Occupying a country and installing a puppet government hardly constitutes "liberating" it. Did you notice how quickly the Green Zone denizens changed Prime Ministers to please the administration? A truly sovereign nation would never have bowed to that kind of hooligan pressure.

The "myth" of Iraq is that there was ever a (legal) reason for invading it. Another myth is that we are "making progress" by throwing more of our troops and treasure into the meat grinder.

Hopefully, we will someday know the truth about what this administration did to get us to the place we are now. The day of accountability is coming and I doubt it will be pretty.

Mark,

Perhaps it might be helpful to the "people of faith" whom you're apparently trying to reach is you added a bit of reality (in addition to a pinch of intellectual honesty) to your post. You might remind them that so far Bush's excursion into Iraq has cost the average American family over $20000...than's right, EACH American family. And while you're at it you might mention the 2455 Americans killed there, and the 10000+ maimed. If your "people of faith" care about such things, you might mention that there have been over 30000 Iraqi civilians killed in Operation Bush. Oh yeah, and don't forget that things are far less stable there than when we started, and we can't even dream of stability until many more lives are lost and billions spent.

Don't forget Breck Girl's (John Edwards) claim that Hussein was an IMMINENT THREAT back in 2003.

It's quite funny how these people on the left made these claims about Iraq for years and years and suddenly "Bush Lied". What a monumental back tracking these people have done. It's amazing.

Of course they have no problem saying "lied" and forget that the Clinton appointed CIA Director George Tenet said "Slam Dunk WMD were there". Oh those pesky facts.

If you can't listen to your CIA director when he says SLAM DUNK, who the hell are you supposed to listen to on the intelligence side.

"A puppet government".

Yeah...a puppet government that millions of people risked their lives for to vote on. A puppet government...do you guys really believe your own dribble?

Notice the word "estimate" in there.

Truth is, we and the world thought Huessein probably did have this stuff, but it turns out they and we were wrong. Difference is, most of the world did not think there was enough evidence, enough proof to invade. We did. We were wrong.

The misleading part of the equation happened in the US effort to get public and UN support for the war.

Things like Rumsfeld saying we "know" where the WMD stockpiles are. Things like the UN presentation by Powell that falsely claimed a lot of things.

But in a broader sense, the cherry-picking of intelligence also misled our populace into war. Intel from a high-ranking Iraqi official that painted a very accurrate picture of what turned out to be Iraq's WMD and nuclear capability was ignored. "Curveball" -- who turned out to be a highly discredited source -- was given tons of credibility because he was saying what the administration wanted to hear.

Mark, this post is an example of what you do all the time. You make claims based on very macro statements or ideas that don't hold up when you dig deeper and look at the details.

You say the NIE is proof that we were misled into war. But you look at specific actions and claims by this administration, and it's clear that simply isn't the case.

Warriornation

The democrats, like the rest of the nation, believed what their President told them. It was a mistake, but don't forget, the country had a major blow with the 9-11 attacks. The fear that was created by those acts was undeniable and Bush used that fear to further his own goals.

Brewer and Shipley points out that the Administration “cherry-picked” information from the NIA, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, British intelligence, the UN, Iraqis, French Intelligence, but didn’t listen to the cowardly Mr. Shipley; he knew better! .

This is an example of what liberals do all the time; without any conviction they pretend that they were on the right side of the argument all along. Take no action and you can never be wrong, of course you leave it to someone else to fight for your rights and freedoms, but without convictions, that’s the easy part.

Mark

Without lies and deception the left wouldn't have much to say

WARRIORNATION -

Don't forget that, back in early 2001, Colin Powell said that Sadaam Hussein was not a threat, had no nuclear program, and was successfully contained. To quote you, "What a monumental back tracking these people have done. It's amazing."

P.S. to the "trolls" here, a word of advice: "You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep."

Mark - get your lefty rhetoric straight: Bush IS the dunce but it is CHENEY who is the the evil imperialist genius. And of course, Karl Rove is the ARCHITECT.

And Bush had nothing to do with PNAC. That movement took over the administration from the inside via Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. PNAC sought not to take oil, but rather to bring peace to the middle east by ham-fistedly forcing western democracy and capitalism down their throats through overthrow and military action- without any regard to their history, belief or culture. Once the dust (and thrown flowers) settled, and we all had a Starbucks and a Big Mac together, THEN corporations could have easier access to their oil- at least until we used it all up with our over bloated SUVs.

Bush was put up as the front man merely because he already had a name brand and was electable. He's no evil genius.

I totally agree with extramedium.

Rathaven,

I was for invading afghanastan. You can't say I'm not in favor of military action when it's called for.

I didn't think it was called for with Iraq. I didn't think, even if Saddam had some WMDs, that in March 2003 an invasion was warranted.

There simply wasn't enough proof of a real threat from Iraq. I supported giving inspectors more time to see what really was going on in there. If we "knew" where the WMDs were, surely they could find them eventually.

We were assured that once we invaded they would be found. That the inspectors would not be able to find them... etc...

Well, they were wrong, and yes, I guess I was right.

Right, Ship-for-brains,
You just want to be on the side that's winning!
Oh, you were promised we'd find WMD? Well, that explains it, wern't you promised we'd catch ObL in Afghanistan? Shouldn't you be Monday-morning quarterbacking that decision as well? Naturally not, liberals can be on all sides at once, you have no convictions.
Kerry promised you a democratic win in 2004, He Lied! What should we do with him?

Deleted - long diatribe from another blog; Just link to the blog entry, if you please, but don't waste our bandwidth with other bloggers stuff...

Canadian Unobserver

Hmmm....so please explain to me why most of these claims by these Democrats were made while Bush was Governor of Texas. Thanks.

Oh, and shouldn't the President also believe what his CIA Director is telling him? What the British Intelligence is telling him? What the Israeli intelligence is telling him? Etc, etc, etc, etc,?

Or where they all lying to Bush before he lied to the American people?

LOL It's all so confusing.

So I'm still waiting for the LIES the Bush administration gave...the ones that apparently everyone else in the world PRIOR to Bush even being elected also stated time and again.

Of course then our lefty friends say "yeah, but they didn't act on that intelligence".

That's exactly right....that's also why so many times this country is F'd up because you lefty clowns DIDN'T make a tough decision and act on the intelligence. If you did, Bin Laden wouldn't be alive when Clinton passed on him three times.

Now we have a President that doesn't leave things to chance like predecessors did. That's the difference.

hmmmm, Mark's post starts with: "...even the most propagandised Russian under Stalin didn't swallow the amount of nonsense that American leftists eagerly consume."

And then goes on to state: "There is, in the liberation of Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism, no deception - not even the mild shading of the truth by the Administration."

Yes, Mark, someone has indeed blindly swallowed an awful lot of propaganda...

Warriornation

Since Clinton passed on Bin Laden three times, when can we expect Bush to keep his promise of
bringing him in "dead or alive"? A lot of water has passed under the bridge since he uttered those words. What's taking so long?

"What's taking so long?" by Canadian Observer

Bin Laden is a very powerful individual who has networks of people and nations to assist him. Such an individual will not be easy to catch especially when he knows you and a number of your allies are looking for him. I have taken care not to be overly critical of the previous administration. At the time, their actions seemed appropiate. The bottom line is both the Bush and Clinton administrations have made mistakes. Hopefully we learn from them!! The way you asked the question implies that capturing this man is somehow easy. it is not.

Btw, I am no fan of the Bush administration.

I see CO is bashing the American military. Why don't you ask them why they haven't found bin Laden yet?

Way to bash the American Military...then again coming from a Canadian is that an oxymoron?

Clinton had him in his sights and chose NOT TO ACT. Bush has never had Bin Laden in his sights yet he has still pounded the piss out of Bora Bora, etc, etc when we think we've had him. It sure hasn't been for a lack of trying.

Perhaps if Clinton and the left didn't totally neuter our intelligence services for years much of this stuff wouldn't have happened.

"Oh, you were promised we'd find WMD? Well, that explains it, wern't you promised we'd catch ObL in Afghanistan? Shouldn't you be Monday-morning quarterbacking that decision as well"

I'm not MMQing Iraq. I was against the invasion precisely because I did think that Saddam posed enough of a threat to warrant it. The fact that no WMDs were found and his chemical, biological and nuclear programs were is nowhere near what we were sold by the administration. I didn't really buy what they were selling before the war, and I think I've been vindicated in that.

Phil,

Who wants stability? Things were stable under Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao...and, of course, your hero Saddam...free men and women don't want stability.

I also didn't buy that we'd be greeted as liberators, that the war would pay for itself and that we'd be out of there in less than a year.

Tom,

But, we were greeted as liberators...and no one ever said the war would pay for itself, nor did anyone ever say we'd be out in a year...

Aarontime,

It is you, who believe there were lies, who are lost in a fantasy world...for some inexplicable reason, hating Bush has become so important to you that you'll foolishly swallow whatever anti-Bush elixir knaves choose to vend...

Clintune had the best chance at getting Bin Laden, actually he had 3 really good chances.

The liberal rats will just invent more myths. A myth is a fact in their eyes. Just like an allegation is a charge of guilt.

I will also bash Hastert and the under Chinos, stating that the FBI raiding a congressperson violates the constitution. What horse manure. Sorry, I vented, but since when is a congress person above the law. (I know John Kerry thinks he's above the law, but now cinos and Republicrats?)

I am, like everyone else, subject to pre-conceived notions and biases, even if i am totally unaware of them. But at the same time I try very hard to be a member of the fact-based community, rather than the merely ideologically-based community -- I will drink no one's kool-aid. So at the very minimum I like to think that while my point of view may start from a certain premise, I hope that I am able to work from there to another point of view as long as it is merited on the basis of new evidence and new insights. But I have to say that this WSJ article by Peter Wehner didn't add much by way of that. So I wonder... why bother posting this thing? In fact, to me, some of the arguments are so transparent that I almost wonder whether Mark is some kind of leftie plant.

Yeah, that's it! Lol!

Before going on I think I should elucidate my biases right from the start (such as I am aware of them). I think the most relevant of them are these: I thought something conclusive had to be done about Saddam. I felt he was a bloodthirsty thug who would do everything in his power to stay in power. He was a long-term, destabilizing force, not only in Iraq, but the entire region. Thus, he could not be allowed to stay in power. So with that in mind, I offer my points of contention to the Wehner article...

Point 1: Possession of chemical and biological weapons alone does not in itself constitute a rationale for war. At the very least, though, it constitutes an issue of serious concern. And that concern is what the Dems quoted were speaking to.

Point 2: While a case could be made that Saddam intended to seek nuclear weapons sometime in the future, there was no indication that Saddam was anywhere close to possessing them. As the NIE estimate quoted in the article says, "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The operative phrase there is "if left unchecked". "Unchecked" does not necessarily mean "uninvaded".

Point 3: The evidence for a connection between Saddam and any international terrorist organization, be it al-Qaeda or any affiliates, was very tenuous at best, even before the war. This is one area I personally believe deception may have taken place. But I could be wrong. Which brings us to...

Point 4: If the righties really want to shut the Dems up about pre-war intel, they should get vocal about making the Phase II report happen. If there's nothing to hide, no problem -- right? The fact is, though, much of the primary evidence suggesting a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and/or an ally was handled by the Dept. of Defense's Office of Special Projects. And if you've been paying attention you would know that they are the very same ones primarily responsible for stonewalling the Phase II report. Sen. Roberts could issue subpoenas for the desired information, but he hasn't done so. Also by the way, the OSP is what Sen. Levin meant when he asked Gen Hayden whether he agreed with how "Feith's office" handled intelligence. Hayden's answer was, basically... "No". You really have to see a clip of the way Hayden handled that question -- his body language, and the way he turned course in the middle of his answer, spoke volumes to me. I don't know if anyone else agrees with me, but when I saw that my personal reaction was... "oh dear Lord." But I could be wrong. In fact, I would like more than anything to be shown that I am wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think I am -- not to any appreciable degree.

Point 5: There is a difference between a "threat" and an "immediate threat". Many lefties seem to think that because no WMD were found, Saddam posed no threat. IMHO, that view cannot be justified even now. And to assume that anyone thought that in the time leading up to the invasion does indeed require a good deal of revisionist thinking. On the other hand, many righties seem to think that because Saddam was a threat he was also an immediate one. And that also wasn't justified. We had Saddam in a box at the start of 2003. If he tried ANYTHING the whole world would have been on him like stink on shit (pardon my French). As we know now, we even tried to provoke him repeatedly with intrusive bombing raids. But he didn't bite. He knew the score. We had time to wait -- wait until he either knuckled under or the rest of the world got fed up with him. As you recall, both of those possibilities were at least reasonable back in early 2003. I thought at the time that we should have waited. Now I'm convinced of it. That was our first serious mistake.

Point 6: Pelosi was wrong: Bush did mention that spreading democracy in the Middle East would be a good thing prior to the invasion. But he did not tout it as the primary rationale. Only later did he declare that that was what it was really all about. I believe I first heard Bush say that none of the rationales mattered in an interview in Dec 2003, as I recall. The interviewer (it was a woman, but I don't remember her name) asked him about the WMD argument, and the link to al Qaeda argument, and he said they didn't matter. She was taken aback and so was I. So I'm pretty sure that was the first time that argument was placed front and center and to the exclusion of everything else, rather than the ancillary role it occupied previously.

But let's assume it always was front and center and it just got glossed over for some reason... if it was always front and center, then what has happened in Iraq since that time is even more difficult to forgive. To tell you the truth, I am inclined to believe that there is considerable merit to the democracy argument. But in order for it to work the situation on the ground had to be secured rapidly to allow it to foster. If Plan A didn't work, then Plans B, C, and D should have been in place to account for the exigencies of reality. Instead, what we have is a situation where nearly everyone in the entire region doubts our motivations. Three years hence we are still in a situation where we have employ search and destroy tactics in many places instead of invade and occupy tactics. We still have to resort to a divide and conquer strategy rather than a truly advisory role. Since the Samarrah bombings things have taken a truly ugly turn. I hope and pray that it is a temporary set back. But boy, if it isn't, it may have been our last, best chance.

Ricorun

We all have biases. I have them myself. They can affect our judgement. The office of Special Plans did not come into existence until sometime around September 2002. The Clinton administration spoke of links to Al Qaeda as far back as 1998. Senator Clinton also spoke of them and she went on to say that the intellegence the Bush Administration supplied them with was materially simillar to what they had when they were in the White House. The intellegence that the Clintons had came before the OSP. It seems to me some in the media are overplaying the role of the OSP. You suggest that we had Saddam in a box. It seems the Iraq Survey Group did not agree with this. Their conclusions were that by 2000-2001 Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and to undermine their international support and he was in striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions. I don't think the bombing runs were done as an attempt to provoke Saddam. It seems to me they were done in a desparate attempt to contain Saddam and if the ISG is to be believed we were not being successful at containing him. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a strategically sound decison may not be known for some time. Leaders should be judged by what they accomplish and not what they intended to accomplish.

Nameless

Early in 2001 was before 911. I'm not suggesting that Saddam was involved with 911 but the event did change how the American Government, at least some members of it that is, evaluate and act on threats. In otherwords, there was a lower threshold at which a threat to America's security would be tolerated plus the USA had about 17 UN anctions behind them and a coalition of about 20 some odd countries to assist us. If Colin Powell thought Saddam was contained, it seems the Iraq Survey Group did not support this conclusion. I think I do recall the statement from Mr. Powell. As we gain new information, we should adjust tactics. This seems to be a problem with the Bush Administration. They seem to have trouble adjusting their tactics.

Tom,
Are you stupid or you just don't care about truth? "I'm not MMQing Iraq." I said Afghanistan moron! ObL was in Afghanistan.
So freakin smart you know more than the combined intelligence agencies of the free world, but you don't know Iraq from Afghanistan! Yeah, why didn't Bush listen to you? You're a geopolitical wonder-boy!
Here's another clue for you, Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11! I know, you were promised that Iraq bombed the towers, we'd get all the free oil we wanted, Iraqis would throw themselves in front of the tanks, birds would place laurels on the soldiers heads, and cats would marry dogs. I heard Bush say all of that too!

