Democrats: It’s the War

Yes this is the guy to follow. Maybe he should run for president. . .  :)

“Republicans in Congress won’t extricate the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into.”

Nor will Democrats (half of which were for the war). Nor will they cure cancer. Some issues just take time and energy and patience (and perhaps luck as well).

If we are really going to decide issues primarily by popularity, perhaps it is time to go to a direct democracy? Use the Internet to allow us all to vote on everything. (Which i think would be an utter and complete disaster.)

Kucinich is the reason Democrats lose. Let’s face it he’s saying nothing but “I told you so.” What’s his solution? Withdrawal and turn it over to the Iraqis. What’s the administration’s stated position? Turn it over to the Iraqis and withdraw. Undoubtedly, the Dems will add “when Iraqis are able” which makes it identical to the Republican position. There is no difference because neither is willing to leave it in the hands of slaughtering factions. Both hold the standard of civility and democracy for success. Neither can admit that Iraqis don’t have what it takes for a liberal democracy.

The Democrats can sound different but so what? In 2000 Bush ran against Clinton’s policy of regime change in Iraq and against nations-building. Bush became Clinton. The Democrats will talk about withdrawal and promise to do things differently next time but they will become Bush.

In September, I attended Lynn Woosely’s hearing on setting an exit strategy for Iraq. One after another, experts testified that there will be little difference in the consequences if we pulled out of Iraq today or ten years from now. We’ve created a mess that won’t be improved no matter how many of our kids we cast on the sacrificial alter! Our troops signed up to defend us and now it’s our job to stand up and defend them, because they are not dying and getting maimed in Iraq to defend us.

It’s time we had politicians with the courage to take a stand against the never ending occupation of Iraq. The solution starts with the determination that we need to end this war. All I hear from our leaders is that it’s an impossible mess. So are they suggesting that we stay there forever? Thank you Dennis Kucinich - you are the reason the Democrats will win this time, and I intend to be right there with them.

This guy’s got a lot of nerve.  After betraying his followers at the convention and being AWOL from the antiwar movement, he gets on his soapbox here like nothing happened.  Zero credibility and another lesson for those who don’t believe that democratic primaries are where progressive politics go to die.

One Liberal recently lost the Presidential election for flip-flop-flip-flop, among other things, but Kerry has nothing on Kucinich.  The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed unanimously in the Senate, and the vote in the House was 360 - 38.  President Clinton signed it into law.  Removing Saddam from power has been a matter of United States law since 1998.  Among the reasons given for this law was that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the USA.

Dennis Kucinich voted for the Iraq Liberation Act. 

From the time of ILA 1998 to the start of hostilities against Iraq in 2003, there were MANY quotes about the danger of Iraq’s WMD, including quotes from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Daschle, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Levin, Rockefeller, and that jerk from Delaware, I never can remember his name.  Kevin Drum, not your basic conservative, did an extensive internet search and concluded that no national American politician ever said that Saddam did not have WMD before the start of hostilities. 

So here is a challenge for you.  Kucinich and all the Democrats now say that President Bush lied about the WMD in order to go to war.  But in ILA 1998, these same Democrats said that Saddam did have WMD, and they continued to say the same thing up to the time the war started.  So, can anyone find an authentic quote dated before April 2003 from a recognizable Democratic politician that Saddam had no WMD?

(Interestingly, Drum’s research revealed only two names of people who suggested that there were no WMD before 2003: Vladimir Putin and Scott Ritter.  Coincidentally or not, Putin and Ritter were both recipients of Oil-for-Food money in the current UN scandal.)

jeeni wrote - “One after another, experts testified that there will be little difference in the consequences if we pulled out of Iraq today or ten years from now.”

Not that i doubt the integrity and earnestness of the experts that testitfied that day, but i really do not believe that *anyone* can make such predictions with any amount of accuracy. If one could really predict the future of such very complex events, they should give stock tips. . .

But, if nothing else, it clarifies what some might consider an option for an exit stategy (cut and run). I was not aware that *anyone* really thought that it was an *optimal* strategy for us, much less Iraq. I was clearly mistaken, and appreciate the post by jeeni for that reason.

--------

(PS - the stock tip thing is really unfair. After time goes by, one can actually determine if one was correct or not. In the case of either/or choices, only one choice of many is ever exercised, and thus the comparison of which of the choices is optimal is forever impossible to determine. Which makes predictions of either/or events much more fun - no one can ever *prove* you were wrong!)

The secret WHIG group was outed in 2003 - before the last presidential selection.  It was hushed up, and very little is being said about it even now.

These hired guns did their jobs, and tens of thousands of people died.  Why are they getting away scot-free?  These traitors pulled off the biggest hoax in history, and hardly a voice has been raised in protest.  This is a must read all the way through…..

CLICK

To wolf: apparently, you are not a poker player or you would be familiar with the term “throwing good money after bad.” That means calling bets even though you are relatively certain you are holding a losing hand. That is what we are doing in Iraq. Of course, we don’t use poker chips, we use human beings.

To JasonPappas: Your observation that the Dems will add something like “when Iraqis are able” has come to pass. See the “exit strategy” offered by Kerry a few days ago.

To jeeni: The longer we stay in Iraq, the more violent the situation will become. The only way to pacify hostiles in an occupied terroritory is to eliminate (i.e. kill) them. A good example of U.S. pacification of the native Americans in the 1800’s.
The only time, to my knowledge, that an invading army has ever been greeted with flowers and parades is when the invading army is expelling a foreign occuping army. Even then, the invading army must began making immediate plans for withdrawal.

To scorp: John Kerry - a liberal? He was just a “not-Bush.” No, Mr. Kerry is referring to the illegal and immoral war of aggression in Iraq as “a foreign policy misadventure.”

I would like to see Mr. Kerry explain to Cindy Sheehan and the other two thousand Gold Star families that Iraq was “a foreign policy misadventure?” I would like him to explain to the 15,000 severely wounded American service men about this “foreign policy misadventure.” Tell the 100,000 families of the dead in Iraq, “Oh, we’re sorry. This was just a little foreign policy misadventure.”

This was not a foreign policy misadventure. This was and is a war crime and a conspiracy on a massive scale. In the words of General Anthony Zinni, the Bush administration “cooked the books.” There were no WMDs in Iraq. There were no Al Qaeda connections. There were no 9/11 connections. There were no Osama bin Laden ties. These facts were all known by the U.S., Israeli, and British intelligence long before this little “misadventure” began.

If there is any Democrat (or Republican) in Washington D.C. with any gonads at all who voted in any way for this war, it is time they stand up, admit the war is illegal and immoral, apologize for being duped into voting for it, then insisting loud and clear that we get out of Iraq NOW! Then, we should begin the war crimes tribunal.

That, my friends and Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Kerry, is an exit strategy.

“There were no WMDs in Iraq. .  .. These facts were all known by the U.S., Israeli, and British intelligence long before this little “misadventure” began.”

