"Afghanistan will not be resolved by military means," Gen. Jones said in Washington after his return."

I love how the libs/kook trolls take this statement and spin it to mean "even the generals are anti-war."

All of us free-thinking intellectuals on the right understand exactly what the good generals mean, and would be happy to educate you parrot lemmings--if you'd just STFU!!!

"We must fight this out to a finish - because if we don't, then all we do is put off the day of reckoning, and when it comes it will be far bloodier than anything we're seeing now."

I'm sorry that people do not have the clarity to see what is in front of them.

There are bad people in this world that want to kill us for who we are, and no amount of talking, economic sanctions, or sitting around singing Kumbaya will change that fact.

We MUST kill them before they have chance to kill us.

As a Christian, that's hard for me to say, because I do not believe in wanton death and destruction, but, I do believe that we have the right and imperative to defend ourselves against evil. And yes, I believe those who practice this violent ideology masquerading as a religion are evil.

I think one of the problems with most of our resident Libs is that they're young, idealistic and impatient. They never quite see the big picture. My 12-year-old granddaughter tells me that History is a small part of her public school curriculum, and that what they do study is boring. It's no wonder that today's young Liberals are so woefully ignorant of the implications of allowing evil to advance.

I remember saying to my wife back in the 70's that if we could just survive the Cold War until the mid 80's, we'd be home free. That assessment was based on intelligence information to which the average citizen was not privy, but it was still more than a decade before I was proved right. It may well be a decade before our course of action in Iraq is proved right, and I do believe that it is much more likely to be proved right than to be proved wrong, unless, of course, the impatient ones get ahold of the reigns of power.

Hey, reefer

If we did what all of you free-thinking intellectuals on the right wanted and STFU, who would be left for you to insult? Wouldn't it be rather boring & unstimulating to have a blog where all you do is keep patting each other on the back?

CO:
--Well at least they gave up patting themselves on the back. Too many dislocated shoulders.

Spook, IDing Iraq as a strategic mistake that was poorly (to put it kindly) executed is not being idealistic. Thinking that all we need is time to be successful there is.

It seems that James Baker's report ruled out Bush's "stay the course" while democracy takes hold in Iraq plan:

"Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency."

http://www.nysun.com/article/41371

Spook, I was AP history in high school. The Cold War is a terrible analogy to back up the case for war with Iraq. First off, we pursued a similar strategy in Vietnam and that failed. Despite that, we succeeded largely by taking a hands off (metaphorically speaking) approach and allowing the inherent weaknesses of the Soviet Union to lead to its own downfall.

We are pursuing the opposite strategy with Iraq... and it's blowing up (literally speaking) in our faces. It's also exacerbating the terrorist situation around the globe.

The lesson of the Cold War is you don't need to engage an enemy to defeat them. You contain them, have patience and wait for their inherent flaws to take them down.

Now, we do need to engage terrorist militarily in this "war on terror." But to win the overall war, we need to weaken them while exposing their weaknesses. By invading Iraq, we NEEDLESSLY buttressed their cause for existence... their mission statement. They've gained support since the Iraqi invasion. To defeat terrorism, we must show the muslim world that al qaeda should not be supported.

Fear and poor strategic thinking prompted Bush to invade Iraq in an attempt to "take the fight to the terrorists" or was it to stop "smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds" or was it to "spread democracy in the mideast."

Well, if reports of the Baker plan are true, we could be abandoning the New American Century plan of turning Iraq into our Syriana, so that reasoning could be gone. There are were no WMDs, so that reasoning is gone. the only one left is "taking the fight to terrorists." Well, we did that in Afghanistan already, and it's been shown that there were no operational ties between Iraq and al qaeda. So that reasoning is gone too.

But, regardless, this is going to go down as Bush's folly. It needlessly divided the world at a time it needed to come together. It caused support for Al Qaeda to grow in the Arab street. It has opened up Iraq as a haven for terrorist propaganda and training. It also has left an unstable political landscape that seems likely to land an Islamic government that could be hostile to the US depending on how close they become to Iran. Democracy ain't close in Iraq. The invasion was a setback in the war on terror.

The only thing backers of the war can say now is, it will get better.

Please share with me why you think this? Why should we believe those who were so wrong about so many things about Iraq?

It may well be a decade before our course of action in Iraq is proved right, and I do believe that it is much more likely to be proved right than to be proved wrong, unless, of course, the impatient ones get ahold of the reigns of power.

Posted by: Retired Spook at October 17, 2006 11:34 AM

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

Sounds like someone is throwing in the towel already.

SHHHHH Tom, you can't mention the Baker report here. Anything that doesn't fit their set-in-stone mindset is anathema here. Why are you complicating things? It's so easy...just stay the course, fight them over there not over here, don't cut and run. See? Empty platitudes are easier than analysis.

"dry up the swamp of terrorism"

Yes, Mark, that sounds like a good strategy, but what does that have to do with Iraq? For every terrorist drained from the swamp in Afghanistan, two terrorists are added to the swamp in Iraq. Now we are seeing that due to lost focus, we aren't even draining the swamp in Afghanistan.

Tom hits the nail on the head, here. You are completely out of rationales for this war, out of excuses for this administration's incompetence, and out of reasons why we need to stay. All you've got left is to say "Trust me, it will get better." But why would anyone believe you or any other Bush cheerleader? You've gotten everything WRONG so far. Only an idiot would still think you have a clue what you are talking about.

Please share with me why you think this? Why should we believe those who were so wrong about so many things about Iraq?

First of all, Tom, your perspective on Iraq and mine are 180 degrees apart, and no amount of debate is going to change that. I suspect it has largely to do with our respective ages. I'm an old fart, and I'm guessing you're not.

Military conflict does not occur in a vacuum. Mistakes are an integral part of war, but, from an historical perspective, few major mistakes have been made in Iraq and casualties are incredibly low. I still maintain contacts within the intelligence community, and my Marine nephew is heading back for his second tour in Iraq in 60 days. No one I know is predicting our ultimate failure there, if, for no other reason than, failure is not an acceptable outcome.

My only intent in comparing the Cold War to the GWOT and Iraq was the length of time from when a speck of light was seen at the end of the tunnel and the time when the Soviet Union imploded. However, we were, contrary to what you imply, involved in several surrogate conflicts with the Soviets from 1950 to the mid-80's. Korea, Vietnam, Central American and Grenada come to mind.

With regard to James Baker, I've heard reports this morning that what he is reported to have said was taken out of context and is incorrect. We'll see......