Canadian Observer

"The Democrats like the rest of the nation believed what their president told them." The Democrats were saying virtually the same things Bush was saying before he became president.

"It was a mistake." The intellegence was incorrect. The WMD are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be. Maybe tbey were moved or perhaps they did not exist. Convoys of somehting were transferred into Syria prior to the war. The investigation into what was transferred was unable to be completed. Perhpas the conventional wisdom is correct and the wMD did not exist. We shoud find out what went wrong with the intellegence. I would suggest increasing our human intellegence capability and relying less on electronic surveillance.

"but don't forget the country had a major blow with the 911 attacks. The fear created by those attacks was undeniable." One result of the attacks was this changed how certain American leaders view and respond to threats to national security. This doe not mean that invading Iraq was a strategically wise decision. Time will tell if it was the correct decision.

"and Bush used that fear to further his own goals." Bush's goals are to defend the country and the American people from attack. How he has performed in this duty and how he has performed as president is questionable. Personally I give him low marks. I think we can do much better. Such personal attacks are unhelpful and they encourage people to get defensive and stick to certain policies longer than perhaps they should. Constructive criticism will be much more helpful.

From the Left, for the Left-

"Bush-hatred a threat to national security" Roll Call [Washington, DC], by Morton Kondracke

"ENOUGH already! It's harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now it's threatening our national survival.

I do not exaggerate. Bush-hatred has reached such intensity that CIA officers and other bureaucrats are leaking major secrets about anti-terrorism policy and communications intelligence that undermine our ability to fight Islamic extremism."

Link

Mark -

Failing to fawn for the Dear Leader, and failing to gulliably assume that He has never ever told even the slightest half-truth, does not equate to hating Bush. Facing the simple fact that this administration did a really dumb thing in invading Iraq does not equate to hating Bush. Understanding that world in general, and the mid east in particular, is far more complicated than a simpleton's struggle between "Good vs Evil", does not equate to hating Bush.

I do not hate Bush. I am merely a realist who sees the damage he has done to our great country. As any patriot, I am concerned.

You, on the other hand, are a cult follower who seems incapable of critically appraising Bush. What you need is some deprogramming. Luckily, my friend, there is still time for you to see the light!

Aaron

Why was it dumb to invade Iraq? Can you see into the future? Do you know what the Middle East will look like in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? Perhaps it will come to be the smartest and greatest thing ever done by a President.

I don't know that to be the case, I'm just saying that since I can't see in the future and neither can you, saying it's a dumb thing without knowing how it ends it more than a bit....dumb.

warrior nation, here's why Bush hasn't found Bin Laden yet... He isn't looking.

He gave up looking after only 6 months after 9/11.

Now terrorist around the world know that they can attack the US and then just hide in a cave for 6 months and you will give up looking for them.

Good thing bush is TOUGH ON TERROR, LOL

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

“So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him” … “And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”

— George W.Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why the President rarely spoke or mentioned Osama Bin Laden, in a press conference March 13, 2002, only 6 months after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

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

"Because he's hiding."

— George W. Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why Osama bin Laden had not been caught, aboard Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

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

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden"

— General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 6 April 2002.

Oh man, black is white, up is down. America hater Aarontime claims to be "patriotic." Damn, when did the definition of patriotic become "when one hates his country to an extent he will do anything to see it's destruction?"

[b]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people [House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03][/b]

[b]State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities.[Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03
[/b]

[b]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost." 1/19/03[/b]

[b]
Feb. 7, 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
[/b]

[b]
March 16,2003 Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."[/b]

But, we were greeted as liberators...and no one ever said the war would pay for itself, nor did anyone ever say we'd be out in a year...
Posted by: Mark Noonan

Axis,

As I said, we were greeted as liberators...additionally, your Rumsfeld quote has to do with the initial invasion period (once again, selective, out-of-context quotes from a lefty...what a surprise), while the a great deal of the cost of Iraqi reconstruction has come out of Iraqi oil revenues...and, as I said, no one ever said we'd be out in a year, or that it would pay for itself...even your quotes don't say that...

Aaron,

The only dumb thing we could possibly have done post-9/11 is NOT liberate Iraq...can you even read a map?

Geesh...its like trying to describe a sunset to a man who's never been able to see...

"The only dumb thing we could possibly have done post-9/11 is NOT liberate Iraq...can you even read a map?"

This is the real reason we invaded Iraq, one that got very little mention before the invasion.

It's this feeling that certain members of our country have that we can overthrow a middle eastern government, establish a democracy and watch it spread through the middle east.

WMDs was the given reason, but I suspect that this master plan of transforming the middle east is the reason we were planning to invade Iraq since 9/11.

We'll see what happens. I have very high doubts that once the US military leaves, the Iraqi government will remain stable.

By the way, here's what being greeted at liberators looks like:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=liberation%20of%20paris&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wi

Oh wait, I forgot, there was that massive crowd that cheered US soldiers toppling the Saddam statue:

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/nyc/saddam3.jpg

Mark, another quote by Rumsfeld. Remember, this is before the war when the public was trying to gauge what we were getting into.

“The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”

Remember ealier in the year when you touted the biggest US assault since the invasion? That's three years. Much longer than 5 months. Notice how he says we will be greeted as liberators to counter Russerts claim that this could turn into a long, costly and bloody battle that lasts years.

Here's Dick Cheney:

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

"MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability. (Shipley note: This is a very accurate assesment of what we needed).

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement."

You look at all these quotes and you get a picture: the war would be short, clean and not costly to US tax payers.

Now, you say "it was." Well, when asked about troops having to stay there years to "maintain stability" that idea was shot down as well. We were sold a quick and cheap war, even when others were warning of eventual reality of what was going to happen.

These guys were selling snake oil.

BP said: "The office of Special Plans did not come into existence until sometime around September 2002."

You are technically correct in the sense that that is when the group was given an official name. Before that it just looked like a duck and quacked like a duck.

Either way, if they have nothing to hide, no problem -- right? Let's have the Phase II report -- with them included.

Regarding what you said about the ISG concluding that "by 2000-2001 Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and to undermine their international support and he was in striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions" I don't argue that. But 2001 was not 2003. By early 2003 things had changed dramatically, and Iraq was being watched like a hawk, from the inside. The UN had no plans to back down, and in fact had plans to make the inspections much more invasive. Furthermore, no one but Bush wanted to pull the plug at the time he did -- not even Blair. Heaven knows what would have happened if we had waited. But it seemed to me at the time, and still does, that there was a lot more upside to waiting than downside.

But we invaded. Okay, fine. But if you do it, you'd better do it right. And that's a second, completely independent issue. I do believe that a stable, democratic Iraq could be a tremendous force in the region. On the other hand, an unstable Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. Three years hence my perception is that Iraq is still more the latter than the former. And the longer it takes for the former to emerge, if in fact it does, the more complicated the whole situation in the region -- indeed, the entire world -- becomes. And whatever else could be said, it's hard not to be disappointed and disillusioned by what has transpired so far.

And BP, I agree completely with your last line: "Leaders should be judged by what they accomplish and not what they intended to accomplish." You can't just try to do the right thing, you have to to the right thing right.

cj proves once again to be a stuttering right-wing windbag spewing forth the conventional defense:

Oh man, black is white, up is down. America hater Aarontime claims to be "patriotic." Damn, when did the definition of patriotic become "when one hates his country to an extent he will do anything to see it's destruction?"

in other words, if you don't kiss his king's feet, you are unpatriotic. you are an america hater. PLEASE! a whole majority of america thinks chimpy boy has gone out and done a real number on this country. americans don't like him, americans don't like his job performance, and they don't like the way he's handling the situation in iraq. they also, by a clear majority, think he's dishonest and misleading and believe going into iraq was the asinine idea that it always has been.

of course, by cj's twisted and tortured logic, you've got one clear majority of the nation that both 'hate america' and are 'unpatriotic'....

i understand its difficult to be stuck in defense mode 24/7, but at least be original. going around peeing your pants everytime we have a faux orange alert and chanting 9/11, 9/11 is not going to wake anyone up to the idea that invading countries at whim and further destabilizing the mideast region will somehow PROTECT americans. how sick and twisted you lot are... painted into a corner like rabid animals, all you have left is to lash out and call the other side names.

Ricorun

I'm not sure the hold up in releasing the phase II report. I would like to see it too. The problem may be that it contains top secret information. Perhaps it may reveal sources and mthods to our intellegence that would endanger American national security. How much openess and how much secrecy a democracy should have is a difficult balance. I don't have all the answers there. I think part of the media's problem with the OSP is it is believed to be heavily influenced by Jews and Neo-conservaties. The thing the media hates most right now is Israel and anyone who would be seen closely allied with them. That's why they hate so called Neo-Conservatives so much. If we substitute "Neo-conservative" for "Jew" in Nazi propaganda, I think it would very simillar to today's msm propaganda against this group. Not exactly the same but simillar.

While it is true that Iraq was being watched from the inside in early 2003, it was done by the UN and Saddam had already corrupted the UN with the oil for food program and he was not cooperating with inspections. Bottom line: I don't trust the UN. I think they can be counted on to work against America and the free world at every opportunity. This seems to be their history. I think certain leaders sensed that Saddam was going to get off the hook again. I agree with them, at the earliest opportunity the UN would have sought to declare Iraq clean, so they could get on with making money from Iraq's oil and America's security was unimportant to them. With that said, perhaps it would have been better to wait or perhaps things would have only gotten worse. Hind sight can be 20/20. In any event, this has proven far more difficult than some people thought. I could have told them it would be!! I cringed at some of the things they said, in the run up to the war.

I agree with you that Iraq as a democracy could be good for us and the region but it has to be done right. Right now Iraq seems to me to be a stalemate. It will require a decisve act by one side or the other to break the stalemate. I hope and pray we have the moral courage to see this through. If we don't, this would be huge victory for the terrorists. I think we do need to take a second look at some of our strategies.

Ricorun

To sum up my previous post, I think the decision to remove Saddam was the correct one and we were correct to do it when we did. If anything I think we should have done it sooner than we did. However, it seems to me a number of mistakes have been made in the execution of the policy and certain decision makers have been slow to adjust to the situation. I think a fresh look at some of strategies is in order and as I wrote previously a leader should be judged by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish.

Mark, those things were said. Read the quotes from Cheney and the ones from Tom.

Face it, this administration was incredibly niave and short-sighted, mostly due to the fact that they ignored advice from military strategists and 4 and 5 star generals in favor of winging it and following the direction of Rumsfeld, a military-wannbe that could not strategize himself out of a wet paper bag.

Bush said in '99 that an Iraq invasion would lead to NO american casualities. This claim came right out of Cheney.

"Could not strategize himself out of a wet paper bag." I would agree that Rumsfeld's performance has been suspect. Some have called for him to be relieved of his duties. I think we need a change at that position. We will have to try something different to break the stalemate, however, to imply that he is unable to strategize himself out of a paper bag is unfair. The United States is engaged with an enemy who poses a direct survival threat to the country. This enemy has strong relations with Russia, China, an a number of key countries in the world. This enemy is capable of defeating the US and imposing its view of Islam on it. So far America has fought this enemy to a stand still. I consider that pretty amazing. It is especially amazing considering the fact that America has a "5th column" within the country that is dedicated to its defeat. Rumsfeld probably should be replaced. We will need to do something to break the stalemate. Whatever we do it needs to be right thing. Simply doing something is not enough. Leaders should be judged by what they actually accomplished and not by what they set out to accomplish.

I think more troops in the beginning probably would have made a huge difference, however, we can't be certain. More troops equals more targets for Islamic Extremists terrorists and could mean more coalition deaths. I do think a fresh look at our strategies is in order. Constructive criticism will be helpful.

Warmongernation,
"A puppet government is a government that, though notionally of the same culture as the governed people, owes its existence (or other major debt) to being installed, supported or controlled by a more powerful entity, typically a foreign power. Such a government is also known as a puppet régime" From Wikipedia

Yeah, that's what I mean.

How could Bush have misled us if nobody can come up with the actual lie? The lie meme is so pathetic. The evidence is clear Saddam was harboring terrorists and training camps. He paid suicide bombers families $25,000 each. There is evidence that some of the weapons were moved to Syria. By going though the UN to impose sanctions allowed Saddam to move WMD around and destroy evidence.
Clearly, Saddam was the WMD and he's been bagged. Thank God our Troops went in and killed his trecherous Son's. The world is better off.

Salvelinus, cut warrior some slack, this administration has never used that term before, warrior only knows and does what his masters know and do

Salvelinus, bloviator, Shipley -

great posts.

Having a dialogue with members of the Bushian cult can certainly try one's patience. This is because their political ideology - if you can call it that - amounts to little more than worship of the Dear Leader. Kim Jong-Il himself would be jealous of such blind loyalty, driven by fear and fierce emotions that shun all countervailing reality.

The true Bushians have invested far too much of their fragile egos into faith-based Bush-love to ever admit his colossal mediocrity, studied ignorance of a complex world, and well-honed incompetence. To face up to the damage to our nation wrought by Bush's numerous misteps, misdeeds, misleadings, miscalculations, and misunderstandings, would be to shatter the Bushians entire emotional make-up. Taking childish pride in Bush and the ability of America to militarily obliterate third world countries is practically the only thing these toads have ever been able to be proud of.

You might be interested in this very insightful posting by Glenn Greenwald entitled Do Bush Followers Have a Political Ideology?"

Excerpts:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

We see the same thing happening to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich became a "liberal" the minute he refused to support John Bolton’s nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far -- they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law -- I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah, I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.

We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists. The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.

And the core emotions driving the Bush extremists are not hard to see. It is a driving rage and hatred – for liberals, for Muslims, for anyone who opposes George Bush. The rage and desire to destroy is palpable...

The rhetoric of Bush followers is routinely comprised of these sorts of sentiments dressed up in political language – accusations that domestic political opponents are subversives and traitors, that they ought to be imprisoned and hung, that we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations. These are not political sentiments, and they’re certainly not conservatives sentiments, but instead, are psychological desires finding a venting ground in a political movement.

It’s not an accident that Ann Coulter and her ongoing calls for violence against "liberals" (meaning anyone not in line behind George Bush) are so wildly popular among conservatives. It’s not some weird coincidence that the 5,000 people in attendance at the CPAC this last week erupted in "boisterous ovation" when she urged violence against "ragheads,’ nor is it an accident that her hateful, violence-inciting screeds -- accusing "liberals" of being not wrong, but "treasonous" -- become best-sellers. Ann Coulter has been advocating violence against liberals and other domestic political opponents for years, and she is a featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative events. Why would that be? It's because she is tapping into the primal, rather deranged rage which lies in the heart of many Bush followers. If that weren't driving the movement, she wouldn’t provoke the reactions and support that she does.

The combination here of rage and fear is potent and toxic. One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere -- with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought -- is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.

And what I hear, first and foremost, from these Bush following corners is this, in quite a shrieking tone: "Oh, my God - there are all of these evil people trying to kill us, George Bush is doing what he can to save us, and these liberals don’t even care!!! They’re on their side and they deserve the same fate!!!" It doesn’t even sound like political argument; it sounds like a form of highly emotional mass theater masquerading as political debate. It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.

Salvelinus, bloviator, Shipley -

great posts.

Having a dialogue with members of the Bushian cult can certainly try one's patience. This is because their political ideology - if you can call it that - amounts to little more than worship of the Dear Leader. Kim Jong-Il himself would be jealous of such blind loyalty, driven by fear and fierce emotions that shun all countervailing reality.

The true Bushians have invested far too much of their fragile egos into faith-based Bush-love to ever admit his colossal mediocrity, studied ignorance of a complex world, and well-honed incompetence. To face up to the damage to our nation wrought by Bush's numerous misteps, misdeeds, misleadings, miscalculations, and misunderstandings, would be to shatter the Bushians entire emotional make-up. Taking childish pride in Bush and the ability of America to militarily obliterate third world countries is practically the only thing these toads have ever been able to be proud of.

