If true and if the Iraqi's request it, we outta wipe the Iranians out.

Wait a minute, that's not good news. You are obviously blowing this out of proportion, since only good things go on in Iraq. No but seriously, could you be any more desperate to try to do something to distract the country from your parties failures. Yea, sure, Iran has declared war on us, maybe we can invade them with 60,000 troops. Or maybe we can bankrupt the entire country by commiting the rest of the resources we don't have to another ill concieved war on the other side of the planet. You are so delusional.

Looks like Iran may be the GOP's "October Surprise" as in: "How dare you rotten-old traitors, moonbats and lefties question our policy when we're locked in a intercultural struggle to the death with those crazy Mullahs?"

Hey, it worked in 2002 and 2004 -- it's not like these guys have anything new up their sleeves -- maybe they'll dust off the gay marriage and flag burning amendments too.

I asked my mother in the summer of 2004, “how are the insurgents getting all those weapons?” I said, “either from the unguarded weapon depots or smuggled in over the boarder, so Bush was either negligent in securing known weapon depots or negligent by not securing the boarder.” Either way, Bush is responsible for the deaths of Americans.

Which one do you pick, Mark?

And now we are going to trust Jorge to secure our boarders?

Keefer,
Do you have something to contribute to the debate? Something other than your grade school grammar and writing skills?

Saliva,
Give us an alternative, what’s the Democrats proposal? At least the Republicans stand for something, not against everything.

Barney,
Sounds like you argue with your mommy like everything else: ask a question then answer it yourself.
Is it possible, in your little liberal fantasyland, that the insurgents we've been fighting for 3 years may have avenues to weapons? Is it possible that that's the reason they are enemies?

Bane,

Please point out my grammatical failures and improper writing. I await your reply with trepidation. I appologize if it is difficult for you to follow a sentence with commas. I will try to use low word sentences in the future so it is easier for you to comprehend. I mean "get".

Sincerely,
K

Oh and Bane, this isn't a debate. I know they are getting weapons. The U.S. had a shipment of 200,000 AK-47s for the Iraqi army that was hijacked. Maybe they are using some of those, but it really doesn't matter. Weapons aren't hard to get, especially in that part of the world or here. They are getting it from whoever is selling it to them cheapest, plain and simple. Stop trying to pick fights.

Alright, little fella, remember, you asked.
1) The possessive of "Party" is “Party's”, not “parties”.
2) There should be a semicolon after "us" as the next sentence refers back to the previous,
3) There should be a question mark after "failures"
4) You misspelled "commiting" and "concieved"
If you make these grammatical changes, your post is structurally sound, but you still offer no argument or opinion, only contrarianism.

Your last post should be directed to Barney, he feels that Bush is supplying the insurgents, not me.

Bane, “..that the insurgents we've been fighting for 3 years may have avenues to weapons?”

That was my point two years ago, and it is still true today. Bush’s total incompetence lead to the inception and the continued growth in the insurgency. A competent leader would have secured the depots and the boarders to eliminate the arming of our enemies.

The State department and planners within the Pentagon warned of the possibility of civil unrest and civil war if we did not secure Iraq with a sufficient number of troops.

What did Rummy say about the looting of the weapon depots, “freedom is messy”?

are we not capable of detecting, then targeting, what must be IRG truck convoys crossing into iraq?

maybe they're being waved-through by shite quislings.

I'd bet the kurds could control the border crossings from Iran.

Kurdistan may be the only worthwhile thing that emerges from this endless sectarian strife.

Barney,
You might not remember, but there was a war going on in 2003. People were fighting and dying on both sides; Weapons caches were found, secured and destroyed. Some were not. War isn’t like your X-Box games, ca-ca happens despite our best efforts. Blaming the military for not solving every contingency before it happened is disingenuous at best and mendacious by any standard. The troops did the best they could in an adverse situation. Do you honestly believe that our soldiers allowed the enemy to gain weapons to use against them?
Rummy was right, and you live in safety and security because of men like him.

Remember, it doesn't matter if President Bush can prove this intel. Even if he provides evidence proving the assertion from members of our Allies.

Both were done in 2003.

The Liberal-leaning media still called it a lie.

Mark,
The moonbats here prove one thing beyond any doubt; to them all actions are politically driven. They make good little communists.
You and I know that some tough decisions are ahead for our government, and that, thank God Mr. Bush decides based on what’s in our best interest.
Iran may be the next war, or the mullahs may pull this crazy red-shirt back from the brink. It is, I suppose possible that Russia and China will decide this is not the place to draw the line in the sand and pull Iran back, but I don’t think we can count on that. Perhaps this latest issue will wake up the rest of the area to the dangers this regime poses to the admittedly shakey stability of the region. The Arab world wailed and moaned when Israel took out Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, but did nothing because it was in their best interest to see Saddam as a eunuch. We can hope, but I think we better be prepared to save the region again. Of course, we won’t be thanked afterwards, nor will we stay to reap the rewards.

Bane: Fascist

Keefer, You must keep in mind that Bane is a professional bean counter, a legend in his own mind. However I have reproduced his gems of wisdom from this post alone. What it proves is that correct grammar is in no way related to intelligence. So take his childish criticism with a grain of salt.

