JG-TC.com > Opinion > COLUMN: Facts are precious as bullets nowadays

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Sunday, June 8, 2008 12:31 AM CDT
COLUMN: Facts are precious as bullets nowadays

By HERB MEEKER, Staff Writer
hmeeker@jg-tc.com

I witnessed some good news about the war last Sunday at my church.

And it did not involve anyone shouting atop a soapbox.

People stood up and clapped when Father Dennis announced a parish family had a soldier back from Iraq. It was sustained applause, not some quick, polite golf gallery clap, either. Even before the Mass, the smiling soldier in his uniform was receiving personal welcomes from friends and they continued after the service.

That long round of applause might have been inspired by a combination of community pride, patriotism or relief. No one seemed to be making a political statement.

It is sad how almost every aspect of the war churns up bitter political debate these days. We can’t even bury the war dead without someone producing push-button accusations.

If you wave a flag as the hearse rolls by, then some elitist jerk will accuse you of being a dupe for the White House. Yet if journalists try to take photographs outside the patriotic parade theme during a military funeral then they are accused of being ghoulish thugs putting a pro-terrorist spin on a personal tragedy.

Something’s got to give, folks. We’ve got to wise up and stop shouting each other down.

More than a year ago, I wrote a column calling for a serious debate on the Iraq War. Since that plea, there have been mixed results in Congress, a military deployment surge with streaks of daylight showing through the tunnel, and, unfortunately, some of the most asinine statements on warfare and citizenship uttered in this country for 40 years.

So I’m going to try again on a war column because some people out there — many educated enough to know better and others without the brain power to pour liquid out of a boot with directions on the heel — don’t get what is at stake.

It doesn’t matter what end of the political spectrum they’re on. Facts coupled with reason are the ammo necessary to shoot the war ranters down.

But the only way to get facts is to get informed on your own. You have to read and study what happened before 9/11, when war talk was brewing, and what has transpired since.

That means reading books by people who have been there, or talked to people who have. They are hard to find these days, but some really good ones are out there. “Ghost Wars” by Steve Coll is a good start for getting a background on Afghanistan before 9/11 happened, and “War Made New” by Max Boot has a excellent summary of the lightning-quick destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and how things started to go wrong in Iraq two years later. Keep digging through the book shelves for more.

Study news magazines or newspapers filled with analytical pieces on the war and its political fallout. There might even be some good Web sites, too. Be sure to cut across both sides of the political spectrum, too.

Looking over newspaper archives can help get a reading of the outlook on events right after they happened. It still frightens me when I look at the news coverage in major papers I saved immediately after 9/11. It shows how angry and scared we were as a nation.

You might talk to some veterans from the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They can offer some insight at what they witnessed over there. Be respectful of their feelings though. Many of them don’t want to talk about some things they witnessed over there.

Why is this personal education project important, you ask? Well, in a few months you and millions of other Americans will pick the next presidential administration for deciding what is the future of our military commitments.

Lives across the globe are on the line. Our future as a Super Power might be up for grabs. This is about more than the price of gas or sirloin.

You need to decide on the right direction to take on Nov. 4. Don’t let some coffee shop loudmouth or cyberspace know-it-all decide for you.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Tom Andres wrote on Jun 9, 2008 12:07 AM:

" Good to see that your brain, your heart, and your spirit are working at healthy levels and in harmony, Herb. This is one of your best columns. // I doubt that your words will bring noticeable change to the divisive temperament of these boards, but I applaud you for making the attempt. Youre absolutely right; America and the world have much at stake this November! Perhaps more at stake than ever before. "

Early Bird wrote on Jun 9, 2008 5:51 AM:

" Newspapers, through their editorial pages, endorse candidates on every election. Is this not trying to influence the results of an election, Herb?

Obviously, the management at your place of employment doesn't agree with your attitude about on line communication or they wouldn't have provided such a service as they have.

I agree that newspapers are more truthful than a lot of the stuff you on line here or in the coffee shops, but that last line in this article seems a bit condescending and stuffy to me.

I sensed a lot of anger and frustration in your article, but am glad to see you finally taking a bold position on a subject, because most of the things you write seem rather vanilla to me. "

Tom Andres wrote on Jun 9, 2008 10:31 AM:

" LOL, Early Bird, and I sense a lot of defensiveness in your post. The difference between Herbs refreshing suggestion here and your per usual post is the same as the difference between the citizen who stands on the stage for all to see and yells FIRE (when there actually IS a fire) contrasted to the irresponsible pundit crouched in his seat in the back of the theater who yells the same thing (when there is NO fire). Its called owning your words. He does; you dont! "

Becky wrote on Jun 9, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Elitist jerk? Our future as a super power? Are you quoting the notorious PNAC letters there Herb? Many of us "elitist jerks" warned many of you war mongering "we must remain a super power by preemptive war and bullying" that there was no way Iraq had weapons of mass destruction due to the vigorously held Iraq sanctions that pretty much depleted Saddam's army and forces. Also, that Iraq/Saddam had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9-11. All you people did was yell at us elitist jerks about patriotism and backbone. Well Herb, it took a heck of alot MORE patriotism and backbone to state these "precious facts" to try avoid this fiasco in Iraq. I was threatened with bodily injury, left nasty notes and called pro terrorist and such. As we all know NOW, as most of us elitist jerks said back then, Bush lied, millions have died. Maybe if we could get away from this name calling, seperating speech, we could actually listen to the FACTS and make an educated decision this November. Yes, please people, do make the decision November 4. NO MORE WAR FOR OIL AND CONQUEST! "

father bob wrote on Jun 9, 2008 4:53 PM:

" Dear father bob,

Our campaign for accountability for the Bush administration is making legitimate progress.

I am pleased to announce to you that the House Judiciary Committee has met my public call for Scott McClellan's immediate testimony with action:

Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers officially invited Mr. McClellan to testify under oath on Friday, June 20th at 10AM.

After all of our hard work pushing for impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney the McClellan hearing provides our cause with a legitimate opportunity to showcase the crimes and violations of this Administration for the American people, the mainstream media, reluctant members of the Democratic party, and sensible Republicans. This hearing provides us our first genuine opportunity to enter the public consciousness and change the dynamics that have prevented true accountability for Bush and Cheney.

Mr. McClellan was a major figure in the Valerie Plame/CIA scandal, as well as a leading propagandist for the Bush White House's deliberate attempts to hide the true costs of this war from the American public. As such, Mr. McClellan will testify under oath (and be subject to perjury charges should he lie) and be asked about the following matters:

What role did President Bush, Vice President Cheney , and key administration officials take in the effort to reveal the identity of covert CIA agent Valeria Plame Wilson thus destroying her network and putting lives in jeopardy?

What role did President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and key administration officials take regarding the firing of U.S. Attorneys or political reasons?

What role did President Bush, Vice President Cheney, key administration officials take in conspiring to blatantly break U.S. and International laws prohibiting the use of torture?
I call on Mr. McClellen to immediately accept this invitation and testify under oath as he previously agreed to while being interviewed on national television.

During the hearing I will have roughly five short minutes to question Mr. McClellan and undercover the illegalities committed by this Administration which is why it is critically important that every representative on the Judiciary Committee hears your voice. Please let them know that you demand answers to these questions.

Nor should it stop there: Karl Rove has thumbed his nose to the Judiciary Committee's subpoena joining Harriet Miers, Joshua Bolten and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington as the only Administration officials in history to claim Congress has no power to even bring them before a committee to be questioned.

I have called for Karl Rove to be held in inherent contempt and for the other renegade officials to appear as required by their subpoenas, or be forced to do so by the House Sergeant of Arms.

What the Judiciary's request of McClellan proves is that if we stay vigilant if we call loudly and repeatedly for accountability - that we become very difficult to ignore.

Please stay tuned. I hope for more developments soon.

With great respect,

Congressman Robert Wexler "

Tom Andres wrote on Jun 9, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Holy Cow there, Becky, if you think the Elitist Jerk label fits you, just put it on and wear it with pride - but please, don't deny who you are. I was one of the locals who got in Harry Reynolds' face over taking the pictures at the funeral, and I'd tell Harry the same thing today that I did back then. I wear my conservative label proudly and I never deny who I am. I wonder if you ever admit that you're a liberal? Becky, you had no idea whether or not Saddam had WMDs before we went in there. The only prudent assumption at the time was that he had them, and that he would use them. I don't agree with every move Bush and Rummy made early on, but I have no doubt that we had to go in. // And Becky, it did NOT take "a heck of alot MORE patriotism and backbone ... to try avoid ...." Actually, if your camp was in favor of doing nothing at all, you made no effort at all. How difficult is that? Can't wait to hear your position on Iran. // By the way, Herb, how are we doing so far? Is this the change you were looking for? Becky sounds exactly like the cyberspace know-it-all you were referring to. LOL. "

Tom Andres wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:56 PM:

" Thanks for removing his post, but the damage is already done, Moderator. Who knows how many people read his post and believe his lies about me? How about, if Harry Potter refuses to print a retraction, he be banned from this site forever? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:26 PM:

" A lot of people elected to join the guard and the reserves during Vietnam as a way to escape combat. That is a fact and it's also true that many of these same people are now the biggest supporters of the war on Iraq. This would include some who post on this site. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:54 PM:

" You can call a watermelon a grape all day long, but it will not alter the fact that it's still a watermelon. A lie is only a lie if it's not the truth. "

Tom Andres wrote on Jun 9, 2008 9:33 PM:

" Potter, you wont be surprised to learn that I have a copy of your post that the moderator removed. I think Ill probably keep it awhile. In case you and I ever run into one another, we can rehash it. In that post, you said I took the cowardly way out by signing up for a 6-month military gig which effectively eliminated any chance of my having to go to Vietnam. You said I avoided the military during Vietnam. You called me a draft-dodger. // Not a very smart move, Potter. Not smart at all. // Funny, my DD214 says I joined the US Army (not the Guard, not the Reserves) on 16 NOV 1966. My MOS was 11B. I arrived in Vietnam one day before TET 1968. Things were busy right from the get-go. My DD214 says I was attached to the 44th Medical Brigade, and the crazy thing was I barely knew how to put on a band aide, let alone how to treat a sucking chest wound. It also says I later obtained a Top Secret Security Clearance and that I was assigned to Plans and Operations to help develop and maintain a 365/24/7 evacuation plan for all of our in-country Dust Offs and medical personnel and all of our patients from I-Corps to V-Corps at a moments notice just in case someone like Jane Fonda managed to pass traitorous strategic information to the enemy about our patient population and movements to and from our field and evacuation units. I got rocketed, mortared, shot at, did my job to the best of my ability, grew up some, and then I came home. I was no hero, but I knew a lot of them; buried several. You know, the military never lost a battle in Vietnam. What did you do in the war, Potter, any war? "

ed miller wrote on Jun 9, 2008 11:10 PM:

" He may not have been in the war, but he can have "highest post count on jg web site" engraved on his tombstone. We all have to make our mark somehow. "

The Question wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:56 AM:

" Becy wrote: "Many of us 'elitist jerks' warned many of you war mongering "we must remain a super power by preemptive war and bullying" that there was no way Iraq had weapons of mass destruction due to the vigorously held Iraq sanctions that pretty much depleted Saddam's army and forces. Also, that Iraq/Saddam had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9-11. All you people did was yell at us elitist jerks about patriotism and backbone. Well Herb, it took a heck of alot MORE patriotism and backbone to state these 'precious facts' to try avoid this fiasco in Iraq."
Well put. We liberal anti-war voices have repeatedly been proven right, and of course they never forgive you for that. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:03 AM:

" I could swear I remembered your having talked about serving only 6 months, but not keeping a file on my fellow posters I could be wrong. I think you would be able to see the natural conclusion one would draw from that. Considering that most right wing Republicans have a tendency to be chickenhawks, I guess I assumed you were one too.

If your hands were clean in the area of name calling and harshly criticising others, an apology might be in order, but they're not, so you will get none from me.

Nor will I go crying to the monitor, like a spoiled little kid who didn't get his way over anything you or anyone else says about me on here.

Your supposed Vietnam service story seems a bit contrived to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let it go.