This is, of course, silly. It was known by all sides that Iraq had WMD, it was not even particularly controversial (but there was controversy over whether/when they might have the means to deliver them to sensitive targets). Of course, as it turned out, it was also not correct.

It is also worth noting that Cindy Sheehan lost more than her son over this war, She also lost her family. Of course, in matters of such import, people not only disagree, but disagree violently. It is disingenuous to suggest that those who have lost loved ones are in general on “her” side.

That said, she and you certainly have the right to have an opinion and be vocal about it. But speaking loudly or with certainty does not morph opinions into facts. .  .

From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45726

“The Sheehan family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.”

“This is, of course, silly. It was known by all sides that Iraq had WMD...”

Well wolf, it looks like our little discussion is over. Obviously we don’t live in the same universe. In the universe where I live, the reason Joe Q. Public thought there were WMDs in Iraq is because the Bushkavites lied and manufactured evidense. Had they actually thought there were WMDs there, this might be understandable (although not forgiveable.) However, there is ample proof that they knew there were no WMDs. See the Downing Street Memos.

This means they deliberately conspired to defraud the people of the United States of life, liberty, and property - not to mention what they are doing to the people of Iraq. As far as I am concerned, that makes them just another gang of mobsters, not a government.

Here’s an idea. If you think the Iraqi war is justified and such a hot idea, why don’t you go over and fight and let someone who doesn’t believe in it come home.

Click Here for the story of a British officer who is willing to go to jail for refusing to return to Iraq because he thinks the war is illegal.

... and I think it is maybe Busheviks?

More on WMD, in “farhenheit 9/11” we see footage of two seperate speeches given by Powell, and Rice after Bush took office, both asserting that Saddam has no weapons, nor weapons programs, that the sanctions and inspections had seen to that, that he was “contained”. The NIE up to a year before the war, which was the opinion of the entire intelligence community, held that he had no weapons. The inspectors in Iraq until war was imminent could find no WMD, even at the sites that the US directed them to inspect. The constant repeating of the phrase “everyone thought he had them” does not make it true. If we had thought he had them, our troops would have been issued the appropriate gear......well maybe not in Rumsfelds army, but the evidence is mounting that intelligence was cooked up, hence the need to lash out at those who tried to point it out at the time, which led to the outing of a CIA NOC, obstruction and perjury in the investigation of the outing, and today’s closed door session of the senate to demand that the mishandling of intelligence be investigated. If everyone thought there were weapons there it wouldn’t have been neccessary for the OSP to stovepipe cherry picked intel to Cheney, Rumsfeld wouldn’t have tried to run the war on the cheap, and the Europeans would have backed our play.

Ending the war in Iraq is right for a lot of reasons.

Mostly because it already ended. What Kucinich is really saying, after freeing the Iraqi people from the yoke of Saddam, we should turn tail and run, leaving them to their own problems.

with no end in sight

Typical Democratic pacifistic blindness. The Sunnis tried to stop the first election through boycott and insurrection and failed. They tried to stop the vote on the constitution with insurrection and failed. They finally decided to try political participation over killing (oops, that is a variation of the ol’ butter and guns argument - funny that it isn’t coming from a Democrat!). All they gotta do is start working toward stopping the Sunni insurrection.

If Democrats do not make this the centerpiece of their campaign in 2006, they risk repeating recent history, ... “Let no light show” between Democrats and President Bush on foreign policy was the (DNC) leadership’s strategy

um, the only history they are in danger of repeating is making the war an election issue.

Again.

and,

talk about revisionist histories!

Bush’s war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our 9/11 losses.

Like the false hope and goodwill that al Qaeda and Osama felt as they believed America would cower in cowardice? Yeah, we really squandered that opportunity for them.

the United States from the quagmire the president has gotten us into

see my first comments. Yeah, that’s a real quagmire. The only real quagmire is for the Iraqis, and that is only who to vote for, rather than who to kill today.

The stakes are high: Unless Democrats stand for ending the war in Iraq, this country will not leave Iraq,

Wait a minute! Why am I trying to shoot down the Dems using the war as an election issue?

I want the Republicans to win.

Go Kucinich!

gar1948 - you think what is going on in Sudan is ok? If not, planning to take up arms there? How about domestic violence? I assume if you are not a cop, you are in favor of same? Problem with strawman arguments is they burn so very easily. . .

Oh, don’t forget that in the “WMD conspriracy of intellilgence”, virtually all of Europe were co-cospirators. Clinton too. Pretty much everyone. . .

But i will agre there were no WMD (kinda funny that Saddam tricked us, i bet he is really grinning over that now!). And personnally, i really had no problem with Saddam killing his own citizens (we in the US excel at escaping our eyes from such bothersome trivia). So yes, i have to say, the war was foolish. As is police responding to domestic violence calls, where people, even innocent ones, sometimes/oftentimes are hurt as a consequence.

Oh, don’t forget that in the “WMD conspriracy of intellilgence”, virtually all of Europe were co-cospirators. Clinton too. Pretty much everyone. . .

Exactly Wolf, they are all in on it.

It is a good cop / bad cop routine acted out for mass consumption.

Cynical Dave says it is all so predictable it is getting boring.

Brown -

Talk, talk, talk.

So here is a challenge for you.  Kucinich and all the Democrats now say that President Bush lied about the WMD in order to go to war.  But in ILA 1998, these same Democrats said that Saddam did have WMD, and they continued to say the same thing up to the time the war started.  So, can anyone find an authentic quote dated before April 2003 from a recognizable Democratic politician that Saddam had no WMD?

If Powell or Rice made a speech and said that there were no WMD, that (those) speech(es) are recorded somewhere.  Show me.  Remember that George Tenet, CIA Director, told President Bush that it was a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD. 

Now the CIA has a long record of incompetence and muddled Liberal confusion, but what is the President of the USA to do in the following scenario: there are tens of thousands of dead Iranians, military and civilian, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, all killed by Saddam’s poisonous gases, and the Director of the CIA says that it is a “slam dunk” that Saddam has WMD.  And all the Democratic politicians and all the Western intelligence agencies agreed.  Everything within this paragraph is well-documented, and I am willing and able to present that documentation if you can find one little valid quote from one little Democratic politician dated before April 2003 to the effect that Saddam had no WMD.  Scott Ritter is the only American on record to say there were no WMD before the war started, but Rtter is a little Democratic child molester, not a little Democratic politician. 

The troops were issued the appropriate gear, and had to wear it, during the most highly successful military assault in history. 

“(T)oday’s closed door session of the senate” was a dum bass political stunt.  The Democrats thought the stars were aligning for them: they were creaming their jeans anticipating the death of the 2000th American in the War against the Terrorists, Fitzgerald’s report was due out and they thought the might get Rove, Cheney, or even the President, and the Miers nomination was in trouble.  So how did all this work out for the Dims?  Most of the citizenry still support the troops, things continue to improve in Iraq, Fitzgerald said that the results of his investigation had nothing to do with Iraq or the CIA, and the President’s base lined up rock-solid behind him when he nominated Alito. 