Alright, little fella
The moonbats
War isn’t like your X-Box games, ca-ca happens
they make good little communists.
Sounds like you argue with your mommy
Something other than your grade school grammar and writing skills?

And before you rant bane, I have never corrected anyones grammar or claimed to take the moral high road. In fact I enjoy calling a fascist a fascist.

Bane,
My alternative would have been to stay out of Iraq to begin with. Since we're in already, my alternative would be to leave -- now.

By the way, the tremendous hypocrisy displayed by posters here is really something to behold. As a nation that never saw a "situation" where we didn't feel "obligated" to supply one side or another with weapons (including, I might add, Iran) -- it's fairly ludicrous for us now to be pointing the finger at Iran and blaming them for our military and political failures. Iraq is awash in weapons -- you may recall that every household can legally possess an AK. I wouldn't doubt that the insurgents are still using stingers that we sent to bin Laden. LOL, Bushies.

Funny, have not heard a single report of rockets being used against the troops, only IED'S. Since as you say only bad news flows from there, then surely we would have heard about this if it was true and we would have absolutely heard from it from that Talking head Condi Rice. Maybe shes too busy shoe shopping to comment on this.

Well, I know this Mark, if King George bombs Iran, he'll have a hellva lot more than shoulder fired rockets to worry about. He'll have 200-300 000 Iranian troops engaging the nearest American presence... The troops in Iraq! The body count will go up 10X overnight and the draft will be on to get his ass out of the fire and avoid an embarassing defeat.

Of course, if he goes ahead and drops the nukes like he says he is thinking of, then you will be in a whole world of problems, the US will have become a rogue state to the U.N., one that can no longer be trusted with weapons of mass destruction to maintain the balance of power and the U.N. will be forced to seek resolutions to disarm the U.S.

All the allies will side with the U.N. if nukes are used on an unarmed country as a pre-emptive measure of attack. Georges "alienate the world campaign" would then be complete.

Keefer your mantra sure gets boreing. I hope you are enjoying your montly paycheck from the DNC, they do so like to get their moneies worth from their sheep.

Mark thank you for your post about this!!

Barneyg2000,

Your continued hatred of the President is becoming too obvious. In your first post, you blame the President for personally not securing the literally hundreds of weapons depots or for not securing the 2,300 miles of Iraq's borders. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? As if the President should put on a flak-jacket and grab a M-16 and protect the ammo-dumps and the border.

As Bane has pointed out, war is messy. We can make the best-laid plans, and still everything will not go perfectly. Stop the nit-picking. The war in Iraq was won in the first three weeks. Winning the peace takes a little more time, but great progress is being made.

Give credit to the President for providing the leadership that resulted in the liberation of 50,000,000 Afghans and Iraqis, that has resulted in free elections in those two countries for the first time in centuries, that women are now free in those countries to go to school, vote, and serve in their government. We have come a long way in just three plus years. Is there much to be done? Sure. But much has been done.

Of course I have just asked you to give credit to the President, which is something you could never do, regardless of what he does.

Let me give you an example of your hypocracy. When President Clinton ordered agencies to conduct warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence, did you throw a fit? Did you call for his impeachment? Did you call him a king? I didn't, because the program is designed to help protect us from attack. When President Clinton ordered US forces into Bosnia and Kosovo without a UN resolution, Congressional authorization, or exit strategy, did you voice your protest? Did you call him a war-monger? I didn't, because sometimes the use of force is required.

But now, with a Republican in the White House, you call the President a war-monger, incompetent, "King Georgie", and worse. That, my friend is hypocracy.

It seems to me that your and your side-kicks: maf53, ash, Keefer, and the rest of the left wing losers, have nothing better to do but sit back and take pot-shots at anything and everything the Administration is doing. He's the President, whether you like it or not. All your whining and crying aren't going to change that. All of your wishful thinking aren't going to get him thrown out of office, as he has not done anything illegal in providing the leadership in defending our country against terrorist attacks.

You're hopeless. You need to get some therapy to deal with your case of BDS. I only hope, for your sake, that it isn't terminal.

Axis,

Actually, there was that US helicopter shot down this past weekend - it was because of the shoot down incident that the Iraq the Model report leapt out at me...

In spite of leftwing claims to the contrary, the so-called "insurgency" in Iraq is on the ropes...inserting anti-air elements could give the terrorists a new lease on life, at least for a while...Iran's whole program is to do ANYTHING which can delay the day of reckoning between the US and Iran over the nuclear issue...they want it kicked down the road until after Bush leaves office, because they are convinced that no successor President will have the courage to stop the Iranians.

Bane,

I think you're right - on another thread, Ash is stating he has to keep up the class war, of all absurdities...

A10, “…conduct warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence,..” You don’t need warrants for foreign spying, but you do for domestic.

“When President Clinton ordered US forces into Bosnia and Kosovo without a UN resolution, Congressional authorization, or exit strategy, did you voice your protest?”

I seem to recall a little thing called genocide in Kosovo. Saddam was contained by sanctions and the no-fly zones that history has proven were completely effective.

“It seems to me that your and your side-kicks: maf53, ash, Keefer, and the rest of the left wing losers,..” Are you include the other 71% of America in your rant?

The number of troops in Iraq was and still is Bush's decision. It is his plan; he broke it, now he owns it.

if russian and china were here on usa border and saying that they want a ragim change in usa what would you do?