Sorry for the brief, somewhat incoherent reply. I had a detailed reply earlier that was lost when I didn't realize my Type Key sign-in had timed out.

"No one I know is predicting our ultimate failure there, if, for no other reason than, failure is not an acceptable outcome."

Well, that's what Congress got Baker in there for... a realistic assessment of the situation. And I'm all for that.

What I think will happen is that over the next two years, you'll see Iraq move toward federalism. That seems to be where the ball is rolling right now. Now, how the US defines its role in Iraq as that shift occurs is the question. Do we redeploy out of Iraq to neighboring countries to help in fighting al qaeda elements? Do we stay out of inevitable sunni resistance to any split of the country?

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes to keep large amounts of troops inside Iraq. This is their country. Having the US fight their battles estranges many from the central government. If you want a national unity, you need to get the US military out of there and let them decide for themselves what their identity will be.

I don't think leaving troops in Iraq indefinitely will help Iraq's cause in the long run. We've trained them, we've equipped them, we can continue to support them, but we need to get out sooner rather than later so that Iraq can establish its own identity.

My gut is that if the US pulled its influence, a guy like al Sadr could move into power. He actually may not be a horrible leader for Iraq, since he at least seems devoted to keep Iraq one country, not three separate ones. Though, he would most likely bring a theocracy and believe he has ties to Iran(?), so who knows.

It seems to me that the best we can do in Iraq is figuratively break even at this point. What I hope and think Baker realizes is that, no matter when the US leaves Iraq, it will be seen as a victory by the terrorists. But that shouldn't stop us from doing just that. That's essentially allowing terrorists to decide what our foreign policy should be. We need to take a serious look at Iraq (which it seems we are) and figure out how we will get out of their while not abandoning the country. Apparently, Murtha's (that villainous traitor) plan is getting consideration.

This is what I mean by break even:

Saddam is out of power.

Iraq will not be left with a strong, central democratic government.

Iraq will reject AQ elements in its country, but will continue to fight themselves over the direction their country is headed.

WMDs were not found. Our basis for the war turned out to be false and the action created a rallying cry and training ground for AQ. In the long run, the invasion will no more harm than good in our war on terrorism.

The great unknown is what Iraq will look like in 10 years. That, I believe, will largely be out of the US’ hands.

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom,

"WMDs were not found. Our basis for the war turned out to be false and the action created a rallying cry and training ground for AQ. In the long run, the invasion will no more harm than good in our war on terrorism."

How many time must we explain this to you before it sinks in?

Saddam had WMDs. Do you deny this fact? If so, I can link you to photos of the Iranians and Kurds that Saddam gassed. The total dead are between 30,000 and 40,000.

Even the Iraqis admit that when the UN Inspectors left that 30,000 WMD munitions were unaccounted for. Do you dispute this fact? This is the Iraqis admitting that they had the WMD. I can link you to the offical UNSCOM report with the figures. The UNSCOM report also details that up to 3,000 tons of WMD precursors are missing as are 300 tons of actual weapons grade chemical agents, including 1.5 tons of VX. Since 10 mg (that's 1/100th of a gram) is enough to kill one person, 1.5 tons could kill up to 135,000,000, give or take a million or two. That would be equal to the entire population of California, Texas, New York, Pensylvania, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan. Or the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Germany.

So, in one respect, you are right; WMDs were not found. Not because Iraq did not have them, as most liberals claim. But because they haven't all been located. They could have been destroyed. They could have been moved to another country (300 tons of WMD agents would fit nicely in ten 30-ton semi's, or about 30 10-ton military trucks. Hmmmm, what was that I heard about a convoy of trucks going into Syria just before the war began?) They could still be burried int he desert. They could be hidden at one of the thousands of military ammo dumps that are scattered throughout Iraq. The facts remain that Iraq did possess WMD, but we don't know where it all went.

The basis of enforcing the UN Resolutions and acting under the Authorization of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act (signed into law by a Democrat President) and the Authorization for the use of US Armed Forces against Iraq, was to prevent Saddam from providing WMD to terrorists. That mission has been accomplished. Saddam was removed from power. He can never again impose his reign of terror on the Iraqi people. He can never again aid and abet terrorists.

Finally, I think it is revealing that you think that the MWD issue has been "a rallying cry...for AQ". It certainly has been a "ralling cry for the liberals". Perhaps you liberals and the terrorists have too much in common.

In the long run, the liberation of Iraq will be viewed as a significant factor in the victory over Global Terrorism. A state sponsor of terrorism has been stopped. Pressure has bene placed on other Middle East/Arab states to renounce their WMD programs and their support for terrorism.

Tom, I have some serious questions for you:

1. Do you not think that freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the bondage of Saddam was a good thing?

2. Do you not think that we should prevent state sponsors of terrorism from giving WMD to terrorists?

3. Do you not think that it is better to allow the people of Iraq to determine their own destiny, rather that submit to the desires of a murdering dictator?

4. Are you opposed to our liberation of Iraq on principle, or just because it was implemented by President Bush?

5. What basis are you drawing your conclusion that the liberation of Iraq is a failure? From liberal blogs like DU and Kos? From the liberal media? Or from the reports of the people on the ground in Iraq who talk about the tremendous progress that has been made in rebuilding the infrastructure that Saddam let fall into disrepair.

6. Now for the most soul-searching question: What is the basis of your BDS? It is because you liberals think you are intellectually superior to conservatives and you can't believe your horse(s) lost the race in 2000 and 2004? Is it because President Bush is either an evil genius or a complete moron, depending what day it is? Is it because admitting success for President Bush is admitting that you were wrong? That what we are doing in the world - fighting terrorism, allowing democracies to develop where they never existed before, creating economic prosperity, and protecting the citizens of the US against further terrorist attacks - is the right thing to do, and the liberal answers to the problems were wrong? It is because you think you were cheated in 2000?

A-sheep,

you're kidding right, you're still holding to the fairy taile of wmd in Iraq???

1. Do you not think that freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the bondage of Saddam was a good thing?
-No, it's not our job to go around the world and make sure everyone's playing nice

2. Do you not think that we should prevent state sponsors of terrorism from giving WMD to terrorists?
-we should probably make sure the even have WMDs first...oh, I know, 'slam dunk' right?