So what did the Dims do? They threw a temper tantrum.  BFD.

Speaking of WMDs,

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/kamlin.htmll

Speaking of WMDs,

Your link does not work.

Scorp, You can see these speeches on film, as i said, they are included in the Moore film, if they are recorded in some printed record somewhere, I am not sure where I would look for that, maybe some TV network archives.
Thousands of Iranians and Kurds died, true, with chemicals sold to Saddam by the US, Britain, and Germany. Easy to assume he still had such weapons years later if you completely disregard the weapons inspectors. Forget what a politician might say, it was Politicians that supported Saddam through the 80,s, Pinochet in the 70,s, etc, etc, Bush looks into Putin’s eyes and sees a soul mate, are we to fashion policy around that? The intelligence community was not all on board with the WMD claims, the inspectors had destroyed all they found, shelf life took care of the rest, and, again, the inspectors in country in the run up to the war found nothing. We could have waited, if WMD was our cassus belli, we could have waited if regime change was our aim, it wasn’t worth a single american life, we could have waited if spreading democracy was our aim, it wasn;t worth a single american life. Our aim was hegemony in the region we get our oil from, saving a failing and illegitimate presidency and taking out an enemy of Israel’s. Even less reason to lose a single american life. And as Perle said, it wasn’t a reason the public would have supported, WMD just played better. So they lied about the intelligence, lied about the Al queda connection, the 9/11 connection, and then went in undermanned, undersupplied, and underplanned to actually secure the country once the war was over.
The democrats have been cowardly and complicit in all this, until yesterday. the republicans always try to derail any scrutiny of their actions, 9/11, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, they sure as hell don;t want anyone looking into how they cooked the books and lied to congress to get the resolution, And Fitzgerald will slowly but surely turn these war criminals and traitors against each other in the Plame case, too. You don’t commit perjury in front of a federal grand jury unless the crime you’re trying to hide is even worse.

Brown –

You keep telling me who said what, but you have not had a single quote backing up your position.  But here are some quotes for you.

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“[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.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

(Continued)

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

All my evidence says that all these Democrats were gung-ho to get rid of Saddam and his WMD, until after we actually got rid of him.  Then they changed their tune.  Now these same Democrats are trying to say that President Bush “cooked the books and lied to congress to get the resolution”, as you so delicately put it.  Now if you could find one little valid quote from one little Democratic politician dated before April 2003 to the effect that Saddam had no WMD, I would be ever so grateful.  Otherwise, fuck off.

The sources did not activate when copied.  You can check them out at:

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

as i said, they are included in the Moore film,

Now THERE is an unimpeachable unbiased source from a hard working journalist…

So the Democrats are war mongers too.

Saddam had WMD. He gassed his own people. If he didn’t have ‘em anymore, why all the fuss? Let the inspectors do their job, stop interfering with ‘em, and the sanctions get dropped.

Saddam wasn’t a nut case; he actions were quite rational (just ask any Democrat).

So, why the fuss? A logical assumption is that he cleared the deck only long enough until the heat was off.

Isn’t that what drug dealers do when they get raided? Dump the junk down the toilet.

You can always get more, after the Man is gone.

Yeah, I bet America would have happily sold Saddam some more of those WMD if he would use them on the Iranians again.

If you believe the war is wrong, then it is in your interest to not support any democratic presidential candidate if they can’t admit publicly that this war is a big mistake.

Lets not make another mistake by supporting a Kerry type of candidate. Check out the website at: www.wordsareimportant.com/notonemore.htm that encourages any potential candidate to declare before February 20, 2006 (President’s Day) that this war was wrong.

Each time we compromise and not vote our conscience is another day that takes us further away from what we want.

Also, while I supported Kucinich, I was disappointed that he chose party loyalty over truth when he withdrew days before the Democratic Convention.

Many of the people I talk to say it is the last time they will compromise and vote for a democratic candidate. If the democratic party can’t get it together and realize that this war was wrong and based on lies and deceit, then we need to find someone who does know, regardless of what party they are (third party candidates). There are other issues, but this is on the front burner as it is defining us as an imperialistic, oppressive society. Not One More!

peace
AG

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Actual Film footage exists of not one, but two cabinet level officials, Powell and Rice, delivering speeches in which they assert that Saddam has been prevented from posessing banned weapons, but because it is included in a film made by a person with whose views you disagree, it can’t be considered. Just watch it once and see/hear what they said. Or don’t. There are lots of politicians on both sides that say untrue things. They are still untrue. These people are all part of the problem. They are beholden to a military industrial complex even bigger than Eisenhower dreamed.

Brown -

There once was a book entitled How to Lie with Statistics.  The New York Times and Michael Moron make a regular practice of lying with quotes.  The practice ill becomes either of them, and makes killing terrorists and creating democracy more difficult.  But we are winning, regardless.

Have you been asleep for the last fifteen years?

Context:  Saddam had WMD.  The Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear site in 1988 to end Saddam’s nuclear plans.  Saddam gassed Halabja and killed about 5000 Kurdish civilians (Google the photos), mostly women and children (the men were away fighting Saddam’s war against Iran).  After Gulf I, the UN passed a series of seventeen Resolutions requiring Saddam to:

1) Stop making war against his neighbors.

2) Stop terrorizing his own people.

3) End his WMD programs.  Saddam was forbidden to move or destroy WMD except under UN supervision.

The UN sanctions against Saddam continued in effect from 1991 to 2003, and have never been rescinded, but have been superceded by events.  During the time when Saddam was obligated to cooperate with the UN in eliminating his WMD, he consistently hid his WMD efforts and obfuscated his actions.  The UN’s position at the time of the start of hostilities in March 2003, and the positions of Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradei, were that Saddam had WMD.  It was only later that Liberals and leftists said that Saddam had no WMD.  If Saddam had no WMD in 2003, he was still in violation of all seventeen UN Resolutions, because he was forbidden to move or destroy WMD except under UN supervision and direction.

(Continued)

I can’t find the Rice quote from the Moron film.  But the Powell quote was from an interview in Egypt in February 2001.  What Moron (and you) say that Powell said, is not the message that Powell was trying to deliver to his Egyptian hosts.  Here is every single mention that Powell made of WMD from the interview:

The first quote is from Powell’s opening remarks, and is one of a list of items that the Egyptians and Americans were discussing:

We (Mubarak and Powell) also discussed the need to relieve the burden on the Iraqi people whilst strengthening controls on Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery.

This is Powell’s discussion on WMD, and it includes the quote Moron used in his film:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister (Egypt) and I and the President (Egypt) and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions—the fact that the sanctions exist—not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

The next quote refers to Russian and American concerns that terrorist states, including Saddam, might develop WMD and delivery systems:

I was very impressed, as is President Bush, impressed by the fact that in the recent proposal they (Russians) put forward to NATO, they indicated that they understand that there is a danger from missiles that are carrying warheads—that are weapons of mass destruction.

