322405/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) both by Michael McClintock.
In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735100128/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by John Stockwell. Veteran of three wars, Stockwell sat on a subcommittee of the National Security Council where he interacted with Kissinger and George W. H. Bush and directed the CIA's "secret war" in Angola in 1975.
Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403963681/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by James Bovard.
The Bush Betrayal (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140396727X/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by James Bovard.
The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0896080900/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance) by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

At my age, a lot of what folks think of as "history" is merely a sequence of events during my lifetime, and I sometimes feel like Elmer Keith: "Hell, I was there."

Unfortunately we must often wait years or decades for the principles to write thier memoirs, for government documents to be declassified, etc., before we really find out the truth.

M-Rex wrote:
So, with much respect, you may roll up your patronizing, pseudo-intellectual attitude and cram it in the posterior orafice of your choice.

Yeah, I'm a bad boy, aren't I? You falsely wrote that Gore dodged the draft, and I busted yoru chops on it.

The Iraqis will not be able to stand on their own for at least that long.

So American troops should have to fight and die for a "democracy" that the Iraqis are unwilling to fight and die for? I don't buy it.

tube_ee wrote:
The FBI, and Louis Freeh in particular, come off looking like incompentent buffoons much of the time.

Have you read Freeh's latest biography? I hear he is very critical of the Clinton team. I'll read it over the holidays.

rock jock wrote:
How do you know Vietnam was useless?

Two to three dead Vietnamese, a country devastated by war, our unexploded ordnance continues to main and kill Vietnamese.
58195 names on The Wall (http://thewall-usa.com/) in Washington, D.C.
They lied us into the Vietnam War (Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers). News flash: our leaders routinely lie to us.

RealGun wrote:
I won't have to point out that the press and the Dems are in lockstep,

Really? How many daily newspapers have editorialized in favor of Murtha's position, i.e., immediate US pullout?

Whenever I hear Bush say that we must "stay the course," I think it basically means this: the beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Ezekiel]

As it happens, yeah, for the most part ... And since I've done my time over there, I'm more convinced than ever that we should stay the course.

But are you convinced we should be there to begin with? I have yet to see how this effects Osama. :confused:

That was our reasoning, right? Post 9-11?

[rock jock]

Is that your argument?
My argument is that one cannot state definitively that the Iraq war has been a waste unless you can possibly predict what would have happened otherwise.

[Old Dog]

So American troops should have to fight and die for a "democracy" that the Iraqis are unwilling to fight and die for?I know you've been busy researching the CIA's involvement in every coup in every third world country over the past 50 years, Javafiend, but you may have missed the fact that there are a lot more Iraqis - who are fighting with us - than Americans dying over there ...

You think that the shadows on the wall of your cave are reality, Ah, there you go again ... First it was telling one poster he needed his sign ... interesting how you use allegory to try and tell people you think they're stupid ... Is that truly taking the high road?

Whenever I hear Bush say that we must "stay the course," I think it basically means this: the beatings will continue until morale improves.And whenever I hear people saying things like that, I think it basically means that (1) they have no real argument, thus they think that a cute, pithy observation will make them sound as though they truly understand things; (2) they need to take more of a long-term view at world history (at least some events prior to CIA involvement in Latin American and Iran in the '60s) and finally, (3) they need to take a more pragmatic view of world events and foreign policy matters ...

[Warbow]

But a sitting Vice President attempting to quash critics by calling them "dishonest" and "reprehensible" is bunk. Until Darth Cheney removes articles of the Constitution, he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Did you actually read the article you posted or just the headline? He was referring specifically to the public figures who have claimed (e.g. Harry Reid) Cheney and others manipulated information before the war.

You would have a point if Cheney said, "Anyone who criticizes the war is dishonest and reprehensible." But he did not say that -- not even close.

[javafiend]

but you may have missed the fact that there are a lot more Iraqis - who are fighting with us - than Americans dying over there ...

Let them fight while we withdraw.

Ah, there you go again ... First it was telling one poster he needed his sign ... interesting how you use allegory to try and tell people you think they're stupid ... Is that truly taking the high road?

I have a pet peeve: willfully ignorant people who make it up as they go along. So many of them around here do exactly that, so I shoot them down (which is what they deserve).

they need to take a more pragmatic view of world events and foreign policy matters ...

Whatever that means.....

See The Man Who Sold the War (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1132269570292&has-player=true)
Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war
By JAMES BAMFORD

As the war in Iraq has spiraled out of control, the Bush administration's covert propaganda campaign has intensified. According to a secret Pentagon report personally approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003 and obtained by Rolling Stone, the Strategic Command is authorized to engage in "military deception" -- defined as "presenting false information, images or statements." The seventy-four-page document, titled "Information Operations Roadmap," also calls for psychological operations to be launched over radio, television, cell phones and "emerging technologies" such as the Internet. In addition to being classified secret, the road map is also stamped noforn, meaning it cannot be shared even with our allies.

The fedgov routinely lies to the American people inorder to manipulate opinion behind the war.

[RealGun]

To me, it means Osama wins and terrorism works.

Is Osama in Iraq? :banghead:

I was referring to the general effect of 9/11, putting this country in a reactive tailspin. Osama is not in Iraq because we would find him. He is in Pakistan where soldiers are unwelcome.

[Old Dog]

Quote:
they need to take a more pragmatic view of world events and foreign policy matters ...

Whatever that means.....Well, you seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that any form of government will consistently engage in behaviors it sees as in its own best interests. Clearly, not a fan of Machiavelli... But further, you seem determined to prove that the Bush administration is engaged in a systematic pattern of deception with regard to the information it provides the American people, a theory you attempt to prove based on your body of "evidence" which consists solely of links to numerous past publications by any number of persons who not only, in many instances, have been discredited in other arenas, but were not always in the best possible position to uncover the real facts behind events.

Whether or not this administration manipulated intelligence information cannot be proved by the "facts" that previous administrations conducted devious foreign policy actions, extra-legal activity or engaged in willful deception and cover-ups ...

I have a pet peeve: willfully ignorant people who make it up as they go along. So many of them around here do exactly that, so I shoot them down (which is what they deserve). Yet, if that is actually the case, you are simply lowering yourself to a level not conducive to true intellectual debate. Ridicule and sarcasm are not always the best tools to get one's point across, particularly if those you're pontificating to are already not inclined to see your position.