Sorry to disappoint you but I was in grade school during your war so I don't have any glamorous blood and guts stories. I did enlist in the Air Force for 4 years and serve in Europe, but nothing as exciting as your supposed story, and probably not as glamorous as any stories that would come from old ed miller, about his illustrious military career. Perhaps ed would care to enlighten us as to his service record. I won't hold my breath for that one. "

Becky wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:48 AM:

" liberal (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

No Tom, I have no problem at all being a liberal. But first and foremost, I am American who is broken hearted at the direction that the conservatives have taken this country. It was NEVER our forefather's intent for our country to become the supreme ruler and dictators of the planet. I really have no problems with conservative views but the conservative party is ANYTHING BUT! They spend, spend, spend without having the money backing them up. They drive for world domination. The usual reason for the fall of any empire. And as far as Iran goes, Israel has 150 nukes, the US has over 10,000. If Iran EVER decided to nuke anyone, they would be an ocean of green glass within 30 minutes. They KNOW this. It's called a deterrent. "

father bob wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:21 AM:

" it'll be okay tommie...(offers a terrorist fist bump) "

what? wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:56 PM:

" I suspect that the British and Torries considered our founding fathers as liberals of vilest sort. "

father bob wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:58 PM:

" what? wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:56 PM:
" I suspect that the British and Torries considered our founding fathers as liberals of vilest sort. "

and that was probably the good ones. they emptied their prisons by offering freedom... "

techman wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:15 PM:

" You are exactly right. Take for instance the Bush Lied mantra. We can now read the Senate report and see that Rockefellar or the Democrats can not substantiate that claim. While announcing the release of the report, they made the claim that Bush lied, if people actually would read the report (the main content and not just the summary), they would find that the intelligence that Bush cited was actually presented and substantiated. Amazing and this was presented by the Democrats. "

The Question wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:35 PM:

" You're lying about the Senate report, techman. It confirms that Bush lied, something we already knew.
"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
Examples include:
-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:14 PM:

" Better be careful TQ, you can get in trouble for telling the truth on here. LOL! "

what wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:59 PM:

" Not long before the Bush Adm. attacked Iraq, the united nations chief weapons inspector retired. When ask why, he stated that he was no longer needed, they'd inspected Iraq inside and out,upside down and over again. They have no weapons of mass destruction. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Tom, don't worry about Mr. Potter. He recently questioned whether or not I had actually served on another thread because, from what I could tell, he had no other ammunition with which to debate. Kind of sad, really. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:31 PM:

" I stand corrected. I just double-checked and it was Cognitus. Sorry, Potter, but stop copying Cognitus and this wouldn't happen. ha. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:33 PM:

" By the way, that thread about Bush and McCain not supporting the troops died very, very quickly. Suprising considering it was teed up perfectly for the liberal set to blast the heck out of the Republican party. I am disappointed because I had a lot to say on the subject. "

Early Bird wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:29 AM:

" If you kept extensive files on your fellow posters like Tom does, you wouldn't make these kinds of errors, soldier.

Perhaps Tom could hold an online seminar for his right wing protegees like the soldier and ed miller.

This might eliminate some of their confusion over the issues. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:08 AM:

" During a February 8, 2004, interview on Meet the Press, George Bush said, "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the oval office in foreign-policy matter with war on my mind."

After seven years plus of strutting around like a puffed up little rooster saying things like bring 'em on, he is now saying he regrets the world seeing him as a war president....Uh..George..what the hell else would they think of you?

It appears that Bush, in the last days of his final term, is lamenting his inevitable legacy.

Don't worry George you still have the support of about 25 or so percent of this country.

I suspect George's policies pretty well doomed McCain's chances of being the next president.

We reap what we sow..... "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:19 AM:

" I think it is a sorry indictment of our current political climate that anyone would assume I am a "right-winger" just because I support the war. Sorry to disappoint, but I refuse to choose one camp and simply conform to hold all of their beliefs. Quite frankly, I think most people who fall 100% in line with one party or probably doing so out of convenience. "I'm a liberal Democrat so I believe this, this, this and this." or, "I'm a conservative Republican so I believe that, that, and that."

Allow me to end the misconception: I believe we must achieve clear and final victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe that Osama bin Laden is as important as al Qaeda as a whole, though I would love to see him in shackles. I believe in less government and lower taxes. I believe that gays should be given all of the same rights and priveleges as everyone else. I believe that private contractors have no place in combat. I believe that a woman should be able to choose to end a pregnancy, but I also believe there should be strict guidelines about how early it needs to happen. I believe that universal health care would be a disaster. I believe that church and state should be seperate, period. I believe that the government should not legislate morality. I believe that improving education should be done by improving public education, not turning education into another service-industry. I believe that any project important enough to get federal funding should be able to do so on its own merit instead of being piggy-backed onto something more important. I believe anyone who speaks disrespectfully of soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen is lower than dirt. I believe that those who protest at military funerals have a special place in ___ waiting for them. I believe that the first amendment does not relieve us of our responsibility to act as mature adults. I believe that America is the single greatest country the world has seen yet, despite our obvious flaws.

Now, for those who like to label, tell me, what am I? "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Bush regrets his reputation as a warmonger, Harry. He doesn't regret the criminal actions that created his reputation.
These fascists think that all reality boils down to PR that can be controlled by the deployment of the proper lies. "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Here are just a few more of the lies Bush used to get the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the U.S.

Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on evidence for Iraqs non-existent nukes.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
George W. Bush, 2003-03-17

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07. These tubes turned out to be tubing used to construct playground equipment.

Weve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. Were concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on Iraqs non-existent drones capable of launching an attack on the USA.

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush, 2005-05-23, Interview of the President by TVP, Poland. Bush was of course lying they werent found. "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:09 AM:

" The problem with your thinking is your ridiculous Luntz-written terminology, Soldier - "clear and final victory." There can be no such thing. There is only a ruinously expensive and morally destructive occupation, based on lies, by troops who do not even speak the language of the people they are attempting to subjugate for reasons they themselves don't understand because they have never been told the truth by the military-industrial imperialists who use them.
Your GOP pals have brought this nation right to the verge of economic collapse. So the $3 billion-a week war games Bush and Cheney playing in Iraq will be coming to an end, and certainly without "clear victory," "final victory," or any kind of nonsensical "victory."
Political labels don't really matter. Understanding what you're really dealing with matters. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:30 PM:

" Question, you are doing your broken record thing again. We all know you are the world's foremost expert on the situation in Iraq. We all know that you have a more insightful and lucid picture of American politics than anyone else who has ever logged onto a computer, but you once again let your tunnel-vision get in the way of realizing the point of my post. I hope that some day you are able to focus your uncanny genius on something other than partisan ranting so that perhaps society can benefit from your unequaled intellect. "

Independent wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:45 PM:

" To Becky:
I don't know about "elitist," but I would be comfortable using the word "jerk" in reference to anyone who would tear down someone for simply holding a flag in honor of a fallen soldier.
The use of the word "Super Power" might have been over the top, but I though Meeker did a decent job of writing a column encourating people to get informed. Sounded like that includes the need for staunch Bush backers to get educated about what led to the mess in Iraq.
I believe your reference to Meeker as "you people" was unfair. I don't recall him mentioning that he yelled at "elitist jerks about patriotism and backbone."
I plan to vote for Obama and never voted for Bush II. I also would hold a flag for a fallen soldier. Am I "you people" too? "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Soldier, why don't you define your ringing "clear and final victory" for me? The words sound clear, but what exactly are they supposed to mean? Who is the enemy supposed to be? Precisely how will you know when your "clear victory" in Iraq has been so "finally" achieved? "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:48 PM:

" "Conservatives cannot reconcile their historic opposition to social engineering with their backing for one of the most expensive and ambitious social engineering ventures in US history: the reconstruction of Iraq," Allan Lichtman observes. "They cannot square their backing for states' rights with their support for constitutional amendments on abortion and gay marriage and their opposition to vehicle emission standards set by California and other states. They cannot reconcile their advocacy of individual freedom with their support for warrantless wiretapping of U. S. citizens, stringent versions of the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts, and an Executive Order that empowers the federal government to freeze the assets of anyone who threatens Iraq's stability and government.
"The defeat of John McCain by the liberal Barack Obama would mark the end of the current conservative era almost as clearly as Franklin Roosevelt's defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932 marked the end of the conservative 1920s." "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:12 PM:

" The great ape you respect so highly has spent more than five years and $3 trillion to achieve your "clear and final victory" over a country that never posed a threat, Soldier. Just how much longer and how many more deficit-spent trillions do you think your glorious victory over somebody or other might require? "

what? wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:38 PM:

" In January the Bush Adminisrations Reign of Terror will finaly come to an end. A great and loathsome burden will be lifted from our shoulders. Hope springs eternal. We(the people), only need the audacity to turn hope into reality. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:46 PM:

" Here is the definition. Victory is achieved when the Iraqis no longer need our help to secure their country and they have a working government that provides a real future for all Iraqis, not just one sect. You keep hammering away about "who" is the enemy, but refuse to accept the fact that this is a new kind of conflict. There aren't two sides with clear battle lines. The enemy is a way of thinking, so victory is creating an environment in Iraq that does not provide a breeding ground for that way of thinking. You also keep yammering about "a country that never attacked or threatened us". The same description could have been used for Nazi Germany. They had not made a single agressive action towards us. The difference between then and now is that everyone sees the reality that has always been war and they simply can't handle. I have made the prediction before, and I will gladly make it again; regardless of the circumstances leading up to the first shots, this country will never have popular support for a war again. It simply won't happen, so I don't really care that you can run through your laundry list of Democrat talking points every 12 hours on these threads because the fact remains that as long as my friend stays dead, and my other friends still have scars up and down their legs, and still more friends have nightmares, I will support a victory in this war because I refuse let them live with those scars and have nothing to show. If we do not stay the course the 4,000 plus dead soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that the anti-war crowd like to site as reason to leave will have given their lives in vain. You believe what you want to believe, but I respect them too much to cut-and-run, effectively negating their sacrifice. I also wonder if you have any daughters. I do, and I spent the first 10 months of her life in Iraq knowing that even if I didn't make it home it would be worth it if the little girls I saw every day had even half a chance at the opportunities I knew my little girl would get living in the United States. Maybe you could fly to Iraq and tell them that making sure they live in a country that treats them as human beings instead of property isn't worth your tax money. Tell them, "Sorry, but tough crap. Maybe you will get lucky and not be raped by some mullah and left for dead." Anyone on here can call it exagerration, but that is simply sticking your head in the sand. The fact remains that countries that come under the control of radical Islamic groups have only that to offer young girls. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Don't worry what, the folks at the Fixed news channel will run specials for months on end telling us how great Bush and his chief thug, Cheney were.

