Helen Thomas is the best - the only one unafraid to stand up to the Dictator.

Bush wanted Saddam out way before 9/11. Do you deny that, Mark? From CBS:

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Mark, here are a few more:
The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank – run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Bush’s younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy – wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.

http://www.ihatemylife.us/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/2029
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. Mr Falah Aljibury An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,” wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ [Bush] grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,” said Bush

It's a good question. Why did we go to Iraq, Mark? There are too many sources (part of this administration) who have said he was determined to invade Iraq when he came into office for you to say "leftwing paranoid conspiracy theory".

The truth matters. I for one would like to know the truth and I respect Helen Thomas for asking about it!

maf53 & barney - Odd how Bush is to blame for what Clinton failed to fix.

1996 U.S. warships launched 27 cruise missiles into Iraq Sep. 3 due to Saddam's attacks on the Kurds

1998 Op. Desert Fox air attacks began Dec. 16 against Iraq for failing to allow access to weapons inspectors; 300 cruise missiles fired in 4 days destroyed weapons plants, but Saddam Hussein remained in power

1998 America fired a volley of more than 70 cruise missiles in Aug. at guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan and at a chemical plant in the Sudan reportedly operated by the Saudi multimillionaire Osama bin Laden who was responsible for bombing of two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people

It is hard to believe at times that Mr. Bush is the president of this great nation. He appeared confused, angry and frustrated when confronted with reality.

That an aged member of the press core could so rattle Bush demonstrates further that he is weak and no longer in control.

It is not the "lefties" that have gone off any cliff. The truth is rhetoric and shop worn slogans are not, and never have, solved any problems.

Bush is like a washing machine stuck on the spin cycle and he is the one who appears dizzy and confused.

Wade

Dl,

You either missed the point of my post, or you conveniently ignored it: do you believe George Bush 2.0 had intentions of invading Iraq *before* 9/11? Simple question.

You call Clinton "wimpy" - did George Bush 1.0 remove Saddam?

How many times has Iraq attacked the United States?

Has Bush 2.0 been able to capture bin Laden?

Helen rocks!!!

She has the balls that most male journalists would give their eye teeth for.

Before I even flipped to the comments... I knew with 100% certainty the above crap would be posted by a bat..

EVERY.......... read EVERY.........did I say EVERY new administartion reviews and re-acesses CURRENT...did I say CURRENT and ongoing threats..

At the time...in February of 2001..the most obvious threat was Iraq...

This is not to say other threats weren't there...

But for 11+ years Iraq had been an obvious threat.. then again if he had ignored it..you'd have bitched about that as well...

as a 5th generation and now FORMER dem..

..everytime I shake my head at republicans for stupidity...

I wanna throw up thinking the alternatives are dems.........

Apparently, for Barney2000 and maf53, history began on January 20, 2001, when President Bush was inaugurated with regard to the US effort to oust/topple Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Helen Thomas clearly thinks this, as she so studiously avoided mentioning that it has been the official stance of the US Government since October, 1998, that Saddam Hussein had to go - one way or the other.

President Clinton signed H.R. 4655 (The Iraq Liberation Act) into law on October 31, 1998.
Its express purpose was to pursue the downfall of the Saddam regime for a variety of purposes. So it should be no suprise that President Bush had been let "in the loop" on this issue as he assumed the presidency in 2001. To make the rancid mountain of rat poop out of the mole-hill of that fact is typical of Helen Thomas and her delusional ilk of miscreants and rabblerousers. They want so desperately to believe that it was all sorme sort of Zionist-Capitalist-Neocon Cabal that if one doesn't exist, they'll make it up. They've watched one too many X-Files, if you ask me.

Even President Clinton went so far to state, as he signed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"

"...The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998."

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Soooo.... William Jefferson Clinton, a convicted perjurer, started this ball rolling, didn't he? In the paragraph cited above, he clearly leaves the door open for the US to pursue the objective in as many ways as possible, including through the enforcement of a host of UN Security Council Declarations, enforcement of the 1991 ceasefire accords (signed by Saddam himself), aid to internal forces for change, and other uni lateral and multilateral efforts.

That George W. Bush continued to honor the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a testament to our system of government in that an uninterrupted, stable foreign policy went from one administration to the next without hesitation or backtracking. That's supposed to be how it works, right? A smooth transition from one administration to the next is what has historically been held up with pride as a testament to our system of government.

The fact that September 11, 2001 occurred turned up the stakes for this country and the world. George W. Bush recognized this, and acted appropriately. If Al Gore had been elected (shudder!), would he have done the same?

Helen Thomas is no hero. She's a political hack mouthpiece whose time has passed. Maf can quote CBS all he wants as "proof" of his belief, but most people stopped taking anything they put out as anything near to the truth long, long ago. Certainly, after the RAthErGAte fiasco, it is clear that CBS is a tool of those who wish to undermine this country. And Barney2000 cites a website that in part contains "I Hate My Life" in the URL. That sounds like a real reputable operation, no?

If there is any "blame" to be shared here (and I don't believe there is), then it should be put right at the feet of William Jefferson Clinton, who commited this nation BY LAW to work for the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in October, 1998. The horror of September 11, 2001 also falls directly at his feet, since his responses to terrorism throughout his debacle in office was tepid at best and enabling to the morale of the terrorists across the globe.

George W. Bush didn't pick this fight. He's just finishing it up because it must be done. Helen Thomas can croak all she wants about "the dictator," and his "evil minions," along with Maf53 and Barney2000. For all the caterwauling, this fight must be fought and this victory must be won. No doubt, they'll still be here when the dust settles. Like the Nazi collaborater prostitutes in France, when the victory is complete, they'll be dealt with appropriately.

Since Helen, Maf53, and Barney2000 are into conspiracy theories, here's one to pass by them for consideration:

"Ever since November 2000, the Mainstream Media, along with liberal Democrats, have tried at every turn to sabotage the efforts of George W. Bush to assume the Presidency. When that failed, they've engaged in a years-long campaign to smear him and whatever policies he might try to implement. With their friends 'on the inside' of bureaucratic Washington, they have leaked items of national security when they felt it would advance their agenda. And what is their agenda? The downfall of President Bush and the resumption of power for them. Nothing more. Nothing less. The have obfuscated, resisted, demagogued and crippled every item put on the national agenda in an effort to de-legitimize this President and his party. They have lied in the press, They have ignored any positive news on every front, and exaggerated every bit of negative news to its maximum effect. They are tired, hollow, evil men and women, for they are blind to the fact that their efforts are tearing this country up. Even in their bitter rage, they seem oblivious to the poisonous effect of their words and deeds."