According to a secret Pentagon report personally approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003 and obtained by Rolling Stone, the Strategic Command is authorized to engage in "military deception" -- defined as "presenting false information, images or statements." I suppose that with all the other upstanding media sources oft quoted in this forum, Rolling Stone Magazine displays as much intellect and integrity as any other publication ...

The seventy-four-page document, titled "Information Operations Roadmap," also calls for psychological operations to be launched over radio, television, cell phones and "emerging technologies" such as the Internet. In addition to being classified secret, the road map is also stamped noforn, meaning it cannot be shared even with our allies.Heavens to Betsy! I'm shocked that our government would do such a thing ...

[Art Eatman]

javafiend, do those references point out that the Cold War was the direct cause of almost all of the CIA activities? That we'd jump in bed with anybody who claimed to be anti-communist, during all those years when we were indeed at high risk of losing that war? A time when in the Caribbean area and nearby that Castro with Russian (USSR, same thing from a Big Boss standpoint) support was creating "peoples' revolutions"?

When a powerful nation is seriously threatened by a dangerous and avowed enemy, gentlemanly behavior goes out with the trash.

China and Russia, working through numerous intermediaries, were doing their utmost to nail us to the cross--which is a miserable way to spend Easter. From a strategic standpoint, we were beaucoup better off with a Shah or a Pinochet than a Mossadegh or an Allende. The CIA bought us badly needed time in critical areas.

There's only first place in a race. Everybody else is a loser. When it's to the death, Bill Jordan was right.

Art

[javafiend]

Well, you seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that any form of government will consistently engage in behaviors it sees as in its own best interests.

A tired rationalization for an evil policy. I ain't buying it.

javafiend, do those references point out that the Cold War was the direct cause of almost all of the CIA activities?

Cold War rationalizations are examined in many of those works. Read Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393309649/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) by Walter LaFeber. Even before the Cold War, the US was executing an imperialist foreign policy in Central America, although using slightly different rhetoric. Even when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, we continued at it - using different rationales.

The CIA was often directed against countries that had *no* connection to the Soviet Union.

20 years ago John Stockwell told me that if the Soviet Union vanished from the map, the US would create quickly invent new enemies to rationalize its foreign policy. Thus he named his book In Search of Enemies. I found it a strange thing to say at the time, but sure enough, the USSR vanished, and yet the same dynamics are at work in US foreign policy. Read his book (he didn't submit it to the CIA for prepublication censorship), and decide. Hell, John lives in Austin, Texas. Call him up and talk to him. If you are polite, he will undoubtedly talk to you. He saw combat in the Congo, Vietnam, and Angola, and has read more on the subject than anyone I know. Ask him about how he sued to write up propaganda for the State Department officials to read. They'd write up three different versions of of a press release, send them over the State Department public spokesman, and tell them "call us before you give you press conference, as the situation on the ground is changing rapidly, and we will tell you which version to go with." And you know what? All three versions would be complete lies. The State Department officials would hold rpess conferences, read CIA-prepared press releases, and the Washington press corps would copy down the statements, write their stories, and publish the "news" the next day. And it was all utter CIA BS. You see, the press corps tend to function as mere stenographers to power.

When a powerful nation is seriously threatened by a dangerous and avowed enemy,

How were we threatened by the revolution in, say, Angola? Not at all. There were three competing tribes jockeying for power - all of which had spouted quasi-Marxist rhetoric at one point or another, all of which had received aid from the Soviets or the Chinese at one point or another (as well as from half a dozen European countries). There was no threat to US national security. The US went into Angola looking for an enemy, and decided out of the blue that the MPLA would be the enemy.

From a strategic standpoint, we were beaucoup better off with a Shah or a Pinochet than a Mossadegh or an Allende. The CIA bought us badly needed time in critical areas.

Art, you've always debated me politely, so forgive me if I come off too strong and overbearing, but you are flat wrong here. I'm not going to sugar coat it for you. The fact is that neither Mossadegh nor Allende were threats to the security of the United States. Neither of them was aligned with the Soviet Union; neither of them had invited the Russians to establish bases inside their countries. Neither of them had carried out *any* acts of war against the US. The CIA didn't buy us "badly needed time." That's bunk. The CIA - operating 100% in accord with the orders of the president and NSC - toppled democratic governments who refused to kowtow to Washington, D.C.

Ever read histories of the Soviet invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia? Filled with the same kind of BS Cold War rationalizations about the need to "defend" Hungary and Cz. from Western imperialist machinations yadda yadda yadda. Utter crap.

In both cases Iran in '53 and Chile in '73, the president of the US and his advisors decided in secret to wage illegal wars against constitutionally-elected government of countries just because they didn't like those governments, and offered rationalizations wrapped up in Cold War language of "defense of democracy." Defending democracy by overthrowing it? Protecting human rights by installing dictatorships that routinely violate human rights? Standing up for freedom by supporting police states?

Listen, we did the right thing in standing up to Moscow over Berlin. We drew a line at Checkpoint Charlie, we let the Russians know that we were dedicated to the defense of Western Europe, and we kept the peace in Europe. OK, all well and good. But then they wanted to use all that "defense of the West" language as an excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of little countries.

In Iran, we toppled an elected government and 26 years later we eventually ended up with a hostile theocracy that still governs the country.

In Chile, we snuffed out a proud tradition of constitutional rule, and replaced it with a dictatorship. Kornbluh cites a classified study of Chile by the Pentagon undertaken in 1970 to examine the impact on US national security of an electoral victory by Allende's Unidad Popular coalition in Chile. The impact? Zero. Wouldn't make a lick of difference. Read his book, decide for yourself.

