He could run for congress in the northeast and win as a Democrat.

I'll tell you one thing, americans will certainly not have a thorough analysis concerning the civil war now brewing in the Iraqi conflict (for lack of a better word). It appears an analysis of the civil conflict is being stymied by our own director of international intel, negroponte:

A report at Washington Babylon, the blog of Harper's Magazine's Washington Editor Ken Silverstein, indicates that Iraq analysts at the CIA have been pushing to complete a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the political situation in the country. NIE's are the most authoritative intelligence documents produced by the CIA, and the last NIE on Iraq was rejected by the Bush administration for being too negative.

But since the calls to analyze the Iraq conflict have emerged, Silverstein reports, Negroponte has tamped them down. One of Silverstein's sources explained that Negroponte didn't want President George W. Bush to be confronted with a pessimistic assessment of the war in Iraq.

unbelievable, bush is so coddled and protected out of fear that giving him any news that does not match his rose-colored vision of the world would be detrimental to his ability to stay off the bottle:

“What do you call the situation in Iraq right now?” asked one person familiar with the situation. “The analysts know that it's a civil war, but there's a feeling at the top that [using that term] will complicate matters.” Negroponte, said another source regarding the potential impact of a pessimistic assessment, “doesn't want the president to have to deal with that.”

The sources said that forces at the CIA have been lobbying for the new NIE for about six months. Not only is one overdue, but there's also a fear that if the Democrats win control of at least one chamber of Congress this November, the agency is going to get hammered for not having produced an NIE for so long.

When the topic of a new NIE was first raised, the Directorate of National Intelligence agreed to consider the matter, but advocates heard nothing back. They raised the topic again several months ago and were told that Negroponte was still mulling over the matter. Since then, there's been no indication that the DNI intends to authorize a new NIE. “He's not going to allow [analysts] to call the situation warts and all,” said one source. “There's real angst about it inside.”

So now we see that our own wacky Left is in alignment with a former dictator who murdered millions, ran real torture chambers, used real WMDs - even on his own citizens, and paid terrorists rewards for killing innocent civilians. Well, at least Saddam will soon be swinging at the end of a stout rope in Baghdad. Some of our Leftists, in their traitorous attacks on our troops, should face similar consequences.

BTW: Where did he get the money to pay the suicide bombers? Oil-For-Food? Kofi? The UN?

Well, OfF was under OUR watch, WE were responsible to police the shipping lanes for fraud in the program, and with French and Jordan, our companies also were giving kickbacks, and outright collusion within the ranks of the government.

"The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
...
"In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

There were over 60 occurances when aides brought the inflation of prices to the 661 resolution's attention, and even though the US is on that panel, it never bothered to investigate and ask for contracts to be severed.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon

At some point, the US is going to have to own up to its tolerance of this 'culture of corruption' in the UN, so it is more than a bit hypocritical to ignore our own role, and claim that this is everyone elses' sh1t-sandwich. I suppose that money paid to suicide-bombers was coming from us, too.

hey rev - where did saddam get all those chemical munitions to use on the kurds and other fellow countrymen? oh yeah - from the US, under a secret deal brokered by RUMSFELD AND REAGAN.

OOPS!

Why is it that conservatives pine for their war against militant-East by the liberal-West, yet, at the same time, militants are frothing about the jowls for the same thing?

Why do conservatives have the same talking-points as terrorists?

a little history primer for you rev regarding our past munitions dealings with saddam:

It was just before Christmas 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld, then US presidential envoy to Iraq, slipped quietly into Baghdad to come face to face with the man who would become one of America's greatest enemies within two decades.

The trip by the current US defense secretary, to pledge US support for Saddam Hussein, marked one of the lowest points of the entire Reagan presidency, and symbolically represents the real legacy of the "Great Communicator". For Reagan was a president who allowed the US to secretly arm the Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), supported Iraq's military expansion, turned a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran and thereby set in train the events that would lead to George W Bush's disastrous decision to invade the country in 2002.

Reagan's November 26, 1983, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 114), entitled US Policy Toward The Iran-Iraq War, stated: "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic."

The secret State Department account of the Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting, written in a staccato telegram-style, reads: "Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with ... Rumsfeld's visit ... Rumsfeld told Saddam US and Iraq had shared interests in preventing Iranian and Syrian expansion. He said the US was urging other states to curtail arms sales to Iran and believed it had successfully closed off US-controlled exports by third countries to Iran."