3. Do you not think that it is better to allow the people of Iraq to determine their own destiny, rather that submit to the desires of a murdering dictator?
-go back to number one

4. Are you opposed to our liberation of Iraq on principle, or just because it was implemented by President Bush?
-go back to number one and get off your played out..bu bu bu you hate bush argument...makes you sound like a sheep

5. What basis are you drawing your conclusion that the liberation of Iraq is a failure?
-no one throwing flowers, mission not accomplished and the insurgency is not in it's final throws, AND THE TERRORIST WHO CAUSED 9-11 HAVE NOT BEEN CAUGHT OR KILLED..but you don't care about that, right?

6. Now for the most soul-searching question: What is the basis of your BDS?
-go back to number 4 sheepy

wow that was easy, lets play again some time....

I am wondering where we would be today if Al Gore would have been elected in 2000 instead of GW?

Knowing what we know today his administration would have preached tolerance and that it was our fault. Bin Laden would have been grown stronger, recruiting more terrorists and hitting us harder, weakening our infrastucture until it collapsed.

The terrorists have a plan and you liberals not only don't get it, but you don't want to do anything about it and they are counting on that.

OK, let's see here...

1. Do you not think that freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the bondage of Saddam was a good thing?

Sure. If you look at my last post, I listed Saddam being gone as a benefit to the invasion. I would have preferred following the Clinton policy of applying economic pressure as well as aiding internal dissent. That way would have required much more patience, but I believe would have, in the long term, been much more of a rewarding policy for the US.

2. Do you not think that we should prevent state sponsors of terrorism from giving WMD to terrorists?

obviously the answer is yes. But Saddam did not have these weapons when we invaded. He didn't even have active WMD or nuclear programs. And he did not have any collaborative relationship with al Qaeda.

3. Do you not think that it is better to allow the people of Iraq to determine their own destiny, rather that submit to the desires of a murdering dictator?

Yes, but I also don't think the people of Iraq are truly determining their future right now. They will once the US leaves.

4. Are you opposed to our liberation of Iraq on principle, or just because it was implemented by President Bush?

Principle.

5. What basis are you drawing your conclusion that the liberation of Iraq is a failure? From liberal blogs like DU and Kos? From the liberal media? Or from the reports of the people on the ground in Iraq who talk about the tremendous progress that has been made in rebuilding the infrastructure that Saddam let fall into disrepair.

I base it on news reports, which often include reports from our own government on the state of the war in Iraq.

6. Now for the most soul-searching question: What is the basis of your BDS? It is because you liberals think you are intellectually superior to conservatives and you can't believe your horse(s) lost the race in 2000 and 2004? Is it because President Bush is either an evil genius or a complete moron, depending what day it is? Is it because admitting success for President Bush is admitting that you were wrong? That what we are doing in the world - fighting terrorism, allowing democracies to develop where they never existed before, creating economic prosperity, and protecting the citizens of the US against further terrorist attacks - is the right thing to do, and the liberal answers to the problems were wrong? It is because you think you were cheated in 2000?

I don't know what BDS is, so I can't answer the question.

What just astounds me is how these right wing nut cases in the face of the years of downward spiral still think things are getting better in Iraq. If they were always getting so much better then why isn't Iraq a nirvana that everyone is trying to get to instead of a country in civil war that has an infrastructure that is in worse shape than when Saddam was in power. Why is it that there has been a huge brain drain in Iraq with a majority of doctors and educated people leaving?

How people have continued to back George when he has yet to have a single success to his name fails to imply any logic. He has failed to protect the homeland, he has failed to protect us form countries like Iran and North Korea. Yet we have squandered our dearest resource in a country that posed no threat, Iraq.

I find it amazing that anyone would want to associate themselves with a party whose only values are ones of lies and corruption. Look at the political ads that are now infesting our media. Republicans that have no laurels to ride on, but insist on push polls and lies to try to get elected. I can't say all, but certainly the democrats that I am interested in have come up with some good plans to put this country back on track to recovery. Plans to once again making family the wage earners with kids, and not the corporate family!!!

Funny how the Ripoffublicans can give multi millionaires a tax break and say it benefits the middle class because on average everyone got a $3000 tax break. Only the feeble minded would buy that one.

How does one figure that the Ripoffublicans are for the troops when they want to cut their benefits and tried to cut their combat pay? Go figure. If they were supporting the troops they would not send them to their deaths in an optional war.

If George had listened to the outgoing cabinet in 2000 there might have been a chance to have prevented 9/11. Instead if Clinton had done it then there was no way little Georgie would do it, so all the progress in the war on terror went to the side lines.

Isn’t it funny how the thing that the right wing conservatives hated the most wound up defining them? Now there is a big laugh.

Bush is the biggest flip flopper there was. One of his biggest criticisms of the Clinton administration was his nation building, and now he wants to bankrupt the country with his failed policy of nation building in Iraq.

Until the administration admits and changes its strategic errors, then there is no way to win the War on Terror... period.

"But, still, the War on Terrorism really is a simple, straightfoward proposition: we are attempting to dry up the swamp of terrorism by taking away the despair which leads some to think that blowing up infidels (broadly defined) is a worthwhile act."-MN

Exactly! That's why spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is essential to victory in the War on Terrorism/Islam.

*This is frightening.* It also explains why the Democrats are so clueless on the GWOT.

NewYorkTimes: "Can You Tell a Sunni From a Shiite?"

FOR the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”

A “gotcha” question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don’t think it’s out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I’m not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who’s on what side today, and what does each want?

After all, wouldn’t British counterterrorism officials responsible for Northern Ireland know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? In a remotely similar but far more lethal vein, the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq into antagonistic states, one backed by Shiite Iran and the other by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.

A complete collapse in Iraq could provide a haven for Al Qaeda operatives within striking distance of Israel, even Europe. And the nature of the threat from Iran, a potential nuclear power with protégés in the Gulf states, northern Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, is entirely different from that of Al Qaeda. It seems silly to have to argue that officials responsible for counterterrorism should be able to recognize opportunities for pitting these rivals against each other.

But so far, most American officials I’ve interviewed don’t have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?

...in which top F.B.I. officials drew blanks when asked basic questions about Islam.

It’s not all so grimly humorous. Some agency officials and members of Congress have easily handled my “gotcha” question. But as I keep asking it around Capitol Hill and the agencies, I get more and more blank stares. Too many officials in charge of the war on terrorism just don’t care to learn much, if anything, about the enemy we’re fighting. And that’s enough to keep anybody up at night.

