This is backpedaling as it approaches an art form, a craft perfected by the Bush administration through constant repitition.

You'd think the American people would get tired of it, but they don't seem to.

**bows down repeatedly at Billmon's feet, chanting "We're not worthy!"**

Continue that to a point where you get a Bush administration official saying, 'there were no WMDs' and you've got gold.

Continue that to a point where you get a Bush administration official saying, 'there were no WMDs' and you've got gold.

No, gold will be when a Bush administration official says: "Saddam never had WMDs, and we never said he did."

I'm sure one will get there, sooner or later.

Continue that to a point where you get a Bush administration official saying, 'there were no WMDs' and you've got gold.

No, gold will be when a Bush administration official says: "Saddam never had WMDs, and we never said he did."

I'm sure one will get there, sooner or later.

Wolfowitz:
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on weapons of mass destruction. We could have been honest and said we wanted the oil fields, but we couldn't get Colin to go come on board.

Wow, this will come in very handy in the discussions in the next months. A lot of people are already claiming that "liberation" was the only reason for the invasion, and that there was never claimed that WMD where easily to find.

Billmon,

I think you should shop this around as an op-ed piece to major newspapers. One of them might be in the mood for some journalism, ya never know.

Great timeline, Billmon.

Haider, I think the liberation line will go next as Iraq becomes more and more unruly. But, meanwhile, BushCo will bully Iran and Syria. What do you bet we stop hearing about Iraq, and instead get scary stories about WMD in other countries? Of course, the American public, having been told this was a remarkable victory will be unphased when the liberation meme dies out too. Besides which, didn't you see the torture chambers? How about those mass graves? Saddam was an evil man and the Iraqis are now free, free to be "untidy"....

I'd like to see a poll that gave the number of people who believe that we already found lots of WMD in Iraq. I suspect it is a very high percentage. No wonder BushCo hates people getting their news from anyone except Faux.

I think I need to go back and link/source all of these quotes. They're all taken from either official transcripts of "reliable" journalistic sources -- reliable in the sense of accurately regurgitating whatever officialdom says.

I didn't do it last night because I was tired and I figured any wing nuts who stumble across this site won't believe anything on it anyway. But if people want to use this as documentation after the Bushies try to flush it all down the memory hole, it would probably help to have sourcing.

I'll see if I can get to it tonight.

It is lovely to see the adminstration hoist with its own series of petards (Middle French, from "peter" -- to break wind). Not that the truth seems to make much difference to most Americans...

Jeebus, Billmon, facts, sourcing...you're taking a perfectly sleazy bar and turning it into a newspaper or something.

oh my god.
great job, billmon.

and i agree with matt david on this, you really should shop it around the various news sources.

Are you guys kidding? Billmon IS a news source!

In all seriousness, why waste his meager time beating his head against the Walls of Jounalism when it might be better to send the article to other blogs and have them post it?

"Don't fear the media - BE the media"
- Jello Biafra @ Kent State 5/4/03

I am in awe billmon. I agree with the previous suggestion that this series of quotes would make a devastating op-ed piece all on its own.

By their words you will know them.

i agree with matt david on this, you really should shop it around the various news sources.

And publish it under my real name? Something tells me that would be hazardous to my employment health.

I've done a similar (but less comprehensive) thing, which has some sourcing and perhaps one or two other quotes.

http://longmans.net/blog/archives/000842.html#000842

It should at least have it's own home on the www.

Bravo, Billmon!

A new motto for you (not to supercede Bertholt, of course): "All the news that's fit to post"

You know what would make me even happier that the thought of this timeline making the rounds of op-ed pages?

The idea that Americans embrace the concept of "untidy", take their futures in their own hands, and start demanding that the Resident of the White House do something for them!

**SIGH**

No, gold will be when a Bush administration official says: "Saddam never had WMDs, and we never said he did."

Sadly, the main prerequisite for becoming president of the United States is having a group of people who are literally the best in the world at playing that game.

LOOK OVER THERE AT IRAN! WE HAVE CREDIBLE REPORTS etc.

Thanks for posting.
Also the State of Union might be a rich source...particularly with regards to the functioning...er..fictitious "nucular" weaponry.

This will be one of your greatest hits!

Very good collection. Will be linking to this from our journal ProgressiveDailyNews.com. Best regards, Gary

Here are a couple more fun quotes:

Mr. Rumsfeld said on CBS's "Face the Nation, " that American intelligence reports indicated that Iraqi forces "have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them, and that they are weaponized, and that, in one case at least, that the command and control arrangements have been established." as reported in the New York Times, March 24, 2003, p. B12.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, responded to Iraq's claims that it possesses no weapons of mass destruction by declaring that "Iraq has lied before, and they're lying now." as reported in the New York Times, December 8, 2002, Section 4, p. 2.

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it," Ari Fleischer as reported in the New York Times, December 6, 2002, p. A1.

It would be useful if the time line indicated when these statements were made viz. when the "war" began, and when hostilities (but not the "war") were declared over by W.

Um...um...um...Clinton got a blowjob!

Brilliant, Billmon. Thanks for compiling this.

I CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT

here are some more quotes from GWB that were on uggabugga a little while ago:

While campaigning in 2002, President Bush said the following:
WHEN
(2002) WHERE WHAT
1 OCT 14 Michigan September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like al Qaeda.
2 OCT 28 Colorado [Saddam is] a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them
3 OCT 28 New Mexico He's got weapons of mass destruction.
4 OCT 31 South Dakota There is a threat in Iraq. And the threat exists because a leader there not only has denied and deceived the world about whether or not he's got weapons of mass destruction, but this is a guy who's used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he's used them.
5 NOV 01 New Hampshire We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons.
6 NOV 02 Tennessee We know that this is a man who has chemical weapons, and we know he's used them.
7 NOV 02 Atlanta, Georgia He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them.
8 NOV 02 Florida He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them. ... You know, not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction.
9 NOV 03 Minnesota This is a man who not only has got chemical weapons, I want you to remind your friends and neighbors, that he has used chemical weapons.
10 NOV 03 Illinois I see the world the way it is. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them.
11 NOV 03 South Dakota Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them.
12 NOV 04 Texas He said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he has weapons of mass destruction. ... Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons.
13 NOV 04 Arkansas This is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, promised he wouldn't have them. He's got them. ... He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them.
14 NOV 04 Missouri He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons; he's got them.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:vD3iCXRk8UIJ:www.uggabugga.blogspot.com/++site:uggabugga.blogspot.com+uggabugga+%22weapons+of+mass+destruction%22+%22got+them%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Billmon,

don't forget this one

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Colin Powell
2/5/03

you know how bush loves "specificity"

Indeed, Billmon, use that SOTUS, particularly the part where he promises that we won't leave our problems to future generations, then procedes to do that very thing! And use this FT link as further evidence!

you know how bush loves "specificity"

Shrub: Goes great on pizza!

[wild applause] excellent, Billmon, excellent.

Billmon: And publish it under my real name? Something tells me that would be hazardous to my employment health.

Then find a cutout. I'm sure there are a few reputable columnists who would be willing to front for you on this.

Nice work. I'll link to it.

Billmon: Excellent stuff. But may I suggest links to the sources?

I think it might add piquancy to mention the vials and vials of chemical agents (some of the big nasties, including anthrax) which were discovered at Ft. Detrick, Maryland recently... Notably, these weapons grade agents were not documented by the military and Army officials claim to have no knowledge that they were buried there.

I think it might add piquancy to mention the vials and vials of chemical agents (some of the big nasties, including anthrax) which were discovered at Ft. Detrick, Maryland

Been there, done that.

But may I suggest links to the sources?

See above.

Good job! You're getting major electron on this one, Billmon: atrios and soundbitten have linked to this post.

Thank you.

getting major electron on this one, Billmon: atrios and soundbitten have linked to this post.

Finally, my 15 minutes of fame.

LOL. For posting a list of quotes from a bunch of government officials. Life is a strange beast . . .

Another one form Ari on 4/10 (from Alterman's blog)

“We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and is all about.” — Ari Fleischer

Don't you all realizw by now that the WMD argument for the war is now passe. The standard raison d'etre is now that we wanted to stop Saddam from mistreating his people. C'mon, get with it!

Don't know what the big fuss is here.

They repeated it enough times therefore it BECAME TRUE.

Doesn't matter what's happened since.

This is the power BuchCo received from the good fairy when he was annointed.

Remarkable, Billmon, quite remarkable. I've linked to it already... I also think you should shop it around to some newspapers, it's time people were exposed to the actual facts of this government's deceit, and not just whatever pap Fox News is feeding them.

Thank you! I have been wanting some sort of collection like this to surface.

All the best PRmen know that specificity helps sell the lie.

This would make a great "In Their Own Words" feature for the NYT. Submit it, it's dynamite!

Ok, so answer me this..

If Saddam didn't have stuff forbidden by the UN resolutions why would he provoke a war with the US that he would obviously lose?

Also :
This link from Reuters indicates that at least one lab which was forbidden by the UN resolutions has been found within Iraq.

Bush from the SOTU :

"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

You seem to be saying that because there are no "WMD" found that therefore the war in Iraq is somehow illegitimate wrt UN resolutions. I think it's pretty well established that it was Saddam's behavior in the face of inspection/etc that finally precipitated this war. .

Unless he was suicidal and/or insane, why would he go to war if he had nothing to hide?

=darwin

It's so much more telling when it's laid out like this. Attabarkeep, Billmon!

Notice the quotes begin in late August of 2002. This was right after Dubya ended his long, hot vacation in Waco . . .er, Crawford, and came out swinging for the fall election campaign.

Prior to that, there was hardly a mention of Iraq or WMD. The Dems were clearly caught flat-footed and fumbled their way through the election, lost a couple close Senate races and control of the Senate. Sadly, this crap worked in a political sense.

The world thinks we are a bunch of morons, and they may be right. The public should be furious right now and want to know if they were lied to about going to war. They're not.

Godamn copycat: The Guardian did this about two weeks ago, or maybe in The Observer. It was something like, "From Imminent Threat to Minor Distraction in Six Easy Steps." A series of six Government quotes. Of course, the Bush Administration, with its throbbing urge to overkill and its messianic imperative to hyperbole, gives you so very much more to work with. Keep at it, dude. Enlist your viewers. Remember what Bush said:

"You're either really, really gullible, or you're against us."

Unless he was suicidal and/or insane, why would he go to war if he had nothing to hide?

er, national pride maybe?

After all, it isn't exactly unprecedented for out of control leaders to do nutty and self-destructive things. $500 billion budget deficit anyone?

I also have to note that one of the only guys I've seen with enough balls to call the Bush Administration on this is the obnoxious conservative Bernard on Imus and Paul Begala.

Who was it -- Ari? Rummy? -- asserting that Tariq Aziz and other regimes detainees i custody "have not yet learned to tell the truth" about WMDs? (or words to that effect)

This would make a nice grace-note.

BTW Billmon, you've been TAPPED.

'Continue that to a point where you get a Bush administration official saying, 'there were no WMDs' and you've got gold.'

I'll give him 5 stars when GWB can blame the Democrats for both the expectation of finding chemical weapons and the inability to find them.

A splinter or two of Blair (Tony) and Jack Straw might thicken the mix ... your call.

I hope Darwin's comments are satirical. Iraq did not "go to war" - it was invaded. And what didn't Iraq do? UN inspectors were in the country and doing their jobs. Apparently doing them very well, too. Darth Rumsfeld's recent comments imply as much...

Darwin,

Maybe Saddam was (is?) suicidal or insane.

Maybe Saddam was bluffing. He had appearances to keep up, y'know. FUD is a tactic used when one is at a strategic disadvantage, No?

None of which changes the apparent hollowness of these statements.

Unless he was suicidal and/or insane, why would he go to war if he had nothing to hide?

Iraq didn't go to war, they were invaded idiot!.... And he stated all along that he didn't have any WMD and the UN inspection team didn't find any. And they said they needed another year to find any if they indeed existed. We obviously didn't want them to find out that there was nothing, so we invaded. We invaded a country that was NO THREAT TO US! Admit it finally, you were wrong.

And conservatives thought he was insane, and therefore would use the WMD. Jesus, don't you remember your own arguments?

Yeah, Darwin. I remember all those quotes in which Bush pushed the clear and present danger posed to the American people by "Iraq's failure to declare two trucks that might possibly qualify as dual-use equipment as described by a UNSC Resolution, even though there is no evidence that the trucks have ever actually produced biotoxins, or could practically do so, and would only do so in the absence of any practical method by which such biotoxins might be delivered to the United States, given the lack of any evidence of post-Embassy-bombing contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein or of credible plans to float an Iraqi artillery battery armed with biological or chemical shells within range of Manhattan, which has an excellent public health system, anyway." I'll look them up.

And Dick Cheney's mid-March statement that Saddam had "reconstituted" his nuclear weapons program, in complete and utter absence of the slightest bit of proof, now, or even then? I guess it was the Lipitor talking.

Face it, the Iraqi leadership and army was either too scared or too incompetent to use these banned weapons, if they had them at all. Not exactly the reincarnation of the Nazi threat this Administration sold. And the Iraqis, to their credit, said all along they didn't have banned weapons--where are the SCUDs Iraq was supposed to be hiding? Gotta say it takes a special kind of president to make the USA less trusted than Saddam Hussein.

If Bush is too proud (or too stupid) to bend over for the UN, why would Saddam? He's clinging to power against a coup and uprising. He doesn't have a whole lot of room for compromise.

I have thought recently that John Stewart should do a piece on these quotes (Don't forget Cheney's "We know he has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program") like he did with the Candidate Bush/President Bush debate on the use of the US military for nation building.

[looks around]

(pssst Billmon! you've been discovered!)

You can just picture the backstory and behind-the-scenes strategizing behind the quotes. It's like a synopsis of a Bizarro World season of the West Wing.

pssst Billmon! you've been discovered!

Damn... does this mean that the drinks are going to be measured out? I liked the rustic, regular feel to the place where I could actually get to hear the song I requested on the jukebox.

Shrub has it all figured out: In 2 more weeks the average Joe's attention will follow to where the bright light of deception focuses next - my bet it's Iran, the other "axis of evil" (the try on Syria didn't quite work out). Better get used to bending over and grabbing those ankles America, it's a long time till November '04, and these boys are just getting started.

Billmon! You are the f'ing MAN!

The next order of business is to assemble a video of all these righteously certain idiots making their utterances, one after the other.

Title it Pants on Fire.

The next order of business is to assemble a video of all these righteously certain idiots making their utterances, one after the other.

Title it Pants on Fire.

pssst Billmon! you've been discovered!

Kos is to blame for linking here! He is one of the popular kids. ;)

I can't add anything to that.

sgc

that list would be a lot more effective if you published a source note for each quote....

ERA

Billmon,

Since I'm not looking at Canada these days ;-), I'll be glad to shop this article on your behalf. I can think of three sources offhand that might buy it.

We'll have to work out permissions, etc...so that if you are actually PAID for it, you get the cash, but otherwise, consider it my public service.

The wing nuts really have a major problem with this story, which is why if I were them I would STFU about it rather than blather on about the liberal Saddam-lovers.

The problem is this: Either Bush and Co. are the biggest bunch of effing liars to come down the pike since the Gulf of Tonkin, OR vast quantities of incredibly dangerous WMDs have vanished into the Arabian desert -- to end up God knows where and in God knows who's hands.

Isn't this what the war was supposed to prevent???

As I said a few weeks ago, maybe the Army should look here.

Since I'm not looking at Canada these days ;-), I'll be glad to shop this article on your behalf. I can think of three sources offhand that might buy it.

To paraphrase Abbie Hoffman, steal this post. If they're willing to publish under a nom 'd plume, they can have it.

Tell 'em Billmon is the name, and sedition's the game.

But you might want to wait a bit -- I'm working on sourcing and links for the quotes.

hmm along with Ron K's mention of "splinters" (hahah brings to mind "relics of the true cross") from Blair and Straw is UK Amb to the UN, Jeremy Greenstalk, as well. Depending on your energy and time, the more the merrier.
Fantastic work!

Two tips:

1 - Make all the "george bush" attribution, "George W Bush" so no one thinks you mean poppy.

2 - Shorten the Maj. Gen. David Petraeus quote to: "I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago..." Sounds more damning to me.

Great work... I'm reformatting to send as a mass email.

When I said "go to war" I was clearly trying to suggest that Saddam could have prevented this war, therefore his failure to prevent this war == "going to war." This seems evident from the comments Bush made at the UN in late 2002, where (after listing about 10 other ways Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions) he said this :

Bush at the UN:
"
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
"

So, apparently the UN Security Council was not very pleased with Iraq's compliance with UN Resolutions. So, all that Saddam had to do to at any time between 1991 and 2003 was convince the US that he was sincere about compliance.
Are you arguing that it was impossible for Saddam to comply with these resolutions during this time period? If he was (after 12 years of playing dirty pool) sincerely making an effort to comply with inspections, why was he unable to convince the US of this sudden change of heart? Even if we assume that the Baath regime deserved yet another chance, why do you believe that they would suddenly straighten up and fly right?

I'm sorry but the "Saddam had no choice" argument just doesn't fly for me. If it was impossible for him to comply with UN resolutions, what do you propose the world should have done? Sat idly by for another 12 years of Baathist horror and funding of Palestinian terror?

More importantly, who really thinks that the talking heads on TV are representing their actual motivations? The above list of quotations is interesting, but it certainly doesn't mean that Iraq was groovy and that WMD was the only legitimate reason for the conflict. You can refute that reason, much trumpeted in the press, but it doesn't get you any closer to an answer to this question :

"If Saddam, as a militarily aggressive asshole dictator of a resource rich country, was unwilling to comply with the UN in such a way that the sanctions could be lifted, what should the international community have done?"

The neocons may be reprehensible, but you must admit they can at least articulate solutions. This is true even if those solutions are not solutions with which you agree.

=darwin

goddamnit darwin....

If it was impossible for him to comply with UN resolutions, what do you propose the world should have done? Sat idly by for another 12 years of Baathist horror and funding of Palestinian terror?

The world? The world did not sanction this war. Resolution 1441 did not authorize war. In fact, it was passed with the understanding that another resolution would be required to go to war. Are you saying that the U.S. and UK ("coalition") was authorized to invade Iraq?

Hell, even the countries in closest proximity to him didn't want the invasion.

It was a coalition of the bribed and the needy, unmotivated by humanitarian concerns about the Baathist regime horrors, and in some cases, like Uzbekistan, guilty of similar atrocities.

This was a war dictated by a bunch of old white men who wanted to show they can still get their dicks stiff. Additionally, it is a cash cow for a number of administration cronies. Face it.

And how is this for an alternative policy. Containment. This was Powell's favored policy, expressed after 9/11 but before he went jelly spine on the issue.

The WMD may be found in Clinton's pants. Isn't that where all the problems of the world lay?
Oh woe is me. Oh woe for all of us!

The WMD may be found in Clinton's pants. Isn't that where all the problems of the world lay?
Oh woe is me. Oh woe for all of us!

Darwin, imagine, if you will, a ruthless dictator threatened by a much bigger, but blundering, kid on the block. His choices, get a whuppin by the big kid, or show you're holding nothin but your swinging d in your hand, and having your flunkies, who actually know where the skeletons and secret escape tunnels are, come after you.

Those were Hussein's choices, and he opted for the one that gave him the best chance for survival, with the best chance for a comeback later. Wouldn't you?

Billmon:

Fantastic job, thanks for taking the time and effort to dig all of that up.

Everyone Else:

Copy the material and paste it someplace where you can access it anytime the TrollsRus crowd start bleating "show me where they said there were definitely weapons of mass destruction is Iraq, bet you can't!" We shouldn't let Billmon's splendid labors go to waste.

Darwin, you have my respect for at least trying to defend the W cabal's indefensible actions in a logical way. Unfortunately, there wasn't any logic involved.

So, all that Saddam had to do to at any time between 1991 and 2003 was convince the US that he was sincere about compliance.

That's right. And W made it crystal clear that absolutely nothing Saddam could do would convince him not to invade. Saddam's best remaining ploy was to claim to have WMDs in the hopes that at least fears of a high US casualty count would deter an invasion. No such luck.

"If Saddam, as a militarily aggressive asshole dictator of a resource rich country, was unwilling to comply with the UN in such a way that the sanctions could be lifted, what should the international community have done?"

First problem is that "militarily aggressive" simply isn't true. Saddam attacked Iran with our open blessing in 1980, and Kuwait with our private acquiescence in 1990. That's it. He hasn't attacked anyone since, or threatened to, and there's good reason to believe that he wouldn't have made those two attacks if we had told him we were opposed.

What should the international ccommunity have done? Exactly what it was doing- continuing to contain Saddam, preventinng him from acquiring components for WMDs. Not every solution requires blowing things up.

Yes, I'm saying the "world community" because dealing with this sort of thing the UN is supposed to deal with, if it only weren't so ineffectual. I'm also saying that the coalition was "authorized" to go to war with Iraq. I say "authorized" because as this link indicates, sovereign nations (UN member or not) do not require UN sanction to go to war with other nations. The link also explains how 1441 does, in fact, "authorize" the invasion from the perspective of the UN Security Council..

Was containment good for the Iraqi people? Was it good for regional stability? Did it prevent Saddam from harboring Abu Nidal, sending money to Palestinian terrorists, etc? Also, containment includes UN sanctions, which as we've all heard caused untold suffering to the Iraqi people.

So what's the word? Was "containment" not that bad? All the hemming and hawing about the suffering of the Iraqi people under sanctions was BS?

=darwin

Darwin, the inspections process was making progress when we decided to break it off by going to war. Had the inspections process been played out, we would have found that there was no WMD without the loss of so many lives.

I seriously doubt that Saddam could have prevented this invasion because of something you yourself said: "it certainly doesn't mean that...WMD was the only legitimate reason for the conflict." This administration was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq no matter what, and it used any and all casus belli it could find. Why do you think they expended so much energy in seeking a link with Al Qaeda? Because if they had found one, they could have used the congressional resolution allowing Bush to go to war with anyone connected to that event. The failure to find that link prompted them to use WMD as their main reason for war.

Saddam had no possible way to prevent his removal. And because the Bushies had targeted him for removal they had no qualms about feeding us bs about WMD, or suddenly gaining a concern for the oppression the Iraqis were suffering -- a concern that was sorely missing when many of these same officials were giving him all manner of aid while serving in the Reagan/Bush I administrations.

if someone has the time and or lexus nexus, a posting of quotes where these same clowns insisted saddam/iraq had links to al qaeda would be useful as well.

Darwin,
I prefer this. It carries about 50 times the credibility of your link. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php

Sorry I couldn't word link it. Just cut and paste. Then read and weep.

sovereign nations (UN member or not) do not require UN sanction to go to war with other nations.

I'm afraid your understanding of sovereign nations going to war is wrong, as is your source's. Only if attacked buddy, only if attacked. It is shameful that we were the aggressor here. You should be ashamed for supporting it.

However, if your not conviced yet, then I'll declare a impasse and wash my hands of you, as you've done with the facts and the truth.

Someone mentioned that the US went to war with Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people! Anyone who believes this is a total idiot!

IF Republicans don't care about minorities and indigent people living in the US, do you think they care about the freedom of foreigners living half way around the world?!!! (Enough to spend billions of tax dollars for this cause Iraqis?!!!)

Billmon;

As good as stolen. ;-)

Many thanks for this, and stay careful.

=darwin,

My, what a lot of questions you have!

What doesn't fly for me is the idea that the US had no other choice but to invade Iraq to deal with the imminent threat of WMD...which turn out to be a lot of hot air: misrepresented, exaggerated, and lied about.

Maybe there were other solutions to the problems of Saddam paying out rewards to Palestinian bombers' families or harboring terrorists. It seems there are probably some half-steps between sanctions and all-out invasion, but it's all academic at this point. We're stuck with the neo-con's "solution." A very bold solution it is. Yoking our military with occupying another country for the forseeable future, which, according to Wolfowitz is desirable. Talk about your silver linings. You can agree with it. I don't.

Everybody...

I would _strongly_ suggest, since Bilmon has graciously made this article effectively part of the public domain, that you grab a copy and send it to your Letters to the Editor section of your local newspaper.

Might wake a few people up. At the very least, you'll know who your true enemies are. At best, you'll find out who's willing to work for the downfall of BushCo. And don't be surprised, after this, if a few of them are truly disgusted folks that still can't but call themselves Republicans...

Hey Darwin,

Did you notice how many "Get out of Jail Free Card" phrases littered the article you linked to?

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2838965

"'Our experts who are in the field right now ... have said this is an ingenious, unique and Iraqi design, not the way anyone else would have manufactured biological agent,' one official said. 'It's probably not how you would want to design a biological weapon. It was designed to evade inspection, not to be efficient.'"

....

"There was only a slight chance Iraq would use the systems for civilian purposes, such as hydrogen fertilizer production, as Iraq contended, they added."

* So there is no trace of chemical or biological weapons on, near or around the trucks.

* The trucks are according to their admission a terribly inefficient way of producing bio weapons "not the way anyone else would have manufactured biological agent"

* Iraq has limited infrastructure and live in a country that NEEDS fertilizer to maintain any semblance of agriculture.

THEREFORE, there is little chance the trucks were used to produce hydrogen fertilizer. Frig ...

Darwin wrote:
The neocons may be reprehensible, but you must admit they can at least articulate solutions. This is true even if those solutions are not solutions with which you agree.
Someone will probably call Godwin's Law but I'd like to point out that just having a Solution is not the sort of argument that wins you ethical debates.

> So what's the word? Was "containment" not that bad? All the hemming and hawing about the suffering of the Iraqi people under sanctions was BS?

Containment does not necessarily imply sanctions. The sanctions not only killed many Iraqis, they also helped Saddam politically. Containing Saddam without them could also have resulted in his overthrow.

> Did it prevent Saddam from harboring Abu Nidal, sending money to Palestinian terrorists, etc?

No, and "liberation" has not prevented al Qaeda from growing stronger as a result, either. Bad stuff happens in this part of the world, and a more effective strategy would be to solve the Palestine issue. In fact, for the $$$ we spent blowing things up, we could have bought them a country.

Orwell, anyone?

IMPEACH THE BASTARD

Someone get this list to Senator Byrd. I'll bet he'll use it!!!

First, thanks Brian J for acknowledging that I'm not just a troll coming here to start trouble. I'm really interested in answers to the questions that I'm asking. :)

So your hypothesis is that W's administration was unwilling to lift the sanctions under any circumstances. However, this doesn't explain Iraq's actions from 1992-2000, when Clinton was "containing" Iraq.. Are you saying that they never had a chance of fulfulling the UN (US) requirements, even under Clinton?

If so, what does this say about Clinton and his political outlook relative to the "Bush Cabal"?

If not, what does it say about the UN that they would impose resolutions it was impossible to comply with?

re: "militarily aggressive-

Even if we assume that Saddam attacked Iran with our blessing in 1980 (remember, Iran had just undergone a reactionary revolution) it was still him attacking, not the US. Are you asserting that he wouldn't have attacked Iran if the US hadn't been involved? If so, I'd be curious to see a cite.

Also, the "private acqueiscence" re: Kuwait has been exposed as Iraqi disinformation :

"
In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik [sic] Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction."
"

and a last quick note to angryleftist : I'll read your source.. the only real sources I've seen on the left saying "Illegal War" are saying it in the same breath as "Israeli Genocide" and "Bush is a Nazi!" so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. The link I posted I'm sure is not the best out there, just happened to be one I had handy.. :) Thanks also to you for realizing that an impasse can occur when two totally different world-views come into contact and proposing a "cease-fire." I'll let you know what I think of yr cite and whether it has changed my opinion re: the legality of GWII under "international law" (which is really something a bit more like "international treaty" imo) .. :)

=darwin

One thing we can count on from here it that the lies will get bigger.

How long until Ari Fleischer announces that Billmon has WMD?

How long do you think the WhiteHouse.gov links will be up? I think there'll soon be a "bad" hard disk and all that stuff will soon disappear off the website.

"We talk not to say something, but to create a certain effect." --Joseph Goebbels

Billmon, I think this is such a good timeline. I think another timeline I'd like to see is one for all the times Bush said he hadn't decided to go to war yet -- months if not years after he had already decided. This week there was the statement that someone in the WH admitted he had definitely decided by December.

Such an upstanding and honest guy, don't you think?

How long do you think the WhiteHouse.gov links will be up?

I'm going to give one grudging cheer for the USA here. In most countries, even most European countries, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to collect all these quotes from official government web sites. But the White House, State and DoD sites are all set up to make it amazingly easy. Combine that with Google, and the memory hole becomes downright user friendly.

Of course, there is a semi-Orwellian motive behind it: The objective of all that technology is to make the official message easier to get than anybody else's.

That's great when the Inner Party wants to get maximum exposure for its propaganda -- as during the runup to the war -- less helpful when the party line has to be changed in a hurry ("We have always been at war with Eastasia," etc.)

If nothing else comes of this, I suspect the Bushies will start rethinking their approach to what the securocrats laughingly refer to as "public diplomacy."

Billmon, I think you should add one more quote to the beginning -- the one about you don't try to sell a new product in August.

NYTimes article captured here.

:-)

“From a marketing point of view,” said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, “you don’t introduce new products in August.”

Say, Darwin, do you consider Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials to be a "leftist"? He would have had no problem condemning Bush's war as "illegal." Here's what he said in 1945 about the concept of "aggressive war":

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

You can find the entire statement here.

Here's a blast from the past ...
"It is difficult to believe there still could be any quesiton in the minds of reasonable people open to the facts before them" (Rumsfeld to European security conference, Munich, ~2003-02-09)

Tony Blair, Tuesday March 18, 2003:

" Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them. "

"What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD. "

"What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them. "

"The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life. "

Read the entire lie here:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,916789,00.html

I think I'm going to let a Brit play truth squad for Blair, Straw et. al. I've got my hands full keeping up with our lot.

use my 191 lies--copy format at www.liberalslikechrist.org
quote me

Billmon, just refreshed your site at the end of my work day. I must say, you promised links, and you delivered! If only politicians worked that way! :-) Thanks, and your contribution to the 2nd American Revolution is profoundly appreciated!