Like Gollum in "Lord of The Rings," they are so enraptured with the "precious" of power, that they will drag this country down in order to resume their "rightful place."

We need to see more responses by George W. Bush like he had with Helen. I was thrilled to see the "smackdown" of the loonies occur. He was polite, he was passionate, and he was.... right!!

Let's see if Sheep can follow the flow of an argument.

Mark said, "This is pure lunacy - Thomas is essentially saying that President Bush, et al, came into office in 2001 with the pre-determined notion to go into Iraq (likely for oil) and used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse (if they didn't plan the attacks themselves to create an excuse). This is pure, unadulterated leftwing paranoid conspiracy theory."

So I replied, "Bush wanted Saddam out way before 9/11. Do you deny that, Mark?" And I quoted two articles to support my claims.

The issue here, Sheep, is whether or not Bush was pre-determined to invade Iraq *before* 9/11.

PS - learn how to write in complete sentences, your drivel is difficult to read.

How many times did Germany attack the US Maf?

Please, don't go down that path.

As more and more of these documents come out, the lunacy on the left will be exposed more and more.

Please tell us Maf, what did Tony Blair attack Iraq? Please tell us why other nations did? Were they all wrong?

Doubtful. You guys want to keep this notion up that if we just play pattycake with N. Korea, Iraq and others that things will be just fine. Guess what, that's what we did in the 1990's and look where it got us.

That's what Clinton did with N. Korea and now they have nukes.

Isn't it funny how the left just buys some of these articles as if they are gospel when no factual evidence supports them at all. No wonder they can't define is is.

Yet when ACTUAL documents or ACTUAL recordings or ACTUAL WMD or ACTUAL intelligence assesments (CIA, MK1, etc) are presented then they should be ignored.

Truly amazing.

Posted by: dbogdan [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2006 03:27 PM, ...along with Maf53 and Barney2000. For all the caterwauling, this fight must be fought and this victory must be won. No doubt, they'll still be here when the dust settles. Like the Nazi collaborater prostitutes in France, when the victory is complete, they'll be dealt with appropriately...

Please tell us more….

Warriornation, could you please present these ACTUAL documents? Where are those ACTUAL WMD? Do you got'em in your basement? Can I come over and see em ACTUALLY?

"How many times did Germany attack the US Maf?"

Zero. Who *declared war* on the US in December of 1941? That would be Japan & *Germany* - so what's your point?

"Please tell us Maf, what did Tony Blair attack Iraq? Please tell us why other nations did? Were they all wrong? Doubtful."

So Britain and "other nations" are right because they're carrying Bush's water, but nations like France, Germany, and Russia are wrong because ... they don't agree with you!

And nobody here is saying (I'm not anyway) that N. Korea isn't a threat, or Iran, for that matter.

Let me re-post what I said to Sheep. Maybe you can address it, "Warrior":

"Mark said, "This is pure lunacy - Thomas is essentially saying that President Bush, et al, came into office in 2001 with the pre-determined notion to go into Iraq (likely for oil) and used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse (if they didn't plan the attacks themselves to create an excuse). This is pure, unadulterated leftwing paranoid conspiracy theory."

So I replied, "Bush wanted Saddam out way before 9/11. Do you deny that, Mark?" And I quoted two articles to support my claims.

The issue here, Sheep, is whether or not Bush was pre-determined to invade Iraq *before* 9/11."

So, I'll ask again - was Bush pre-determined to invade Iraq *before* 9/11? This is Helen Thomas' contention, and I agree with her. Do you?

Boy oh boy, the comments being left by the left are pretty amazing to say the least. I cannot believe some of the crap that is being passed as gospel. All of this because Helen Thomas was acting like her usual self as self-proclaimed Queen of the Press Room. Hasn't anyone realized how ridiculous she sounds. Between her and David Gregory, I don't know which one is the bigger know it all. They both have very big egos and a big head to match. They must be seen and heard at all press conferences. The newer more reasonable press people don't have a chance as long as those two are around. I believe they show their ignorance everytime they try to show just how smart and knowledgable they are. She really needs to retire, she is getting harder to take each time I see her.

Deleted - Obscenity

MF,
Even your sources make it clear that after 1998 the official policy of the US was removal of Saddam. You're drawing an illogical leap that this Administration or any US Administration wanted to "Invade Iraq" to accomplish this goal. If that were the case, look to the Administration that promoted the Act.

Planning for the support of removal of the Saddamites, and planning for a post-Saddam Iraq are not the conspiracy you make it out to be, it is the prudent outcome of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

GOP,
You are absolutely correct Saddam was a brutal dictator who did a ton of bad things and he deserved to be taken out.... at some point.
Having said that - are you now prepared to go into the dozen other countries that have brutal dictators? There are plenty of them out there.
Are we now prepared to go into those dozen other countries because they are bad men?
Probably not because it is none of our business in thier countries.
If you want to talk about at the time WMD's were believed to be there and all the other talking points, that is fine. Do not try telling us this was done because he was such a bad man.
Talk about hypocrisy.

" ...along with Maf53 and Barney2000. For all the caterwauling, this fight must be fought and this victory must be won. No doubt, they'll still be here when the dust settles. Like the Nazi collaborater prostitutes in France, when the victory is complete, they'll be dealt with appropriately...

Please tell us more…."

When the Germans invaded France, many among the spineless Gauls "laid down" with their oppressors and fought against their own country in many ways, great and small. They collaborated - some openly, others less so. Like the character, Madame DeFarge from "A Tale of Two Cities," notes and names were taken down for future reference, for when the tide turned. And it did, indeed.

Once the flush from liberation wore off, many of the patriotic French "outed" those who sided with the nation's enemies. Besides the gang-mentality of public humiliation, many of these traitors and collaborators were tried and convicted for treason and collaboration. Some were put to death for their transgressions. But for the overwhelming majority (particularly of the prostitutes), they were herded out in public, had their heads shaved and suffered public humiliation before their peers.