You might be interested in this very insightful posting by Glenn Greenwald entitled Do Bush Followers Have a Political Ideology?"

Excerpts:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

We see the same thing happening to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich became a "liberal" the minute he refused to support John Bolton’s nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far -- they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law -- I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah, I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.

We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists. The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.

And the core emotions driving the Bush extremists are not hard to see. It is a driving rage and hatred – for liberals, for Muslims, for anyone who opposes George Bush. The rage and desire to destroy is palpable...

The rhetoric of Bush followers is routinely comprised of these sorts of sentiments dressed up in political language – accusations that domestic political opponents are subversives and traitors, that they ought to be imprisoned and hung, that we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations. These are not political sentiments, and they’re certainly not conservatives sentiments, but instead, are psychological desires finding a venting ground in a political movement.

It’s not an accident that Ann Coulter and her ongoing calls for violence against "liberals" (meaning anyone not in line behind George Bush) are so wildly popular among conservatives. It’s not some weird coincidence that the 5,000 people in attendance at the CPAC this last week erupted in "boisterous ovation" when she urged violence against "ragheads,’ nor is it an accident that her hateful, violence-inciting screeds -- accusing "liberals" of being not wrong, but "treasonous" -- become best-sellers. Ann Coulter has been advocating violence against liberals and other domestic political opponents for years, and she is a featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative events. Why would that be? It's because she is tapping into the primal, rather deranged rage which lies in the heart of many Bush followers. If that weren't driving the movement, she wouldn’t provoke the reactions and support that she does.

The combination here of rage and fear is potent and toxic. One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere -- with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought -- is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.

And what I hear, first and foremost, from these Bush following corners is this, in quite a shrieking tone: "Oh, my God - there are all of these evil people trying to kill us, George Bush is doing what he can to save us, and these liberals don’t even care!!! They’re on their side and they deserve the same fate!!!" It doesn’t even sound like political argument; it sounds like a form of highly emotional mass theater masquerading as political debate. It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.

axis,
thanks for looking up all the quotes. saved me the time.

mark,
you can parse it all you want. They said it, we remember it, and that is primarily why America has turned away from your party. keep parsing, and lets see just how low those numbers can go.

in response to the "myths", read this post:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/peddling-false-claims/

highlights:

FACT CHECK: Rove Deputy Peddling False Claims About Pre-War Iraq Intelligence

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Peter Wehner, Karl Rove’s deputy and the director of the White House’s Office of Strategic Initiatives, writes an op-ed attempting to debunk “antiwar myths.” The White House has been emailing the article to reporters this morning. Employing the same tactic that led the nation into war, the White House continues to use the media to peddle false claims in the hopes they will be accepted.

1) To rebut the “myth” that “The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war,” Wehner claims, “Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.”

FACT: Administration Created Stovepipes To Feed Politicized Intelligence. (see article for links to sources)

FACT: Administration Had Its Sights Set on War Regardless of Intelligence. (see article for links to sources)

2) To rebut the “myth” that “The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments,” Wehner claims, “This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.”

FACT: Roberts Blocking Phase II.

FACT: CIA Review Panel Found Analysts Were Subjected To Pressure.(see article for links to sources)

3) To rebut the “myth” that “Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren’t found, Saddam posed no threat,” Wehner states, “[W]hile we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.”

FACT: Charles Duelfer, the Administration’s Own Iraq Investigator, Found No Evidence That Saddam Posed an Immediate Threat.

4) To rebut the “myth” that “Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization,” Wehner states, “President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began,” citing an example from February 2003.

FACT: Major Iraq Speeches Failed To Mention Democracy.(namely the 2003 State of the Union, and the 2002 speech about Iraq given in Cincinatti.)

FACT: Bush Said Disarmament Was Mission In Iraq.
Bush, 3/6/03: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I’m confident we’ll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there’s risks in any military operation; I know that. But it’s very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won’t change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.”

Another post where we get to see the extent that the left has acquired BDS.

The original post was to comment on how the myths propogated by the left and echoed by the MSM have been proven to be wrong.

The left constantly claims that the only reason given for invading Iraq was the WMD. In fact, the Congressional Authorization for the use of Military Force against Iraq listed a miriad of reasons, including: Direct and flagrant violation of the 1991 cease-fire; Being in Material Breach of the 17 UN Resolutions; The discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; That in 1998, Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security; firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; attempting, in 1993, to assassinate former President Bush; Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; and to prevent additional acts of terrorism against the US and our interests.

Iraq did possess WMD. They had previously used WMD. The UN Weapons Inspectors discovered numerous instances of undeclared WMD. After the liberation of Iraq, Coalition forces have found quantities of WMD. WMD have been used against Coalition forces (Sarin).

As far as us conservatives blindly following President Bush, you cannot be farther from the truth. While we support his leadership in the Global War on Terrror, may wished he had acted earlier in causing regime change in Iraq. We do not agree with him not vetoing spending bills. We did not agree with one of his Supreme Court appointments. We believe that we need an even stronger stance against the invasion of illegal aliens.

Here's the bottom line: George Bush is our President. He will continue to be our President for 2 1/2 more years. He is leading us in the fight against Radical Islamist Terrorism. If not for his aggressive fight against terrorism, we would have probably been attacked again.

He has not illegally authorized "domestic spying". He has authorized the intercept of terrorist communications. He is not listening in on average American's conversations.

I would only hope that if there was a Democrat in the White House, that President would be doing the same things to help protect us from further attack.

The only thing the liberals are doing is encouraging the terrorists, because they perceive discord in America. If you liberals were truely patriotic, you would be supportive of the war on terror, regardless of who the President is. If you do not see the danger that Radical Islamist Terrorism presents, you need to visit Ground Zero and read the names of the 3,000 innocent Americans who died on September 11th, 2001. You can then thank the efforts of President Bush that there have been no additional 9/11's.

STRAW MAN ALERT! STRAW MAN ALERT!

"The left constantly claims that the only reason given for invading Iraq was the WMD."

No, the left claims that WMDs were the main reason for the war. That, without the threat of WMDs, the invasion would not have occurred.

I can't find one person who has claimed that WMDs was the ONLY reason given.

"The only thing the liberals are doing is encouraging the terrorists, because they perceive discord in America."

Ah, yes. Don't voice your dissent or unhappiness about the war because it will aid and comfort our enemies. I forgot, liberals=traitors.

(Rest of post deleted due to obscenity - come on, Tom, you're better than that)

I would like to see phase II of the report. It needs to be correct and not rushed to meet a political agenda. We do need to find out what happened. I'm highly skeptical we will find anything new. In any event, we will have to account for why government officials were saying much the same things prior to the Bush Administration taking office. Perhaps they all lied.

"Bush extremists control virtually every major governmental institution in the country." I don't think that is correct. The Seante can filibuster any thing they don't like among other things.

I don't think its fair to link Michelle Malkin with the Bush cultists. She has disagreed with the administration on a number of issues. Hugh Hewitt, you probably could label him in this catergory. The trick the Bush administration uses is to label those opposed to them as "unpatriotic, "anti-american", or something to this effect. Those opposed to the president label anyone who says anything in his defense as a "Bush cultist" or something to this effect. I do wish both sides would start working together to find real solutions instead of coming up with cathcy slogans to insult one another with.

Dav,

Uh, when you cherry pick quotes, that is when you are parsing...it is you, on the left, who parse out Bush Administration statements in order to make it seem like they said something they didn't...I say, read the whole record...when you get away from parsed sound-bites about the War on Terrorism, then you understand that it is (a) very successful, (b) that no deception has been used and (c) that the critics of the war are betraying American during war time just so they can be anti-Bush all the time...

Ship-face,
That's because there was no war with the Taliban, "Hatred of America increased when Clinton bombed Arabs the night of his televised Monica Lewinski deposition. A media report at the time suggested that even a majority of American reporters believed that Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan as a mere diversion. Virtually the entire Arab world concurred with that assessment, believing that America’s planes bombed them just to cover-up a sex scandal."
The Republicans didn't have to say anything; everyone knew why Clinton did it. and it's "toeing" the line.

Great post aarontime, and very, very true.

One good thing, using that logic the amount of "liberals" in America is rapidly on the rise, which is good. The more the radical right insult the moderate conservatives, the more they will turn and flush them out by staying home in November.

B Poster, axis

Yep and yep, agreed with you both.

Yeah, it's a nifty trick they've pulled to equate Bush with the military, and Bush policies with patriotism. In fact, Bush is equated to America itself, much like the propaganda of the Nazis identified the fate and aspirations of Hitler as one in the same as the Fatherland (now, before you wing-nuts get in a tizzy, note that I am NOT saying Bush is Hitler - I am merely pointing out that there are certain similarities between the rhetorical strategies of Bush cultists and the Nazis)

In this distorted perception of reality, any criticism of Bush is the same as slandering the military (Mark himself was here a couple days ago deleting my parts of my posts containing Bush criticisms with the manufactured rationale of "this is slandering the military" - I did no such thing). Any criticism of Bush policies means that you hate America and love terrorists. And questioning Bush's motives is considered unpatriotic and aiding the terrorists. How convenient for Bush to hide behind these distorted constructs.

Bush is not America. His fate is not the same as the Republic he serves, and criticism of him is not only not unpatriotic, but is in fact the patriotic duty of every American. Every president needs the oversight and checks on power that eminate from an informed and critical citizenry. Contrary to his scary delusions, Bush was not ordained by God to run the USA - he serves at the pleasure of the people, and is governed by the laws the people have put in place.

If we abdicate our responsibility to limit the reach of this man to wage ill-advised wars and claim unlimited war powers, then we could indeed end up sharing the fate of the German people. By letting 9/11 be exploited in the same manner as the Reichstag fire was - to instill fear and promote the "unary powers of the excutive" - we have gone far enough along that path already.

Aarontime

Good post. Actually I see more of something like Nazi propaganda in the anti war activisits. If we substitute "Jew" in Nazi propaganda and replace with "Neo Conservative" or "Evangelical Christian" the two types of propaganda look simillar. Cetrtain Bush supporters have tried at times to equate oppostion to the administration's policies with being anti-American. This is a dispicable practice to say the least and even more so, if the administration is behind it. Sometimes the accusations are true and sometimes they are not. I don't think the questions you raise are in any way anti-American. I don't think anyone takes these people seriously or ever took them seriously. They simply do not have the media power that the anti war activiists have.

As for presidental powers, it is a very difficult balance in a free society how much should be kept secret and how much should be made public and how much surveliance we should do. Obviously some things will need to be kept secret from enemies who want to destroy us and who are fully capable of doing it and these enemies cannot be allowed to operate freely in America. The president does need to be scrutinized. This is being done by House and Senate oversight committees and the media. This is probably the most scrutinized president in the Repulic's history. At least he is the most scrutinized leader in my lifetime. Actually the powers claimed by the Bush Administration seem quite tame to those claimed by the FDR during WWII or Abraham Linclon during the Civil War. The President and his administration will need to be closely scrutinized, however, it would be helpful if the media would strictly stick to the facts when they do this. This does not seem to a particularly good president but some of the wild claims issued by the main stream media only obscure what we really do face.

As for his statement about God appointing him as leader of the US, there are scriptures that seem to indicate that God sets up leaders, as he sees fit. He may simply be acknowledging God's hand in this. Time will only tell if his election was a good thing for America. Having studied some scripture myself, it seems to me he does not always follow a literal interpration of scripture. I don't know what his true heart is. If we had a Christian in office, this would not scare me. I would take great comfort in it.

Aarontime,

Criticism of the President is fine. Just make it constructive criticism, instead of destructive criticism. When you equate President Bush to Hitler and the Republican Party to the Nazis, you are not being constructive, you are being destructive. When you claim the Administration lied to start a war in Iraq, you are not being constructive. When every word out of your mouth is an insult, you are not criticizing, you are attempting to undermine the Administration. Because your criticism has destructive characteristics, we on the right do not view your dissent as being patriotic, but as partisan politics. You do not offer any alternative solutions, you only attack, attack, attack.

Here are the facts:

President Bush was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. You cannot change that. Live with it. Just as we had to live through 8 years of the Clinton Administration.

We have been systematically attacked by Radical Islamist Terrorists for the past several decades. They struck the WTC in 1993, with little response by the US. The terrorists were emboldened by our lack of response. The attacked us in Somalia, and we cut and ran. The terrorists were further emboldened. They attacked our embassies in Africa, and got no response. They were even further emboldened. They attacked the USS Cole in 2000, and we did nothing. The terrorists saw the US as a paper tiger. Finally, they struck on 9/11, and 3,000 Americans died. This time, with a leader in the White House, they got a response. The Terrorists started this war. Under President Bush's leadership, we are attempting to end it.

These Islamist Terrorists were/are supported by a number of countries, including: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi and Afghanistan governments, as well as that of Libya and Pakistan, are no longer in the business of supporting terrorists. Libya has additionally given up its WMD programs.

The Islamist Terrorists have vowed to strike at the US and our interests whenever and however they can. They have vowed to use WMD, inlcuding nuclear weapons, against the US if given the opportunity. Iraq, a country known to harbor, support, and train terrorists, was also known to have produced and used WMD. There was more than an even bet that, given the opportunity, Iraq would or could supply terrorists with WMD. That was a development that the US could not tolerate.

Over 70% of Al Qaeda's leadership, and the leadership of associated terrorist organizations, have been killed or captured, along with thousand's of their minions. OBL, while not having been caught, has been rendered ineffective. There are still thousands of US and other coalition troops in Afghanistan searching for OBL and the remnants of Al Qaeda.

It has been the official policy of the United States since 1998 to work for regime change in Iraq. Iraq was under a Ceasefire Agreement and 17 UN Resolutions. They were in Material Breach of the Ceasefire and the UN Resolutions. The 2001 and 2003 Congressional authorizations gave the President the authority to use military force to fight Terrorism and to enforce the UN Resolutions that Iraq had violated.

Every major intelligence organization, both foreign and domestic, believed that Iraq still possessed WMD. After all, after years of UN inspections, Iraq had repeatedly hidden their WMD and their WMD programs, had filed no less than five fraudulent "Full and Final Declarations" of their WMD programs, and was planning to reconstitute their WMD prograsm as soo as the inspectors left and sanctions were lifted. Each time they filed a Declaration, it was subsequential discovered that Iraq had lied. More WMD and prograsm were discovered. There was absolutely no reason to believe that they had actually destroyed all of their WMD and their WMD programs. In fact, elements of the WMD programs and actual WMD have been found since the US instituted a regime change in Iraq. Where are the missing WMD? We don't know. They could have been destroyed. They could have been buried in the desert. They could have been secreted into Syria. Only time will tell.

Every leader of the Democrat Party, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, stated that Iraq's WMD programs could not be tolerated and the use of military force was justified. They were saying this during the 90's and well into the 00's.

Based on these facts, my challenge to you is to come up with some constructive criticism to deal with the issues of Islamist Terrorism and the threat an Iraq under Saddam presented. How would you fight against Islamist Terrorism? How would you have prevented Saddam from providing WMD to terrorists? How would you have stopped his systematic murdering of the Iraqi people? How would you have put an end to the skimming of billions from the Oil-for-Food program? How would you have reestablished the US as a real tiger, rather than a paper tiger? Ho would you have dealt with Libya's WMD programs? What tools would you use to detect terrorist plans? Would you attempt to intercept their communications? Would you attempt to track their networks here and abroad? Enquiring minds want to know.

None of the "leaders" from the left have come up with answers to these questions. Perhaps you can enlighten use on how a liberal would solve these problems. In doing so, you will be providing constructive criticism. Something you are apparently unfamiliar with.

I find it ironic that axis says Bush cherrypicked intelligence information while throughout this thread axis has cherrypicked quotes.

Oh the irony.

I find it ironic that axis says Bush cherrypicked intelligence information while throughout this thread axis has cherrypicked quotes.