Yay, a civil discussion! :)

First, obviously these trailers are not the smoking gun WMD sites we're looking for. They are, however, material that Iraq had, could be used for WMD, and was not declared. An honest mistake? Seems unlikely.. and of course they couldn't have hidden any of the WMD materials elsewhere in Iraq. I mean, it's not like there's a big empty desert there or anything.. :) My basic point in bringing the trailers in question into the discussion is that it is proof that Iraq was not complying with the spirit of the resolutions, even if (which I do not grant) we grant that it was complying with the letter.

Second, "containment" by whom? I would assume it's the nation responsible for the last 12 years of containment, which would be the US. Can you understand a perspective where the US, (shouldering the majority security burden wrt Iraq) wouldn't see the utility of doing everything that Iraq's trading partners on the SC (France, Russia) tell them to do?

Third, the concept that meaningful containment could exist without sanctions seems ridiculous to me. A Baath Iraq operating at full capacity would be producing enormous amounts of money. Is it really reasonable to assume that Saddam wouldn't use any of that money for weapons (of MD or not) and/or the repression of his people, funding of pro-Palestinian terrorists, etc? Do you really believe that he would have just straightened up and flown right given enough time?

What doesn't fly for me is the idea that the US had no other choice but to invade Iraq to deal with the imminent threat of WMD...which turn out to be a lot of hot air: misrepresented, exaggerated, and lied about.

Here's something we can agree upon, then.

IMO there are a wide variety of better reasons to go to war in Iraq (2003), but if we hadn't destroyed Iraq (1991)'s military capacity, I think its clear that Iraq (2003) would have been a threat to both regional and global security. This was the real WMD threat, hence sanctions.

There are also indications that nations (including (surprise!) France, Germany and Russia) have been supplying Iraq with various goods in violation of the sanctions! Without sanctions, they would have just bought another French nuclear reactor and a bunch more French, Russian and Chinese weapons.

It strikes me as unbelievably misguided to accept at face the Iraqi Government's good faith while considering the US Govt completely morally wrong under all circumstances. I understand that people don't like Republicans, but I think that Baathists are probably worse.. :)

=darwin
(PS- I agree that "having a solution" doesn't win an argument, but certainly it's better than having no solution whatsoever. The lack of even proposed solutions is what makes it very hard for me to be a liberal, although I certainly have no love for Bush or Corporate greed, etc. I'm sorry, but "lets all decide to play nice with each other in a socialist paradise" just isn't a solution.. :)

I agree with you darwin, people - blinded by their hatred of the American government - often forget that Saddam Hussein was no saint. That is a very valid point. Having that as a starting point, you have to ask yourself two questions.

1. Assuming (very liberally), it is America/The West/The free world's responsibility to rid the world of tyrants, why on earth didn't they pick someone that actually is a threat to it's surroundings? (Think far-eastern country which was desperate to prove to the world it has fired up its nuclear program...)

2. Would it not be just the biggest coincidence in the history of coincidences that America - the biggest consumer of oil, happened to attack the country with no natural resources at all besides having the biggest supply of oil after the Saudi's? I mean, doesn't that coincidence just blow your mind?

There's another from aWol, two from Blair, and one from Jack Straw at the bottom of this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0529-01.htm

Here are the ones I cited above from commondreams. My favorite is Tony Blair's. I think this calls for a Blair vs. Rumsfeld debate on the Daily Show, like the Bush vs. Bush they did a few weeks ago.
*******************

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons

George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003

You hit the grand slam with this one, Billmon. You are linked all over the Net!

You are linked all over the Net!

That must explain all those phone calls from the Justice Department . . .

Also, I checked my credit history, and it seems I'm bankrupt.

And I've been fired . . .

Oh well, anything for the cause.

Does anybody have a link to the BBC quote history that I apparently imitated?

To Darwin:

One simple question: to what extent is it appropriate for a US President to lie to his own citizens about the need for an aggressive war?

YOU may believe that there were justifiable reasons for war. YOU may believe that Saddam's cruelty, or his apparent failure to comply with UN resolutions, or his invasions of Iran and Kuwait, or his support of the Palestinian intifada, or the existence of a scientific community that could create WMDs provided legitimate grounds for war.

But that's not what the President told us. In the State of the Union address, in senior administration official press conferences, the point was repeated again and again: disarmament was not enough, only regime change would do. And the justification for regime change was the existence of a specific threat, in sufficient volume to cause grave harm to US interests.

That is a lie.

I abhor the idea that a president would so egregiously lie about a matter so important. What about you?

I would like a copy of this. Please e-mail it to glennamp@bellsouth.net. Thanks.

I would like a copy of this. Please e-mail it to glennamp@bellsouth.net. Thanks.

glenna: click mouse. swipe words. copy. paste into text editor. save.
you now have your copy.

joe - "I agree with you darwin, people - blinded by their hatred of the American government - often forget that Saddam Hussein was no saint. That is a very valid point. Having that as a starting point, you have to ask yourself two questions."

And who is it, exactly, that forgets that Hussein was a very bad man? Is it necessary, as was suggested in a forum whose location I don't remember, to begin every criticism of Iraqi policy with a sort of "While admitting that Hussein was evil, possibly the Devil incarnate, I would like to say..."

The same side of the political debate that argues against the Iraq war policies argued against being buddy-buddy with this very bad man back when Rummy was shaking his hand. The UN tried to pass several resolutions censuring his use of chemical weapons in Iran and against the Kurds, but America wouldn't hear about it. Unsurprisingly, it was many of the same people in office then that are in office now.

It's just another convenient cover story, and the people making our policy today could care less. Their reasons change because they haven't given us their real motivation. But they're moving unswervingly towards a goal, and that goal is most assuredly not a goal that sells well with people concerned with the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Thanks, Billmon, for this. My letters to the editors needed a concise recap of the evolution of The Lie. Shrub and VP got what they wanted -- the oil. We've lost forever the moral high ground now that we have the precedent of "pre-emptive defense" as an excuse for grabbing the assets of a sovereign nation. Nobody liked Saddam, but he was no threat to us. We will be left with decades of careful diplomacy to repair the damage done to our credibility and respect on the world stage.

After hearing Richard Perle on the News Hour (PBS) tonight defending Wolfowitz's explanation of the WMD fiasco, I wrote the following haiku.

Lies about weapons
Weren't real reasons for war
So doesn't matter.

No, gold will be when a Bush administration official says: "Saddam never had WMDs, and we never said he did."

No, wait, I've got a better one - "All this talk about 'weapons of mass destruction' is just another wacko liberal conspiracy theory." -The right-wing demagogue of your choice.

>funding of pro-Palestinian terrorists, etc?

I have a bigger problem with MY VERY OWN money funding Israeli terrorists....

>IMO there are a wide variety of better reasons to go to war in Iraq (2003), but if we hadn't destroyed Iraq (1991)'s military capacity, I think its clear that Iraq (2003) would have been a threat to both regional and global security. This was the real WMD threat, hence sanctions.

This somehow means that GWB did not lie to the American people to sell this war?

>I understand that people don't like Republicans

Republicans aren't so bad, it's lying b#stards I can't handle.....

Remember that this man ran a campaign based in large part on his character....someone should tell him that there is more to character than keeping your d#ck in your pants.

You are a moron.

"I agree that "having a solution" doesn't win an argument, but certainly it's better than having no solution whatsoever."

Darwin... how can I put this...

I disagree with you on more or less every point you've raised in this discussion. It is impossible that either of us will ever convince the other that we are right. What possible solution could be devised to breach this impasse?

Well, here's one solution - I'll visit your home, and shoot you in the face!

Let me ask you - do you think the above solution would be better or worse than no solution at all?

(Bear in mind, if I were President Bush, I'd probably shoot all your neighbors as well.)

Jeez, peeps, get this from Reuters: Rumsfeld Denies 'False Pretext' for Iraq War

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denied on Thursday that the Iraq war was waged under a false pretext even though U.S. search teams have failed to find the chemical and biological weapons cited as justification for the invasion.

During a radio interview, Rumsfeld expressed fresh confidence that such weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, and offered several explanations for why they have not been located.

President Bush and other U.S. officials cited Iraq's allegedly large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a program to develop nuclear weapons as justification for toppling President Saddam Hussein.

"Well I can assure you that this war was not waged under any false pretext," Rumsfeld said in comments on the Infinity Radio network.

Rumsfeld said the United States before the war had "good intelligence" about Iraqi weapons and said Iraq had a track record of using chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and against Iran in the 1980s.

"We believed then and we believe now that the Iraqis have had chemical weapons (and) biological weapons and that they had a program to develop nuclear weapons but did not have nuclear weapons. That is what the United Kingdom's intelligence suggested as well. We still believe that," he said.

Excuse me...but "they had a program to develop nuclear weapons"?!?! I call bull$#&+ on that one...the IAEA was able to shoot down that idea almost as soon as inspections started, and even if it were true, we'd have found the evidence by now. A nuclear program is not, repeat not, something one can hide.

BTW: "I can assure you that this war was not waged under any false pretext." Thanks, Rummy, I feel so much better now...

akrajag:
Well, here's one solution - I'll visit your home, and shoot you in the face!

Whoa man, I realize you're just making an analogy (god I hope) but that isn't very cool. This sort of comment is easy to misinterpret as a threat and makes everyone here look bad. Even if I understand what you mean it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Please ignore the two chemlab trucks which are pretty much a dead match for the 'clip-art' Colin Powell presented to the UN in February. Of course they must be CIA plants, the CIA is more powerful than God.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/29/sprj.irq.wmd/

I don't know why we're worried about links to sources. The Bush Boys don't use them...other than outdated and plagerized sources.

Big Picture:

1) If the United States gave a damn about the oppression of the Iraqi people, we kept officially quiet about it from 1970-1991. If George W. Bush was down with the sufferings of the common Iraqi during his campaign for president or until late 2001, I missed any public utterance. The humanitarian reason to go to war has been there for thirty years. For the greater number of those years we ignored it in favor of trying to sell Iraq something (food, mostly). If Bush was intent on freeing the Iraqis, he should have launched the attack in March 2001, instead of waiting two years? How many Iraqi lives did his unconsionable (given the humanitarian motivation) delay cost?
2) Iraqi arms purchases: The United States was quite happy with the arms Iraq was purchasing from France, Russia (USSR) and China, since our main clients in the region (Iran, Israel) were purchasing American arms, which we considered better. Again, the US was eager to offer favorable loans to Iraq for food. Don Rumsfeld pitched Bechtel while on his 1983 visit to Saddam. Only after he invaded Kuwait--and, sorry, Darwin, but the Glaspie interview(s) are a bit too well documented to exculpate her, and she may have perjured herself before Congress--did Saddam become "the Great Satan."
3) A demonstrated willingness to use chemical weapons fifteen years ago, while involved in a land war against another state, and against meager American protest.
4) Abu Nidal? Man, that's grasping: a has-been terrorist (the PLF no longer exists) whom Israel amnestied in 1993, and who was living in the Gaza strip with Israeli permission from 1996-2000, demonstrates a terrorist connection? Abu Nidal left Gaza to escape the intifada, not the law, and did so with Israeli knowledge. There is scant evidence for any modern connection to Palestinian terror. The remainder of the Aquilli Lauro conspirators have already been released from prison, and Italy wasn't trying hard to get him, given he'd traveled around North Africa over the past decade. And "funding Palestinian terror" must mean paying families of suicide bombers: again, a pretty lame argument, one which is supposed to tie Saddam to his bitter enemy, al-Qaida? It just doesn't wash.

Frankly, Iraq was no less dangerous to the USA during the 2000 campaign, or on 10 September,2001, than was in March of this year. But I don't remember Bush's deep concern. Instead, we were sold a clear and present danger. The threat was a con job, even with banned weapons. Without them, it's just more apparent, both the nature of the con and the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration.

Why isn't anybody addressing the fact that our so called "president" is a deserter? How can he get away with this and not be impeached?

Yeah, Joe. The chem trucks. That's what it was all about. Stopping Iraq from owning two trucks fitted with chemical apparatus less sophisticated than your average microbrewery. Apparatus that may never have been used, or that may actually not work at all.

Stick with the Weed-Whacker-powered drone. The one the VRWC was all excited about until it turned out to be held together by duct tape. You'll get more mileage.

Darwin, re: "I agree that 'having a solution' doesn't win an argument, but certainly it's better than having no solution whatsoever." Two comments.

1. Well, you know, there was this guy named Socrates...he kinda thought that you were better off realizing you didn't have a solution than believing falsely that you did... (He was, of course, put to death by people who wanted to keep believing they had solutions -- I guess that's a solution of sorts.)

2. Solution to what, exactly? To the undeniable horrors visited by Saddam on the Iraqi people? (As far as they're concerned, the jury seems to be out on our solution.) Unless we think of the Iraqi populace as some kind of "chosen people," we have to think that it's the horrors, and the fact that they were visited on people (whoever they are), that matter. Those same horrors are being visited on countless people around the globe by vicious dictators. Apparently (see Uzbekistan) stopping those horrors some place requires supporting them somewhere else. So what, exactly, was this a solution to? Was it a solution to the problem that needs solving? Do you have a solution to that problem?

(Hint: supporting rather than undermining the notion of binding international law, abiding by it even when we think it's wrong and, if we think it's wrong, trying to change it by legitimate means...in other words, behaving as people who believe in civil democracy.)

These quotes are great. I'd like to use some of them in the web site I'm building: http://www.bushdrivesmenuts.0catch.com

Utterly priceless.

Now the question is, the lies are documented, the pretext for invasion was false, are the war criminals going to be brought to trial or not, and what PRECISELY are the American people (who are not responsible for the actions of the Bush/NeoCon Regime) going to do about stopping the planned illegal attack on the next target, Iran?

The world cannot sit around and watch the American Govt. do this again and again. If America doesnt want to become the new "Skunk Of The World", its fine and honest citizens had better do something. Fast.

Darwin,

The other thing to remember about this gang, they lied and said that we had to go after Saddam because he was in league with Al Qaeda. And that if we took Saddam out, we would win another battle in the never ending war against the Terrorists and Americans would be safer.

This too was a lie and the result of that lie just about destroyed our ability to work (and be trusted) by the rest of the world -- making the whole world much less safe. This lie is one that we in the US and the rest of the world will live with for decades. Perhaps we will never recover from that breach of trust. And many people have died and will continue to die because of their arrogance. Most reading of Christianity would call these lies mortal sins.

These quotes are great. I'd like to use some of them

Grab 'em eljay -- just give Billmon and/or Whiskey Bar some credit.

GREAT list. here's another.

In congressional testimony last week, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith said he was "confident that we will eventually be able to piece together a fairly complete account of Iraq's WMD programs, but the process will take months, and perhaps years."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51355-2003May28.html

I am thankful that Saddam is temporarily gone, he was a brutal ugly human. But we all were and are predicting that there will be endless terrorism, now, that we were so forceful in removing him. It's quite sad that Bush goes to all these extremes and lies so hard just to get reelected.

Excuse me, President Bush is "great" president hes expanded our borders by making iraq and afghanistan our "crown colonies." Also might i add that afghanistan has very large reserves of Natural Gas, and iraq large reserves of Oil.
Look at Operation Iraqi Freedom (Liberation is a synonym) O.I.L!
Btw iran has oil too...korea well we just dont like them so lets go after them, andlets invade france while were at it!
Gotta Love ya Bush, Dick, and Colin!

>I agree with you darwin, people - blinded by their hatred of the American government - often forget that Saddam Hussein was no saint.

1) which people are these? specifically.

2) there's only one party which is currently calling for the gutting of the american government, and it supported the war very firmly

3) what was Halliburton blinded by? Rumsfeld? Bush 1? the Reagan administration?

'cause surely wasn't no liberals sold the man the stuff he used to kill his own people with.

Thar's OIL in that thar desert.

They figured out what the trailers were by determining what they were not? I've got a trailer that is not a gravel hauler, or an ice cream truck, but it's not a biological weapons lab, either.

Wow! The bar is so crowded tonight, even the regulars cannot get in!

So here's a question for the legal buffs. Obviously, lying to the American people and Congress to start a war would be an impeachable offence: SNOW JOB == BLOW JOB. What sort of demonstrable evidence/documents would be required to initiate impeachment procedings? Staff meetings, tapes, memoes, what? The cabal must have had MANY discussions about how shaky their evidence was, and how to cover for it. Even the tightest ship can spring a leak. What would it take?

im still wondering why more have'nt asked about why sept 11 happened in the first place? and did it possibly have anything to do with the the threats made to the taliban leaders - that the US would flatten them if they did not acede to US oil interests in pipelines across afganistan?

was there a connection? let us read the report mr. president.

RE: Darwin -- Urdrew says it best:

>Darwin, re: "I agree that 'having a solution' doesn't win an argument, but certainly it's better than having no solution whatsoever." Two comments.

>1. Well, you know, there was this guy named Socrates...he kinda thought that you were better off realizing you didn't have a solution than believing falsely that you did... (He was, of course, put to death by people who wanted to keep believing they had solutions -- I guess that's a solution of sorts.)

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

>2. Solution to what, exactly? To the undeniable horrors visited by Saddam on the Iraqi people? (As far as they're concerned, the jury seems to be out on our solution.)

Just the other day, I read in a dead-tree version of the daily paper how the Iraqis noted that, after the first Gulf War, Saddam had managed to get Baghdad's water and electricity back up to normal within a month. It's been nearly two months now, and the US' PNAC Platoon hasn't done more than make sure their INC buddies like Chalabi get the water turned on in their new digs.

>Unless we think of the Iraqi populace as some kind of "chosen people," we have to think that it's the horrors, and the fact that they were visited on people (whoever they are), that matter. Those same horrors are being visited on countless people around the globe by vicious dictators. Apparently (see Uzbekistan) stopping those horrors some place requires supporting them somewhere else. So what, exactly, was this a solution to? Was it a solution to the problem that needs solving? Do you have a solution to that problem?

>(Hint: supporting rather than undermining the notion of binding international law, abiding by it even when we think it's wrong and, if we think it's wrong, trying to change it by legitimate means...in other words, behaving as people who believe in civil democracy.)

>Posted by: urdrew at May 29, 2003 10:45 PM

Thanks Billmon, adding a link as well.

Those who post the other quotes, can you at least give the man a hand and give the source, the URL and the date?

For 8 years, all we heard was how terrible a liar Clinton was...so what else is new! These illegals in the White House this day have Clinton beat a mile!

Well I have to say "well done" for putting this into an easily digestible form, but there really is nothing "awesome" about it - all this stuff is in the public domain, and has been for some time. It's getting obvious what they were doing now, but frankly the US's (and UK's) behaviour has been entirely predictable. The truly awesome thing is how hard it is to get ordinary Joes & Janes to stop swallowing it whole, and try spotting a sham while it's still some way beyond the ends of their noses.

The BBC News article "In quotes: The reasons for the Iraq war" is here ...

I've added this latest Wolfowiticism to my "Dr. Paul's Words of Wisdom" project.

The latest edition ...

The starting point ...

Thanks all for maintaining a level of civility rarely seen among people with differing viewpoints.

For clarity :

a) I do not believe the Bush administration's public reasons for the war. I never felt they were credible; rather I assume the war was motivated by a mixture of CIA/DOD/State/(corporate) interests. This is nothing new, seems quite consistent with the behavior of all politicians, ever. I find it difficult to be twice as shrill about a Republican as a Democrat (Clinton? gak!) but only because I don't find it productive. It makes for funny "The Daily Show" bits but educational it really isn't. :)

b) As it seemed inevitable that this war would happen, my concern has generally been its impact on the global security picture. I hear a lot of people predicting dire results for both the UN and the US. Unfortunately, many of these arguments seem to be based on the idea that the UN is like the United Federation of Planets, some ideal international body. From where I'm standing it seems like the other Dictators in the region just shit a brick. Whether Govt methods are "righteous" is not really something that concerns me; I prefer an American world to a Conservative/Arab/Fundamentalist/Monarchist/Socialist/&c world.

That said, I'm very sorry that we as a species are incapable of resolving our problems peacefully. In the absence of this ideal, I'm glad that a dictator has been deposed (by whatever means) and hope that he is replaced by something which vaguely resembles freedom. Perhaps this makes me naive, so be it. :)

=darwin

| think another timeline I'd like to see is
| one for all the times Bush said he hadn't
| decided to go to war yet -- months if
| not years after he had already decided

Mary, the premise of your request is non-operative. (Sorry, I fell into Ari-speak.) Here's some quotes from Wolfowitz regarding the decision process ...

We are a long way from decisions about what to do.
San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 23, 2002

I would just sort of caution people to not assume before the President decided what to do that he has decided what to do.
Fox News article, with quotation from Wolfowitz, Feb 11, 2002

That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.
Letter to President Clinton, Jan 26, 1998, signed by Wolfowitz and 17 others, including current Bush administration appointees Rumsfeld, Perle, Bolton and Armitage.

Links to these quotations are here ...

One more quote about the timing of the decision to go to war. I call this one "Dr. Paul, please let me introduce Dr. Frued"

Wolfowitz on KMOX Radio, August 6, 2001

We have to have a smaller base structure or we're going to just be throwing money away that we badly need for warfighting, I mean for military capability.

Oh, doc, don't be so coy!

I wonder what 'new product' we're going to get next
September, when Bush returns from vacation? I hope the Dems are ready this time ....

Dear Darwin (et al who think like him)

The lies told to justify the invasion of Iraq were "hot button" lies intended to terrify the American public into supporting aggressive war. It gets easier to support wars like that with time. Eventually you slide down into accepting whatever rampage your government wants to perform. I suspect you don't want to end up at war with the whole world.

The idea that you can automatically sort out a country's internal problems by invading it is flat-out lunacy. (I'm not saying it's not seductive lunacy.) It's easy to burn down the shithouse, but installing plumbing costs money.

Of course, if the U.S. and its allies were a Universal Benevolent Society, there might be some basis for saying "Look! A Bad Dictator! Overthrow Him!". But, you know, things don't work like that. Governments do things because they gain political or economic profit from them. The U.S. attack on Iraq offered the Bush administration both kinds of profit. But ONLY if there were no commitment to spending huge amounts of time, energy and money helping the Iraqis and then setting them free at the end of it. Such a commitment would wipe out the profits involved and wouldn't play well in Peoria, let alone elsewhere.

Hence aggressive war is not going to bring joy to its victims. (Check out, through history, how many forcibly colonised countries ended up better off as a result.)

This makes these lies important. THEY lied to get YOU to support them so that THEY could make a profit. And people died, and continue to die, for that profit.

That's despicable. Don't be fooled into supporting such things. Especially don't be fooled into thinking that American values are at stake. If American values require Halliburton's profits to go up, there must be a lot more wrong with those values than I ever dreamed.

Love to you all, by the way. Great, polite thread.

Another one:

http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/archive_2003_05.php#1411

So, the alleged 'massive stockpiles' don't turn up when they should, during the war (if SH wouldn't use them to defend against a full scale invasion, when would he use them? What would be the point in having them?)

They don't turn up in a month and a half of intensive searching, during which all major military and research facilities have been seized. Throughout this the administration continues to express absolute, unwavering confidence that they will be found, even though they appear to have only the same information we have, which increasingly suggests that such a find is unlikely.

At one point Rumsfeld, feeling the heat from the mounting evidence of his dishonesty and/or incompetence, starts to backpedal, the media jumps on him, and he backpedals from his backpedalling, reasserting that they will be found.

To me, this behaviour only makes sense if there is a contingency plan in place, should no evidence be ultimately forthcoming, to fabricate some.

Let's not forget about those "aluminum tubes." Proof of Saddam's nuclear program since Condi couldn't imagine they would have any other use, just like she couldn't imagine anyone hijacking and flying a plane into a building and those trailers they keep finding that must be WMD labs.
(How did a women so seemingly bereft of any creative skills get a Phd?)

(Do hope all the visitors for this list stick around and read all of Billmon's really good stuff. Otherwise that would be like skipping all of Mozart's compositions except for Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.)

Just think ... All the bombs dropped on Iraqi ... Bush had no idea where the WMD were, only prove they knew there were NO WMD in the first place??? Or they did no care about killing millions on people from dropping bombs on WMD... They LIED there were no WMD.

I don't recall The Clenis ever killing anyone. Oh and by the way, Bush isn't a third world savior, just look at our allies Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia.

[/hoping that everyman was just being sarcastic]

Well I have to say "well done" for putting this into an easily digestible form, but there really is nothing "awesome" about it

I agree. In fact I'm amazed at the response this has generated. That's why I didn't bother linking to the quotes at first -- I didn't think anyone would care that much.

I also figured most people already knew what the administration and its agitprop flunkies had said about WMD. Even the wing nuts don't dispute that the Bushies hyped the issue in the runup to the invasion.

But there's something about seeing all those quotes lined up that seems to have an impact.

What facinates me about the wing nut response to the issue is their refusal to even admit that anything is wrong. Anything at ALL. Because if we stipulate that Bush and Co. have been telling the truth (as best they know it) than a whole lot of very dangerous WMDs have vanished out of Iraq, which means America is now a whole lot LESS secure than it was before the invasion.

Isn't this what the war was supposed to prevent?

Good work!
Wouldn't it be interesting to hve an 'open-tab' on this WMD thingamabob?
I mean, it'd be lice if people could contribute statements that after verification would be added to the list.
And we could start one up on topic of Al-Qaeda links too!

As I see it, the Crawford Cur (with due apologies to all things canine.) combined frustrations with his ultimate failure as an honorable officer, his flunking as a businesman and essentially defeat as a presidential candidate with his rampant socket-in-pocket-jock-itch and lied, twisted and fudged all of us (as in US and GB) down to his own mob-backed 3rd hand cars-salesman's level.

One important quote is missing -- Cheney's statement on one of the Sunday morning shows that Iraq had nuclear weapons. He backpedaled on it later in the same discussion, but he accomplished his mission of getting in the sound bite.

RG: That would be Vice-POTUS Cheney to Tim Russert on Meet The Press in mid-March. He mentioned a "reconstituted nuclear threat" four friggin' times. No evidence, now or then. It's in this (long) thread a few times.

Darwin= Don't get me wrong. There may be strong nationalist and humanitarian reasons for toppling Saddam, just as Anatole Lieven pointed out last October in the London Review of Books (along with strong domestic political reasons for Rove). Read Jay Bookman's summary of late September of last year in the AJC--there is a strategic plan for this sort of thing. But it's neither cheap nor short-term, nor humble, nor free of moral ambiguity, nor necessarily pursued logically by a first step in Iraq, nor accomplished without drawing attention from other pressing world dangers--the exhaustion of the planet's resources, for instance, which would threaten the survival of any government no matter how just. This war was sold to Americans on a reductivist principle: weapons of mass destruction, 11 September, al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, quick victory, cheering in the streets, liberation, American garrison reduced to 70,000 by September, a vibrant economic recovery, religious and ethnic factions living in peace and harmony, and brotherly love flowering across the Middle East. Also, an economic revival in the USA (no lie--in mid-March, the WashPo reported that one reason for going to war NOW was that Iraq was a drain on the US economy and there needs to be a recovery by Election Day).

Rallying the US public (not to mention the international community) to such a long and complex committment takes time--lots of time. The rewards of patience are probably obvious, now: Far from being the cheap and short-term, "rosy-scenario" occupation that Perle and Cheney and Wolfowitz insisted it would be (in the face of veteran military advice to the contrary) it's going to tie hundreds of thousands of American troops down (and make them targets of Arab and Islamist resistance guerrillas) for quite some time. And these are troops that are untrained for peacekeeping work because, as we all know, the Administration ridiculed using the military for "nation building." (The Army is presciently closing its peacekeeping training facility in September.) It would be helpful to have the same international cooperation in Iraq that we have in Kossovo and Afghanistan: Turkish, French, German, Norweigian, and other garrisons to share the labor. The EU has actually contributed more money to Afghan reconstruction than the USA. The hurry, and the lies required to make the hurry work, have cost the USA international credibility, the USA and Iraq lives, and will drain our money and soldiers for awhile.

I will be spreading this about the world sites often!! btw: EYE got here from buzzflash, so you're hitting the big time, billmon, and 'right'fully so!!!

We will find weapons of mass destruction as soon as we plant some.

But what do we do to keep the people from eating the lies? After all, the lies make them feel better about themselves and their own diminishing futures.

It seems almost like your everyday American simply doesn't care that 2 WTCs worth of Iraqi civilians have already been killed. Let alone that they were killed for the WMD lie.

(Not to mention the Saddam=Osama pseudo-lie that has convinced half of America that Iraq had something to do with 9/11...)

Can Americans care? Will they? Even after every lie is in plain sight?

Forgive the rant, but it just seems hopeless at times to try to stop this propaganda machine..

But, but, but... they found two trailers that at one time they are certain housed chemical producing equipment.

Or porta-johns. Or something.

Wake up and smell the roses. If you honestly think the war was not justified ask the Jews what the think about people that slaughter innocents. How many millions of people did his regime have to brutalize, rape, torture, gas, poison.

Imagine your wife being raped by the son of Saddam Hussein on your wedding night. Brutual and cruel they were and history will honor what this country did. We need to do this more the world has no place for tyrants dictators and individuals who thrive on others misery.

Shame on you sir and I hope you are able to look at yourself in the mirror

God Bless America God Bless the President and we all should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the situation in Iraq to go on as long as it did.

All of this talk of WMD's by Bush Inc. was a true smokescreen. The US used the UN inspections to be sure that there *were not* any WMD's in Iraq before they decided to commit troops. If the inspectors had found anything there would have been no need for the US to "go it alone" or form its insipid coalition. All of the other bluster is just that. As usual, Bush Inc. has pundits bickering over points have no basis in fact.

Great work. It needs a few quotes specifying hundreds of tons of poison gas, and thousands of liters of germs.

And we believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
via Yellow Times

I love this one:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Rumsfeld.

Ok, so let me get this straight... the weapons are in one place or another, and then either north, south, east or west of one of those places. That pretty well narrows it down.

Wake up and smell the roses. If you honestly think the war was not justified ask the Jews what the think about people that slaughter innocents. How many millions of people did his regime have to brutalize, rape, torture, gas, poison.