Why is it, exactly, that the loony lefties insist on coming over to a rational discussion and showing off their ignorance? From the Rogue Apostrophe to a concern about "boarders"---a concern I thought limited to ski areas----they just spout all sorts of nonsense. Are they instructed over at the Kos to pester us?

The liberal mind is a simple mind. If something is not a complete, total, and immediate success, according to their selectively rigid criteria, it is a failure. But in the real world, it's a little more complicated than that. The old military cliche "No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy" has never been truer, as we fight a new type of war, against a new type of enemy, while simultaneously trying to deal with the ankle-biters back home who would gleefully offer up national security for a chance to claim a Gotcha on Bush.

What is this silly pretense that Bush put together the battle plan for Iraq? Not too long ago, the whine against Bush was that he was letting the military run the war---ooooh, an impeachment offense there!! Now it is that he did not let the military run the war. ("The number of troops in Iraq was and still is Bush's decision. It is his plan....") When in fact different military positions were put forth, representing different military (and political) philosophies. The President listened to all of them and chose one. It was effective and correct to a great degree. It may prove to be effective and correct in its entirety, or it may need to be tweaked as the opposition adapts to it. Big deal. That's what real life is like. I have changed my business plan over the years, recently selling off some assets I once thought were the direction I wanted to go. I may be wrong in my new direction. Making mistakes is part of actually doing something. Sitting on the sidelines making snide comments about those who are actually doing something is the territory of those who never achieve anything.

I started to respond to Blarney and realized that it is just a waste of time---his blatherings are so disonnected from reality, so bizarre, and so just plain goofy, they are not worth addressing. BlarneyWorld is a dark and murky place, and I am just glad I don't have to live there. It is clearly a place that values snideness and sneering above real contributions to the discussion, and the kind of place where Ash and his ilk also feel at home.

I seem to recall that the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the sanctions were not sustainable over the long run. the Administration and Congress may have been relying on this information when they passed the Congressinal Resolution authorizing the use of force. Saddam had worked to end the sanctions and the end of the sanctions was in sight which is why Charles Duelfer and David Kay the former heads of the ISG both concluded it was in the national interest to remove him. None of this is to suggest that I think the administration made the proper decisions or has executed the war as well as it could have been. Unfortunately it seems to me that the media does not always supply the context within which certain decisions were made.

A-10, you asked:
"Let me give you an example of your hypocracy. When President Clinton ordered agencies to conduct warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence, did you throw a fit? Did you call for his impeachment? Did you call him a king? I didn't, because the program is designed to help protect us from attack. When President Clinton ordered US forces into Bosnia and Kosovo without a UN resolution, Congressional authorization, or exit strategy, did you voice your protest? Did you call him a war-monger? I didn't, because sometimes the use of force is required."

I have been asking very similar questions for months, and have gotten no answers. Because the loonies who post here simply have no idea that any of this ever took place. Their handlers have never told them about any of these things, because they are not equipped to handle such complexities. They are programmed to a knee-jerk anti-Bush spasm every time they are fed some predigested pap from Air America and its ilk, and are ignorant of American history, ignorant of the antics of their beloved Billy Boy, and ignorant in general. Throw them anything they haven't been told what they think about, and they just ignore it.

I think you're right - on another thread, Ash is stating he has to keep up the class war, of all absurdities...

Uh, but it's true Marker. And why must you end every post with...

I don't know which war game Axis has been looking at, but I can't see 300,000 Iranians crossing the border into Iraq. We have this thing called air superiority which would make that type of mass movement a turkey shoot. Everything I have seen details air strikes and limited ground troops. If you have seen any possible plans for a ground invasion, please let us see it.

Let us say you are Iran. You have been named as one of the Axis of Evil countries. Iraq (another evil country)with no nuclear capacity is shocked and awed. N.Korea (a far more dangerous foe) which is nuclearly armed is left alone. Now let us all scratch our heads and pretend we are Iran. Should we try to develope a nuclear arsenal like N. Korea? Or should we defend ourselves like Iraq.

Well you boys talk amongst yourself. Bush's wild talk and false bravado make that choice rather easy.

Almiranta, what are you trying to get at? What is your point? Are you telling us the “Libs” wont comment on Clinton and Kosovo? I guess you didn’t read my post (hint, just above yours)?

I supported Clinton’s decision then and I still do now. The operation was a total success. We saved the lives of tens of thousands Muslims. Our reputation throughout the world was greatly enhanced.

Guess how many Americans died in Kosovo?

You and A-10 are implying that Clinton lied about his motives in Kosovo? How so, please fill us Libs in?

Mark, I missed that I guess.

To tell you the truth, I honestly think that Iran is not very worried at all from action by the U.S. To most of the world, saber rattlers and percieved threats as they may be, they are also a nation that has not attacked another recently and have remained for the most peaceful aside the the saber rattling. The world recognizes that they currently have NO nuclear weapons but POSSIBLY may have desires for such in the future, speculated to be 4-10 years away depending on many things and assuming they are full speed ahead today.

If the U.S. attacked a KNOWN unarmed nation because of what it MAY do somewhere down the road, it will do so alone, with no support and scorn of the rest of the world and IRAN may have hidden allies of Russia and China.

If it does, Iran will be the victim of an unprovoked attack and will be free to attack the troops in Iraq.