Powell’s last comment in the interview was in response to a question about how great a threat Saddam really presented.  Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa said that Saddam was not a threat to Egypt, but that the Gulf States were rightly concerned.  Powell said:

May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it’s going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he (Saddam) has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-cairo.htm

(Continued)

So if you read Powell’s whole interview, Egypt and America were both concerned about Saddam’s WMD.  That seems right, since at the time, all the UN Security Council, all the Western intelligence agencies, and all the American politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, said that Saddam had WMD and that he was a threat to his neighbors and to the USA.  This information was prominently available in all the news media at the time.  Don’t you remember anything at all from that time period?

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.

So what does this mean?  All the people and all the agencies mentioned above already were in agreement that Saddam had WMD.  It means that the UN inspectors, when they were allowed to operate, and the sanctions against Iraq, and the Coalition flights had some success in preventing Saddam from developing additional WMD.  That is all that it means.

Michael Moron has one obscure quote from an obscure Powell interview, takes it out of context, ignores the overall message of the interview, lies about its meaning, and passes it off as proof of – something.  But that is what Michael Moron does, repeatedly, on many topics.  The question is, why do a large number of elite Liberals fall for this crap?  Are they that gullible?  That stupid?  That deranged?  All of the above?  D is the correct answer.

Thanks Scorp. I don’t have the time or patience to gather the information you find/found. Excellent rebuttal.

Ditto.

(Moore quoted someone out of context??

-- Scandalous!)

My sincerest apologies for the faulty link.  This is the corrected one.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/kamlin.html

For whatever reason, between typing and posting, a space is added and an extra “t” is put in the end of the address.

“(T)oday’s closed door session of the senate” was a dum bass political stunt.  The Democrats thought the stars were aligning for them: they were creaming their jeans anticipating the death of the 2000th American in the War against the Terrorists, Fitzgerald’s report was due out and they thought the might get Rove, Cheney, or even the President, and the Miers nomination was in trouble.  So how did all this work out for the Dims?  Most of the citizenry still support the troops, things continue to improve in Iraq, Fitzgerald said that the results of his investigation had nothing to do with Iraq or the CIA, and the President’s base lined up rock-solid behind him when he nominated Alito. 

So what did the Dims do? They threw a temper tantrum.  BFD.

More details today.

The purpose of the Dim’s temper tantrum was to rally their base.  But there are two small problems with that:

1) The Rep’s base is larger than the Dim’s base.

2) The Dim’s base is a bunch of insane Liberals.

Harry Reid made it all perfectly clear after his temper tantrum:

“We know that there were no [weapons of mass destruction] now in Iraq. We didn’t know it at the time. We know now that we didn’t know at the time that there was no Al Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn’t know then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. We didn’t know that at the time,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters after the closed session ended.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174187,00.html

Did you get all that?

Also today, CBS (of all people!) had a marvelous take on Harry’s temper tantrum.  Money quote:

The congressional branch of the Democratic Party has abjectly failed to conduct effective oversight of Iraq-issues since 9/11. They voted for war and then wanted to be let off the hook. They did not use their clout and expertise and control the American intelligence apparatus during the Clinton era to marshal effective investigations the administration’s case for war contemporaneously. They have barely been unable to force potent, effective post-mortems.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/meyer/main1003357.shtml

THERE IS NO VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WAR!!!

THERE IS NO VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WAR!!!

“Therefore, although Iraq probably does have BWs, and weapons of mass destruction in general, war with Iraq cannot be justified at this time since Iraq would not and probably could not use any weapons of mass destruction.”

The concluding sentence from the link supplied by jams above.

From my pov, if Iraq wanted to use WMD, they would not have needed or desired to use missiles. Much better would be to use the terrorist methods they (Saddam) embraced - supply suicide nuts with weapons and money and set them to it. Perhaps in a US subway, perhaps in Israel, perhaps not at all. But still a worry we would have, if not for the ouster of Saddam.

THERE IS NO VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR shaunb62’s POST!!!

But that’s ok. We are an inclusive group here, and welcome intelligent discourse. I gather you are against the war? Would you have preferred to keep the sanctions going, which were killing the innocent children of Iraq? Or abolish them and expect that Saddam would mellow as time went by (Gee, those poor guys in the shredders, what a shame)? Or some other option?

Please take the time to review the history from a perspective other than that which is fed to you by our so-called press.  All of you insist that the perspective given by those espousing your ideology are correct without fault.

Try reading the Iraqi Liberation Act.  Tell me where it states that the LAW allows the use of American forces for the purpose of ousting Saddam Hussein.

Read some of the articles at the attached link and learn that “Bush senior decided that the best course of action was to contain Saddam, and allow him to be strong enough to maintain order domestically, and weak enough not to threaten his neighbours. “

Go to the following link and read the articles contained therein. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8245212D-39CC-4E6E-80FF-2E1F29F72BC5.htm

Stop making excuses for Democrats playing follow the leader on voting to go to war in Iraq.  Between the lies of the Republican administration and the shallowness of democrats in fearing election disasters.  They’ve all made a mess of this.

Instead of choosing sides.  Choose to be informed!!!!

Another history lesson.

WMD were not the only rationale for going after Saddam. It was merely the trigger. Remember the Axis of Evil speech? There were plenty of reasons to take out Saddam, all of which have been reiterated here.

The only difference is that, as scorp has laid out, unlike the Dems and their belated Hey, we can’t find any, so there must not have ever been any rhetoric, these other rationale weren’t made up after the fact.

jams, the long URLs get broken, extra letters and spaces too.

Click here for tinyURL.com

Check it out. Using tinyURL.com is easy.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.  Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t unleash during the invasion - why not?), he had a history of oppression (but that was okay during the Iran - Iraq war) and as your president put, “Well, he was a bad man.”

Well God damn, there’s a lot a bad men running around out there, so, what nation (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, etc) will you choose to invade next?  Where does it stop?

Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war.  If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?

Come on, get a grip. . . 9/11 happened not because of botched intelligence dissemination, but deliberately to justify a “war on terror”.

Think about it.  If the 9/11 attacks had never happened, do you think that there would have been the same overwhelming support of the decision to go to war?  Especially given that UNSCOM and the US Inspection teams turned up nothing!!!

Read the contradiction in the reasons for “Missing 9/11” and “Going to war against Saddam Hussein” both were based on intelligence gathered by the same organizations.  So, how could the same intelligence community be soooo wrong about Atta and crew, yet soooo right about Saddam.

Ya’ll are being played and you don’t even no it.

Well God damn, there’s a lot a bad men running around out there, so, what nation (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, etc) will you choose to invade next?  Where does it stop?

When all the bad men are taken care of…

“Bush senior decided that the best course of action was to contain Saddam, and allow him to be strong enough to maintain order domestically, and weak enough not to threaten his neighbours. “

In learning from history, one must be able to understand the whys, as well as the whats and whens…

If the 9/11 attacks had never happened, do you think that there would have been the same overwhelming support of the decision to go to war?