And for our friend soldier, it looks like you must have run out of ammo. Your sarcastic 3:30 post sounds a little like our other great military hero, Tommy. Perhaps you and he could get together and swap stories about your weekend guard duties. "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:38 PM:

" "If we do not stay the course the 4,000 plus dead soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that the anti-war crowd like to site as reason to leave will have given their lives in vain."
The word is "cite," not "site." Adding to their number will not justify their unjustified deaths, nor the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we've gotten killed while supposedly "rescuing" them. But you're willing to sacrifice an endless number of Iraqis and U.S. troops to your Republican warmonger talking points, right? And how many more borrowed trillions, again?
Nice dodge there about the "enemy" being "a way of thinking." What utter, transparent claptrap.
So who's the real "enemy" you're going to declare your "victory" over, Soldier? The Sunni insurgents we're bribing and rearming so they won't kill U.S. troops again until AFTER the election year is over? Or the Iranians who are allied with our puppet government in Iraq? Or is it just the Iraqi people themselves, who must be continually brutalized until they understand that the true meaning of "freedom" is obeying the commands of U.S. corporations? "

The Question wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:44 PM:

" The quoted wisdom of Mr. Soldier.
----
"Allow me to end the misconception: I believe we must achieve clear and final victory in Iraq and Afghanistan."
----
"There aren't two sides with clear battle lines."
----
Detect any little problem with your reasoning there, Soldier? "

ed miller wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:51 PM:

" Come on Soldier. Those of us who have actually BEEN to Iraq are no match for the liberal posters here. They man the blogs 24/7 to keep this site free of different opinions. Hey did you hear we didn't find any WMD's? Poor defensless Saddam meant us no harm. He was just kidding when he tried to assassinate our president. I'm sure the thought of doing harm to our nation never crossed his mind and if he knew of any terrorist plots, I'm sure he would have immediately alerted the White House. When I was there, I got to see a lot of handiwork from Saddam's sons too. Let me tell you, never were there greater champions for human rights and goodwill toward mankind on the planet. Don't worry, because after President Obama pulls all the troops out, the terrorists will shake his hand and say, "no hard feelings". Everything will return to peace and tranquility. Hey, at least we got all that oil from the invasion or we would really be in a mess. "

The Question wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:09 AM:

" "Those of us who have actually BEEN to Iraq are no match for the liberal posters here."
-----
Now you're getting it. The decisions about what happens in Iraq aren't made in Iraq. They are made in this country, by liars who have never for one minute cared what happens to the Iraqis.
And thanks for reminding me to ask. Did you happen to trip over any of those nonexistent WMDs while you were there? You know, the ones we've wasted $3 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives to secure? "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Nice try Question, but anyone who has seriously discussed the tactical challenges of our current engagements is aware that the "no two sides with clear battle lines" is a reference to the non-linear nature of the warzone. Unlike in previous conflicts, nobody can pull out a map and say, "U.S. forces have advanced to this point." and draw a line showing friendly and enemy territory. And as far as quoting my statement about "clear and final victory in Iraq and Afghanistan" as some way of catching me in a contradition about not having two sides, I think you need to stop watching so much Fox News because you are clearly picking up some of those smoke and mirror tactics you complain so much about. Had I said "clear and final victory OVER Iraq and Afghanistan" your clever little dig at my argument might have made sense, but instead it only further exposes your ignorance about the nature of combat in general, but specifically in regards to the theatres in which we are currently engaged. No doubt you are brushed up on all of the political spins and your catch phrases are very well polished, but don't kid yourself into thinking you know the first thing about war.

Mr. Potter,
Your comment about swapping stories about weekend guard duties is disappointing and an insult to the thousands upon thousands of Guard and Reserve soldiers who have served honorably in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Please keep tearing down your own credibility with comments like that so that everyone will see you for what you truly are. "

The Question wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:46 AM:

" "No doubt you are brushed up on all of the political spins and your catch phrases are very well polished, but don't kid yourself into thinking you know the first thing about war."
----
Well, perhaps not. But I do know that people who defend the idea of spending more than five years, $3 trillion and several hundred thousand lives fighting a failed "war" against a small county that never posed a threat to the U.S. are extremely dangerous fools. "

what? wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Soldier wrote "unlike in previous conflicts, nobody can pull out a map and say,"U.S. forces have advanced to this point," and draw a line showing friendly and enemy territory." This is simply not true. In fact it very accuratly describes the situation our military was forced to face in Viet Nam. Clear and final victory was achieved in Viet Nam. By the Vietnamese. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Yesterday Bush was lamenting his world wide reputation as a war president, and today he's rattling swords again. Schizophrenia? "

what? wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Our president is the Rodney Dangerfield of world leaders, and deservedly so. He earned it by his hard work. "

father bob wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:49 PM:

" The Army's public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called "Stand To" -- named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrapup contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It's similar to the Defense Department's Early Bird -- but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.

Tuesday's edition contained an entry under "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS" that struck me as unusual -- both for its headline and its patent political bias:

Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)

The link goes to a milblog called "Knee Deep in the Hooah." The author is a former Army officer whose son is serving in Iraq now. After citing a column on some curious Pentagon planning for an Obama administration, he goes on to write:

Roger that Redleg six, throwing away all ammo now and preparing to surrender ... Redleg five, out.

After all, what better time to surrender than when we are winning? The article cited above also includes a Youtube link so that you can see the end for yourself in the end makers own words. Sure. This is all old news for those of us who care. But it still ticks me off anyway. So I thought to myself,"Why not share the wealth?" Now I can be ticked off in good company. Enjoy.

Mr.Hooah!, out.

Seriously? Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches -- or are they simply going on what they hear on Fox News and the Limbaugh network?

And more to the point, why is the Army's official in-house public affairs shop linking to this kind of stuff? Just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told all hands to stay out of politics: "As the nation prepares to elect a new president, we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.... Keeping our politics private is a good first step." He added: "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."

Unfortunately, the message didn't get to through to the Army. "

miltmart wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Just a Soldier, you make me proud. Unlike too many posters, you state your beliefs instead of spending time trying to come up with the latest way to denigrate those who don't agree with you. I enjoyed this column of Herb Meeker's immensely.////As for the Select Committee on Intelligence, let me quote from a Washington Post article by Fred Hiatt, no less. His conclusion is the only person who lied is Sen. Rockefeller when he stood up and made the statement that "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent." Hiatt points out that if you search Sen. Rockfeller's report for exactly where and when the President lied that you will be surprised by what you find. For every point the report makes the conclusion was that the president's statements were: "substantiated or generally substantiated by intelligence information." Rockefeller himself made this statement in Oct. 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after Sept. 11, that question is increasingly outdated..To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." Odd, it seems that Rockefeller has changed his tune when he thinks he can make political hay and appease the Bush haters who are ready to believe the worst. I know this will not make a dent in those 24/7 posters but their so-called facts must be countered with what actually took place. And once again, thank you just a soldier for many reasons. "

The Question wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:32 PM:

" Turns out the Iraqis aren't too thrilled with Bush's plan for the permanent military occupation of their country.
The growing Iraqi anger was front-page news in the U.S. Wednesday. Sami al-Askari, a senior Shia politician close to Maliki, told The Washington Post: "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq ... If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here any more.' " "

The Question wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Fred Hiatt is lying, Miltmart. You say, "For every point the report makes the conclusion was that the president's statements were: "substantiated or generally substantiated by intelligence information."
Here, for example is what the report says about Saddam Husseins nuclear weapons program
"Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, BUT DID NOT CONVEY THE SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENTS THAT EXISTED IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY."
Hiatt, naturally, left out the part I have written in caps. And that's a lie by omission.
As a neocon, Hiatt is accustomed to lying. That's how they got us into invade a country that posed no threat, after all. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:39 PM:

" The military has allowed Pigboy Limbaugh's show to be broadcast to the troops in Iraq. Is it any wonder that they are confused as to what is really going going the world. Why in the world would the military allow the troops to be subjected to Limbaugh's propaganda? "

ed miller wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:17 PM:

" I would safely bet that 98% of the troops in Iraq do not listen to AF (armed forces) Radio. Most people I knew did not even have access to radios. Military vehicles do not come with AM/FM CD players. Although some with access to the net could get streaming radio, although internet time is usually limited. Most troops have MP3 players or even some CD's. But then again you would have no idea about what really goes on in Iraq, would you? I can see how that would really bother you if people listened to anything other than your narrow minded opinions. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:24 PM:

" Fred Hiatt? Now there's a legitimate expert on world affairs. Why didn't miltie just quote Ann Coulter? LOL! "

The Question wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:32 PM:

" Turns out that dictator Bush does not have the power to overthrow the 329-year-old right of habeas corpus after all, according to the Supreme Court. Did you see the fascist ape's press conference about it? He could barely restrain himself from a tearful temper tantrum. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:35 PM:

" The Supreme, which has been leaning toward the right for some time now, has smacked Bush's hands over the Gitmo prisoner situation. The question now is will Bush follow the law on this one? He has been flaunting the law for over 7 years now, but time is running out. Will he load these prisoners up on ships and hide them from the Red Cross inspectors as he has been doing for years? One thing for sure it that whoever follows Bush will be inheriting the biggest mess in the history of this country. Looking at the overall picture, it amazes me that anyone could actually stand up for that reprobate and his chief thug and war profiteer, Cheney. "

what wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:06 PM:

" "Substantiated or generally substantiated intellegence information." Their so called intellegence information came from within their conspiracy, for crying out loud. George Tenant was their head of the CIA, neck deep in their foul muck. Bush later rewarded him with Presidential Medal of Honor for his loyal contribution. Then promptly threw him to the dogs.(the slamdunk thing.) Rummies in the wings, giggling. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:21 PM:

" I have to say, Potter, you win the award for being the most contemptuos voice against the American military that I have heard in sometime. Do you really think that those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan really have the time to sit around and listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday? Even if they did, it is ridiculous to imply that we are all just victims of brainwashing. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:31 PM:

" Question, not including that there were some in the intelligence community who disagreed on whether or not Iraq had a nuclear program isn't lying. The point being made is that there was also intelligence substantiating the claim. The administration, along with Congress (let it be noted that TQ had nothing to say regarding Sen. Rockefeller's statements), chose to error on the side of caution and proceed as though the nuclear program was in place. If they had leaned the other way, decided to hold off until they were 110% sure and millions of Americans were killed by the weapons we chose not to go looking for, would you be happy? Now, TQ will respond by saying that the weapons weren't there and we have spent $x trillion on an unjust, unlawful, unkind, un... war without addressing my point, which is that we were faced with a gamble. There was no way of knowing for sure what was going on in Iraq was to go in the way that we did. The alternative was to simply sit back and hope nothing bad happened. "

what? wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:28 PM:

" I correct myself. Bush gave Tenant the Presidental Medal of Freedom, not of Honor. The irony remains. "

Downstream wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:43 PM:

" I have two questions. The first, setting Iraq aside for a second, was it a good idea to invade Afghanistan? I just want to know if we should have done nothing after 9/11, I'm thinking that some out there think so.
The second question, especially to liberals, is what EXACTLY should we have done right after 9/11 since apparently war isn't a good idea. "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:34 AM:

" "There was no way of knowing for sure what was going on in Iraq was to go in the way that we did. The alternative was to simply sit back and hope nothing bad happened."
---------
Yes, when you don't know what's going on in another country, the best thing to do is spread a lot of lies about mushroom clouds, invade, kill hundreds of thousands of people and wreck your national economy occupying it. "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:51 AM:

" Let's not forgot that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Feith set up their own agency, the Office of Special Plans, to COOK THE INTELLIGENCE on Iraq because they didn't like what the real U.S. intelligence community was giving them.
According to The Guardian newspaper, "The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorize."
When Former NSA Chief Gen. Michael Hayden testified before the Senate hearing on his nomination as Director of Central Intelligence in May 2006, he was asked about the pressure exerted by the Office of Special Plans on the intelligence community over the question of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. Hayden said he was not comfortable with the OSP's analysis: "I got three great kids, but if you tell me go out and find all the bad things they've done, Hayden, I can build you a pretty good dossier, and you'd think they were pretty bad people, because that was I was looking for and that's what I'd build up. That would be very wrong. That would be inaccurate. That would be misleading."
We were lied into invading Iraq, and the evidence is all over the place, ready to be found by anyone who's honest enough to look. "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:03 AM:

" Here is a direct quote from the Senate intelligence report's conclusions:
"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Communitys October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraqs Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."
Now, go find some more neocons to lie about that for you. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:31 AM:

" As usual, you seem to get confused on the issues, soldier. Let me help you with your confusion. I said that it was easy to see how our troops would be confused about things if they listened to the blathering right wing propaganda of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I never said anything about brainwashing. That was you misinterpretation of what I actually said. Perhaps you need to read slower before you shoot off your mouth in response to what others say.

Contrary to what you think, (actually I couldn't care less) I have no problems with our troops. I happen to be a veteran myself. My problem is with this current administration and those, such as yourself, who attempt to justify its immoral actions.