Afterwards, regardless of the outcome, Iran will still be there, and the U.S. will have a huge black mark at the least against it again and will be further discredited throughout the world. They will then be free to deal with the U.N. again, and the U.S. position will have to be excluded

If the U.S. uses nukes, see my above comment on that topic. Even worse backlash.

Mark, the situation is troublesome, however immediate military action is not an option. The U.S. simply does not have the troops to go toe to toe will a much larger well armed army + deal with al the crap in Iraq.

The only way would be for Bush to DRAFT a quarter to half a million of kids and collage age adults to get it done.

Bush knows the second he starts this, it will be Vietnam all over again and people will take to the streets on protest. Right now, its war on the cheap and so has no far avoided most of that.

Axis,

Actually, under the provisions of the UN Charter, the United States is already fully justified in taking military action against Iran - Iran is a State sponsor of terrorism which is a clear and present danger to the United States. Additionally, I hold it as an American that the current set of tryants running Iran have not the legitimate power to issue a parking ticket, let alone maintain a military force - they are usurpers of the sovereignty of the Iranian people and are thus only allowed to continue as long as the world and/or the Iranian people tolerate their existence. Its not a matter of "may" we attack the Iranian government, but whether an attack is the best means to secure our desired end.

As for the Iranian military - it is woefully equipped and badly trained and led. The thugs who run Iran don't dare have a large, competant military force for fear that the young men who would make up such a force would turn revolutionary. The do have their Guards units - but these are rather small, and most of them are really just goon squads to suppress the Iranian people...they would be scattered like chaff before the wind if even the Iraqi military had to go up against them, let alone the American military.

Be that as it may, no one is contemplating an invasion of Iran - it is simply not necessary for our purposes. We expect that eventually the Iranian regime will collapse upon itself - it is only sustained these days by the artificially high oil prices which disguise the complete collapse of the Iranian economy over the past ten years - but, meanwhile, we've got lunatics in charge of Iran who are seeking nuclear weapons and we cannot be sure that there will be a revolution in Iran prior to the lunatics getting their nukes - so, we have to prevent them from doing so.

The diplomatic efforts are starting to wind down and I expect that by late summer we will commence an aerial bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure - though my preferred course of action would be a naval blockade to take away the only thing sustaining the mullahs, oil money.

Mark, thanks so much for returning us to logical thought. Any more, it's hard to find it here with all of the lefty drivel that get's spewed on these web pages.

Blarney,

"A10, “…conduct warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence,..” You don’t need warrants for foreign spying, but you do for domestic."

Correct, but the NSA is not conducting domestic "spying", they are gathering foreign intelligence. "Domestic" means that both ends of the communications are within the US. "International" or "Foreign" communications occur when one or both ends of the communication is overseas. For the millionth time, the NSA intercept program is only intercepting communications where one end is overseas, thus is not "domestic spying." No matter how had you wish or how many times you call it "domestic spying," its not.

"I seem to recall a little thing called genocide in Kosovo. Saddam was contained by sanctions and the no-fly zones that history has proven were completely effective."

What a load of "B.S.". Are you aware that all of the hype about the genocide in Kosovo have been proven to be false. Or are you convienently ignoring that? President Clinton stated the "tens of thousands" were killed, yet the "mass graves" have proven to be empty. During the entire period of genocide, it is now estimated that less than 3,000 were killed under Milosevic's orders. The NATO bombing designed to stop the "genocide" is estimated you have killed 2,000. So, 2,000 innocent Kosovo civilians died needlessly at the hands of President Clinton. Where is your outrage? Oh, right, he's a Democrat, so its OK.

Are you trying to say the 50,000 - 80,000 Iraqis being murdered by Saddam each year up to the liberation is not genocide? He was killing twice as many each month that died in Kosovo during the entire period of "genocide".

The sanctions were working? What planet have you been on for the last 15 years? Saddam skimmed billions off the UN Oil-for-Food program and diverted it to building palaces, buying prohibited weapons systems, and giving bribes to the French, Germans, and Russians. He was planning to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. You call that contained?

"The number of troops in Iraq was and still is Bush's decision. It is his plan; he broke it, now he owns it."

As the President has said on a number of occasions: The troop level in Iraq is the decision of the Commanders in the Theater. If they want more troops, they will get them.

So exactly how did he "break his plan"? Please explain.

"You and A-10 are implying that Clinton lied about his motives in Kosovo? How so, please fill us Libs in?"

I'm not saying that Clinton lied about his motives to commit forces in Kosovo. The intelligence was wrong. Which is funny, because Kosovo was nowhere near the closed society that Iraq was. How could the intel been so wrong? Did President Clinton ignore the intel? Did he "cherry-pick" the intel to justify bombing Kosovo and killing 2,000 innocents? Couldn't they have just imposed sanctions and kept Milosevic "contained"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Keep it up, Blarney, your posts are the funniest things I have read in weeks.

a10, "Are you trying to say the 50,000 - 80,000 Iraqis being murdered by Saddam each year up to the liberation is not genocide? He was killing twice as many each month that died in Kosovo during the entire period of "genocide"."

Prove it!

If my calls are taped, it is domestic. If the person that is taped is overseas, than that is foreign.

A10, “He was planning to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. You call that contained?”