*Outrageous!*

Italian journalist's kidnappers seek return of Afghan Christian

Deutsche Presse-Agentur: Kabul/Rome - The kidnappers of an Italian journalist have issued an ultimatum saying they will free their captive if Italy returns a converted Afghan Christian who sought asylum there, the journalist's employers said on Tuesday.

The captors of Gabriele Torsello, 34, have offered his return in exchange for Abdul Rahman, an Afghan who received asylum in Italy in March after he faced the death penalty in his home country for converting to Christianity.

The kidnappers have demanded that Rahman be returned to Afghanistan by Sunday.

This is just pathetic-

Kenya gets 1st polio case in 22 years

ASSOCIATED PRESS: GENEVA -- Kenya has reported its first polio case in 22 years with the infection of a 3-year-old Somali refugee girl marking a new setback in the global effort to eradicate the crippling disease, officials said Tuesday.

The case brings to 26 the number of countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East that have been reinfected since a 2003 vaccine boycott by hard-line Nigerian Islamic clerics who claimed that the polio vaccine was part of a U.S.-led plot to render Nigerian Muslims infertile or infect them with AIDS.

"But we are winning - the terrorists have been weakened and the forces of political pluralism and peace have been strengthened."

Pluralism?

"BAGHDAD The blackened carcasses of five cars still sit in front of the Church of the Virgin Mary here, stark reminders of a bomb that killed two people after a recent Sunday Mass.

In the northern city of Mosul, a priest from the Syriac Orthodox Church was kidnapped last week. His church complied with his captors' demands and put up posters denouncing recent comments made by the pope about Islam, but the priest was killed anyway.

The police found his beheaded body on Wednesday.

Muslim fury over Pope Benedict XVI's public reflections on Islam in Germany a month ago has subsided elsewhere, but repercussions continue to reverberate in Iraq, bringing a new level of threat to an already shrinking Christian population.

Several extremist groups threatened to kill all Christians unless the pope apologized. Sunni and Shiite clerics united in the condemnation, calling the comments an insult to Islam and the prophet. In Baghdad, many churches canceled services after receiving threats. Some have not met since.

"After the pope's statement, people began to fear much more than before," said the Reverend Zayya Edward Khossaba, the pastor of the Church of the Virgin Mary. "The actions by fanatics have increased against Christians."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/17/news/christians.php

Mark, you're right, we need to drain the swamp. That's why I'm so against what we've done in Iraq, which is create another one.

Tom,

"I would have preferred following the Clinton policy of applying economic pressure as well as aiding internal dissent."

You realize that the economic sanctions against Saddam were a complete farce. He was skimming the profits from the Oil-for-Food program and purchasing prohibited weapons systems and bribing the Russians, French, and Germans. Unless the entire world community was ready to enforce the sanctions, and they weren't, they were never going to work. The only people who suffered under the sanctions were the Iraqi people and we know how much Saddam "loved" his people. He was only killing about 50,000 of them each year.

"But Saddam did not have these weapons when we invaded. He didn't even have active WMD or nuclear programs."

So you are saying that the Iraqis and UNSCOM were lying about the 30,000 unaccounted for WMD munitions, and the 3,000 tons of precursors, and the 300 tons of WMD chemical agents, and the 1/5 tons of VX? Hell, we found over 500 of the missing munitions. But you keep telling yourself that none existed. Those of us that are serious about the terrorist WMD threat will keep looking for them.

Do you know how long it would taken to reinstitute his chemical weapons program after the sanctions were lifted? A couple of hours. The technology and infrastructure were already in place. He was supposed to COMPLETELY disband the programs. UNSCOM reported that through "dual-use" facilities, Saddam could have restarted his WMD programs immediately. And don't give me any of the "we sold the WMD to Saddam" crap. Iraq has had WMD capability since the 1920's. The mustard gas that they used against the Kurds and Iranians is an agent that was technology developed before WWI.

"And he did not have any collaborative relationship with al Qaeda."

So what. Are you so naive that you think that al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization? Not withstanding the fact that al Qaeda operatives were given safe haven in Iraq, Saddam was financing, harboring, and training a variety of terrorist groups. al Qaeda is only one of many terrorist organizations were are trying to eliminate. You liberals need to leave your alternate universe once in a while and look around. There are dozens of other terrorist groups besides al Qaeda we are fighting.

"Yes, but I also don't think the people of Iraq are truly determining their future right now. They will once the US leaves."

So the millions of Iraqis who voted in the elections in the past two years were not determining their own future? You are insulting both the integrity and courage of those who voted and raised their purple stained fingers in defiance to the terrorists who are trying to prevent a free and democratic Iraq.

"Principle."

So is it your belief that we should not have passed the Iraqi Liberation Act (Signed into law by President Clinton), that made the official US policy regime change in Iraq? Guess you need to take that up with your hero, "BJ" Clinton.

You also don't think that when a country defies a Cease-Fire, is in material breach of 17 UN Resolutions, commits acts of war against the US,
actively supports global terrorism, maintains the capability to produce WMD, and corrupts the Oil-for-Food program, we should just sit back and do nothing? Sounds like a typical liberal/Democrat national security plan.

"I base it on news reports, which often include reports from our own government on the state of the war in Iraq."

That's your problem. The news reports (typically generated by the AP or Reuters) are biased against the war. But I wasn't only talking about the war (more accurately, the stabilization process), none of the news agencies are reporting on the thousands of projects that have been completed by coalition forces working with the Iraqis. Click here to read some of the recent success stories. You won't read obout them in your local left-wing newspaper.

"I don't know what BDS is, so I can't answer the question."

What a hoot. You have been posting here for months and you don't know what BDS is? Maybe this will help.

Even if you truely didn't know what BDS means, you could have answered the questions. But, like a true liberal, you'd rather ignore reality than face the facts.

Tom,

"Mark, you're right, we need to drain the swamp. That's why I'm so against what we've done in Iraq, which is create another one"

I guess that if you believe that Saddam was not supporting terrorism, then your premise is correct. Liberating Iraq and creating and environment where freedom and democracy can grow did not help in the GWOT.

However, if you leave your alternate universe and look at the facts, you would see that Saddam and Iraq were a central player in supporting terrorism.

Saddam operated several terrorist training camps at Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002. Terrorist from all over the world were trained on hijacking aircraft, bomb-making, use of WMD, and other "crafts".

Saddam was paying the families of suicide-bombers $25,000.

Saddam had harbored the following terrorist leaders: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq), Abu Abbas (founder and leader of the Palestine Liberation Front), Abu Nidal (leader and the founder of Fatah), Khala Khadr al-Salahat (bomb-maker for Libyans - brought down Pan Am Flight 103), and Abdul Rahman Yasin (one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), among others.