It is my sincere belief that over 4000 young Americans have died for George Bush's ego, and Dick Cheney's bank account. "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Well, I thought invading Afghanistan was a good idea at the time, Downstream, but since Bush let Osama bin Laden ESCAPE, it seems kind of pointless now, doesn't it? "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:07 AM:

" By now, we all know that what the Bush administration said about Iraq prior to the invasion was dead wrong. The only question still being disputed is whether those false White House statements were also lies, and we can clear up that dispute with an exercise in logic.
The central question is, would George W. Bush and his minions ever lie about the invasion of Iraq?
On May 23, 2005, speaking to the press in Poland, Bush said, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Now, as we all know, the alleged Iraq WMD have never been found, period. So Bush was either blatantly lying, or he is insane. Which do you think it is, Soldier? "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Americans cling to the belief that they can murder people overseas in order to grab their resources and dominate the world militarily, all while continuing to view themselves as beacons of goodness.
That belief is getting shopworn, though.
Oh, Americans make sure their TV screens are kept free of those unsanitary images of children dismembered by American bombs. And they studiously ignore the articles about the rate at which U.S. troops now commit suicide. And they refuse to think about the kidnapping and torture that is now routinely performed under the colors of the flag.
But when they awaken late at night, shuddering in the lonely dark, Americans know what they have become, what they have done, and what's coming to them. "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:57 AM:

" HP wrote: "The military has allowed Pigboy Limbaugh's show to be broadcast to the troops in Iraq. Is it any wonder that they are confused as to what is really going going the world."

HP, I'm sure you didn't mean it the way it was interpreted, but you have to be careful how you word things. Just taking what you wrote there at face value makes it sound like you think our troops are clueless and have no idea what's going on around them. I'm sure you didn't meant it like that, but when added with some other negative comments made about the military in general, it could be easily misconstrued.

@ everyone else: I'm sure our men and women over there have a much clearer picture of what's truly happening in-country than bloggers and posters in this one. Everyone has an opinion, but that's all it is... opinion. When I want an accurate assessment of what's going on, I talk to my friends who are/have been there. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Really, you are a veteran, Mr. Potter. That is an amazing revelation from the man who has questioned everyone else's military service. I guess it does explain the derogatory comments about the National Guard if you served anytime before I would say, 2000. I understand that back then the Guard didn't do a whole lot, but you need to educate yourself on the role the National Guard and Army Reserve plays in today's military because making the comments you have made in recent days makes you appear to be completely ignorant, which makes it very difficult for you to appear credible when pointing at me as the one who is confused.

Further, your explanation about the Limbaugh comment doesn't cut the mustard. I don't really know of any other way to explain your ascertion that the men and women fighting in Iraq are confused because AFRN carries Rush Limbaugh. You must assume that we are pretty dense to go into the streets of Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit, Fallujah, etc. every day and then listen to Limbaugh to tell us what to think about it. Further, I can tell you from the few times that I did listen to the radio over there, that liberal hosts are also carried. I know it is hard for you to wrap your head around, but a large number of troops serving or who have served in Iraq just plain support it because they believe in the cause. There is no vast right wing conspiracy about it. "

father bob wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:22 PM:

" chad....i posted this above, explain it to us.

Seriously? Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches -- or are they simply going on what they hear on Fox News and the Limbaugh network?

And more to the point, why is the Army's official in-house public affairs shop linking to this kind of stuff? Just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told all hands to stay out of politics: "As the nation prepares to elect a new president, we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.... Keeping our politics private is a good first step." He added: "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."

Unfortunately, the message didn't get to through to the Army. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Question, you obviously have more time to dig through articles and interviews and press conference transcripts than I could ever devote to such an endeavor. However, I will again state the rationale for my beliefs on the subject of Iraq. Hopefully, it will begin to get through so you can direct your rinse-repeat "Truth" spewing at someone who buys it. I have stated numerous times on this site that who or when or how we got into Iraq is no longer of any consequence when weighing the options going forward. If you were so incredibly in tune with what was happening, maybe you and your oh-so-intelligent party should have done something then. Instead you have waited to see how things went and now won't shut up about how it never should have happened. Perhaps someday I will have the time to find all of the little quotes from people with a D behind their name backing the invasion very adamantly, but now is not that time. Anyway, as I have said the time for that argument came and went a long time ago. What we have to address now is what is in our best interest going forward. If you want to talk about what will or won't happen if we pull out now, I am all ears, but please stop boring me with your hindsight, it proves nothing and advances nothing but your own ego. "

miltmart wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:06 PM:

" Question wrote: "Americans know what they have become, what they have done, and what's coming to them. "

I am assuming this is wishful thinking on your part? A sad statement from an obviously sad person who has nothing but time to spend blogging on this site under, I am convinced, various personas.

Sorry, but I happen to think this is the greatest country in the world with the greatest people and I wish no ill will toward any of them no matter what their views. I also think this goes a long way toward defining the difference in the mindset of those on the right and those on the left. You decide which you are. "

121238 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Mr. Meeker;

Your comments in your article on how facts are important "nowadays" are refreshing. However, let me remind you the society to which you belong "the press" has been much more damaging to our America than all the "terrorists" put together. You can do your small amount for our Country by continuing to point out how important facts are in the electorial process. Unfortunetly, facts, truth, and patriotism have been eleminated from the press and media.

Tim Mitchell, Atlanta, Georgia
EIU Class of 1962/1965
Retired "Georgia Tech" administrator "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Soldier, if someone invaded the United States based on lies, how long would you suggest to them that their occupation should continue? Five years? Ten years? McCain's century? "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:32 PM:

" By the way, Soldier, FYI, I fought against the invasion of Iraq since before it began, and in fact risked by job fighting it.
I was right then and I'm right now, and you're still peddling the same tired "let's dominate the poor little Iraqis for their own good" BS we've heard for five long years of pure, arrogant Republican failure. "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:34 PM:

" Once again, Soldier - was Bush lying when he said WMD had been found in Iraq? Or is he insane? "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:46 PM:

" "I am assuming this is wishful thinking on your part? A sad statement from an obviously sad person who has nothing but time to spend blogging on this site under, I am convinced, various personas."
------
You're as right about that as you are about everything else, Miltmart. I wish Americans could be spared the consequences of their own lazy, unprincipled, fear-driven stupidity. But the world doesn't work that way. We have become a nation of invaders and torturers who have borrowed trillions from other countries and have torn apart the best gift the framers left us, our Constitution. God help us. "

ed miller wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Question, you obviously have more time to dig through articles and interviews and press conference transcripts than I could ever devote to such an endeavor..."

That's an understatement.

Soldier, I know you didn't mean anything bad, but be careful about saying the Guard didn't "do anything" proir to 2000. Many local Guardsman were called up in the 90's for flooding disasters and spent long hours humping sandbags to save people's homes. Just thought I'd give those men and women their dues. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:52 PM:

" Yeah soldier, why are you belittling the guard? Have you no shame? LOL! "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:05 PM:

" Thanks for looking out, miltmart. You are absolutely right that I didn't mean anything derogatory by my statement, which was that they didn't "do much" not that they didn't "do anything". I was simply pointing out the major difference in the Guard's role over the past decade and how that has changed its status among members of the active duty military. When I joined, we were referred to as No Go's, Nasty Girls, and Chairborne Rangers to name a few. However, once we began shouldering combat duties identical to those serving on active duty, we began to see those monikers disappear. I remember being in the recruiter's office at 17 when I joined and having my dad ask what the odds were that I would be sent overseas or see combat. The recruiter replied in kind of a "no duh" tone that the unit had only been mobilized once since Korea and that was to do the sandbagging in the early 90's. However, I deployed within 3 months of graduating from Infantry school at Ft. Benning and then only had 10 months home from that one before my next deployment. Those two week summer training camps that are advertised didn't apply to me until I had served over half of my initial enlistment. In seven years service in the National Guard, I only attended to annual training periods because I was deployed the remainder of the time. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Miltmart joins the growing list of those who accuse others of posting under more than one name. I have long suspected that those who yell the loudest about that are probably the same ones who do it themselves.

Having said that, I do find it interesting that some posters will come on here and make comments towards others about something that was said, and the person making the comment is someone whose name has never shown up on here before, but seems to know what has been going on for a while, so I am reasonably sure that we have people posting under more than one name, but again, I suspect it's the one making a big deal out of it that are doing it. Perhaps the assume because they do it that everyone else does it too. Is that the case with you, miltie? "

ed miller wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:29 PM:

" I think Soldier just mistakenly replied to Miltmart instead of me. No harm, no foul. Don't try to create conspiracies where there are none. "

Downstream wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:18 PM:

" The Question wrote:
" Americans cling to the belief that they can murder people overseas in order to grab their resources and dominate the world militarily, all while continuing to view themselves as beacons of goodness."

You know, if you said Islamic extremists instead of Americans, you'd be right. What resources did we grab from Iraq? Oil? We should be swimming in it if that's the case.

The Question also wrote:
"But when they awaken late at night, shuddering in the lonely dark, Americans know what they have become, what they have done, and what's coming to them."

Please elaborate on the last part of this sentence. "

Downstream wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:28 PM:

" The Question wrote:
" Well, I thought invading Afghanistan was a good idea at the time, Downstream, but since Bush let Osama bin Laden ESCAPE, it seems kind of pointless now, doesn't it? "

No, not pointless at all. I just want to understand where your coming from. The way I see it, some liberals are against war all together. Others are for war under certain circumstances. I'm not a liberal, so I thought I'd ask some. That's why I wanted to separate Iraq from the equation on that question. "

The Question wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:39 PM:

" Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.
Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.
"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
-------
Now, that sounds just like a quote from a man who's about to slip in the bathtub. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:44 PM:

" Sorry about that, Ed. I do the same thing in the classroom. I will look right at one student and call them by another student's name knowing full well which one is which. I guess I just got so used to everyone having their name on their shirt that the part of my brain that takes care of keeping names straight just has some cobwebs in it.

To the esteemed Mr. Potter: If miltmart and ed miller where one and the same person, how the heck would I know? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:58 PM:

" Question- "Now, as we all know, the alleged Iraq WMD have never been found, period."

----------

Oh really my dear, Question? tsk tsk tsk.......

how soon you forget.....

From the ISG Report: (page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report)

Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.

Also from the report:

[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted

Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program.

Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.

ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.

Iraqs historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.

Iraq Could Maintain CW Competence With Relative Ease

ISG judges that Iraqs actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so...

----------

Are you lying, Question.....or are you insane? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:09 AM:

" And oh yes, Question......

Shall we discuss that pesky Pentagon Report on Saddam's Captured documents?

Remember.....? The Report that was released a few months ago?

The report that clearly stated that Saddam had a working relationship with Al Qaeda subsidiary groups?

The report that you never could refute?

Shall I jog your "faulty" memory?

Still peddling your lies huh.......for shame........... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:11 AM:

" Question- ".....Bush let Osama bin Laden ESCAPE"

--------

Bush? Let Bin Laden escape?

Evidence please. "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jun 14, 2008 12:37 AM:

" Most of the time I skip TQ's posts as they are usually just regurgitations of liberal blogs and news site factoids, but Downstream did bring up a good point from one of his posts.

What resources did we grab from Iraq exactly? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 5:46 AM:

" Chad- "What resources did we grab from Iraq exactly?"

-------------

Careful there Chad.....

How dare you make the Libtards actually substantiate their empty rhetoric, with.......facts.

After all, as Dr. Goebbe....er uhm...Dr. Weidn......I mean ......Question, knows....a lie repeated often enough magically becomes the truth. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 5:55 AM:

" Tell me Question- the last time I talked to you (several months ago) you where spewing off at the mouth about Maliki and the Iraqi Army's demise at the hands of the all powerful, Iranian-backed, Mookie Al Sadr............uhm........Maliki and the Iraqi Army are still there. In fact, they're both growing in strength.......so uhm.....where's Mookie and his boys........?