In no way do I advocate that we find you pathetically bleating leftists and subject you to any sort of public humiliation. It is my belief that being who you are is more than enough private humiliation. Your points of view as expressed in this thread as well as others, has often reminded me of some sort of opportunistic prostitute - just like in France during her subjugation by the Germans. You parrot the talking points of our enemies, while preening yourselves on these blogsites. Your message to those who support our President and Commander-in-Chief is clear: we are mind-numbed sycophants following "the world's number 1 terrorist" down a path of certain destruction. Then by your words, you metaphorically take to licking the boots of our enemies, perhaps in the hopes of currying future political favor...

Your words give aid and succorance to our enemies, for it masks itself as constitutionally-protected dissent. And it is. But let's be clear about it - it's disingenuous dissent. It's not dissent borne of reasoned analysis, but from tidbits of tirades from hate-spewing websites and blogsites.

Don't think for a minute that any al-Qaeda plans for destruction on this country's soil somehow excludes you from the dynamics...

Like I said, we'll (hopefully) be here when the dust settles, and we'll "settle the political scores" then.

But don't read too much into my predictions. I mean no violence or harm toward you or your failed political philosophies. The best way to "deal with" your kind is to make sure that your party never again holds the reigns of power in this country. I can't wait until the phrase "democratic party" is obsolete - just like the party itself...

"Your words give aid and succorance to our enemies..."
Talk about spewing talking points!

That is the most ridiculous thing I hear all the time. How our dissent helps the enemy just boggles the mind. So because there are people with differing viewpoints, the Terrorists are stronger? You are basically telling everyone that if you disagree with the President, then shut up. That really sets a good example for newly born Democracies to follow.

"...disingenuous dissent. It's not dissent borne of reasoned analysis, but from tidbits of tirades from hate-spewing websites and blogsites"
--- Are you saying this from fact or just your opinion? If it is your opinion, you have no reason to believe this other than the fact it is your blind hatred of all things Democrat. If it is from fact... unless you can read minds, you are fill of crap.

Planning to deal with a tyrant should he become elected is the mark of a leader. Sure beats walking in and getting blind-sided. But the world did begin on 1-20-01 for these knuckleheads who knock him.

BTW, do these guys have jobs? Seems like they sit around all day and write emails to blogs and Google stuff. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.

Thanks for the history lesson dbogdan. Now back to the topic in question. All you righties keep supporting our lefty view that bush was preparing for war before 9/11, and even before he was elected. Why are you upset that H. Thomas is repeating your very thoughts and understanding of how bush should have acted? This is the first time that I can recall that both sides are in agreement.

Calling all moonbats! Why the hell do you spend your days on a Republican site making up nonsense about the War in Iraq, Bush, and the GOP? Do you have anything better to do with your lives already ruined by the taint of an ultraliberal mindset? Anyway, proof of Saddam's hideous intent lies in the thousands upon thousands of crates of documents and tapes that were found strewn around Iraq after Saddam left? According to these tapes, our buddy Saddam had certain parts of his regime called Directorates 8, which provided for "development of materilas needed for covert offensive operations" and "contains advanced laboratories for testing and production of weapons, poisons, and explosives," and 9, "focusing on operations of sabotage and assassination." In addition, documents discuss Saddam's Office 16, set up to train "agents for clandestine operations abroad" and provides "special six-week courses in the use of terror techniques are provided at a camp in Radwaniyhah." (courtesy of IBD). This was all listed in Saddam's manual for his spy service under the inconspicious CMPC-2003-006430. Why don't all you loonies put that in your pipe and smoke it?

Barney,
You forgot to put another irrelevant link in your post.

Preparing to deal with an enemy of the US in support of official policy is not the same as planning to invade a country.

Are you so thick you don’t see the difference, or are you so blinded by ideology that you just won’t?

The fact that US Administrations (both Clinton and Bush) were preparing for war in Iraq is not at issue. Clearly, both administrations viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat to our national security and were implicitly prepared to use military force as one of many options. Clearly, you and Helen Thomas disagree with that. Except the funny thing is, you only think Georgie W. Bush was wrong for believing and acting upon that - not when Clinton stated his belief and willingnes to act upon it. If going to war is such a wrong thing, then why didn't we hear any weeping and wailing in October, 1998 from you people? Was it because the President at the time was William Jefferson "I never had sex with that woman" Clinton? By the act of signing the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, Clinton - not Bush - set Gulf War II in motion. So stop blaming President Bush and turn your ill-avised wrath upon the convicted perjuror President Clinton who codified the objective into law. How many time did you object between Nov 1, 1998 and January 20, 2001 when Clinton halfheartedly lobbed a cruise missile here or there in furtherance of toppling Saddam Hussein? I bet I can count 'em on one hand (if that)...

The reason I react to Helen Thomas' tantrums as well as your ill-intended criticism of the current foreign policy as I do, is because you aim to make it personal against the President. You blindly ignore the fact that Clinton set this in motion both by ignoring a growing threat, and by amplifying our national focus on eliminating Saddam Hussein from a position of power.

Your "dissent' of our foreign policy does not seem to me to be borne out of a sense of patriotism or national objective. It seems, instead, to be obsessing over a festering hatred of a singular person - George W. Bush. Common public purpose or national unity seems to have no place in your agenda. It's all about sweeping George W. Bush from power (in shame and disgrace if at all possible) and reinstating your socialist-oriented camrades to leadership positions.

You characterize my opinion of Helen Thomas and even your bloviating as being somehow "upset" that she and/or you keep repeating the accusation. In fact, I'm tired of hearing the same old broken record ad naseum, but am grateful that people like you keep on singing the same, tired song.

I'm actually exhilarated that the President slapped down Ms. Thomas for a change. I want to see and hear more of this discourse. And by no means to I wish for you to "shut up" about your opinions. I urge you to shout them (again) as loudly as you can for everyone to hear. That way, your ideas can be fully debated and discarded by the American public. Just keep on showing yourselves for who you really are. It works better for everyone that way, it really does... ;)

And you're welcome for this history lesson. Not that it will have any effect upon you, but remember:

"Those that do not learn from history, are bound to repeat it..."

Keep that in mind, all you metaphorical "French prostitute" wannabes!!

:)

Thanks dbogdan for the above post....