-- Wrong again raisen brain, the term cherry picking is the practice of selecting information that supports your position while intentionally disregarding information that does not support your position.

I have selected quotes, however these are the highest ranking administation officials and they have not released information that would contradict their quotes. For example, for your model to be correct, cheney and rumsfeld would have has to issue contradicting quotes, which they have not.

They are incompetant and morons and just a cabal of military wannbes, but never having the actual courage to enlist

A-10,

Just a question, how bout you describe your political stance? Are you a conservative or a neo-conservative or something else, because I belive that conservatives are specifically against big governments, centralization of power and co-mingling church and state, 3 things that this so called "conservative" administration are very much for and making happen.

The sad thing is I once supported the war. Certainly Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had yanked the chain of the U.N. a few too many times. I'll admit that if he was paying $25,000 to suicide bombers, and training terrorists, that he needed to go.

What I object to is the cherry-picking of evidence, Cheney's manipulation of the CIA,the campaign to discredit Joe Wilson and his wife, the total disregard for the plan that Centcom had spent ten years coming up with for the post-invasion, and costly blunder after costly blunder by Rumsfeld and Bremer.

George Tenet, who mistakenly called the invasion a "slam-dunk", and vouched for the WMDs (Bush believed him not Clinton-so stop blaming Clinton) was given the Medal of Freedom. General Shinseki was marinalized after having the temerity to propose a larger invasion force, which it turns out was necessary.

Bremer and Rumsfeld short-sightedly dismissed the Iraqi army and police force which plunged the country into chaos.After widespread looting, in which priceless antiquities were lost, not to mention countless Iraqi civilian lives, we heard Rumsfeld: "Stuff happens".

Not once has anyone admitted making these huge errors, yet alone be held accountable for them. Bush had a nice photo op in his flak jacket with the "Mission Accomplished" banner framed nicely into the pictures. But that was THREE YEARS AGO.

And all we've heard about is the progress that's been made. Why do I only hear about that progress from Americans who support Bush and Cheney? Why not from independent sources. Well, now I, like most people no longer believe it. It could be true, I guess, but that team no longer has any credibility with me. And something tells me what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

A-10

"Criticism of the President is fine. Just make it constructive criticism, instead of destructive criticism."

Oh brother. Basically, you Bushians are saying "criticize us, but only in ways we deem OK." Everyone sees through the oft-used ruse for what it really is: pretend polite code for "shut the f up".

"When you equate President Bush to Hitler and the Republican Party to the Nazis, you are not being constructive, you are being destructive."

Eyes rolling. Oh, I knew this one was coming. I think I very clearly stated that I was NOT equating Bush with Hitler. Equating Bush to Hitler would be ridiculous on so many levels it is not even worth restating.

Nevertheless, the Bushian Right uses some rhetorical devices that are dangerously similar to ones used by the followers of Hitler. I think you'll agree that that is NOT the same as equating the Republicans to Nazis. Again, that would be patently ridiculous. But time and time again, I hear echoes of the same tried and true political language used to bully and ridicule anybody who dares oppose the Leader. The Bushians accuse their political opponents of subverting the nation, of secretly hating America, of being in league with terrorists, of being defeatists, of wanting to weaken and destroy the military. They wrap themselves in a faux persecution complex, while at the same time stoking people's worst fears and prejudices against various threatening minority groups. They speak in an aggressive militaristic tone, and denigrate those who question the wisdom of invading other countries as pathetic weaklings or traitors. It doesn't matter what the service record is of the targets of these absurd charges - it only matters that they have spoken against the supreme leader. Meanwhile, the leader is seen as synonymous with the Nation, and with the popular will. Eine Fuhrer, Eine Volk. You've seen this very language used over and over on this very blogs, and from the party leadership. In its rhetorical methods, and in its emotional and psychological appeal, it has much in common with the language used by Fascists to attain power.

But once again - Bush is NOT Hitler. Please. Bush is not an evil man. In fact, I think he is, or at least wants to be a very decent man. I just think he is a puppet of corporate interests, doesn't know that much about the world he pretends to teach lessons to, and has a rather childish notion of Good and Evil. I further think he is arrogant and quite a bit shielded from reality by his handlers. AS such, I think his policies are misguided. But none of that makes him anything like Hitler. Can we get that straight?

Axis

When your pool of quotes comes from far left wing websites you get what you get. Perhaps if you looked into a broader pool you would get a bit more balance of quotes and intentions.

The question is...are you capable of doing this? Furthermore, are you willing?

Although I have refrained from commenting to your posts because you are devoid of reationality, I will answer your question about my political stance. First, some background. I served for 27 years in the USMC and Army National Guard, 20 of them on Active Duty. I continue to work as a contracted DoD employee. So I have a very good perspective on our national defense, and what we need to be doing to protect us from further attacks. I have devoted my entire adult life to serving my country, during both Democrat and Republican administrations. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Although I am a retired office, I still hold to that oath.

Although I am retired from the military, I still work with them on a daily basis. I personally know dozens of men and women who have served and are serving in the Global War on Terror. Just yesterday, I gave a mobilization briefing to about 50 Guard members who will be mobilizing and deploying within the next two months. They are dedicated and professional citizen soldiers. They volunteered to fight in the Global War on Terror. Not one person in the briefing had any reservation about the mission they are about to accept.

So, as you can see, I have an interest in maintaining a strong national defense. I did not see any indications from the Clinton Administration that it was interested in ensuring that the US military was primed to take on any threat. We suffered through reduced funding, which directly affected readiness. I guess its just the nature of the beast for a liberal to have distain for the military. That's their point of view, I just think its wrong. So I have great respect for a President who respects the military and the extremely dangerous job they do.

Now to your question, I would consider myself as a conservative who is closer to the middle than to the far right. I don't agree with unchecked growth of the federal government. There are a number of federal programs and departments that should be abolished (Dept of Ed, HUD, etc). They are the responsibility of state government, not the Feds. The most effective government is local (I'm a little biased because mu wife is a local elected official)).

I applaud any effort by the right to reduce taxes. History has shown that by reducing the tax rate, you increase revenue. It has happened before, it is happening now. I don't consider myself rich, but I paid over $20,000 in federal income tax. Thats more in taxes than many of the poor earned. And many of them got refunds due to tax credits. I got no tax credits because of my income level, and many of the deductions were not available to me because of my income level.

By "centralization of power", I assume you are referring to your belief that the President has exceeded his bounds by authorizing the NSA programs designed to detect and track terrorist activities. I wholly support these programs. One of my duty assignments while in the US Armed Forces was in a unit responsible for providing human intelligence miles behind enemy lines. I fully understand the need to know what your enemy was planning. Having experience in the Intelligence Community, I believe that the Administration is protecting American's privacy while intercepting communications to and from terrorists. This is a necessary and vital program to ensure we are not attacked again.

As far as the church and state, the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". I interpret that to mean that Congress shall not establish a state religion and it cannot prohibit us from freely exercising our right to worship in the manner we choose. There is absolutely nothing in there talking about a separation of the Church and State, just that the government shall not establish a state religion. There shouldn't be bans on Christmas displays. For every non-Christian that is offended, there is a Christian that is offended when the display is prohibited. I also think there is nothing wrong with the President relying on his faith in making decisions. I would rather have a President doing what he thinks is morally and spiritually right, than a politican that is basing his decisions on the latest poll or how the world would view his decisions. We need a leader in the White House, not someone with his finger in the wind of public opinion.

Speaking of President Clinton, I would rather have a humble, god-fearing leader (like President Bush), that someone who would disgrace the Oval Office and the Office of the President by having sex with an intern. The liberal say it was just about sex. I say it was about decency. I say it was about fidelity. I say it was about respect for the 41 previous occupants of that office. He was having sex with a subordinate. That constitutes sexual harassment. It may also be considered adultry. Then he lied under oath about it. I would have had a lot more respect for him (which wouldn't be hard, as I had no respect for him as an individual), if he had been honest and admitted the truth right off the bat. His impeachment would never have happened. The left wouldn't be so eager to impeach President Bush (which will never happen, as he hasn't done anything illegal), if Clinton could have kept his pants zippered. (By the way, I have a special interest in the personal actions of the occupant of the White House as I once served on the Presidential Security Detail at Camp David while in the USMC. I saw up close and personal what the First Family - The Fords - were really like). Additionally, I know what it is like to have access to highly classified information (I had a Top Secret Clearance with White House access), and to never tell anyone what you know. I left Camp David nearly 30 year ago and I have never divulged what I know about the security at Camp David, even though it has probably all been upgraded. When you sign a non-disclosure agreement, you honor it. You do not disclose classified information for personal or political gain.

Sorry that this was so long, but I felt that it was important for you to understand where I am coming from. Keep this in mind: dead Americans have no privacy rights. The US military, intelligence community, and law enforcement are working 24/7 to ensure Americans are alive to enjoy their rights.

Aarontime- You make some good points. I have had some of the same thoughts in the last 5 1/2 years, but you put them into words better than I could have.

By the way, Bush has also offended conservative critics. Richard Viguerie, a conservative former Bush supporter criticized him for straying too far from the right, and was attacked in an e-mail, stating that Viguerie had also frequently criticized the conservative's icon, Ronald Reagan. Viguerie claimed that the administration always answers its critics by attacking them.

A-10,

Thanks for that eleqent response. I assure you I am quite rational, simply disturbed to see some really bad and disturbing things happening including seeing Americas good reputation being flushed down the toilet by this president.

Now to your question, I would consider myself as a conservative who is closer to the middle than to the far right.

-- So how do you feel about this neo-con movement in the republican party that does not share the values of the moderate or traditional republicans. Are you ok with a seperate faction being allowed in the party with different values or do you think they should be forced to start their own independant party, thus giving the republicans their party back.

" I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Although I am a retired office, I still hold to that oath."

-- Correct. Your oath is that your first priority is to defend the constitution. That being said, if your president did something or asked of you something that would be in violation of this oath, say to impose martial law and suspend congress and the constitution, what would your response be? Would you follow the directions of your president and take aggressive action against your fellow americans or would you stay true to your oath and protect the american people, thus dis-obeying your commander in chief?

"I applaud any effort by the right to reduce taxes. History has shown that by reducing the tax rate, you increase revenue. "

--Actually, to be accurate, tax cuts in most cases has a positive effect on the economy. Revenue went down in the first 3 years of the cuts. Its now come back up, however the cuts combined with massive spending has lead to a massive deficit and nearly doubling of the national debt to a now crushing 8.3 Trillion. This is identical to what happened during the regan cuts. In order to be effective, tax cuts must be combined with fiscal responsibility, this is clearly not being done and spending is totally out of control.

Additionally, Bush is the first president that believes that the time to cuts taxes is in a time of war.

By "centralization of power", I assume you are referring to your belief that the President has exceeded his bounds by authorizing the NSA programs designed to detect and track terrorist activities. I wholly support these programs.

No, that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to Bush usurping power reserved for congress and also the independant judiciary.
He does this by issuing signing statements into laws he signs stating that he does not believe that he is bound by US law. His advisors, such as Yoo has publically stated that the president has the constutional power to violate ANY law, at ANY time. This is clearly in violation of the constitution and also his oath of office, which he takes an oath to follow us law and the constitution.

See here for details:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

He also usurps the power of the judiciary by denying the rights to challenge the constitutionality of a law by hiding behind the "national security" banner. Nixon did the same thing, broke all kinds of laws and abuses and tried to hide behind national security. In the end, it was NOT legal and he would have been impeached, had he not resigned first.

So how can something that was NOT legal during nixon, now be legal under Bush? It can't. The only reason why they have not been told so is because GOP controls all houses and is allowing this administation to do anything it wants to.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". I interpret that to mean that Congress shall not establish a state religion and it cannot prohibit us from freely exercising our right to worship in the manner we choose. There is absolutely nothing in there talking about a separation of the Church and State, just that the government shall not establish a state religion.

Correct, however it has also been interpreted to mean that congress will not pass any law that is deemed as of religious signifigance. IE: If you believe that it is a sin to eat beef, you cannot pass a law preventing people from doing so.
This is a larger issue than X-mas displays and it is important to resist the temptation of allowing a minority of people from legislating their personal religious views into law.

"I wholly support these programs. One of my duty assignments while in the US Armed Forces was in a unit responsible for providing human intelligence miles behind enemy lines."

-- Fair enough, however suppose it should be found out that in addition to looking for possible terrorist ties, this power is also being abused to spy on reporters, political opponents , environmental activists, just as it was abused during Nixon, will you continue to support it? Suppose it should be found out that the NSA IS indeed listening in on domestic phone calls (including yours) will you continue to support it?
How about spying on internet useage. Would you support this too?

Speaking of President Clinton, I would rather have a humble, god-fearing leader (like President Bush), that someone who would disgrace the Oval Office and the Office of the President by having sex with an intern.

-- So you view adultry as a larger disgrace to the oval office then a president that violates US laws, his oath of office, condones torture, rendition, quashing the 4th and 1st ammendments and imprisons people without due process even if they might be completely innocent as were hundreds of people just released from Guantanamo. They were innocent, no due process and lost 4 years of their lives.

Deleted - Off Topic

Kritter,

Tenant never called the invasion a "slam dunk"...if you are going to issue anti-Bush polemics, at least get your facts straight...and, of course, if you get your facts straight, you won't want to engage in anti-Bush polemics.

Mark,

Tenet said that finding WMD's in Iraq was a "slam dunk"

----------------
Tenet Says He Regrets 'Slam Dunk' Comment
CNN.com

Thursday 28 April 2005

Kutztown, Pennsylvania - Former CIA Director George Tenet said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had "slam dunk" evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Those were the two dumbest words I ever said," Tenet told about 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday.

The theory was a leading justification for the war in Iraq.

Such weapons were never found.
----------------

France believed Iraq had Chemical and Biological Weapons

"Paris: We may help in chemical war"
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.

"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation. [..]

When asked why the situation would change matters, Levitte said that "no army is allowed by treaties to use chemical and biological weapons. This is absolutely forbidden and if Saddam Hussein were to use these weapons then he would a create a completely new situation for the whole world."
*********************

France lied, people died!!

France based that on the mistaken assumption that the Bush administration's intelligence was fair and frank.

Bush fooled france and people died.

Axis,

1. I don't think the "neo-cons" has as much influence on the workings of our government as you would give them credit for. Just as you think that the "neo-cons" are a disruptive faction of the Republican Party, I can argue that the looney left (DU, Kos, MoveOn) are a very dangerous faction of the Democrat Party. Many of them advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. That's treason, my friend.

2. "if your president did something or asked of you something that would be in violation of this oath, say to impose martial law and suspend congress and the constitution, what would your response be?"

Obviously you do not have any concept of how things actually work here in the US. Unless we experienced a massive attack, there is no chance that martial law would be imposed. There is no mechanism that I know of that would allow for the suspension of congress and the constitution. You have been watching to many movies and TV shows. The Bush Administration is not a big, evil, monster. They are ordinary men and women trying their best to make the world safer. You should be thankful.

3. "Revenue went down in the first 3 years of the cuts".

Sorry, but I have to call Bulls**t. The tax cuts were signed into law in 2003. The tax revenues for 2004 were $1.88 trillion, $100 billion more than 2003. The tax revenues for 2005 were $2.153 trillion, the highest ever and a $270 billion increase over 2004 (do the math, that's $370 billion total increase). The revenues for 2006 have shown tremendous increases as well. So your statement that the revenue went down for the first three years after the cuts is absolutely FALSE. Where did you come up with this ridiculus claim. Pull it out of your a**?

4. "I am referring to Bush usurping power reserved for congress and also the independant judiciary."

In the US Government, there are three distinct branches of government. These three branches have been jockeying for power throughout our history. You clain that the President is usurping power reserved for Congress and the Courts. I would counter that Congress frequently steps into the fray and attemps to usurp Executive power. The Courts frequently attempt to legislate and exercise excutive power from the bench. Just because the President is retaining Executive Power, doesn't mean that Congress has been rendered inconsequential. After all, they hold the power of the purse.