Bush Sr didn’t finish the job in 1991 because it was before 9/11, before the world would open its eyes to the terrifying realities and dangers.

al Qaeda aptly demonstrated that for us.

I don’t need nebulous conspiracy theories to explain that.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.  Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (which he didn’t unleash during the invasion - why not?), he had a history of oppression (but that was okay during the Iran - Iraq war) and as your president put, “Well, he was a bad man.”

- because he knew we had more…
- it was certainly unfortunate. But, if one extrapolates the logic of the current anti-war rhetoric, we shouldn’t have done anything about then, either. So, how come the criticizism? Doesn’t that contradict your own logic?

shaun: Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war.  If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?

in·sti·ga·tion n. deliberate and intentional triggering

I never said WMD was the trigger, merely one of the rationales.

Jay: WMD were not the only rationale for going after Saddam. It was merely the trigger.

ra·tion·ale n. Fundamental reasons; the basis

trig·gered tr.v. To set off; initiate

I didn’t know that the Saudis of 9/11 were official representatives of the Saudi Royalty. Saudis, by the way, whose movement to America was facilitated by Iranians. I agree with your logic. Iran should be next.

Besides, what’s the killing of a few thousand Kurds between friends, huh?

sar·casm n. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

ouch!

I just burned myself!

Oh well, I am only human....

I gotta stop blogging before my morning cup of coffee…

No digging myself out of this, huh?

But I’ll try. After a pot of coffee!

I fear I am going to have to stop reacting to slurs and bad logic so early in the morning. My dyslexia tends to kick in when I am in a semi-somnolent state.

To reargue my last posting,

Are you so dense as to believe that WMD’s, the killing of a few thousand Kurds, and his (Saddam’s) indifference towards the sanctions were the instigation for war.  If these acts were the predicate for invasion, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia when it was identified that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals?

Yes, I am that dense.

To argue that those acts are sufficient for an invasion of Saudi Arabia belays the point that,

A) not only has Saudi Arabia never used WMD, but they don’t have them even if they wanted to use them,

B) they didn’t kill a few thousand Kurds, and

C) they had no sanctions imposed upon them to be indifferent about.

If there is logic to the assertion that because most of the terrorists held Saudi citizenship and therefore we must invade Saudi Arabia, I would then argue

A) because of the transportation that the Iranians facilitated across their borders and their territory for the muscle men of the 9/11 terrorists as they made their way to America,

B) because of the safe harbor the Iranians are current providing to senior al Qaeda staff and more than one of Bin Laden’s sons in downtown Tehran,

then that is a good enough argument for an invasion of Iran.

Perhaps we could use the same argument for an invasion of Syria in the wake of the UN sanctions for the assassination of Lebanese opposition leader Hariri, or for allowing Syrian soil to be used as a rear echelon for the Iraqi insurgency?

But, this stands,

Besides, what’s the killing of a few thousand Kurds between friends, huh?

sar·casm n. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Reuters:
Saddam accepted UAE exile plan to avert Iraq war

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=282657+28-Oct-2005+ +RTRS&srch=saddam+accepted+UAE+exile+plan

From Israel’s Newspaper in an interview with the neocons:

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.

such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279

What is this New World Order the neocons are sayinf is the real reason we are in Iraq? Obviously it was not for the CIA trained and funded Saddam.

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Well, that should take care of the Saddam is the reason crowd. The neocons in thei own document says Saddam is not the reason we are in Iraq. This is too easy.

Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

I guess the Bush supporters got the Pearl Harbor they wanted to justify a war.

Absent the not-so-good sarcasm and not-quite veiled innuendo of a conspiracy theory, that sounds good to me.

But to clarify one question that is asked

What is this New World Order the neocons are sayinf is the real reason we are in Iraq? Obviously it was not for the CIA trained and funded Saddam.

No, it is not. The reasons are manifold. Obviously, the strategic interest in the flow of oil is the most immediate one. Even China recognizes the importance of oil to the world’s (or at least her) economy. One does not need to hang ones head in mock shame to acknowledge that.

There is also the point of establishing this “New World Order” (ie, what happens after the Cold War is over) as a free democratic one. The biggest threat to that goal are anarchist-terrorist organizations and the various dictatorial and totalitarian regimes around the world. Again, no mock shame required to acknowledge this.

Just because I speak Chinese, doesn’t mean I want to live in a world dominated by China.

The fact that people interested in the future would analyze this is no different than the Pentagon making war simulations on worst-case scenarios.

The fact they got it right tells me we should be listening harder.

Reminds me of a documentary on PBS the other night about global warming. Seems that because the Pentagon has war-gamed a world devastated by major changes in the climate, it is being taken as proof that the government really believes in global warming.

No. That is just the Pentagon’s job. Prepare for the worst.

Of course, the Jewish remarks would be just plain silly if they weren’t so vilely racist.

(note: to acknowledge that,

the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein

only implies there are more reasons than just Saddam’s brutality to justify the Iraq War, not that the “eliminate Saddam” isn’t sufficient)

Finally, the link to beowulf’s article about Saddam accepting a UAE exile plan also mentions this,

UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan made the proposal for Saddam to go into exile at an emergency Arab summit just weeks before the U.S.-led war began in March 2003.

But the 22-member Arab League, led by Secretary-General Amr Moussa, refused to consider the initiative.
...
Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak says in the documentary that the United States had signaled its support for the proposal.

Not sure what beowulf’s point was with regard to this article.

Perhaps he didn’t read it?

Finally (again), after reading beowulf’s other article, I am beginning to doubt the sarcasm that I read into beowulf’s post. His links sure don’t lend much credence to that.

The other link of beowulf’s is the article about the 25 or 30 men of neocons. Now, beowulf doesn’t mention it, but this is actually how that article ends,

Still, it’s not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It’s not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It’s not that 25 people hijacked America. You don’t take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America’s over-reaction to September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.

In other words, 9/11 changed the world.

That’s funny. I think I’ve heard that before somewhere.

I did in fact read the article, but support of the war is to support the New World Order.

2) The Jewish remarks were cut and pasted from The Israeli article which I suppose you failed to read. I suppose you are calling the Jews racists. That is silly and absurd and the only vile thing is your statement that Jews are racists.

3) My point also is that we trained Saddam at the school of the Americas, armed him, and considered him an allie. your lack of knowledge on the subject explains your blatant support for a war of aggression.
This is no different than the March 15, 2001 article in Janes or the June 26, 2001 article in the Indian daily outling our coming war with Afghanistan. Oh, thats right, you thought it was in response to 911. How cute. I was in the service buddy and we had 17,000 troops on the border ready to enter. At the same time, Britain was running the largest military exercise in living memory in the gulf in September 2001. How convenient for the war mongerers.
Peace brother.

Entering Iraq was the worst mistake we possibly could have made and it has sidetracked us in the war on terror. however, now that we are in Iraq we cant just leave or chaos and anarchy will rule. thats why we all need to elect this man...http://www.walken2008.com/

The war on terror is a fraud.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
Henry Kissinger, Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Bilderberg meeting.