These whinning, losers will just never "Get it"
They would rather see our country put in peril,
(and continue to blame Bush) and us have more Americans hit by Terrorists, than show a united front for the sake of the Country. It is only about their party's survival and their own personal agendas. For this, THEY WILL LOSE AGAIN

That way, your ideas can be fully debated and discarded by the American public. Just keep on showing yourselves for who you really are. It works better for everyone that way, it really does... ;)

You mean the 65% of Americans that agrees with the left?

Only Mark and the president deny that war planning was in the works pre 9/11, so focus your outrage at them.

Barneyg2000, War planning doesn't mean what you think it does. We (the United States) have all kinds of war plans for all types of scenarios. In the event anything happens, we can be up and running against a potential enemy. Just because we have war plans already for the China/Taiwan scenario does not mean that we intend to go to war with China!

NOW you see the distinction! **light bulbs going off in liberal's heads**

Mark, I just completey tune out the MSM now and have for along time. I began to tune out the MSM completely around in the middle of 2004. As we got closer to the election in November, 2004, it was not stop 24/7 all you could eat Bush hate on all the lib networks. Chris Matthews went completely over the liberal ledge around that time and every show he would shove his DNC card in everyones face. I have not watched him since. I got through that period listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading the conservatives blogs like this one. And then voting for President Bush. And then watching chris matthews and all the lib talking heads faces turn sheet white as tears rolled down their faces.

Mark, I just completey tune out the MSM now and have for along time. I began to tune out the MSM completely around in the middle of 2004. As we got closer to the election in November, 2004, it was not stop 24/7 all you could eat Bush hate on all the lib networks. Chris Matthews went completely over the liberal ledge around that time and every show he would shove his DNC card in everyones face. I have not watched him since. I got through that period listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading the conservatives blogs like this one. And then voting for President Bush. And then watching chris matthews and all the lib talking heads faces turn sheet white as tears rolled down their faces, as Florida and Ohio came in.

65% of Americans agree with the left?

Oh, like the 38% of americans who trust the democRATS on national security? Is that the 65% you are referring to? No, that's not it...

Or maybe it's the 55% of americans who feel abortion is morally wrong most of the time? No, that's not it...

Maybe it's the 21% of americans who think getting an abortion is too hard... No that's not it...

Maybe it's the 52% of americans who feel the Bush administration has done an excellent or pretty good job at preventing another terrorist attack... No that's not it...

Maybe it's the 68% of adults who think that Bush is justified in authorizing wiretaps without court authorization... No that's not it...

Hrm, Blarney I fear this 65% of americans that agree with the left you speak of exists only in your mind... But hey let's see what November brings.

BTW if you want back up on my numbers you can look at Rasmussen Reports and Harris Interactive. I see, as usual, no support for your figures (at least nothing from an unbiased source anyway).

Barney and Maf,

I'm amazed at both of you - you really do believe the conspiracy theories! I'll bet you thought Farenheit 9/11 was a documentary...geesh!

No wonder we can't have much of a rational discussion about the war with you - you really think that President Bush is an evil man who launched war for nefarious purposes.

As ND points out, we plan for a lot of things - and Saddam was an ongoing, tricky problem on the day President Bush took office...but for you, and Thomas, to extrapolate from contingency planning to some bizarre conspiracy theory about us launching a war for oil....man, oh, man....get yourself to a shrink.

"You mean the 65% of Americans that agrees with the left?"

Would that be according to the latest "poll du jour" with questions phrased to ensure a predetermined outcome that we're seeing on a daily basis?

Or would it be the percentage of Americans who take part in the only poll that matters (once every two years)?

Mark and the President aren't denying that planning was occurring per se. They are denying the slimy assertions couched in Helen's "question/accusation" that somehow, that's all that President Bush had in mind when he ran for the Presidency - how to get into a war with Saddam Hussein.

You people are so easily swept into theories and delusions of conspiracies that's it's almost comedic. Everything about this President and his policies is a "conspiracy" to you. Yet, you can't entertain the proposition that perhaps the real conspiracy underway in today's political environment is on the part of the out-of-power Democrats to besmirch and unseat the duly elected President. He is carrying on the people's agenda despite all the muck thrown against the wall in the failing hope that something will stick.

September 11, 2001 simply moved the academic planning for an Iraqi war off the stage of platitudes and into the realpolitik world of the here and now.

Unlike you, I have little or no "outrage" for our President on the issue of fighting Terrorism. I reserve that for those who deserve it: the Wahhabi terrorists who continue to plan to destroy our nation and culture. Perhaps once she (and you) stops foaming at the mouth, you'll come to realize who the real enemy is. It's not George W. Bush. On several other issues, I adamantly disagree with this President, and have made my displeasure known via written correspondence. I am aghast at much of what I see occurring in Washington, D.C. and do what I can to influence events. But on the issue of War on Terror, I am absolutely flummoxed by those who attack our nation's leader and defender of our way of life. These attacks upon our President and Commander-in-Chief only serve to strengthen his base and puts support back in his efforts to protect the country and win the struggle that's been brought to our shore.

Don't stop being yourselves, fellows. Worthwhile entertainment is so expensive and hard to find these days... God knows Hollywood doesn't have a clue what constitutes entertainment any more, but I digress...

See you at the voting booth in November!!

"You mean the 65% of Americans that agrees with the left?"

Posted by: Barneyg2000

***

Please continue to delude yourself...all the way to November.

Thomas is an absolute dolt and only the leftist, lunatic fringe could afford her moronic assertions any credibility whatsoever. But please, encourage her rant on . . . she's always good for a belly laugh.

You'll never pass anything from the mainstream media off in this forum as factual. It's all lies invented by the left to promote our agenda.

Bush has never once that I know of mentioned Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". Iraq has always been about the war on terror, even though the war opened the doors of Iraq to Al Qaida. You'll never get a legitimate response on that point either, because there isn't one.

I'm one of the many who were sitting in their easy chair this morning chanting, "Go Helen! It's your Birthday!....Go Helen!!!"

PS - learn how to write in complete sentences, your drivel is difficult to read.

Your redundant bullcrap is just as difficult; get some new talking points. Bush handed Helen her shriveled arse today.

GOP, db, jo, raven, don't waste your time arguing the war on terror with these moonbats. They are pacifist surrender monkeys, and facts only get in their way.

Now excuse me; I must go do some name-calling over at...

Maf...Russia also said WMD existed. So did the French.

So they were wrong with that assessment but right for not going to war (oh and also losing Billions of dollars of business with their pals the Iraqis)?

Can we say hypocrite?