Explain to us how the sanctions could have been listed without the consent of two (US and UK) of the members of the Un security council?

Mark, the U.N. would never approve a bombing mission of Iran unless intelligence was there on the table that wasn't cooked and showed that they are an immediate threat. Sponsoring terrorists? Perhaps. That does not give them the ok for an all in all war. Only to put a stop to what is happening now.

Iran is not a tyranny. Iraq was. Iran has an ELECTED president.

As for the army, you are forgetting how the Iranian people feel about americans. It would be trivial for the president to summon up a huge militia to go and attack the troops if you attack them first. Thats assuming that the army could not do the job. Iran's a closed society, chances are good we know only a fraction of the whole picture on anything.

However, it is clear that this Iranian president is intelligent, clever and manipulative. He clearly wants something. IE: He has a price. Thats why he is posturing. Posturing to the world that hes perfected enrichment from .07 to 3%. No motivation to do that other than to prompt action for the world to seek alternatives. They had some interest in Russia's offer for fuel rods, but that was not the whole picture.

Dangle the right carrot and he will go back into hibernation for another 5 or 6 years.

Personally, I think they want schmatics and materials to jump start their nuclear power project. They can export excess power to power starved Iraq, China Russia and who knows who else.

Whatever it is, they have a price. The U.S. cannot win this war, the cards are just not there unless George wants another bloody war that never ends. If you read up on the "Project for a new American Century" that the neo-cons authored, you will see that they saw a need for a 4 theatre simultaneous wars in foreign countries. Not a good picture for America.

Blarney: "Prove it!" You have got to be kidding.

Try visiting Human Rights Watch for details of just some of the proof.

According to Human Rights Watch, between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were killed in 1988 alone.

In 1991 they killed an additional 40,000 - 100,000 Kurds and 60,000 to 130,000 Shi'ites.

Try visiting Mass Graves for photographic evidence of Saddam's handywork.

"If my calls are taped, it is domestic. If the person that is taped is overseas, than that is foreign."

Just like a liberal to make up new definitions to fit their agenda. So if you call someone overseas, it's a "domestic" call? Only in your warped world. For the rest of us, that's an international call. Try checking in your phone book. When you call another country, its considered an international call and you have to dial a country code, prior to the number. How about when you have called overseas, are you saying that only the person overseas can be taped, because they are "foreign", but you can't, because in your mind, you're "domestic"?

Here's another way to look at it. Try to follow along, you might just learn something. When you board an airplane in St Louis, MO and fly to Denver, CO, that is a "domestic" flight. If you get on an airplane in St Louis, MO and fly to London, England, that is an international or foreign flight.

I guess from now on, I'll refer to the intercepts as being intercepts of international calls, which are the only ones being intercepted, to gather foreign intelligence.

"Explain to us how the sanctions could have been listed without the consent of two (US and UK) of the members of the Un security council?"

I'll assume you meant "lifted". Maybe we would have stopped the lifting of sanctions. As "B.Poster" posted above, Iraq Survey Group concluded that the sanctions were not sustainable over the long run. The estimated annual cost of sustaining the sanctions was in the hundreds of billions. Not counting the tens or hundreds of thousands of additional Iraqis that Saddam would have butchered.

Lifting them was not an issue and they were not effective, nor was Saddam "contained". He was continuing to murder his citizens, purchase prohibited weapons systems, steal billions in Oil-for-Food money, allowed the Iraqi infrastructure to deteriorate, etc.

A10, got anything in the 21st century? Kosov was evolving in real time in front of the world. If you got a problem with killing in the 80’s, and ‘91 talk to Bush “the elder” and Reagan about that

A10, “Just like a liberal to make up new definitions to fit their agenda. So if you call someone overseas, it's a "domestic" call?”

So the phone company now sets the standards for FISA? What if I don’t make the call? I don’t even know where the call originates from. How about that? The definition of domestic is, indigenous, of ones home or country.

A10, “Iraq Survey Group concluded that the sanctions were not sustainable over the long run.” What is long run? How about five years? How about 10-years? The point is, Bush went in far too early, and without support of the rest of the world.

There were no WMD, there were ties to 9/11.

a10, You still haven’t explained on how the sanctions could have been lifted without US and UK support. Have you?

Blarney,

For the last time, if you are calling a terrorist overseas, the NSA is going to listen to the conversation (assuming you are calling a number that the NSA has linked to a terrorist). If a known terrorist overseas calls you, the NSA is going to listen (again assuming the NSA has knowledge of the number the call is originating from). They are gathering foreign intelligence. That's their job. Federal Courts have ruled that it's Constitutional. If you aren't calling a terrorist that the NSA knows about, or if you receive a call from overseas that isn't from a terrorist, or if you make a domestic call, even if you are calling a terrorist, the NSA isn't intercepting your calls. They don't care about you. They care about finding out about terrorist who want to kill you and me. You should be thankful that there are dedicated professionals at the NSA working 24/7 to try to stop the next terrorist attack. So far, they have been successful. You should be praying they continue to do a great job. End of discussion.

"The point is, Bush went in far too early, and without support of the rest of the world."