In 1982, as the Iran-Iraq war began to hot up, the USA quietly took Iraq off the State Department's list of states that supported terrorism. This allowed money to start flowing from America into Saddam's coffers.

Both the White House and the State Department bullied the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing. This made Saddam's balance sheet look so healthy that he was able to get loans from other international banks. Unsurprisingly, Saddam spent most of his new-found wealth on weapons - which he bought from Britain and America. Joyce Battle, of the National Security Archive, says: "Although official US policy still barred the export of US military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a ‘don't ask, don't tell' basis."

When a Congressional aide asked in March 1983, whether heavy trucks sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official said: "We presumed that this was Iraq's intention and had not asked." America officially restored full formal relations with Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq in November 1984, despite months of Iranian complaints to the world that its troops were being attacked with chemical weapons by Iraq's army. Some 600,000 Iranians died in the war, compared with 300,000 Iraqis.

America was fully aware of Saddam's war crimes. A November 1983 US memorandum from the bureau of politico-military affairs to the then secretary of state George Shultz, headed Iraqi Use Of Chemical Weapons, confirms that America knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily basis". Another State Department memo, also written in November 1983 - this time from the office of the assistant secretary for near Eastern and South Asian affairs - says the US should tell Saddam that America knows about the use of poison gas, as that would "avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue". However, State Department documents also reveal that America decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW [chemical weapon] program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality".

Other State Department cables sent around this time show that America knew Iraq used chemical weapons in October 1982 and in July and August 1983, "and more recently against Kurdish insurgents". Reagan also knew by the end of 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use".

Iraq's use of chemical weapons was not discussed at all during Rumsfeld's meeting, an omission entirely consistent with US policy. On November 1, 1983, the State Department noted in a memo that Saddam had acquired "CW capability", possibly from the USA. But two sentences later, the same memo says: "Presently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition against Iran. After a recent meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for a National Security Council meeting, a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist Iraq."

Rumsfeld was accompanied on his Baghdad trip by Howard Teicher, the then US National Security Advisor. In 1995, Teicher lodged a sworn declaration in the US district court in the Southern district of Florida, saying: "While a staff member to the National Security Council, I was responsible for the Middle East and for political-military affairs. During my five years' tenure on the National Security Council, I had regular contact with both CIA director William Casey and deputy director Robert Gates … Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war ... In 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. Similar strategic advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state."

After Rumsfeld's visit, a buoyant Saddam issued a public threat in February 1984, to use CW against the Iranians, saying: "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it, whatever the number, and Iraq possesses the annihilation insecticide."

After this, America was compelled to issue a condemnation of Iraq's CW program A month later the USA put out this rather weak reprimand: "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use - the United States finds the present Iranian government regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

Joyce Battle said that after this gentle scolding, the State Department was asked if Iraq's CW program would have "any effect on US recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range". A State Department official said: "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer relationship with Iraq."

That was quite evident from a US State Department memo dated May 9, 1984, which said that the US was reviewing its policy "on the sale of certain dual-use items to Iraq nuclear entities" and that "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities". A dual-use item can be a part for a heart machine, which is also used in the construction of nuclear bomb s.

By September 1984, the USA's Defense Intelligence Agency found Iraq was continuing to develop its "formidable" CW arsenal and would "probably pursue nuclear weapons".

Iran lodged a draft resolution with the UN asking the world to condemn Saddam for his use of poison gas, banned internationally by the Geneva Protocols. US diplomats began asking friendly nations to go for a "no decision" ruling. The US also said it was ready to abstain.

Iraqi diplomat Nizar Hamdoon, who later became Iraq's ambassador to the UN, met the US deputy assistant secretary of state, James Placke, telling him that Saddam could live with a Security Council presidential statement which did not name any individual country for using chemical weapons.

That was exactly what happened .

Battle trawled the National Security archives for secret documents like these, which detail the hidden history of American support for Saddam. She says that during the years when Iraq really was using WMD "actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve US interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent Iranian victory".

She adds: "Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The US was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing."

Why is it that conservatives pine for their war against militant-East by the liberal-West

Ah, but you are wrong. If we had our druthers, you'd be hiding from bunker busters.

Thanks for the update from the "unbiased" Sunday Herald. I will cherish it always.

Next time, cut to the chase:

Boooosh!!! Boooossh!!! Halliburton!!! Halliburton!!! Rove!!!! Oil!!!!!

