Is this the good MSM or the bad biased MSM? How many grains of salt? Is this a commentary on rumors? I love the "French led diplomatic effort to kneel before our terrorist masters..." Great stuff. What a picture.

Oh well, another day at B4B.

Oh well, another day at B4B.

And yet, Raker, you seem to be attracted here like a moth to a flame. You remind me of sand in a gear box: make a lot of annoying noise, muck up the works, hard to get rid of.

presumably by a French-led diplomatic effort to kneel before our terrorist masters and promise we won't harm them again, if they'll only refrain from killing us in large numbers

boy oh boy that gem surely goes down in the history books.

those terrorists are right now thanking bush everyday for giving them a regional conflict in which to have countless US servicemen directly in their sights to be picked off five a day....

glad you are so supportive of having more soldiers dying daily in a worthless war that never had one iota to do with 9/11 in the first place. i've never witnessed such thirst for bloodshed. i guess it's easy when you're typing from the safety of your lazyboy.

Someone should (Ed.Note: Understandable but a bit over the top comment excised) Murtha and Hitlery. We'd be a lot closer to victory if these two morons would shut up...maybe the Swimmer too. Hell, all the kook Dems for that matter.

The greatest defeat will be when the American public realizes that the Dems are simply a bunch of turn-coats that follow political aspirations over patriotism.

Maybe Con too!

Spook is that the 1st gear syncro goin bad on ya, or just raker spouting off again? Better learn to double-clutch.

Better learn to double-clutch.

Navy, I'd like to see raker and conscriptor and all their ilk "double-clutch" their way on over to KOS or DU. They add nothing to the discussion here.

who is timothy dexter?

If Navydad made those comments against Bush he'd be getting a secret service visit. This kind of hateful rhetoric degrades us all.

Get off it, conscriptor---your pathetic whining about who "condones" what and your sniveling about being part of a group we think is a waste of skin is just more proof of your limp-wristed vapidity.

You generate contempt, not for having different views but for being so inherently dishonest and so transparently hate-driven that you don't even try to present yourself as rational or thoughtful or caring about the truth.

So go back to your minders, and snivel about how mean those nasty conservatives are, and how they "condone" such mean things. Change your panties, stand up on your hind legs, admit that you are a radical socialist who is seeking, daily, for anything that you think will support your loathing for this country, and stay with your own kind.

And then there is poor whimpering Thrower---as in Thrower-Upper,, I guess, based on his hyper-emotional meltdown, so devastated by the horror of it all, whining that "This kind of hateful rhetoric degrades us all."

Too bad YOUR "hateful rhetoric" never got your knickers in such a twist. No, you of the Moral Relativity Brigade are and always have felt fully justified in every hateful, vicious, slur you have hurled, in every spiteful and venomous attack you have mounted, in every lie you have spread---because you feel so anointed as the only possessors of the True Way.

You sneer at belief systems which are centered in love, forgiveness, and mercy, partly because those who follow them are not perfect in their execution of the tenets they ascribe to, yet you blindly adhere to a belief system which is blatantly rooted in deceit, lying propaganda, hate, and merciless attacks on those you don't like. There are honest, decent, liberals out there, who simply have a different view of the role of government--but you are not of them. You are of the radical Left, and your hypocrisy as you deplore the attitudes you have fostered when they are directed back at you would be laughable if it were not so distasteful.

con, when you say "i'll be sure to make sure everyone in the blogosphere (and murtha's office) see that it is standard practice among some on the right to call for violence against sitting congressmen (and that B4B condones this)..." you admit to being willing, nay eager, to lie to promote your cause.

Because you know full well that the comment by navydad (with which I do not agree) has not recieved any approval or agreement from anyone here. It most certainly has not been "condoned" by anyone, much less those who run the blog.

Has it ever occurred to you to simply limit your rhetoric to the truth? Yes, I know, it would severely limit your scope, but it would go a long way to making you less of a laughingstock.

I agree with navydad that people like Hillary and Murtha and yes, you, are bad for this country, and if allowed to gain more power will be responsible for the deaths of innocents here in this country as well as abroad (think Killing Fields of Cambodia for a reference) and that we would be better off without you in any position of any authority. But I will bet that upon reflection navydad regrets the reference to violence to deal with you and your ilk.

This is a strong country, and we have survived some pretty bad things. We will survive the Clintons and the Murthas and even the conscriptors and his fellow Reds. We may lose a lot of innocent lives in the process, but the Republic will stand, though hard lessons may have to be learned.

Is there something wrong with my name Con? My great, great uncle was an incredible man...look him up.

Why are these guys compelled to use my real name? Are they that intimidated?

Help me out here Al...what gives with these kooks?
Should I post my birth place too so they can stalk me?

Like the folks that host this site, I too am not afraid to reveal my name. It's simply easier to use Navydad since I'm extremely proud to have a son with naval experience.

Are you ashamed of your name Con, or is it Dilbert Duchebag?

It is pethetic that you and your kook buds cannot handle a little criticism and by way of you seeking to reveal my name shows how worried you are, or are you intimidated by my strength and convictions.

Al, I only meant the sniper comment as a joke and I would never condone the killing of a human unless of course it's a terrorist, but these kooks take everything way too seriously for me not to jump at the chance to yank their chain.

When you couch your "love and forgiveness" belief system in hateful rhetoric Almiranta, you become the face of hypocrisy. On your good days, I read and reflect on what you have to say. sometimes it is quite profound. On days like today, you are just pathetic.

Navydad crosses a more tangible line by advocating the assassination of public figures. Mark calls that "understanding, but a bit over the top." I think it is borderline pathological. Thoughtful people don't spout crap like that even in jest.

test
Having some trouble, please excuse me

When it comes to kooks..I am NOT thoughtful..period.