Just who the hell are you to decide when it is too early? Should we have allowed Saddam to kill a few hundred thousand more Iraqis? Would the time be right then? How about after he had supplied some terrorist with the WMD everyone knew he once possessed and they had conducted a WMD attack in the US and tens of thousands were killed? Perhaps in your hometown? Or where you work, live, shop, or go to school? Would it be OK then? Or should he have waited for Saddam to make operational the long-range missiles he was buying from North Korea and China and launched one into Israel or Turkey? Maybe with a WMD payload? Now is the time right? I'm guessing that, for you, the time would never be right.

"There were no WMD, there were ties to 9/11."

Yes, there were WMD. The Iraqis admit they had them. They used them on the Kurds and Iranians. The failed to declare all of them to the UN Inspectors. They got caught lying to the UN Inspectors.

Where are the missing WMD? I don't know. Maybe destroyed (but the captured documents prove that Saddam was ready to reconstitute the WMD programs as soon as he could). Maybe buried in the desert. Maybe secretly shipped to Syria. I don't know. But it is a 100% proven fact that he did have and used them prior to March 2003. It was a chance we couldn't take that he would agree to stop all of his WMD aspirations and never provide them to terrorists. He wasn't anyone a sane leader could trust.

As for your last phrase, I'm assuming you meant "no ties to 9/11", or was that a Freudian slip? No one ever said he was. But he supported, harbored, and trained terrorists.

We are in a Global War against Terror, whether you accept it or not. If you choose not to support the war, or choose to undermine our efforts, that is your choice. But you do so at your own peril. Those of us who cherish freedom and liberty realize that it is worth fighting for and worth providing the opportunity for others, in Iraq and Afghanistan, to enjoy the same, if they choose.

Fortunately for you, you live in a country where you can voice your opinion, in public, on a blog, or in the privacy of your own home, and not worry about a knock in the night and the secret police taking you away. There are millions of men and women in uniform putting their lives on the line, every second, to give you that right. So, when you go to sleep tonight, remember the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are patroling the streets of Iraq looking for terrorists, who are flying combat air patrols over American cities to deter another 9/11, who are on survelliance in the mountains of Afghanistan looking for OBL (yes, they are out their looking, 24/7), who are building roads, schools, power stations, and hospitals to make things better for those in oppressed lands, and who are away from their loved ones back here at home. They are out there to protect you, whether you deserve it or not.

nd not worry about a knock in the night and the secret police taking you away.

Are you sure about that A-10. I've seen some of the phone calls you have been making...

Axis,

As far as indications are, the Iranian people like the United States quite a lot - of course, there is no way to ascertain Iranian popular feeling because it is a tyranny...if you want to call what happened in Iran an election, then that is your business...but the plain fact of the matter is that the Iranian "election" was no more an election than Saddam's were...a few mullahs decide who gets to run and what their platform will be. Yeah, thats freedom...

As for the "President" of Iran - sure, he wants something: all of us dead or converted to his version of Islam. There's no price we can pay which will satisfy him short of that.

A-10,

The NSA is listening in to ALL calls, you just don't know about it yet. The equipment that they have installed in AT&T and Verizon according to whistleblowers are connected before their switches, meaning they can be intercepting all calls or can pick and choose. If what we know is all there is to know, there would be no need for coverups.

Speaking of NSA coverups, the news is breaking that Bush signed a Presidential Memorandum regarding the NSA phone record collection on May 5th allowing the 3 involved phone companies to LIE to the American people and the FTC in its upcoming investigation and not be accountable for it. This is essentially a "blank lie check" from the White House. This is why the phone comanies can now deny their involvement while AT&T acknowledged it early on. This is unprescedented as I understand it and can be used to allow anyone to lie to anyone including courts and grand juries. Of course challenged in court might show it to be the President overstepping because he is essentially transferring a limited amount of his presidential authority to another person. Cover up, cover up.

A-10, US did not invade Iraq to save the Iraqi people from a dictator, they went in on the cooked intelligence and lies that there were WMD's there.

A-10, Iraq HAD WMD's(GAS), which was destroyed in 91 during the Gulf war. They only had WMD's because the U.S. SOLD IT TO THEM! during the Inan-Iraq war. It is NOT a fact that he had them prior to 2003, no one can prove any existed after 91 Gulf war.

A-10, Bush and Co. said and implied MANY times that Saddam had terrorist connections. He did not harbor any because they would have been a challenge to his exclusive authority. He was certainly not training them either. The closest to this is refrations to the families of suicide bombers in Palastine.

A-10, if in the "Global War on Terror", your government takes away all your freedoms and liberities then what is the point in even fighting? How many of your constitutional rights do you need to see legislated away by Congress and this President before you see this?

A-10, in your final para. you describe being able to speak your mind without worrying about getting a knock on the door. Are you speaking of America? Because that "Freedom" is rapidly eroding. NSA phone records are now concentrating on reports, spying on them so as to be able to track their sources and curtail freedoms of the press. Reporters can be jailed until they reveal their sources. FBI has been caught spying on and keeping tabs on activist groups and peace organizations just like in the Nixon days. NSA phone records are being X-Referenced through as third party company that can reveal all your personal info including voter registration and in many cases, who you voted for in Primaries.

How many of your freedoms do you need to see do up in smoke before you start opening up your eyes.

Quite a few. Remember, every dictator and tyrant in history from Caesar to Stalin to Hitler have ALL been right wingers or conservatives.

Axis,

Now you're just getting paranoid...please tell me that you are not a Kennedy Conspiracy Theorist...