Oh that's right, you were completely WRONG as usual.....weren't you........ "

The Question wrote on Jun 14, 2008 5:59 AM:

" Come, come, Chad. You're not that obtuse. You're familiar with the Iraqi oil law which the Bush administration has been pushing for all its worth. It
would:
- Allow two-thirds of Iraqs oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations, while the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer.
- Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which would include foreign oil companies.
- Permit foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, with a puppet Iraqi government.
Of course, so far, Bush has wrecked Iraq's oil production, just the way he has wrecked everything else he has tried to do. But the oil law states the Bush administration's intent. "

The Question wrote on Jun 14, 2008 6:11 AM:

" In a press conference on May 23, 2005, Bush said, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Then a year later, in a press conference on Aug. 21, 2006, Bush said: "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't."
So Bush has stated flatly that the U.S. both HAS FOUND and HAS NOT FOUND WMD in Iraq. Once again I ask you, is he lying or is he insane? "

Early Bird wrote on Jun 14, 2008 6:13 AM:

" Welcome back, Doh. We missed you, well...uh... sort of. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 14, 2008 7:17 AM:

" I'm with you, Chad. I do the same thing with most of the resident right wingers messages anymore. Same old sing song crap. And I see Bryant is back with his dog and pony show trying to justify Bush's war. I suspect after TQ makes a fool out of him, he will disappear for a while as he always does. He is making progress though, at least he kept the same name this time. LOL! "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:55 AM:

" People, people, The Question does exactly what his name implies; he questions everyone else's intelligence and credibility. What he does not do is ANSWER questions. You are wasting your time trying to take him to task on anything. I think I have drawn him into one meaningful debate in the entire time I have been following these threads. The rest of the time he is doing exactly what Chad has pointed out. "

The Question wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:26 AM:

" Another in our periodic series of reports on the great success of the Bush-McCain "surge:"
-------
The Bush administration's Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.
"All the politicians are trying to prove that they care more about Iraqis than they do about Americans -- otherwise they know the people and the voters will not support them," said Ala Maaki, a senior lawmaker with Iraqi's largest Sunni political party. "I think we could see al-Maliki and Moqtada Sadr trying to one-up the other today and see who can take the strongest stand against the Americans." "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jun 14, 2008 3:45 PM:

" Aaah, HP...there's one in every bunch! ;p

@TQ: Again I ask, what resource did we grab from Iraq? Don't present any news site quotes in your usual cut-and-paste style. I'm certain you can present a lucid, intelligent thought on your own while resisting the temptation to use the clipboard.

You imply that we went to Iraq solely to get oil. With oil at $137 a barrell, I sincerely wish you were correct! I'd love to see some U.S. flagged tankers pulling up to the Iraqi seaport and filling up that light, sweet crude. It isn't happening though and you know it.

As for this law you are speaking of, the Maliki government has shown it's more than willing to do what's right for their country and not simply bow to the U.S. It would be political suicide for them to accept a law in the manner you described and they know it. Proposing something that is in our best interest is the job of this government, accepting or not accepting it is the job of the Iraqi government. I'm sure the negotiations will fall somewhere in the middle. As for their oil infrastructure, Saddam never upgraded it the last 20 years he was in power.

Sorry if this double posted. Monitor, feel free to remove the first if you like. "

Cognitus wrote on Jun 14, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Just a Soldier:"Allow me to end the misconception: I believe we must achieve clear and final victory in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Hmmmm. I suppose this is the mind-set of a soldier.

"Victory" implies a victor and a loser.

I thought our NOW-professed purpose in
Iraq is to bring on democracy. So do
we accomplish that by showing the Iraqi and Afghans that they are a bunch of losers? That should make us a lot of friends in the Middle East. Counties will be clamoring to get on the loser list. "

The Question wrote on Jun 14, 2008 6:46 PM:

" "You imply that we went to Iraq solely to get oil. With oil at $137 a barrell, I sincerely wish you were correct!"
------
No, you don't. Iraq was invaded to secure the oil for the MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES, not for the American people. The American people will continue to pay through the nose for it. After all, it is the oil companies who pay off Bush and Cheney, not the American people.
However, I never suggested that oil was the sole or even the primary reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. The U.S. invaded Iraq primarily for the purpose establishing a permanent base from which to militarily dominate the region, and therefore the world. You know, what villains are always looking to do.
One thing you can be sure of is that Iraq was NOT invaded for any of the reasons that were publicly stated the nonexistent WMD, the nonexistent links to Al Qaeda, or the American people's bottomless, eternal desire to pay any price and bear any burden to bring democracy to the people of Iraq, whom they have always loved so dearly.
That's why Bush Rove and Cheney change the supposed reasons we invaded Iraq so easily. All of them are mere convenient fictions, as disposable as the latest tortuous and torture-fueled plot twist on "24." "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Well you didn't cut and paste TQ, I'll give you that. That said, it was still about the best non-answer to a question I've heard yet.

You said "Americans cling to the belief that they can murder people overseas in order to grab their resources and dominate the world militarily, all while continuing to view themselves as beacons of goodness."

I'll ask again. What resources did we grab from Iraq? It's a simply question really. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:47 PM:

" Question- "Once again I ask you, is he lying or is he insane?"

----------

Neither, Question.

The factual answer is that Bush was merely following what the Intel community was telling him:

From the CIA Reports on The Iraqi Intelligence Service Undeclared Research on Poisons and Toxins for Assassination 2004:

The M16 chemical preparation division changed locations significantly during the past 12 years, which may have been done to avoid UN inspectors.

From 1991 to 2003 the M16 chemical preparation division moved 5 times, from Rashdiyah, to Djerf al-Naddaf, to the headquarters building in Karrada, to a small house in Taji, and finally to a residence in Mustansariyah where the final operations of the division took place.

Reporting says that a fear of the UN was the driving force for some M16 activity, such as concealing chemicals or closing down the
Rashdiyah site.

The M16 moved its operations from Rashdiyah to Djerf al-Naddaf in the mid-1990s where scientists continued the production and testing of chemicals. The site appeared to be sanitized when a coalition team exploited it, but the IIS may have removed laboratory materials several years ago when they left the site.

According to a former BW scientist, an NMD official went to the Djerf al-Naddaf site in 1997 or 1998, and though he was not allowed in the facility, he believed it was involved in biological research because he saw people he knew from the IIS.

A report states that M16 produced small amounts of Sarin and Tabun at this site in 1997, which they were later ordered to destroy by the director of the IIS. While we have strong evidence indicating an IIS chemical destruction committee existed at this time, we are unable to verify that Sarin and Tabun were among the chemicals destroyed.

The headquarters building contained several chemical and biological laboratories, but apparent sanitization efforts of the site make the purpose of the laboratories difficult to determine from exploitation data alone.

The April 2003 exploitation team found a microbiological lab capable of growing small amounts of bacteria, analytical equipment, and laboratory chemicals such as solvents. According to the exploitation report, items appeared to have been removed from the site, and shredded documents were present throughout the building.

A family that moved into the former M16 headquarters building said that after the coalitions primary visit to the facility in April, IIS personnel returned to pick up several items including computers and equipment. Sanitization efforts may have continued, because the team that returned to the site found burnt documents in October 2003. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 10:19 PM:

" Question- "The U.S. invaded Iraq primarily for the purpose establishing a permanent base from which to militarily dominate the region, and therefore the world."

---------

hmmmmm....?

How does a permanent U.S. base in Iraq "dominate" the region, much less the world?

---------

Question- "After all, it is the oil companies who pay off Bush and Cheney"

---------

Really? Please..... give us some hard-core numbers to prove this claim- and source them.

---------

Question- "That's why Bush Rove and Cheney change the supposed reasons we invaded Iraq so easily."

----------

There were 23 reasons cited by Congress to invade Iraq- which one's were "changed"?

And it took 6 months of wrangling with the corrupt U.N. before the U.S. ever invaded Iraq- is that what you are calling "easily"?

----------

Question- "nonexistent WMD, the nonexistent links to Al Qaeda"

-----------

That's not what the CIA Reports to Congress said, and it certainly isn't what Saddam's own documents said.

But then- you've never really been concernced about anything other than far-left political propaganda have you Dr. Goebbels................... "

what? wrote on Jun 14, 2008 10:33 PM:

" 220 days and counting. I'll no longer beat the dead horse. Maybe. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Question- "Allow two-thirds of Iraqs oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations, while the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer"

------------

However, operational control of the fields does not mean control of the money made from them, and a percentage of the profits will be going into Iraqi tax revenue. Iraq is currently swimming in oil revenue.

Remember all the commotion raised by the Democrats a few months ago, because the Iraqi government wasn't using their oil wealth to help rebuild the country?

Oh and- the fate of the Iraqi Oil Law is up to the Iraqi Parliament.

So tell me Question- how are resources being "grabbed" from Iraq? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:37 AM:

" What our friend soldier is saying is that he can't keep up. Give it up soldier, you're in over your head. "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Even Bush has admitted that Iraq had no WMD and nothing to do with 9-11, BL. So you can drop your nonsense. That dead horse you're beating started to stink up the place a long time ago. "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 4:31 PM:

" I'll ask again. What resources did we grab from Iraq? It's a simply question really. "
-----
And the answer is equally simple. The U.S. grabbed ALL THEIR RESOURCES. The U.S. has invaded and occupied their country. "

what? wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:16 PM:

" 219 days and counting. History has recorded that Iraq had no wmd. Denial of historical fact invites repetition. Definitely not a good idea in this case. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:49 PM:

" Question- "Even Bush has admitted that Iraq had no WMD and nothing to do with 9-11"

----------

Bush never did claim that Iraq ever had anything to do with 9-11. And only a small fraction of the suspected WMD sites were ever searched- so for Bush or anyone else to make a blanket statement that Iraq never had any WMD - is overly simplistic and patently wrong.

The CIA reports to Congress consistently said that Saddam had them- the ISG found conclusive proof of dual-usage WMD programs that Saddam was ramping up as he was bribing the U.N. Security Council members through the Oil For Food Scam. What we did NOT find were stockpiles of WMD- but then- the search was called off because sites had been looted and sanitized.

And if Saddam never had them- then why did the U.N. have 17 resolutions against him in the first place? And why did Saddam play games with the weapons inspections? And why are there still unaccounted-for WMD and no documented proof of their destruction?
And why did Saddam have a working relationship with Al Qaeda subsidiary groups? Why was he using the Oil For Food program to bribe key U.N. members?

------------

Question- "So you can drop your nonsense"

------------

Since when are documented "facts" nonsense?

I'm afraid YOU are the one who needs to drop the nonsense of conspiracy theories- and the notion that Saddam was really an innocent and harmless ole codger who was being perfectly contained by the honest and impartial international community.

YOU are the one who has been stinking up this site-

because the "imaginary" horse you've been beating is giving off a very real stench- or maybe that stench is really just you. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:53 PM:

" Question- "And the answer is equally simple. The U.S. grabbed ALL THEIR RESOURCES. The U.S. has invaded and occupied their country."

-----------

And you still can't back you lies up with any real proof- can you Question....... I mean Dr. Goebbels. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:01 PM:

" "History has recorded that Iraq had no wmd. Denial of historical fact invites repetition."

------------

Then was the CIA and the ISG- telling lies? Did those 29 Democrats in Congress- lie? And why were U.N. WEAPONS inspectors in Iraq in the first place? And why was Saddam going through the time and expense to bribe U.N. Security Council Members? Were all these people living an elaborate lie? And just whose version of "history" was "recorded"? "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:09 PM:

" All the major studies, investigations and hearings have determined that Iraq had no WMDs after 1991 and no operational ties to Al Qaeda, BL. You are cherry-picking claptrap in an attempt to justify an invasion that has long since been exposed as a fraud.
Let me remind you of what your hero, the monkey man, said on Aug. 21, 2006. Bush told reporters, "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't."
And for perhaps the only time in his public life, Bush was telling the truth. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:51 PM:

" Question- "All the major studies, investigations and hearings have determined that Iraq had no WMDs after 1991 and no operational ties to Al Qaeda, BL."

------------

Oh really - Question?

For your entertainment I give you The CIA's Unclassified Report to Congress, July - December 2000 (Before Bush took office)

----------------

IRAQ

Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEAs Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq is no longer operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraqs WMD programs.

Given Iraqs past behavior, it is likely that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute prohibited programs. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection-monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.

Since the Gulf war, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as its missile production facilities. It has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. This equipmentin principle subject to UN scrutinyalso could be diverted for WMD purposes. Since the suspension of UN inspections in December 1998, the risk of diversion has increased. After Desert Fox, Baghdad again instituted a reconstruction effort on those facilities destroyed by the US bombing, including several critical missile production complexes and former dual-use CW production facilities. In addition, Iraq appears to be installing or repairing dual-use equipment at CW-related facilities. Some of these facilities could be converted fairly quickly for production of CW agents.

UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions.