Last night I was watching some travel show on PBS. At oen point the host was visiting some memorial to Mao Tse Tung, and talked with some Young Pioneers (young communists) engaged in some kind of loyalty-to-the-state ceremony. He started talking to a few, and one of them asked him his opinion of Mao. I immediately imagined myself there, biting my tongue. Do I answer honestly - that Mao was a criminal responsible for the deaths of millions - and risk offending my guests or worse? Or do I just shrug? Or do I just say something like, "I hear that Mao was a great leader" and leave it at that? It occured to me that if I were to speak the unvarnished truth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679764437/102-6284006-6468154?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) - that Mao was a mass murderer - that probably that crowd of Young Pioneers would accuse me of "hating China" just as American nationalists here do whenever I discuss unpleasant truths about the real history of the fedgov's foreign policy. For me, this isn't just an academic question. I am planning a trip to the Far East, and will visit China and Vietnam along the way.

If people want to honestly and intelligently discuss these issues, then we can have an elevated examination of these issues.
If they just want to throw mud at me, question my patriotism, resort to ad hominem, and make up one lie after another, then I will shoot them down.

What does any of this have to do with Legal and Political on a gun forum? It fits in because it's all about the legitimate uses of violence. Besides, the average High Roader, I think, is more educated than the average person, thus the discussion is bound to be more interesting.

[CAnnoneer]

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell

War is an ugly dirty business. Welcome to reality.

This form of argument is called Circumstantial Ad Hominem

It is circumstantial ad hominem according to the very site you quoted only if I had said they are therefore wrong. All I wrote was that they are certainly heavily incentivised to say what they do to the people that buy their books, in a form of self-selection. The approach is another example of "follow the money". Goes to bias. Thus the two cannot be used as reliable sources. You are too sly for your own good, javafiend.


More ad hominem from the girl without a spell-check. Admit it, kim, you haven't ever read one of his books, have you? You think that the shadows on the wall of your cave (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm) are reality, and anyone who promises to bring you outside into the light of day is a "leftist" who "hates America."

And that is not ad hominem? I wonder what Dr Freud would say about a guy who picks on a girl's spelling skills.

[javafiend]

It is circumstantial ad hominem according to the very site you quoted only if I had said they are therefore wrong.

It was implied in your argument.

And that is not ad hominem?

No, it wasn't. Ad hominem would be "Kim, you illiterate slut!"

I hope that this clarifies.:neener:

[coylh]

Why are Bush and Cheney spending time defending themselves these days? Bush went out of his way to ignore large and wide-spread protest of the war before it started. Why the televised huff and puff recently?

[RealGun]

Why are Bush and Cheney spending time defending themselves these days? Bush went out of his way to ignore large and wide-spread protest of the war before it started. Why the televised huff and puff recently?

Because the inclination to shoot back in the aftermath of 9/11 has worn off and can no longer be used to sustain the effort. They are left only with referring to the real reasons for being in Iraq, which were not fully disclosed and discussed in the beginning. What people fail to distinguish is that we belong in Iraq but they are entitled to be pissed about the misrpresentation of the reasons for going. I don't buy the lie part, but I do think there was some deceptive salesmanship.

The problem is that you can't conduct a war using the voters, actually the press, as a management committee. You can't even do it if confined to a single presidential administration. Few are qualified to decide what is best for this country. Few can handle the truth it would seem. There is a fine line between democracy and suicide.

[CAnnoneer]

Few are qualified to decide what is best for this country. Few can handle the truth it would seem. There is a fine line between democracy and suicide.

You cannot baby the public indefinitely. Moreover, the more you baby them, the less they can take. That of course is used as a justification to baby them even more. It is a typical socialist down-spiral.

Besides, I am not convinced those in power can handle the truth either. Neither Boxer nor Bush strike me as truth-handlers. I question their truth-handling capabilities. The ostrich syndrome seems quite wide-spread at high places.

[javafiend]

Why are Bush and Cheney spending time defending themselves these days? Bush went out of his way to ignore large and wide-spread protest of the war before it started. Why the televised huff and puff recently?

Because public opinion has turned against the war.
Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html)
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post
June 8, 2005

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

Historically, once public opinion turns against a war, it never comes back.

http://www.pipa.org/
Seventy-four percent (including 60% of Republicans) said that the goal of overthrowing Iraq’s authoritarian government and establishing a democracy was not a good enough reason to go to war.

Latest opinions polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) show Dubya's approval ratings at 39%, with 59% disapproving.

They are worried.

[Old Dog]

Ah, Javafiend ... resorting now to the woefully inaccurate comparison of the War in Iraq with Vietnam?

While it could be an obvious comparison given a situation with our modern military fighting against a shadowy foe prone to using unconventional methods of warfare ... let's make no mistake: Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

In Vietnam, we were essentially fighting a surrogate "Cold War" against a bunch of national "liberationists" who were backed by Marxist nations (nuclear nations, to boot). We stocked our military with draftees, most of whom went against their will to SE Asia. We're in Iraq with a professional and all-volunteer military -- most of whom are where they chose to be.

In Irag, we are fighting against extremists with a centuries-old jihadist agenda; enemies who display the utmost in religious intolerance, subjogate their female populace and rule by fear and torture ...

We saw what happened in Vietnam with a premature departure. In Iraq, we do have an exit strategy, and are attempting to build a democratic nation, much as we did in post-WWII Germany and Japan and post-Korean war South Korea.

In Vietnam, we'd not been hit at home, nor were we taking the war to the enemy. In Iraq, we are leading the global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

Quote:
Seventy-four percent (including 60% of Republicans) said that the goal of overthrowing Iraq’s authoritarian government and establishing a democracy was not a good enough reason to go to war.
A sad commentary on the general lack of understanding of global affairs on the part of that 74% surveyed ... Apparently, they feel comfortable leaving the Middle East in the hands of the Islamic theocracies and fascist autocracies ...

[SIGarmed]

I agree that Israel is not a threat from that point of view. But, I still eye with great displeasure the billions we the taxpayers have been giving them every year for no apparent practical reason. I have yet to hear anybody among the mainstream politicians stand up and ask the simple question: "Are we getting our money's worth in supporting Israel?"

What I see is all sorts of US political fundraising organizations whose only purpose is to buy politicians and exert pressure on the government for the sole purpose of furthering Israel's interests regardless of their alignment with the US interests. They are so brazen and idiotic so as to televize their conventions and virtually spell it out. Methinks these lobbyists should be asked if they are first American and then ethnic, or the other way around. In the latter case, the honorable thing for them to do is surrender their US citizenship and assume Israeli one. Same goes for those who secretly keep their Israeli one while becoming US citizens, although the US naturalization laws specifically prohibit double citizenship (along with hereditary titles etc.).