Mark, will you hold to that belief of yours when the beans are spilled even more on the program and its learned that its much bigger and much more intrusive than is known currently?

Its a fact that Bush has signed a presidental memo allowing Negroponti to authorize the big 3 phone Co.'s to LIE to the FTC and the public without worry of being held accountable. Look it up, he signed it on May 5.

If I am such a big conspiracy theorist, why the HUGE coverup attempts by Bush? Simple, the program is huge and not legal and they want to cover it up as long as they can to avoid investigations.

No matter, November will be here really soon and the investigations will be coming which will be sure to open your eyes. Its amazing how fearful your Republicans are of proper and constitutional oversight. Not that I blame you are the (R) corruption and lawlessness are unprecedented in American history. But what goes up must come down.

Axis,

Now you're just being funny...watch out! The Black Helicopters will get you!

We really need to stop feeding the trolls on this board.

Paranoid? Nope. Don't see any black choppers either, but I do see lots of corrupts Republicans frantic to keep their little pile of eggs from collapsing.

Here it is, files on May 12, dated May 5.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm

allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))

and the rest of the order...

"(A)With respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States, no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed upon any person acting in cooperation with the head of any Federal department or agency responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority to issue such directives. Each directive issued under this paragraph shall set forth the specific facts and circumstances with respect to which the provisions of this paragraph are to be invoked. Each such directive shall, unless renewed in writing, expire one year after the date of issuance."

and the rest of the order...

"(A)With respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States, no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed upon any person acting in cooperation with the head of any Federal department or agency responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority to issue such directives. Each directive issued under this paragraph shall set forth the specific facts and circumstances with respect to which the provisions of this paragraph are to be invoked. Each such directive shall, unless renewed in writing, expire one year after the date of issuance."

axis,

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about the secret police, I'd worry obout the men in the white coats. You are a kook.

"The NSA is listening in to ALL calls"...

Where's your proof? Logic would dictate that you're making this up. With billions of phone calls made each day, the NSA would have to employ tens of millions on technicians to accomplish this. But they don't. So you're lying.

"Bush signed a Presidential Memorandum regarding the NSA phone record collection on May 5th"

The entire Memo is as follows:

Memorandum of May 5, 2006

Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives

Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)). In performing such function, you should consult the heads of departments and agencies, as appropriate.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

(Presidential Sig.)B

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, May 5, 2006.

13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 states: "With respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States, no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed upon any person acting in cooperation with the head of any Federal department or agency responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority to issue such directives. Each directive issued under this paragraph shall set forth the specific facts and circumstances with respect to which the provisions of this paragraph are to be invoked. Each such directive shall, unless renewed in writing, expire one year after the date of issuance."

Paragraph (2) states: E"very issuer which has a class of securities registered pursuant to section 12 and every issuer which is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) shall--

make and keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer;

devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that--

transactions are executed in accordance with management's general or specific authorization;

transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, and (II) to maintain accountability for assets;

access to assets is permitted only in accordance with management's general or specific authorization; and

the recorded accountability for assets is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with respect to any differences; and

notwithstanding any other provision of law, pay the allocable share of such issuer of a reasonable annual accounting support fee or fees, determined in accordance with section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."

Section 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) is worded exactly the same as 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Please help me, where in there is any mention of the NSA phone record collection?

"They only had WMD's because the U.S. SOLD IT TO THEM! during the Inan-Iraq war."

WRONG. The WMDs (chemical) that Saddam was producing have been around for decades. They were used during WWI. They are easily produced using common chemicals.

"He did not harbor any because they would have been a challenge to his exclusive authority. He was certainly not training them either."

Wrong again. There is documented proof that the Iraqis were training terrorists in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak.

"if in the "Global War on Terror", your government takes away all your freedoms and liberities then what is the point in even fighting? How many of your constitutional rights do you need to see legislated away by Congress and this President before you see this?"

What Constitutional rights of your have been taken away? Your right to talk to terrorists and plot attacks? Exactly where is that right spelled out in the constitution? You right to post ridiculous comments on internet blogs? I see your still posting.

But your final comment wins the grand prize: "Remember, every dictator and tyrant in history from Caesar to Stalin to Hitler have ALL been right wingers or conservatives." So Stalin was a conservative? I thought he was a communist, a left winger, a liberal. Hitler was a social democrat. Far from being a conservative. You left out a few: Castro - left wing, communist dictator; Mao - left wing, communist dictator; Pol Pot - Khmer Communist leader; need I go on.

Wow, A-10 I am impressed. You probably spent all morning compiling research for your response.

As I said, the memo is a "blank check to lie" that Negroponte gives o the Telco's, who are then free to lie and deny to anyone and have a get out of jail free card.

You will see it real soon in action because the Telcos will try to shield themselves behind it in the billion dollar lawsuits now coming to bear against them. Watch and learn just how crooked your government is.

Wrong. Wrong. Its simply impossible to be a liberal and a communist or dictator. They are ALL right wingers. Look it up, any historian will be glad to inform you of the facts.