Iraq was a central player in Global Terrorism. It was a swamp for terrorists. We are draining the swamp. We are attracting terrorists to Iraq so we can kill or capture them. Each terrorist we kill or capture means one less than can plan or launch a terrorist attack against the US.

I'm gonna reply in a scattershot manner, as I'm busy at work. In regards to this:

"I guess that if you believe that Saddam was not supporting terrorism, then your premise is correct. Liberating Iraq and creating and environment where freedom and democracy can grow did not help in the GWOT.

However, if you leave your alternate universe and look at the facts, you would see that Saddam and Iraq were a central player in supporting terrorism."

"WASHINGTON - Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq.

President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Saddam's alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.

The 150-page report said the administration's claims were untrue. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support," the report said."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15474492.htm

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

"So is it your belief that we should not have passed the Iraqi Liberation Act (Signed into law by President Clinton), that made the official US policy regime change in Iraq? Guess you need to take that up with your hero, "BJ" Clinton."

No, I do not believe that. This was the aim of the Iraqi Liberation Act:

"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers."

It did not make it the policy of the United States to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam and install our own form of government.

Spook was speaking the other day about having patience in fighting the war on terrorism. This is a policy that required patience. Bush's policy was rushed and has left us with a situation which is hindering our efforts in the war on terror.

Considering this is untrue:

"Saddam had harbored the following terrorist leaders: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq)"

I have to doubt the claims that follow. Don't have time to look into them right now.

"Even if you truely didn't know what BDS means, you could have answered the questions."

OK, my answer is 'no' to all of them.

"You are insulting both the integrity and courage of those who voted and raised their purple stained fingers in defiance to the terrorists who are trying to prevent a free and democratic Iraq."

I knew I was leaving myself open to this kind of pandering criticism. But I stand by my words. The Iraqis, with substantial US forces in the country, will not truly determine their own identity. When we leave, there will be a battle for the country.

I could be wrong on this. But I really think that the government the US has set up in Iraq is not a strong, unified government in large part because the US set up the government.

It seems to me that the loyalties of many if not most Iraqis are to clans, tribes, religions and militias over the central government. And there cannot be a unified Iraq until the US leaves.

Tom,

"Bush's policy was rushed and has left us with a situation which is hindering our efforts in the war on terror."

Rushed? Saddam violated the UN Resolutions for 12 years. How much longer were we supposed to put up with him simming Oil-for-Food money, paying bribes to the our "allies", and harboring, training, and financing terrorists? Five more years? Ten more years? Until he gives WMD to terrorists and they kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans?

"Considering this is untrue: 'Saddam had harbored the following terrorist leaders: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq)'"

Oh really:

"He [Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated."

"In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region"

So, in your alternate universe, he was never in Iraq before the Liberation, but to the rest of the world, he was.

"I have to doubt the claims that follow."

So you deny the facts that Zarqawi was operating in Iraq before the war, and use that denial to doubt the proof of the others.

"OK, my answer is 'no' to all of them."

The question I asked was: "What is the basis of your BDS?" Then I gave you some possible sources. You still haven't answered the question I posed to you. "What is the basis of your BDS?"

I guess the bottomline is that you do not believe that Saddam was harboring, training, and financing terrorism, despite the facts. You do not believe that he was a threat, despite his refusal to abide with the UN Resolutions. You do not believe that Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terrorism. You do not believe we should be fighting terrorism in Iraq.

So what is your plan to fight terrorism? Kill or capture OBL and the war will be over? He's just one man, with marginal impact on global terrorism. Even if he were killed or captured, al Qaeda would still be a threat. Even if we kill or captured every al Qaeda terrorist, there are scores of terrorist organizations threatening our way of life. How are you going to deal with these terrorists? Negotiate? Appease?

Or hunt them down and kill or capture them, as is being done under the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.

A-10, you said Saddam harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

He did not. He was in northern Iraq, and did travel to Baghdad, but he was not aided or harbored by Saddam. there was an al qaeda training camp in Alabama, but that does not mean Bush harbored members of al qaeda. Again, I will direct you to the US assessment of Saddam and Zarqawi's "relationship.":

"WASHINGTON - Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday found, casting further doubt on the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq."

"What is the basis of your BDS?"

How bout this, A-10; You tell me why you're so retarded, then I'll answer the question.

Shipley, you call A-10 retarded, yet he has presented clear, well thought out logical arguments with sources for his information as he consistently does here on B4B every time he writes.

You’re slipping back into the typical left wing ploys of “when you have nothing else resort to name calling”.

TS,

Rather than give us a unsubstantiated quote, why don't you link to the actual Senate Intelligence Committee report? Or don't you know how to code html links? Otherwise, I am going to have to call "BS" when you give us a quote without sources. But then you liberals are experts at quoting "un-named" sources. Does "fake, but accurate" ring a bell?

"He did not."

If you understood anything about the dynamics of Iraq under Saddam, you would know that Zarqawi would not be allowed to come to Baghdad for medical treatment then operate terrorist training camps in the north without Saddam's approval.

"You tell me why you're so retarded, then I'll answer the question."

Now, now, no need for name-calling. You sound just like my kids did, before they matured: "Your a retard". "I know you are, but what am I?"

Did I touch a raw nerve? You know there is treatment for BDS. First you have to burn your ACLU and DNC membership cards. Second, take off your tin-foil hat. Third, pour out all the kool-aid. Fourth, try gathering information from sources other than DU, Kos, the MSM, Air "Bankrupt" America, and tune into aources of information that aren't slanted 90 degrees to the left.

I'd be willing to stack my academic, military, and employment credentials against your's any day, but based on the typical quality of your posts, my high school diploma probably is enough.

I've posted here in response to your comments in an attempt to educate you because you seemed to be so terribly misinformed. But I see now that your BDS has blinded you from reason and you have regressed into the final stages of BDS: rather that engage in civil conversations, resort to insults when asked to give basis for your opinions. So sad.

A-10, apparently your long list of credentials does not make you sharp enough that I was making a point with my "retarded" question.

I did not answer your question, because in an of itself is an insult to me. You're suggestion my judgment is clouded by an irrational hatred the causes me to come to conclusions based the antithesis of what one man does. Essentially, you're asking me why I'm so retarded (in metaphorical terms). Why would I answer that question.

I do not think you're actually retarded, just trying to make a point that flew over your head.