In 1995, Iraq admitted to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series of Full, Final, and Complete Disclosures (FFCDs) that were supposed to reveal the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full scope and nature of Iraqs BW program was not verified, UNSCOM had assessed that Iraq continued to maintain a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time, if the decision is made to do so. In the absence of UNSCOM or other inspections and monitoring since late 1998, we remain concerned that Iraq may again be producing biological warfare agents.

Iraq has continued working on its L-29 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program, which involves converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft originally acquired from Eastern Europe. It is believed that Iraq has conducted flights of the L-29, possibly to test system improvements or to train new pilots. These refurbished trainer aircraft are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents.

We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraqs most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Although we were already concerned about a reconstituted nuclear weapons program, our concerns were increased last September when Saddam publicly exhorted his "Nuclear Mujahidin" to "defeat the enemy."

Iraq continues to pursue development of SRBM systems that are not prohibited by the United Nations and may be expanding to longer-range systems. Pursuit of UN-permitted missiles continues to allow Baghdad to develop technological improvements and infrastructure that could be applied to a longer-range missile program. We believe that development of the liquid-propellant Al-Samoud SRBM probably is maturing and that a low-level operational capability could be achieved in the near term which is further suggested by the appearance of four Al Samoud transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) with airframes at the 31 December Al Aqsa Cal parade. The solid-propellant missile development program may now be receiving a higher priority, and development of the Ababil-100 SRBM two of such airframes and TELs were paraded on 31 Decemberand possibly longer range systems may be moving ahead rapidly. If economic sanctions against Iraq were lifted, Baghdad probably would increase its attempts to acquire missile-related items from foreign sources, regardless of any future UN monitoring and continuing restrictions on long-range ballistic missile programs. Iraq probably retains a small, covert force of Scud-type missiles.

Iraqs ACW acquisitions remain low due to the generally successful enforcement of the UN arms embargo. The weapons and ACW-related goods which have been delivered to Iraq tend to be smaller arms transported over porous land borders. Iraq continues, however, to aggressively seek ACW equipment and technology. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:55 PM:

" The Pentagon Report on the Captured Iraqi documents CLEARLY show that Saddam had a working relationship with Al Qaeda subsidiary groups in an effort to "camoflage" the relationship.

What sources do you have that can refute Saddam's OWN documentation- Question..........? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:59 PM:

" Question- "All the major studies, investigations and hearings......"

---------

Three- THREE- seperate commissions clearly stated that Bush did NOT manipulate NOR mislead with any false Intel. And the British STILL maintain that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium. And again 29- THAT'S 29- Democrats in Congress voted to go to war. Are all these people liars? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:05 PM:

" Now we see if ed miller is consistent. Will be criticise Bryant L for hogging up space on here. Nah, probably not because like him, Bryant blathers right wing talking points, and slobbers all over Bush. LOL! "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:35 PM:

" TQ wrote: "And the answer is equally simple. The U.S. grabbed ALL THEIR RESOURCES. The U.S. has invaded and occupied their country."

That is laugh-out-loud funny. Since I've proven my point that we are not hooking up tankers and stealing Iraqi oil like you so obviously implied, I'll let it go though. "

what? wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:46 PM:

" Mr.Lamphier. 1. Of course. 2. No, they were either ignorant or chose to be so, no excuse. 3. To instill fear in the populace, you just have to know your market.4. Didn't know he was. 5. Some were, some were duped. 6. The same version that will record the sun came up this morning. "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:51 PM:

" Bush says Iraq had no WMD, Doh-Doh. Why? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:56 PM:

" Harry Potter- "...Bryant blathers right wing talking points, and slobbers all over Bush..."

-----------

I'm citing official documentation from original sources- is that your definition of "right wing talking points"......?

And give me a specific example where I "slobber all over Bush". "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:57 PM:

" The U.S. continues to try to ram an oil law down Iraq's throat that will permit U.S. corporations to steal Iraq's revenue, Chad, as you well know. The fact that Bush and Cheney haven't yet succeeded does not reflect any lack of criminal intent on their part, only of competence.
Now, why don't you elaborate on your interesting theory that elderly people do not deserve government-sponsored health care, but you do? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:01 PM:

" Harry Potter- "...Will be criticize Bryant L for hogging up space on here."

---------

You don't seem to have a problem with Herr Goebbels (The Question- Left Wing Minister of Propaganda) roosting on this site all day, every day, posting his unprovable, unsubstantiated, far-left propaganda- do you Harry.......? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:03 PM:

" All of these Iraq war debates may be moot soon, as it looks like some Iraqis are ready to kick the US out after the way Bush, and his head cheerleader, Cheney are trying to cram an agreement down their throats calling for 50 permanent bases and immunity for all US troops and civilians, like the mercenaries of Blackwater and Cheney's company, Halliburton, if they break Iraq laws. Even Bush and Cheney's appointed puppets aren't buying that one. "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:14 PM:

" To judge how much attention we should really pay to you right wingers' rants, we ought to have a look at your track record. Let's review some of you Republicans' far-sighted wisdom about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, shall we?

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03 "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:16 PM:

" And how many troops did the "best Republican minds" say would be needed in Iraq?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03 "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:17 PM:

" What kind of casualties did the great Republican brains expect in Iraq?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03 "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:19 PM:

" How much did the Republican geniuses think the Iraq war would cost?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03 "

The Question wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:20 PM:

" How long did the brilliant Republican minds say the Iraq war would last?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03 "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:48 PM:

" Question- "Bush says Iraq had no WMD, Doh-Doh. Why?"

-----------

I don't know if he was talking about stockpiles, or absolutely no WMD whatsoever. If Bush was saying that there were never any WMD at all- then I will debate that statement as well- because the EVIDENCE says otherwise.

If you think that Bush's words are my motivation and purpose for my position- you are sorely mistaken- Herr Goebbels. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction-

"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

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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

"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

"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

"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"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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

"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 "

cd wrote on Jun 15, 2008 9:01 PM:

" As Irving Kristol

so wisely observed several decades ago, "...If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship." Most liberals in good standing profoundly rejected Kristol's insight then and continue to resist it today. They believe themselves to be anti-censorship yet they practice censorship informally and most assiduously. Liberals who publish magazines and newspapers scour them for any hint of racism or homophobia. No one in the United States today would produce a sympathetic play about apartheid or Nazism (the same cannot be said, of course, for plays expressing sympathy for communism, but that's an old story). Moviemakers are at pains to eliminate images of cigarette smoking in films, lest they lend support to an undesirable behavior.

And college campuses, in the hands of the tenured radicals, have become playgrounds for speech codes and other forms of liberal authoritarianism.

So while liberals think of themselves as anti-censorship, they aren't at all. This is not to scold them for their hypocrisy (or not entirely) but rather to attempt to move toward a consensus.
Mona Charen "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 9:09 PM:

" Question- "Let's review some of you Republicans' far-sighted wisdom about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, shall we?"

--------

We shall......but uhm........you still haven't substantiated any of your far-left propaganda......now have you- Herr Goebbels.............? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 15, 2008 9:15 PM:

" Oh and uhm, Question (Herr Goebbels)-

were all those Democrats who made all those statements about Saddam's WMD lying- or just insane? "

what wrote on Jun 15, 2008 11:04 PM:

" Those who created our country and constitution refused to be censored. They very wisely insured us the same right. To compromise that would be self destrutive. Let alone plain stupid. "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:00 AM:

" The Democrats you mention were either conned by Bush and Cheney's WMD propaganda campaign, or too cowardly to oppose it.
Bush has admitted that Iraq had no WMD. Do you have better sources that the president of the United States, Doh Doh? "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:13 AM:

" Turns out that many of the Gitmo prisoners are innocent men who have been tortured under the fascist policies of the United States. Surprise, surprise.
----
An eight-month McClatchy newspapers investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that dozens of men and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds have been wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.
McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials primarily in Afghanistan and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.
Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.
Because the Bush administration set up Guantanamo under special rules that allowed indefinite detention without charges or federal court challenge, it's impossible to know how many of the 770 men who've been held there were terrorists.
McClatchy also in many cases did more research than either the U.S. military at Guantanamo, which often relied on secondhand accounts, or the detainees' lawyers, who relied mainly on the detainees' accounts.
The Pentagon declined to discuss the findings.
-------
McClatchy, you will recall, was called Knight-Ridder before the the Iraq invasion, when it published a series of investigative articles revealing that the intelligence community had serious doubts about the Bush administration's Iraq WMD claims. "

cd wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:27 AM:

" Bryant,
Some time in the last couple of months, I submitted a list of quotes like yours by Democrats on WMDs. It apparently took the "Head Expressway" {In one ear, and out the other, unobstructed} because as I remember no Democrat gave response to it. So don't expect any better now. Maybe the Demos covered their ears because they knew the quotes are true and don't want to admit it. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:28 AM:

" Let's look at the COMPLETE quote by President Bush on Aug. 21 2006 Bush said: "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."

The Question seems to have omitted that last sentence about Saddam's capacity to make WMD.

This ominous threat was clearly substantiated in the ISG's Final Report (The Duelfer Report):

"- The introduction of the Oil-For-Food Programme (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdads economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.[vol. I, p.1]"

----------

Stockpiles or no stockpiles- Saddam's capabilities, past use, and future intentions, with WMD was clear- he used them before, he retained the ability to quickly produce them as desired, and he was well on his way to do just that under the deceptive ruse of dual-use technology.

Oh and- his very own documents clearly prove he had a "camouflaged" working relationship with Al Qaeda with the clear intention of harming U.S. personnel and interests. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:38 AM:

" Herr Goebbels (The Question) deceptive ploy to omit Saddam's capacity to make WMD, from Bush's quote, demonstrates what The Left-wing Propaganda Minister is all about- lying, deceiving, misleading, omitting and misdirecting. OR- maybe Herr Goebbels is just......insane. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:11 AM:

" Here are prewar quotes from Democrat Jay Rockefeller- WHO WAS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:

Jay Rockefeller who today accuses the Bush administration of inventing the threat posed by Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration once saw "a substantial connection" between the two and warned about the consequences of leaving Iraq to pass its WMD to Osama bin Laden. On February 5, 2003, Rockefeller said: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."

And here's what he said one week earlier, in an interview with the Charleston Gazette: "If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world."

Rockefeller and his colleagues also accuse the Bush administration of exaggerating WMD claims. It's worth recalling that Rockefeller called Iraq an "imminent threat" in his floor speech supporting the resolution which would authorize the war.
And it's worth noting that he told his colleagues that "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: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:12 AM:

" Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002:

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. 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.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat." "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:39 AM:

" How lame. You can't attack other countries with "capacities to make things," Doh Doh.
Bush has admitted Iraq had no WMD. That settles the matter for everyone but you. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:42 AM:

" Actually, Bryant I have no problem with anyone coming on here and expressing their views, even when it's people like you pushing your support for Bush's ongoing fiasco. Your constant beating the drums for Bush's war is the basis of the slobbering comment. Sorry you missed that, but it seems logical enough to me.

My comments were directed toward ed miller, who like so many on your side, seems to want to stifle those with opposing views.

No Bryant, I will not try to muffle you in any way, as I haven't in the past when you posted under your dozen or so other names on here.

In fact one of my pet peeves is to read people like ed miller, Tom Andres, and others inferring others should shut up. I don't do it. Even bullies like ed and Tom have as much right as anyone else to express their opinions.

One monitor for one of them to run whining and crying to is enough.

Blather away with my blessing, Bryant, Doh or what ever name your using today. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:59 AM:

" cd- "Bryant,
Some time in the last couple of months, I submitted a list of quotes like yours by Democrats on WMDs. It apparently took the "Head Expressway" {In one ear, and out the other, unobstructed} because as I remember no Democrat gave response to it. So don't expect any better now. Maybe the Demos covered their ears because they knew the quotes are true and don't want to admit it."

-----------

Thanks CD-

but I'm well aware of Herr Goebbels baseless and un-provable propaganda tactics-

I just like to make others aware of it also from time to time.

He likes to paint himself as self-righteous and morally outraged at the "illegal" war based on the lies and the greed of the evil Republican leadership- but he has a problem-

he never has been able to PROVE any of his phony claims-

and he knows it.