"But your final comment wins the grand prize: "Remember, every dictator and tyrant in history from Caesar to Stalin to Hitler have ALL been right wingers or conservatives." So Stalin was a conservative? I thought he was a communist, a left winger, a liberal. Hitler was a social democrat. Far from being a conservative. You left out a few: Castro - left wing, communist dictator; Mao - left wing, communist dictator; Pol Pot - Khmer Communist leader; need I go on."

Actually "axis" my Bachelor's degree was in History and it is possible to be both a liberal and a communist as well as a dictator.

Are you aware that the provisions that you are so worried about in the Securities Exchange Act have been in existance since 1934? The horrible powers you cite have been available to the President since FDR? The memo just granted Secretary Negroponte the authorities the law had provided to the President. This happens all the time. Its called delegation of authority.

axis,

Here's a little homework for you. Look up the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and see what it says about telephone companies providing information to the goverment.

strellas have been in production for 40 years. They are everywhere !
Certainly there must be truckloads left over in Afghanistan. I think those were of Chinese and Egyptian manufacture. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2004/2004-05-20-10.asp The black market cost seems to be reported at 500 to 5000 dollars

Art,

But sometimes it is fun to watch conspiracy theorists run themselves up on the rocks of logic and fact...

A-10, I am aware of that, however it is rarely used as it is NOW being used to pervert justice and to HIDE government wrong doing. The phone companies KNEW what they were doing was illegal, so did the government, which is why they pressured the government to get them out of the oncoming legal firefight.

Legal uses of presidental authority is one thing, perversion is quite another.

A-10, will you feel the same in 2008, when hillary gets in and puts all this lawlessness to use against you crooked Republicans, spying on your and your friends making sure you are not scheming how to steal election and putting crooked voting machines into place? Somehow I doubt it and suspect that you are little more than a partisan hypocrite. Its ok for the (R) party to do something but if a (D) does it, heaven forbid its got to stop.

axis (the socialist/communist foreigner),

"A-10, I am aware of that, however it is rarely used as it is NOW being used to pervert justice and to HIDE government wrong doing. The phone companies KNEW what they were doing was illegal, so did the government, which is why they pressured the government to get them out of the oncoming legal firefight."

You are a moron. Since you are aware of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which authorizes the phone companies to provide the data to the government, how in the hell can it be illegal!!!!!

A-10, as a student of history, you of all people should be able to tell the difference between Socialism and Communism. The fact that you / the 2 in a thinly veiled attempt to link the 2, shows that you must have been sleeping thru that class or you got your degree at night school. I'm not a foreigner either, have dual nationality and have experience in both countries.

I will say however that we have a HELL of a lot more freedom here in Canada and actually value our citizens privacy. Try to look up a Canadians personal information/credit online and you will discover that it is far more difficult for people to invade our privacy.

You are the moron, another class you apparently slept thru is the one that teaches the difference between being authorized to disclose data with probable cause and a warrant and just handing it over without either.

Law enforcement official have "authority" to search suspected criminals as well, but only with
probable cause. To equate, a police officer in a room of people suspects that there possibly could be some sort of criminal somewhere in the room. So he arrests them all and strip searches every one.

That is what Bush and the NSA is doing and its YOU that is against the wall buck naked and robbed of your civil liberities and 4th ammendment rights, you are just too dense to see it.

axis,

Ifyou read the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act you would see that a warrant is not required, only that the disclosure is made "pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization".

Those of us involved in our national security view the elected President of the United States as being someone who can make a lawful authorization, just as a non-elected, un-accountable, federal judge can.

And yes, I know the difference between socialism and communism. I used both terms as you seem to exhibt charactistics of both philosophies.

And no, I didn't sleep through class, but I did take some classes at night as I was working 60+ hours a week to support my family while attending college. My Master's degree was also done taking classes at night for the same reason.

I would challenge you to list all of the freedoms and liberties I have been stripped naked of. My freedom to communicate with known terrorists? I can live without that freedom, as can a majority of Americans. The liberty to plan and execute terrorist attacks against my country? Again, something I can live without.

Why is it that you liberals want to restrict the tools the US goverment can use to detect and prevent terrorist attacks? Do you want them to succeed in murdering thousands of Americans? How about thousands of Cannucks?

"pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization"

That means a warrant dummy.

Government cannot simply do or take what it wants. America has laws to protect the people from over-reaching.

Bush cannot simply say that what we are doing is legal and a court would have agreed so therefore we don't need to bother with court at all.

He's not getting FISA warrants because he would not get one from them for fishing expeditions or mass data mining programs of hundreds of millions of innocent americans.

"He's not getting FISA warrants because he would not get one from them for fishing expeditions or mass data mining programs of hundreds of millions of innocent americans."

Posted by: axis at May 19, 2006 06:53 PM

How do you explain the 3,800 FISA warrants that were issued in 2004 and 2005?

These were not fishing expeditions and obviously they showed just cause.

This only strengthens my position. 3800 FISA warrants issued, no problems then why skirt it all together on some ways such as "NSA spying" , yet not on others such as FBI investigations?

The answer is simply and can only be that FISA would not have approved mass data collection and mining and blind wire taps. Neither would they have approved spying on journalists and environmental and political activist groups are they are now doing. Just as Nixon was and had to resign to avoid being impeached.

This is not a case where they were having trouble getting FISA approval since 99% of requested ones are approved.

Posted by A-10

How do you explain the 3,800 FISA warrants that were issued in 2004 and 2005?