I'd rather see the 3 billion per year returned to the taxpayers. Okay, I am dreaming - we know govt hates giving money back. So, let them just spend it on something prudent, e.g. finding cure for diseases or developing energy independence technologies.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Before somebody shrieks "You dirty, closet anti-semite!", I should mention that two thirds of my best friends are Jews and proudly so.

Why don't you realize that Israel is the only westernized democratic style government in the region? It's pretty simple. We have no better ally in the region and it is in the best interest of the United States. We face the same enemies and both our countries have strong ties.

[SIGarmed]

Cheney's telling it like it is. Those same Democrats are on record making public statements that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological WMD and supporting military intervention and regime change. They, and their supporters, are most assuredly lying and dishonest hypocrites of the worst order. Anybody who buys into this particular criticism of the Bush administration is ignorant, completely untrustworthy and deserving of utter contempt.

I won't even try to add to that because you put it so well. The leftists love to cling to their defeatism strategy. All while the terrorists in Iraq are soundly getting their butts kicked, and never mind that there has been some real progress in the Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign. There is no other way to explain that.

You'll never hear that point brought up by these defeatists because that would be contrary to their intentions of spreading their anti-Bush at all cost propoganda.

They're really going out of their way to earn contempt.

[CAnnoneer]

Why don't you realize that Israel is the only westernized democratic style government in the region?

Democratic? Hmmm. What about the arabs that live and work in Israel? Do they have voting rights too? AFAIK Israel is about as close to a western democracy as is Russia, albeit in different ways.


We have no better ally in the region and it is in the best interest of the United States. We face the same enemies and both our countries have strong ties.

Except we got these enemies primarily because we have been supporting Israel against the arabs. And exactly why do we have or need these "strong ties"? I feel compelled to restate my original question: "Are we getting our money's worth in supporting Israel?"

[RealGun]

Historically, once public opinion turns against a war, it never comes back.

Public opinion is whatever the press promotes. The press even controls what threads are started here. You watch...the daily headlines are brought here regularly and haven't the remotest connection with the 2nd Amendment and self defense. Of course the motive could be that it stimulates more Bush bashing. The liberals couldn't plan it any better.

[SIGarmed]

Democratic? Hmmm. What about the arabs that live and work in Israel? Do they have voting rights too? AFAIK Israel is about as close to a western democracy as is Russia, albeit in different ways.



Except we got these enemies primarily because we have been supporting Israel against the arabs. And exactly why do we have or need these "strong ties"? I feel compelled to restate my original question: "Are we getting our money's worth in supporting Israel?"

If you can't see it I sure can't help you.

[shootinstudent]

If you can't see it I sure can't help you.

I'd like to see it too.

CAnnoneer's point is a good microcosm of the Administration's position on the war...any criticism is unamerican and the best response you get out of them is "HOW COULD YOU POLITICIZE THIS?"

I find many of the responses to questions about the US policy towards Israel to be similar.

[SIGarmed]

I'd like to see it too.

CAnnoneer's point is a good microcosm of the Administration's position on the war...any criticism is unamerican and the best response you get out of them is "HOW COULD YOU POLITICIZE THIS?"

I find many of the responses to questions about the US policy towards Israel to be similar.

Decades of propoganda makes a world of difference. The indoctrinators in our education system have done a good job at altering reality. The combined arms media campaign does indeed work. Some people here are proof.

[shootinstudent]

Decades of propoganda makes a world of difference. The indoctrinators in our education system have done a good job at altering reality. The combined arms media campaign does indeed work. Some people here are proof.

??? Okay...could you tie that to the issue at hand for me?

I have witnessed no combined media campaign against Israel in the US...I have seen it against the war, and in both cases, regardless, there seems to be an attitude of "how could you!?" when questions are asked. I think it's always better to have a position articulated so we can debate it instead, don't you?

[javafiend]

OldDog wrote:
Ah, Javafiend ... resorting now to the woefully inaccurate comparison of the War in Iraq with Vietnam?

Actually the word "Vietnam" did not even appear in my post, i.e., you make it up as you go along. You brought up the comparison, not I.

Iraqi forces desert posts as insurgent attacks are stepped up (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/25/ixnewstop.html)
By Oliver Poole in Baghdad
(Filed: 25/04/2005)

Iraqi army and police units are deserting their posts after the recent escalation in insurgent attacks, according to reports from around the country yesterday.

Officers Worry Iraqi Army Will Disintegrate After U.S. Draws Down (http://www.d-n-i.net/grossman/iraqi_army_will_disintegrate.htm)
A growing number of U.S. military officers in Iraq and those who have returned from the region are voicing concern that the nascent Iraqi army will fall apart if American forces are drawn down in the foreseeable future, Inside the Pentagon has learned. Newly trained forces generally exhibit “a lack of willingness to fight for something,” says retired Army Col. Gerry Schumacher, a former Green Beret who was recently in Iraq. More than two years of insurgent violence and a U.S.-led occupation have left Iraqi troops with “a lack of a cause to believe in,” says Schumacher, who anticipates a civil war may break out between tribal and ethnic groups when American forces leave.

Rumsfeld Warns Pullout Dangerous (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/20/politics/main1060330.shtml)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2005
In September, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told senators that only one Iraqi army battalion appeared capable of fighting without U.S. help.

Only ONE Iraqi army battalion out of 113 paid-up Iraqi battalions after two years of US recruitment and training can fight without their US scout masters? Laughable.

Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalition continues to make progress in training Iraqi security forces, which he placed at 212,000.

"Making progress." lol.....

He said criticism of the Iraqis will hurt their morale.

Aawww....criticism might hurt their feelings.....poor little things....

See also thisamericanlife.com. This week the program is about soldiers blogging from Iraq. Did you know that soldiers are instructed by military public affairs officer to lie about the military readiness and performance of the Iraqi army?

See Why Iraq Has No Army (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200512/iraq-army) by by James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly,Dec.2005.

The Iraqi army lacks the courage and motivation to mix it up with the insurgents.