There aren't any roses to smell here -- just blood and the stench of garbage and shit in the uncleaned streets of Baghdad.

The number of Saddam's domestic victims probably numbers in the low hundreds of thousands, not the millions. This puts him only slightly ahead of the U.S. supported genocidists who cleaned up Central America for Reagan in the '80s.

The bulk of Saddam's victims are the casualties --civilian and military - of his war of aggression against Iran. That list does mount into the millions, and probably even exceeds the millions of deaths caused by the USA's vain and pointless war in Vietnam.

But conservatives aren't in much of a position to complain about Saddam's bloody attack on Iran, since they supported it -- and, if recent news accounts are correct, are about to replicate it.

We need to do this more the world has no place for tyrants dictators and individuals who thrive on others misery.

If Todd wants to advocate the armed overthrow of the Bush regime, he's welcome to do it -- but not on my site, please. I don't need the heat.

we all should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the situation in Iraq to go on as long as it did.

What do you mean "we" paleface? Who supported Saddam's rise to power? Who supported him when he attacked Iran? Who played footsie with him under the table, until he thought he had a green light to occupy Kuwait? Who turned their backs on the rebellion that broke out after Gulf War II?

I'll give you a hint: They weren't liberals.

And for your further consideration:

...We urge you ... to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power...If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Letter to President Bill Clinton,
January 26th, 1998
(http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Condoleeza Rice, CNN's Late Edition, September 8, 2002
A round-up of quotable quotes from the September 8, 2002 Sunday talk shows published by the US State Department

Another quote-fest from the September 9, 2002 Washington Times, with the headline "U.S. reprisal to be 'annihilation' ".

Dear Todd:

No-one disagrees that the Saddam regime was brutal and I suspect that I and a lot of other people could have supported military action to remove him and his regime IF THAT WAS WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PROPOSED. That is a valid, and preferred, liberal position but it was NOT the case that the Administration relied on.

All the Administration's justifications were based on the 'imminent threat' that Iraq posed to the U.S., combined with the continual comingling of the words "Iraq", "Al-Qaida" and "terrorist".

So, it looks as though there are now 2 kinds of people:

First, those who knew they were being lied to about WMD's before the invasion and don't believe that the U.S. should start military action based on lies; and

Second, those who believed what they were being told in the lead up to the invasion and, now that the U.S. has "won", are comfortable justifying the action on the basis of an outcome that was never used to gain support for the action.

Darwin has asked why Saddam didn't just come forward and admit his weapons, destoy them, and avoid a war he knew he was gonna lose.

I'd ask how in the world he possibly could?

I mean, the pentagon is filled with the best technology money can buy, well educated people, and lots and lots of paper tracking everything. And they still lose billions of dollars and tons of materials. (Billman seems to be good at finding links, he can find this one too;)

Why in the world would a third world army, under siege for a decade, filled with uneducated recruits, without any stable level of technology, be able to account for weapons? I mean, Iraq USED these weapons in their war on Iran. How the heck are they gonna say "yeah, we fired this shell with sarin here, we dropped this cannister of sarin out of a helicopter here..." Not gonna happen, they would not have the records.

Then consider all the times they lost batches of biologicals to the desert heat when the air conditioning power ran out. Or vials that were just misplaced. Or experimental stuff that was used in weapons, or weapons that were filed as experimental.

I sincerely doubt that Iraq could have satisfied the US that everything was destroyed, I doubt they could satisfy themselves. And I will continue to doubt until someone shows me a bueracracy that actually manages to not lose anything.

>I don't recall The Clenis ever killing anyone.

Um, there were MANY, on MANY different occasions, too numerous to mention. Be careful of making such statements, they only weaken what is a powerful point.

Todd, you seem to be saying that any vicious regime automatically justifies an invasion to overthrow that regime. If we were to invade countries just for that reason, we would be very very busy. What about North Korea, or Cuba, or Uganda, just to name a few. Where are the plans for those invasions? Not there? Of course not. Sorry Todd, that dog won't hunt.

History, unfortunately, will not honor this illegal war. If it were truly honorable, they would not have had to lie to us about why they started it.

>Shame on you sir and I hope you are able to look at yourself in the mirror.

The only reason you are able to look at yourself in the mirror while supporting the unelected right wing extremists in charge of this country is that you really don't understand what is going on.

Todd, =darwin, and the like,
It is intellectually dishonest to justify the President of the United States lying to the American people by using "yeah, but....(SH is a tyrant/murderer/etc)......" The list that has generated this string can in no way be read as pro-Saddam. In fact, the list proves one thing and one thing only. Simply, Bush and friends lied to the American people and are continuing to do it. The "all politicians lie" theory is outrageous and undeserving of further discussion. I am an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Marine Corps and most who know me would hardly consider me "liberal". Even though I did not vote for this man, I don't spend alot of time bitching about the outcome of the election. I am, however, extremely offended that the POTUS would flat-out lie to the American people for so long to justify putting American men and women in harm's way.
To Joe B (above) -- there is at least a third kind of person in this country. The kind of person who gave the President and his cabinet the benefit of the doubt, knowing that they had access to information that most of us never would, and are offended now that the lies are exposed.

Sorry, didn't mean to leave my name off. Not that it really matters, since you don't know who farnsworth is anyway )

Bravo! Best piece I have seen in awhile. Impeach is a little weak. Lets try them for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Todd, Yes, we should be ashamed of letting the situation go on as long as it did. When Rummy shook hands with Saddam, we should be ashamed. When Cheney's Halliburton did business with Iraq and does business with Iran and Syria, we should be ashamed.
When the Bush I admin looked the other way during the gassing, we should be ashamed.

Shame on someone.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan.

Colin Powell, presentation to the UN Security Council, February 2, 2003
BBC Transcript

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Rumsfeld.

Technically, he's right. Fort Detrick, MD *is* west of Baghdad and Tikrit.

A few weeks ago, there was some stupid little poll to find out if Americans thought the Iraqis were being ungrateful for all this effort we've gone to on their behalf, and it turns out more than 60% thought they were - ungrateful, that is. Below is what I wrote at that time in response:

Okay, so I was having this little vision last night, when I heard that there are a preponderance of Americans who think the Iraqis are ungrateful to us for coming in to bring them freedom, and I was thinking, well, if I were a woman with three kids and an abusive husband, but I was dealing with it the best I knew how, and I was thinking of ways to get myself and my children out of there, but it just wasn't possible yet, and someone else decided that I had had enough, and that they would come and save me (but they had really heard that someone was going to put a mini-mall where my house is, and that the property would be worth a small fortune, if only they could get their hands on it cheap) and - I know, I know - there should be a period in here somewhere - but it doesn't feel right, so I'll just start a new paragraph to break things up a bit

they come in with guns, chase my abusive husband all over the house, firing at him, and killing one of my children and maiming the other in the process, and somehow my husband escapes through the basement and someone puts a hole in a propane tank we have stored down there and then sits down to light a cigarette and wonder where he could have gotten to, blowing himself and my house to smithereens in the contemplative process, so that now I am alone with no visible means of support, one dead child, one maimed and one traumatized beyond all hope, no roof over my head, and all the priceless antiques inherited from my family burned to ashes...

I am now free...

Am I grateful?

Oh, cool. This rich guy from across town just showed up offering to take my property off my hands. He can't offer market price, he says, since there are too many repairs to be made, but I'll have a small profit with which to restart my life.

A few weeks ago, there was some stupid little poll to find out if Americans thought the Iraqis were being ungrateful for all this effort we've gone to on their behalf, and it turns out more than 60% thought they were - ungrateful, that is. Below is what I wrote at that time in response:

Okay, so I was having this little vision last night, when I heard that there are a preponderance of Americans who think the Iraqis are ungrateful to us for coming in to bring them freedom, and I was thinking, well, if I were a woman with three kids and an abusive husband, but I was dealing with it the best I knew how, and I was thinking of ways to get myself and my children out of there, but it just wasn't possible yet, and someone else decided that I had had enough, and that they would come and save me (but they had really heard that someone was going to put a mini-mall where my house is, and that the property would be worth a small fortune, if only they could get their hands on it cheap) and - I know, I know - there should be a period in here somewhere - but it doesn't feel right, so I'll just start a new paragraph to break things up a bit

they come in with guns, chase my abusive husband all over the house, firing at him, and killing one of my children and maiming the other in the process, and somehow my husband escapes through the basement and someone puts a hole in a propane tank we have stored down there and then sits down to light a cigarette and wonder where he could have gotten to, blowing himself and my house to smithereens in the contemplative process, so that now I am alone with no visible means of support, one dead child, one maimed and one traumatized beyond all hope, no roof over my head, and all the priceless antiques inherited from my family burned to ashes...

I am now free...

Am I grateful?

Oh, cool. This rich guy from across town just showed up offering to take my property off my hands. He can't offer market price, he says, since there are too many repairs to be made, but I'll have a small profit with which to restart my life.

A few weeks ago, there was some stupid little poll to find out if Americans thought the Iraqis were being ungrateful for all this effort we've gone to on their behalf, and it turns out more than 60% thought they were - ungrateful, that is. Below is what I wrote at that time in response:

Okay, so I was having this little vision last night, when I heard that there are a preponderance of Americans who think the Iraqis are ungrateful to us for coming in to bring them freedom, and I was thinking, well, if I were a woman with three kids and an abusive husband, but I was dealing with it the best I knew how, and I was thinking of ways to get myself and my children out of there, but it just wasn't possible yet, and someone else decided that I had had enough, and that they would come and save me (but they had really heard that someone was going to put a mini-mall where my house is, and that the property would be worth a small fortune, if only they could get their hands on it cheap) and - I know, I know - there should be a period in here somewhere - but it doesn't feel right, so I'll just start a new paragraph to break things up a bit

they come in with guns, chase my abusive husband all over the house, firing at him, and killing one of my children and maiming the other in the process, and somehow my husband escapes through the basement and someone puts a hole in a propane tank we have stored down there and then sits down to light a cigarette and wonder where he could have gotten to, blowing himself and my house to smithereens in the contemplative process, so that now I am alone with no visible means of support, one dead child, one maimed and one traumatized beyond all hope, no roof over my head, and all the priceless antiques inherited from my family burned to ashes...

I am now free...

Am I grateful?

Oh, cool. This rich guy from across town just showed up offering to take my property off my hands. He can't offer market price, he says, since there are too many repairs to be made, but I'll have a small profit with which to restart my life.

A few weeks ago, there was some stupid little poll to find out if Americans thought the Iraqis were being ungrateful for all this effort we've gone to on their behalf, and it turns out more than 60% thought they were - ungrateful, that is. Below is what I wrote at that time in response:

Okay, so I was having this little vision last night, when I heard that there are a preponderance of Americans who think the Iraqis are ungrateful to us for coming in to bring them freedom, and I was thinking, well, if I were a woman with three kids and an abusive husband, but I was dealing with it the best I knew how, and I was thinking of ways to get myself and my children out of there, but it just wasn't possible yet, and someone else decided that I had had enough, and that they would come and save me (but they had really heard that someone was going to put a mini-mall where my house is, and that the property would be worth a small fortune, if only they could get their hands on it cheap) and - I know, I know - there should be a period in here somewhere - but it doesn't feel right, so I'll just start a new paragraph to break things up a bit

they come in with guns, chase my abusive husband all over the house, firing at him, and killing one of my children and maiming the other in the process, and somehow my husband escapes through the basement and someone puts a hole in a propane tank we have stored down there and then sits down to light a cigarette and wonder where he could have gotten to, blowing himself and my house to smithereens in the contemplative process, so that now I am alone with no visible means of support, one dead child, one maimed and one traumatized beyond all hope, no roof over my head, and all the priceless antiques inherited from my family burned to ashes...

I am now free...

Am I grateful?

Oh, cool. This rich guy from across town just showed up offering to take my property off my hands. He can't offer market price, he says, since there are too many repairs to be made, but I'll have a small profit with which to restart my life.

Oh, hell, sorry - computer was showing an error message and I didn't know it was actually posting that 4 times. Aaargh!

>God Bless America God Bless the President and we all should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the situation in Iraq to go on as long as it did

Yes you should be ashamed, since the US gov't took a big role in constructing that situation ... unless, perchance, gov't by the people was already dead in America.

Darwin - I assume by now you have read the link I supplied some time ago. However, you haven't addressed it. I imagine that is because you are unable to formulate an argument against it.

At this point you must agree that we didn't have the right under international law to invade Iraq. So, where do you suppose we got the right? Was it a mandate from God?

Darwin, you lose.

All solid gold. It was amazing to me that after months of harping on Iraq's WMDs people have totally forgotten that was THE premise for war. Bush & Co still just go on and on and on and on about it, so who do they feel need convincing at this point. It's become ludicrous.

found this while searching for more quotes... At last the smoking gun!

Army Says 21 Rockets Found Leaking Nerve Gas
(November 28, 2000)
Twenty-one leaking rockets were discovered during monitoring operations on November 14 and 15, but an "oversight" resulted in a 12-day delay in reporting the discoveries to the media and public. The Army is constructing an $800 million incinerator at the depot to destroy 2,000 tons of deadly sarin, mustard and VX gases stored in dirt-covered igloos at the east Alabama installation. Destruction of the chemicals is slated to begin next year. However, Calhoun County officials earlier this month rejected the Army's proposed plan for dealing with accidental gas releases. The proposal includes ordering some residents to shelter in place during a leak.

re What a Tangled Web We Weave - Great job...that must have taken some doing!

Re ***All of this talk of WMD's by Bush Inc. was a true smokescreen. The US used the UN inspections to be sure that there *were not* any WMD's in Iraq before they decided to commit troops. If the inspectors had found anything there would have been no need for the US to "go it alone" or form its insipid coalition. All of the other bluster is just that. As usual, Bush Inc. has pundits bickering over points have no basis in fact.**

Did you see this? Rumsfeld concedes banned Iraqi weapons may not exist
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
29 May 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410468

or
The case for war is blown apart
By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City
29 May 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=410484

or
Mr Blair may survive this failure to find weapons. But what about his credibility?
29 May 2003

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=410429

A point that hasn't made much press of late is the past Blair/Bush/Powell et al insistence on the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. In a speech in NYC on May 13th, the amazing Arundhti Roy, Indian writer and activist said, "When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBS News survey estimated that 42 percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC News poll said that 55 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein directly supported Al Qaida. None of this opinion is based on evidence (because there isn't any). All of it is based on insinuation, auto-suggestion, and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "Free Press," that hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests."
http://www.cesr.org/roy/royspeech.htm

But...out of the horses mouths - Tony Blair and GWB, we hear a different story. Check out White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Press Conference - President George W. Bush & British Prime Minister Tony Blair - January 31, 2003

THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.

Surprised the link is still there!

Interesting topic raised by the Arab Press too that seems to have been lost in the shuffle:

American Naivete
Arab News Editorial 17 April 2003
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=25299

"First, the Bush administration went into Afghanistan with the aim of overthrowing the Taleban regime and capturing “dead or alive” Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden. But where is Osama Bin Laden now? US president George W. Bush has not mentioned his name in public since last October, and it seems that he placed his bets correctly in supposing that the American people have short-term memories when it comes to such important matters.

"The picture of Bin Laden as the epitome of evil standing against everything the Americans hold dear, indeed permanently threatening their very security, was soon replaced by the new demon, Saddam Hussein. And it was the same kind of “dead or alive” mentality of the Wild West that came into play when Bush told Saddam he had 48 hours to leave town. Saddam was in every headline, was the subject of Bush’s every speech.

"But where is Saddam Hussein now? Nobody — not the Bush administration, not the Western media, not the American people themselves — appear to give much of a damn. Less than a week after the fall of Baghdad, Saddam is already largely forgotten. Bush has stopped mentioning him, as he stopped mentioning Osama......"

Found an interesting site re George W. Bush's backwardness...what comes out of his mouth is always reversed in action. See: http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm You will need to scroll down a bit to see some very interesting facts...well presented...someone should update it!

One other thing that should raise some concern preemptively re the fact that GWB is already on the campaign trail, is the potential computerization of the voting system in the U.S. (Florida was fiasco enough!) I read an interesting article a while back...sorry I lost the url...which stated this was in the works. The concern raised at the time was that the rules for who monitors it would change. It indicated that the present government agency that monitors voting and counts the votes would no longer be able to do so. They would not be able to do recounts should questions arise. It went on to point out who owns the computer companies and software systems that may be used...guess who??? If anyone can find this article and follow though, it would be interesting to find out how this is progressing. A little scary in the Land of the Free and the Brave?

The current Bush administration continued the policy of the two administrations before it: a dual policy, one presented to the world, one presented to constituencies at home. The sanctions would remain, the U.S. said to the UN and the world, until Saddam Hussein proved that he had disarmed completely. The sanctions would remain, the U.S. said to people at home, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. George W. Bush offered the same contradictory dual reasoning for Iraq's invasion -- "disarming" and "regime change".

Why, exactly, would Saddam Hussein want to disarm when according to stated U.S. domestic policy over three contiguous administrations, it wouldn't do him a damn lick of good? If he had a good escape route (which it seems he did), he'd no doubt much rather fling conscripts at an overwhelming enemy and make a worldwide fiasco out of it, which the U.S. was more than willing to oblige.

Kind of like backing a rebellion verbally, failing to back it practically so that countless rebel forces were slaughtered, destroying the dictator's regime by foreign invasion, digging up the mass graves from the aforementioned slaughter, and using them as a retroactive justification for the destruction of the regime. Kind of.

This page is another classic example of liberals "shifting the goalpost."

Billmon --

Things are hotting up for Tony Blair. See a slew of stories on today's Guardian Iraq page. The Guardian's Sarah Left does a Billmon.

I expect the "UK Reckoning" and the "US Reckoning" stories to push each other and play off each other. I do not expect the culprits will get their cover stories straight in time to avoid gross embarrassment in pointed questioning under oath.

Blair: WMD dossier claims 'absurd'
The Guardian -- May 30

The threat of weapons of mass destruction, obviously with Saddam out, is not immediate any more. We have only just begun the process now of investigating the various sites.

But Toooony, what about the alleged terrorists who may have participated in the alleged looting of the alledged WMD sites? Were not we concerned about the nexus of terrorists and WMD? That's what my government told me -- it's all about the nexus. Now that Iraq is in chaos, isn't the danger actually greater? I'm really trying hard to be a loyal poodle, Tony, but it gets soooo confusing when the story keeps changing.

I've sent this to MSNBC, FOXNeWS and all the major stations. I even sent a copy to our VP and Pres. I want answers..of course I won't get them. The Democrats need to get on board...

A colleague wears a support our troops button. I say we should support them by bringing them home. He says we should bring them all home so we can nuke Iraq. I say nuke Iraq? What about all the people over there that we're presumably trying to save. He says there on no Iraqies worth saving. Bottom line is that most Americans don't give a hoot about what we do to the rest of the world as long as the oil flows and a tax cut is always on the horizon. Americans are heartless, self centered jerks; fat, blood sucking, oil sucking pigs. I pity the genreations ahead who will be stuck with the greedy mess we are creating. I don't expect our grandchildren will like us very much.

Come on, now, gang, aren't you glad that this administration has restored honesty and integrity to the White House. Just kidding (as if you didn't know). What a bunch of lying, sleazeball assholes. How did the USA ever come to this?

We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, dammit! After all, we sold them to him!

What is the word used to describe total corporate control of: national media, both broadcast and print; church leaders; politicians; the military? I know that word is not democracy.

Sorry for busting in on this late,

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php

Concerning the refutation of "version 2" of the argument, Mary Ellen O'Connel posits that material breach of its obligations does not allow for "coercive countermeasures," as would be the case for another international agreement, because UN resolutions are not legally the same as other international agreements.

It is an intepretation, and unfortunately, it is not the interpretation that Resolution 1441 itself chose to employ.

//Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of estoring international peace and security in the area,
//

seems to make it explicitly clear that the UNSC's interpretation is that, by failing to meet its obligations, Iraq is threatening the international peace and security of the area, and that the UN's member states are permitted, by the resolutions mentioned, to use all necessary means -- including force -- to ensure Iraq's meeting of these obligations.

In other words, O'Connell's interpretation is valid but contrary to the interpretaion used and the precedent set by the UNSC itself.

For Darwin.

If Saddam didn't have the WMD, the only way for him to avoid war was to come up with weapons he didn't have.

Saddam was driven from power without using WMD. What was he hiding/saving them for?

We did get intelligence in the middle of the war that Saddam had authorized the use of chemical weapons. As for why they didn't, I suspect quiet insurrection by his commanders, specifically the one that was bribed $25 million not to fight back.

The most convincing evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction is that, when faced with having his government completely destroyed, Hussein did not unleash them. At that point in time, he had literally nothing to lose. There was no point in saving them.

The sad part of this entire episode is that the American people simply don't care if Bush was wrong. When a people is more concerned with semen stains on a blue dress than they are with the deaths of innocent people in another country, we have damaged ourselves far more than Al Quaida could ever have hoped for.

Mr. Kottah, to which deaths do you refer? The 3000 or so civilians killed during the Iraqi invasion, or the 250,000 or so lost under Saddam's regime? Or possibly the 250,000 deaths that will never happen because Saddam is out of power?

Yeah, Suddam Hussein is just a cuddly wittle teddy bear! Aw, wet him play wif his wittle chemo-labs! He's so cute.

John, as the CIA report makes clear, the two trailers were not chemo-labs, but parts of chemical production plants.

Erm... *biological* production plants.

Hey TBox,

Rumsfeld's favorite deaths were when the Iraqis and Iranians were killing each other with weapons they got from the US (and elsewhere). Now that's what the Shrub would call a "win-win-win".

See, we made money by selling weapons (to Iran in the seventies and Iraq in the eighties). Then lots of fureign people we don't like die. Then we can use the war (which we supported) and weapons (which we supplied) as an excuse to go after SAD'm.

Your point isn't entirely clear, Mark. Are/were you for or against backing Iraq in the 80's?

TBox,

More about those dead people you're worried about ...

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'
The Guardian -- Tuesday December 31, 2002

[excerpt]
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

---

Jeez, did Rummy save the receipts? Those could have been useful.

>>Are/were you for or against backing Iraq in the 80's?

Gosh, TBox, I'm just a loyal poodle, trying ever so hard to do as I'm told.

You fail to answer my question, Mark, because there is no right answer.

To answer "Yes, I was in support of it," would be to deny the save-a-life principles you seem to be standing for.

To say, "No, I was not in support of it," leaves you in the uncomfortable position of suggesting that people, like Rumsfeld, are not allowed to change their minds.

I will confess that this nation had a blind spot as to the threat of Islamofascism in the 70's and 80's. The world was seen through the lens of a bipolar world: You were either a puppet of the USA and allies, or a puppet of the USSR and allies.

Now that this blind spot has been recognized, some people choose to correct their mistakes, while others choose to whine about how such bad decisions were made.

Nice post. Why do I have the strange urge to set some of these qoute to music? Say the theme song for "Laverne and Shirley".

No, the problem with US is that they are fairly adept at dealing with institutionalised entities, but they suck-a-rock-or-two at dealing with movements and ideaologies. As long as that remains the case and as long as we have a socket-in-pocket-jock squatting at 1600 Penn. Ave. we will have to assume it to remain like that.

RaffTaff, without knowing to whom you are responding, I can say right away that the first flaw in your argument is to suggest that there is only one problem with the US, or any institution or individual, for that matter.

Is W. Bush Hitler? Is he Teddy Roosevelt?

At probably any time in U.S. History a President, using a coordinated campaign of lies, could have justified invading another country. If the lies are discovered and the country does nothing, he has absolute power. Whether he becomes another Hitler or Roosevelt is then his personal decision, and no longer ours.

Okay, Good German, I'm game. Nothing is bad. Define something.

Is it reasonable possible that evidence can come forth identifying information on weapons of mass destruction or an evidence trial that shows where weapons of mass destruction were, what was done with them and when, where, how and by whom they were destroyed.

A question I have is: Where is the evidence that weapons of mass destruction known to have existed now does not exist? The importance and significance of existence of weapons of mass destruction demands that clear, authentic and accurate evidence be presented that: 1) shows the truth that:a) they were destroyed; and b) they no longer exist. Missing evidence is not acceptable proof that there are no weapons of mass destruction. That there is hidden evidence is possible. There is hidden evidence is also probable. There is no history of truth from the mouth of Sadaam Hussein. There is a history of lies, falsifications, and abuse that need proper consideration in answering the question.

It may be embarrasing if evidence shows weapons of mass destruction were not destroyed and come into the hands of those who will use them and bring harm.

>>You fail to answer my question, Mark, because there is no right answer.

Golly gosh, TBox! Now I'm all confused. I thought moral relativism was bad. But, now you're saying moral relativism is good? So it used to be okay to support Saddam's use of chemical weapons, but now that the chemical weapons are all gone, we had to invade to destroy them?

I'm trying hard to be a good little neocon, but it's so hard to follow the story line.

So their proud enough of that to admit their deception.

Wolfy cites as a major reason for war, the removal of our troops from Saudi Arabia. Ignore for a moment that this along with starting a war between the west and the islamic world is basically giving Bin Laden what he wanted when he attacked us (See GWB: "We will not give in to terrorists"). Wolfowitz is now touring asia, including south Korea, talking to leaders about N. Korea. What do you suppose the already psycho-paranoid N. Koreans are thinking? "Geeze! do warmonger imperialist Americans want their troops out of S. Korea?

What kind of way is this to make our way in the world and run a democracy? Hey I know, we want our troops out of Germany, let's invade France for cryin out loud!

The largest (undeniably) problem with this country (and a majority of the "modern world") is that the mainstream soccer mom and her bar-regular husband and their Sunday school and please-and-thank-you highschool son/daughter simply DO NOT CARE.

Their household has a combined income of $70,000, the children are, despite grades that show otherwise, absolute morons, they drive a large SUV 0.2 miles to school, and they are happy.

War, and the possibility of, does not affect these people. They smile contentedly as their sons and husbands and wives and daughters go off to war against a "cave dwelling, simple-minded, primitive" people. Shed a tear so their local NBC affiliate can make an "off-to-war 30 second devotion" video with avril lavigne's "Sk8r boi" playing in the background, and then they accept these horrors and laugh along again with the jokes slipped in on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire".

And they don't understand what is being taken away from them every moment they sit idly by. They do not understand that their children are dying inside. They are being lied to. They are losing respect. Politicians stop considering public opinion, because now they realize the general public is becoming more and more apathetic at a rate so rapid that reading a 30 second speech prepared by their writer will remove any concern caused by leaking nuclear waste or by the destruction of the lives of an entire nation. They do not care how well a 10 year old takes learning of his fathers death by mail.

This is our only problem. This is what allows our government to lie to us and make our decisions and form our opinions for us, and what has allowed a respectable democracy to mutate into a disgusting gathering of liars and compassionless bastards.

I apologize for the profanity, but I really do hope you can understand my point.

GREAT research.. the truth can be such a damning weapon
www.theproudliberal.com

Who brought up moral relativism? I'm not even convinced that such a thing as "moral absolutism" exists. I realize I'm at odds with the administration on this one, but there you have it.

The point I was making is that Rumsfeld's position on Iraq in the 80's is entirely irrelevant to his position in the 90's, and you seem to be motivated by something other than morality to bring it up.

For good or ill, moral relativism happens. Reality sets in and we are required to make difficult decisions between two evils. In the 80's, it was believed that communism was the greatest evil, and all decisions were made in that light. (The accuracy of this belief is moot and not germane to the conversation.)

In the 90's, different priorities necessarily take hold.

Furthermore, your assertion that "the chemical weapons are all gone" is not supported by the facts. The closest we can come is "the chemical weapons cannot be found," and for generous neocons, even that statement has yet to be shown.

We know they existed in 1998. Then, somewhere between then and now, they all vanish. Furthermore, despite Blix's best efforts, we don't know how or where they vanished.

Your conclusion that they no longer exist seems altogether too optimistic, considering that it depends on Saddam Hussein, a man convicted of dissimilation over the span of 13 years, having destroyed them all at some point before war was inevitable.

Finally, you still are not allowing Rumsfeld to change his mind. Maybe he was a moral relativist in the 80's and "Saw the light" in the 90's. If we apply to everyone the standard you apply to Rumsfeld, your cause (whatever it is) is doomed. You cannot ever have any converts to it, because people are never allowed to change their minds and join you.

Weapons of mass destruction will be found. Its only a question time. The time to smuggle them over there, bury them, and make it look like they were there all along.

If Saddam had them, he would have used them.

angryleftist :

Actually I spent all night last night reading "The Uncanny X-men" 62-72, so I didn't get a chance to read yr ref until today. It looks reasonably argued, so I will defer to TBox who seems to know more about it than I do. :)

That said, the fundamentally incorrect assumption here is that the war being "illegal" has any real world meaning. Obviously nobody in the UN has shown any interest in sanctioning the US for its conduct, so apparently the "illegal" war angle is a non-starter amongst the people who actually "matter." It's like the people who cry "Impeach Bush" but don't consider what it is they're actually requesting or the actual chances of it happening (somewhere between .0000000001% and 0.0%).

Also, I wasn't aware we were fighting a battle, so I wasn't really trying to "win" .. We're sharing viewpoints.. :)

=darwin

Anthony Langford:

For so long have opinions been bombarded on our populace -- marketing and advertising no less important than political ideology -- that the vast majority of moronic soccer playing students have exhausted their emotions. They don't care because they can't. They don't have the energy.

You must assign equal blame not only on them, but on the people who have exhausted them with endless rants, emotional outbursts, and sensationalized events. And that includes people from every ideology, including yourself, urging the populace to feel pity and/or disgust at its own apathy.

I personally blame the advent of propaganda. It uses emotional impact to fuel itself, for everything from the sublime to trivial, and we all become scarred.

Unfortunately, it is one of those genies that cannot satisfactorily be returned to the bottle.

I am quite disparaged by the absurdity of this administration reversal.

To address TBox's issue with this anger I would have to argue that due to the non-existant nature of the NBC threat and the apparent lack of support amongst his own ruling elite (simple buy-offs proved effective to eliminate conventional military threats), the outcome of this conflict proves that Saddam Hussein could have been removed without the death of several thousand Iraqi civilians, several thousand Iraqi soldiers, and hundreds of American soldiers. Not to mention the loss of archaelogical treasures, severe damage to an all-ready ailing infrastructure, and widespread domestic chaos.