Barney

WMD has already been found in Iraq. Sarin gas being one.

I've asked you this now on many occassion and you refuse to answer. If the Iraqis were clever enough to bury their Air Force in the sands of the desert (see link below with pictures) why do you not think they wouldn't do the same with their WMD or move it to Syria.

Or are you saying the UN, French, Russians, CIA, Israel, etc, etc, all were wrong about WMD...and oh, the WMD Saddam had and USED in the past...well that was a fiction of everyone's imagination especially the 250,000 dead corpses as a result of those WMD?

Please, please, please tell me why Saddam buried his Air Force.

Thanks

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

I used to casually think that being a full-throated moonbat was literally a disease.
Now there is no doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and Barney Rubble and Maf and SOL..for God's sake, get a freakin' job!!!!

Maybe the 65% accounts for the 200 or so people protesting in New York on Saturday. Its been a bad two weeks for the Demorats, no doubts there. Dismal attendance at the 3rd Anniversary of the Protests.

Impeachment/Censure has gone down in flames and the Demorats have been painted so far to the left now with the 9/11 conspiracy and other far out conspiracies. The Administration has successfully painted the Democrats as that Censure Party for spying on Al-Qaeda and against the Patriot Act. The Administration has finally gone back on the offensive and they been quite good at this the last week or so. Finally, the economy is just booming.

****************
"Your words give aid and succorance to our enemies..."
Talk about spewing talking points!

That is the most ridiculous thing I hear all the time. How our dissent helps the enemy just boggles the mind.
*****************

Boggles YOUR mind, Sick. Take a few minutes to check out the effect of the effect the words of the Left had on the Viet Nam war. When even Viet Cong officers admit to the effect of the words of traitors such as John Kerry and Jane Fonda, as recounted by John McCain (when, in his memoirs, he recounts the time one of his Viet Cong torturers told him they no longer needed to make plans for a surrender, because John Kerry and Jane Fonda would win the war for them in the United States) I don't see how you can claim that stirring up sentiment against the President and this war can have no effect on the morale or determination of the enemy.

Viet Nam was a war won by the military and lost by the Left. The disgrace of our slinking away in defeat from a war which had been won on the ground but lost in the battle of public opinion can be laid squarely at the feet of the liberals who devoted their lives to misleading the American public about the truth of what was happening over there. And so can the resulting slaughter of millions by the North Vietnamese, and later by Pol Pot in Cambodia.

So how, exactly, are we SUPPOSED to react when we see the Left trying to recreate their finest victory? Ignore the "deja vu" of seeing the same lies, the same manipulation of the media, the same twisting of the facts, the same emotional appeals based on the same inaccurate claims, applied to Iraq?

While those efforts are now made so much harder by the new media, and by the memories of those who got fooled once but swore that it would never happen again, they continue to fight the fight to deceive America into putting its tail between its legs and slinking off yet again, abandoning allies and millions of citizens to horrors they pretend to abhor but which really matter very little to them compared to the euphoria of another victory over the truth.

They continue to shore up the spirits of those who are doing the killing of our military and of innocent civilians, assuring them that they are doing whatever they can to demoralize our own citizenry, drive away our allies, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by spreading the kinds of lies that are bound to convince Americans we are losing a war we are really winning.

Tell me, Sick and syncophants....how strong do you believe the resolve of the militant America-hating secular Muslims would be if every news report they read showed overwhelming support in this country for our work in Iraq? How motivated would they be to continue on a path that they KNEW would be made muserable, every step of the way, by the steely resolve of the American people? How much harder would it be to recruit young men and women to fight in a fight that they knew was doomed by the determination of an unswayable America, dedicated to fighting as long as necessary to defeat them?

How CAN any resonable person fail to see that the creation of division here at home, and the determination of the Left to repeat their victory of the late 60's and early 70's, sends a message to these butcherers that if they just hang on long enough, and kill enough people, we will fold? How CAN any reasonable person fail to see that sending this message, over and over again, daily and even hourly, is the same thing as reaching out to the terrorists and saying "Hang on, buddies...we'll get these guys off your back as soon as we can"?

Pick a side and the (edited) will defend the other side....that is why where there is evil they will back it! Liberalism seeks an equality that will kill our country, but we won't let them. These feminized interlopers in here believe they have a point by bashing a duly elected representative of the majority. Matters not since their hats will be handed to them until some sort of electric shock treatment lets them see the light. One can only hope...Maybe Kerry still has some of those genital cables he's always talking about... ha ha

Since Helen T is an Arab, I suggest that a burqua is in order....quickly....it would save all of our eyes...

bush came to office hoping he could invade Iraq. And he's a captive of the Zionist/Armegoddonist, neo-cons. Peace

Maf, etc., how much or how many of Sadaam's WMD would we have needed to find to convince you that they truly existed?

Because we have found enough of several biological and chemical agents to prove to rational people that at a not too distant time considerably larger amounts had been present.

We have the word of an Iraqi general that hundreds of heavy metal bottles marked with poison warning labels were loaded onto converted passenger jets and flown to Damascus on previously established and approved commercial flight paths, at established commercial flight times.

We have found hundreds of rockets which were built solely to carry WMD---the kind of delivery system specifically banned by the UN.

We have the absolute belief of the intelligence agencies of every single nation that ever looked at Iraq, including those who could---and did---easily infiltrate Iraq because of their Arab heritage, that Iraq possessed WMD of several types. These countries have not backed down from those beliefs. They have proof which is adequate to convince them.

Quite simply, no amount of WMD ever discovered would ever have convinced the barkers that we had not planted them to support the administration's concerns. ("barkers"--one of the best British phrases is the term "barking mad" to describe those so bizarrely insane they have gone beyond the ability to speak coherently.)

Just as the general referenced above is simply dismissed as a "liar" because he presents information they don't want to hear, the barkers would also dismiss anything, found anywhere, in any quantity, as planted or insignificant or whatever evasion they could come up with.

I don't know which is sadder. That:

1. Political correctness precludes the removal of those suffering from senile dementia from the public eye, thereby subjecting them to ongoing ridicule/pity at the cost of whatever dignity they may once have had, or..

2. The fact that these poor demented souls still, in spite of or possibly because of their inability to grasp facts or live in the real world, are the heroes of our Canadian friend, or maf, or anyone at all for that matter.