“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there.”
William E. Dodd U.S. Ambassador to Germany 1937

My offense at the Jewish slur stands. If it isn’t relevant, why mention it. If it is, why is it relevant?

I never said Saddam was a friend of convenience. I just deny the immorality of it.

And I don’t use my own overseas military experience as proof that I know better than others....

Semper fi, dude

corrections:

I never said Saddam was not a friend of convenience. I just deny the immorality of it.

With regards to Kissinger’s quote, to acknowledge the possibility does not imply a belief in the actual reality of it.

With regards to Dodd’s, that fact that there are Americans who do not value liberty also does not imply that there is a facist conspiracy controlling everything the government does.

It is easy to claim, but just because you say it is possible, doesn’t make it so, Joe.

First, I did not mention it. Israel did. Second, it could be percieved as a conflict of interest as regards to the rebuilding of the middle east. So, the pink elephant bears mentioning.
The history of the neocons dates back to the third international in 1928 under Trotsky. Many of our current necon’s fathers participated and birthed the neocon movement. I will not support closet Communists expanding our government, decimating the constitution with their patriot(enabling act 1933 Germany) qnd bring in the likes of Marcus Wolf(former haed of the East German stazi) and two former KGB generals into the department of fatherland security. I mean “homeland”. You have to forgive my forgetfulness. I tend to get the first one from 1933 under Hitler’s war on terrorism with ours.

“I will Sovietize America"-Marcus Wolf

I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And I meant it.

I implore you to read A Clean Break written by the neocons outling attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Iran to better secure Israel. So their loyalty to America first begs the question, Does being Zionist matter? maybe, and it is not antisemetic to ask these questions. They can be addressed in a respectful nonoffensive fasion that can shed light on motivations.

I made a plethora of spelling errors and apologize for lack of professionalism. I will try to better pay attention to detail in the future.

The possibility does exist for our democracy to be supplanted with another model and similiar paradigms have been exercised against other populations to secure power. Remember, the Bush familie’s fortune derived from the liquidation of Nazi assets. I believe the apple did not fall far from the tree. For the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat and do not engage in partisan bashing. I believe what we see today is no more than an accumilation of what has been developing for decades.
If we do not pull out from Iraq and the war expands to other nations, the potential is there for a world war where I feel both Russia and China could enter the conflict. Is it worth it?

So, beowulf is not responsible for raising the “Jewish” question, yet he now assumes that not only is the Jewish question relevant with regards to this group of 25 or 30 men, but in fact, he now questions their loyalty as Americans over being Zionists.

No, I will not engage that topic.

Oops. I mean their loyalty as Americans over being Zionists or perhaps Communists....

If we do not pull out from Iraq and the war expands to other nations, the potential is there for a world war where I feel both Russia and China could enter the conflict. Is it worth it?

As a military man, you really can’t seriously think that even if Russia or China had a mind to intervene, that they effectively could??

The Russian military is a joke, taking more damage post-1989 than anything Clinton did to the American military. And the Chinese have no real effective means to transport troops into the area, whether over the mountains through Central Asia, or by airlift or sealift. Besides, their strategic interests lie in Eastern China, not Western.

Is it worth it?

Yes. In fact, taking the neo-con agenda (as beowulf understands it) to heart, now is absolutely the time to strike.

Syria, Iran, North Korea. All have bad boy reputations, reputations that are amply justified. What kind of world do we want to live in? One that accepts the Tyrannical rule of Despots merely because they are isolated and can be safely ignored? As the world ignored Rwanda?

Or one that fights for the rights of the individuals, not just individuals who already enjoy the fruits of liberty, but especially those who do not.

Is not being a progressive all about social justice? Is not it our moral progressive obligation, as beneficiaries enjoying the good life that true liberty has given us, to defend and fight for those who have no power, no hope of attaining that same basic right of liberty?

Or do we sit in isolation behind two great oceans and tell the world, go to hell?

What more righteous battle for progressives than that?

Beowulf -

Besides the abject silliness of your conspiracy theories, you have some of your facts wrong, and you ignore the context of the situation in the Middle East in the last part of the Twentieth Century. 

After the Qassim assassination attempt, Saddam escaped to Syria and Egypt, where he attended school.  Saddam also made a state visit to France in 1976.  None of his biographies list attendance at the School of the Americas (Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation, WHISC), which is, after all, conducted in Spanish specifically for students from Latin America. 

Every Liberal makes a big thing about the USA and it’s on-and-off cooperation with Saddam.  BFD.  These same Liberals do not say a word about the USA’s on-and-off cooperation with communism.  When Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler was perceived to be the bigger threat and we supported the Soviets with billions of dollars of food, supplies, and odinance.  We offered to extend Marshall Plan aid to the Soviets after the war, and they refused, preferring to act out their ridiculous international socialist fantasies. 

After WWII, oil became a central energy resource in the world, and the Middle East had lots of oil.  There were many contending entities, including the Gulf States, some of whom had major reserves of oil, Arabs versus Persians, Sunni versus Shia, the Soviets, who had lots of oil and an agenda, and the oil consumers, principally Western Europe, Japan, and the United States.  Iran and Iraq were local powers, and both would have loved to control all the oil in the region, just as the Soviet Union would have. 

The United States’ first requirement (agenda item, if you wish) was to keep the oil flowing.  Stopping the oil would have soon wrecked the economies of Western Europe and Japan, and would have damaged the USA.  Stopping the oil, for whatever reason, could very well result in a local or non-local war, a situation to be avoided if at all possible. Then as now, Iran was threatening dire consequences for the USA and Israel after Khomeini came to power.  The Gulf oil powers could not stop the oil without hurting their own economies, but the Soviet Union would have joyfully disrupted the world economy in any way possible. 

In the early 1990s, the Soviet Union collapsed of inefficiency and corruption.  That radically changed the equations in the Middle East and in the world.  With no realistic threat from the Soviet Union, we could deal more forthrightly with genocide, aggression, and terror.

So, during the Cold War, the USA was able to keep the oil flowing, by playing the contending factions off one against the other.  Did it work?  Yes, it did.  Was it perfect?  Of course not.  Do the Liberals ignorantly complain about it?  ‘Deed they do.  Does anyone really care what a Liberal thinks?  I don’t know, I certainly don’t.  Does a Liberal think?  There is no evidence that they do.

Republicans during the Clinton-Gore administration stated repeatedly that the United States shouldn’t put our men and women in harm’s way unless it was absolutely necessary.

So, it is interesting that neither party addresses the real problem with any sincerity which is the astonishing ineptness of the 15 intelligence agencies which were providing such “unequivocal proof” as far back as 1998 concerning Saddam Hussein’s possession of W.M.D.

It wasn’t until Bush-Cheney ascended to the White House via judicial fiat and not until after the tragedy of 9/11 that we were told that if we didn’t take out Saddam Hussein immediately we would soon see mushroom clouds over U.S. cities.