And that proves that his motives are NOT borne out of a sense of honest moral outrage, or a desire to "right" some grave political injustice-

but rather-

he is simply an obsessed, far-Left pundit, who is entirely motivated by political advantage, a deep hatred of this country, and a closed minded view of all Conservative view points.

Truth and facts mean nothing to him.

The advancement of a radical Liberal agenda means everything.

Liberalism- IS his religion.

And if he has to advance it by lying- then so be it- he simply doesn't care.

Unless of course- his fragile, over-inflated, and unjustified ego gets bruised......then he responds with more lies. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:09 AM:

" McClatchy- is ALSO the news agency that ran with the headline a couple of months ago- that the Pentagon's Report on Captured Iraqi Documents proved absolutely no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that the Report would not be released.

BUT- when the Report WAS released on the web- and it was obvious that Saddam DID have connections to Al Qaeda through subsidiary groups- McClatchy simply walked away- as if the entire dishonest, mis-reporting never happened............

much like Herr Goebbels (The Question) does in here.........

funny that........... "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:16 AM:

" As is now clear, the Bush administration did not care whether or not Iraq had WMD.
As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz admitted, the WMD were chosen as the excuse to invade Iraq "for bureaucratic reasons." And as the Downing Street Memo revealed, the intelligence data was "fixed around the policy" of invasion.
The Bush fascists were absolutely determined to invade Iraq, and thought WMD could do the selling job for them to the American people who were going to have to pay for their warmongering in blood and treasure.
Even if Iraq had possessed WMD at the time, it would have represented no credible threat to the U.S. But it did not, and the Bush bunch didn't care.
"Simply stated," said Dick Cheney in August of 2002, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
That was a lie.
"Right now," said George W. Bush in September of 2002, "Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of nuclear weapons."
That was a lie.
"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld in March of 2003. "They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, south, west and north somewhat."
That was a lie.
When the invasion was complete, what's the first thing the Bush administration did? Search for those awful WMD that were so scary-wary? Nope. Didn't care about them, didn't bother about them. The first thing the Bushies did was secure what was important to them- the Iraqi oil ministry.
As the psychologist Alfred Alder advised, don't listen to what the words say, watch where the feet go.
Before the invasion, the WMD were so threatening that the Bush administration had to invade a nation and kill thousands of its people right this minute. After the invasion, suddenly they didn't care about the WMD any more, and Bush could make jokes about the WMD being hidden under his desk.
Why didn't the "liberal news media" expose any of the lies? Because there isn't any. The corporate media did not question Bush's lies and cherry-picked intelligence because marketing values, and not the professional journalist's mission of providing accurate information to the public, now dominate the American news media.
CNN's Jessica Yellin admitted as much, revealing that news executives actively pushed her not to do stories critical of the Bush administration.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.
As William Blum observed, "What did the millions of Americans who marched against the war before it began know that all those members of Congress didn't know? At a minimum, they knew that nothing the Bush administration had told them came anywhere close to justifying dropping bombs on the innocent people of Iraq. They also knew that nothing the Bush administration had told them could be trusted. All it took to reach this advanced stage of awareness was not being born yesterday." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:14 AM:

" BUSH NEVER LIED TO US ABOUT IRAQ

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

LA TIMES June 16, 2008 By James Kirchick- "Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers. "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Bush has not only admitted that Iraq had no WMD. He has also admitted that WMD were irrelevant to his decision to invade Iraq.
On Dec. 14, 2005, interviewed by Brit Hume on Fox, Bush claimed, "I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision."
Hume asked, "So, if you had had this if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?"
"Absolutely," Bush answered.
Not what Bush said when he invaded, of course, but then he's a liar. "

father bob wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:38 AM:
" Herr Goebbels (The Question) deceptive ploy to omit Saddam's capacity to make WMD, from Bush's quote, demonstrates what The Left-wing Propaganda Minister is all about- lying, deceiving, misleading, omitting and misdirecting. OR- maybe Herr Goebbels is just......insane. "

kettle calling the pot black.....talk about insanity. "

father bob wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:19 AM:

" """Stockpiles or no stockpiles- Saddam's capabilities, past use, and future intentions, with WMD was clear- he used them before, he retained the ability to quickly produce them as desired, and he was well on his way to do just that under the deceptive ruse of dual-use technology.

Oh and- his very own documents clearly prove he had a "camouflaged" working relationship with Al Qaeda with the clear intention of harming U.S. personnel and interests. """"

um...bryant, you obviously must have been institutionalized for you periodic decompression when the reports came back debunking your passe theories.

well!!...good to see they let you back out. you just need to focus on something else to obsess about. "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Bush and his fellow fascist conspirators lied about the WMD Iraq didn't have, and no invasion would have been justified even if Iraq had possessed WMD. You can't walk down the street shooting people just because you think they might be armed. Iraq neither attacked nor threatened the U.S.
But beyond the ugly, fraudulent, corrupt past of this failed war, there remains the ominous future for you right-wing warmongers to consider.
Among the Bush administration's other lies were the predictions that the war would cost only $50 billion to $60 billion. We've spent 10 times that, but that doesn't even consider the long-term costs already incurred. Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, estimates those at more than $4 trillion so far.
Just how long do you war-loving lunatics think the U.S. can keep hemorrhaging $3 billion a week in borrowed money in Iraq? The debt we've already incurred is starting to sink the U.S. economy, and you whack jobs want to talk about occupying Iraq for a century? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Don't worry about Doh, fb. After Obama gets elected he will have plenty to obsess about. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Mona Charen, now there's a voice of reason. She's about one rung higher on the nut job ladder than old Ann Coulter herself. Real impressive source, cd. Couldn't find anything from the John Birch Society to support your ideas? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:36 AM:

" The Question- "Bush has admitted Iraq had no WMD. That settles the matter for everyone but you."

---------

I'm afraid it's not that cut and dry- Herr Goebbels. The consensus of the Pre-War Intel clearly stated a belief that Saddam probably had stockpiles of WMD (Read The CIA Reports to Congress) And the ISG did find WMD but not "stockpiles". And I have no doubt that Bush is talking about stockpiles.

ALSO- The ISG searched less than 100 sites out of 10,000 suspected sites, because it was obvious that more and more of these areas were looted and "sanitized". So how does THAT indicate conclusively that there were never-ever any WMD?

----------

Question- "You can't attack other countries with "capacities to make things,"

---------

You can when they have a history of using WMD, concealment, a refusal to account for missing WMD, and an active bribery program designed to ramp up their dual-usage WMD programs, and are in violation of 17 U.N. Resolutions, while nurturing camouflaged ties to well know terrorist groups.

And if you don't believe me- then just read Democrat Senator Jay Rockefellers own words as well as Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and John Edwards, Waxman.....etc......

Oh and- The DownSyndrome Memo is still a typewritten creation written by an anti-war, Left-wing screwball journalist. You can keep citing it all you want- and it still won't make it anything more than phony and irrelevant.

Three Separate Commissions found NO evidence that Pre-War Intel was ever "manipulated"- They include:

- The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq

- The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction

- The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction

---------------

Were all these people lying- Herr Geobbels? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:37 AM:

" That would explain his disappearances for weeks at a time, fb. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:43 AM:

" fatherbob- "um...bryant, you obviously must have been institutionalized for you periodic decompression when the reports came back debunking your passe theories."

---------

What reports bob? And do you mean the CIA's "passe' theories?

I see you still have that slow gas leak in your house - huh bob........ "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:47 AM:

" fatherbob- "kettle calling the pot black.....talk about insanity."

--------

Whaaa...?

You called Herr Goebbels black- bob.....?

Well Sieg Heil! - you crazy little fella............. "

father bob wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:37 AM:
" That would explain his disappearances for weeks at a time, fb. "

he gets charged up and they can't contain him. he'll spin around in circles for a few weeks until he's babbling one syllable words and they'll come after him again.

please pass the yellowcake.... "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:29 PM:

" Nice dodge there, Doh. In fact, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- co-chaired by Robb and Silberman DID NOT INVESTIGATE whether the Bush administration misled the public about intelligence. Instead, the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that "[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure" in the buildup to the Iraq war, a conclusion that was subsquently disputed by intelligence officials.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq determined that the Bush administration lied about its own intelligence community's conclusions in two areas: Iraq's supposed links with Al Qaeda and the difficulty of pacifying Iraq after an invasion.
Statements in dozens of prewar speeches and interviews created the impression that Baghdad and Al Qaeda had forged a partnership. But the report concludes that such assertions were not substantiated by the intelligence being shown to senior officials at the time, The New York Times noted
And the British Butler report concluded that information from another country's intelligence agency on Iraqi production of biological and chemical agents "were seriously flawed" and the grounds for British assessments that Iraq had recently produced such stocks "no longer exist."
They didnt name the country, but I think we can guess the name of that lying country, cant we? "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:35 PM:

" Many of the 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking WMD capability by the mid-1990s.
The AP reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon."
At a 1996 meeting, weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid described his conversation with U. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus: "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details."
At another meeting, Saddam told his deputies, "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing." "

what? wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:49 PM:

" 218 days and counting. To aid and abet the devil while he's attempting to shove you through the gates of hell is not to bright. "

Tom Andres wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Here's how this works, plain and simple. After all the UN resolutions, after Saddam had wasted all of his opportunities to identify and account for and trace his supposed disposition of his WMDs, after being fairly warned that the USA was coming in if he didn't fully cooperate, the only safe assumption was that Saddam was lying. So, we went in. No choice. Too much at stake. Hussein lied, Hussein died. We made some strategic errors (not having enough troops on the ground being the first one) and then we corrected them. Now that the military mission is back on track, successful and stronger than ever, the Jane Fondas of the world desperately want us to lose the war so they can win an election. End of story. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Question- "co-chaired by Robb and Silberman DID NOT INVESTIGATE whether the Bush administration misled the public about intelligence."

--------

Whaaaat? So Bush "mislead the public" and that in turn "mislead" those 29 democrats into voting for the war...?

LOL! Talk about a dodge!

--------

Question- "Iraq's supposed links with Al Qaeda"

Sorry Herr Goebbels- Saddams own documents tell a different story.

---------

Question- "Statements in dozens of prewar speeches and interviews created the impression that Baghdad and Al Qaeda had forged a partnership."

---------

Oh I see- those supposed, darned ole "impressions" on the American people is what FORCED the pro-war vote from those 29 Democrats!

My God- that Bush is a sneaky devil!
(massive eyeroll..........)

----------

Question- "And the British Butler report concluded that information from another country's intelligence agency on Iraqi production of biological and chemical agents "were seriously flawed" and the grounds for British assessments that Iraq had recently produced such stocks "no longer exist."

---------

I'm sorry- did you say "flawed"....?

Psssst.......hey Geobbels, buddy......I'll bet that Butler Report was really giving the "impression".....that it was not "flaws" but eeeeeevil LIES! LOL!

Oh and- the Butler Report stated that Saddam was looking to buy uranium- and the Brits still stand by that. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:43 PM:

" Question- "Many of the 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking WMD capability by the mid-1990s."

----------

Then explain this Herr Goebbels:

The CIA's Unclassified Report to Congress, July - December 2000:

"IRAQ

Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEAs Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq is no longer operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraqs WMD programs.

Given Iraqs past behavior, it is likely that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute prohibited programs. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection-monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.

Since the Gulf war, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as its missile production facilities. It has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. This equipmentin principle subject to UN scrutinyalso could be diverted for WMD purposes. Since the suspension of UN inspections in December 1998, the risk of diversion has increased. After Desert Fox, Baghdad again instituted a reconstruction effort on those facilities destroyed by the US bombing, including several critical missile production complexes and former dual-use CW production facilities. In addition, Iraq appears to be installing or repairing dual-use equipment at CW-related facilities. Some of these facilities could be converted fairly quickly for production of CW agents.

UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions.

In 1995, Iraq admitted to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series of Full, Final, and Complete Disclosures (FFCDs) that were supposed to reveal the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full scope and nature of Iraqs BW program was not verified, UNSCOM had assessed that Iraq continued to maintain a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time, if the decision is made to do so. In the absence of UNSCOM or other inspections and monitoring since late 1998, we remain concerned that Iraq may again be producing biological warfare agents.