That's where you really shine.

classic defense - if it does not fit your worldview, it's biased. google search iraqgate, or saddam, rumsfeld, chemical.

with one fell swoop you dismiss all the facts accounted for bc you feel a source is BIASED...

do some research you putz and add a proper disclaimer.

Man you lefties sure hate being outed as the terrorist supporters you are. Too bad, we know it and most Americans are figuring it out now too. When they see identical words and phrases coming from Kerry, Murtha and Pelosi as Saddam, its classic proof where the all sleep - in bed - together. First the KKK, now Saddam joins your camp. Who's next? bin Laden?

Rev,

Who do you mean by "we", white-man? You don't have any friends.

OBL, Zarqawi, AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria...all these folks seem to want the same war you want, why are you righties so in-bed with terrorist scum?

The Reverend Scar is like all of the other neo-con/Zionist/Christian fascists, he wants war and war and more war. Peace

Hey TEO... I've discovered how stupid you really are... it's up toe the United States to police the world ONLY when our absence can point to Bush failing in some way. If you weren't so transparently anti-Bush or anti-reality or anti-one position besides anti-Bush, we could possibly take what you say with some seriousness.

I feel bad for you that all you can do is find ways that it's Bush's Fault... I'm waiting on you to figure out how the Holocaust was/is Bush's fault.

OBL, Zarqawi, AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria...all these folks seem to want the same war you want, why are you righties so in-bed with terrorist scum?

Doing Pee Wee Herman impersonations again I see. Does it work for you? Should we take a vote?

blojob,
That's a wonderful story; problem is it's not supported by the facts. The State Department (Clinton's State Department) has already released all of the records regarding the US dealings with Saddam; $200,000 from the period from 1972 until 1990. The "dual use" you speak of was live cultures (anthrax) which the US supplied to many countries around the world for the purpose of making vaccines. Saddam received materiel from Russia, the former Soviet Union and Europe.
But, don’t let that stop you from buying into the fever-swamp conspiracy theories. Every few months one of you Looney’s trot out the “we supplied Saddam with WMD” stories. Right up there with “the CIA had Kennedy killed.” You're so gullible.

Rev,
Saddams letter looks like the new commie democrat plan for a progressive America just released by the Scremin' Dean folks at the DNC.

It is so funny watching you kick the little moonbats around with the 2by4 of truth.

It is a very compassionate effort on your part to try and help those suffering from malignant progressive regurgitationitus.

Unfortunately, TurdEye and BillysBloBoi are beyond saving. They are suffering from a severe case of BDS and are beyond the help of your wisdom.

Signed,
Your Friend
How NiKan

Rev,

falling back on your "No, no, that is what YOU are" gambit?

Willy,

I will be glad to discuss with you, anything you want, but you just asserting that i don't know what i am talking about, when i take great steps to provide citing for anything I am questioned about doesn't lend a lot of creedance to your arguement, please, find me something you seem to think I lie/fabricate/make-up regarding, and i will either recant it, or provide my proof...i'll wait.

So far Saddam Hussein has been more "correct" than the Bush Administration.

He claimed he had no WMD's and he had none.

He denied any connection to Al Qeada and bin Laden and, well, it turned out Hussein was telling the truth.

Meanwhile Cheney is still repeating these now debunked claims from the White House.

And remember it was not liberals nor Democrats who supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. It was not under a Democratic president that Hussein was given clearance to use weapons of mass destruction, the only time he used them.

It is unfortunate that Hussein speaks more truth the our own government, insofar as the evidence provided suggests.

Saddam and bin Laden are right-wing monsters. Don't try to hang this around the neck of liberals.

Wade

oh really rat? from washpost article citing NSDD139:

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

and of course repeated in an exchange in 2002 between byrd and rumsfeld at a hearing before the senate armed services committee:

A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory. The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq.

so tell me, rat, why in the world would we be providing a known "nasty character" with bubonic plague, anthrax, and botulism? to make f*cking vaccines?

please, find me something you seem to think I lie/fabricate/make-up

That should take all of 30 seconds...

Ratboy,

Why would we be sending "dual use" chemicals and Bio Weapon starters to a guy which we had publically rebuked for using CW on his own people? We were shipping this stuff, far after 1983, which is when we knew he was using CW against the Iranians. We don't send these humanitarian goods to Cuba, and they haven't used CW on their own people. Are we idiots, or is it something else? I am sure a guy who raped, tortured, and maimed his own people, was extremely concerned with getting our anthrax to make vaccines...so they could be completely healthy when he fed them into the plastic shredder, right? It is well documented that he was using our Chem. and Bio starters for weapons programs.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

You are also conveniently forgetting the other "dual use" military accoutrements, such as trucks and helicopters, that we sent him prior to '91, not to mention the US allowed transfers of US howitzers, bombs, and other weapons through other Middle Eastern countries. what squishy ethics we have doing business with a guy who is so evil, do you condone this behavior towards maniancs?