This would have required the administration to be upfront about their motives. Obviously that was too transparent for them.

I hope someone is keeping copies of the web sources linked above. I suspect that eventually some of those sources will be wiped clean as the Bush administration rewrites history. He who controls the past controls the future.

Another Fleischerism for the timeline ...

Bush to argue Iraq violating U.N. pact
Associated Press via Times Leader -- December 5, 2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.

(Have searched at whitehouse.gov, but can't find this quote. AP, Reuters, etc., etc., etc. have it though.)

I found an ENORMOUS number of Fleischer quotes. No surprise there -- the guy is paid to stand in front of a room full of reporters every day and tell lies. But it got to be overkill after awhile. He's just a flack, after all.

I do not wish anyone to feel pity or anger, I only wish for them to change.

//This would have required the administration to be upfront about their motives. Obviously that was too transparent for them.//

Now this I can sympathize with. It even ties in with my post about propaganda. It's been such an effective tool for so long, the idea that rationally talking to people might work has left the heads of practically every politician, from either side of the aisle.

Apparently, it isn't enough to know that a decision is good for me, personally, and reasonably good for the world, I have to feel angst or horror or something mighty about it, too.

I wonder how much of "the resistance" is just people lashing out against the propaganda? Quite frankly, they (any they, pick one) had it coming to them.

"Their children are dying inside" isn't intended to arouse emotion?

I'm sorry I misunderstood you!

>> The point I was making is that Rumsfeld's position on Iraq in the 80's is entirely irrelevant to his position in the 90's.

Wha???

On my blog I have a copy of the now infamous picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands. The most striking aspect of the picture is that Rummy looks like a kiss-ass suplicant, and Saddam looks like he's forcing himself to touch something repellent. My caption?

This is a Picture of a Very Dangerous Man

So what you're saying, is that Rummy can support Saddam in the eighties, can overlook that Saddam attacked Iran, can open the doors to trade in arms and "dual use" materials, can give tacit approval to large-scale use of WMD in battlefield situations and in civilian areas, and that's not important now? Let bygones be bygones?

And two decades later, in the "ohs", we should just forget the mendacity of the eighties? We should just accept Rumsfeld's histrionics as statements of fact?

People leave trails that reveal their character. People don't "change minds", they pretty much have to live with the one they've got. They may change opinions, but the mendacious forty-something usually becomes a mendacious sixty-something.

>>This page is another classic example of liberals "shifting the goalpost."

Um, Laughing Conservative, what exactly does that mean? Is it supposed to mean that liberals try to take away conservative victories by "shifting the goalposts" to say that the conservatives have not scored a goal? Or is it supposed to mean that liberals fail to reach their objectives, then "shift the goalposts" to pretend that they have scored a goal? And a "classic" example?

It takes neither courage nor intelligence to make such an unexplained and unsupported comment. This is just my opinion, but you apparent lack of courage and intelligence makes you seem like a typical American conservative to me.

And as to "shifting the goalposts" in general, the original goalposts were supposed to be the certainty of finding weapons of mass destruction. Now the goalposts have morphed into "freeing the Iraqi people." Looks like, in this case at least, that it is the conservatives who are "shifting the goalposts."

I'm concerned about the pied piper mentality of the voting public.

mark, where, oh where, can i get a picture of the donald and saddam?

great site, my first visit. thank god for all of you people that choose to think for your selves. nice use of "mendacious." never has the adage, "actions speak louder than words" been more true. judge a man not by what he says, but by his actions and their effects.

arped kedarki
planet earth

To Darwin: 1)weathering a storm of opposing views and keeping it civil. My hat's off --
However, 2) Howevermuch hypocrisy you expect from politicians, this regime is taking the cake, while diminishing our rights, protecting and bnefitting the well-connected, trashing international law and understanding, while increasing environmental degradation --consistently. Also, 3) I'm no expert in international law, but the only "justification" for military action was the context of UN resolutions. Congress never declared war.

There is a narrow and broad use of the term and the Bushies like to throw around the latter (viz. "War on Drugs/Terror"). If we sought to seek justice for crimes (such as 9/11) rather than calling them wars (and involving the military and profiting the Mil./Indust. complex) we could have less hysterical and more effective responses to the problems of the world.

Wait, wait, you don't understand! That banner on the aircraft carrier said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"--it doesn't matter whether or not our justification for the "mission" was valid or not--the "MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED!" And Bush was wearing a flight suit! And, he flew in on a jet! And, don't forget, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." And, oh yeah, one more thing...
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

And also, I'm being sarcastic. Way to go, Billmon! I knew the quotes were out there--it was a delight to see them compiled like that!

In may 28ths (or 27th) WSJ they showed a map of the world where us troops are/will be based, it is forming a circle around Russia, is bush heading for WW3?

-Just a thought

Quite frankly, Mark, yes.

I don't give a flying fuck as to the motivations of the people in charge; I examine each decision individually. The decision to invade Iraq was good for me, good for the USA, good for the world. Because it was a good decision, I supported it.

To oppose it on the grounds that "Rumsfeld is a liar and a cheat" is the subtlest kind of ad hominem attack that I find it so very difficult not to succumb to. I am not about to start now.

If it were Rumsfeld alone telling me what a good idea this war is, I might be suspicious. But it is not. It is senior analysts at the department of defense. It is reports from any of a variety of humanitarian associations. It is the political ramifications of allowing Saddam Hussein's behavior to continue unchecked.

Rumsfeld is irrelevant to my thought processes on the validity of the war.

Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.

Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war.

Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, the CIA, October 2002

I found the report at The National Security Archive, which has a treasure trove of documents on file.

Slothman:

You are correct, Congress never declared war. They did, however, emphatically pass a resolution to use force. It was so emphatic that no one has questioned its legitimacy, hence we don't see it being discussed.

Hey: (The person, not the expression)
Nope, just a coincidence. There *is* a pattern to the troop movements, but it has very little to do with Russia... except possibly Chechnya.

http://www.cdi.org/mrp/tt-16dec02.pdf

>>mark, where, oh where, can i get a picture of the donald and saddam?

photo and video are here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

It sure seemed like a good idea at the time.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a person of interest.

Russ, I have no idea what you're trying to imply, but it makes me laugh to tears anyways.

Hi you are right guys for me i find no diffrent between Gorge Bush and Bin laden same to every body in the world,so you have to work hard to get your country indebent agian you lost that because of bush foregin policy.
Mohamed siddig.
Journalist and writer.
muhadu@yahoo.com

Nice Slate piece on this topic, with this from Tony Blair ...

"I have absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction," Blair told reporters on Thursday. Asked if it matters whether they exist, Blair replied, "It matters immensely because the basis on which the war was sold to the British House of Commons, to the British people, was that Saddam represented a serious threat."

Note that the Blair said "weapons of mass distruction", not "trailers that could support a fraction of the processes necessary to produce the biological component of a weapon." Perhaps this is parsing too closely, but wouldn't one suspect that the PM would be particulary circumspect in his use of terminology at this stage of the game, er, sales process?

If this were Japan, Rumsfeld would commit harikari so as not to shame his family;

If this were Europe, Rumsfeld would resign in disgrace and return forever to private life;

But this is America, and he shamelessly turns to take us into the next war, cheered on by throngs of patriots, eager to be duped again.

Tbox - the deaths I am refering to are the little children, women and elderly people in Iraq who died from the bombs that were bought with our tax dollars, dropped by people paid by tax dollars, and who in number are roughly are equivalent to the number killed on 9/11. Bush = bin Laden. The chief difference between Bush and bin Laden? bin Laden is smarter.

TBox - "I examine each decision individually. The decision to invade Iraq was good for me, good for the USA, good for the world." And just who made you god?

In this country if you give a kid a weapon and encourage him to use it against someone you dislike, you will be an accessory to his crime and held accountable. Why do you use a different standard for boys in high places with big guns?

BBC World News led with this story today, including the exchange below with Gen. Keith Dayton.

Q: Don't you have a feel for now, in terms of, you know, how credible that early intelligence was and realistically what you're going to find?

General Keith Dayton: Well, I'm one of those that thought that intelligence was pretty credible. Okay? I thought it was credible. I still do. And I think that we may get lucky. We may not.

From DefenseLINK, here's the full text of the question and answer ...

Q: You're not going to go there blindly. You've had the -- especially in your position as the director of HUMINT, you've seen the intelligence on this from the human perspective, the spy perspective and vector perspective, Don't you have a feel for, now, in terms of how credible that early intelligence was and realistically what you're going to find?

Dayton: Well, I'm one of those that thought that intelligence was pretty credible. Okay? I thought it was credible. I still do. And I think that we may get lucky. We may not. We may find out three months from now that there was a very elaborate deception program going on that resulted in destruction of stuff. I have no idea. That's what I'm going out there to find out.

Let's see that again ...

"I have no idea."

This report also included an excerpt from a rare televised interview of Bush. His response about the WMD skeptics? "Well, they must not be paying attention."

In your dreams, junior.

Good thing Saddam wasn't having an extramaritial affair in a palace...

The Repukans would still be sifting sand...

Anyone noticing the huge amount of "stealing" going on by the Haliburton.Enron.Exxon group..

These bozos are slicking you every way you turn...

They are stealing from everyone, large and small...

Thugs run this world...

Lock and Load

To Darwin:

Quit with the apologetics for BushCo, it's a hopeless cause. As has been noted by other posters, Saddam didn't go to war with us, we were the invaders in Iraq.

Oh, how I long for the good old days when the lies from our commander and chief were benign little lies like "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky". God, wasn't it wonderful when the Dow was at 11,000 and almost everyone had a job? Now the market is in the shitter, jobs are going, going, gone, the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are holding on by a g-string.

It's so depressing knowing that our pResident has the IQ of a horse turd and he is the fellow who's supposed to lead us out of our problems. In the last 2 years my retirement savings has been cut in half and I'm quickly approaching my senior years knowing that Social Security will soon be a thing of the past.

In our new America peace and prosperity have been replaced with orange alerts, red alerts and a department of Homeland Security. Everytime I say Homeland I feel like a Nazi. In this America we all have duct tape, plastic sheeting and a first aid kit the size of Montana.

So forgive me DARWIN if I sound like I can't tolerate your bullshit defense of George Bush's
illegal, immoral war in Iraq, I'm a post menopausal hag and I just don't give a damn anymore.

Love,
Carolyn

hi, there. EXCELLENT site. thanx! much. =:)

it's probably moot now, but this is what i got in my e-mail the other day. the 2nd quote is by rumsfeld claiming that no one ever said there were nuclear weapons in iraq:

Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press," March 16, "We believe
he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, May 14, "I don't believe anyone that I
know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

Ambrose Bierce, author of The Devil's Dictionary, "War is God's way of
teaching Americans geography."

Full article:

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=22034

Sign the Petition Declaring George W. Bush to be a Horse's Ass

http://www.petitiononline.com/bushass/petition.html

Love this site and posts!

Massive unemployment, hunger and homelessness. As a 3rd world country, maybe we can get aid?

If sanity reined, Bush's impeachment would be underway.

This is really an extraordinary assemblage of quotations. I would like to warmly thank its author for putting it together. A truly inspiring work during these somber times.

This is really an extraordinary assemblage of quotations. I would like to warmly thank its author for putting it together. A truly inspiring work during these somber times.

Eventually Bush and the White House will pat themselves on the back and claim that they have been "victorious in eliminating the threat of WMD posed by Iraq" - that's a quote I bet we'll see at the next state of the union address, it's probably already been jotted down by one of Bush's script writers.

Billmon: And publish it under my real name? Something tells me that would be hazardous to my employment health.

Then find a cutout. I'm sure there are a few reputable columnists who would be willing to front for you on this.

Yeah the NY Times would love this if they could publish it under one of their own writers' names.

Gees Billmon, why are you poluting the situation with facts and actual statements? Stop that, next you will find a quote that says, "We never contradicted ourselves in any way shape or form"

Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press," March 16, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Heh. That transcript has been pulled from the Meet the Press web site.

An article I found had the quote this way:

"We know he has used chemical weapons. We know he has reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying again to produce nuclear weapons."

Which isn't quite as damning.

wonder how the rest of the allies feel - britain, australia .... they didnt have much of an image earlier, musnt feel too good now, im sure.

reminds me of the hindi movies in india with one hero, and 15 extra's - tsk tsk tsk, countries lookin like extra's. must reallllllllllllly not be feelin too good. (throws up)

Bush : We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

World : Where is the proof ?

Bush : We kept the receipts.

?.

and lets save the very best one for last ... from the failure in all things in life until he found god and politics:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

and just for good measure - as his handlers cringed

"But for those who say we haven't
found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
wrong, we found them."

it would be funny - if it was'nt so scary.

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03053009.wlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

The scariest realization in this is that the majority of Americans don't care. Between losing jobs, equity and stock value, they're too busy trying to survive. In this arena, the Bushies will continue to thrive -- and they know it. The trashed economy is working for them by keeping everyone's minds off the lies -- all they need is 5 minutes a day with a picture of Bush in a flight suit here and there and they think everything's okay. And that's scary...

...because what's next on their monopolistic, emperialistic agenda?

What else is there to say but ... BRAVO!

I'm sending this to my local newspaper. I suggest you all do the same. Maybe if they notice we are doing their jobs for them ...

Errata: The second quote in the excerpt from Slate which I posted above, beginning with "It matters immensely", is attributed to Blair. But actually these words come from Robin Cook.

Slate sez --> "I have absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction," Blair told reporters on Thursday. Asked if it matters whether they exist, Blair replied, "It matters immensely because the basis on which the war was sold to the British House of Commons, to the British people, was that Saddam represented a serious threat."

CNN Europe sez --> Former UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit [his position as leader of the House of Commons] over the issue of war against Iraq, has also re-entered the debate.

He said Rumsfeld's comments vindicated his decision to resign from his Cabinet job as leader of the House of Commons in protest against the war.

"If Donald Rumsfeld is now admitting the weapons are not there, the truth is the weapons probably haven't been there for quite a long time,'' Cook told British radio.

"It matters immensely,'' he said, "because the basis on which the war was sold to the British House of Commons, to the British people, was that Saddam represented a serious threat.''

Did Wolfowitz say that a major reason for the invasion of Iraq was to be able to move US troops out of Saudi Arabia? Do I have that right? Makes perfect sense now that I hear it. I agree with what some above have said- Yes, we were lied to, duh no shit, but how much does that really matter? It's woulnded our pride, maybe, but the real question is what's going to happen now. What does it tell us that just bringing the Saudi troops home was not even on the table? What is the real purpose of our military presence in the Middle East, and where will it lead? Do we really need THAT oil THAT badly? There are other sources, and conservation is always an alternative. I think that if it were really a matter of national security, American dependance on Mid East oil would end tomorrow. Does anyone have any thoughts?

--> ...because what's next on their monopolistic, emperialistic agenda?

Are you tired of being dogged by questions about your last war(s)? Haven't we all been there?

"Where's bin Laden? Why is al Queda still in business?

"What about the war lords? And the re-constituted Taliban? And why is the ISAF protecting only one city?"

"But why are US troops still dying in Iraq? And what's the deal with the electricity and water supply? And why did we shoot up the Palestinian Authority's diplomatic mission? And are these 'trailers of mass destruction' the best you can come up with?"

Nag, nag, nag. It's such a drag!

But cheer up, because a brand new war will whisk away all these pesky problems!

Cheney's "reconstituted" comment via MSNBC below. One could argue that he meant to say "reconstituted [the] nuclear weapons [program]". Cheney used the word "nuclear" in relation to Iraq EIGHTEEN times during this interview, so perhaps a slip up was inevitable.

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.

http://www.counterpunch.com/wmd05292003.html

Remarkably similar...

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.

G.W. Bush, May 30, 2003
Washington Post article

Bush did not elaborate on the alleged weapons find. I'd like to see how Ari dances around this on Monday.

Coming soon ... Trailers of Mass Destruction

speaking of "liar,liar" the pot(us) is calling the kettle black.

suddenly , the ministers of the allied countries seem so angelic - "what should we believe?", n all dat.
awww, the poor things. are we ordinary people soo stupid? umm, maybe.
positively sickening.

does anyone have a figure as to how many iraqi's died? not just civilian - i want to know their military casualties as well.
pls post it.
thnx.

Good work, keep it up, Time to get these people out of our goverment, while they raise hell in the world, they are also busy at destroying the U.S. economy, get ready for serfdom or dump these traitors and put them on trial for treason

these ppl have no morals/courtesy/politeness/any kinda decency whatsoever. not even to their own.

A top U.S. official Friday said Bremer's predecessor, retired Army Gen. Jay Garner, had failed, adding: ``We lost a month because of Garner.''

they just lookin like ppl who would do anything to get wht they want. not lookin good.

Hey son....damn good job....now maybe americans will stop being blind dumasses and re-enter the global mind set, and turn off fox news...you know the one...your source for very biased racist reporting!!!!!!

keep it up!!! can you find hoffa for me....im sure there is a reward!! i'll give you 10%!!

It was wash day for the "towel heads" and bush was the guy to do the laundry.

Hey, don't forget that by being apathetic and ignoring the call for action, we Americans are doing exactly what we're supposed to: living our lives as before 9/11. We can't let these terrorists disrupt our way of life by actually discussing our politics and getting riled up in our conservaliberopacifisocialist rochambeaus. We've gotta sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. After all, if we took Bush out of office so soon, we'd never get to see who he attacks next!

Hope you realize that was sarcasm. Anyway, there's a reason we were all so happy back when the Dow was at 11,000, and Slick Willy was doing nothing more harmful than getting a hummer from one of his interns: We were apathetic! There was no overwhelming media coverage of destruction in lands afar, let alone overwhelming media coverage of destruction in lands afar as a result of destruction on our home soil! But we didn't get to be apathetic, fat, lazy people by sitting here the whole time. Somebody, somewhere had to actually get up and form their own opinions, and then use them to piss enough people off to spur them into action. Let's take a look at that thought... :)

Lets move on!

Lets move on!

Lets move on!

I don't care what you say our President is a born-again christian and therefore he can do nor say no evil lies, and I happen to know that all his advisers are borned-again too, so that excuses/explains why I know they are telling the truth. If it wasn't the truth our good business people would all revolt in anger, they didn't give hime all that money for nothing you know!
Anyway I'm so proud to have such an honest pulled himself up from his bootstraps sorta guy running this the ultimate in social democracies and if all you tree-huggin' evil loving people think we only did this little skirmish for oil you're all mad!
What could we benefit by having that messy stuff anyhow?

All I can say to what I see going on around me is "Long Live Caesar, Long Live the North American Empire."

YES! Thank you! Unbelievable. Billmon, try to publish this...

Just wait. Next they will say Iraq sold their WMD to terrorist before we got there. Then they will raise the terror level again.

Simply put, there was no justification for war with Iraq.

Wake up America. We live under a brutal dictator. This is not the America we were born in.Corporations own our "elected officials" and untill there is a revolution nothing will change.

(tongue deeply in cheek)
Ahyuck...lemme jest say that I repezent thuh TRUE american here in the U.S. of (confederate) A., and I gots sumpin to say to alla yuh flag-bernin' liberals... Dubya is a true American. In this land of god-fearin' white folk, he made his way up duh ladder the same way alla us rich, white elitists did, ridin' on the backs of our forefathers.
(tongue out of cheek)
The best thing we can do to get this hunyuck back to his ranch is to VOTE!! The Democratic candidates have a good chance of disrupting his false-pretense of intelligence during the debates. 'Course, when it's time for those debates, I wouldn't be suprised if the "terror alert" went to red, preventing them from being held. Anyone else see the correlation of dubya leaving the country and the terror alert going down to yellow? Probly because the nations worst terrorist is currently peddling his centrist views across the pond.

Not written by myself but is a good read...

"This war was never about "He tried to kill my daddy" or "He has weapons of mass destruction" or "He's a threat to our security" or (my personal favorite) "We want to free the Iraqi people." Those were red herrings.

About 10 years ago, a group of neo-con hawks founded a think tank called The Project for a New American Century. Members and contributors included William Kristol, Kissinger, Cheney, Quale, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz and a half dozen lesser luminaries in the Bush administration. They formulated a plan to take control of the middle east, starting with Iraq. It's kind of like the domino theory except instead of the Russians spreading communism by force, we're spreading democracy by force. The purpose is to keep the middle east quiet and control the flow of oil.

It's about oil, but not about oil as fuel. we have plenty of that, having a domestic supply as well as contracts with Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria to help us stay diversified and not too dependent on Arab oil. It's about oil as POWER. Oil as a way of ensuring American global hegemony in the 21st century. This will help keep Europe, Russia and China in their place by ensuring that we get first dibs on new oil contracts.

Keeping Europe out of it as much as possible was a priority to help keep the Euro down, which is gaining strength against the dollar. None of this is in Germany, France, Russia or China's self-interest, ergo their resistance to the master plan.

This is NOT some goofy conspiracy theory. The Think Tank's writings are public and its been covered on NIghtline and top-tier newpapers.

According to Nightline, they were trying to sell Clinton on the big master plan throughout his administration and it is on their advice that Clinton bombed Baghdad. Koppel read a chilling quote that essentially said that before 9/11, the think tankers agreed that it would be hard to get a President on board barring some "catastrophic event."

Not only did they get their catastrophic event, courtesy of Osama, they have President Born Again who believes God is on his side and is taking this agenda on as a religious crusade.

These folks actually believe they are going to force democracy down the throats of the middle eastern nations one by one. This will of course require a lengthy military occupation, new bases etc. not to mention the cost in lives, money and American prestige, credibility and moral authority all over the world. This is why they can't come up with a concrete link between Saddam and terrorism, and why they couldn't give us a single, simple explanation for this rush for war.

Not only do these guys not have a mandate, the people that VOTED for Bush didn't vote for this. No one ever told the public about the democracy-domino theory. It's been stealth planning all the way. The Bush administration does not really care about Saddam's W.M.D.'s. They just want him out of there. Iraq is to be the first domino."

It is important to note that The Project indeed exists and anyone can read it for themselves:

http://www.fpif.org/papers/02right/box1.html

I've let other people i know through message boards read this and they say its a fucking good thing! They say "Good. I agree and the only thing i wanna know is how i sign up for it."

About this report

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

There is no mention of any decontamination equipment on the trailers. Sure, the Iraqis wouldn't be as careful as our peopl. I think U.S. biowar labs have separate decontamination chambers, as well as airlocks for isolation. But I would expect even the Iraqis to have minimal equipment to protect the workers from a spill.

Of course, there can be no final word on the trailers until they are examined by *independent* experts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/opinion/30KRIS.html?ex=1055301116&ei=1&en=310a123d5e72a5bc

"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2854511

A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-RTO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0002/20030530/131227177.htm

U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to believe their troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the Iraq war [said Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force].

Conway said he was convinced when U.S. and British troops swept into Iraq from Kuwait that they would come under chemical or biological attack before they reached Baghdad.

But such shells have not been found even in ammunition storage sites, he told reporters.

"It was a surprise to me then. It remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," said Conway.

"We've been through virtually every ammunition supply site between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad. But they're simply not there."

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq31_20030531.htm

The exiles' intelligence network, intelligence officials said, told Pentagon officials that, among other things, many Iraqi Shi'ites would welcome U.S. troops as liberators. They also said that some key Iraqi generals would surrender their entire units and that Hussein had sent a key operative to work with a small militant Islamic group, Ansar al Islam, that had ties to Al Qaeda.

Officials in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department all warned repeatedly that past dealings with the exiles, led by Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, indicated the intelligence they provided was unreliable at best.

But Iraqi defectors produced by the INC and other intelligence supplied by the group got a ready hearing in two important places: an intelligence group set up by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and the New York Times.

The INC, said U.S. intelligence officials, bypassed the skeptics in the CIA and DIA and fed the same information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda to both places so Pentagon officials would confirm what the newspaper was hearing and the nation's most powerful newspaper would confirm what the Pentagon was hearing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030531/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_powell_030531004225

US Secretary of State Colin Powell was under persistent pressure from the Pentagon and White House to include questionable intelligence in his report on Iraq weapons of mass destruction he delivered at the United Nations last February, a US weekly reported.

US News and World Report magazine said the first draft of the speech was prepared for Powell by Vice President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in late January.

According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

" . . .in the U.S. of (confederate) A."

That's the Confederate States of America (currently under Yankee occupation).

I'm sending it to goddamned Daschle and Pelosi and my own stupid-ass Repulsivan congressman. Perhaps everyone here should also send it to goddamned Daschle and Pelosi and her/his own stupid-ass congressperson. Maybe the Demo "leadership" would at least get ONE point of opposition. Jeez.

Thanks, Billmon!

The next war will be next year. The failing economy isn't going to get him re-elected. Therefore a war sold to the American public with another batch of LIES will elect the Dictator. They're already laying the ground work. The economy is something we can prove right here in the USA but WMD's we have to take the lying bastards word for. God help those of us who speak out against this "Born again Christian".

They formulated a plan to take control of the middle east, starting with Iraq.

I posted something on this over at The Daily Kos before the war:

Snake Eyes

Too many comments to make sure if this has been covered yet, but Billmon: I would suggest that in addition to linking to your quotes, you actually take SCREEN SHOTS of them. Web pages have a habit of disappearing when they become too embarassing.....

GO POWELL! I just love that guy! I think I read somewhere that he said he wouldn't accept a presidential bid... Too bad.

WOW!! Billmon, I salute you (and your contributors) This has to be the best site concerning discussion of the Evolution of the Lie on the web today.
Now, there is something else that makes me nervous. One of your contributors asked "Is the CIA more powerful than God?"
I remembered once reading an article about something called Operation Northwoods, a plan developed by the CIA in conjunction with elements of the DOD in the early 60's starting during the Kennedy administration.
I read some of the particulars of Northwoods, found by entering "Operation Northwoods" into Google (quotes included)then compared them to events of 9/11. It amounted to terrorist operations conducted using 'friendly Cubans' both in and around the U.S. These operations included faking hijackings of airliners. In my mind the idea of 'friendly Saudis' substituted for Cubans.
OHHH CRAP!! This makes for one Hell of a 'What if..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm
http://www.rense.com/general18/harm.htm
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

Kudos and amen...Thank God there are still folks out there who can form a loyal opposition. I am half expecting Ashcroft and his minions to come a calling as a result of posting here. Thats alright, I could use the vacation.

Congratulations on the site. It is so good to find the truth and to have de-constucted the complete build up to the Iraq war.

We must now keep the pressure on W and Blur to come clean on their WMD basis for war. Lets see them in court too!

In today's (5/31/03) Austin American-Statesman, an AP piece by Robert H. Reid reads:

"Speaking as he arrived Friday in Poland Bush dismissed charges that the administraion had failed to prove its case that Iraq possessed banned weapons...'For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or baned weapons, they're wrong. We found them,' Bush said."

I'd like to know when, where, what and how we found these elusive WMDs.

Great work billmon. I've been keeping my own little list too:

On the Predetermination of War

"All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution [1441] as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation...The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
November 8, 2002

"Even now, he [Saddam Hussein] could end his defiance and dramatically change directions...You see, the use of military force is this nation's last option, its last choice."
President Bush
Fort Hood Army Base
January 3, 2003

"The president is serious about consultation. The president is serious about diplomacy. He hopes it will work, and he wants to give it time to work."
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
January 30, 2003

"...reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States..."
US-authored Security Council draft resolution
March 7, 2003

"The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East [in March 2002]...Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when."
Time Magazine
May 5, 2002

"'F___ Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators. "
Time Magazine
March 31, 2003

On Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and Evidence of Their Existence

"Iraq has aggressively pursued weapons of mass destruction, even while inspectors were inside the country."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
September 8, 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."
President Bush
News conference
March 6, 2003

"The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq."
President Bush
Address on the Start of War
March 20, 2003

"I do not accept as fact the US and UK’s repeated assertions that Baghdad has used the time [since the Gulf War] to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction."
UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Hans Blix
March 2002 (reported in London Financial Times)

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
Mohammed ElBaradei
Director-General International Atomic Energy Agency
Statement to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

"It behooves me to admit that I find present allegations about Iraq's nuclear capability, as continuously advanced by the Americans and the British, to be ridiculous."
Imad Khadduri, PhD
Seneca College, Toronto
Former Nuclear Scientist, Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (1968-1998)
November 21, 2002

"Its capability [Baghdads production of chemical warfare agents] was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war."
Central Intelligence Agency Report, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs"
October 2002

"Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be 'amazed' if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq. "
Neil Mackay
Edinburgh Sunday Herald
May 3, 2003

On Iraq's Attempted Procurement of Aluminum Tubes, and their Intended Purpose

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
President Bush
Remarks to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"All the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets...even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question."
Mohammed ElBaradei
Director-General, International Atomic Energy Agency
March 7, 2003

"According to Albright [American physicist and IAEA member David Albright] government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent."
Washington Post
September 19, 2002

On Iraq's Reported Attempt to Procure Uranium from Niger

"The Declaration [Iraq's declaration to the UN Security Council regarding weapons capabilities] ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?
US State Department "Fact Sheet"
December 19, 2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic."
Mohammed ElBaradei
Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency
March 7, 2003

On Terrorist Connections with al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden

"The regime...has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report."
BBC News
February 5, 2003

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"Most experts...dispute his [al-Zarqawi's] possible role as Qaeda-Iraq link."
New York Times
February 10, 2003

"There is a really serious problem in intelligence. It’s virtually impossible to prove these kinds of conspiracies. . . . It is going to require a great deal more debate and reporting than simply accepting the U.S. statements without further review."
Anthony Cordesman
Former Director-Intelligence Assessment
US Department of Defense
Transcript of February 6, 2003 radio interview with Australian Broadcasting Corporation

On the Role of Oil

"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."
Ahmed Chalabi
Leader, Iraqi National Congress
(Reported by Washington Post Septembert 15, 2002)

"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas; reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to."
Kenneth T. Derr
Chevron CEO
1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco

"It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance...we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
R. James Woolsey
Former Director
Central Intelligence Agency

"When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."
Larry Lindsey
White House Economic Advisor
September 2002

"All Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells."
President Bush
Address on the Start of War
March 20, 2003

On the Legal Grounds for a "Preemptive Self-Defense"

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"Not only will the United States impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses, but the nation will also punish those who engage in terror and aggression and will work to impose a universal moral clarity between good and evil."
President Bush
West Point Commencement Address
June 2002

"Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush
Address on the Start of War
March 20, 2003

"...a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678."
UN Security Council Resolution 687
April 3, 1991

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
United Nations Charter, Article 51

"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all of its Members."
Ibid. Article 2, Section 1

"The United States has no right to invade another state because of speculative concerns about that state's possible future actions. The current international order does not support a special status for the United States or a singular right to exempt itself from the law."
Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense
The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism
August 2002

He's talking about the RVs of mass destruction -- the trucks that must be portable bioweapons labs because the CIA can't -- and doesn't want to -- think of anything else they could be.