Why should US soldiers risk life and limb fighting for an Iraqi government for which our local "allies" themselves are unwilling to give 100%?

Since you brought up the reference to Vietnam, compare the Iraqi army's cowardice with that of the ARVN. Have you read A Bright Shining Lie : John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679724141/102-4812927-6205710?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance)?

[Old Dog]

Javafiend, you said Actually the word "Vietnam" did not even appear in my post, i.e., you make it up as you go along. You brought up the comparison, not I. Ah, no, I did not. From your previous post we have:Quote:
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States. I wouldn't make this up ... perhaps I simply read your posts a bit more carefully than you read others' ...

In any event, you are doing quite well in bolstering the case for the U.S. to remain in Iraq longer (I assume you actually read completely all the material you provided links to?) ...

[Sergeant Bob]

If you take the "dishonest and reprehensible", in the context in which he actually said it, instead of out of context and trying to cloud the issue with a bunch of rhetoric which has nothing to do with what he said, he is correct.

[DRZinn]

What about the arabs that live and work in Israel? Do they have voting rights too?Well, yes.

But to get partway back from our thread drift... the Bush Administration was sneaky enough to manufacture intelligence and convince pretty much THE WHOLE WORLD of its veracity, but not smart enough to plant WMD in Iraq to vindicate that intelligence?

Get real.

[RealGun]

Well, yes.

But to get partway back from our thread drift... the Bush Administration was sneaky enough to manufacture intelligence and convince pretty much THE WHOLE WORLD of its veracity, but not smart enough to plant WMD in Iraq to vindicate that intelligence?

Get real.

That's a conspiracy theory, not fact. Repeat it often enough, and people will either be confused or favor their bias.

[javafiend]

Alas, OldDog, you got me, I must plead guilty. While I myself didn't mention Vietnam, the poll I cited did, and thus my earlier statement that you make it up as you go along is wrong. :o

the Bush Administration was sneaky enough to manufacture intelligence and convince pretty much THE WHOLE WORLD of its veracity, but not smart enough to plant WMD in Iraq to vindicate that intelligence?

They cherry-picked information - no matter how unreliable - to support their argument for war.

It is dishonest to allow the agenda to drive the intel collection process.

Also, it is simply incorrect to claim that "THE WHOLE WORLD" accepted the Bush Administration's claims concerning Iraq and WMD.

I've already posted evidence showing that British and Italian intelligence agencies had their doubts. In yesterday's Los Angeles Times appeared an article by Bob Drogin and John Goetz, How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball' (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines).
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.
BERLIN — The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

[Ezekiel]

They cherry-picked information - no matter how unreliable - to support their argument for war.

It is dishonest to allow the agenda to drive the intel collection process.


That's a pretty tight analysis: and one of the best I've seen.

[RealGun]

That's a pretty tight analysis: and one of the best I've seen.

Except that confidence in what Saddam did or did not have predated that informant.

[javafiend]

Except that confidence in what Saddam did or did not have predated that informant.

What is confidance in the absence of evidence? It's just faith.

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Well, actually there was substantial doubt both within the US intelligency community as well as within the intelligence agencies of our allies.

Apparently Powell also had doubts, as he had contradicted the president. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
This statement used to appear on the State Department's own website, but they have since taken it down. Try to access it, and one gets a message that "Page Not Available." Fortunately the folks at TheMemoryHole.org made a mirror of it (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-cairo.htm).

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

By this point the Iraqi army was one-fifth its pre-Gulf War I size.

Powell wasn't the only Bush Admin official voicing such an assessment about Iraq. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

It's only after the Bush Admin made the decision to go to war against Iraq and Powell and Rice began beating the war drums.

I think that Cheney and Rummsfeld figured that once they occupied Iraq, they'd find *something* more than just an artillery shell that tested positive for mustard gas to justify their invasion. "Vast stockpiles" of WMD? Oh please.

[R.H. Lee]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Camp David]

Although no Democrat, I have recently left the Repulican party. My question to you is, at what point do we suspend the right to Free Speech? When do we stop asking important questions? If your post was meant in jest, sorry.
Biker

Sorry to hear you left the Republican Party... which party do you now support?

No, we don't suspend free speech. But we don't criticize military policy in public either! We have troops in action, risking their lives! Last thing they want to hear is mixed messages from Congressmen! Discuss the policy in private if they feel a need to criticize it... elsewise another Vietnam is coming! Murtha's asinine comments do not help soldiers in the field! Cheney is right to name him as a coward. Additionally, the vote Friday confirmed that pulling out is not what is desired by Congress! End of discussion.

[RealGun]

What is confidance in the absence of evidence? It's just faith.

That sounds good except that there WAS evidence. Knock yourself out in finding what you call evidence to support what you have already decided. That wouldn't be any different than your accusations, would it? Once we become locked in on a decision, we don't want to be persuaded otherwise. Hurray for the exceptions, those with an open mind and no axe to grind.

[Biker]

I still fail to see how a decorated combat vet, a retired Marine Col, can be fairly described as a coward. He's seen the elephant and honorably did his time. Also, seems to me that Cheney got 5 deferments excusing him from the same war that Murtha volunteered for. Now, I'm just a simple, uneducated, hairy-a$$ ol' Biker, but I don't think that Cheney has earned the right to call Murtha a coward. Of course, that's just my opinion.
As to my Party choice - neither of the Big-Two. My vote will be earned from here on in, not determined by party loyalty.
Biker

[RealGun]

My vote will be earned from here on in, not determined by party loyalty.

If you had stated that first, I could have saved some reading time.

[Biker]

I gather you disagree with the rest of my post?:)
Biker

[RealGun]

I gather you disagree with the rest of my post?:)
Biker

I was referring to third party cynicism being a repeat of what I have read many times before.

Aside from that, you make it sound like only those who were in Vietnam when eligible by age are entitled to consume oxygen. You also seem to imply that deferments were not requested or granted for legitimate reasons.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

No, we don't suspend free speech. But we don't criticize military policy in public either!

I must disagree. Rather forcefully. We have not only the right, but the DUTY to discuss military policy in public. Out in the open. So that EVERYONE can participate, not just get an echo chamber of whichever opinion you and yours may or may not subscribe to.