"He does this by issuing signing statements into laws he signs stating that he does not believe that he is bound by US law."

Do you realize that every President has done this? So its only a big deal because President Bush is doing it as well? Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Sometimes they issue the Signing Statement because they do not agree with some provisions of the bill, but do not want to veto it. They are not blanket claims that the laws can be violated at will. Sounds like a DU or Kos talking point.

You asked me earlier if I would follow an un-Constitutional order, yet you complain when the President gives public notice that he will not execute laws he feels are un-Constitutional. What's the difference?

"He also usurps the power of the judiciary by denying the rights to challenge the constitutionality of a law by hiding behind the "national security" banner."

No such thiing has been done. In fact, with respect to the NSA Intercept Program, five Federal Courts have said the program is Constitutional. Let me repeat so you will understand and retain this fact: Five Federal Courts have said the program is Constitutional.

Give me a cite where the President has denied the Judiciary the right to challenge the constitutionality of a law.

"So how can something that was NOT legal during nixon, now be legal under Bush?"

Nixon was not using the NSA to intercept the communications between terrorists and supporters in the US. That is the difference. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, and it doesn't work.

Finally, your link is to a newspaper article in a far-left leaning newspaper. I have more than enough personal experience with newspapers distorting the truth and publishing lies to believe what they print, especially from a far-left rag. Where's your link to "Yoo has publically stated that the president has the constutional power to violate ANY law, at ANY time"? That's also sounds like its straight out of DU or Kos.

5. "it is important to resist the temptation of allowing a minority of people from legislating their personal religious views into law."

Correct. A minority of people, who are anti-religion, should not be legislating their personal views into law. Give me some links to credible sites where this "minority" is legislating their personal religious views into law. All I have seen is a minority of anti-religion zealots ordering legislatures to pass laws legalizing gay marriage, etc.

6. If "power is also being abused to spy on reporters, political opponents , environmental activists, just as it was abused during Nixon, will you continue to support it?"

You mean like President Clinton did? No, I would not support it. However, that is not happening now, so your premise is purely hypothetical. You make a hypothetical case for almost anything. What if a President authorized warrantless wiretaps on Americans not connected with terrorists, obtained the FBI files of hundreds of political opponents, lied to a Grand Jury, took illegal campaign contributions, and allowed top secret technology to be transferred to our enemies, would you support it?

Besides that fact that it is technologically and physically impossible for the NSA or any government agency to listen in on the billions of phone calls made in the US each day, they have no reason to. The actions they are taking are purely to detect the plans of terrorists who want to kill us. They have no reason to listen in on political enemies. All they need to do is read DU or Kos, after all Kerry is a guest blogger now.

7. "So you view adultry as a larger disgrace to the oval office then a president that violates US laws, his oath of office, condones torture, rendition, quashing the 4th and 1st ammendments and imprisons people without due process even if they might be completely innocent as were hundreds of people just released from Guantanamo. They were innocent, no due process and lost 4 years of their lives."

Pure wishful thinking on your part. There is no evidence that the President is authorizing any of these things illegally. You just think he is breaking laws. That doesn't make it so. Your BDS is showing.

As far as the NSA intercepts are concerned, Federal Courts have ruled that they are legal.

As far as redition is concerned, the EU can find no evidence that these "secret prisons" ever existed. Even if they did, what if the prisons were in coalition countries? As a partner in our war on terror, why couldn't they accept the terrorist suspects for internment and interrogation?

As far as condoning torture, I guess your definition of torture is my legal interrogation technique. Depriving terrorists of sleep, threatening them with harm, varying their environment, and blaring rap music at them 24/7 is not torture. What the terrorists are doing to captured journalists and others is torture.

What 1st and 4th Amendment rigths have been violated? I see that DU, Kos, and all the rest of the wacky left blogs are still up and running. Of course, they regularily ban any poster who do not strictly adhere to their far-left liberal vision. Have you or Aarontime or Tom Shipley or any of the other liberals been banned from this or other conservative sites? So who's suppressing dissent?

Clueless entertainers are still free to spout off their lies and distortions. Members of Congress can still stand up on the Senate floor and call the President a liar and worse. Newpapers, like the Boston Globe you cited earlier, are still free to make up stories and publish classified information (although on the later, they should be prosecuted). Air America is still on the air (however I don't think anyone is listening). I could go on and on, but you get the message. American's 1st Amendment rights are not being violated.

As far as the 4th Amendment is concerned, it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have ruled that the intercept of communications to gather foreign intelligence is not an unreasonable search.

Terrorists captured on the battlefield do not enjoy the due process the US legal system provides. They are illegal combatants. They do not follow the Geneva Convention, and thus are not accorded some of the Convention's protections. They are not prisoners of war, as they do not belong to an army of a soverign nation, do not wear uniforms, and do not follow the Rules of Warfare.

We are not talking about Joe Average Muslim who was draged out of bed in the middle of the night and sent to GITMO. We are talking about a Radical Islamist Terrorist who was caught trying to set off an IED, or was captured with a stockpile of munitions. The terrorists housed at GITMO are the worst of the worst. I know several soldiers who were responsible for the operation of GITMO (one of Michigan's Army National Guard units spent a year running GITMO). They were spit on by the detainees. The detainees threw fecal matter and urine at the guards. These are hardly "innocents".

Besides, the detainees never had it so good. Instead of sleeping in a cave, eating rotting goat meat, and getting shot at and bombed, they are receiving excellent medical and dental care, get three culturally appropriate meals a day, have clean and dry living quarters, are allowed time to pray and exercise. No wonder it is called "Club GITMO". As far as losing four years of their lives, if they weren't in GITMO, they would probably be dead. Sounds like a fair trade-off to me.

Just because they were released doesn't mean that they are "completely innocent". There are a number of reasons prisoners are released: sometimes interrogators have determined that they could provide no further intelligence; sometimes an agreement has been reached with their native country to take custody of them; sometimes they are released because they pose no threat to U.S. security. However, there have been prisoners who were previously released that were recaptured on the battlefield fight against us.

Take a break from DU and Kos. They are turning your brain to mush and programing you into a rabid Bush hater.

A-10

Thank you very much for your service to our country!!

Axis

Unfortunately the main stream news media, while they may not always actively support the DU, KOS group they seem sympathetic to them. This is why our reputation is in the toilet. They make up lies about us and when they don't tell out and out lies, they don't provide the proper context.

The French have their own intellegence agency. It seems unlikely they would need to rely on the Americans. The French seem to be far better at human intellegence than the United States. The French may have been up to some crooked dealings. The following article provides more info. http://americanthinker/articles.php?article_id=4970 Of course there is still a great deal we still don't know. Hopefully an enterprising reporter will investigate this. Unfortunately in their zeal to bring down the Administration some people seem to have forgotten or perhaps they never recognized who the real enemy is. I can only hope and pray we can work together to defeat the Islamic Extremists and their allies.

I don't think the "neo-cons" has as much influence on the workings of our government as you would give them credit for.

-- You didn't answer my question, choosing to skirt it instead.

Obviously you do not have any concept of how things actually work here in the US. Unless we experienced a massive attack, there is no chance that martial law would be imposed. There is no mechanism that I know of that would allow for the suspension of congress and the constitution.

I think its you that is out of touch with what you president has been busy doing behind the scenes. Right after taking office, he got busy dusting off an old Regan era plan to do exactly that, declare martial law and detain dissidents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700843.html

Fema, has been busy renovating old WWII internment camps previously used to house japenese americans etc. They ain't fixing to stuck mexicans in there

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062

These are NOT good signs and are a warning. Many that live through the holocaust have come forward and stated that the parallels between now and Germany are very very similiar

Sorry, but I have to call Bulls**t. The tax cuts were signed into law in 2003.

-- Actually the first cuts were in 2001, they were renewed in 2003. Revenue went down in 2001/2002/2003

In the US Government, there are three distinct branches of government. These three branches have been jockeying for power throughout our history.

-- Again, you skirt the question and avoid answering the question. No other president has gone as far as this one to usurp the power reserved for the congress and judiciary.

Correct. A minority of people, who are anti-religion, should not be legislating their personal views into law.

I see, so only athiests should be prevented from influencing law. Any religious nutbar can impose his religious will into law. I will pass this onto the Sikhs in America and East Indians who will lobby to pass laws banning beef and pork sales to all of america because they believe it a sin, because you are ok with that.

No such thiing has been done. In fact, with respect to the NSA Intercept Program, five Federal Courts have said the program is Constitutional.

-- Yes they have, they have blocked investigations into the program. Why if it is legal? NO federal courts have ruled on it at all, that is a complete lie. The only ones that have said it legal is the bush administration and they keep it out of the courts because they know the courts would rule it ILLEGAL. A court can't look at it until an investigation shows what is happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/washington/11secure.html?ex=1305000000&en=a4440ab01370431d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

As far as redition is concerned, the EU can find no evidence that these "secret prisons" ever existed. Even if they did, what if the prisons were in coalition countries?

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:jLdEsqlhgysJ:www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16659.shtml+rendition+evidence&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=2

Sometimes they issue the Signing Statement because they do not agree with some provisions of the bill, but do not want to veto it.

-- That is called a line item veto and it was stuck down by the supreme court when clinton tried to use it. Other presidents have not used signing statements in such a way as bush does.

Nixon was not using the NSA to intercept the communications between terrorists and supporters in the US.

-- Nixon was using it for national security purposes also, but abusing it just as much. So you condone flagerant abuse as long as they also use it to look for terrorists. Interesting. Murder is also ok as long as you help an old lady across the street right after.

You mean like President Clinton did? No, I would not support it.

-- Clinton used the FISA courts for his, like bush should have done.

However, that is not happening now, so your premise is purely hypothetical.

-- Better open up your eyes http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/dailyUpdate.html

Besides that fact that it is technologically and physically impossible for the NSA or any government agency to listen in on the billions of phone calls made in the US each day, they have no reason to

-- Better open up your mind too. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html

As far as the NSA intercepts are concerned, Federal Courts have ruled that they are legal.

-- A lie, no courts have ruled at all, they have only dismissed cases because of the classified nature of the nsa. The issue of legality is not decided in any way

As far as condoning torture, I guess your definition of torture is my legal interrogation technique. Depriving terrorists of sleep, threatening them with harm, varying their environment, and blaring rap music at them 24/7 is not torture.

-- Actually, Alberto Gonzalez redefined the definition of torture to allow anything so long as it does not result in death or organ failure. Anything else goes according to the bush administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html

"Yoo has publically stated that the president has the constutional power to violate ANY law, at ANY time"? That's also sounds like its straight out of DU or Kos.

-- Right here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/

Pure wishful thinking on your part. There is no evidence that the President is authorizing any of these things illegally. You just think he is breaking laws. That doesn't make it so. Your BDS is showing.

-- Rumsfeld torture memos http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

What 1st and 4th Amendment rigths have been violated?

-- Reporters spied on and threatened with jail
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=20638&repository=0001_article

and warrantless wiretapping and domestice spying.

As far as the 4th Amendment is concerned, it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have ruled that the intercept of communications to gather foreign intelligence is not an unreasonable search.

-- That is a bold faced LIE. There are communications, privacy and FISA laws specifically to prevent this. This is domestic surveillance, not foreign. Nice try

Terrorists captured on the battlefield do not enjoy the due process the US legal system provides. They are illegal combatants.

-- Another LIE. Illegal combatents was specifically used so they could violate geneva convention and torture laws. It has never been proved to be a legal definition.

They are not prisoners of war, as they do not belong to an army of a soverign nation, do not wear uniforms, and do not follow the Rules of Warfare.

-- You just described a militia, or civilians taking up arms against a hostile force , which can occur anywhere in the world, including here in years and wars past. Ok to torture them in your books?

Terrorists captured on the battlefield do not enjoy the due process the US legal system provides. They are illegal combatants. They do not follow the Geneva Convention, and thus are not accorded some of the Convention's protections.

-- Not fighting terrorists anymore , that was in afganistan. Now fighting insurgents fighting you because you are occuping their country. North Korea drops troops into your town and you pick up arms and fight them, I will let them know that you are ok with the taking you prisoner and torturing you because you arent in a uniform or part of the military.

We are not talking about Joe Average Muslim who was draged out of bed in the middle of the night and sent to GITMO. We are talking about a Radical Islamist Terrorist who was caught trying to set off an IED

-- The overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo as people dragged off the street, out of beds and kidnapped, now a lot are being released as they are innocent. Tortured and 4 years+ robbed from them.

Besides, the detainees never had it so good. Instead of sleeping in a cave, eating rotting goat meat, and getting shot at and bombed, they are receiving excellent medical and dental care, get three culturally appropriate meals a day, have clean and dry living quarters, are allowed time to pray and exercise.

-- Thats why the red cross and ammnestry intl want you to shut it down because the prisoners all love to be tortured.

Take a break from DU and Kos.

-- Don't read there, maybe you should, Fox news has apparently left you uninformed about what is going on in your own country. Pretty bad whena foreigner knows more than you do.

Ya know axis,

I have better things to do with my time than cut and paste your links (hey, learn how to use html tags) to conspiracy web sites. Like protecting the employment and reemployment rights of our men and women serving in the Guard and Reserve.

Every one of your responses is rooted in conspiracy theories, a belief that the US government is evil and willingly violates laws, and no concept with reality.

But I will comment on a few of your comments because they are so outrageous that they scream for rebuttal:

"Fema, has been busy renovating old WWII internment camps previously used to house japenese americans etc. They ain't fixing to stuck mexicans in there"

Straight from a conspiracy site. No basis in fact.

"NO federal courts have ruled on it at all, that is a complete lie."

Five separate federal courts have ruled that the President has the enherent constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence.

Yoo's comments were about taking the fight to Al Qaeda, not violating the Constitution here in the US.

"Clinton used the FISA courts for his, like bush should have done."

Wrong. Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps against Aldrich Ames and others.

The Clinton Administration requested 6057 warrants in 8 years, and average of 757. The Bush Administration has requested 7719 in five years, an average of 1543 a year, over twice as many as during the Clinton Administration.

"This is domestic surveillance, not foreign."

And you are a moron. IT IS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. We went through this before, but you are to stupid, or stoned, or drunk to understand.

"Not fighting terrorists anymore , that was in afganistan."

They are terrorists. Insurgent is the PC word for terrorists.

"The overwhelming majority of people in Gitmo as people dragged off the street, out of beds and kidnapped, now a lot are being released as they are innocent."

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. They are terrorists captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan and a few from Iraq.

I'm am through with you. You are a hopeless cause.

Regarding this whole thing about France believing Saddam had WMD:

This canard has long been used to excuse Bush's ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq. Basically, this tired wing-nut argument goes like this: "France believed he had WMD, and so did Germany, and so did every intelligence service in the world, and so did Clinton, and so did Gore, and so did everyone. Since everyone believed Saddam had WMD, Bush cannot be blamed for believing he had em too!" And so - Voila! - Bush is absolved of doing the dumb thing.

Like all great Lies, this one is effective because it has a kernel of truth to it. All of these entities did indeed essentially agree on the assumption that it would not be terribly surprising - Saddam being Saddam - if he were to be hiding at least some wmd. I myself believed that he probably had something hiding there. I think any reasonably intelligent person would come to the same conclusion.

Where this canard is misleading, however, is that it only tells part of the truth in a self-serving attempt to obscure the overall picture. As I said, all of these entities certainly would allow for the possibility that Saddam could be harboring wmds, but none of them expressed anywhere near the level of certainty expressed by the Bushians that he in fact currently possessed them. Indeed, we now know that there was considerable disagreement within our own intelligence agencies over the solidity of the evidence for wmd. Only the Busians, h*ell-bent on going to war for whatever reasons, expressed certainty, contending over and over that they had incontrovertible evidence on wmd.