Well, an American has stumbled across your banter page and posted it on a Bushie supported board in Alabama. www.al.com - politics board.

Thank all the Gods. You guys Rock!!!!

Should anyone bounce and read this, it will verify that the Americans are truly the only ones in the world that supported this annihilation.

Thank you,

Now, I must get busy and starting spreading the word on this page.

I have a twelve-inch penis.

well so far we've stolen an election, had an unneeded useless war, (oh I forgot we've liberated the Iraqi people). We've passed the Patriot act and taken away civil liberties and started to completely ruin the economy. And "W" can still run and probably steal another term

Well, an American has stumbled across your banter page and posted it on a Bushie supported board in Alabama.,/i>

Great. Just what I need: More death threats . . .

all too fearful of another terrorist attack to fly.

yeah and the current tax cut is going to mean 1 million new jobs just like the 2001 tax cut meant 2 million jobs- however they were lost not gained. Voodoo at work,

One word.
Impeachment.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who fears that our loyal government might betray us by (gasp) planting WMD's in Iraq?

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities ~ Voltaire

Wow... excellent job.
Damn, death threats.. for what, posting what people said, in their own words??? Can we Americans be that blind and stupid that we can ignore the obvious, and try to silence anyone who does otherwise?

Can we Americans be that blind and stupid that we can ignore the obvious, and try to silence anyone who does otherwise?

Yes.

(Actually, though, I was only trying to be funny. I haven't really gotten any death threats on Whiskey Bar -- yet.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60140-2003May30.html?nav=hptop_ts

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 31, 2003; Page A01

KRAKOW, Poland, May 30 -- President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.

In remarks to Polish television at a time of mounting criticism at home and abroad that the more than two-month-old weapons hunt is turning up nothing, Bush said that claims of failure were "wrong." The remarks were released today.

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs
to build biological weapons," Bush said in an interview before leaving today on a seven-day trip to Europe and the Middle East. "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," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

....Wow i'm so happy i just got a franchais to open a Thomas Kinkaid art store in the New Iraq... gonna be selling pretty pictures of our beloved Dubya on his aircraft carrier in his fancy jump suit to the Iraquis at a new mall ...subsidized by the Xian Reich to help the Iraquis ... loose that silly allah notion...Meanwhile

...yeah then were gonna put his picture up all over America. Pictures of George Dubya plastered from sea to shinning sea...Pictures of Dubya carring a cross leading the chosen people on the path of righteousness and universal morality... ! yea Dubya Dubya Dubya (imagine that scene from The Apostle). i bet you can generate a few bucks makin Dubya doll$ loaded with all those quotes "from Above"

Actually i'm deeply concerned with the Patriot 1 an II and i don't know how i'm gonna paint those pictures ...what if that creep decides artists are possible terrorists???

Someone asked...why the sudden concern with occupation of Iraq ...what with our oil supply 'n such... i think that if you're planning on suspending the constitution you best be having those troops positioned where they will react without thinking... Seven Days in May???

Anyway, i was also thinking about the mention of the UN Resolutions who can do what to whom etc and chosen people ...Not to mention all the other Thugs we have catered to But why do we support isreal with so many billion$ of dollars... is there oil there?

i would think Frank Rich and or Arianna Huffington would love the inital quotes or maybe Maureen Dowd...these people have courage of their convictions.

no i'm not really gonna open up a Kinkaid fish wrap (xian symbol) shop in Bagdad.

Oh yes one more contextural thing...seems that if war was actually declared like in WWII on all these duffus dictators that Insurance Policies would be null an void and we can't have that in America... WAR would be like an act of Cod...actually declaring war was never done ....just put into that UN policy folder and no insurance premiums were missed ...

Dump Terry MaCauliffe and Tom Daschel
ok on with the UN Show:)

Israel is completely above international law apparently, in a sickening way. And this is not first time. Look at all UN resolutions Isreal violated. Notice how many times the UN tells them to leave Lebanon and stop the invasion. over 10 times. with no international repercussions.

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".

* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".

* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".

* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".

* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".

* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".

* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".

* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".

* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".

* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".

* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".

* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".

* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".

* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".

*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".

* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".

* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".

* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".

* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".

* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".

* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".

* Resolution 347: " . . .'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".

* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".

* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".

* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".

* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".

* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".

* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".

* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".

* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".

* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".

* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".

* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".

* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".

* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".

* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".

* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".

* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia and attack on PLO headquarters.

* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".

* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.

* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".

* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

well there you've got it. now try tell me that Israel is treated like any other country. Every time palestine has one little slip-up, the international world is all over it. Isreal is in violation of over 40 UN sanctions, and nothing. tell me how this is fair.

....Wow i'm so happy i just got a franchais to open a Thomas Kinkaid art store in the New Iraq... gonna be selling pretty pictures of our beloved Dubya on his aircraft carrier in his fancy jump suit to the Iraquis at a new mall ...subsidized by the Xian Reich to help the Iraquis ... loose that silly allah notion...Meanwhile

...yeah then were gonna put his picture up all over America. Pictures of George Dubya plastered from sea to shinning sea...Pictures of Dubya carring a cross leading the chosen people on the path of righteousness and universal morality... ! yea Dubya Dubya Dubya (imagine that scene from The Apostle). i bet you can generate a few bucks makin Dubya doll$ loaded with all those quotes "from Above"

Actually i'm deeply concerned with the Patriot 1 an II and i don't know how i'm gonna paint those pictures ...what if that creep decides artists are possible terrorists???

Someone asked...why the sudden concern with occupation of Iraq ...what with our oil supply 'n such... i think that if you're planning on suspending the constitution you best be having those troops positioned where they will react without thinking... Seven Days in May???

Anyway, i was also thinking about the mention of the UN Resolutions who can do what to whom etc and chosen people ...Not to mention all the other Thugs we have catered to But why do we support isreal with so many billion$ of dollars... is there oil there?

i would think Frank Rich and or Arianna Huffington would love the inital quotes or maybe Maureen Dowd...these people have courage of their convictions.

no i'm not really gonna open up a Kinkaid fish wrap (xian symbol) shop in Bagdad.

Oh yes one more contextural thing...seems that if war was actually declared like in WWII on all these duffus dictators that Insurance Policies would be null an void and we can't have that in America... WAR would be like an act of Cod...actually declaring war was never done ....just put into that UN policy folder and no insurance premiums were missed ...

Dump Terry MaCauliffe and Tom Daschel
ok on with the UN Show:)

Israel is completely above international law apparently, in a sickening way. And this is not first time. Look at all UN resolutions Isreal violated. Notice how many times the UN tells them to leave Lebanon and stop the invasion. over 10 times. with no international repercussions.

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".

* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".

* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".

* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".

* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".

* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".

* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".

* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".

* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".

* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".

* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".

* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".

* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".

* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".

*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".

* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".

* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".

* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".

* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".

* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".

* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".

* Resolution 347: " . . .'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".

* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".

* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".

* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".

* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".

* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".

* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".

* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".

* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".

* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".

* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".

* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".

* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".

* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".

* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".

* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".

* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia and attack on PLO headquarters.

* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".

* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.

* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".

* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

well there you've got it. now try tell me that Israel is treated like any other country. Every time palestine has one little slip-up, the international world is all over it. Isreal is in violation of over 40 UN sanctions, and nothing. tell me how this is fair.

i posted the Kinkaid art shop in Bagdad but forgot my name sheeeeeeeesh

Great to find this at long last. I've been looking for a group of folks that understood the true qualities of our leaders. I was beginning to think only the sheep and lemmings were left in the country. Great Work........

*applause* Great work!

Nice work. Plenty of info on here that can be used in discussions with the right wing nutjobs.

Is this enough for impeachment ?
Some people do at www.votetoimpeach. com

blaming the ppl at the top is not enuff. the whole administrations to blame. the entire government is useless. from the top to the lowly administrators, inaction is a crime in itself.
isnt there a way for people to do something when they see a catastrophe right in fron of their eyes?

a politician is not voted from a consituency to just get money for them, and improve the roads and the schools - their main purpose is to give voice to those they represent.

impeachment? like ppl are gonna stop worryin bout their daily wages and their lives to actually do some bout the iraqis and what happens there. yeah right - but it does make for good heated conversation, and a vent for us.

i dont know where it all went wrong.

It went wrong many many years ago. It started with stagnant lives who only care about their own problems (which they have enough of) to worry about minute changes in government. Government saw this and capitalized on it. They knew it from the beginning that people would never take actions against the government, especially when things are good. Thats why you don't see people caring. Things are good. Economy may not be doing well but overall life is just peachy. An effort to change the government for its cunning attempts at tricking the people through blatant propaganda and use of "unbiased" media to push their agendas is simply too risky. People have others to think about, so they choose to let their government take care of things for them. Democracy? Who said so? Ask any person what they have contributed to their government and they'll say they vote. That's pretty much it.And those votes don't even really count. So where's the democracy?

Fact is, no one really cares what happens outside their lives. As long as trees aren't being cut down in their back yard and taxes are low, its none of their concern. For the simple minority of the people, such as ourselves, who wish to see changes for the better (good and bad is relative in this case), we are just what we are: the minority. And the majority are comfortably numb, as long as they have a job to keep themselves occupied. So resistance to the only superpower in the world is futile since any attempt at changes will scare people to thinking their comfortable place might be compromised and will defend their government like defending their tv from theives. We couldn't swing a majority unless things really went to shit here. So far, the us govt has kept things relatively peaceful here so why should things change?

"So what a couple of Iraqi's are dead? Saddam's gone and thats good. Whats the big deal? Fox News says nothing bad......" That's all true. You could argue that the government is lying to us and has absolute control. You'll be called a conspiracy theorist and will be shut out.

What ano said is true, everyone is to blame. Not the government but ourselves. We were the ones who were suppose to protect each other. We have the power and we sold it, not just our power, but of future generations as well.

Wolfowitz's words were obviously distorted by Vanity Fair. He simply noted that beyond the core reason for this war (i.e. the weapons of mass destruction) there were other issues which would be solved, such as Iraq's links with international terrorism as well as the atrocious conditions the Iraqi people has been living in for decades.

So really, don’t get so excited about that interview…

Russert: And Vice President Cheney said Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program. So we have the vice president and the secretary of state. Is there any evidence of a reconstituted nuclear program in Iraq that we have found thus far?
Powell: We haven’t found any evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq as a result of what we have been able to see so far. But a program is more than just a weapon. We didn’t think he had a weapon at the time I made that statement at the time the vice president made his statements, or any of the other of my colleagues had made statements. But what he did keep intact were the scientific wherewithal, and by that I mean he not only had people with the know-how but he kept them together so that the know-how could be exploited at a time that he chose. He kept in place the infrastructure. And so he never lost the infrastructure or the brainpower assembled in a way to use that infrastructure if he was ever given a chance to do so because the international community had turned its attention in another direction. And so it is still our judgment, and it’s still my judgment, that if he was given the opportunity and if the international community said, “Fine, you’re OK, we’re not going to bother you anymore,” he would still have pursued that objective. He never lost, in my judgment and the judgment of the intelligence community, the intent to develop a nuclear weapon, and he kept in place the scientific brainpower and the infrastructure that would have allowed that to happen in due course.

ya know, if i were the interviewer, and i hear these ppl start, i would just go "umm, yeah, right, ok ...", shuffle my papers on the desk, look away, and snicker.

dont they have an iota of esteem? umm, bad question cos im sounding too righteous.

barnaby : i also blame the media. horrible. just plain horrible. i couldnt care less bout some fireman climbing a tree to rescue an old ladies cat in long island. i would rather be watching whats goin on in the world. jeeez, are we ppl that stupid (to which u know the obvious answer).

anyway, my last post - not getting anywere but worked up. so i guess i am to blame for all this too. :)) seeya in hell.

George Bush's comments on his trip to Europe
for the G8 Conference:

"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

This, my friends, is the conclusion that Dubya
came to because he only looked at the pictures instead of reading the story that went with
the pictures.

Don't be surprised when we find out that the portable bio-labs are really port-o-potties.

Thanks to Billmon for the hard work and all the other posters who are continuing the contribution of quotes from our esteemed leaders, uh liars!!

Love,
Carolyn

You guys need to go visit my home page - I predict you'll like what you find.

Rob Kettenburg

I am adding this to the top of opido.com; The site already has a major draw from search engines (based on the title alone) and hopefully this will add to the general awareness level. Great job on this and I will keep checking back for updates.

Let's add some spice to this argument shall we?

So how did America get duped into believing all this? Could it be partly the corporate media that vociferously supported and asked viewers/listeners to support?

Even more interesting, the fact that Colin Powell's son, Michael, is Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, you know, the agency that's supposed to be watching out for the public's airwaves.

Originally, to prevent such propaganda, a company could only own 2 FM's, one AM and one TV station in a market.

In '96 Clinton (which he now regrets) signed authorization increasing caps to 8 FM's.

Since then a little-known company called Clear Channel (that would be one of the companies publicly endorsing the war campaign) went into virtually every major city and bought the biggest and most popular radio stations, as many as they could.

On Monday, Michael Powell and his gang are set to deregulate the ownership limits much further. The latest revelation is 10 FM's, as many tv stations and a newspaper. Although that's not been verified, because he refuses to release the proposed deregulation rules to the public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46442-2003May27.html

All this even despite the fact that over 9,000 people contacted the FCC via e-mail. 11 agreed, the rest opposed.

Kinda makes you wonder what the big picture really is, particularly since Bush apparently is tied in with the owner of Clear Channel.

http://takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/22/nyt.safire/index.html

Oh, and one of the perks of being an FCC chairman? Free trips from broadcasting companies, like $2.8 million worth in five years!

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030522_274.html

Tomorrow will be a very sad day for American media, and mainstream Minnie has no clue.

Do as I say, not as I do" Nuclear Policy
Michelle Ciarrocca, _May 29, 2003

The Bush administration has its foreign policy hands full with each nation in its "Axis of Evil." From the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the appearance of negotiations with North Korea, and the push to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, President Bush is following through with his promise to make certain these "dangerous regimes and terrorists" can not threaten the U.S. with the world's most destructive weapons.

But he's going about it in a way that will actually increase the nuclear threat to the U.S. and the world.

Buried in the President's 2004 defense budget are two particularly troubling requests. The first seeks to repeal a 10-year-old ban on the development of smaller, lower-yield nuclear weapons, also known as mini-nukes. The second is a $15.5 million request to conduct research on a new bunker buster bomb called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

The Senate voted 51 to 43 to lift the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Actual production of the weapons would require the President to obtain congressional authorization. The House is expected to vote on the measure this week.

Administration officials contend they are not seeking to build new nuclear weapons, but only studying and researching the options. Speaking at a press conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld added, "Many of the things you study, you never pursue." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a supporter of the ban, replied, "Does anyone really believe that?"

The Bush administration's desire to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon stems from the theory that a cold war nuclear weapon is so massive and destructive the U.S. would never actually use one. The thinking goes, a smaller, 5-kiloton nuclear weapon--about a third the size of the nuclear bomb used in Hiroshima--would be more useful in deterring nations such as North Korea. But as Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) rightly noted, "We're moving away from more than five decades of efforts to delegitimize the use of nuclear weapons."

As for research into a new bunker-buster nuclear weapon, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a fact sheet outlining the "troubling science" behind the proposed weapons. The scientists note that even a small, low-yield earth-penetrating weapon will create radioactive debris, there is no guarantee that the nuclear blast would successfully destroy chemical or biological weapons, and there are current conventional weapons that could be used as alternatives.

The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, was a foreshadowing of a new nuclear era in which the once-termed "weapon of last resort" has turned into a usable, necessary tool in the anti-terror arsenal.

As part of the Nuclear Posture Review, the Pentagon expanded the nuclear hit list to include a wide range of potential adversaries, such as North Korea, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, whether or not those nations possess nuclear weapons. The circumstances under which the use of nuclear weapons might be considered has also expanded beyond situations threatening the national survival of the United States to include retaliation for a North Korean attack on South Korea, or simply as a response to "surprising military developments." The review also sanctions the first use of nuclear weapons to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends."

The Bush administration's nuclear doctrine represents an abrupt departure from the policies of prior administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. How likely are countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia, and China--all of which have been targeted in Bush's new nuclear plan--to heed the administration's calls to reduce or renounce their own nuclear arsenals in the face of this new threat from the United States?

"I can't believe that I have witnessed in my time on Capitol Hill a more historic debate than what we are undertaking at this moment," said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL). "We are literally talking about whether or not the United States will initiate a nuclear arms race again. Nothing that I can think of meets this in terms of gravity and its impact on the future of the world."

If President Bush were serious about reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons he would focus on preventive measures, such as increasing funds for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs, while also reducing our own massive arsenal. Nonproliferation programs receive about $1.8 billion annually. Compare that to the $41 billion budget for homeland defense, or the $79 billion supplemental for the war in Iraq. Representative John Spratt (D-SC) pointed out the disparity between funding saying the almost $10 billion "ballistic missile defense is a prime example of how the emphasis on counter-proliferation comes at the expense of nonproliferation."

The Russian parliament recently ratified the nuclear arms reduction treaty signed by Russian President Putin and President Bush last year. The U.S. Senate approved the treaty in March. The treaty reduces each nation's arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons by two-thirds, to fewer than 2,200 each over the next decade. While the treaty is a worthy and symbolic signal of a new relationship with Russia, much more can and should be done.

By taking ten years to make the proposed reductions, allowing both sides to keep thousands of their withdrawn warheads in "reserve" rather than destroying them, and giving either party the right to withdraw from the agreement on just 90 days notice, the Pentagon has preserved its ability to rapidly reverse the Bush administration's proposed reductions in the U.S. arsenal whenever it wants to, even as it continues to seek new types of nuclear weapons.

Deeper, verifiable cuts on both sides--to as low as 200 to 500 strategic warheads each rather than the 1,700 to 2,200 allowed in the current proposal--would give Washington and Moscow leverage to begin pressing nuclear-armed states like Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel to eliminate their own arsenals. This move toward multilateral reductions would also make it much easier to get states with nuclear capabilities to agree not to aid nations like Iraq, Iran, or North Korea to develop their own weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas Ronald Reagan left office saying that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought, two decades later, the word coming from the Bush administration is that nuclear weapons are here to stay. The recommendations contained in the Nuclear Posture Review and 2004 budget requests are steps backwards, and arguably violations of U.S. commitments to "pursue negotiations in good faith" for the reduction and eventual abolition of nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The only way to protect the American people, and the people of the world, from the threat of nuclear weapons--big and small--is to take determined steps to get rid of them, once and for all.

Michelle Ciarrocca is a research associate at the World Policy Institute and writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org), where this aritcle was originally published.

This article originally appeared on Guerrillanews.com

Great job on this and I will keep checking back for updates.

Posted by Stephen VanDyke at June 1, 2003 03:52 PM

Stephen -- Don't check here; I'm not going to update this post any more. But do check here -- It's a web database that contains all the quotes in the original post, plus whatever new quotes people want to see posted.

Send quotes to:

michaelw@speedfactory.net

Be sure to include a date, a citation and, where possible, a link (to an official transcript, if you can find one.)

first it was WMD'S then regime change and now of course the liberation of the Iraqi people. ALLAH LOVES YOU!

A bunch of people (thugs?) sitting in Wahington dictate the fate of entire nation and call it a democracy?

Nixon was run out of office for breaking into an office and covering it up. Clinton was nearly impeached for fibbing about a private sexual fling. What happens to a president that has used unprecedented levels of deception to bring OUR country into an illegal and immoral war that has left another country in ruins? Will this despicable, ignorant bastard and his gang pay for the lives of those trusting, brave Americans already in the ground? Will they be held accountable for the misery they have inflicted on the children, parents and grandparents of the conquered "terrorist" nation? In America, someone clumsy enough to spill hot coffee on themself can become rich beyond their wildest dreams. What about in Iraq, how much monetary damages can you get if a bomb destroyed your home? How much can you get for your dead child?... How much for its leg? I'm glad the president's strong faith convinces him of an eternal life. If he doesn't pay for his crimes now, he'll have plenty of time later... If we can't get rid of this guy in 2004, we are giving our approval to everything he has done.

"We have always been at war with Eurasia."

I think I'm setting up 'newspeak.politicals.com' with the same idea as this post. This is indeed too much of a 1984 mirror.

As long as the American masses are indifferent enough to not care about searching for the truth, we (those who do care) are doomed. As Michael Rivero said: "Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." We (who care) have all been in the same boat for many months now, and tell me, have any of us actually convinced any one else to change their pro-Bush view? Probably not. Thats because we propogate a we're-right-you're-wrong attitude rather than lowering ourselves to their level of attention and pointing out how their lives are slowly spinning into the sewer as a result of almost everything the Bush Administration does. Joe-next door doesn't care about the relative distribution of tax cuts between the extremely poor and the top 1% of the income spectrum. But if you show him how his state must now raise his taxes, reduce police and fire teachers due to lower federal taxes, then you'll get his attention.

"Haider, I think the liberation line will go next as Iraq becomes more and more unruly. But, meanwhile, BushCo will bully Iran and Syria. What do you bet we stop hearing about Iraq, and instead get scary stories about WMD in other countries?"

No bet - lookie at Afghanistan. See anything in the US news outlets on the continuing chaos there? The administration started making noises towards Syria right after Iraq, but backed down REALLY fast when our erstwhile 'allies' said "hell, no!". They've more or less switched to N Korea, but I've seen that turn into a simmer - because N Korea has made it clear that it has a twitchy trigger finger.

"You seem to be saying that because there are no "WMD" found that therefore the war in Iraq is somehow illegitimate wrt UN resolutions. I think it's pretty well established that it was Saddam's behavior in the face of inspection/etc that finally precipitated this war. . Unless he was suicidal and/or insane, why would he go to war if he had nothing to hide?"

Errr... because we invaded, perhaps? WE were the ones that pulled inspections and started sending troops in (over the protests of the UNSC).

Great job Billmon
Would be excellent to include quotes from Tony Blair too. He's being accused of lying by his own ex-minister right now.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,968599,00.html

Just found your site and thought I'd exercise my right to free speech (while I still have it)

Though it bothers me that our leaders lied to us from the beginning of this debacle, that we have found no WMD, that Iraq is now in disarray, Afghanistan is still in disarray, that we never used the necessary time, money and military might to fight our true enemy (Al-Quaida), that bin laden is still in a cave somewhere, that Al-Quaida is still operating in a handfull of countries,
What really bothers me is the disappointment i have for the general public here in america. It disgusts me, but i think that as long as average joe has a home, a car, and his cable t.v. nothing else matters. Afterall the bombs are landing on their homes. In recent months i have asked numerous people their opinion on the war. Most either didnt have an opinion (meaning they just dont care enough) or support the war because the president said we should. When did we start believing everything we hear? When did we start measuring a man's integrity by his title? Are we to believe something because the president said it to be true? No. I want justification before i send my loved ones and my tax dollar off to fight a war. And for those of you who have been so steadfast in support of this war, I ask, would you be willing to give your son or daughter's life for this cause? If your child was killed in Iraq would you still be so supportive? If your not willing to make that sacrifice, then your opinion really doesnt matter. They are just words. Does anyone honestly believe that if Bush's daughters were to be on the front line that he wouldnt have given diplomacy a little more time? He would not make that sacrifice for this cause. Instead he sends faceless troops, not in his family, nor close to his heart to fight it. Afterall, had it been someone close to him, they would have just been ushered to the National Guard or Beach Patrol or something.

I dont wish for everyone to agree with me, that should be the beauty of living in the US, but i do think it is our obligation to be informed and to have an opinion. we owe that to ourselves and future generations. Maybe someday someone will bomb a local cable company infrastructure and the public will once again care, until then i guess ill have to get use to the sheep.

enjoyed the site--nice to know there are some people who still care about the direction of our country

Has anyone considered the intelligence sources that led to the lies? One very likely one is the Israeli Mossad agency: I find it conceivable, to say the least, that the USUK has been fed dodgy human and signals intelligence by Israel for years, with the intention of inducing us to remove Hussein for them. Face it, there is a very receptive audience in the upper echelons of the Pentagon, which is quite capable of playing down other, more factual sources in favour of what their friends want Bush to believe.

if Bill Clinton had hired Al Gores company to rebuild Iraq the rep. party would have hung him from the wasington monument. It seems dubda and his millionare buddies can now do as they please with no fear of any repercutions...............

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php

Congrats! This is now a feature article at the above site! And quite a ruckus it's causing too!

It did not matter if Iraq had WMD or not Bush was going to go to war regardless. I think that Bush is intentiohnaly trying to keep this country at war so that the publics attention is not on the economy and other domestic problems and as an escuse to keep increasing military spending at the expense of domestic programs for the poor and education and also an escuse to take away more civil liberties.

Seems this is still being read, so I'll (finally) comment again.

But first, geez, Billmon, don't you read source documents? The article you link to suggests that the trailers might actually be the hydrogen producers the Iraqis claim it is, *despite* the fact that dregs from the fermentor include "urea" and "sodium azide," which are most definitely *not* the byproducts of hydrogen production. The CIA is taking it a bit more seriously than you'd like to think. They are checking the "sludge," as they call it, for any byproducts of hydrogen production as much as for traces of WMD.

//TBox - "I examine each decision individually. The decision to invade Iraq was good for me, good for the USA, good for the world." And just who made you god?//

I need to be God to vote? I need to be God to approve of a decision? I need to be God to understand an impartial analysis of the world's situation? What I do is something everyone should do. Examine the evidence, come to a conclusion based on that evidence, formulate a goal that incorporates the conclusion, and move to support that goal with actions consistent with the evidence. What would you have me do instead? "Oh, clearly, I am but an ignorant and incompetent plebe, surely I must leave these decisions to the almighty leaders, or, if they are corrupt, to the nearest person claiming to be a free thinker that I can find." I agree, of the many paths that would have supported the continued prosperity of the world, invading Iraq was only one. It's supremacy over other paths was a matter of politics and circumstance.

//In this country if you give a kid a weapon and encourage him to use it against someone you dislike, you will be an accessory to his crime and held accountable. Why do you use a different standard for boys in high places with big guns?//

Saddam Hussein is more than just a "person I dislike," he is a convicted criminal who violated his parole (UNSC 1441). If I were a judge issuing a warrant for his arrest, I would feel no guilt should he be shot resisting that arrest.

darwin26: Nice collection. The Israel/Palestine situation is so mired in manure on both sides, it's really hard for me to point at either one as "the good guy" or "the bad guy," although I tend to lean towards Israel as being a bit more rational than Palestine (or more specifically, Arafat. The man is nuts.) Maybe the new PM can change my opinion.

tpet: Sorry to single you out, but you're nearest the bottom of the post expressing a common opinion. Disgust at the populace for apathy.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Of course I don't care! I'm tired, exhausted. If I cared about every issue to the same extent that the die-hard partisans cared about them... and not the same die-hard partisans on every issue, but different sets for different issues... I would be in a histrionic state from the moment I woke up until the moment I shuddered myself to fitful sleep.

I would have to be more emotionally upset about every issue than even the most diehard lobbyist can muster for just a single issue.

I don't have the energy for it. I find it hard enough to view the facts of a situation *without* various pundits substituting emotional pleas for rational argument.

Can you please give me enough credit to know and decide for myself when I should be outraged? Quite frankly, the assumption that I'm too stupid to get pissed over something, and need to be constantly reminded of the emotional turmoil I should be in, is just psychically overwhelming. Is it any wonder depression is on the rise in the country?

Did I miss anything important? I confess to a laziness on catching up after a long weekend away.

Jerome (above) is right... Wolfowitz's "quote" from Vanity Fair is a distortion.

Wolfowitz's "quote" from Vanity Fair is a distortion.

Keith -- If you had checked the link, you would have seen that it is to an official Pentagon transcript of an interview that Wolfowitz did with Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post. DeYoung read the Vanity Fair quote back to him, word for word, and Wolfowitz did not challenge or object to it. He just tries to gloss it over and change the subject:

the real thing that has concerned the President from the beginning and which I think is even the "axis" that's referred to in the "axis of evil" is the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction . . . blah blah.

Distortion, I suppose, is in the mind of the reader. People can follow the link and make up their own minds.

TBox - You're pretty obnoxious. I put up with it for awhile but I've had my fill. Consider yourself banned.

Tbox-
Details of sodium azide production from hydrazine below- courtesy of an Indian chemical company.
Sodium azide is also used as an industrial fumigant, but the lethal dose of hydrazoic acid(the volatile product) is rather too high to be much use as a war gas. The method described fits rather well with the "mobile labs" found, but it's hardly a WMD.
Sodium Azide is used as an intermediate for the preparation of lead azide - a primary explosive and detonator. Most important use of this is in automobile safety air bags. These safety air bags have Lead azide stored in them that gets converted to enormous gas by the impact of an accident and filled in the bag that gets placed between the driver and steering .Such an action provides life safety to the driver as most deaths occur by the impact of steering on the chest bones of the drivers. In USA provision of air safety bags is mandatory that has generated about 6000 tonnes per annum demand for Sodium Azide. Europe is also likely to make it mandatory and may thus generate an additional 6000 MTPA demand. The demand is further likely to increase as the concept is further introduced in other nations particularly in India and China where the demand could be substantial.
Availability of Sodium Azide is presently a monopoly of limited companies mainly in Japan. With the development of the technology in India, a plant licensed by NRDC was put up with an annual production of 300 MT. This plant has been doing very well, exporting the product to USA and generating high profits. With the vast future demand potential several plants of Sodium Azide can be put up in India and in different countries.