So, when you're ready to explain to me why you're so retarded, I'll explain why I have BDS.

And, don't take me to task for not engaging in civil debate. 99% of the time i do. While the number of Shi*leys posted on this site lately as risen almost as fast of the number of US casualties in October.

I see you’re using the old media bias crutch that’s so popular among many conservatives on this site. Don’t like a fact that reported… shout “media bias.”

Here’s your link.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

It’s a good read. The al-Qaeda stuff starts around 64 or so. Page 91 cites Iraqi documents that show Saddam order people to search for and arrest Zarqawi… page 92 has the line “the regime did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

Also in there is the conclusion that no credible evidence exists that Iraq provide chemical or nuclear training to al qaeda or other terrorist groups… that includes the report on Salmaan Pak.

Apparently our intelligence agents also are having trouble understanding the dynamics of Iraq under Saddam. Perhaps you can enlighten them.

TS,

No, I don't think you are retarded, just irrational. I'm trying to understand the alternate universe that creates the irrational, liberal point of view.

I don't understand why liberals would support the intervention in Kosovo on a human rights basis, based on flawed intelligence, where there were no mass graves, no terrorist threat, no WMDs in the hands of madmen, no national security interest, and no exit strategy.

But you do not support the intervention in Iraq where the human suffering was much greater, were there were 100's of thousands of Iraqis filling mass graves, where there was overt support of terrorism, where the leader was in material breach of 17 UN Resolutions, where there was a lenghty history of producing and using WMD, where there was a dictator with the means, motive, and opportunity to provide WMD to terrorists, and a significant national security interest. The exit strategy, as announced numerous times only to fall upon the deaf ears of the left, is to help the Iraqi government stand on its own two feet, and once it does, leave.

I don't understand why its OK to use faulty intelligence that results in the bombing of a aspirin factory in a country that has never raised its arms in anger against the US, and in the bombing of a baby-formula plant, but narry a word is said. But when faulty intelligence results in us not finding the WMDs that Saddam, UNSCOM, and dozens of intelligence agencies throughout the world said Iraq had, Democrats are talking impeachment of the President.

I don't understand why liberals are opposed to spreading freedom in the Middle East. The recent free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are the first of their kind in history. Do you understand the significance of these elections? They have never had free elections before in Afghanistan. NEVER. They have never had free elections before in Iraq. NEVER.

I though that Democrats and liberals supported human rights. Why are you opposed to extending human rights to the Afghans and Iraqis? I thought that Democrats and liberals were the party of minorities and the working man. Why are you opposed to ending the reliance on welfare and allowing the poor to aspire to greater wealth and success? I though that Democrats and liberals supported freedom, liberty, and democracy. Why are you opposed to spreading freedom, liberty, and deomcracy in the Middle East?

I think the Democrat Pary needs to change its name. It not longer reflects and supports democracy. You should call it the Socialist Party. That better reflects the beliefs of liberals.

I don't understand why its OK when the Clinton Administration gives the North Koreans the money, technology, and equipment to create fissable uranium, and believes that they will abide with the agreement. But it is the Bush Administration's fault that the North Koreans cheated on the agreement from the get-go and produced enough plutonium to build 1-2 nukes by 2000.

I don't understand why we can have the Dow at record levels, 12 quarters of 3-4% GDP growth, low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation, high home ownership, and have the Democrats claim that the economy is the worst since the Great Depression.

I don't understand how the Bush Administration can cut taxes for all Americans, taking millions off the tax rolls, offer tax credits so that some not only do not pay taxes, but get money back from the government, and have the liberals cry that he is giving tax cuts for the "rich".

I don't understand why liberals don't see that by cutting tax rates, tax revenues increase, the "rich" pay an even greater percentage of the tax burden, and the economy responds with strong growth.

Why are you opposed to the rich paying the greater share of the tax burden? It thought that's what you wanted. Why is it that you think the "rich" aren't paying their fair share? The top 50% of wage earners are paying over 96% of the taxes. Why do you want to raise their taxes? Is it wealth envy? Do you want to punish them for their success? Do you want tax revenues to go down, as has happened with every tax increase? Do you want the Bush economic plans, that have resulted in prosperity for almost all Americans, to fail?

I don't understand why you believe in one set of standards for Democrats and one set of standards for Republicans. Why can a Democrat drive (while drunk and without a license) a car off a bridge, leave the passenger to die, not report the accident to the police until the next day, and become an icon to the left to the point of being considered presidential material? But if a Republican has a DUI charge 30 years ago, it is front page news for weeks.

Why can a Democrat have sex with a teenage male page and receive standing ovations and coveted committee chairmanships? But if a Republican sends emails and IMs to a teenage page, he is forced to resign.

Why can a Democrat have sex with a subordinate, lie to a Grand Jury, commit perjury, obstruct justice, be accused of rape, and become the idol of all liberals? But if a Republican did the same, they would be forced to resign.

Why can a Democrat be a member of the KKK and use the "N" word on TV, yet be called the "conscience of the Senate". But if a Republican states that perhaps it would have been better to have someone else as President, he is forced from his position of power in the Senate.

Why can a Democrat be caught with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer, yet still be allowed to remain in office. But if a Republican takes a bribe, he immediately resigns.

Why can a Democrat dodge the Draft by signing up for ROTC, has his Selective Service status changed to avoid the Draft, then quits ROTC and goes to England and protest against the US, then is elected President. But if a Republican serves honorably in the Air National Guard, he is called a draft dodger.

Why are Democrats so obsessed with regaining power? Why do Democrats think its OK to fabricate news stories in an effort to influence an Presidential election? Why are Democrats so shrill? Can't your party leaders make a speach without out screaming? You have Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy screaming on the Senate floor that President Bush is a liar. You have former Vice President Al "I invented the Internet" Gore screaming that President Bush "Misled us. He played on our fears". You have Senator and Presidential hopeful Shrillary Clinton screaming for all to hear that Republicans are supressing dissent. You have Dr. Howard "AAAHHHHH" Dean screaming. When was the last time you heard a Republican party leader screaming at a political event? I'll tell you when: NEVER.

You liberals act like raving lunatics. Your though process is based on "feelings". You are more concerned about what the world thinks of us than the safety of our citizens. You want us to lose the war on terror so your political fortunes would be improved. You refuse to give credit where credit is due, but are first in line to criticize the slightest setback or mistake. You want to neuter our military. You want to appease our enemies. And you think you deserve to have control of Congress and the White House?

Uh, you read the report A-10? Nice change of subject there...