Both Hans Blix and France's de Villepin took strong issue with Powell's presentation of this "evidence" for WMD at the UN. Blix in particular shot holes in most of Powell's accusations, pointing out specific cases where UN inspections had found his skewed interpretation of the intel to be utterly untrue (ie, the fabled "Mobile Bio-Labs"). I watched those Security Council debates live, and they were stunning - particularly when Blix looked Powell directly in the eye and basically said (to paraphrase): "You're full of sh*it". Powell sat there with an expression on his face as if he had just drunk cat pee.

So yes, everyone allowed for the possibility that Saddam had WMD, and that led to the 15-0 Security Council vote calling for intrusive inspections. The wording of that resolution specifically listed what Iraq was prohibited from having, and reminded Iraq that it must destroy any of those items it MAY possess (to be determined by inspections). No where did it claim that Saddam actually had wmds (without inspections, how could they know for sure?) - rather, it very forcefully stated that he is in repeated non-compliance with his obligation to "ensure [read: allow verification] that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security". The further resolution endorsed the idea of using force IF Saddam were to resist immediate compliance with inspections. De Villepin himself indicated that he personally endorsed the idea of force as well... IF verifiable disarmament of Iraq could not be achieved by any other means. With good reason, Blix, de Villepin, and the other Security Council members were obviously skeptical of Powell's presentation of the evidence that Saddam possessed wmds, and thus could not support a rush to war (indeed, Washington's subsequent efforts to get a Security Council resolution authorizing invasion failed spectacularly). Indeed, the Powell presentation was pathetically flimsy. We now know why: it is hard to have concrete evidence of the existence of something when it in fact doesn't exist.

In November of 2002, intrusive inspections were begun to establish exactly what Saddam had, if anything. In his February report to the Security Council on the progress of the inspections, Blix testified that Saddam was allowing inspectors free and unfettered access, with only a few exceptions that were subsequently rectified. Intrusive inspections were ongoing, and no wmds had been found to that point. He further went on to state that the inspectors would need until July to complete their mission.

But obviously Washington was not interested in inspections. With the Republicans having "focused on war" incessantly for months as part of their 2002 mid-term election strategy, and having accused war skeptics of weakness and being unpatriotic, and Bush having postured heavily in the same manner, and having already committed 200,000 troops and dozens of tank divisions revving up in the Kuwaiti desert, it was politically impossible for Bush at that point to NOT go to war. He had created facts on the ground and political impetus that were spinning out of control and could not be reversed. So, they had to exaggerate about the wmd. They had to mislead, plagiarize, and cook up accusations of nuclear weapons. It did not matter what the inspections found - indeed, the longer the inspections didn't find the goods, the greater the danger that more and more people would start to question all the dubious assertions W's team was making.

So yeah, most intelligent people allowed for the possibility that Saddam harbored WMD. But only the Bushians were telling us they knew for sure, and it was only the Bushians (and Blair) who would not allow the weapons inspectors to finish their mission.

The simple question that amounts to a strong indictment of Bush is this: Knowing that Saddam was well contained (Powell's own words) why could we have not waited those additional 4 months for completion of the inspections to find out what Saddam had?

Had we allowed the weapons inspectors to complete their mission, we might have avoided an eventual $1 trillion price tag, 2,500 US troops killed, ten of thousands of Iraqi civilian non-combatants killed, a nation in ruins, devastating loss of US credibility and moral stature in the world, a large portion of US forces pinned down in Iraq with diminished capacity to deal with other threats, and a destablized Iraq that looks headed down the road to Islamic theocracy closely allied with Iran.

So please, no more of this "France thought he had wmd, Clinton thought he had wmd, the Israelis thought he wmd, yadda yadda yadda".

In July of 2003 Bill Clinton said he knew beyond a doubt that when he left office Saddam had stokcpiled WMD. Senator Clinton spoke of the ties Iraq had to Al Qaeda and the WMD threat posed by Saddam. She went on to point that the intellegence they were receiving was materlially simillar to what they were had when they occupied the white house. It was based on this intellegence that Congress voted to authorize the war. By inventing the "Bush lied" cannard, they accomplish two things. They don't have to take responsibility for their actions and they can play the victim. The Bush administration underestimated the difficulty of the insurgency and they mistakenly relied on the same intellegence the Clintons relied on. These are actaully forgiveable crimes, if only they would own up to them. What is not forgiveable is the attempts by the "Bush lied" crowd to rewrite history to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their actions. As long as they continue this line, someone will need to expose them. Personally, I'm for flushing everyone in Congress and the White House out of office. I'm sick of all of them.

What Bill Clinton said in 2003 was on the day he left office it was incontestable that were unaccounted for stocks of WMD. I may have misquoted him. Senator Clinton did say that the intellegence they were getting was simillar to what they had in the white house. 911 changed how we evaluate threats. The problem with waiting until July was the Iraqi weather. Also, we know from the ISG that Iraq was not contained and the UN Oil for Food program had corrupted the system. Had Turkey not betrayed us, we could have sent the infantry from the North and this might have crushed the "insurgency." As A-10 points out, this is the politically correct term for terrorist. The hyprocissy of the left will be exposed, as long as they continue. What is needed for Americans of all stripes to work together to defeat this enemy.

The Syrian connection has not been fully investigated. It may be to early to conclude the stockpiles did not exist. Someone may be rushing to declare the former regime clean for political purposes. The money made off of oil for food can sure buy allot of propaganda. None of this is to suggest that the invasion was justified. It is to present the side we generally do not get from the MSM.

I don't think the Kuwaitis or the Jordanians would have allowed us to keep a force in the desert for an indefinite period of time. Saddam only needed to wait us out then he could have continued gaming the UN oil for food progam and he could have continued flaunting the santions that had significantly eroded. Actually, some of the foreign intellegence reports, such as those by the Germans, were more alarmist than ours. They weren't being immediately threatened and oil for food buys allot of support. 911 changed how America viewed threats to its security. The ISG concluded that Saddam had failed to account for this fact when he charted Iraqi policy. In the absence of a 911 style event, Saddam had largely defeated the US and its allies. To use a sports term he was very much in "run out the clock" mode. This is why I'm inclined to believe he would not have approved of Al Qaeda's 911 attacks. Maybe there might have been a better way other than an invasion to handle the Iraqi problem. I do think some mistakes were made in executing the war. It is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, so to speak.

Aarontime,

"Had we allowed the weapons inspectors to complete their mission, we might have avoided an eventual $1 trillion price tag, 2,500 US troops killed, ten of thousands of Iraqi civilian non-combatants killed, a nation in ruins, devastating loss of US credibility and moral stature in the world, a large portion of US forces pinned down in Iraq with diminished capacity to deal with other threats, and a destablized Iraq that looks headed down the road to Islamic theocracy closely allied with Iran."

The US Weapons Inpectors worked for years to verify that Iraq had disclosed and destroyed all of their WMD and their WMD programs. Each time the Iraqi provided a "Full and Final Declaration", the Wepaons Inspectors found more WMD and hidden programs. With all this deception and denial, there was no reason to belive that Saddam was telling the truth about their WMD. Hell, in each of their "Full and Final Declarations" they admitted to possessing tons of WMD. There are still tons of it unaccounted for. Where is it? Buried in the Deesrt? Buried in Syria? Destroyed? We do not know. When a country tell you that "We made 100 tons of sarin", but can only account for 80 tons, that means that 20 tons are hidden somewhere. Either that, or they were lying about the amount of WMD produced. Either way, we couldn't afford not to call his bluff.

The price tag would have been even worse if Saddam had provided WMD to terrorists and they used them on the US. I also question the price tag. Usually the anti-military folks include the pay and allowances of the troops involved in the military action. They conveniently ignore that a significant portion of those troops were going to be paid anywhay.

"A nation in ruins". What nation is that? Do you mean Iraq, that was in shambles prior to the liberation? Where US and coalition forces have helped rebuild the infrastructure that Saddam allowed to deteriorate? You mean the nation with a fast growing economy, falling unemployment rates, a new democratically elected government, and a bright future?

As for a "large portion of US forces pinned down in Iraq with diminished capacity to deal with other threats." With about 130,000 Active Duty and Reserve Component troops in Iraq, that leaves only about 2,170,000 of the best trained, equiped, and lead soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to deal with other threats. There is no nation on earth that can come close to matching the air, land, and sea power of the United States. I think you greatly underestimate the ability of our Armed Forces.

To quote Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"

A-10, keep those eyes tightly closed until its too late. Keep parsing those facts and debunking everything because you refuse to believe anything other that your president only has your best interests at heart.

Hitler used the jews to rally the people, he used to jews as a fear tool, a hate tool, a reason to implement more oppressive laws, a reason to spy. Finally, before the people had a chance to react, their little republic was crushed and converted to a police state.

Bush has the terrorists to do the same.

Straight from a conspiracy site. No basis in fact.

-- Your president would never do that would he?

Five separate federal courts have ruled that the President has the enherent constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence.

Theres just a wee bit of difference between gathering intelligence on Iran and gathering intelligence on you and your neighbors in America,
No courts have ruled that it s ok for him to spy on americans.

Yoo's comments were about taking the fight to Al Qaeda, not violating the Constitution here in the US.

-- Yoo's contention was that the presidents powers were limitless, including fighting Al Qaeda or others. Said the president could violate any law, in time of war or in time of peace. Bush could cut the heart out of a live baby and Yoo would tell you that he had the constitutional power to do it.

Wrong. Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps against Aldrich Ames and others.

-- Wow. 1 warrantless wiretap out of over 6000. Bush ordered warrantless spying on 200 million americans. Which is worse.?

The Clinton Administration requested 6057 warrants in 8 years, and average of 757. The Bush Administration has requested 7719 in five years, an average of 1543 a year, over twice as many as during the Clinton Administration.

-- Plus 200 million warrantless ones. Bush wins! Yay!

And you are a moron. IT IS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. We went through this before, but you are to stupid, or stoned, or drunk to understand.

-- Collecting your phone records here and snooping through your banking records and god knows what else is foreign intelligence gathering huh. I don't think I'm the one thats stupid, or stoned, or drunk to understand. It is you.

They are terrorists. Insurgent is the PC word for terrorists.

-- Oh course they are. Patriotic Iraqis fighting an enemy occupier are terrorists. LOL. If North Korea drops their troops into america and you start fighting them then YOU are a terrorist too. No wonder bush has your phone records, you are a sleeper cell terrorist!

Keep that head of yours firmly buried in the sand, well covered by your republican flag as your freedoms are eroded and your country sinks further and futher down into a police state. When the shit hits the fan, we liberals will be here to save your ass from the fascists, while your head spins around on its neck wondering how did this happen?, why didnt I see this coming? I can't believe this is happening. History has shown that are shcmucks like you that never learn from history because you always believe "that could never happen here"

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
- Benjamin Franklin

Axis,

Keep it up. We don't need any more proof that liberals cannot be allowed to control our national security, but you're providing it.

"No courts have ruled that it s ok for him to spy on americans." He's not, so what's your point?

"Bush could cut the heart out of a live baby and Yoo would tell you that he had the constitutional power to do it." LOL. Now I know you're either on drugs, or have forgotten your meds.

"Bush ordered warrantless spying on 200 million americans." A total fabrication on your part. Proof?

"Collecting your phone records here and snooping through your banking records and god knows what else is foreign intelligence gathering huh." You have no proff that any of this is occuring, so what's your point, beyond exhibiting your terminal case of BDS.

"Oh course they are. Patriotic Iraqis fighting an enemy occupier are terrorists." Oh, you mean the deposed members of the Baathist party? The ones who participated in the murder of thousands of Iraqis? Those "Patriotic Iraqis"?

What flavor of koolaid are you drinking? I understand the Tropical Punch is extremely potent. And don't forget to adjust your tinfoil hat. I understand Karl Rove has retargeted a couple of satellites and is beaming his mind control rays towards Canada.

A-10,
Why are you wasting your time on this canuckle-dragger? I saw on one post that he referred to Rumsfeld as having no military experience, I think Mark or perhaps you set him straight, only to have him make the same claim on another thread!
If he ever had an original thought we could watch it play solitaire (and it would probably cheat), he doesn’t have the capacity to reason, only repeat what his liberal overlords have told him.
Now, back away slowly so he doesn’t explode, and please, for the sake of all of us, stop feeding him.

Axis

The patriotic Iraqis you refer to are former regime loyalists and their allies in Al Qaeda and various other terrorists Saddam supported who believe it is their God given right to rule the world. Now that Iraq has an elected goverment and many of its important positions filled, the insurgents as you are calling them are fighting an elected government. Admitedly this government is far from perfect. I'm still not sure this Democracy thing will work out for them but I must say they have advanced further than I ever thought they would. You imply Bush is a fascist. One thing that Hitler had was control of the press. Bush does not. I would assert that the main stream media, while not fascist have more in common with fascists than the administration. If we take Nazi propaganda and stike out the word "Jew" and insert "evangelical christian" and "neo conservative" you will have something that has eerie simillarities to what came from Nazi Germany. The terrorists as patriotic Iraqis, for liberals to have any credibility on national security issues, they will need to purge this kind of thinking from their midst. When you acknowledge the threat posed by Islamic Extremists, it will become possible to have a constructive dialog on how we should deal with it. I think the Franklin quote you gave us should read "essential liberty" instead of "freedom." If so, this changes the meaning considerably. I will look it up. A-10 says it best when he points out that dead people have no rights.

The patriotic Iraqis who killed thousands of Iraqis, actually the number is probably somewhere between 500k to 750k, are the same ones whose attacks wantonly target civilians. They are responsible for most of the deaths that are occuring now. During Saddam's day it was done quitely.

The Iraq war may have been a strategic error but until liberals can purge the "Bush=Hitler", "Bush lied, kids died", and "terrorist=patriot" fromt heir thinking, their is no way to have a constructive dialog on how to proceed.

A-10

I appreciate your service to our country in USMC and I appreciate all of the work you do for our veterans!! Your job is to defend the country and to support those who do. The job of some is to live in a world of theory. I appreciate all that you have done and are continuing to do.

A-10,

Logic in the matter of Iraqi WMDs went by the wayside on the left quite a while ago...as far as they are concerned, Saddam never had any WMDs...except those we deliberately provided him back in the 1980's so he could gas Iranians and Kurds (it always has to be our fault, don't you see?).

Keep it up. We don't need any more proof that liberals cannot be allowed to control our national security, but you're providing it.

-- Fear not, soon enough you conservatives will be backbenching it. People are fed up with your poor governance and will be making a change in november, count on it. I dont seemto remember a 9/11 event happening on clintons watch that went uninvestigated and where the person responsible was allowed to get away and then the government gave up looking for him. Clinton caught the bastards that hit the trade towers durunbg his watch and they rot in prison as we speak.
Can't say the same for Bin Laden, free and making tapes regularly and the decider gave up looking. Tough on terror huh? Incompetant on terror more like it, like everything else.

"Bush ordered warrantless spying on 200 million americans." A total fabrication on your part. Proof?

--Collecting detailed phone records on the vast majority of americans meets my definition of spying. If clinton was doing it, you would too. You're just blinded by your partisanship. Fortunately you are in the vast minority.

You have no proff that any of this is occuring, so what's your point, beyond exhibiting your terminal case of BDS.

--Try picking up a newpaper and you will read all about it. Then try reading the presidential memo given to negroponte allowing the phone companies to lie about it. Big step to protect a program that doesn't exist

Oh, you mean the deposed members of the Baathist party?

Nope, try some of the ones that had faily and friends killed in the shock and awe campaign dropping 6000 bombs and killing tens of thousands of innocent citizens. Baaathists were a small, small, small minority of the Iraqi population

The others here are right, it is a waste of time talking to you, you are little more than a mindless conservative zombie, wandering aimlessly with no free thought of your own.

Say what you want of me, at least I and capable of making my own decisions and judgements. You just agree with whatever the government does, not matter what that is.

You are still in a bootcamp mentality, when you get out of the military you are supposed to resume independant thought. I guess you are no longer capable of that. So you just follow your zombie masters.

axis,

I think you bettered quit!,while you've got the time.