Sodium is also used as intermediate for fungicide.

The main raw material for sodium azide is hydrazine hydrate which is available in most developed nations. However, the technology for this chemical is also available with NRDC and a composite plant for hydrazine hydrate and sodium azide can be conceptualised.

PRODUCT QUALITY

The product made by this technology gives more than 99% w/w purity, with an average 150 micron particle size. This quality compares very well with the international product and is sometime considered better. The product under Indian conditions is manufactured at substantially lower price than the international price.

PROCESS

The process involves the following steps :-

A.Preparation of Reaction Mixtures

Hydrazine Hydrate diluted with ethyl alcohol is mixed with caustic soda and filtered.

B.Generation of Ethyl Nitrite

An aqueous solution of Sodium Nitrate is reacted with alcoholic sulphuric acid solution.

C.Preparation of Sodium Azide

Nitrogen is bubbled through the reaction mixture and then reacted with Ethyl Nitrite. After all the gas is passed through, the material is discharged, filtered and washed with alcohol, chilled water and dried producing Sodium Azide with 99.5% purity. The Mother liquor from Sodium Azide reaction is transferred to a distillation column and separated into separate components for reuse.

Lucky for the American people the issue is misrepresentation about weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for invading a soveriegn country, and not something as serious as oral sex!

I think what is most imperitive at this point is for those opposed to the actions, words and beliefs of the Bush administration is to take direct action against the potential re-election of the president. The general population appears to be still engulfed in fear and apathy. Although the two concepts seem contradictory, in combination can lead this country into a greater derth of humanity. Stand up and ask your candidates, congressmen and local leaders to stand up for their beliefs and lay them on the table for their constituents to plainly see. The success of the competing parties in the 2004 election is going to rest upon the candidates taking that risk.

Lucky for the American people the issue is misrepresentation about weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for invading a soveriegn country, and not something as serious as oral sex!

Well you know we take our oral sex pretty seriously here in this country . . .

For what it's worth, I think some war opponents are hurting their credibility by trying to make more out of Wolfowitz's statements than is there to be made.

Hello,

Regarding, "Israel is completely above international law" posted June 1. I am wondering at the total lack of response to this piece. Is it because the poster did not identify? That Israel is above criticism on this site? Is it a job of misrepresentation? I have nothing to flog here...just wondering.

Thank you for the list of Washington lies. I’ve e-mailed that portion to our local weekly here in small town Ontario. Regards, Louis

Unfortunately, the cynic has the better of me with regard to this issue. I'm not sure that most Americans who supported the war care if this timeline is correct or even if we ever "find" any WMD. Most of those people are just happy to be on a winning team.

Regarding, "Israel is completely above international law" posted June 1. I am wondering at the total lack of response to this piece. Is it because the poster did not identify? That Israel is above criticism on this site? Is it a job of misrepresentation?

Definitely not that. Read this, or this, or this, or this.

I suspect the long list of UN resolutions ignored or violated by Israel didn't generate a reaction because it wasn't news to most of the people who have visited this site.

(Of course, the administration's WMD scare campaign wasn't exactly "news" either. But I've found that a lot of people who loathe the Bush regime and its domestic allies are reluctant to attack or criticize Israel for its actions. Call it the Liberal Zionist Guilt Complex.)

"But first, geez, Billmon, don't you read source documents? The article you link to suggests that the trailers might actually be the hydrogen producers the Iraqis claim it is, *despite* the fact that dregs from the fermentor include "urea" and "sodium azide," which are most definitely *not* the byproducts of hydrogen production."

Do you understand the meaning of "preliminary results"?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

It's a sad comment on democracy and free speech that simply listing verbatim statements made by public officials could threaten your employment.

They'll never admit they lied. They'll just add the WMDs to their fanny-pack of evil specters, along with Osama and Saddam himself. That way they have a few options as to which lie they'd like to use to sell a war. I doubt we'll ever catch bin Laden or Iraq's WMDs because they're too much of a help for Bush & Co. He needs good patsies to "justify" global conquest.

God help us all.

tbox, no problem singling me out! If you disagree fine. But to say that your too tired to care is obvious bull. If that were the case you wouldnt be spending so much time pleading your political stance on this site. My point is not directed towards you. You seem to be informed enough to have an opinion. Im not saying that to be a good american you have to be throwing yourself on the steps of the White House for every issue. Im saying that issues that affect human lives, especially those close to us, deserve attention by all of us. If our ancestors had our lax attitude our president today would be blair not bush. As for emotional pleas versus rational argument? An emotional plea is when the president tries to draw public support for his mistake by moving the issue to the opressed people of Iraq. Lets make sure everyone knows just how bad those people were tormented. That we now went there to free these innocents from a tyrant. Dont get me wrong, he is a bad guy and those people were brutalized and mistreated. But the rational argument would be where does that stop? Pick up a newspaper, everyday you can read about another country where the people are oppressed, starving, suffering from civil unrest. Are we to go around and save the world now? and if so who is gonna fight and fund that war? Is it rational for us to be the world's police? Is it rational for us to spend billions to free people in countries around the globe. Would it not be more rational to use that money to help those that spent it? While the economy continues to sink and unemployment continues to rise, would it not have been more rational to pump that money back into our country instead of Iraq? Was it not an emotional plea by our president to stir up support by making us believe that we should be threatened by iraq and their WMD's in the first place?
And even if i do give you credit for knowing when to be outraged, you must admit that as long as there is nothing as important as impeding the average americans commute to work, they dont care. All im saying is there are some issues that the entire public should have an opinion on.

and billmon, dont ban anyone, even the obnoxious should have a say!

Ha! Hardy Har Har! Hahahaahaha! Ha!
And pass me the tequila!

billmon, dont ban anyone, even the obnoxious should have a say!

I've relented and unbanned Tbox, even though he is obnoxious. But I have my limits. It may not be much of a blog, but it is mine. And right-wing trolls aren't welcome here.

By the way, that quote: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practive to decieve" has a rarely mentioned second line:

"But my how we improve the score, as we practice more and more."

Beware.

i in no way support hussein or anything he has ever stood for, but while we are on the topic of WMDs, look at it from this standpoint. if you were a dictator of a country in the middel east, a country that spent over a decade at war with one neighbor, had unrest of multiple tribes and ethnic groups within your own borders, lost one war against most of the world and you are centered in the most violent part of the world, would you not want atleast a shadow of a doubt cast upon your disposal of WMDs? Even if you completely disarmed would you willfully broadcast that? Personally, i think he may have disarmed, but knew he would be a sitting duck if his enemies knew that. Just a thought

Get those bastards and murderers out of office.

Etoad - elementary isn't it? Odd that the best "intelligence" in world couldn't get it right, particularly if they factored in Iraq's limited income and Saddam's high standard of living.

If I may, I'd like to point out a couple of items that made me smile while reviewing this page of comments. First, not necessarily in chronological order, was Billmon's "It may not be much of a blog, but it is mine. And right-wing trolls aren't welcome here." An interestingly free forum for all, as long as they have the same viewpoint as the person with control.
Then, we have others, such as Ms. Rivo and Barnaby, commenting on the state of democracy, as it is now. I'm sure they're aware that we, as Americans, do not live in a democratic society. Ours is a republic, as in "and to the republic for which it stands". Please note the differences in the two.
Do not feel for Tbox if he is banned. His time spent elswhere would be of much greater value in to him in the future.

An interestingly free forum for all, as long as they have the same viewpoint as the person with control.

That's capitalism, baby -- which is definitely not a democracy, or a Republic.

If you don't like it, go find someone else's sandbox to play in.

It was a con job from the start. Bush and his cronies should be thrown out of office and into prison for treason and crimes against humanity.

Unloaded with lies and more .. and more deception ...

And who is there to believe all this. Are the human race so ... forgetfully ...

MatriX

How's this for a way out: "There were lots of WMDs but they all got looted."

I agree 100% with DMS. Bush and his gang should be tried at The Hague for War Crimes.

The country of Iraq was invaded because Sodamn Insane refused to disarm his weapons of mass destruction. That his country was in violation of United Nations Resolutions that said he must disarm! I remember saying to my wife "I'm sick of hearing that WMD word", it was crystal clear, over and over again. Well, well, well, now we have invaded another country for violations, oops!There are no WMD's, Iraq did disarm. They were not in violation of the U.N. If you want to roll over and play stupid thats your right to life. But, some of us out here in reality land are going to keep asking "Why did our soldiers die on foreign soil?" What is the real reason? And we are not going to stop. If this was a Intelligence Agency's mistake, heads would be rolling, but they're not.

BushBarians....14
Everyone else...0

They are kicking our collective asses. Consider how much the BushBarians have made to date and they are STILL popular and good to go another 4 years!

We should all bow our heads towards the finest modern day Machevellians the world has produced.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Of course I don't care! I'm tired, exhausted. If I cared about every issue to the same extent that the die-hard partisans cared about them... and not the same die-hard partisans on every issue, but different sets for different issues... I would be in a histrionic state from the moment I woke up until the moment I shuddered myself to fitful sleep.

I would have to be more emotionally upset about every issue than even the most diehard lobbyist can muster for just a single issue.

I don't have the energy for it. I find it hard enough to view the facts of a situation *without* various pundits substituting emotional pleas for rational argument.

Can you please give me enough credit to know and decide for myself when I should be outraged? Quite frankly, the assumption that I'm too stupid to get pissed over something, and need to be constantly reminded of the emotional turmoil I should be in, is just psychically overwhelming. Is it any wonder depression is on the rise in the country?

This may be the most incredible, whining, "poor me" post I've ever seen. You're tired? You're exhausted? You don't care that other people's children are being slaughtered or that people are starving and frightened because of our collective indifference. Are we supposed to care about your state of mind and emotional fragility when you don't give a rat's ass about people who are truly suffering because of our policies.? Why don't you take a Prozac, wash it down with a hot cup of $4 Starbucks and go to the mall and buy yourself some Nike sweatshop shoes for a little relaxation. Poor you. Boo Hoo. You could do so much to contribute to changing the world for the better if you stopped thinking about yourself for five seconds. Disgraceful. Or at least shut the f-- up.

Just stumbled across this page today, and actually sat here and read the whole thing. What kills me the most is the fact that all of you both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' even bother to pretend that there is a difference between the two parties anymore. WE haven't elected a president in years, the electoral college is supposed to vote according to the popular turn out in their area, BUT DO NOT HAVE TO. Don't get me wrong, I don't support Dubya or his big business cronies, but take a good look at the Presidential orders that Clinton signed during his eight years of 'do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain'. While everyone was arguing about whether he had the right to get a hummer or not, he ok'd it for the President, no matter who it was, to seize any and everything, both public and private. Wake up people, there WILL be a totalitarian One-World Government, there WILL be a One-World Religion, and it has been in the works for hundreds of years. So here you all sit arguing a moot point, because there is not a damn thing any of us can do about. They (read European Royalty, Jewish Bankers, Masters of Industry, Freemasons, Bilderbergs, and the like) control ALL the money and ALL the guns. Bush is not going to be impeached, and they are not going to quit until their objective is reached. I suggest you all stop getting so pissed off at each other, and spend more time loving your friends and families, before the demonic psychos that are in power blow the whole world up.

Peace and Love people.

Just stumbled across this page today, and actually sat here and read the whole thing. What kills me the most is the fact that all of you both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' even bother to pretend that there is a difference between the two parties anymore. WE haven't elected a president in years, the electoral college is supposed to vote according to the popular turn out in their area, BUT DO NOT HAVE TO. Don't get me wrong, I don't support Dubya or his big business cronies, but take a good look at the Presidential orders that Clinton signed during his eight years of 'do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain'. While everyone was arguing about whether he had the right to get a hummer or not, he ok'd it for the President, no matter who it was, to seize any and everything, both public and private. Wake up people, there WILL be a totalitarian One-World Government, there WILL be a One-World Religion, and it has been in the works for hundreds of years. So here you all sit arguing a moot point, because there is not a damn thing any of us can do about. They (read European Royalty, Jewish Bankers, Masters of Industry, Freemasons, Bilderbergs, and the like) control ALL the money and ALL the guns. Bush is not going to be impeached, and they are not going to quit until their objective is reached. I suggest you all stop getting so pissed off at each other, and spend more time loving your friends and families, before the demonic psychos that are in power blow the whole world up.

Peace and Love people.

Excellent compilation of quotes that encompass the lies over the crisis in Iraq.

Everyone needs to read this.

*goes and spreads the word*

Excellent compilation of quotes that encompass the lies over the crisis in Iraq.

Everyone needs to read this.

*goes and spreads the word*

SPQR;get used to it. 'nuff said.

You missed one of my personal favorites from Dick Cheney:

"We are defending both ourselves and the safety and survival of civilization itself."

1/30/03, Arlington, VA

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/30/cheney.speech/index.html

Did you catch Sundays Doonesbury comic strip.

Do leftist morons really believe clinton's pick @ CIA, George Tenet, falsified
WMD reports? clinton and his people were liars but

Why would the liberal hero Saddam stiffarm UN inspectors if he didn't have any WMD's? Where did Saddam put the WMD's discovered in 1998? And what were the mobile bio-weapons lab be used for? It's a shame the once grand Democrat Party is so desperate for issues that they would try this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/international/worldspecial/31POWE.html?ex=1054958400&en=6d0f444e82a4533b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Regarding the many signers of that letter to Bill Clinton dated January 26, 1998 that advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, I thought I would give you all a "Where Are They Now???" sort of briefing, just so you'll know.

To reprise the letter's key paragraph (vis a vis the Iraq/WMD issue):

...We urge you ... to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power...If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.

Letter to President Bill Clinton
January 26th, 1998

And now a rundown on what's up with the signers:

Elliott Abrams (now Special Assistant to the President, and Senior Director National Security Council - also once an Iran-Contra figure)
Richard L. Armitage (now Deputy Secretary of State)
William J. Bennett (morality blowhard currently nursing a gambling addiction)
Jeffrey Bergner (now President and Managing Financial Partner, Bergner Bockorny, Inc.)
John Bolton (now Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security)
Paula Dobriansky (now Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs)
Francis Fukuyama (now member of President’s Council on Bioethics)
Robert Kagan (now Washington Post columnist and writer)
Zalmay Khalilzad (now the President's Special Envoy to Afghanistan)
William Kristol (now editor of The Weekly Standard)
Richard Perle (member of Defense Policy Board, and its former chairman)
Peter W. Rodman (now Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs)
Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defense - and Secretary of State wannabe)
William Schneider, Jr. (now Chairman, Defense Science Board)
Vin Weber (ex Congressman, lobbyist, now head of the private National Endowment for Democracy)
Paul Wolfowitz (now Deputy Secretary of Defense)
R. James Woolsey (ex CIA Director, now Vice President Global Strategic Security at Booz Allen & Hamilton, chairman of Freedom House, member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, board member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, senior advisor for Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, and a principal of Paladin Capital Group)
Robert B. Zoellick (now United States Trade Representative)

Just so you'll all know.

"it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else." - Theodore Roosevelt

Dr. Paul's Vanity Fair quotation is a fair paraphrase. Links here.

I'm still wondering, is it vans, RVs, or Trailers of Mass Destruction?

Yo Susan Wright: Rhetoric like...

> Do leftist morons really believe
> clinton's pick @ CIA, George Tenet,
> falsified WMD reports?

... and ...

> Why would the liberal hero Saddam stiffarm UN
> inspectors if he didn't have any WMD's?

... would seem to indicate you don't have much of a case, since you have to resort to calling people names and make false associations like "liberal hero Saddam". That one especially sounds like something straight out of the Joe McCarthy playbook, since nobody "liberal" thinks of Saddam as a hero.

However, plenty of "conservatives" once thought Saddam was pretty cool, back before he made his grab for Kuwait... including none other than Donald Rumsfeld, who actually met with the man back during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Basically there never would've been a Gulf War I or Gulf War II if it wasn't for the Reagan administration's support of Saddam. For that matter, there probably wouldn't have been a Sept 11th, Taliban, Al Qaida or virtually most of the other terrorism we're now experiencing if it wasn't for the Reagan administration's idea to teach Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan how to fight a counterinsurgency campaign against the Soviets all through the 1980s. Not only that, but when Clinton tried to hit at the bad guys in Afghanistan back in '98, but Republicans mocked him for it.

So as you can see, America's problems in the Middle East and South Asia were mostly created by Republican presidents (wittingly or unwittingly) long before 9/11. And while nobody really knows what Dubya's handiwork will do for us over the next 20 years, but it's definitely not going to stop terrorism, as we've already seen just in Saudi Arabia and Morocco just in the past few days. Just imagine what 400,000 unemployed angry Iraqi soldiers wearing bombs like hunting vests might do to our soldiers still over there manning checkpoints and conducting house to house searches.

So please... wake up from your delusions of a white bread world populated by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and ogling at replays of Dubya waving his package around Top Gun style on the Abe Lincoln, and realize that tough talking Republican presidents made guys like Saddam and Osama possible, not Bill Clinton.

Bear E

Oh and one more thing Susan: Before you come rolling at me with your anti American accusations, save your breath: I'm ex military (82nd Airborne) and I had front row seats in Ronnie's and George I's colonial wars, so unless you've "seen the elephant", you are not entitled to question anyone's patriotism, certainly not mine.

mark,

Outstanding satire on that last link! I'll have to pass that one around, thanks for the tip off!

Bear E

Billmon, you ROCK!

Honestly, does anyone think Bush and his friends have any REAL interest in finding bin Laden or Saddam? It's not in their best political interests. Without both of them on the loose, Bush and his buddies don't have anything to scare the bejesus out of the American sheeple. I mean, just how hard is it to find a six foot tall Arab who requires dialysis in the third world?

No one seems to be able to answer the question as to why Bush chose to invade Iraq instead of North Korea. I promote a hypothesis.. Because North Korea would actually fight back. They have the capability to deliver nukes to the west coast, but Bush doesn't care because he didn't win California anyway. Iraq was supposed to be an "easy win" to show on TV for the folks at home. Of course it's turning out that it's not as easy as they thought it would be.

And for you Bush apologists - What part of Bush lied to the American people and the world about something that actually matters don't you understand?

The Dems had better grow a backbone fast...

This is in response to Susan's post:
First of all it's not fair to call all leftists (or all of any group) morons...Sure there are morons, but there are bright individuals there too. (Disclaimer- I don't claim to be one!)
Don't be so hard on the Democrats, why just a couple of weeks ago, the Republican House Reps of Texas had -I'm not kidding here -the Texas Rangers, troopers, and even Homeland Security- on orders to arrest and retrieve fleeing 51 Democrats back into the House to force a vote. It was what you'd call a real Texas show down!!!! I also loved how they put the names and pics of the aformentioned Dems on playing cards, ala "Iraq's most wanted"- marking them enamies of the state? Basically, the Democrats were against an attempt by Republicans to redraw districts (which broke up primarily democratic districts) so they could more seats.

Anyway, I don't think there is a true difference between the parties anymore. So blaming much needed focusing on the erronious judgements made for going into war on the Democrats because they have something personal against Bush and the rest of the Republicans being in power, that is ridiculous. Why that would be like saying that Clinton was being pushed towards impeachment over lying about oral sex by Republicans who had something personal against him and the Democratic party.

Hey - wait a minute!!!!!

Either way, both presidents manipulated the truth to get thier way.

I love this country though, and that is why I want our leaders to be responsible, whichever party they belong to. At some point it's not about party bashing anymore.

When will the American people wake up from the stupor imposed upon them by the Bushies? The administration has repeated lies hundreds of times, so the public begins to believe it is true. The Bushies have been calculating and deceitful since the days even before he was
(s)elected President. Now that their machine rules all branches of government, the courts, the electronic media and a preponderance of print media, how much more difficult will it be for a contrary message ever be freely heard or read by the public? Add to that, today's ruling by the FCC will further guarantee that their single voice will become louder; if challenges arise to the FCC ruling, they will have to go to the Appellate Court, where Bush has worked vigorously to stack the deck with his "friends." People will have to be mindful of the Bush company lies as frequently as they are uttered and challenge them.

a poster above wrote..
"Though it bothers me that our leaders lied to us from the beginning of this debacle, that we have found no WMD, that Iraq is now in disarray, Afghanistan is still in disarray, that we never used the necessary time, money and military might to fight our true enemy (Al-Quaida), that bin laden is still in a cave somewhere, ...."

earlier today I read..

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,968504,00.html

"And we, for the avoidance of more orange alerts, more awful warnings and anxieties based on the same webs of intelligence, need Bin Laden. First problems first, chaps."

And I wrote...

Not really.
Al Queda as an organized and cohesive entity is reallly a construct of Wolfy and his cabal, a convenient demonization against which to expend and spend up large for the arms/oil industry, Raytheon, Boeing et al and achieve the PNAC foreign policy objectives
Osama himself is a CIA creation and related events should be viewed on the premis that 9/11 was a P2OG type effort that may have overshot. It is quite likely that Osama was employed as part of this P2OG type exercise. In which case his escape may be part of the deal. The exercise had more than the Afghan pipeline as its objective.. the need to control public opinion (eg by way of the multi-coloured alerts you mention) and almost every US action by the admin. can be seen as part of the objective including the illegal USUK Iraq attack. Of course 9/11 is before P2OG was officially acknowledged to exist.
Even if a Bin Laden was found other alledged "organizations" would be created or publicized to replace him.


See http://www.911pi.com/ for some background.
and..
"`Wolfowitz Cabal' Is an Enemy Within U.S.
by Michele Steinberg
On Oct. 14, the London Observer published one of the now familiar—and totally false—propaganda scare stories, entitled "Iraq 'Behind U.S. Anthrax Outbreaks.' " The story gave credence to the ravings of "American hawks" who say there is "a growing mass of evidence that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the Sept. 11 suicide hijacks." If confirmed, said the Observer, "the pressure now building ... for an attack [on Iraq] may be irresistible." One of these "hawks," an unnamed U.S. "administration official," told the Observer that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a "faithful ally" in the war against terrorism and that "if it means we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, then that's what we are doing" (emphasis added).

The "next Hundred Year's War"? Who are the U.S. maniacs who use such language, and are they not as dangerous as Osama bin Laden's jihad?

Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the "Wolfowitz cabal," named after Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland, falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist "war" into a full-blown "Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the "enemy image" in a "new Cold War."

The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, developed by Harvard professor-turned President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser ..etc.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2841wolfowitz.html

Revealed: Cluster bombs now litter Iraq

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,968181,00.html

View the map http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/05/31/landmines2.pdf

- 02:12am Jun 1, 2003 BST
If Mr Blair is still hunting for WMD in Iraq.. here they are. Other USUK WMD not so easy to find are the tonnes of DU spead throughout the region and in the bodies of the local people and those of the occupying forces and other visitors. He needs to look in their lungs and kidneys particularly. In addition to the primary illegal USUK attack, these are grounds for the War Crimes suit against Blair and his cohorts. See.. http://news.bbc.co..uk/2/hi/europe/2933140.stm

If you wish to sign the petition for 'The Extradition of Prime Minister Tony Blair for War Crimes' to the ICC, you may do so at... http://www.petitiononline.com/iraqwmd/petition.html

Hey Susan,

So, what was your reason for supporting the war? And why exactly are leftists "morons"?

"
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely." [Bush]

These are a blatant lies. Out of over 400 inspections, there were delays on only 8 of them - mostly involving debate concerning the right to search the Presidential Palace and similar sites - the longest of which was 45 minutes. The inspections were ended not due to any noncomplaince on the part of Iraq, but instead due to pressure from the US, which wanted to step up its and Britain's bombing campaign; in fact the bombings not only escalated the day after inspections ceased, but the first target bombed was the last site inspected. A clue as to why this was lies in the DOD's admission that the US had intelligence agents among the UN inspection teams in order to look for potential targets.

Sergei Rostov

"One word.
Impeachment.

Posted by: zxcbt at June 1, 2003 01:24 AM "

Ineed: http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html

History will not be kind to this administration. This must have been what it was like to watch the Wiemar rebuplic dissolve into the nazi empire.

History had better not be kind to this administration. I'm the token Democrat on the outspoken conservative paper on my campus and even the rest of the staff--these guys are the debate tournament type; they're the really firey conservatives--didn't have much to say to my comments about the "blatant lying in order to gain support for a war of aggression by the illegitimate administration." Stop back pedalling.

"If I may, I'd like to point out a couple of items that made me smile while reviewing this page of comments. First, not necessarily in chronological order, was Billmon's 'It may not be much of a blog, but it is mine. And right-wing trolls aren't welcome here.' An interestingly free forum for all, as long as they have the same viewpoint as the person with control."

Sorry, no. Billmon said "not welcome". He did NOT say, "not allowed." There ARE in fact a number of posts by 'right-wing trolls (which, incidentally makes me wonder how it is that you missed them; did you not see them, or were you using the standard conservative technique of simply ignoring any evidence which would destroy your argument? ).' Or to put it another way, even though they're crashin' the party, he lets 'em stay anyway. Therefore your criticism has no basis.

"I'm sure they're aware that we, as Americans, do not live in a democratic society. Ours is a republic, as in 'and to the republic for which it stands'. "

A thousand years ago - when the only example of democracy was the Greek city-states - this would have been an accurate statement; however, languages and societies do this funny thing we call 'evolving'...and so today, democracy is defined as


"a form of government in which the
state is controlled by all the
people...in practice...[using]...elected
officers as representatives"
or
"goverment by the people, either
directly or through elected
representatives"

and a republic is defined as

"A state in which the sovereign
power resides in the whole body of the
people, and is exercised by
representatives elected by them"
or
"a representative democracy"

[Sources: Funk and Wagnall's,American Heritage and Webster's Unabridged dictionaries]

all republics are therefore - according to current usage as laid out by the explicit, formal pronouncements of modern official sources - democracies.

Sergei Rostov

No one has mentioned here that UN inspectors looked at some of those same vehicles
months ago, and found them to be food-delivery trucks [Eric Margolis, Toronto Sun 2/9/03]. [I imagine then, that the facilities onboard are for the on-the-spot recycling and/or purification of water, cleaning and sterilization of cooking pots and utensiles, etc.]. Incidentally, these vehicles were of the same kind featured as a part of Powell's UN presentation of WMD 'evidence'; further, said inspections were conducted - and their results made known to government officials -PRIOR to said presentation.
One last thing before I go: It occurs to me that since deadly viruses and bacteria often use human hosts to multiply themselves, then under the 'dual-use' argument, the person of every citizen of Iraq would constitute a "dual-use bioweapon production facility"...I can just hear Bush now (this would have been before the war):

"...therefore, unless Saddam Hussein kills and cremates every one of Iraq's 23 million citizens, he will be in violation of UN resolutions and we will have no choice but to send US forces to 'liberate' the Iraqi people..."

Sergei Rostov

As many others have said, Billmon. Great job, I hope this reaches as many people as possible if for no other reason, then we will get that many more views on this topic.

Tbox, don't know if you have returned since you are no longer banned but here's to hoping. A quick response to your, " you still are not allowing Rumsfeld to change his mind." As part of the decision process for some people, myself included. The history of decisions made and/or supported by an individual is used as a basis for their possible motivation in current and future decisions and actions. Hence the reason when in a trial both the prosecution and defense try to establish and prove a history supporting their arguments to achieve their goals.
Does this mean someone is not able to "change their mind"? Not at all, it just shows a basis of tendency to continue in or along a certain vein.
Personally I'm glad you've spoken up for it is just as easy to point the finger at the fault in front of you as the fault you stand in front of. You and everyone else who continues to discuss both sides of this conversation help do something more of our, the World, leaders should do. Try to see the story from more then just "our" side.
Unfortunetly, in real world politics, just like a trial. The only view that matters to those leaders is their own. Everyone has an agenda they want to achieve. We all have our goals, both great and small, and most of us are willing to lie, cheat and steal to achieve those goals if the needs be.
The biggest problem here is not only that they lied, cheated and in some cases/opinons stole. They were dumb enought to get caught and think no one would notice.

So now we've noticed, we've had a chance to state and share our thoughts, where do we take it from here?

The first unprovoked War. Extortion.

Read a book called "Forbidden Truth: Secret US -Taliban Oil Diplomacy and the failed hunt for Bin Laden"

In my view, if George W Bush had not threatened an invasion of Afghanistan before 9-11-2001 because the Taliban refused to allow the US to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, 2823 people would probably have not gotten killed and the Twin Towers would not have gotten destroyed that George W Bush failed to defend and similarly for part of the Pentagon.

Let us investigate the Bush administration for extortion of a sovereign government. I don't condone what the Taliban did as a governemnt did before and after 9-11-2001 nor do I condone what AL Qaeda did also but George W Bush should not have extorted Aghanistan for an oil pipeline.

Oh, I don't blame America first. I blame Republicans first.

Look at
http://michiganimc.org/newswire/display/1594/index.php
-and don't blame the Republicans. Some of these
b-----ds are Democrats. Many are barely American...

Mr. Billmon.....AWESOME WORK!!! My initial scrolling through your quotes from the illustrious "leaders", who have meticulously guided America onto this double-edged sword, helped me more than you know. I was beginning to think I had dreamed this all up....the heavy echoes of the hardlined Bush cultists was starting to whittle away at my ability to think clearly for myself. "I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW"!! Thank you!!!

We should find a way to learn from the former Iraqi defense department. They should be given a great deal of credit for the level of sophistication of their armaments. After all, (according to our simian president and his team of world liberators) this is a country that has built two 18-wheelers capable of destroying all of North America and Western Europe in just 45 minutes. Why are we spending $1.2B for a single B-52 when all we need for defense can fit in a few Mack trucks? If we make OUR mobile labs amphibious we'll have a big edge on the enemy.

Thank you, Billmon, for unbanning me.

I do not hold with the same first amendment argument as some of the people who stood up for me do, as much as that seems like biting the hand that feeds you.