On September 10, for example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was talking about cutting military programs and personnel and Attorney General John Ashcroft was demanding a $50 million cut in the Department of Justice and the FBI budgets. Al Qaeda and terrorism were not even on their radar scopes. 

Now that we know there were no W.M.D. either before the Iraq War or after, we must somehow try to figure out why $40 billion annual funding of the intelligence agencies resulted in such catastrophically flawed information. When G. W. Bush’s chief arms inspector, David Kay, testified before the U.S. Congress that “We were all wrong” it is clear that this was the biggest intelligence failure in the history of our country and one which so far has put over 2,035 U.S. military in body bags and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens in their graves.

Accusations that the Clinton-Gore administration knew the same information that Bush used to go to war with Iraq would be credible but for the fact that the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress in no way supported that option, claiming that America should not be the world’s policemen nor should we be involved with nation-building.

The Republicans and the entire Bush-Cheney administration who dismissed the Hart-Rudman report which was given to the Bush administration in January 2001. What did Bush do with it? He gave it to his newly-appointed FEMA director, Joe Allbaugh who in turn buried in the dead letter files. 

That report warned bluntly that terrorists probably will attack the US with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at some point in the near future. In Bush’s daily presidential briefing in July 2001 he also received information that terrorist would use hijacked airliners to use as bombs against American buildings and other vulnerable targets. 

Republicans were so hostile to the Clinton administration that they voted to withhold support for our U.S. military in Kosovo after Slobodan Milosevic was finally deposed. In June 1999 the Republicans had argued that the Kosovo peacekeeping efforts would further strain an already stretched Pentagon budget. And despite the president’s letter, 142 Republicans still voted for the spending cutoff date.

If our U.S. military was “strained” in 1999 what is it like now? And if, as David Kay stated in his testimony before Congress that “We were all wrong,” how does that absolve the Bush administration from waging a war that was based on flawed intelligence information and forged documents and one which has now become G. W. Bush’s Achilles heel?

Unfortunately, you Bush continues to “catapult the propaganda” (his words) that Democrats, not Republicans, should accept responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the Iraq War, a war that was launched on the watch of G. W. Bush who undoubtedly is still looking for those W.M.D. under his desk in the Oval Office.

The families of over 2,035 U. S. military dead and over 15,000 wounded are not laughing, however. And spin it all you want, nothing of the sort happened during the Clinton-Gore administration. “Bush lied and people died” is an accurate assessment of the policies of a deeply flawed and wrong-headed Bush administration.

1)I have posted no theories, only facts that you cowardly shy away from with the words “conspiracy” as if that somehow disarms me while you justify murdering tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. You should be ashamed of yourselves. All you are liberating the Iraqis from are their lives.
2) I am not a liberal, but believe in the constitution as it is written, not as you would abolish it with your traitorous Patriot Acts. Funny how you want to liberate other nations while destroying our freedoms at home. History has a way of repeating itself I suppose.

3) As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Those who do not question the actions of their president are servile, cowardly, and guilty of treason.

What questions have you raised for your president lately or do you more closely fall within the above description?

1) A conspiracy are facts tied together by conjecture and innuendo

2) Never said you were a liberal, only a conspiracy nut. This blog is a progressive blog. My comments about social justice were directed to the readership at large. Never said I supported the Patriot Act. Never said I didn’t. Only someone well versed and well practiced with the methodology of conspiracy theories would make that conclusion. Anything wrong with wanting to liberate other nations from tyranny?

3) Your greatest source of “facts” are quotes and unrelated bits of history. You offer no concrete thread.

I do not fall in line with your above innuendos. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support the foreign policy that the President is conducting.

we must somehow try to figure out why $40 billion annual funding of the intelligence agencies resulted in such catastrophically flawed information.

I don’t care how much money is thrown at intel. Ya gotta have human intel on the ground, yet some of most elite Liberal institutions don’t allow the CIA or the DOD to recruit on campus. It is disingenuous to cry that our intel agencies failed but then ignore the fact we slam the door tight on the very group of intelligent, educated people who are needed most to gather that intel.

Richard,

Times change.

For example, the only reason Bush Sr. didn’t go all the way to Baghdad was because the vast majority of people didn’t want to believe that what happened over made little difference to our lives.

9/11changed that.

Neither political party is homogenous. Each is made up of several constituencies. Both parties have their hawks; both have their doves. Both parties have progressives; both have their reactionaries.

The Democratic Party is currently under the sway of a group of people whose only agenda is to oppose Bush, regardless of the politics or consequences, a far cry from the Clinton days. And the Republican Party is more concerned with winning the war, than the very progressive social programs they pushed in the mid 90s.

Times change.

In the wake of 1989, with the fall of the Cold War, people from both parties wanted to believe in the “peace dividend”. Clinton spent that the way a drunken sailor spends his pay. Most of my buddies who were still in the service told me horror stories how badly the military was being gutted. Even after 9/11, the consequences of that drunken spending spree left supply and logistics woefully underfunded and training budgets slashed to the point of being a joke.

Republicans opposed the Kosovo fiasco as much for a lack of resources and military capability as anything else. Many people opposed the effort in Kosovo because the military wasn’t given the support it needed to do the job. That, and Clinton’s abject failure in Somalia clearly demonstrated he didn’t have the backbone and stomach that a commander-in-chief needs to make the tough decisions. People were more afraid of another Black Hawk Down scenario than anything Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson were screaming about (both, by the way, are no longer an important part of the party now).

Politicians from both sides of the aisle are good in thinking in term of election cycles, not long term commitments.

Let’s not fall into the same trap.