It happens all the time on here. I provide facts that disprove someone's argument, they're ignored and they pull back and start ranting in generalities. Hard to take someone like that seriously.

"I've posted here in response to your comments in an attempt to educate you because you seemed to be so terribly misinformed."

Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Oh, and DM, what sources did A-10 provide to back-up is incorrect arguments?

TS,

What incorrect statements? That Saddam was a supporter of terrorism? That Saddam possessed and used WMD and maintained the technology and know how to immediately restart his WMD programs? That a number of well-known terrorists were known to have been living and operating in Iraq?

Even if Saddam was not best buddies with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Zarqawi received medical attention and was operating out of Iraq. As was Abu Abbas (founder and leader of the Palestine Liberation Front), Abu Nidal (leader and the founder of Fatah), Khala Khadr al-Salahat (bomb-maker for Libyans - brought down Pan Am Flight 103), and Abdul Rahman Yasin (one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), among others. Try using Google, there's a wealth of information about these terrorist leaders and their activities while living and operating out of Iraq.

I've read much of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. It focuses on WMD capabilities and the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. That's all wonderful and great. But we're talking about Global Terrorism. There are scores of terrorist organizations, many of which were receiving training and support from Saddam. The Report does not address these ties, because the entire world knew Saddam was supporting terrorism.

But to you liberals, Saddam was a nice guy. Why, he only killed between 500,000 and 600,000 of his own people. He only had victims tied to stakes while dogs, who had been starved, ate them alive. He had victims fed alive into plastic shredders. If he was feeling especially benevolent, he have them fed head-first so they would be instantly killed. If not, he would have them fed feet first, so they would suffer before being murdered. He routinely had women raped in front of their families, then had the families shot in front of the women, then had the women killed. He used mustard gas against the Kurds and Iranians, killing 10's of thousands. He was one of the most evil dictators the world has known. But to you liberals, President Bush is a greater threat to the world.

Change of subject? I'm still trying to get a straight answer out of you. I'm still trying to understand how the liberal mind works, if it does.

Many posters have asked you liberals what is your plan for Iraq? For fighting terrorism? Every single time the answer is the same: We would do a better job, Bush is a moron, Bush lied, Rumsfeld needs to be fired, we need to cut and run, and we're in a quagmire in Iraq.

While I don't completely agree with Dr. Michael Savage, he's right about one thing: Liberalism is a mental disease.

"What incorrect statements?"

Saddam harbored Zarqawi. Saddam trained thousands of terrorists from around the middle east.

Oh wait, you said it again:

"There are scores of terrorist organizations, many of which were receiving training and support from Saddam."

No, there were not. Did you read the report???

You know the planes and train at Salman Pak? The report states that they believe the training was for counter-terrorist actions.

It said there is no credible evidence that SP was used to train ANY terrorists... or that Saddam gave training to any terrorist organizations... go read the report again...

Geez. Talk about ignoring facts.

Now, you asked for evidence supporting what I said. It's your turn. You claim he trained scores of terrorist organizations. Please provide evidence of that.

You say he harbored those other terrorists. Please provide evidence of that.

Also, I've stated my views on what we should do in Iraq all over this site. Look back at my previous posts in this thread. The good news is that it looks like Baker's suggestions will be a change of course in Bush's "stay the course, we'll leave when there's a firm democracy in place" strategy.

Clarence Page wote a good op-ed on the Baker commission. It's a perfect scenario for "declare victory and leave." Baker suggests how we get most of the troops out, while leaving some behind in support roles (ie... Murtha's plan). Or some other option that would allow us to leave without the appearance of "pulling out." Now, of course terrorists are going to declare this a victory for them. But, they're going to do that WHENEVER we leave.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0610180050oct18,1,7142204.column?coll=chi-news-col

And as far as all this BS about trying to figure out how liberal mind works, and how we think Saddam was a nice guy... blah blah blah... save it. I talk about facts and policy issues til the cows come home, but when you start on ideology demonetization, you're going to lose me every time. It's a useless, idiotic endeavor.

"Every single time the answer is the same: We would do a better job, Bush is a moron, Bush lied, Rumsfeld needs to be fired, we need to cut and run, and we're in a quagmire in Iraq."

A-10, do me a favor and re-read my posts and show ONE instance where I said anything like the above statements. This is what I mean by changing the subject...

I see. The Senate Report is the full and final authorative report on all links between Iraq and terrorism.

So, the CIA reports documenting the 1,000's of terrorists trained in Iraq are wrong? So, the captured documents recently translated which show how Saddam was training, harboring, and financing are worng? So the interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders which corroborate the documentary evidence are wrong?

OK, I get it know, all the facts we have been shown before are wrong, and this one incomplete (can you say Able Danger) report is the whole and absolute truth.

"report states that they believe the training was for counter-terrorist actions"

They "believe"? They aren't sure? What is the basis for this belief? News Flash: You realize that the Commission is basing its "belief" on Iraqi who told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. And we know how honest those Iraqis were during the inspection process.

I prefer to "believe" the two defectors from Iraqi intelligence who stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, training Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995.

"You claim he trained scores of terrorist organizations."

No I didn't. I said "There are scores of terrorist organizations, many of which were receiving training and support from Saddam." While the exact breakdown on which terrorist from which terrorist organization is classified, since around 8,000 were trained between 1999 and 2002, I would assume they came from a number of different organizations since no one organization has 8,000 members. Except ql Qaeda, but they were never in Iraq. Right?

"Now, of course terrorists are going to declare this a victory for them. But, they're going to do that WHENEVER we leave."

They can't if they are all dead or in prison.

If you re-read my comment, I said "you liberals". The "s" means plural. I was lumping you in with all the rest of the liberals.

As for changing the subject, we're still waiting for your plan.

Finally, what does "demonetization" - the withdrawal from circulation of a particular form of currency, such as gold - have to do with the coversation. Talk about a useless, idiotic endeavor.

So the bottom line is you won't answer the questions? Typical liberal. Goodbye.

"While the exact breakdown on which terrorist from which terrorist organization is classified, since around 8,000 were trained between 1999 and 2002, I would assume they came from a number of different organizations since no one organization has 8,000 members."

So, A-10, you're not going to provide evidence of your claims? I did. Why can't you? Typical idiot.

"The Senate Report is the full and final authorative report on all links between Iraq and terrorism."

I wouldn't say final, but authoritative? damn right. It's based on intell from pre- and post-war intelligence, based on analysis of all our intelligence to date. Go ahead and dismiss it if you like.