Bane of Liberals' Existence,

You're right, of course. I should stop feeding the trolls. I worry, however, that some fresh, innocent mind might read his posts and believe them.

Actually, I wish I could feed him enough so he would burst. But he's so full of BS, I'm afraind the Northern Hemisphere would be comtaminated for years. :-)

B.poster,

Thanks for your kind words. Those of us that have spent our entire adult lives serving our great country have a special appreciation for the seriousness that Radical Islamist Terrorism poses.

While I don't agree with everything the President proposes, especially on the domestic side, as far as the War of Terror goes, he's doing the right thing.

What is most irritating is when a Canadian, whose country's livelihood is totally dependent on the fortunes of the US, thinks they can insult our President, degrade our military, and question the functioning of our government. All the while, spewing lies, distortions, and half-truths.

I consider it an honor and my duty to rebut his silly remarks. But alas, I have grown tired of his immaturity, refusal to accept facts, and conspiricy theories.

Mark,

You are so right. In the eyes of the left, everything wrong with the world is the fault of the US in general and the conservative movement in particular. Logic and facts play no part of their thought pattern, only emotion and feelings.

You are so right. In the eyes of the left, everything wrong with the world is the fault of the US in general and the conservative movement in particular.

--Not at all. You are the ones that can only blame the liberals rather than admit to a mistake. The liberals are responsible for bush and rumsfeld not listening to seasoned 4 and 5 star generals and winging it itstead, totally screwing everything up.

We actually are capable of free though, not stuck in boot camp mode where you shut off your brains and go onto republican autopilot. The bush talking points become yours and their opinions become yours.

I disagee with a lot of what this administration has done, though mostly that which has been done in the second term. SomeI agree with. Same with Clinton, good at some things, not so good at others, same with Regan and Daddy bush.

You conservatives however can do no wrong. Law breaking is not illegal as long as you are doing it. If a democrat does it though, its wrong and must be stopped.

In the end, it will all work out, the democrats will take the house and the investigations and oversight will start and the relavations will be flying faster than you can say corruption. You will just blame it on a liberal conspiracy and refuse to believe so matter how bad the crime, no matter how much evidence there is.

If its bad enough, he will be impeached along with dead eye dick and he will likely resign and then you will be hailing President Pelosi until 2008 and she can get the country back on track.

If not, then he will be disgraced and you will be hailing President Hillary Clinton in 2008

In either case, after november, the bush agenda will be stopped in its tracks and he will have to play ball ot the house will stop everything in its tracks until he does.

You time of reckoning is coming...

Axis

If we fail in the war on terror against Islamic Extremists the day of reckoning for the entire western world is coming. All you have done so far is repeat leftist talking points. When you recognize that Islamic Extremists pose a survival threat to our civilization then we can proceed to discuss how much survelliance we wish to have. Any investigations will likely find no wrong doing, as President Bush is the most scrutinized president in the history of the republic and all they can get is one measly indictment for an aide whose husband outed his CIA wife long before anyone Bush administration official did. Saddam's oil for food money buys allot of propaganda. Try to impeach the president. Actually you may have a case regarding his domestic spending or his refusal to secure the borders but not for trying to defend the country from Islamic Extremists. I would suggest watching Fox News in addition to the left wing information stuff you are currently reading. With Fox News you can get the left wing stuff along with the other information, at least you would be better informed. As for not capturing Bin Laden, the threat from Islamic Extremists terrorists is far bigger than Bin Laden. At the beginning I was concerned that we might focus to much on one man and lose sight of the bigger picture. Fortunately we have not done that. I will most likely vote neither Republican nor Democrat this election cycle. If the Democrats will jettison the Bush lied cannards and the Bush Hitler cannards and see the Islamic Extremists/Marxist alliance for exactly what it is, it is a survival threat to America. Saddam's regime was a part of this alliance. Then I might consider voting for them.

Axis

There seems to be something you don't really understand about American politics. You seem to imply that true Conservaties have major clout within the Republican party. They do not. Also you mention certain generals whose advice you say was rejected. Your left wing news sources will not tell you that other 4 and 5 star generals supported the plan that was used. It is incredibly easy to play arm chair general or Monday morning quarterback. The most common complaint I think has been not enough troops used. Fair enough. If we use more troops this means more targets for the terrorists and possibly more Coalition troops dead or maybe it works out. Also, Turkey did not allow us to advance on Iraq from the North. Had we have advanced from the North, as well as the South this might have made a difference or perhaps not. The way you phrase the criticisms you seem to imply that defeating this enemy is somehow easy. It is not. The Admimistration should have done a better job explaining how difficult this would be. I knew going in that this would be very difficult!! Frankly, I'm amazed we have done as well as we have!!

If we fail in the war on terror against Islamic Extremists the day of reckoning for the entire western world is coming.

-- True, but this is NOT who you are fighting over in Iraq, you are fighting insurgents, who are ordinary Iraqis fighting the american occupiers who have killed countless numbers of their citizens

Your real fight against terrorists is in AFGANISTAN!! The Taliban bastards are coming back in now that US troops are down to a skeleton crew there. Coalition forces are holding the line and are growing weary waiting for the US to get their priorities straight. Eventually coalition forces will pull out unless they get the help they need.

Why wont your president catch or kill Bin laden? Why's he totally abandoned the search for him? Hes out there, making tapes and giving America the middle finger with each one and laughing at you. Americans need to stand up andtell your president to kill or catch this prick.

Any investigations will likely find no wrong doing, as President Bush is the most scrutinized president in the history of the republic and all they can get is one measly indictment for an aide whose husband outed his CIA wife long before anyone Bush administration official did.

-- Do you SERIOUSLY believe this? How can one be scrutinized when not ONE single serious investigation has been initiated or oversight committee has looked into a single thing in over 5 years? Clinton was oversighted and investigated up the ying yang, yet they all went on vacation as soon as Bush came in. Clearly they are afraid of proper investigations as they know there will be LOTS of wrong doing found. This is why Karl Rove has told Rupublicans that if Democrats take back the house, it will cause their worst nightmares to become a reality. Those are his words. No legitimate administration doing things legally would be so afraid of proper oversight and investigations that congress has a constitutional duty to conduct.

Try to impeach the president. Actually you may have a case regarding his domestic spending or his refusal to secure the borders but not for trying to defend the country from Islamic Extremists.

-- Correct, no one can fault him for trying to defend the US , but they CAN and WILL fault him for the things he has done in order to achieve this.

-- Torture, Rendition, Prison abuse, Illegal spying, Leaking classified information etc.

With Fox News you can get the left wing stuff along with the other information, at least you would be better informed.

-- Thats funny, name a single left leaning commentator on Faux News. Name a simgle neutral one for that matter. Its a conservative leaning news channel.

As for not capturing Bin Laden, the threat from Islamic Extremists terrorists is far bigger than Bin Laden.

-- You mean those ones that Bin Laden continues to recruit and train and the ones that laugh at the US because Bin Laden launched the worst terrorist attack in American history then just walked away. Terrorist look at him and understand that you can attack the US then hide in a cave for a few months and they will forget all about you

At the beginning I was concerned that we might focus to much on one man and lose sight of the bigger picture.

-- Yes, much better to totally abandon him along with the actual terrorists in Afganistan and focus on a non-threat to the US with no connection to terrorism or 9/11. Now theres terrorists in Iraq, when none before, and there more terrorists in the world then there was before you started the "war on terror" All your efforts have done is multiply your problem many times.

If the Democrats will jettison the Bush lied cannards and the Bush Hitler cannards and see the Islamic Extremists/Marxist alliance for exactly what it is, it is a survival threat to America.

-- If they take control, I am convinced that they will focus back on Afganistan where the terrorists actually are, finish the job, cut the troops number in Iraq, stop work on that ridiculous 104 acre, 600 million embassy that is so big it can be seen from space and those permanent military bases.

There seems to be something you don't really understand about American politics. You seem to imply that true Conservaties have major clout within the Republican party. They do not.

-- You used to. You let the fascist slip into the party during the Regan years and they have been quietly breeding ever since. Isn't it time to take back your party from those that pollute it with fascist, non conservative values? Why do conservatives even bother voting Republican when none or so little of your values are even a consideration?

Also you mention certain generals whose advice you say was rejected. Your left wing news sources will not tell you that other 4 and 5 star generals supported the plan that was used.

-- They were forced to by Rumsfeld... Anyone not agreeing with this administation is margionalized and turfed out if they don't follow Rumsfelds lead. Rumsfeld is the one responsible for the mess in Iraq, he is a military wanna be with no experience at all.

The most common complaint I think has been not enough troops used. Fair enough. If we use more troops this means more targets for the terrorists and possibly more Coalition troops dead or maybe it works out.

-- Also, poor body armour and unarmoured vehicles, poor training and poor basic essentials. Many troops there now are rationed to 1 or 2 meals a day, so they are not even being fed properly. Additionally, tainted food and radioactive water are making many sick and will eventually get cancer because of the depleted uranium

Britian is even considering a MASSIVE barrage of lawsuits against the US because the winds are talking that radioactive dust and blowing it into the UK, making people there sick as well.

Powell said that you would need 300 000 troops there to get the job done. They ignored him and tried to do it on the cheap and it backfired. Sufficient troops in the first place would have prevented it from escalating into what you have now.

The way you phrase the criticisms you seem to imply that defeating this enemy is somehow easy.

-- No, you have forgotten who the enemy is. Iraqis are not the enemy, they did not attack america and are not terrorists. They are caught in the middle of this GWB vs.Saddam debacle.

Axis

The true fascists are the terrorists not the people who are trying to defend the US and the Western world against this threat. Tony Blair recently visited Iraq and reminded people of what is at stake here. I'm not sure you know what a fascist really is. The terrorists have stated that it is their God given right to rule the world. I don't want to be enslaved under their brand of Islam. From the previous posts, I think you are Canadian. It is in your interests that we prevail here. We must treat this threat for what it is. It is a threat to the survival of our civilation. If America goes down, this affects the entire western world. It is in your interests that we prevail.

Rumsfeld lacks the power to "force" anyone out. Congress would never allow him or the Administration to force people our willy nilly. Some people may leave because they don't get their way and they may bicker. Don Rumsfled served in the Navy, so the statement he has no military experience is incorrect. The military has fought a very powerful enemy in Iraq to a stand still. This enemy is capable of winning. Thats no to bad for a military "wanna be." That said, something will need to be done to break the stalemate. Many insightful commentators have made compelling cases that he should be replaced. You see a mess. I don't see that. Iraq now has an elected government and the Iraqis and the Coaliton think we can be out in about 18 months and terrorists are being fought in Iraq and not on American soil. From what you wrote, you clearly don't grasp how the American system works with its checks and balances. Rumsfeld lacks the power to force people out willy nilly.

"Poor body armor and unarmored vehicles." There have been some issues regarding armor. The military has tried to address this as best they can. The US military is the best trained and best armed force in the world. Some of the explosives the terrorists are using will penetrate a tank. I don't think all of the body armor in the world will stop that. The way you phrase is as though you think defeating this enemy is easy. As we do things, they make adjustments and then we make adjustments. This enemy is not an easy enemy to defeat. I don't know what troops eat in the field. I'm sure A-10 can weigh in here. I'm sure its not the gourmet food. If they were being grossly neglected beyond reason, you would be seeing mass revolts. This does not seem to be happening. The troops, like A-10, realize the threat posed by Islamic Extremists. They will give up gormet food for a while, if this is what it takes to win. As for radiation in the water or the wind, the British might want to check with Saddam on that. He is in custody right now. He made a radioactive mess of his country during his days in power. Also some reports indicate he may have disposed of some of the evidence for his WMD programs in the Euphrates River. This would affect the water quality.

Even if we used 300,000 troops there is no guarantee this would have resulted in the outcome Axis would like. There are two basic problems with this. 1.)The Army has been decreased by about 30% since 1991 so you have to get them from somewhere. To use more troops in Iraq may have resulted in a short fall somewhere else. 2.)More troops equal more targets for enemy, which may mean more dead American troops and we still might be in the same place we are now only with more dead American and Coalition forces. There is no guarantee this would have made a difference. It might have only made things worse. More dead soldiers equal more publicity for terrorists which leads to more terrorist recruits and makes the situation even harder. We may have followed General Powell's advice and be in a more difficult position than we are currently in. That said, I think more troops in the beginning would have made a significant difference. I think it was a mis calculation. There have been some encouraging signs that Bush may be willing to own up to this. Mistakes are forgiveable. They happen in all wars. What is not forgiveable is refusing to learn from them. There is no guarantee that more troops would have been the solution. The way you phrase this you see, to imply beating this enemy is easy or should be easy. It is not easy. I knew from the beginning it would not be easy. I'm astonished we have done as well as we have.

Iraq provided active support for a number of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda. Iraq provided sanctuary for some of the terrorists involved involved in the WTC bombing in 1993. Iraq attempted to assainate a former President. Iraq was a legitmate target in the Global War on Terror. This does not mean that Iraq was a strategically correct decision, however, it was a legitimate target. A stong case could be made against the invasion. Time will tell if it was a correct decision. Ultimately a leader should be judged on what they actually achieve and not on what they meant to achieve.

B.Poster,

You cannot debate anything with "axis". He refuses to accept undeniable facts and substitutes them with wild accusations and conspiracy theories. He is a perfect example of the wacked-out, looney liberal.

For instance, he states that Rumsfeld has no experience, except for the fact that he was a Navy pilot and flight instructor on Active Duty for three years, then did an additional 32 years in the Naval Reserve. Then he ignores the fact that he was the SecDef under Ford (the only person who has twice served as SecDef), US Ambassador to NATO, US Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, and CEO of two Fortune 500 companies. He is probably the most experienced human to ever have served as SecDef, but to "axis" he is inexperienced. Go figure.

Then he claims the our military is poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly fed, etc. I just asked someone who came back from Iraq a couple of months ago, who works in the same armory as I do, about these claims. He said that the only time they didn't get three hot meals a day was when they were on extended patrols. Even then, you ate what you took with you on patrol. As for the radioactive water, he just laughed and asked me what I was drinking.

He also must think that since Alan Colmes and Gretta Van Susteren aren't foaming at the mouth liberals, they are Bush boot-licking conservatives. Hell, even Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the rest of the commentators take the President to task on various issues. I guess to "axis" if they aren't to the left of Michael Moore, they're conservatives.

The bottom line is that you can't use logic and facts with "axis". He won't listen. I have explained things to him in simple terms, so he could understand, and have provided facts to him from my vantage point as a DoD insider. But it doesn't do any good. It could be a bright, sunny day and he would say it's dark and cloudy. He truely lives in a universe that is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Maybe he is a victim of that wonderfull socialized health system they have in Canada. I, for one, refuse to respond to his insanity any more.

The true fascists are the terrorists not the people who are trying to defend the US and the Western world against this threat.

-- The terrorists are not fascists, they could not careless about the model for government. They are religious zealots that buy into a perverted version of muslim religion that believes that it is ok to kill those that do not follow their docturines. Many are just gulliable people that are brainwashed or programmed into believing that their faith is worth sacraficing themselves. These types are often programmed into becoming suicide bombers

The war on terror, is really little more than a war on religious extremism. You have an awful lot of that here in America, only it is christian extremism that often manifests itself into white supremists or some other hate group or militant organization. They pose a signifigant risk to Americas security as well, but are being ignored because they are not of muslim faith.

I'm not sure you know what a fascist really is. The terrorists have stated that it is their God given right to rule the world.

-- That does not meet the definition of fasism. It may indeed be a form of dictatorial control, however it lacks many of the required ingredients.
They really care not about rule rather than stamping out those that do not believe as they do

Rumsfeld lacks the power to "force" anyone out. Congress would never allow him or the Administration to force people our willy nilly.

-- This is incorrect, there is much evidence pointing to the fact that you either play by Rumsfeld's rules or get the hell out. This administration operates on a hiarchy of loyalty. If you are loyal to the president, you go somewhere, regardless of if you have the merits or experience to do the job. Rumsfeld is unqualified for his position, and his track record has proven this to be 100% accurate. Just as Brownie was unqualified, having previously been a judge for arabian horses. But they are loyal to the president and so thats all that matters.