This is ultimately a private gathering point which you choose to make open to the public, and I understand that it is only with your permission that I am allowed to speak here today.

The only thing I feel particularly compelled to answer right now is the treatise on Sodium Azide. It was very informative. I am willing, on the basis of that, to withhold judgement as to the true purpose of the trailers in question until more results come from the CIA. The ancillary question remains, "Why did they call it a hydrogen plant?" And if Eric Margolis is correct, and the UN inspectors pronounced them food delivery trucks, which is it? Hydrogen plants, food delivery, or other?

I could respond to practically every post since my last of more than a paragraph in length, but am stopped by Killjoy's question,

//So now we've noticed, we've had a chance to state and share our thoughts, where do we take it from here? //

That is the thought that currently presses on my mind.

I never believed in this administration and this illiterate President - from the day they stole the Presidency. Now their illegal and immoral actions are becoming known.
Regime change USA - 2004 - Baby!!!

I think that we will find those WMDs. Any administration who puts so much effort into image making will see to it that those weapons are found even if they have to plant them. It seems they can do anything they want and get away with it. Most Americans simply don't care and that more than anything else, really bothers me.

Ain't it funny when Globalists speak?

Repeat the mantra over and over on tub-a-vision each night with Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw and the Great Unwashed will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Perpetual war and a "war economy" will be with us for many decades to come. Thanks GeeDubya.

We live in interesting times, do we not?

Maybe I am way off base here but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. If they do not find any WMD within the next 6 months to a year then your allegations are correct but to state them as a lies/fact before proven or unproven actually makes you the liar. I do not hold any politician or person as infallable and in fact I thought spending millions on proving willy had sex was a complete waste. Lying about gov problems yes that is a issue but lying about mr wiggly is not where I wanted my tax dollars to go. I think it is OK and healthy for people and this nation to publically challenge people/politicians you disagree with but to call it a lie before it proven it is a lie makes you......immature. Grow up. Stick to the facts and quit omitting parts of speeches/statements to prove your point.

why not wait till 2004, vote for GW, and give him the chance for proving the existence of WMD's in Iraq? Surely we need to give him more time to justify this, right clarify? I mean, if we could give saddam 10 yrs to do his job, im sure we should give this guy some more terms in office too.
Why stop at just 6 months? dumass logic.

and listen, when u start talkin bout things like "...in this country ....", and mention "...my tax dollars...", ohhhhh pleeeeese - just cut out the country part and talk bout justifying ur hard-earned wages.

im sure ur one of those who "are against the war, but support our troops" kinda ppl who didnt know what stance to take, and have no idea whatu should be doing cos u are wayyyy to worried bout ur image and ur money and what could come across as being politically incorrect. but then u gotta say some to the cameras to sound smart and like u have an opinion.

oxy-morons.

I don't understand why it should take six months, since according to Der Donald, "we know where they are." Maybe the Army needs better roadmaps?

Actually, if Bush stood up and said the moon was made of green cheese, there are conservatives who would be arguing: "just give it a few more months to see if it turns into green cheese."

A good example is Bill O'Liely. On April 28, apparently, he promised to go on the air and recant his support of the war if WMDs were not found in Iraq within the month. So on May 28, he went on the air -- and attacked Scott Ritter for being on Saddam's payroll. elvis56 over at lunaville has the whole story.

The thing that mystifies me -- which is why I bring it up again and again -- is why the wingnuts aren't freakin' and peakin' over this. Because if their beloved President has been telling the truth, then a whole lot of incredibly dangerous WMDs have disappeared into one of the most chaotic and lawless places on earth.

Is clarify really content to sit around for the next 6 months waiting to see where they turn up???

That's the dumb ass logic.

FYI the war on Iraq has been declared passe'; Bush and Company have now declared war on AIDS. Of course this decision was based solely upon humanitarian reasons and has nothing to do with diversionary political tactics. Uhuh...sure...The US economy is reeling; federal programs have been reduced and/or cut; all 50 states are teetering on bankruptsy; the infrastructure of our cities is crumbling, and just because we're nice guys, we're going to-- What do you mean, it doesn't fly?

thank you billmon - amazin how i was sayin the same thing. scary. :)

clarify how it it is dumb? Even in individual crimes the evidence has to be collected and the average time before going to court (I cant prove this but is what I heard) is 6 months to a year.
If they cannot find it in that amount of time then most people would be willing to concede that maybe the wmd scenario was overblown.
If someone states it is a fact that another is lying though the evidence has not been proven or gathered that is either presumptious or dishonest.
I believe if the right and left would stop the namecalling and stick to the facts then we the voting public could respect anothers point of view and vote on our own moral compasses, Unfortunately people on both sides omit facts and yes lie to make the story more believable.
Yes I live in a delusioned state and our human frailities will cause us to fall far short of this goal but honesty is still something I wish we saw more of. This site is just another one that while I respect the right to a point of view it is still dishonest. I also hear this coming from some of the right wing talk shows also so some of them are just as bad.

clarify how it it is dumb? Even in individual crimes the evidence has to be collected and the average time before going to court (I cant prove this but is what I heard) is 6 months to a year.
If they cannot find it in that amount of time then most people would be willing to concede that maybe the wmd scenario was overblown.
If someone states it is a fact that another is lying though the evidence has not been proven or gathered that is either presumptious or dishonest.
I believe if the right and left would stop the namecalling and stick to the facts then we the voting public could respect anothers point of view and vote on our own moral compasses, Unfortunately people on both sides omit facts and yes lie to make the story more believable.
Yes I live in a delusioned state and our human frailities will cause us to fall far short of this goal but honesty is still something I wish we saw more of. This site is just another one that while I respect the right to a point of view it is still dishonest. I also hear this coming from some of the right wing talk shows also so some of them are just as bad.

This site is just another one that while I respect the right to a point of view it is still dishonest.

How exactly is it "dishonest," clarify? The quotes are accurate, sourced and linked. Readers are free to examine and draw their own conclusions.

I also hear this coming from some of the right wing talk shows also so some of them are just as bad.

LOL. You let me know the next time O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage et. al. provide sources and links for their favorite "facts." I mean, almost all of my quotes are taken from official government transcripts, for crying out loud!

I was for the war and am also for kicking the crap out of any country (Rwanda,Iran, North Korea,Somalia, Palestine and more) that is proven abusive and dangerous. If the UN had all came down on Iraq and not pussy footed around then we may have never had this war. A united world against terrorism and human rights abuses could accomplish a great deal.

clarify, what we're saying is, whats it gonna take for ppl to open their eyes?
how is it that this wasnt said when GW was talkin bout WMD in iraq and went to war. u think the way they pushed for the war, and went against everyone, was acceptable? where was the proof that u insist on? were u satisified with the vial that powell showed at the UN?

"How exactly is it "dishonest," clarify? The quotes are accurate, sourced and linked. Readers are free to examine and draw their own conclusions"
Because you state that they are lies before they have beeen proven/unproven. I respect your point of view just not the namecalling though I realize shock does get youu "read".

its nice to know ur for kickin the ass outta those countries. do u blame osama or saddam to be feelin a bit like u? doesnt matter who ur views are directed against, as long as u feel the same. but u wont like to think dat way. cos ur livin in the land of freedom n liberty, and their just religious.
both blinded by "ideals" which are far from it.

I thought the humanitarian reason was enough but unfortunately we tend to turn a blind eye to other countries and yes sometimes our own dirty little secrets because we do not want to get involved if there is any danger (financial or emotional/physical). Yes the obvious answer to the UN not agreeing is because like the US they had financial reasons to vote one way or another
and it is sad that is what motivates a vote and not the humanitaian reasons.

so do u think GW should be given more time now?

"its nice to know ur for kickin the ass outta those countries. do u blame osama or saddam to be feelin a bit like u? doesnt matter who ur views are directed against, as long as u feel the same."

This statement did make me think!
I think the biggest differences between saddams/Osama,hitlers etc,n is even though I am calling smack on your format and you are dissing my opinion I do not feel you would ever want to subdue me or torture me or kill me because I disagreed and vice/versa. Sometimes as proven by history people have to take a stand when others ideas turn aggresive and oppressive,

I think the war has just settled down and it will take a few months for the dust to settle so yes a reasonable amount of time and no more.

enjoyed the banter but have to get back to pursuing the american dream. Please feel heartened that even though I did not agree with your attack method of Journalism I still am tweaked enough to return to your site to read more.

the Bush regime is basically naziism filtered thru a patriotic smoke screen. The US government wants to rule the world and therefore bullies anyone with a different agenda than our own meanwhile convincing the public that "we're right and they're wrong"..."our cause is noble and theirs is evil". Right now Canada is on the verge of decriminalizing small amounts of marajuana but it probably won't happen because their big brother to the south STRONGLY disagrees...party on GW!

I am so ashamed that the US insisted on going to war with Iraq. I am also saddened that no other countries tried to stop us. What a sad situation when 5-10,000 civilians get killed and generations will be killed thanks to US & Depleted Uranium dust. I cannot believe the people who say "I'm all for the war, at least we got rid of Saddam". No, we did not go to war to get rid of Saddam. Anyway, he was US puppet for a long time. He finally stopped letting US pull his strings and one of the reasons we went to war was to get back at him. Another was the oil. We know that the people's lives and loss have no meaning to our administration. They didn't to the former administration either. Find Madeline Albrights quote about 100,000 deaths were worth it. Find Barbara Bush's recent comment about her beautiful mind has better things to do than to think of the killing fields and chaos her son created.

"let them eat cake"

stonesar
Put to side the real reasons we went to war because the truth will be revealed later as it always is. I want to know if A woman next door was being brutalized or the guy across the street was arrested for being pro-choice or down the street people were tortured because of thier religion would you do anything about it? Would you ignore it and hope it goes away?
Are you saying the Iraqi people did not need intrevention regardless of our Governments reason for doing so? Did they deserve to live that way? When would you do something about it? Or would you ever?

am also saddened that no other countries tried to stop us.

I don't know what else the French, Germans, Russians, et. al. could have done -- unless they wanted to end up looking like a Republican Guard division after an encounter with the U.S. Army.

I'm mad about the war, what I'm sad about is the knowledge that the likes of the French, the Germans and the Russians were the good guys trying to stop it.

The world has truly turned upside down . . .

Billmon

Even though I do not agree with everything you say I really really really respect a man with enough courage and conviction not to edit those who disagree with him.

way to go

I hope I gave credit to the right person

really really really respect a man with enough courage and conviction not to edit those who disagree with him.

Sorry to disllusion you, but I have banned people -- not many, but there is a limit to what I'll tolerate on my own board. Generally, it's a pretty high limit, but like my temper it tends to fluctuate with my blood sugar level.

Lies??? How about "compassionate conservative", "operation Iraqi Liberation", "jobs and growth tax cut", and the newest spin "the healthy forest initiative". It doesn't end and we eat it up!!

I can't beleive the tone of this board! Bush was right on in dealing with Iraq.

Were there WMD's? I think yes!
Why did Saddam Hussein not use them? - Two reasons, dissent from his own military appears to have played a role. However, the big one is this. Using these weapons would have proven to the world that President Bush was right. Saddam knew he was going to lose the war. The last thing he wanted was for the United States to be proved correct. It does not surprise me at all that he either destroyed them, hid them, or moved them out of Iraq.

We have found at least 2 intact mobile biological weapons labs. There is no other thing these could be for.

The Pittsburgh Tribune's imbedded reporter wrote about a discovered cache of radioactive material at a known nuclear site. Fox News Channel carried that report. Why is FOX the only one to do so? Interesting that when something is found to support the WMD allegations that none of the others will run the story, isn't it?

I also want to know this. Why has so much "fertilizer" and "pesticides" been found at known military installations? Iraq is a deseret. How much of that stuff do they really need? Some of these things were found next to caches of military equipment, including missles.

It also must be remembered that the production process for fertilizers and insecticides is extremely similar to the process for producing chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein had WMD's. We know that. He used chemical weapons on his own people! The reasons for going to war were clear. He violated numerous UN Resolutions. The UN refused to enforce its own resolutions, despite plenty of evidence that Iraq continued its
WMD programs. The Inspectors were kicked out of Iraq almost 5 years ago now. Why?

When the inspectors were present in Iraq, the Iraqi's continuously had minders with them. They bugged the inspectors communications and monitored their every move. The inspectors were never free to inspect the facilities on their own.
After they were kicked out, the Iraqi's built the facility for nuclear material storage discussed by the Pittsburgh Tribune article. If their cause was not to build nuclear weapons, why did they kick the inspectors out?

The Iraqi government never intended to follow the UN Resolutions. They had 12 years to do so.

Another matter, conveniently forgotten by the liberals, Iraq harbored Al-Qaeda leaders during the Afghanistan portion of this War on terrorism. During that conflict it was well reported by all the media outlets, not just FOX, that injured Al-Qaeda members were being given medical treatment in Baghdad. During the war in Iraq, a large terrorist camp in Northern Iraq was overrun by the Kurdish Army.

I could go on and on. However, I get the impression my post will not see the light of day here.

Doug -- How does it feel to have been born yesterday?

Please see www.scarletmacaw.org for other information along these lines....

You have made the allegation the president has lied about WMDs. Now, how can you prove that there are not and were not WMDs in the control of Saddam?

you people are so full of yourselves. Bill Clinton talked about disarming Iraq of it's wmds. America saved many lives by doing what it did. It should have been done sooner. There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Two ways exist for dealing with people that want to kill western civilization Kill them or be killed. I am not advocating mass destruction of these countries or their people. Just effective dealings with their so called leaders. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands for many reasons, none of which hold water. We lost 137 american soldiers and maybe 3000 civilians in Iraq. this is a small price to pay to prevent the wholsale slaughter of hundreds of thousands more Iraqi civilians.

[i]Now, how can you prove that there are not and were not WMDs in the control of Saddam?[/i]

Weren't they under Saddam's control when the US SOLD chemical weapons to him?

I am not advocating mass destruction of these countries or their people.

Not yet. But you guys are off to a pretty good start . . .

Doug, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. You have no idea what your beloved leader has gotten you (and us) into. You know nothing about the issues or the countries you're talking about, and are completely clueless when it comes to the morality of waging aggressive war to for allegedly humanitarian reasons.

Everything you think you "know" about this war appears to have come from Fox News.

You are, in short, a complete waste of some perfectly good human protoplasm. Please go away.

So, if I follow suit of my Government, I guess I can kill my neighbor down the street because I'm pretty sure he has an unregistered firearm, well he did anyway, and he keeps beating his dogs and his wife. She goes to the hospital every other week. So, am I justified?

Why is this site so set on defending Saddam and accusing our President? Curious Georgette, should we have left Saddam in power?

It is hypocritical the way this administration have advertized themselves as liberators. How can the US blockade of humanitarian aid kill 500,000 Iraqi children
(Between 1991 and 1998 there were 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children under the age of five according to the UN)
and kill probably the same number of soldiers, countless civilians and have the arrogance to call itself
"liberators"
"Infanticide masquerading as policy" is what over 70 members of Congress called the blockade. Finally on FOX news etc. they celebrate the "flow of humanitarian aid"? the same humanitarian aid America had been blocking since 1991! Nice.
"Liberation" is an interesting word...didn't we hear it used before- by Germany?

billmon-

i think you're confusing two ideas. being wrong and lying are different. if it is not raining outside, but i hear noise that sounds like rain and i say "ah, it is raining outside," but i later find out that a squirrel was making the rain-like noise, i was wrong.

if i look outside, note that it is not raining, turn around and say "ah, it is raining outside." THAT is a lie.

certainly there is no doubt that bush did not KNOW that there were no WMD in iraq. regardless of the fact that inspectors were repeatedly obstructed, it is impossible to prove that there are NO WMD in iraq. thus, even if it turns out that there are no and have never been any WMD in iraq, bush would have been wrong, but not a liar.

Thank you douglas for sharing knowledge that GWB could not possibly have told a lie. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few years ago you were explaining why a lie about a bj was an impeachable offense.

Some of us think matters of life and death are a bit more important than sexual affairs better consenting adults.

George W. Bush,
We know he lied.
Moron or traitor?
You can decide!

To Marie: Both!

You people test my faith in the intelligence of the American people. Luckily, you are just a disgruntled minority who refuses to admit the truth. If you want to get on the right side of history and feel good about what our country has done for the Iraqi people, please do so now - you still have time to welcome the heroes home from Iraq.
If you believe this war was about oil - why haven't we occupied Kuwait?
If you don't believe that Saddam worked to arm terrorists, why did he send thousands to families of suicide bombers?
If you believe our government is lying, then you have to believe that Iraq and the UN lied first - both of those entities have documented Iraq's possession of WMD.
If you are just a Democrat who would rather see the people of Iraq live under a dictator than to see George Bush liberate them, then you are a twisted human being - and I have more bad news for you weak spined, whiny Democrats - the economic news coming out this week (and weeks to follow) is all good!
This president is a leader who tries to do the right thing - he may make mistakes, but Iraq is not one of them.
You Democrats who think this President has lied to us - do you remember Bill Clinton - he lied to all of us to cheat on his wife and get away with it. He was getting oral sex from a girl his daughter's age on the very day this country's heroes were dying in Somalia - does that make you proud?
This president has not lied to us and you know it. Ask the troops who are returning how they feel about what they did over there - then ask some of the folks who returned from Bosnia and Kosovo or Somalia (Clinton's missions) the same question.

If it's so easy to dispose of WMD's why do we have so much controversy here in this country when they want to bury it under a mountain. I still say store it in the pentagon. Just as safe there. And has anyone ever tried to big a hole in the desert? Trust me even with heavy equipment it was not done in a few hours. How anyone can believe GW's lies is beyond me. To date there has been no proof of WMD's only trailers with possibilites. But once again Resident Bush has said "we found WMD's" so now every Bushie will report it as clear and convincing evidence. Where was the mass exodus of Iraqi's that we conviced neighboring countries to set up camps for? Where was the mass exodus of the Iraqi army that would surrender as soon as we started the "war"? I believe our intelligence was probably accurately reported to Resident (not misspelled) Bush. He chose to report as he saw fit to push his agenda. Are these people hynotized by this man? VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN 2004

Doug did you ever question why only Fox carried the report you mentioned? They are the only station totally under the control the the Bush regime. They don't check their facts. Bush speaks they report. Now you decide. You should question their logo. "Fair, balanced and unafraid" They are merely parrots for Resident Bush.

You people test my faith in the intelligence of the American people.

You don't test my faith, paratrooper, you confirm my lack of faith.

(Boy you guys really can't get past the blow job thing, can you?)

Clarity wrote "Maybe I am way off base here but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. If they do not find any WMD within the next 6 months to a year then your allegations are correct but to state them as a lies/fact before proven or unproven actually makes you the liar."

Clarity, you sound like a very nice person, also, a very naive person. Did you watch Colin Powell's address to the UN? Do you understand that supposedly our intelligence agencies knew the locations of many of these weapons sites? Do you know that most of the major sites have been searched, yielding nothing but a couple of porta-potties? Do you know that a new team was sent to Iraq last week to pick up where the first team left off? Do you know that the Chief UN Weapons inspector, Hans Blix believes we will not find any major weapon caches? Do you know that we lost nearly 200 Americans and relief organizations are estimating nearly 10,000 Iraqi's over a swag (stupid wild ass guess)by our pResident?

Sorry, but expecting reasonable people to believe that Saddam hid the weapons at the 11th hours is preposterous. You do not hide Tons and tons of mustard gas, sarin and VX at a moments notice. And surely if Colin Powell's intelligence sources had the wherewithall to ease drop on 2 Iraqi Generals scheming to hide weapons they would have noticed massive quantities of weapons being buried, burned or relocated. As for the possibility of hiding Nuclear weapons, according to all knowledgeable people that is impossible. there are devices capable of detecting evidence of nuclear materials from considerable distances. There is no way they could hide Nuclear, or as our pResident calls it, nucular.

Use your brain, WE WERE LIED TO!!!!!!!

regardless of this wars outcome we are still the GREAT SATAN and G-Dubya is LUCIFER. The Middle East will never see us as liberators of the Iraqi people,not in a million years will that ever happen. This war with Saddam was a personal vendetta waged by the most dangerous group of thugs on planet earth. Most of dubya's cabinet members at least the one's with the power are former employees of the big Bushey only they have all be re-arranged to different positions. Why would a man who made 36 million dollars before becoming Vice Prez want to be Vice Prez for a mere $200,000 bucks a year. Perhaps he owes a few favors to Halliburton. So to all of you who support BLOODY GEORGE BUSH, "BIG DICK" CHENEY AND SWOLLEN COLIN POWELL, well you're all a bunch of f_ _ _ _ _g lemmings. Have a nice ride!

regardless of this wars outcome we are still the GREAT SATAN and G-Dubya is LUCIFER. The Middle East will never see us as liberators of the Iraqi people,not in a million years will that ever happen. This war with Saddam was a personal vendetta waged by the most dangerous group of thugs on planet earth. Most of dubya's cabinet members at least the one's with the power are former employees of the big Bushey only they have all be re-arranged to different positions. Why would a man who made 36 million dollars before becoming Vice Prez want to be Vice Prez for a mere $200,000 bucks a year. Perhaps he owes a few favors to Halliburton. So to all of you who support BLOODY GEORGE BUSH, "BIG DICK" CHENEY AND SWOLLEN COLIN POWELL, well you're all a bunch of f_ _ _ _ _g lemmings. Have a nice ride!

Wow it looks like some Republicans found the website. Congratulations Billmon.

Did everyone see the Philly Inquirer column by Mark Bowden (author of "Black Hawk Down")? Check it out.

Remember the question isn't now whether it was good (or bad) to invade. What these quotes illustrate is that we (Americans and the rest of the world) were lied to. There are no stockpiles of chemical weapons. There is no nuclear program.

Or as Bowden himself says:
"When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country."

Is that you want from your President? Please vote accordingly.

"The loud handful-as usual-will shout for the war.The pulpit will- warily and cautiously -object...at first.The great big bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war,and will say,earnestly and indignanly:"It is unjust, dishonourable and there is no necessity for it."

Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them and presently the antiwar audiences will thin and loose popularity.

Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men..

Next statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of these conscience soothing falsities and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them, and thus he will by and by convince himself, that the war was just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys aftyer this process of grotesque self deception."

Mark Twain,"The Mysterious Stranger", 1910.

Well obviously from the last comment made this person has no idea about much at all, i think he maybe one of the hippy protestors who dont work and smoke dope all day long looking for a reason or someone to blame for his own mistakes. But i will laugh when terroism and saddam hit people like this in their own backyard and we will see how different an opinion he will have. I think a nit would have more common sense, than people as a society, because we are so two faced it is not funny. We always forget that these muslim and arabic communities are animals they thrive on causing pain to others and when it is inflicted on them they are poor innocent victims, my opinion is george bush should have bombed the entire country away, because they would do the same. People like Saddam dont care about anyone at all a perfect, product for Saddams views is his son he rapes women and tortures people. And george bush is the animal i dont see him giving people shock treatment and raping women. I cannot believe that Saddam hasnt got weapons of mass distruction, what a load of crap of course he does, he has used biological weapons on his own people. All i can say is Mate if you dont like bush dont vote for him fair enough, if you have an opinion speak your mind which is all good, but if you love Saddam and his people so much go and live with them and then you might learn the value of freedom which is taken for granted evryday, and that men who have fought in wars to give you that freedom think of them.

Its about time someone sorted these lying backstabbing bunch of hypocrites out.
The whole world knows the truth both about 911 and the iraq invasion, but because the news in the USA is owned by the politicians, the US public believes the spoon fed lies. But one day the truth will out, hopefully not before it is too late to save this arrogant species.

Sorry, to break the news to you, but they have been lying to us. If the reason to go to war was to liberate Iraq then they should have said so. To assume that because I conclude this implies that I a Democrat and believe it was only about oil and is an insult to my intelligence and my political beliefs.

I would suggest asking the soldiers that were and are on the ground in Iraq (not the sailors who never left a ship) how they feel and I'm certain you will be be surprised at their answers.

I take it that Matt has never heard of, much less read, the great American authour Mark Twain. He is ,of course, quite dead at this point of time, but I don't think he was ever called a'hippy protester, who smokes dope, lies about all day and is looking for someone else to blame for his own mistakes". That's quite a novel interpretation of Mark Twain's character and lifework.Interesting.

Very Nice, indeed.
Thank You!

paratrooper
i couldnt agree more with you--atleast about my faith in the american intelligence, considering that fact that a large portion of our citizens still dont understand that hussein had nothing to do with al quaeda or 9/11. As for welcoming our heroes home....i couldnt agree more, my brother just returned from there and i am in total support of the troops. You seem to be confusing our aggravation for those who called for the war with those who actually have to go fight it. Do i think this war is about oil? i cant think of another reason. WMD's dont just disappear, especially in those quantities, liberate the people of Iraq? There have been people mistreated all over the world since the beginning of time. Its horrible, but its gonna happen. If you honestly believe thats why we went there, explain to me why we arent helping those in North Korea or those suffering from civil wars in Africa. There are millions of people throughout the world suffering. Why did we just help those in iraq? Did they win an international liberation lottery or something? Ask yourself why were they chosen? Are they harboring terrorists? Im sure they were, they and every other country in the middle east, as well as other locations throughout the world. The one difference between iraq and the other countries that are poor and harbor terrorist is they had something we wanted. OIL! But the problem was the sanctions limited how much oil they could export. We didnt want to lift the sanctions and allow hussein to rebuild his military, so the only alternative is to put a new regime in charge and once again be able to export as much as possible. And since we were the ones to fight this war, its only fair we should prevail in the setting up iraqs new government, which then allows our government to decide which contractors get the contracts to rebuild Iraq. And oh what a coincidence, our president happens to know and have some people that are more than happy to step in and take that role. In fact they didnt even have to give a competitive bid , because it was awarded before anyone knew. Ill give credit where its due--wonderful plan, worked out perfectly.
And if WMD's are our primary concern, N. Korea is a much bigger threat, not just because they have nuclear capabilities, but mainly because their economy is in the toilet and their people are suffering from a holocaust. The only economic salvation that country has is its nuclear capability that could very easily go to the highest bidder (anyone of the terrorist groups out there). I dont believe N. Korea would be ballsy enough to wage war on the US, neither did i believe Iraq would be that ignorant, but we already know that terrorist groups would if they have the means.
And economic good news? you must either be in the richest 2% or getting the news from fox
As for clinton getting a blow when troops were dieing? Bush goes on vacation 3 days after the war started to spend quality time with his family. Now im sure he had all the capablities there he had at the white house, i just cant believe after starting this conflict the man would have any free time to spend with his family. you would think he would have work to do after declaring war wouldnt you?
Forget about the parties and look at it objectively, it doesnt make sense
and yes clinton lied--about sex! not about anything that is gonna affect my life or yours

to doug and his friends - where do u think most of the terrorists are? if u read the papers or watch FOX, u might have noticed a certain place on the globe where they are all being captured or "turned-in". its only a small mention of the place which is normally masked by many quotes of al-qaeda, terror, osama, and other big words. pssst, its not in the middle-east : its an ally. :))

Here's a point that has, I think, gone unmentioned on the thread so far. No coalition forces were detailed to secure the suspected WMD sites - in striking contrast with the oil wells and oil ministry - with the result that some of those sites were looted before being secured. I think that is strong, though not conclusive, evidence that Bush & co. did not believe their own propaganda.

Or as Bowden himself says:
"When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country."

I guess Morpheus finally unplugged Bowden from the Matrix . . .

Billmon or anyone else that can help:

Shortly after 9/11 a man in the US sent an email to saddam hussein, and he replied and it was authenticated by the iraqi government ( atleast enough to be printed in my local paper) do you have any idea where i could go to find that reply now? Not that he is an honest man, but i would like to take another look thanks

why do most of the people posting comments have to revert to name calling and hatred. If facts cannot be discussed without someone being called a f===ing lemming or an idiot there is something terribly wrong. America, England, and the rest of the coalition did the right thing. Saddam admitted in 1998 that he had wmd's why did Bill Clinton bomb iraq with the excuse that they had weapons of mass destruction????

Matt, I have just two words in response to:
" But i will laugh when terroism and saddam hit people like this in their own backyard and we will see how different an opinion he will have."

Nine, Eleven

Any terrorist attacks that "hit people like this in their own backyard" also hit you in your backyard if you happen to be in the same country or members of the same nation.

President Hussan (I give all people credit for any title they hold) has yet to be proven to be involved, but yet a large portion of americans think he was. Why? Our nations leader said he was, so alot of folks believed him.

The same man claimed to have proof as well as location information of the ever popular WMD. Again, this is our leader we want to believe in him, so alot of folks believed.

We went into a war that the rest of the world was against and our own nation was divided on, based on the trust of our leader. The entire time our leaders not only changed their stances, but directly and purposfully misquoted sources of information to better further their goals.

As I said before, many of us would be willing to do the same if we felt it necessary to achieve our own goals. So why do so many have such a problem believing the men and women who run our country are not so different?

My biggest problem with the whole situation is not that I was lied to by my leaders, but that it was done so poorly. Personally I assume every political speaker is lying through their teeth when they address any collection of people.

Honestly now, how many reading this thread have never lied, cheated or stole? Remember we're being honest and yes company pens/paper/stamps do count.

Now all that being said, this topic has mostly been very mature and surprisingly calm, so please let's keep it that way.

(The following is posted with apologies to Billmon, not trying to moderate your board just expressing my personal feelings. Please feel free to edit or delete as you deem.)

"i think he maybe one of the hippy protestors who dont work and smoke dope all day long looking for a reason or someone to blame for his own mistakes." They very may well be just as you discribed them, however personal attacks on a person because they choose to quote a statement that threatens your views on our government just undermines your words and thoughts.

"that men who have fought in wars to give you that freedom think of them."

More then think of them, talk to them. Most of the people I served with in the first Desert Shield/Storm, as well as veterans of other foreign wars. Have this silly idea about war being the last option when all other options have been tried. Before anyone says, " But we already tried everything we could". Remember several other countries were willing to back our invasion if we were willing to try the options they presented to us and the UN Security council. I'd love to post links to those submission's, however I'm that damned lazy. Do your own research and see what you can turn up if you really are intrested.