"You realize that the Commission is basing its "belief" on Iraqi who told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. And we know how honest those Iraqis were during the inspection process."

Uh, well, I think our agents are smart enough to know they are often fed disinformation, that's why the DIA doubted the informant's pre-war statement that Salman Pak was a terrorist training ground. The guy later recanted his testimony and no other credible evidence has turned up to back his recanted story.

YOU can choose to believe him, or not believe the people who say it was used for anti-terror training... but our intelligence community chooses to believe them. These are people who live and breath this stuff, who know interrogation techniques and how information and misinformation is fed.

The only reason i see you choose to believe there were training camps for terrorist groups is to back up your political views... despite evidence to the contrary. THAT'S ignoring facts.

Runaway now... (though, if you want to come back and back up your assertions with evidence, feel free, I'll be here).

And yes, I realize you were lumping me in with other liberals. It's one of the tactics people use when they change the subject. Again, I've written a lot on what I believe we should do in Iraq (including my last post). Go back a read.

And this..."demonetization" I can blame on careless use of spell check.

OK, you want sources? I've got sources:

Saddam's Terror Training Camps

Transcript of Secretary Powell's statement to the UN

Salman Pak - Iraq's Own Terrorist Training Camp

" PBS Frontline Interview

Marines Discover Terror Training Camp Near Baghdad

Global Security on Salmon Pak

Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp

Captured Iraqi intel confirms pre-war links between Saddam's regime and terrorists

Now where your sources proving that the training camps were for anti-terrorist training? Cause the Senate Intelligence Committee Report "believes" they were. That's not proof. (That makes a lot of sense. Saddam is paying $25,000 to the families of terrorists when they detonate themselves, but needs secret "anti-terrorist" training camps to counteract terrorists. Logic only a liberal could appreciate)

"The only reason i see you choose to believe there were training camps for terrorist groups is to back up your political views... despite evidence to the contrary. THAT'S ignoring facts."

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with my political views. It has everything to do with providing for our nation's defense. Something I have spent my entire adult life doing. If we had a Democrat in the White House (perhaps Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Harry Truman, FDR, or JFK), and took aggressive action to fight global terrorism, I would be backing them 100%. Unfortunately, we'd be stuck with someone like John "Watch me flip-flop" Kerry, or John "Cut and Run" Murtha, or Al "He played on our fears" Gore, or Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy. None of the Current leaders of the Democrat Party have one ounce of credibility when it somes to national security. None of them would have raised a finger to protect Americans from harm. They would probably give the terrorists nuclear technology like President Clinton did.

It also has everything to do with my service as a member of a US Army special operations unit that gathers human intelligence. It has to do with the contacts I maintain within the intelligence community. It has to do with the training I received in analyzing raw intelligence data. It has to do with the preponderance of evidence that points to a number of terrorist training camps operating within Iraq before 2003. It has to do with Occam’s Razor.

What I see is you ignoring the obvious facts. Tell me, exactly how many Iraqi airliners have ever been hijacked by terrorists? Right, none. So why would they need a Boeing 707 fuselage to practice anti-terrorism techniques. Tell me, exactly how many terrorist attacks ocurred in Iraq during the Saddam regime? Right, none. So why would they need anti-terrorism training camps. Tell me, what were the 8,000 happy Arab vacationers doing in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak? Sight-seeing? Buying a time-share?

You are foolish to believe that a murdering dictator who passed out $25,000 checks to suicide bombers would need anti-terrorist training camps. How naive can you get. The only reason I see you choose to believe there were anti-terrorist training camps is to back up your political views.

Now back to the questions that started all this conversation, the ones you have refused to answer: What is the source of your BDS? Why do you liberals hate President Bush so much?

Oops,

PBS Frontline Interview

Thank you, for the links, A-10.

And I will take these seriously, as they are evidence that they may have been for terrorist training. Couple things, the Frontline interview, the guy says he's not sure what kind of training went on there, then went on to say there was training for terrorist operations. Seems to me he doesn't have specific information on training... just from the interview and kind of contradicts himself. He also assures the interviewer that the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained in Iraq, and I've never heard other reports of evidence that the Sept. 11 hijackers trained in Iraq.

Also, these reports were seen by the intel committee who put that report together. In a 7-6 vote (along party lines except for Hagel) some of this information was omitted from the report. I don't know why, but it would seem to me because it was refuted or found to be faulty. One could say it was all partisan, but then why did Hagel vote with the Dems? If it truly was partisan, I don't think Hagel would have voted with them, you know?

So, I'm gonna do some more digging around on this.

And, once again, you tell why you're retarded, and I'll tell you why I have BDS.

TS,

I realize that the Senate Intelligence Committee had "good" intentions. But whenever you put a bunch of politicians together on a committee, politics will get in the way.

I guess the bottom line is that, as some who has served in the military, I would rather that we err on the side of safety and security for Americans and those in the world who cherish freedom. If we make a colossal mistake and deposed a vicious, murdering dictator who had and used WMD, who was evil personified, we're sorry, but our security and that of the rest of the civilized world come first. You might not agree, but deep down, most rational human beings believe that Saddam was evil and ending his regime was a good thing.

Oh, by the way, I'm not retarded. Why do you have BDS?

A-10,

"If we make a colossal mistake and deposed a vicious, murdering dictator who had and used WMD, who was evil personified, we're sorry, but our security and that of the rest of the civilized world come first."

Yeah, but I'm not convinced that he NEEDED (in terms of our security and the world's security) to be taken out when he did and how he did, and I think the ramifications of taking him out may hurt our efforts in the war on terror in the long run.

This is not about opposing Bush's policy, but about believing that invading Iraq was not necessary and will end up hurting our cause in the long run.

And I've already said in here that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but the problem is making sure what comes after him is not worse for Iraqis and the world's security.

And I don't have BDS.

Found this site...it seems to be run by a partisan person, but there are some facts in here. Haven't read the entire thing, but it does seem that Salman Pak WAS built for counter-terrorist training under the supervision of the Brits in the 1980s, and there has been at least one instance of an Iraqi airline being hijacked...

Though clearly not a Boeing of any description, upon closer inspection, experts identified the aircraft as an old Russian-built Iraqi Airlines Tupolev 154. And if that disclosure wasn't embarrassing enough, Seymour Hersh shined even more light on the matter when, in his May 2002 article Selective Intelligence, he wrote:

"a former CIA station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people... Iraq then sought assistance fr