However, the ongoing acceptance of Helen Thomas and Robert Byrd as spokespeople for the Democratic Party might merely be an effort on their part to shore up their Alzheimer's base.

Remember, this is the party that thinks Michael Moore really does make documentaries, and is considering sending Al Franken to the Senate. So Helen and Bobby may not stand out as much over there as they would in real life.

"...How CAN any resonable person fail to see that the creation of division here at home, and the determination of the Left to repeat their victory of the late 60's and early 70's, sends a message to these butcherers that if they just hang on long enough, and kill enough people, we will fold? How CAN any reasonable person fail to see that sending this message, over and over again, daily and even hourly, is the same thing as reaching out to the terrorists and saying "Hang on, buddies...we'll get these guys off your back as soon as we can"?..."

Almiranta right on!!!!

I do believe you understand what I mean by "providing succorance" and "aiding and abetting the enemy" with disingenuous dissent based on pithy lies and half-truths...

Too bad the loonies on the left can't see the forest because they're too busy running into trees!!!

Your post above totally captures my sense of outrage with specifics from the 1970s. I was but a wee lad at the time, but I recognized a political scam when I saw it. I lived through the "malaise" of the 1970s (thanks Jimmy Carter), and swore that this type of defeatism wouldn't go unchallenged in the future if I had anything to say about it. And now the time has come.

I recognize that "arguing" with these loonies won't change their minds. It's more about a way to help to clarify within my own mind, that things aren't quite the way we're being told they are. It helps me in responding to their charges, to strengthen my logical points or throw out points of argument that simply don't pass the test . That's what I enjoy about blogging.

Too bad that for many people, some here in this blog, it's more of an opportunity to hurl accusations and vent feelings of helplessness and rage than to engage in intellectual discourse...

While George W. Bush most certainly has "political warts" on several topics, on the War On Terror, he has my complete backing. When I disagree with his policies, I let him know, but I've never attacked him personally, like so many of the left seem intent on doing...

We've got these lefties on the ropes - they are falling off the political cliff.

You are sounding more and more like the Iraqi Information Minister Mark. Fact of the matter is that everything shows support for the President decreasing by the minute. He is wildly attacking the media now which is always a losing battle for a politician. The only issue the Republicans have to run on is national security and they have been losing ground in this area as well. If the Democrats were even remotely competent the Republicans would have no chance in the upcoming elections. As said many times before, as support for the President decreases, you will see Mark lie more and more.

Brokeback -- Where are your leaders to come and take over?

They are running because they don't know what else to do. Feingold made his pitch and "ran" from the senate to avoid debate with Spector. Reid "ran away" from a vote on the censure proposed by Frist. Murtha is "running" somewhere over the horizon to get away from "mean Jean Schmidt".

Support for democrats is non-existent, most of the posters on the liberal boards are disgusted with their leadership. You and the democratic party are falling off of the political cliff. Maybe even running off the cliff.

The only strength you have left are the moonbat bloggers. Rise up you moonbat bloggers, take over and be their democratic spine. Catch them that are trying to get away, catch them and make them lead.

Make them debate the Censure, Vote the Censure, and do not let them hide over the horizon like the Texas democratics did in Oklahoma.

If you believe is something moonbats, stand up for it. Contact those leaders and tell them "We can do better"!!!

(Ed. - this entry has been edited to remove name-calling against fellow reader)

Brokeback,

You are calling me a liar - and that does hurt a bit.

I don't believe I've ever personally insulted you in that manner - if I have, I apologise, but I do hope that you will see your error and apologise to me, as well.

If 9-11 never happened, we would not have invaded Iraq. Period. End of discussion. No matter what Bush I, Clinton, W, said, wrote, or "decided." Sure, we have plans to invade every country on the planet...contingency plans, I think they call them.
Hate to be a killjoy to all the conspiracy lovers out there, but this is the plain truth and as simple as it gets.

1st time in a long time that I was impressed with President Bush. He came out forceful and again made me believe in the man. All the time and effort I spent getting him re-elected here in Ohio was more than worth it.

Thank God Kerry or Al Gore isn't President

Next time Bush talks and the press corps gets on his nerves, he should really just pull a Chevy Chase in "Spies Like Us"

Good..orning......vrybody...Iraq....errorist...great....unch....eader...ongolia...ood friend....puke....ad....(wink)thi...icrophon.....urking...so I...ust go.

President Bush did a great job at todays press conference. The White House press was shameful as usual. The press corp sitting there should all be wearing DNC buttons on their shirts while asking questions. Then at least everyone would be aware of their real agendas and bias and they could stop this pretense of objectivity.

Deleted - Obscenity

You are calling me a liar - and that does hurt a bit.

I don't believe I've ever personally insulted you in that manner - if I have, I apologise, but I do hope that you will see your error and apologise to me, as well.

Let's see how short Mark's memory is. I made a post saying there was a poll about Americans believing Saddam was behind 9/11 and Mark responded with this tirade:

That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...

You said the poll was a lie, thus making me the liar in this case. That was just a couple of days ago Mark. And actually, in this case, you were the liar because the poll does exist.

I called you the Iraqi Information Minister because you are delusional in your assessment of the current political situation. You are so bound to your team that you will come on here and say antyhing, truthful or not, to try and paint a pretty picture for your fellow Republican extremists.

You now quote a Newsweek poll in a thread and say it is bogus when Rasmussen, who you have quoted before and believed they were reliable, has the same poll numbers when accounting for margin of error. They have had Bush at 40 and 41 for the last 5 or 6 days.

You have proven that party loyalty is more important than honesty. You don't post on this site to tell the truth, you post on this site to try and drum up Republican support. If the truth would cause Republican support to possibly drop, you will lie about it. That is why you lie and say the US has NEVER tortured anyone, even though people are being convicted of it right now.

Deleted - Obscenity

Ed note: We are not omniscient - we will miss things from time to time.

Barney

I would hope we have war plans on Mexico, Canada, Great Britain and everyone else. If we don't have the plans, we are stupid.

Of course you have war plans for every contingency, that's what the War Department (what it used to be called) does. That is their function.

Brokeback,

Well, I just pray that the hatred you carry within you eventually lets you go.

Answer Helen George.

Calling someone out on being a liar is not hatred Mark. You called me a liar and you were the one lying.

You exhibit "hatred" for the "Lunatic Left" every chance you get. You try to point out when they are lying. Why is that OK for you, but not for me?