Iraq has continued working on its L-29 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program, which involves converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft originally acquired from Eastern Europe. It is believed that Iraq has conducted flights of the L-29, possibly to test system improvements or to train new pilots. These refurbished trainer aircraft are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents.

We believe that Iraq has probably continued low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraqs most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Although we were already concerned about a reconstituted nuclear weapons program, our concerns were increased last September when Saddam publicly exhorted his "Nuclear Mujahidin" to "defeat the enemy." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:47 PM:

" Question- "Many of the 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking WMD capability by the mid-1990s."

----------

And once again- here's what the Duelfer Report said about that:

[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted

Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program.

Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.

ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.

Iraqs historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.

Iraq Could Maintain CW Competence With Relative Ease

ISG judges that Iraqs actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so...

----------

Sorry Herr Goebbels- you're still spinning your propaganda............ "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:49 PM:

" British sources confirmed that Bush's meeting with Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown included "renewed commitment" to finding Osama bin Laden, before Bush's term expires. Remember him?
Yup, you can sure rely on whatever Bush says about bin Laden.
---
GEORGE W. BUSH: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
---
GEORGE W. BUSH: "I am truly not that concerned about him."
---
GEORGE W. BUSH: "I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him."
---
GEORGE W. BUSH: "I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Tom- " Here's how this works, plain and simple."

--------

Yep- you nailed it Tom.

But unfortunately- Herr Goebbels, would rather listen to Saddam than actual documented facts. "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:56 PM:

" Thus is history rewritten, Tommy. You seem to conveniently forget that Bush was in such a hurry to bomb the men, women and children of Iraq in his war of choice that he chased the UN weapons inspectors out of the country.
How are you going to pay for your endless Iraq occupation, Tommy? Want to use couple of those nonexistent federal billions for FutureGen? That will fund almost a whole week in Iraq.
"End of story." LOL. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:01 PM:

" fatherbob- "he gets charged up and they can't contain him. he'll spin around in circles for a few weeks until he's babbling one syllable words and they'll come after him again.

---------

Please fat-headbob,

just because YOUR vacation away from this site involves a "quiet" little visit to three-west - doesn't mean that the rest of us let this garbage get to us.

By the way- it sounds like you need a little "down-time" again.........

Oh and........ I prefer chocolate cake "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Bush's "war on terror" is going so well that he just let a thousand prisoners escape from the main prison in southern Afghanistan.
More of that great Republican military strategy at work, keeping the world safe for something or other - fascism, corporate corruption, imperialism, what have you. Certainly not the American people. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "You seem to conveniently forget that Bush was in such a hurry to bomb the men, women and children of Iraq in his war of choice that he chased the UN weapons inspectors out of the country."

---------

Yeah- Bush was in a real hurry-

in fact he just raced right through those SIX MONTHS of wrangling with the corrupt U.N.

Heeeeeey wait a minute Geobbels!

Didn't those weapons inspectors belong to the very same U.N. whose key Security Council Members were being bribed through the Oil For Food Program by Ole Grandpa Saddam?

And wasn't Grandpa Saddam using that scam to ramp up his dual-usage WMD programs..........?

Well yes.......I believe that's right!

Thanks for the reminder Herr Goebbels!

Oh and- Sieg Heil!

moron................... "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:26 PM:

" How many years, or decades, should the U.S. occupy Iraq? And how many trillions should the U.S. spend to occupy Iraq? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:31 PM:

" Question- "Bush's "war on terror" is going so well that he just let a thousand prisoners escape from the main prison in southern Afghanistan."

----------

That's nothing- The Supreme Court is about to HELP several thousand escape from Gitmo!

once again.....moron......... "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:46 PM:

" "That's nothing- The Supreme Court is about to HELP several thousand escape from Gitmo!"
-----
Wrong again. The Supreme Court guaranteed their centuries-old right to challenge their illegal permanent imprisonment and torture. Habeas corpus is one of the foundations of western civilization.
Many of them will, of course, eventually be proven innocent. When you let despots lock people up without legal rights, the first thing that happens is that innocent people get imprisoned. So you'd better start tricking up your phony evidence showing how they're "really" guilty, Doh.
After all, you know more about the supposed Iraq WMD than the president of the United States, Doh. Surely a paragon like you doesn't need any stinkin' legal proceedings to tell him who's guilty. "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Enlighten us, dear Doh Doh. How many years, or decades, should the U.S. occupy Iraq? And how many trillions should the U.S. spend to occupy Iraq? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Herr Goebbels- "How many years, or decades, should the U.S. occupy Iraq?"

Let's see now......how many years have we been in Japan and Germany..........?

------------

Herr Goebbels- "And how many trillions should the U.S. spend to occupy Iraq?"

Let's see now........ how much did we spend on Japan and Germany...........?

hmmmmmmmmmmm..............? "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Maybe you'd better contact the White House, Doh. Bush doesn't know where Iraq's WMD are, and you do, so he may need your help. I'm sure he'll be grateful. He might even present you with one of those medals he usually reserves for failed, disgraced Republican officials like Paul Bremer and George Tenet. Your country needs heroes like you, Doh. Do your duty. "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Call the White House at once, Doh! Don't pay any attention to anything the communications officers say about crackpots. This is too important! Insist on speaking to the president personally. He thinks Iraq didn't have any WMD! He doesn't know you've found them!! Hurry!!! "

The Question wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:43 PM:

" The president, having finished his bike ride down to the tree house and his root beer float, hangs his head low in the White House. Oh, he thinks sadly, if only someone would call. Some great American hero who could tell me where those darned Iraq WMDs are. Then I could really tell off that smarty-pants Obama. How I hate those constitutional law professors and all their fancy strategery!
But the Oval Office phone sits silent. Will it ever ring, Doh? WILL IT EVER RING?!? "

what? wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:27 PM:

" "Did those 39 Democratic Congressmen lie"...The President is Commander in Chief of our military, not 39 Democratic Congressmen. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:11 PM:

" What do you think about space hogs now, ed miller? And you thought I was bad. Looks like you might want to give one of your little lectures to Bryant. LOL! "

ed miller wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Here we go again. Cutting and pasting 10,000 word reports from the internet is not going to convince anyone either way on the Iraq invasion. The true implications of the war will not be seen for years and we will never know the reprecussions of NOT invading Iraq. Yes, we all know that no WMD's were found. However, everyone will agree that Saddam was no friend of the US and not removing him could have negatively impacted our nation in the future. You can argue that Bush bungled the war, but I think one of his biggest mistakes was his lack of communication to the American people to keep up support. It's been stated by our former enemies in Vietnam, that the American media was one of their best assets. The American public cannot stomach a prolonged conflict. Yes, both senior military and elected officials could have done better to support our troops. We took a volunteer army that was trained to fight the Soviets and stuck them in urban fighting against foes who looked like the civilians and would run and hide. They had to change tactics on the fly. Thank goodness the troops were flexible and changed tactics, unlike WWI when commanders still used massed infantry charges against the new machine guns and needlessly killed millions. The top brass were also slow in equipping troops with body armor and mine-resistant vehicles. Even with all of this adversity, the boots on the ground have performed great and have done what their country has asked of them. No matter what your opinion of the war, those veterans, especially the ones who have given up their lives, and the people of Iraq deserve our best efforts to accomplish what we came to do. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:17 PM:

" Steady there Question (Herr Goebbels)..............

I hate to correct you (yet again).......but uhm.......I never said I knew where any WMD went.......and sadly- neither does the Intel Community.

Now goose-step over to your bed for I nice little nappy-down.

I've given you quite a beating today- I'm so sorry I rattled a few acorns loose from your tree........sniff*...sniff*

and as always- Seig Heil! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Geez Ed!

Your post was a little looooooong-

don't ya think!

Physician heal thyself!..... ;p "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:34 PM:

" what?- "Did those 39 Democratic Congressmen lie"...The President is Commander in Chief of our military, not 39 Democratic Congressmen."

---------

Uhm....it was 29 Democrats, not 39.....and a.....it took an act of Congress.....that's Congress.....to send our military into Iraq.

.....were you dropped alot as a child....I'm mean....... on your head........? "

what? wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:54 PM:

" 53 Congursmans don't even add up to a pwesident. "

The Question wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:53 AM:

" "I never said I knew where any WMD went.......and sadly- neither does the Intel Community."
-------
You're too modest, Doh. You must know where the WMD are. Because if, as you insist, Saddam had WMD at the time of the U.S. invasion, and the WMD are gone now, that would mean that he gave them to the terrorists that you right-wing warmongers were so sure he was itching to give them to.
That was the scenario that made you right wingers soil yourselves in panic, remember? That prospect was so terrifying that you insisted the U.S. had to invade Iraq as quickly as possible.
That would mean that the U.S. invasion CAUSED the very thing it was supposed to prevent, Doh, at a cost of trillions and of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. "

what? wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:16 PM:

" 217 days and counting. Still no wmd. "

The Question wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:13 PM:

" I've got some facts for you. Here's how your "greatest country on Earth" and its Republican leadership treats the troops it gasbags about honoring all the time.
------
Mentally distressed veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are being recruited for government tests on pharmaceutical drugs linked to suicide and other violent side effects, an investigation by ABC News and The Washington Times has found.
In one of the human experiments, involving the anti-smoking drug Chantix, Veterans Administration doctors waited more than three months before warning veterans about the possible serious side effects, including suicide and neuropsychiatric behavior.
"Lab rat, guinea pig, disposable hero," said former US Army sniper James Elliott in describing how he felt he was betrayed by the Veterans Administration. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:26 PM:

" Nothing today from Doh, I wonder if he ran out of gas? Maybe he's reinventing himself for about the twentieth time, scouring the kooky right wing blogs for ammo and is ready to come back and fire away about how great Bush and his war are. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:43 PM:

" The Question- "Saddam had WMD at the time of the U.S. invasion, and the WMD are gone now, that would mean that he gave them to the terrorists"

---------

psssst.....hey Goebbels.....come here snappy.......that's a brilliant little theory you came up with....really.

but uhm......there's only one small problem with it.......

SADDAM WAS A TERRORIST- GENIUS!

AND HE WAS WORKING WITH TERRORIST GROUPS!

I know I threw a beating on you yesterday, but geezuz!.......did I do permanent damage to your already libtarded brain.....?

once again......moron........... "

The Question wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Here's another little update on the economic ruin Bush has brought to the U.S.
Central banks throughout the world presently hold some $2.5 trillion of U.S. Treasury bonds, and another trillion dollars in private-sector U.S. dollar debt, Michael Hudson notes. As the dollars exchange rate falls, these banks suffer losses when their holdings are denominated in their own currencies. Even more serious, the principal itself is now in question. There is no foreseeable way in which the United States can redeem its foreign debt. Its trade surplus continues to deteriorate, while its foreign military spending adds to the overall balance-of-payments deficit.
This means that the United States is pumping more and more dollars into the rest of the world without any means of repaying them or any intention to do so. That is why foreign countries are beginning to treat these dollars as hot potatoes, trying to get rid of them as fast as they can. "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:20 PM:

" http://imvotingrepublican.com/

'nuff said "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:43 PM:

SADDAM WAS A TERRORIST- GENIUS!

AND HE WAS WORKING WITH TERRORIST GROUPS!

um...Doh...you're own president, and government has in fact said this was another one of their lies...totally unfounded.

i guess then you MUST agree, this administration has lied from the onset. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:41 PM:

" fatherbob- "...you're own president, and government has in fact said this was another one of their lies...totally unfounded."
--------
Really bob? I didn't know that OUR President said that...? But I do know Saddam's own documents said it loudly and clearly. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Oh, and fatherbob-

From The Senate Intelligence Committee Phase II Report on Public Statements June 8 2008:

Statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,"

Statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

And

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime." "

father bob wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:41 PM:
" fatherbob- "...you're own president, and government has in fact said this was another one of their lies...totally unfounded."
--------
Really bob? I didn't know that OUR President said that...? But I do know Saddam's own documents said it loudly and clearly. "

then you're again admitting this president and administration are are nothing more than 2-bit liars and thugs.. "