We have troops in action, risking their lives! Last thing they want to hear is mixed messages from Congressmen!

but *I* am not now, nor will I ever be a Congressman. And I am extremely grateful to all service members--they are doing what I am physically incapable of doing (and I tried to serve--I was rejected for medical reasons). To NOT discuss this war and the ramifications on our society, and the ramifications for our service members would be not only wrong and unethical, it could have deadly consequences. Myopathy and egotism can be a bad combination. We can't stop politicians from being egomaniacs, but we *can* inject some clear thinking into their myopathy.

I would instead posit that to listen to *everyone* is not only our obligation living in a republic, it is a part of our duty to the members of our service that serve for us.

elsewise another Vietnam is coming!

This is not another Vietnam. I haven't seen anyone yelling "babykiller" or throwing blood on returning veterans. I haven't seen people burning their registration cards, or blowing up universities to protest the war. I *have* seen people asking questions and some of them are actually listening to the answers they are getting.

Murtha's asinine comments do not help soldiers in the field!

Neither do the comments of most of congress. Heck, calling a decorated war veteran a "coward" doesn't help the soldiers in the field either. Or, I guess we can "help" them out by getting used to the idea that its ok to call Vets cowardly, right? Vets should get used to it, right? :cuss:

Additionally, the vote Friday confirmed that pulling out is not what is desired by Congress! End of discussion.

End of YOUR part of this discussion, perhaps. I am not nearly done questioning what is best for our troops and the role of America in the world. and I am only 35...got a good 40 more years to question, discuss, and support.

[Camp David]

I still fail to see how a decorated combat vet, a retired Marine Col, can be fairly described as a coward. He's seen the elephant and honorably did his time. Also, seems to me that Cheney got 5 deferments excusing him from the same war that Murtha volunteered for. Now, I'm just a simple, uneducated, hairy-a$$ ol' Biker, but I don't think that Cheney has earned the right to call Murtha a coward. Of course, that's just my opinion.
As to my Party choice - neither of the Big-Two. My vote will be earned from here on in, not determined by party loyalty.
Biker

Murtha also recommended that Clinton extricate the troops from Somalia before the mission was complete... in short, he has gone crackers about military policy... which says nothing about his prior service only his current belief. I believe Murtha is a Patriot in the most patriotic sense; that does not absolve me from criticicizing him NOW for what he NOW recommends; i.e., the "cut and run" approach!

As far as deferrments and those that have them... makes no difference in my opinion... this nation has a history of those WITH military service and those WITHOUT military service making excellent leaders! Criticizing someone that received a deferment, or criticizing someone with military service, makes no sense!

As far as VP Cheney "earning" or "not-earning" discussion; this national argument was not started by democrats or republicans but by terrorists! Best to remember that. Cheney's comments were in response to Democrats bad mouthing the current Iraq policy; as VO he has a right to speak!

Murtha's suggestion to withdraw troops immediately would yield further attacks by terrorists on this soil! The mission is not complete! Since when does the USA run? Murtha has no real plan, only criticism of existing Iraq deployment and War on Terror which he voted for. Sounds like sour grapes to me!

I urge you to re-evaluate your party choice and your decision to abandon the GOP; much of the rhetoric you hear about the Repubican Party and smears that are made are untrue... There is a reason why Republicans won the Executive Office, the Senate, the House, and numerous Governor's Mansion races! IF YOU WISH TO BE INDEPENDANT I RESPECT THAT BIKER, I just hope you didn't abandon the GOP because of some untrue allegation!

Regards...

[DRZinn]

They cherry-picked information - no matter how unreliable - to support their argument for war. We still have the indisputable fact that all the democrats saw the same intel and thought the same thing. You start calling Kerry and Clinton et al liars for the same reason, and I might start to listen.

Also, it is simply incorrect to claim that "THE WHOLE WORLD" accepted the Bush Administration's claims concerning Iraq and WMD.

I've already posted evidence showing that British and Italian intelligence agencies had their doubts.Notice I cleverly threw in the verbage "pretty much" to show that I know there were some who had doubts. My statement stands.

[javafiend]

We still have the indisputable fact that all the democrats saw the same intel and thought the same thing.

No, Bush released portions of NIEs that supported his case for war but withheld the parts that cast doubt on the parts that he released.

You start calling Kerry and Clinton et al liars for the same reason, and I might start to listen.

I've been doing that for years.

Look, when Bush got up and talked about Saddam supposedly trying to buy uranium from Niger, he probably believed it.

Other instances where he claimed that Saddam and Bin Laden work together, that Saddam was behind 9-11....give me a break. That's horsehocky, and I think he knew it was horsehocky when he spouted it.

Can I climb inside his head? No.

Do I have a memo where Bush says "let's lie to the American people into thinking that Saddam did 9-11 in order to hit their fear buttons and manipulate them into supporting this war we want to do agaisnt Saddam anyway" - nope, I don't that memo. You will never find such a memo signed by Bush, just as you will never find a memo signed by Hitler order Himmler to carry out the Holocaust.

By this point it's pretty obvious they lied and manipulated, and that yes, Democrats also lie and manipulate, and the media unquestioningly parrot such lies.

Oh, I guess it could be all just an honest mistake - or hundreds of honest mistakes all piled up on top of each other. :neener:

I'm tired of posting on this topic. Gonna give it a rest for awhile.

***

[DRZinn]

Other instances where he claimed that Saddam and Bin Laden work together, that Saddam was behind 9-11....give me a break.Show me the Bush administration claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11.

[Biker]

I was referring to third party cynicism being a repeat of what I have read many times before.

Aside from that, you make it sound like only those who were in Vietnam when eligible by age are entitled to consume oxygen. You also seem to imply that deferments were not requested or granted for legitimate reasons.
Referring to the first statement in your second paragraph, where did I imply that in any way, shape or form? As for your second statement in the same paragraph, of course deferments are granted for legitimate reasons. However, don't request 5 and then call a combat vet a coward. It's kinda hard on the credibility of Mr Deferment...
Biker

[GoRon]

Show me the Bush administration claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11.