Brokeback,

The hatred or, if you prefer, bitterness you carry within you is making you inattentive.

Go back, read the whole thing again and try to understand the two parts of my response to you.

It may take some years for you to figure it out, and you will have to drop the hatred to do so, but I have faith that you will get it right enventually - you seem a bright fellow with a good heart, at bottom.

Helen listen to George.

I see things are lively as ever here on B4B! Your doing a great job Mark! Keep up the good work(and keep working over the moonbats)! I think things are going to get busier over here as more & more people leave the main stream misrepresentative media in the dust and turn to more reliable, optimistic, and rellevent media sources such as B4B! Maf, blarney, SOL(literally), B.B. and the other pshycotic, conspiracy theory moonbats have there work cut out for them! Unfortunately for them, I think they are SOL in the longrun! God bless, got lots of houses that need designing!

Mark, Dl, dbogdan, Almiranta, Warriornation, etc: while it is *impossible* to actually debate the merits of this war with you - as you treat *any* dissent with the typical bullshit (America-hater, traitor, helper of the enemy) and as you have bought into this war 100% no matter what - I will try anyway. And let's see if you can attack the *argument*, and not the *person*. I know it's tough.

We'll put aside the fact that Bush's War blatantly violates the Charter of the U.N., because, well, you people don't care about the U.N. - you buy into the platitude of, "9/11 changed everything," and you won't stand around and let a bunch of pu**y nations decide the fate of your national security. Fine.

Saddam's regime was unquestionably tyrannical - it invaded it's neighbor, and used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Nobody is denying this - repeat - *nobody is denying this*. However ... when people like GOP say things like ...

"For people (read leftwing socialist Neanderthals) who claim to care so passionately about the plight of others I find it staggering that you could not give a sh*t about millions of people murdered in the name of tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan."

... I have to call you out for it. Do not kid yourself, GOP: *you* do not give a sh*t about these people yourself. Do not - *do not* - tell me that we invaded Iraq because Saddam murdered his own people. That is the MOST disengenuine thing I have ever heard in my life. Saudi Arabia is a tyranny, GOP - I'm sure you know that, because I'm sure that you also know the UNITED STATES is the country that keeps them in power. When Saddam attacked the Kurds, who stood back in silence? Who supported his regime? I'm sure I didn't have to tell you that, because you already knew.

What about other nations, GOP - Guatemala, Indonesia, Turkey - who murdered their own people? Where was your outrage then? Where is your outrage now, for the people of North Korea? Iran? Darfur? Where is your outrage, GOP? You and your lot are set to spread American Imperialism all over the world - I have given you some good places to start.

How many civilian lives have been lost in Iraq since the war began? 30,000? Where is your outrage for these people? 9/11 takes out 3,000 Americans, and now you are willing to justify the killing of how many more Iraqis & American soldiers in their name - how many, GOP? You speak of your outrage, but truly you have none. The blood of those people are on *your* hands, and may your god bless your soul when the day comes when we have to bear the repercussions of our actions, because there is no doubt that that day is coming.

We can talk about WMD's all day long, as they were the *main* reason given by the Bush Administration used for going to war (the main reason being changed, of course, about six times). Almiranta, you are so sure that we have found these weapons, aren't you? So how to you respond to: "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

How do you respond to: "The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

Are you saying the CIA is *lying*? Are you saying Bush's own Press Secretary is *lying*?

Warriornation calls Russia & France hypocrites for believing that Iraq posessed WMD, but for not taking action. I am not sure how this makes them hypocrites - I believe, actually, that perhaps they thought that even if Iraq had weapons, it did not pose a clear & present threat. Tell me, Warriornation, why haven't we invaded India & Pakistan over their WMD's - they clearly *do* posess them, and have come close to using them. North Korea? These are grave threats to world peace - if achieving world peace is, after all, what you are after.

This is *true* dissent, Almiranta. Do not be one of those fools who claims dissent is "aiding" the enemy - I'm sure the Invasion itself provides all the motivation they need, if they didn't have it already. What do you suggest, Almiranta? That the people who disagree with Bush just not talk openly about it? That the press not report on the thousands & thousands of deaths in Iraq as a result of our invasion? You want to *censor* your fellow citizens for dissenting with their own President; you want to *censor* your free press for reporting on the facts (deaths are facts, sorry to break it to you). Now THAT, my friend, is the DEFINITION of un-American.

You don't dissent Maf, you spew filthy half truths and misrepresentations. Wether from feined ignorance or total ignorance you most certainly have created your reputation! You are about as openminded about the war and this administration as we are to all of your whining and complaining!

Oh yah, is CNN your typical source for news? If I remember correctly this is the same regime(cnn) that wouldn't report the truth in Iraq to keep there stations there! Seen their ratings lately? I guess I'm not the only one that doesn't listen to them anymore!!!

I have to call you out for it. Do not kid yourself, GOP: *you* do not give a **** about these people yourself. Do not - *do not* - tell me that we invaded Iraq because Saddam murdered his own people. That is the MOST disengenuine thing I have ever heard in my life.

That's the BIG, HUGE, GYNORMUS difference between us & you MAF, you see I joined the marine corp directly after graduating high school in 91' in the hopes that I would be given the opportunity to go to Kuwait and kick Saddaams ***. I was sick & tired of hearing about all the terrorism he was inflicting upon his own & his nieghbors! That's right Maf, I didn't join to defend my country(as there was no defending needed)! I joined to defend mankind! You wouldn't understand that tho! It pissed me off to no end, when we turned away without finishing the job & let so many more people in Iraq die!

I hate to say if Maf, but if Saudi was as bad as you say it is, where in the hell is their reputation! Is cnn ignoring them also to keep there stations there! I don't recall them using WMD's on their own, or hearing about mass murder & rape rooms. I don't think Saudi has invaded any countries as of late, have they? You have no claim on human rights, you and your party have become a disgrace to this nation! The lights are about to go on bud!!! G-night!!!

One more thing Maf, you talk about the thirty thousand Iraqi citizens as if we killed them!!!! Turn on your left wing nutnews bud, even they can't spin that! IT'S THE TERRORIST YOU ******, NOT US!!! Why don't you protest them instead of making our country look like a bunch of tyrranical pshyco's! And you wonder why we are getting increasingly pissed off at you guys!!!!