And again I ask... where do we go from here and what do we do now?

hes sooooo cute.

Yes...Yes I am.. thanks for noticing ^_^

hehehe. i actually meant the guy before u (dave) with his naivete. but ...
ok no more, i think i might get blocked for silliness on such a topic.

Funny, as a hard-working, non-drinking, non-smoking, well read, mother of five and grandmother of many, I assumed that Matt's attack was on Mark Twain, not on me. I have long hair though.Yep, that should mark me as a good-for-nothing dissenter.

killjoy, dont know where we go from here, but do know that even if bush isnt re elected its gonna take a while for someone else to clean up the mess!

All you left-a-holics can't use any common sense. What do you call all the mobile labs we found in Iraq. They sure were not used to make penicillin. At least bush is doing something about terrorism, Clinton was getting laid while Sudan was offering us Bin Laden. Just thank God Republicans are in control because if democrats were in charge, we would still be bribing terrorists trying to see why they hate us, and then giving them a night in the Lincoln bedroom for 100 grand.

"The world is not the way they tell you it is" ADAM SMITH

"The world is not the way they tell you it is" ADAM SMITH

Bushfanatic (or should I say "Dittohead"?)

What to call those mobile labs? Really clean trucks that could hardly produce 500 tons of fumes.

We're all at a party being hosted by Bush. The host lies about the reasons he's doing things, takes all the money and gives it to his already rich friends. Granted democrats at this party are too busy making excuses for the host's actions, but with such clear cut lies the neighbors (Britain and the rest of world) are starting to complain. He's running up our countries credit card bill and who do you think will pay for it?

We don't live in a land where you have to agree with the leader to be considered a patriot (yet).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF04Ak02.html

Matthew Meselson, a Harvard University expert on biological weapons who 20 years ago single-handedly debunked reports by senior Ronald Reagan administration officials - several of whom hold relevant positions in the Bush government - about the use by Soviet allies of mycotoxins against rebels in Laos and Afghanistan, has also expressed doubts about the trailers' purpose, and called for the CIA to hand over the evidence to independent scientists to make an assessment.

Quoting Matt:

"We always forget that these muslim and arabic communities are animals they thrive on causing pain to others and when it is inflicted on them they are poor innocent victims, my opinion is george bush should have bombed the entire country away, because they would do the same. People like Saddam dont care about anyone at all a perfect, product for Saddams views is his son he rapes women and tortures people. And george bush is the animal i dont see him giving people shock treatment and raping women."

Hey Matt,

Thanks for tipping your hand straight out. I think you and Saddam and his sons would all be good friends if you had a chance to meet. No? Well how about admitting that you don't give two shits about anyone's pain. You sound so indignant about Saddam but in the same breath you condemn the entire Muslim world to death for being animals. Sounds like truthfully you would have gotten off on seeing some of that rape and torture...because after all, the people that were being raped and tortured were just disgusting Arab "animals" I think you said, who should be "bombed away". So what if Saddam killed his own people, he was just doing you and your kind a favor by getting rid of some of those "animals", saving you from having to bomb them. He just beat you to inflicting some of that pain yourself.

You Pious Hypocritical Demon...how dare you pretend to have one ounce of compassion for people you call animals. You are the animal, you are the evil, you and every other human being that condemns groups to extinction with a smug, arrogance worthy of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and the rest. You don't see Bush giving people shock treatment...no, how about just Shock and Awe? You don't see him raping women, I bet you'd like to.., Come on...face yourself you sick twist.

Bushfanatic. you say "if democrats were in charge, we would still be bribing terrorists".

What do you think we are doing with the Saudis. Why do you think Osama bin forgotten bombed the WTC for? He wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, well looks like he got what he wanted. Who said the Republicans dont do the terrorist bidding? You also said "At least bush is doing something about terrorism". Where is Osama bin forgotten. I suppose you have forgotten the fact that Iraq/Saddam NEVER attacked the US and the fact that the CIA told bush that he would be a greater threat after we invaded than before. And the fact the CIA told bush that the US would be at greater risk from the likes of BIN LADEN after we invaded than before. Bush is so concerned about the security of the US that he canceled the program to put 100,000 more police on the streets every year. He wants to look like a military hero in spite of the fact that he joined the guard to avoid vietnam and then went AWOL from the guard. And lets see how many other bush hawks served our country in uniform:

GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")

Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve; sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve

B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Weekly article).

Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments

House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve

House Majority Whip Roy Blount - did not serve

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve

Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve

Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve

This site hasn't found out about what sort of weapons, chemicals, and bio-research apparatus they've found in Iraq (and they've found things--search Google for Botulinum Toxin just for example). For all its obsession with staying current, this site hasn't even made an attempt at gathering such information.

This is understandable because if it admitted Iraq had the weapons, it would no longer be able to to say that Bush was lying, and the site would be worse than meaningless... it'd be plain wrong! So of course Bush-haters are going to maintain, even in the face of the obvious, that Saddam was unnarmed.

After 30 days, ¨AWOL¨ is reclassified as ¨desertion.¨
Bush was ¨AWOL¨ from the Air National Guard for 18 months.

And, for what it´s worth...

¨Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.¨
-- American Heritage Dictionary

Looks like loa_tristan is part of the 40-odd percent of Americans who think WMD have been found or are unsure about it. I say to these people: "stop watching FoxNews!"

I have traveled regularly to Europe in the last year or so for business and I have found an interesting perception among most Europeans that I have talked to - They think "W" is the biggest idiot and most inept leader they have seen. They can't understand how, we, the American people could have ever elected such a person. They, for the most part, can't stand Bush and see him as the real enemy. He is very dangerous to the world. Interesting perecptions from people somewhat removed from American politics.

they've found things--search Google for Botulinum Toxin just for example).

I had a few minutes to spare, so I took loa_tristan up on his/her offer. And here's what I found:

Botulinum Toxin:
A Poison That Can Heal
by Luba Vangelova

Botulinum toxin can heal as well as harm. The bacterial toxin that can paralyze and kill if consumed in contaminated food is now safely used, in a purified form, as a medicine to control certain conditions marked by involuntary muscle contractions.

The condition in which C. botulinum spores germinate and toxin is produced . . . can easily develop in improperly stored home-cooked or commercial foods, as well as in canned foods that have not been prepared with proper canning procedures.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_bot.html

I also found this:

One CIA official said yesterday that recent intelligence indicates that Baghdad had made and weaponized biological agents in the past six months, although he acknowledged, "We don't have the physical evidence, a bucket of botulinum toxin."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woweap293305569may29,0,1370613.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

And this:

U.S. Supplied Germs to Iraq in '80s

WASHINGTON (AP) — Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/ussuppliedgerms.html

You really should try Googling yourself, loa_tristan. It can be very educational.

Very interesting how everything you have called a lie here is an absolute truth. Now we can see how you people defended a president who did, in fact lie, even under oath. The truth is a lie, and a lie is the truth. Can't you see what this does to your credibility? I will be back for more laughs after the election.

Very interesting how everything you have called a lie here is an absolute truth.

So this is an "absolute" truth?

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

Glad we cleared that up.

REGARDING WMD, SINCE WE HAVE NOT FOUND THEM THE DID NOT EXIST. ERGO SINCE WE HAVE NOT FOUND HUSSEIN, HE NEVER EXISTED.

This site does big credit to America. Do not believe when they are telling you, that all the world is against USA. It is just difficult to believe that person unable to connect two meaningful sentences, without grammatical errors, is President of USA.

Lol.. love the last two posts...

So along those same lines of basic thought.. I think therefore I am.. could we claim President Bush DOESN'T think, therefore he isn't? ^_^

Further to "david tomlin" [way back] (and others)
Why have decontamination equipment on a trailer with *canvas* sides? One gust of desert breeze and any nasty microbes that might require decontamination would be distributed all over the leeward side of the parking bay.
Or maybe nobody with the intelligence to operate a fermentation vessel would brew anything nasty in such unsafe conditions?

Re "loa_tristan"
Please don't stop searching Google when you find a "preliminary report" of WMD discovery. To date, every one of the "discovered" sites has been cleared by the subsequent in-depth evaluation - the hard part is that the final negative result is never broadcast far and wide like the original "possible" guesswork report.

Re "Army Paratrooper"

> If you believe this war was about oil - why haven't we occupied Kuwait?
Care to count how many US troops are there at the moment?

>If you don't believe that Saddam worked to arm terrorists, why did he send
>thousands to families of suicide bombers?
As opposed to the billions of dollars sent to the killers of unarmed United Nations workers, peace activists and mere foreign civilians?

>If you believe our government is lying, then you have to believe that Iraq and the UN lied first
Well Iraq has certainly lied in the past. Given the veto ability of certain nations, I suspect the UN will have issued a few little porkies over the years too. What was that saying about "two wrongs don't make a right"?

>If you are just a Democrat ...
Nope [never voted Democrat in my life]

> ... who would rather see the people of Iraq live ...
Yep [definitely would rather see the people of Iraq live]

> ... under a dictator than ...
Maybe [beats being shagged by smart munitions fired by a dumb jar-head]

> ... to see George Bush liberate them, ...
Woo ha ha! Old AWOL himself? The great National Guard drunk? Sure!

Now if any of the "hard-line" rhetoric merchants actually had their own children out there on the firing line, they *might* be in a position to advise other parents to support the war. No takers? Thought not.

> ... then you are a twisted human being
When viewed through a distorted lens, all true things appear twisted.

> ... the economic news coming out this week (and weeks to follow) is all good!
Sure is - you will be able to get more miles per gallon from every flying pig!
Trust your government - it's unpatriotic not to!

Hey, you can find more backpedaling if you want to add to your list at Slate's "Whopper of the Week". I know you're basically just taking something from another web site, but you can list the same sources. The reference in particular to which I refer is where Dick Cheney said sometime in Feb or March something like "We believe he has already reconstituted nuclear weapons." Then recently, Rumsfeld said something like "I don't know of anyone who suggested that Iraq had nuclear capabilities."

TBox-

Given the scientific literacy of the average politician/journo/commentator, it is entirely possible that "hydrogen" was inadvertently ( or advertently) substituted for "hydrazine". If so, not sure what the sodium azide was doing there, but it might have been a byproduct. Hydrazine is a useful rocket fuel, if a little outdated, and I think some old Russian surface-surface missiles use it with a liquid oxidant like nitric acid.Not very stable in storage, and making it more or less as needed, rather than trying to transport it through shellfire, makes a lot of sense. Made from ammonia and (essentially) household bleach. I believe this last item, sodium hypochlorite, was also found on one of the trucks.

TBox
For "hydrogen" read "hydrazine" Concievable if you are a scientifically-unaware politician/spin doctor/journalist. Hydrazine is a useful rocket fuel, and the ability to make it within reach of a deployed surface-surface missile reduces the possibility of its being destroyed in transit or storage. If it was being manufactured, not sure what sodium azide was doing there: maybe a byproduct or catalyst. Intriguing.

Whoever is posting as "darwin26" is most assuredly not me. Hopefully people can discern the difference.

And re: Israel's violation of "UN Resolutions," this article frankly exposes your ignorance of the way the UN works.

Short form :

There are two different kinds of resolutions in question here. The kind concerning Iraq are Security Council resolutions and are both binding and both very serious and correspondingly rare. The kind concerning Israel (which you quote at length above) are General Assembly resolutions. This are non-binding and have no mandate or authority whatsoever. If you go view the voting history of these resolutions, you will see a gigantic bloc of communist and arab countries voting for them. Hrrrm, I bet it's because they honestly judge Israel to be in violation of "international law" ... *cough*

Here's a cite from the Economist :
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

and because I know people are quick to attack a cite because of bias (unless of course the bias is far-left ;>), here's a link from the UK Guardian with approximately the same content :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,846814,00.html

=darwin

Dear Paratrooper, you need to review the Pentagon Papers. i would not want to be your child. Your solutions are teeming with selfloathing. If it wasn't for the hippies i might still be dragging my ass through the rice paddies of Viet Nam.
To Matt and the other Xian Reichists... Are the Vietnamese animals? Is such identifying a group of people any different than Hitler's assertions...? Poland here we come.
Those of you who believe that Resident(i like that)(but not 4 long) George Bush is the Messiah you will soon find out his PNAC house of cards crumbling beneath the weight of their own emptyness.
Tbox thanks for being open minded ... i do hope they find the WMD's and that WM Construction will illeviate this horrible mess. Bedung back with Regan...But who will plant the 'dozed olive trees for the Palestinians..Halliburton? or reGreen the Agents of Orange...?
i, as a flammming liberal hope that the progress made by GW between Palestine and Israel begins a new era of peace and possibilties of properity for all concerned. That all the people involved will embrace each other and recognize their common ground as SURVIVORS and put down the grudges and demands. That we will stop supplying the world with land mines has about the same chances. But still i hope.
i hope i can sell my art work to the middle class from all their new found disposable income.
Mr. Twain has to be reread.
Thank you Mr Billmon.
Darwin26, WIA Mar'68 3/47th 9th Inf Div Mobile Riverine Force Mekong Delta, draftee.

A new quote to attach to the end, from todays Guardian

Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

To all the Bush Supporters reading/posting:

Before you post your rant, I'd suggest actually reading the legitimate, actual quotes made by your administration. Realize these are actual quotes that truly speak for themselves. Then realize that the "lefty" posters are posting OPINIONS (well, as well as additional actual factual quotes). That is all, that's it. You may not agree with opinions, but you cannot deny those words coming from your leaders' mouths.

One thing that bothered me also about the war.... The accuracy of some of the bombings. The briefing would show a bunch of non-descript building and it would be called a specific type of depot and the after picture would be it perfectly obliterated. I mean, how did they know exactly what it was? Until one target had a name I recognized! It was listed as one of the "inspected" sites. These "weapons" inspectors from the US could care less about finding WOMD's, they were busy marking targets for the upcoming war. They were, as Saddam suspected, spies! Now this is only an unprovable hunch, but pretty uncanny.

The administration has moved on to the past tense regarding WMDs- Powell most recently said "there were weapons of mass destruction"- I guess they are skipping the proof stage.

Hi Darwin,

First, I want to acknowlege your point about UN General Assembly resolutions vs Security Council resolutions. This distinction seems to confuse a lot of people. General Assembly resolutions, although they carry no consequence, do represent a strong message from the UN. Were the US really concerned with the UN's reputation, we'd exert at least a little pressure on countries to heed the General Assembly resolutions. Note, as well, that there will never be a Security Council resolution against Israel unless there is a major shift in U.S. policy, since we would simply veto it.

You earlier questioned whether this could be called an illegal war. At that time you refer to 'my opinion re: the legality of GWII under "international law" (which is really something a bit more like "international treaty" imo)'. In another post, you say 'the fundamentally incorrect assumption here is that the war being "illegal" has any real world meaning'. As members of the U.N., we are indeed bound by an international treaty which controls when and if we are permitted to go to war with another U.N. member. Under the U.S. Constitution, a ratified treaty is the supreme law of the land, superceding national and state legslation. So, in this case, the meaning of "illegal" is: violating one of the highest of U.S. laws. This does not settle, of course, the question of whether this war WAS illegal, mearly that it is a legitimate and meaningful questions. I refer you to the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Constitution, if you want a citation.

Ed

You may not agree with opinions, but you cannot deny those words coming from your leaders' mouths.

Oh yeah? Just watch us!

Great site...I am from Paris and want to comment on Euro attitude to the Americans...

Simple - we LIKE American people. We HATE American politicians. Ours are bad (Chirac = PRICK), but something happened to America -- this guy is starting a Fascist state bit by bit.

Politics here is getting bad, but your political system is being made to look a joke to the rest of the free world.

Read this: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

It is VERY scary.

Darwin-

The articles you cite don't support your claim. They say there are Security Council resolutions concerning Israel, but they are of a non-binding variety. I do appreciate this information. I didn't know there were non-binding Security Council resolutions.

Oh woe is us! All we need to put things right in the world is to get the horrible Republicans out of office and put the perfect Democrats back in. Democrats would never get militarily involved in other countries business.

Let's see....
Woodrow Wilson-(D)-World War I

F.D.R.-(D)- Allowed the entire Japanese Fleet to make it all the way to Pearl Harbor in order to get public support for the war against them.

Harry S. Truman-(D)- The only man on the planet to order the use of atomic weapons against TWO civilian cities, NOT military bases.

Harry S. Truman-(D)- 1st to send troops to Korea (and they attacked us how?)

J.F.K.-(D)- initiated the first massive build up of troops in Vietnam, from 2000 to 15,000.(and they attacked us how?)

L.B.J.-(D)- continued what his predecessor started.

American Battle Deaths in WWI 116,516
American Battle Deaths in WWII 405,309
American Battle Deaths in Korea 36,914
American Battle Deaths in Vietnam 58,167

Yeah, the Democrats are real peace lovers.

Wake up you bunch of ostriches, the globalists will be triumphant no matter who is in office. We get a choice to vote between a pile of Donkey Crap, and a pile of Elephant Crap, then complain that they both stink. Bush is bad, Clinton was bad, they're all bad! According to Article II Section 4 of our Constitution, we should impeach every member of Congress and the President. Then we can outlaw lobbyists, close the borders for about 10 years, bring ALL of our military back and get this country back in shape. Short of that we might as well suck it up and go watch the playoffs, because neither party currently in Washington gives a damn about the American worker or anything else except for their own checking accounts.

Peace and Love People
Ezekiel

Today I'm lazy and my brain is on overload. Someone please advise me of what other countries have committed atocities against their citizens that we could go to war with. Some one must know who they are, and I'm sure they don't have oil.

Ezekiel,

Your comments this time were pretty damn good. You make sense in many ways. But why is it that evil or whatever you may call it, is so incredibly clever that it can weave its way into every possibly human belief system? You start thinking that someone gets it because they realize that a transformation of the system is what's needed BUT oops..wait a minute...what's that comment about "close the border for about 10 years...?" hmmm...check it out more and...yup, there's Ezekial saying stuff in another post like, "They (read European Royalty, Jewish Bankers, Masters of Industry, Freemasons, Bilderbergs, and the like) control ALL the money and ALL the guns.

Shit! Another budding hate-filled anti-semitic, immigrant bashing guy who probably thinks that "getting this country into shape" means cleaning it up from all those nasty , not quite human people who are controlling all the money etc. Have you met Mattt? He thinks that Arabs are "animals" . Maybe you two could get together and form a nice big political party for yourselves based on dehumanizing people and cleansing the world from undesireable elements. You have plenty of history to draw from.

You are much more disappointing than most of the hate mongers on this site because you do have insight into some of the problem but as long as folks like you base your solutions on hate...we're all screwed.

Peace And Love,

Takeaction!

"How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and to live by integrity and not by deceit everyone knows; nevertheless, one sees from experience of our times that the princes who have accomplished great deeds are those who have cared little for keeping their promises and who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness; and in the end they have surpassed those who laid their foundations upon loyalty. . . . Alexander VI did nothing else, he thought about nothing else, except to deceive men, and he always found the occasion to do this. And there was never a man who had more forcefulness in his oaths, who affirmed a thing with more promises, and who honoured his word less; nevertheless, his tricks always succeeded perfectly since he was well acquainted with this aspect of the world. . . . Everyone sees what you seem to be, few touch upon what you are . . . Let a prince therefore act to conquer and to maintain the state; his methods will always be judged honourable and will be praised by all; for ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by the outcome of a thing . . ." (Machiavelli, _The Prince_, ch. 18)

It is glaringly obvious that the neocons in charge of what used to be our democracy conned us into an illegal war. It is time the American public woke from its Bushiosi induced coma and became enraged at what has been done to us and is still being done to us. We can only pray it is not too late. Neocon is a four letter word.

Why should we be surprized by this? arn't these the same biscuit eating facist that stole an election
and helped protcted there CEO buddies rip off
the middle class,what surprizes me are the Democrates, treating them as if they had some integrity
in the first place.

Off the subject of the war, manipulation and lies. Did Martha get it because she's a registered democrat?

Hey!! while you people are banging on about the Iraqi Invasion I am looking for the weapons of mass destruction. I have to tell you that are not in my shed.

Well accually Sun...Martha appears to be democrat...but in truth she is a member of the Nazi party...oops...did i say that outloud?

Wow! This is massive. The real WMD is the bush administration and the USA is headed for destruction unless it changes it ways and American public wakes up and acts! Fools follow fools along a foolish path of destruction and that is the real WMD we face!

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-chemwar4jun04,0,4932034.story

By Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writer

After three decades as one of Saddam Hussein's chief chemical warriors, Iraqi Brig. Gen. Alaa Saeed picks nervously at the kebabs on his plate as he talks about the deadly nerve gases and blister agents he once produced.

Saeed, perhaps the most senior weapons scientist to speak to a reporter since the war, says he would gladly accept a $200,000 reward U.S. officials here have quietly offered to anyone who can lead them to the poison gases, germ weapons and other illegal weapons that President Bush repeatedly insisted were secretly deployed in prewar Iraq.

But Saeed said he cannot take them to what he insists no longer exists.

Saeed insists that the combined blitz of allied bombing and intense U.N. inspections in the 1990s effectively destroyed Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs. U.N. sanctions, he said, stopped Baghdad from importing the raw materials, equipment and spare parts needed to secretly reconstitute the illegal programs, even after U.N. inspectors left the country in 1998.

...as the smaller countries of the world look on in horror of being the next ones to get "liberated"

Gotta love that sweet little move by N.Korea though. You remember now much talk of "liberating" them there was just before and during the early stages of the Iraq campaign? I have to say I was impressed how quickly they managed to come up with and test that nuke of theirs. (They could've secretly bought it from Russia or China of course, which probably was the case but that makes the bluf even more brilliant.)
And them after a brief outrage by the Bush administration all publicity advertising war in N.Korea stopped and now it's treated as though it never happened. Maybe if Iraq did something like that it wouldn't get invaded. Who knows...

Which leads me to my next point: Whether there are or there aren't any WMD's in Iraq we don't know BUT either way the war didn't make the world a safer place. I admitt we had a power-happy megalomaniac but the important work he did for the western civilisation is keeping the religious fundamentalism and militant movements alike down. Very efficiently too. What we have now is a state with noone in charge a devastated infrastructure (the US invasion force excells in that) and all of it's immediate neighbours exporting just the kind of religion nobody else in the world wants. (NB I am talking about the crazy wacko militants rather than the Islamic religion as a whole)

In a situation like this we are admittedly much safer if there are no chemical or biological weapons left over.

I am not defending lies by anyone but would one of you tell me of a politician who, in your mind, does not lie? It does not have to be a president.

"we had an evil umpire when I owned the rangers, me and the others owners declared him an "enemy combatant" and now the ball club is safe from his rulings of mass destruction. Now, we've gotta take Saddam out of the picture, cause by doing that, y'all will get the impression that we're making real progress in the war on terrorism, and I think it would make a cool present for daddy on father's day. And even if Saddam doesn't have them weapons of mass destruction, he could try to get em, and if he tried, he could get em, and if he got em, he could use em. And if he didn't use em, he could sell em to Bin Laden. And if bin laden is dead, then one of his zealot followers would use em, or some philippinos or somebody. It could get ugly. We made the mistake once of misunderestimating Saddam, and we shouldn't make the mistake of misunderestimating saddam again. And on top of all that, he still tried to kill my daddy, and he might come after me next. Damn, saddam is acting like a jilted lover or something. Why, he acting like somebody I groped and porked while on a binge or something. Besides, all that has been completly vetted and nothing improper was ever found. 'sides, while we're doing all this talkin' about saddam and WMD and WTC and OMB and STD's and SBD's, FTC, SEC and distractin ya'll with that stuff, we can get a stanglehold on all that south american oil without even a blip on the radar, and we can have that cat in the bag b'fore you even realize it. Did I already say that he tried to kill my daddy? I thought I did. That bitch.

"I am not defending lies by anyone but would one of you tell me of a politician who, in your mind, does not lie?"

That's just the point I make, when warhawks cite politicians' statements as evidence.

I almost forgot - there's been a scientific breakthrough related to our topic.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2770228&

Chemical Ali Returns From The Dead!!!

OK, not quite. I just heard on MSNBC that he has been moved from "confirmed dead" to some other category, like "we haven't the foggiest."

One more thing our government "knew" that may not be true.

they do not find WMD ??

no problem - somebody will PLANT them in due time

Print this out and mail it to every eno-conservative Republican! Sugar coat it so that they can eat it!!I can't believe that Americans give this man such a high approval rating. Must be, they can't read English, or understand it!.God help us!

BOB
They all lie, its the magnitude of this administrations lies that are the problem. I dont give a frogs fat ass if the president lies about his sex life, none of my business anyway. I just care that the leader of our country has lied to better himself and his buddies putting not only our military in harms way, but our interests and safety abroad and at home. Now we can look forward to a whole new generation of america haters from which terrorists can recruit from.
also, you guys that know alot more about this than me, correct me if im wrong. My understanding (i was too young at the time) is that Reagan won the Cold War by driving Moscow into Bankruptcy by exploiting the arms race. I read an article today, after the latest tax cut, that by the year 2008 our government spending will be 4 times that of the country's revenue. If in fact both of these statements are true, does that mean that the end of the u.s. as we know it is near? Does anyone know what kind of deficit the USSR suffered from and if im way off on any of this please correct me, i learn more from some of you guys then i ever could watching the news

Please tell me we're all going to vote next year. I really don't want another 4 years of this bullshit. We need to show this administration and the media that they're polls are bullshit and there *are* people in America who do actually care to know the truth and are not too lazy to find it.

As has been said, the WMD's are now not the question, the "coalition" forces have what they wanted and FULL control of the beleagured Iraqi people, it will be ooooh so easy to plant ANY evidence to save the skin of the democratic killers. However, one thing bothers me, with the "Right" picking up on ANYTHING to justify their murder, does anyone have any information on the last Gulf war that may stop the coalition troops digging up the mass graves that they themselves dug during Gulf war one? I seem to recall stories of mass burial plots for the murdered Iraqui soldiers, some miles long. Could they simply be digging up their own "handiwork" to retain public opinion?

Sasnet. Not only am I going to vote I'm going to volunteer time with the Democratic Party to do my part to get this man defeated. I can stuff envelopes. Anything to help in getting rid of Resident Bush. And for the life of me I just don't understand why his supporters don't see what we see. They don't care that he's lied. He did it for a good cause. I've heard so many excuses that people make for him I want to vomit. Oh yes, I've checked the WMD's are not mixed in with my dust bunnies.

Yes, we now have the evidence that Bush and his cronies have lied through there teeth about WMD. Will he ever pay for his lies? HELL NO!!!! The sheeple in this country are not in any mood to question the presidents word on anything. It is a pretty sad commentary when the American people don't rise up and question our elected, (or in this case selected), leaders. The Brits are doing it with Tony the poodle Blair, it's about time we started doing it over here. These people must be held accountable for their lies.

You are all welcome to discuss this WMD no show on the following Forum with FULL freedom of speech.

http://pub117.ezboard.com/ftherearenowmdiniraqfrm2

You might also consider signing the following online petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/iraqwmd/petition.html

Thank you..

Very good work. keep it up.

I know you guys probably hate Rush Limbaugh as well but, being open-minded thinkers, you might want to check out this letter he has posted on his site.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060503/content/truth_detector.guest.html

I'm also skeptical of the WMD issue, but who can ignore what Bill and many others said a few years ago about WMD and the unanimous vote at the UN for (among many others against Iraq) issue 1441?

Here's a good quote..

"
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
"

=darwin

It just amazes me that so many people have the answers...but what would you do if you were in his shoes...be meek like a mouse...silent has a clam...what would you do? I think President Bush is doing his job has all of us do ours daily.
Freedom has always cost us something from the very being of this great country and unfortunately we will continue to sacrafice our military, our civilians that work aboard etc.
This world and people are not perfect how can you make the USA perfect..
You guys need to take a chill pill!!!!!!!

The Guardian admits to being wrong - unlike some people.

It is a fact that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. This is not a best guess, it is a fact. Saddam admitted it 5 years ago. What happened to them? Where are they now? They are out there somewhere or he destroyed them right before we attacked (some say into the Euphrates River). Some of you might think it's better to sit around and wait for something to happen and then react (another 3000 dead Americans-it's OK to be scared guys). I believe we must be proactive to prevent this type of attack by people who clearly want to see the destruction of everything that we, as Americans hold dear (you couldn't have this web site in Saddam's Iraq).
Let's just pretend that there were no WMD in Iraq. Do you think we did a good thing by liberating the Iraqi people? Have you heard about the mass graves that have been discovered (Shiites and Kurds)? Or the children in jails for not joining the Baath party? or the taped rapes that have been sent to the families of people who have dissented? or the cutting out of tongues of those who spoke out against the govt. in Iraq? Or the money that was stolen by Saddam from the Oil for food program? (there are starving children in Iraq-of course most of you blamed the U.S., of course-the truth is now known). Have you heard about the Kurds who were gased by Saddam-ooh WMD (Fact), even though he of course doesn't have these weapons (he also used them against Iran-Fact) Did you hear about the woman who gave birth in an Iraqi jail? The baby starved when the mother, who wasn't given enough food, wasn't able to produce breast milk- the mother held the dead baby in her arms for three days.
Even if these weapons are never found, you have to admit that the world and the people of Iraq are better off (yes, I know there are some in Iraq who would say that they were better of before and who are still attacking the American Soldiers and Marines, I'm sure there were Germans who would have said they were better off with Hitler).
If you blame America first crowd want to do something useful you should look around the world for other murderous leaders and government (Rawanda, Somalie pick your African Country, North Korea). Protest them, try to change the world for the better instead of attacking the one country in the world who does anything about the injustices that happen (america is responsible for over 50% of all charity/support to underdeveloped countries). America is not perfect and we are not able to stop all injustice, but at least we do something.

I was going to delete that last comment, but it's about as vivid an example of conservative cluelessness as you're going to find -- america is responsible for over 50% of all charity/support to underdeveloped countries???/i>

Where do these guys get this stuff?

Anyway, I'm afraid I'm going to have the last word here -- this thread is just too long, it takes forever to retrieve and edit on my home computer. So I'm closing it down.

If you want to keep talkin' WMD, I've created a new open thread here.