+1

Any time you include comments about Iraq and comments about terrorism in the same post somebody jumps up and says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

They want to argue tactics and miss the strategy. The left is reactionary, go after terrorists after the fact (or maybe not, depends how it polls). This administration to their credit has taken the initiative and brought the fight to the terrorists nieghborhood. A modern, succesful and relativily free Iraq is a bigger threat to the wahhabists than the US.

[RealGun]

of course deferments are granted for legitimate reasons. However, don't request 5 and then call a combat vet a coward. It's kinda hard on the credibility of Mr Deferment...
Biker

I hope you can see that you are still saying that deferment equates to cowardice.

[Biker]

I hope you can see that you are still saying that deferment equates to cowardice.
Christ man... read my posts and take them in context. Oh, and try being intellectually honest. I'm saying that Cheney, who requested and was granted five deferments because he stated, and I paraphrase, that ' I had better things to do with my life', has no right to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward.
Additionally, address the rest of my contentions if you can, or will.
Otherwise, you'd do yourself a favor by putting vice-grips on your typing fingers at this point.
Biker

[RealGun]

Otherwise, you'd do yourself a favor by putting vice-grips on your typing fingers at this point.

I can see that as a wise choice.:rolleyes:

[Biker]

I can see that as a wise choice.:rolleyes:
Ah, grasshoppah...finally you see.
;)
Biker

[GoRon]

has no right to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward.

Those that never served are still capable of being brave and those that served are capable of acts of cowardice.

I suspect if we polled all the Marine Colonel's alive they would have a different view of how to procede than Mr.Murtha.

[Biker]

Those that never served are still capable of being brave and those that served are capable of acts of cowardice.

I am suspect if we polled all the Marine Colonel's alive they would have a different view of how to procede than Mr.Murtha.
Could be you're right, Friend, but Murtha has been tested and proven. I would venture to guess that Mr '5 deferment-I have better things to do with my life' Cheney hasn't. Who is he to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward?

Cheney. Hasn't. Earned. The. Right.

Biker

[gc70]

by Biker:
I'm saying that Cheney... has no right to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward.Can anyone post a link to ANY news article that quotes Cheney as calling Murtha a coward?

I have not seen any factual evidence of the above charge. What I have seen are people reaching conclusions based on their predisposition to negatively interpret what you think Cheney might have meant when he said something else.

If there is a factual case, cite the evidence. If not, quit making things up.

BTW, Cheney's "dishonest and reprehensible" comments were about people who want to rewrite history by ignoring facts and just making things up.

[grampster]

And how has Murtha earned the right to say that we have and are making "no progress" in Iraq in this day and this time? He is credible to speak for his generation and his duty. But he discredits our present warriors and puts them in harms way by speaking words that are not true. I'm too old to be a soldier, but in my business I am personally acquainted with multiple dozens of sons and daughters of customers, customers, and sons and daughters of friends and neighbors who have and are involved in multiple tours of duty in A'stan and Iraq. I have spoken with them myself. I have watched the burial of two from my area, one a local firefighter and another a fine young man. They have had boots on the ground and what they say does not square with his political balderdash. Mr. Murtha is representative of the Lesson of Vietnam: America is a paper tiger. He has become a toady to dangerous minority of power seekers.

Murtha is full of condensed HorseS***! and he should be ashamed of himself for his cruel, insensitive characterizing of the mission that is succeeding. He is an old fool with a heroic past. Rather than stand on his medals, he should step back and think twice about the company he keeps and the advice he listens to. He owes our brave fighters an apology.

I don't give a rat's behind what he thinks of the president or his policies, but his words and actions the last few day are a disgrace to the uniform he proudly wore.

[Phyphor]

Could be you're right, Friend, but Murtha has been tested and proven. I would venture to guess that Mr '5 deferment-I have better things to do with my life' Cheney hasn't. Who is he to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward?

Cheney. Hasn't. Earned. The. Right.

Biker

Well, money talks, and as much as Mr. 5D's got, I'd imagine he thinks he's pretty much bulletproof.

It just goes to show what depth of character we have to look up to.

[Warbow]

Could be you're right, Friend, but Murtha has been tested and proven. I would venture to guess that Mr '5 deferment-I have better things to do with my life' Cheney hasn't. Who is he to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward?

Cheney. Hasn't. Earned. The. Right.

Uh, what are you talking about? Cheney never called Murtha a coward.

[javafiend]

DocZinn wrote:
Show me the Bush administration claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml) you go. Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

Bush, 9/11 and Iraq—a policy founded on deception (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/bush-s09.shtml)

Speaking from the White House Sunday night, Bush made no less than six references to the September 11 attacks, repeatedly asserting that the bloodshed in Iraq is necessary to prevent new terrorist actions. “Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn,” declared Bush. “We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.”

Later he added: “We are fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities,” Bush declared.

On 26 September 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said there was ‘bulletproof evidence’ of an Al-Qaeda-Saddam link.”

After the 9-11 Commission published its report dismissing claims that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies, Cheney went on the offensive, declaring that the “evidence is overwhelming” of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Bush, for his part, mustered the following unassailable argument: “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” He added, “There’s numerous contacts between the two,” but gave only one example—a series of exchanges in 1994 when bin Laden sought the use of facilities in Iraq and Saddam Hussein rebuffed him.

On 18 March 2003 Bush sent a letter to Congress with the declaration that the use of force against Iraq “is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Bush Continues the "Big Lie" in the Face of Mountains of Contrary Evidence (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/bush_continues_the_big_lie_in_the_face_of_mountains_of_contrary_evidence)
Furthermore, in the past, President Bush has stated that the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq was much closer than the two organizations holding meetings. For example, in the May 2003, announcement that major combat operations were over, he said, “the liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of Al Qaeda.” And in the State of the Union address in January 2003: “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.” The last statement appears to refer to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who the president claimed was a senior Al Qaeda operative living in Baghdad and working with the Iraqi government. But according to the New York Times, George Tenet, the now retiring Director of the CIA, admitted that Zarqawi did not work with the Iraqi government and was not under the direction of Al Qaeda.
The commission’s conclusion of no “collaborative relationship” directly contradicts President Bush’s very specific allegation that, “Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” Numerous sources, in addition to the 9/11 panel, have shown those allegations to be untrue.