You do fall in line in fact.
1)FACT. Many of the supposed hyjackers were found alive. BBC
2)FACT: The Bin Laden videos were proven fakes by both Germans and Swiss authorities
3)FACT: Many confusing drills involving hyjacked aircraft were ran on 911
4)FACT: The hyjacker patsies were harbored in apartments rented out by FBI informants- San Fransisco Chronicle
5)FACT: David Schippers was given three file boxes outlining an attack on lower Manhatten by FBI field agents that were threatened with arrest if they pursued the investigation. ie: W199I
6)FACT: Most fire fighters and police on the scene interviewed said the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and vindicated by the release of their communications of that fateful day.
7)FACT: Marvin Bush owned the security company in charge of security at the towers and Dulles airport where one of the drills of flying planes into buildings occurred at.
8)FACT: The chief of the ISI who was meeting with Porter Goss the morning of 911 wired $100,000 to Mohamid Atta.
9)FACT:  Silverstein, the owner of the trade centers is quoted as saying that he had to pull the building and then it came down (Building 7)
10)FACT: The put options against United and American airlines went up 1,200% the week prior to the attacks and were purchased by Israelis
11)FACT: Some “hyjackers” trained at NAS Pensacola
12)FACT: Bush’s secretary of Labor...Reynolds, Bob Dole’s chief of staff Stanley Hilton, Britain’s environmental minister Meacher, Germany’s defense minister, Congressman Wellstone and Cynthia Mckinney all concurr that it was an inside job with many, many more whistleblowers.
These are a few of the thousand facts that do not fit nicely into your reality. Everyone of these facts are researchable, solid, and true. All counter the Koolaid you drink.
You say theory...I say documentd fact and discovery. So you love the people who were intrusted with protecting this country from a terrorist attack but wrote about how they could benefit from it. I find your loyalty interesting. George Washington would have rode you out on a rail. You may not have fit in with the American revolution, but I bet you would have made a great German. They drank the Koolaid too and look where it got them. I just hope your not one of those whiney “we were just following orders” type that littered the Nuremberg trials. It want wash this time either just like it did not work out well with the Torries in Washington’s day.
You need to wake up and support the Republic and not the empire. I know you can find the decensy in your heart not to sell your children into slavery while you scamper off on foreign adventures. As Congressman Ron Paul was kind enough to point out, Bush is turning America into a police state.
I am curious too as to your take on torture since recently the president was miffed at the thought that the American people may not find that the most wholesome activity in which to engage in. Since you support his foreign policy, and since the pentagons own reports conclusively show that 70 to 90% of detainees are innocent, do you get personal gratification with their abuse. Does that titilate you since you support his policies abroad. Clinton killed over a million Iraqis with his sanctions but I bet your not going to be out done by a stinking Democrat. You know you can kill more if you set your mind to it. After all, isn’t that your dream. Spreading bodies..err..I..mean..democracy. Halalujah, you bombed Fallujah. Can I get an amen to that.
You speak of intel, but Valery Plame’s Brewster Jennings, designed as front to gather intel on WMDs, was outed by your administration. All agents were compromised and the program shut down. Is there a black kettlle around here, because the pot is shouting.

Beowulf -

Every single one of your “facts” is wrong.

This is why conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, have nothing to contribute to rational discourse.

I am curious too as to your take on torture since recently the president was miffed at the thought that the American people may not find that the most wholesome activity in which to engage in. Since you support his foreign policy, and since the pentagons own reports conclusively show that 70 to 90% of detainees are innocent, do you get personal gratification with their abuse. Does that titilate you since you support his policies abroad.

That is about as good enough of an example of conspiracy (il)logic that I have ever come across…

Jay Cline, you state, “For example, the only reason Bush Sr. didn’t go all the way to Baghdad was because the vast majority of people didn’t want to believe that what happened over made little difference to our lives.”

Not true at all. George H. W. Bush and military analysts in 1991 believed that going into Baghdad would inflame the entire Middle East Arab countries and decided that it was not worth risking the lives of more American soldiers to continue the war. The main objective then was to kick out Iraq’s army from Kuwait. Many believed that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown by his own people who had already suffered during the 1980s in the war with Iran. 

As long as I’ve been posting on this site over the past year I’ve never justified much of what went on in the Clinton administration. But your comments and others insist on “Bush can do no wrong” and continue harp on Clinton’s failures without regard to the horrendous mistakes and poor leadership in the Bush administration are appalling.

You totally ignore the biggest error for the fiasco that Iraq has turned out to be. If you go back and read the earlier rhetoric during the buildup to Bush’s war it was Eric Shinseki, the top Army commander who testified in front of the U.S. Congress that in order to secure Iraq and quash the resistance our military would need between 300,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground.

That advice was dismissed by Rumsfeld over the objections of the Pentagon. That plus disbanding the trained Iraqi military who could have minimized our own military casualties was also a huge mistake.

It was a mistake that only now the Bush administration is willing to admit since their “new” policy which is to invite the former Hussein army to rejoin the Iraqi forces.

Even our own military commanders and military analysts have said the “dissolution of the 400,000-member Iraqi army in May 2003 drove many thousands of Sunni Arab soldiers and officers into the insurgency while depriving the country of a force that could help restore order.” Sad to say, over 2,000 families of the dead U. S. soldiers and 15,000 wounded would find little solace in this belated policy.

However, it seems that the loyal Bush Bootlickers are still sticking their heads in the sand and continue to “catapult the propaganda” that Bush can do no wrong.

It is the single biggest issue and the main reason why Bush’s approval ratings with the American public have dropped to 35% and why now, for the first time since Bush ascended to office, that Americans distrust this entire lying, inept Bush administration.

Consider the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll which states, “For the first time in the poll, Bush’s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress.”

I remember how loudly the Bush adorers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Network were crowing over Bush’s 90% approval, using those numbers to pillory his critics and opponents. Oh how the mighty have fallen!

Jay Cline,
You are unable to address the facts and all can be proved with the AP, Reuters, .gov, and .mil. You are unable to prove them wrong so you bury your head in the sands of ignorance crying all lies while defending a failed administration full of criminals.
You also never answered as to your stand on torture. You also failed to address if this administration was right in trying to silence Joe Wilson by outing his wife over the forged Niger documents. If forged documents are being used, then the case for war was hollow and weak. Lies were needed. These questions deal with truths, not theories. The American people are tired of being lied to. Bush lied, our troops died, and no I will not get over it.

Transcripts of an interview from 911 the road to tyranny
http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html

Military games one year prior to 911. pay attention to page 2

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

Agency planned exercise on Sept 11

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_e exercise.htm

Operation Northwoods from ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=92662

Hyjack suspects alive and well from BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://msnbc.msm.com/id/3067635/print/1/displaymode/1098/

investigation thwarted by Bush administration
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,589168,00.html

FAA managers destroyed tapes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6?language=printer

Are their anymore theories you would like me to prove.
I can do this all day. Their are enough unanswered questions about that day used as justification for their “multigenerational war” that need to be addressed before we commit our children and grandchildren to what may indeed be the greatest fraud perpetrated on the world.
The above are just a feww examples of each topic that include many others from each listed.
www.911proof.com carries the firefighter tapes as well.
Disprove their veracity and engage the points made and end the name calling.

Richard -

Remember during the 2004 elections, Kerry and the Democrats, based on polling numbers, thought they were winners, and were astonished to find that President Bush won the actual vote.  The Dims were so disappointed and so shocked, they immediately started talking about election fraud, but virtually all of the documented fraud was by Liberal brownshirt thugs, not by Republicans or Conservatives. 

http://www.ac4vr.com/news/acvrnews080205.html

So, now you are joyful that President Bush’s poll numbers are down, but be prepared to be astonished, disappointed, and shocked all over. 

The New Editor has analyzed three recent, and prominent, polls, and sure enough, CBS News poll, AP/Ipsos poll, and ABC/Washington Post poll all agreed that President Bush’s approval ratings were 40% or less.  What they did not tell you was that the people who were counted in the polls, all three polls, were heavily weighted toward the Democrats.  So, yes, if you want to make one side or the other look good in a poll, you can do so by weighting the respondents in your favor, but so what?  Since the Republicans won the election, there would seem to be no logic in polling more Democrats than Republicans if you want an accurate result.  But perhaps the Liberal Old Media is not looking for an accurate result.

You may wish to quibble with the numbers, but all the documentation is available in The New Editor website:

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/1301-More-Fun-With-Polls-....htm ml