The military has fought a very powerful enemy in Iraq to a stand still. This enemy is capable of winning. Thats no to bad for a military "wanna be."

-- Totally inaccurate, you must be basing this on Cheney's last throws claim in 2004. The troops are just holding on. Also in case you have not caught the news, the US has just declared that victory in Iraq is now no longer an option and is out the window. All they can do now is try to hold on. This comes directly from the Pentagon and
was reported by MSNBC. You can pickup on it here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12920385/site/newsweek Bungling the war to the point where you can no longer hope to win. Sounds like a military wannabe to me.

I don't see that. Iraq now has an elected government and the Iraqis and the Coaliton think we can be out in about 18 months and terrorists are being fought in Iraq and not on American soil.

-- This has been tried before and failed there. Puppet governments almost always fail as soon as the government that propped them up leaves. America has a democracy because the people rose up and took the country from the British. And stillit took more than a decade and countless dead before you go things hammered out. In Iraq, this did not happen. It is niave to assume that you can fight this battle for the Iraqis and expect them to miracleously adopt a foreign way of life naturally. They will have no respect for democracy because they did not fight for it. As soon as the US leaves, it will collapse. If they had rose up against Saddam, it would be a different story. Only the Kurds did this. And the insurgents have no interest in coming here to fight you. They only fight because the US is occuping their country and want you out. Simple as that

The radioactivity is a result of the depleted uranium shells and bombs used during the shock and awe. The soldiers will pay the ultimate price even ifthey make it back from cancer and other related health problems.

Axis

This is likely my final comment here. While it is true that analogies to fascism are not exact, it is my contention that Islamic Extremists come the closest. Here is the definition of fascism from the dictionary. Fascism - 1.) A.)A system of government marked by centralized authority under a dictator, sringent socioeconmic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship and typically a policy of beligerent nationalism and racism. B.)A political policy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2.)Oppressive dictatorial control.

None of the above characteristics are currently present in America. They are certainly not present in the Bush administration. Every one of these are present in the Islamic Extremists we fight. So while they are not exactly like the WWII era German version of fascism, they do come close.

Regarding Rumsfeld, you clearly indicate you do not understand how the Ameircan government works. You mention Michael Brown. I must point out that it is not unusual for a business to hire someone as CEO who does not have experience in that industry. For instance, a lumber company may hire someone who was previously a top executive for a soft drink company. The leader is supposed to put people in positions that get the job done. Congress approved Mr. Brown to this position after Bush nominated him. They can filibuster or refuse to confirm any nominee they don't want. That being said, FEMA was slow to respond. This reflects on the leader. He has been removed from his position as he should have been. There has been much inaccurate reporting on the Katrina incident. The primary blame for this belongs at the local and state levels. The bottom is NO ONE except for the Coast Guard and the rest of the military performed well. I have tried not to be to harsh on state or local officials. The way you phrase this is as though dealing with one of the worst disasters in American was somehow easy. It was not easy.

The administration has admitted they underestimated the insurgency. This is an entirely forgiveable crime. In war, as in anything else, mistakes happen. The important thing is to learn from them. Some of the administration's domestic policies are not as forgiveable. When you say Rumsfeld "bungled" the war. You are implying that fighting a very powerful enemy who is capable of defeating you is easy. It is not. the Islamic Extremist/Marxist alliance is very capable of winning. I'm well aware of the report from msnbc. A policy of containment is acceptable to me. This may not be the optimal solution but if it works out this is acceptable to me. This would mean we prevent the destruction of our civilization. I don't consider that to be such a bad thing.

You are correct the Iraqis will need to defend their country. From American, British, and Iraqi officials it appears we will most likely be mostly out of the country within 18 months. This will obviously be at the discretion of the Iraqi government. In another thread "Retired Spook" has an excellent analysis of this. You write" "The insurgents have no interest in coming here to fight you." I disagree. A colnel of who was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera I think it was said "if we leave now, these puppies will follow us home." The insurgency is made up of terrorists and other former regime loyalists whose goal is world domination and or regional hegemony. To reach any kind of understanding with them, America will need some type of assurances.

The Department of Defense has studied the use of DU. They found the risk to be neglible. Other studies have declared that it will end all life on earth. Which one is correct? The Department of Defense is subject to checks and balances. This is unlike the left wing groups who do their studies. The studies by DoD are probably closer to be correct. If it were so dire, we would have already had a UN general assembly resolution condeming this and the main stream American press would be all over it. Besides environmental groups wield enormous power within the US. They could stop the use of these weapons if they really caused tremendous harm. The fact thay have not done so lends strong credence to the assertion that the DoD study is the closest to being correct. This has not happened. In any event, several countries use these weapons. Finally our actions need to be evaluated in the context of a fight for our very survival.

You suggest that America has religous extremism in the form of Christian Extremism that manifests itself into white supremacy. This is ridiculous. You clearly indicate that you have no understanding of American politics. The so callled "Religous Right" is the least powerful group in America. These people pose no threat to anyone. During the Clinton administration the government viewed them as the number one domestic threat. While this happened, the Islamic Extremists threat grew in power. This mis identification of the enemy played a large role in why 911 was able to happen. There is also strong indictions that Isamic Extremists may have assisted in the Oklahoma City bombing. I think a pathological hatred of all things white may be what partially drives leftists and terrorists together. The terrorists threatened to "burn the roots of the anglo saxon race." What we get from the msm and leftists is silence. When you acknowledge the seriousness of the threat posed by Islamic Extremists and their Marxists allies, it will become possible to have a constructive conversation on how to proceed.

I think I forgto to include this in my post. Supporters of the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq have said with regards to Britian, "we need to take it over." American and British actions need to be evaluated wihin the context of trying to defeat or at least contain an enemy capable of carrying out its wishes. If the terrorists were to succeed, they will do very bad things to Britian. The folks wanting to sue America need to think about this. This mis identification of the enemy is not good. They need to direct their fury at the Islamic Extremists to get them to call of Jihad.

We know that in 2001 both Condi Rice and Colin Powell made statements that Iraq's ability to wage war and threaten its neighbors had been substantially reduced.

We also know directly from analysts in the CIA and other government agencies that there was substantial skepticism about Saddam's WMD. The sources that the Bush administration relied upon ("Curveball", the Iraqi National Congress/Ahmed Chalabi) were widely discredited.

We know that the primary reason given for the invasion was to "protect America from Iraq's WMD". Threats were issued for Saddam to "disarm". There were U.N. inspectors on the ground, and they found nothing.

Many other administration claims were simply outright lies. The famous yellowcake from Niger fabrication, based on reports that had been thoroughly discredited, the bogus claims made by Colin Powell about mobile bio weapons labs that in reality our own intelligence said could not be used for that purpose, to the false claims that aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear centrifuges, all refuted conclusively by our own government experts.

To those that claim WMD have been moved to Syria, etc: put up or shut up. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE SPENT AND HUNDREDS OF U.S. EXPERTS HAVE SCOURED IRAQ AND OFFERED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ANY IRAQIS INVOLVED IN ANY ASPECT OF WMD AND HAVE COME UP COMPLETELY EMPTY.

The claims that Bush made about tons of chemical and biological weapons were simply false. Anybody with half a brain knows we were lied to. Period, end of story.

Same thing about Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda. Our own intelligence agencies debunked this completely. The truth is that OBL and Saddam hated each other, and OBL offered to help overthrow Saddam during the first gulf war, when he was on our side in Afghanistan.

Despite the mindless propaganda of Mark Noonan, A-10 and others here, the facts are the facts. The invasion of Iraq was based on false pretexts, and the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld have consistently painted a rosy picture on a disastrous situation that seems only to get worse. And by the way, I draw that conclusion not from MSM reports (which I have little faith in) but reports on the ground from Iraqis bloggers and others who live outside the "green zone".

It is amazing, though, how much little press is devoted to the real story of America in Iraq: the construction of 4 permanent military mega bases in that country, and a behemoth 100 acre "embassy" that is more than 10 times larger than the biggest existing U.S. embassy in China.

And we wonder why Iraqis are resisting and the insurgency is growing?

And every day, more rats are jumping ship as the U.S.S Bushlie sinks ever deeper into the muck.

It's not a question of "hating" Bush, it is simply standing up for truth in the face of lies. If you want hate, hellfire and promotion of violence against political opponents, you've most likely been listening to the likes of Michael Savage or Ann Coulter.

We know that in 2001 both Condi Rice and Colin Powell made statements that Iraq's ability to wage war and threaten its neighbors had been substantially reduced.

We also know directly from analysts in the CIA and other government agencies that there was substantial skepticism about Saddam's WMD. The sources that the Bush administration relied upon ("Curveball", the Iraqi National Congress/Ahmed Chalabi) were widely discredited.

We know that the primary reason given for the invasion was to "protect America from Iraq's WMD". Threats were issued for Saddam to "disarm". There were U.N. inspectors on the ground, and they found nothing.

Many other administration claims were simply outright lies. The famous yellowcake from Niger fabrication, based on reports that had been thoroughly discredited, the bogus claims made by Colin Powell about mobile bio weapons labs that in reality our own intelligence said could not be used for that purpose, to the false claims that aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear centrifuges, all refuted conclusively by our own government experts.

To those that claim WMD have been moved to Syria, etc: put up or shut up. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE SPENT AND HUNDREDS OF U.S. EXPERTS HAVE SCOURED IRAQ AND OFFERED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ANY IRAQIS INVOLVED IN ANY ASPECT OF WMD AND HAVE COME UP COMPLETELY EMPTY.

The claims that Bush made about tons of chemical and biological weapons were simply false. Anybody with half a brain knows we were lied to. Period, end of story.

Same thing about Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda. Our own intelligence agencies debunked this completely. The truth is that OBL and Saddam hated each other, and OBL offered to help overthrow Saddam during the first gulf war, when he was on our side in Afghanistan.

Despite the mindless propaganda of Mark Noonan, A-10 and others here, the facts are the facts. The invasion of Iraq was based on false pretexts, and the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld have consistently painted a rosy picture on a disastrous situation that seems only to get worse. And by the way, I draw that conclusion not from MSM reports (which I have little faith in) but reports on the ground from Iraqis bloggers and others who live outside the "green zone".

It is amazing, though, how much little press is devoted to the real story of America in Iraq: the construction of 4 permanent military mega bases in that country, and a behemoth 100 acre "embassy" that is more than 10 times larger than the biggest existing U.S. embassy in China.

And we wonder why Iraqis are resisting and the insurgency is growing?

And every day, more rats are jumping ship as the U.S.S Bushlie sinks ever deeper into the muck.

It's not a question of "hating" Bush, it is simply standing up for truth in the face of lies. If you want hate, hellfire and promotion of violence against political opponents, you've most likely been listening to the likes of Michael Savage or Ann Coulter.

Cookiecorp

We know the intellegenc was wrong. Clearly the weapons are not there. At least they are not where we thought they would be. I think we have already admitted that. Actually ties to Al Qaeda have not been debunked. Some of the recently translated documents are shedding more light on this. It could be argued that the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda did not rise to the level to justify invasion. The ISG have said they were unable to complete the investigation into what was transferred into Syria. They have said it warrants further investigation. Remember UN oil for food money can buy allot. Also, a large sum of money may not be able to bribe a religous fanatic. The investigation should be completed. I hope it turns out the conventional wisdom on this is correct and the WMD did not exist.

Four permanent military bases and a 100 acre embassy. The msm never tires of talking about these things. Iraq's militarty will need bases to operate from when we leave and we, the coalition, and the Iraqi government will probably want us to maintain an embassy. As for the size of it, this can be discussed with the new elected Iraqi government who has said we should be out in 18 months.

Some seem to be gloating at Bush's popularity numbers. I'm not to happy with him myself. i can empathize with the frustration people feel, however, this is not something to gloat about when faced with a national crisis such as this. Should the chance at an acceptable diplomatic solution present itself, an unpopular president be it Hiliary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, or whomever will be in a weakend position and may be unable to take the decisve action to represent America's interests.

B.Poster,

For your information depleted uranium is primarily used in 30mm anti-tank rounds fired by the A-10 Thunderbolt and for reactive armor on Abrams M1 tanks. The depleted uranium being used has a lower level of radioactivity that naturally occuring uranium. Here is an excellent analysis on depleted uranium. Another lie by "axis".

cookiecorp,

"There were U.N. inspectors on the ground, and they found nothing."

Did you read any of the reports written by the UN Weapons Inspectors? Each time the Iraqis submitted a "Full and Final Declaration of their WMD", Weapons Inspectors found additional WMD and hidden programs. This went on for years. When yuou find additional WMD each and every time Iraq makes a "Full and Final Declaration", you have no reason to believe the last Declaration is accurate.

Not only that, the actual declarations listed the 100's of tons of WMD that Iraq had produced and possessed. Not all of the WMD listed was accounted for. There are tons of sarin, mustard gas, and other WMD missing.

The question never was if Iraq possessed WMD. They admitted they had them. They had used them against the Kurds and Iran. The question was: What did they do with the missing WMD? Was it destroyed? Was it buried in the desert? Was it shipped to Syria? We still don't know.

"Many other administration claims were simply outright lies. The famous yellowcake from Niger fabrication, based on reports that had been thoroughly discredited.."

Actually, it Joe Wilson that has been thoroughly discredited. And the British stand by their intelligence that Iraq sought yellowcake from Niger. They aren't saying that they procured it, but they sought it (which was a violation of UN resolutions).

By the way are you and "axis" twins? You see to be drinking the same flavor of koolaid.

A-10

Thanks for the information on depleted uranium.

B Poster,

Fascism - 1.) A.)A system of government marked by centralized authority under a dictator, sringent socioeconmic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship and typically a policy of beligerent nationalism and racism. B.)A political policy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2.)Oppressive dictatorial control.

None of the above characteristics are currently present in America. They are certainly not present in the Bush administration.

-- I would agree and disagree. This is because we areseeing all the warning signs of a move to a fasist state in America. Not there completely yet. A move to fascism takes time and is done gradually so as not to create uprising.

Think of it as you are going to cook a live frog. If you drop him into a pot of boiling water, he is going to instictively jump out. However, put himin cold water and gradually turn up the heat and it is a different story and he will be boiled alive before realizing what is happening.

Remember how long it took hitler to convert the littler republic in pre-WWII Germany to a fascist state. Many years.

The warning signs are all there. Indirect centralization of power thru classifing most all contravertial government activites to hide them from view and investigation, flagerant violations of US law, an administration that states it can violate ANY US law including constitutional ones, torture, rendition, murder, spying and more.

Indirect dentralization of power to the executive by usurping power reserved to congress by issuing signing statesments stating that the executive is not bound to obey and can disobey if he deems it necessary

Indirect dentralization of power to the executive by usurping power reserved to the judiciary by decising that the president has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality of US law. This is CLEARLY reserved to the judiciary. If they rule a law constitutional or unconstitutional, then the president MUST respect and follow this. He cannot unilaterally decide that he disagrees and violate it anyway.

The President is NOT above the law. A dictator is above the law, but not a President. He takes an oath of office specifically swearing to uphold the constitution and to faithfully follow US law. He is violating this oath every, single day.

He states that the constitution gives him the power to ignore the 4th ammendment and privacy laws as long as he can justify it in the name of national security.

He is now stating that he is free to use the NSA spying program and collection of phone records to spy on reporters and use it to determine sources.

He is now stating that the justice department has the right to throw reporters in jail that reveal classified unlawful government programs or classified lawbreaking.

These are both in violation of the 1st ammendment

He has had FEMA rebuild old WWII internment camps

He has issued executive orders giving him the power to impose martial law and to imprison dissidents at any time of his choosing should he determine it necessary.

B Poster, survivors of the holocaust see the warning signs, the liberals see it, the historians see it, the reporters see it, the question is how far does it have to go before you see it too?