So the 9/11 commission has merely confirmed what those without naiveté had suspected all along: the Bush administration lied and misled America into a needless imperial pet project that has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. military personnel. The amazing part is that the administration continues to claim that its Goebbels-like “big lie” propaganda is true after all, no matter how much evidence amasses to the contrary.

The president and vice president are calling a few meetings between members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group and Iraqi government officials a “relationship” between "allies." By that standard, the US government has a "relationship" with its "ally," North Korea.
:barf:

Bush and Cheney are both lying bastards.

[MikeyBee]

I served in order to protect the right of people to say crappy things about people who say crappy things.

We can go round and round on this all day.:neener:

[gc70]

Very interesting research sources, JavaFiend: CBS News; the World Socialist Website; and the Media Monitors Network.

The names of the first two sources speak for themselves, but I frankly admit to never having previously heard of the Media Monitors Network. MMN appears to be some sort of cooperative news blog, with some intriguing stories, including:Invading Iraq to Appease Bin Laden (http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/02/26/invading.html) by Ahmed Amr
It now appears that appeasing Bin Laden was a major part of the neo-con sales pitch to the White House...Claims of Saddam's Genocide Far from Proven (http://uruknet.info/?p=8549) by Robin Miller
Is it really true that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people" while committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds, images that have become woven into the fabric of the American perception of Iraq? .... Only someone who wanted to be deceived would consider this adequate proof of genocide.

[Old Dog]

At last -- Javafiend quits posting links to old stories and actually expresses his true feelings ...
Bush and Cheney are both lying bastards.

[DRZinn]

It's been proven that there was alink between Hussein and Al Quaeda; it's not even been asserted that there was a link between Hussein and 9/11. Look at the information you posted, javafiend.

[javafiend]

It's been proven that there was alink between Hussein and Al Quaeda;

It's been proven that there's a "link" between Javafiend and DocZinn.
They communicated via an internet website.
:neener:

[javafiend]

To this day we keep hearing that supposedly "everybody" or "virtually everbody" agreed with Bush and Cheney's statements regarding Iraq's "vast stockpile" of WMD.

The claim is bunk. There was considerable disagreement.

During the same time period in which Cheney and Rumsfeld were running around claiming that there was "no doubt" that "Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"* and "chemical and biological weapons,"** their own intelligence experts were telling them something different.

U.S. News & World Report in its June 9, 2003 edition revealed the existence of a September 2002 intelligence analysis by the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) titled "Iraq: Key Weapons Facilities -- An Operational Support Study." This DIA report stated that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

This DIA assesssment noted that "a substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions."

The report speculated that Iraq "probably possesses [chemical weapons] in chemical munitions, but that "we lack any direct information" on thsi subject.

That's a far cry from Cheney's claim that "there is no doubt."

See Data didn't back Bush claims on Iraqi weapons, officials say (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11922537.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)



* Cheney, 26 August 2002: "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

** Rummy, 7 January 2003: "There is no doubt in my mind that that they currently have chemical and biological weapons."

[NorthernExtreme]

Javafiend,

If I had to go to the World Socialist Website to validate my opinion, I would quickly look for professional (Psychological) help as soon as I could.

The Socialists are not your/our friend Javafiend. Good luck, I hope you feel better soon!

Regards,

[TheEgg]

I like it when he quotes Chomsky!:D

Suicide by keyboard!:neener:

[DRZinn]

It's been proven that there's a "link" between Javafiend and DocZinn.
They communicated via an internet website.Yeah, you're right, that's the same thing as the link between Saddam and Al Quaeda.:rolleyes:

[Ezekiel]

Yeah, you're right, that's the same thing as the link between Saddam and Al Quaeda.:rolleyes:

Sorry, no (your sarcasm aside). The link between DocZinn and Javafiend is far more substantial and credible...:banghead:

[DRZinn]

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm)

The fall of Baghdad has produced new evidence to buttress the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda had a long history of contacts. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm)

Documents found in Baghdad show a link between Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, according to a UK newspaper. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm)

And it goes on and on.

[NavyDoc]

Christ man... read my posts and take them in context. Oh, and try being intellectually honest. I'm saying that Cheney, who requested and was granted five deferments because he stated, and I paraphrase, that ' I had better things to do with my life', has no right to call a decorated combat vet, a Marine Col, a coward.
Additionally, address the rest of my contentions if you can, or will.
Otherwise, you'd do yourself a favor by putting vice-grips on your typing fingers at this point.
Biker


Where did Cheney call COL Murtha a coward? IIR, a representative from Ohio was passing on a message from a USMC COL in Iraq, who implied that COL Murtha was a coward...perhaps reminding him of what it means to be a Marine. If anyone has a right to call a USMC COL a coward, it's ANOTHER USMC COL!

[Biker]

Where did Cheney call COL Murtha a coward? IIR, a representative from Ohio was passing on a message from a USMC COL in Iraq, who implied that COL Murtha was a coward...perhaps reminding him of what it means to be a Marine. If anyone has a right to call a USMC COL a coward, it's ANOTHER USMC COL!
If I'm mistaken concerning the VP's use of the word "coward", I stand corrected or, as some of the fancier folks around here say, MEA CULPA!
:)
Biker

[308win]

Where did Cheney call COL Murtha a coward? IIR, a representative from Ohio was passing on a message from a USMC COL in Iraq, who implied that COL Murtha was a coward...perhaps reminding him of what it means to be a Marine. If anyone has a right to call a USMC COL a coward, it's ANOTHER USMC COL!
Rep Schmidt must have forgotten to take her hormone therapy dose that morning because the Marine Colonel (who is also a state rep) denies he said anything to impugn Col. Murtha during his conversation with Schmidt. The fact still remains that Cheney rang up five student deferments and two or is it three driving while impaired citations while he "...had other priorities". The cretin is a slug.

[Phyphor]

If I'm mistaken concerning the VP's use of the word "coward", I stand corrected or, as some of the fancier folks around here say, MEA CULPA!
:)
Biker

As for myself, I prefer "oops, I f'd up. " :neener:

[Biker]

As for myself, I prefer "oops, I f'd up. " :neener:
In real life, you just quoted me.
:)
Biker