"Helen listen to George"

It's 9-11 Helen. Terrorists! 9-11. Terrorism. Sometimes you just have to catapult the propaganda, Helen. 9-11. Boooo!

maf,

If you can't tell the difference between a democracy like India obtaining nuclear weapons and lunatic leaders like Saddam getting them, then you are just too far gone to even talk to on the subjec.

And it is you on the left who don't care about oppression in the world - to you, as long as they aren't living like Americans, then it must be good.

As for me, I've advocated punitive military expeditions against tyrants since the 1980's - we can't get them all, and we can't get them all at once, but we should get each tyrant as soon as we can.

maf53,
Your latest post is the closest you've come so far to a rational argument. Perhaps when your back is against the wall, you *are* willing to drop the rhetoric - however temporary that might be, remains to be seen.

Your assertion that our invasion of Iraq was against the UN wishes is flat wrong. The UN Charter explictly acknowledges the rights of individual nations to act in their sovereign security interests without collective support. Since before 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN Security Council issued resolution after resolution condemning Saddam's tyrannical practices. These protests became much louder once he invaded Kuwait. Once Gulf War I was over, a surrender agreement was signed in which Saddam explicitly agreed to let his WMD Program (which was absolutely NOT IN QUESTION at that point) become transparent. He explicitly agreed to allow inspections to prove that he was dismantling his WMD program. He then engaged in a nonstop game of brinksmanship with the UN Weapons Inspectors, eventually kicking them out of the country.

Meanwhile, the Oil-For-Food fiasco - err - program was born. It became a huge money trough for a variety of countries like France, Germany and Russia. Interesting that they were the primary opponents to the commencement of Gulf War II... And the UN Security Council continued to issue Declarations urging Saddam's compliance, and warning of serious consequences for his failure to do so. President Bush presented his case to the entire UN, hoping that their efforts would help to resolve the untenable situation. Unfortunately, despite support (on paper) for the efforts of the US to force compliance, the UN was unable to break the impasse. The military invasion in March of 2003 was the natural and expected extension of the over dozen resolutions warning Saddam and demanding his compliance. When is enough enough, Maf53? Would another dozen resolutions have made the case easier for invasion, or would an invasion at that point still be considered "a rush to war?"

We are in agreement that there are plenty of nations we can point to that we consider engaging in practices that are barbaric or repressive. But none of them brings the type of political "luggage" to the table like Saddam Hussein did. Yes, I'd like to see them change their practices. But just as in Iraq, this nation should - and is - engage these countries on many levels to encourage change. That was not possible with Saddam due to the system of thugs he imposed upon Iraq. Like North Korea, there was a huge cult of personality involved making it more difficult than it first appears.

I'm not inclined to cede the argument that WMDs weren't in Iraq when we invaded in 2003. Intelligence failures? Perhaps. But it boggles my mind when I realize that at one point, the program's existence was not in question. How then, would you explain that it "went away?" Did it just evaporate and diffuse into thin air over a period of years? Were the components of the program disassembled and moved elsewhere (Syria perhaps)? There are documents seized during the War from Saddam's government that now seem to support the theory that WMDs did exist at some level. Are you going to dismiss them as bogus like you dismiss the US Intelligence analyses? Within these newly surfacing documents, it appears more and more that Iraq did in fact have significant ties to al-Qaeda well before 911. Operational integration? No. A loose affiliation? Yes. So how much is enough?

In my opinion, France, Germany and Russia weren't being hypocritical in their reactions to our efforts to quell Saddam's growing threat to humanity. They were in collusion with Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars, and wanted to protect these interests. Perfectly understandable. It's also perfectly short-sighted. I can't believe that you don't acknowledge or condemn their lack of principles.

The rest of your most recent post was polite enough, but your assertion about us "censoring" you lack citation of where and when you've been censored on this board. The only ones I could find are where your post was deleted because of profanity. That isn't censoring. That's the site owner's right to maintain some level of civility in the public discussions on this site. If you cannot offer a reasoned and reasonably civil argument, then don't waste your time throwing invectives at us. Don't be surprised when you're treated like a hormone-raging pubscent. We have no way of knowing your true persona. Your words stand by themselves in the blog-o-sphere.

Bear in mind that however "personal" our reactions to your thoughts might be, they are, in fact, very public. Therein lies my assertion that your words often have the potential of aiding and abetting our enemies' agendas. Don't kid yourself for one minute - anyone can read these posts from anywhere in the world. Keep that in mind whenever you post anything on the Internet - anywhere!

To argue the validity or lack of validity in the war is a moot point. We've got boots on the ground fighting and dying daily. To have you barking how it was illegitimate and a plan by the evil Bush administration can only be construed by our enemies as an endorsement of their cause. Simple enough. Don't get your panties in a wad when someone calls you on that point.

We must move on and help Iraq to establish a more representative government, subdue the criminal elements in their society, and rejoin the community of peaceful and peaceloving nations.

Are you willing to buy into that thought? Or will you continue to nip at the heels of this administration, harping and whining about the reasons for going to war? If you choose the latter course of action, then I have nothing further to discuss with you. The war has occurred, so no amount of howling is going to change that. Your arguments become more and more moot as time goes by. The Democrats seem incapable of grasping that concept, so I ask you to consider it personally.

maf..........um, there's no such word as disengenuine!!!! try it again..just a little tweaking and you'll "get" it!!!!

President Bush (and his future Administration) wanted to get rid of Saddam as early as 1999, and did use 9/11 as a precursor to do just that.

This has been clearly documented many times over, by more than a few people fed information from the Administration itself (when their poll numbers were high, that is).

Why attempt to rewrite history? Is it because it is Republicans who in fact on the ropes coming into the 2006 Congressional elections?

Just a quick note so as to correct a few people.

The 30,000 deaths of Iraqi civillians weren't all perpetrated by the terrrorists. We kill civillians with every bomb that goes off too. It's not all us, and it's not all them...we are both to blame.

Cap. Ron, greetings. I have a brother living in Appleton Wis. He was a 101st airborne scout & did tours in Iraq & Afghanistan. I challenge you to look into how many bombs are dropped, thrown, launched etc. from our side! Aside from major incursions we do very little bomb dropping over there, & with the technology we possess, we really are quite good at hitting our targets! Don't take my word for it! Go talk to some of our boyz! If you truly are a mniddle of the roader, I assume you will see how lopsided the civilian casualties are!