Unfortunately, TurdEye and BillysBloBoi are beyond saving. They are suffering from a severe case of BDS and are beyond the help of your wisdom.

I am not trying to save them; just point out the lying frauds the are. There's no saving those two - they're probably terrorist Muslims who have sneaked into the country on bin Laden's orders to "disrupt" the Internets. But being the fools that they are, they got into B4B and haven't had the sense (or decency) to leave. So I just point out their bull, for they seem to have an unending supply of it. For instance, now Brown Eye is running interference for Hezbollah, and his posts sound like Nasrallah's press releases. Fortunately for us, Nasrallah will soon be killed by the Israelis. Unfortunately, we'll still have to put up with these terrorist apologists.

Stink eye,
I’ve already spanked you once before on your persistent lies on this subject. Are you sure you want another beating?

points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

1985? Now who was President then? Reagan? George HW Bush? No, I think it was ... Slick Willie Clinton! Saddam probably promised him a hummer.

My mistake. I thought I read 1995, it was 1985:

William J. Clinton, the forty-second President of the United States (1993-2001)
Ronald Reagan, the fortieth President of the United States (1981-1989).

As for you Blo-boy,
Why do you leave out the quotes from Joyce Battle that doesn’t support your fantasy?

“In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be ‘in any way configured for military use’” And when Saddam tried to convert them, the other countries refused and reported it to the US.

And how about Joyce Battle’s revelation, “I have not personally seen documents that indicate that the Reagan administration supplied Iraq with chemical weapons.”

And then there’s the documents from the actual meetings between private citizen Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam that state “Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting. ”

In answer to your insipid question, yes, the “samples” were designed for vaccines, if you have proof otherwise produce it.

Stink eye,
“US allowed transfers of US howitzers, bombs, and other weapons through other Middle Eastern countries,” How about a source for this?

Ratboy,

LOL!! please, go ahead and find the string we argued a couple months back, I am sure everyone would love to see how bad you got your words stuffed back in your mouth, just like I am about to do below:

It is cited above the quote, but here is the actual citing:

Phythian p. 35. Phythian cites Murray Waas and Craig Unger, "In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission," New Yorker, p. 70.

Ratboy,

First-off, US was selling dual use helicopters and trucks, that much is known pretty readily, since congress got involved regarding it, so why were we sending dual use machinery to a madman, after he gassed his own people, and Iranin soliders? When you sell a criminal a gun, then tell him to go across the street to get ammo, so you can sleep better at night, at worst that is criminal, at best, it is the most relativistic morals there are.

Rummy may have been a "private citizen" on his trip to the middle east, but he was an envoy, sent directly from Reagan, on business...what sort of point are you making? Does Rummy being a private citizen, somehow negate the fact that we were stocking Saddam above, and below the table?

Ratboy,

The proof was the Chemical and Biological weapons he used against his own people.

Or if you prefer, how about the 2000 UN reporting of Iraqi stockpiles which they admit that the stuff we sent them was used to make Bio Weapons.

"Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

Stink eye,
Once again; you, Nathaniel Hurd, and Mark Phythian have nothing more than speculation. There is no evidence that these transfers took place with US approval or knowledge. nice try, as a matter of fact (something you don't understand) criminal invistigations were held after the Kuwait invasion and the worst thing that was turned up was a letter from former preesident Nixon to the Romainian president regarding the sle of old Romanian uniforms to Iraq. There was no "below the table" stocking of Saddam.
You tried to make that claim before and you've been called out before.

I've already debunked your moronic dual use Helicopters “In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be ‘in any way configured for military use’” And when Saddam tried to convert them, the other countries refused and reported it to the US.

And "dual use trucks? We might have sold Pixie-stix to him that he could convert to military use; killing Iranians with anthrax laces sugar. Funny, I don't find anywhere where you hero Saddam is claiming that we armed him.

EVIDENCE! That's what you lack, not just suggestions or goofy stories about criminals going across the street. That and your tendency to think if you post the same lame talking point enough that you won the argument. Guess what, you lost. I have better things to do with my day than posting the same facts over and over while you post nonsense and conspiracies. Get a fact or two and get back to me.

Ratboy,

You are willfully being stupid.

We have a history of not selling things to bad people, Cuba, for instance, but we decided it was ok to send biological weapon cultures, trucks, helicopters, and ship weapons through intermediaries to a guy who was gassing civilians, what does that say about our morals...is it ok to side-step them when we feel that they might get in the way of one of our goals? is that how you feel your government should act?

I have given you plenty of evidence, if you choose to ignore it, and call it false, then I can't change your blindness, but it doesn't make it any less true. try reading the posts, for instance the one where he admits the cultures we sent him were used to creat Bio Weapons...I don't know what else I can do, if you're going to continue to be blind, then so be it, but you have "proven" exactly, NADA..LOL

One simple question: where are the WMDs?

Ratboy,

"But there were other ways of arming Iraq. One such way - transferring arms through third countries - was outlined in a classified memo written by William L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in Baghdad, in October, 1983. "We can selectively lift restrictions on third party transfers of U.S.- licensed military equipment to Iraq," he wrote. Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act."

--You see that little memo written, saying that the third party sales could be used to avoid trumping our stated position of neutrality...what more proof do you want, a big frickin sign, in front of a picture of the stuff, with the message: "Heading to Iraq, Straight from the US"

"... if you post the same lame talking point enough that you won the argument"

Yawn ... trucks are weapons, vaccines are weapons, uniforms are weapons.

"We con selectively lift restrictions ..." but we didn't!
Long on accusations, short on proof! typical. I'm outta here.

Ratboy,

We have classified memos telling us exactly what they intended to do, if it was false, then why hasn't the government sued the publication, it was printed in the New Yorker, it wasn't like they never saw it, where is the retraction, where is the outrage?

Go ahead and run away, just like last time, when you slunk away without actually presenting anything close to proof of your assertations.

I will say the same thing, "I am sure you will forget soon enough about what has transpired here, and i will be here to hash it all up again, you can lie to yourself, but don't think I am going to let you lie in the public square without being called-out"

Peace, loser

The Christian fascist's are ideologues, they take orders they don't look at evidence. bush has been responsible for the deaths of 40,000 Iraqi's and he still believes he's been sent by "God". Peace

One simple question: where are the WMDs?

You forgot Booosh boosh Halliburton Rove! Rove!

Oh, and recount! stolen stolen!!!

You are right about one thing though, it is a pretty simple question. Probably indicates the kind of mind from whence it came. BTW, That was last year's talking point. Catch up.

rev,

one thing that strikes me about you is your desire to actually kill americans. you say you'd like to see lefties hiding from bunker busters. you clearly have no clue how democracy really works, and don't wish for it. i'm glad you take to the time to put your word out there - makes it easier to reveal just how insane you are.

think what you want, be stupid if you want, but wishing death upon americans - now THAT is a terrorist!

peace!
rebel_scum

What lie, you pathetic piece of shit?

"The proof was the Chemical and Biological weapons he used against his own people" Where in your moronic ramblings is evidence of chemical weapons sent to Iraq from the US? He used nerve gas against his people not "anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene"

Where’s your proof that any weapons were sent to Iraq from the US? Trucks? Helicopters? Uniforms? Vaccines? Just like that lie from blow-job even the “experts” have not seen any evidence of weapons from the US to Iraq.

If the US sent weapons in violation of our neutrality, where are the indictments?

I’ll tell you what I remember; you’re too dishonest to admit that you haven’t got a fact right despite all you cut-and-paste arguments.
I think they're calling you to the excercise yard, knuckle-head.

"A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

At some point, the US is going to have to own up to its tolerance of this 'culture of corruption' in the UN, so it is more than a bit hypocritical to ignore our own role, and claim that this is everyone elses' sh1t-sandwich. I suppose that money paid to suicide-bombers was coming from us, too." Turd Eye

Oh...you mean the Oil For Food Program of the UN which was introduced by the CLINTON andministration in 1995? Is that the same one that the Dulfer Reoprt shows that SADDAM WAS CHEATING FROM THE START, in otherwords for 6 years while CLINTON was in office?

Is this the same Iraqi regime that you lefties claim Bush plotted to attack after his first day in office??

So which is it Turd Eye? Did Bush turn a blind eye, or did he plot to attack Iraq from day one?

BTW: Either Clinton turned a blind eye as well, or he was a complete failure in office, or both. Which was it?

BTW Turd Eye,

I forgot to mention Marc Rich.

He is the same Marc Rich that that fled the US in 1983 after he and his partner were indicted by US Distrct Attorney Rudi Gulliani for illegal oil and arms deals with Iran.

Yes the same Marc Rich, whose wife made 49 separate political contributon to the DNC and Democrat candidates totaling almost 3/4 of a MILLION dollars between 1997 and 2000, and who was responsible for raising additional Millions for DNC causes.

Yes the same Marc Rich who was PARDONED one minute before Clinton left office, on one of Clinton's last acts of compassion for a deserving BILLIONAIRE fugitive.

Yes the same Marc Rich whose wife then donated between $450,000 to $1.4 million to the Clinton Library.

The same Marc Rich that Clinton tried to shake down for $25 million for the Library. (http://www.hench.net/2001/z021201a.htm)

Yes and the same Marc Rich who profitted imensely from the oil for food scam with Saddam.

So yes, I agree Clinton must acknowledge his role in that whole culture of corruption thing at the UN.

Ratboy,

C'mon, pookie, you can come up with something better than 'pathetic piece of shit'. LOL

You apparently don't read very well, do ya, baby?

"Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three. "

--Now follow me on this, big-boy, you see that little part about our shipments of toxins, after we already knew he was gassing troops and civilians, being used to make his BW stocks. Why would a bright nation like the US be sending weaponizable stocks of BW components to a nation which we had morally written-off for using WMD against humans? We don't bother to send vaccines to Castro, yet he hasn't used WMD, why would we do it for a maniac who has showed such contempt for world-policy before? Are you asserting that Reagan and Bush I were complete idiots, and couldn't figure out that these things might be used for nefarious purposes?

In regards to weapons, if you care to actually educate yourself, feel free to check-out what was dubbed "Iraq-gate", you can read the sworn affidavit from Reagan's NSC staff, Teicher, who kep very good notes about the involvement of the US in funneling cluster bombs to Iraq, through an intermediary arms dealer.

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/iraqgate.htm (1/3 down the page is the affidavit text)

p. 36. Phythian cites Alan Friedman, Spider's Web: Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit, (London: Faber, 1993), pp. 81-84.

Don't be silly, ratboy, you know that it is VERY difficult to get an indictment for anyone, because there is precious little info that ever gets leaked, and when it does, it is covered up almost as quick...such as most of the stuff that has been leaked regarding Clinton, and all the obstruction regarding him being indicted. Rape, shady business deals, illegal bombing of sovereign nations, perhaps connections to murder, all that stuff sound familiar?

I can only provide the info that is out there. You apparently don't know how government works, when something is obviously false, then you take them to court for libel/slander, and then you get a retraction from the editor, and basically ruin someone's career, when something can't be proven to be false, then you try to quietly let it pass, and never speak of it again...so again, I ask you, why haven't these editors and writers been sued, and retractions demanded if the Regan/Bush presidencies are clear of all the allegations?

Phnxbmed,

What is your point? Clinton was a corporate shill, with blood on his hands, and dirt coming out his pores, he just did it a bit more subtley than Reagan or either of the Bush-boys.

If you're trying to knock-down the argument that Bush and Clinton BOTH ignored the problem with OfF, then you are missing the forest for the blue-colored trees.

OfF was making quite a few US companies TONS of cash, and most of them seemed to be attached to the Carlyle group, which happened to have a board of directors which read like a 'who's who' of the recently-retired Republican elite. Maybe that's why Clinton and Bush I went on their Indonesian-adventure together, hmmmm, maybe it was just for the wonderful scenery, and homeless heathens, who knows?

The reports about Bush's infatuation with Iraq from day one are from ex-members of his own administration, lefties just believe it, apparently, you don't. eh

What makes you think he wasn't doing both? If he had brought up Oil for Food to the UN, then there would have been heat from all sides on Saddam, but there would have been a fall-out of tremendous proportions on the US companies, which his father was a stake-holder in. Not to mention if they had brought up the OfF, they would have alienated France, Russia, China, etc. and would have NEVER gotten a resolution to remove Saddam by force.

Somone that is not entirely made up of ignorance cut through the crap please. Stop the Democrat versus Republican nonsense. It will be the demise of our country

A prisoner speaks out against the invaders who captured him and all you can see is a Democrat.

I do not possess the words to quantify my tremendous contempt toward an attitude such as yours. This is a disgrace to the American ideal of small government, justice and liberty.