"Thoughtful people don't spout crap like that even in jest." B freakin S Thrower!

Again, you're joking right?

We've heard time and time again how GW was a murderer of innocent women and children and such and as far as I can see, your party is, simply put, the most hypocritical party of the century.
So get off your high horse...cry baby.

The discourse here at B4B is fine until your feelings are hurt and then it becomes a personal vendetta by morons such as Conscriptor to humiliate whomever doesn't agree with them.

Well, as you can plainly see, it doesn't work and most of us conservatives are very thick-skinned, just like OUR (not your) military, so bring it on.

Just noticed the Ed note...sorry Mark, I couldn't help myself!!

Almiranta writes:

"You sneer at belief systems which are centered in love, forgiveness, and mercy, partly because those who follow them are not perfect in their execution of the tenets they ascribe to, yet you blindly adhere to a belief system which is blatantly rooted in deceit, lying propaganda, hate, and merciless attacks on those you don't like."

After the love, forgiveness, and mercy part, you forgot humility.

Back to the actual post,

"The critics have it that we can just pick up and leave and all can be smoothed over"

I am not sure of anyone on the left who thinks that Iraq can be "smoothed over" if we left.

"presumably by a French-led diplomatic effort to kneel before our terrorist masters and promise we won't harm them again"

Lame knock on the French. If we had listened to the French and the rest of the world in 2003, we wouldn't be in this precarious situation. Of course, I'm of the belief that Iraq did not have the WMDs we claimed it did and that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were actually in conflict with each other prior to the invasion.

Gar Wood

No Navydad, I am not kidding. There is a fine line between thick skinned and thick headed. The first amendment does not give you the right to advocate for the assassination of public officials. If, God forbid, Hillary Clinton becomes President, you probably just made a Secret Service watch list.

Food launch across the room, projectile alert! Gar, you crack me up, Im getting laughy cramps here!

Listen to the french? The FRENCH? The same guys who had sweetheart oil-chit deals with Saddam, the same guys who wanted to sell him nuclear reactor technology, the same guys who sent their diplomats around to world in an attempt to co-opt the U.N. security council? Those french? LOL!

If you believe that Iraq didnt have WMD prior to the war then you would belong to a very lonely club.

So when does the huge bloodbath start because of the surge? I have been listening to the libs claim it was coming for weeks if we surged. Where the hell is it? If the surge works, will you be happy? I have my doubts.

Bacon,

Mais oui, the very French of which you speak. Their own motives may not have been altruistic, but they were right in terms of what would be in the best interests of the Middle East and America.

"If you believe that Iraq didnt have WMD prior to the war then you would belong to a very lonely club."

I tend to disagree because the U.S. government has concluded on numerous occasions that our intelligence was wrong on the WMDs. But I admittedly don't buy the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that Iraq sent its stockpiles elsewhere. If you could provide me with some evidence of that, I would be very interested in seeing it. I think the U.S. government would be, too.

Gar Wood

But no, the french motives were based solely on what they perceived was good for them and them only, they could care less about the middle east or America.

Really, if the french government wanted to showcase their concern for the well-being of America, attempting to not-so-subtly subvert the security council was a strange way of showing it. If they really cared about the middle east in general, or the Iraqis in particular, accepting a tyrant's oil in exchange for diplomatic protection would also seem..well..sinister.

I tend to disagree because the U.S. government has concluded on numerous occasions that our intelligence was wrong on the WMDs.

Of course you would tend to disagree, hindsight is 20/20. Congratulations on your post-war prescience.

However, pre-war intelligence (emphasis on pre-war) from varied and multiple sources concluded that Hussein DID have WMD of one sort or another. Everybody thought he had them, including agencies that are far more ensconced in the region and have far better middle-east networks than we do.

But hey, feel free to regale us with more insights about the war after the fact.

Bacon,

"Congratulations on your post-war prescience."

Don't congratulate me. I actually didn't believe Iraq had WMDs. If you congratulate anyone, congratulate Hans Blix and the UN Security Council that were skeptical of America's claims about Iraq.

"But hey, feel free to regale us with more insights about the war after the fact."

Since you asked: the planning for post-invasion Iraq was a disaster. According to a report today, Tommy Franks predicted that we would have only 5,000 troops in Iraq by this point (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/15/war.plans.ap/index.html).

Gar Wood

Don't congratulate me. I actually didn't believe Iraq had WMDs. If you congratulate anyone, congratulate Hans Blix and the UN Security Council that were skeptical of America's claims about Iraq.

To repeat: "If you believe that Iraq didnt have WMD prior to the war then you would belong to a very lonely club." This club would seemingly include you, Blix and a few others, though Im hesitant to include you because unless you were a member of Saddam's inner-circle, your information was the same as everyone elses. I wont deign to include the U.N., as their motives for anything are highly suspect...you listening, Kofi and Kojo?

Since you asked: the planning for post-invasion Iraq was a disaster.

Name a war, any war by any nation, that went as expected. The greatest presidents and generals this nation has ever produced have all suffered wartime mistakes and setbacks of one sort or another. And yet again, Ill repeat: "post-war prescience". If everything had gone to plan, you wouldnt be able to use the example you just cited, then again, a plan is only a 'plan' not an absolute.

"I actually didn't believe Iraq had WMDs."

Gar, you don't research much history do you.

Why do you insult us with comments like this that are out and out lies?

Iraq has been manufacturing and trading WMDs for decades and they used them on their own people...unless you don't consider Kurds Iraqi's like Conscrpitor.

Is this what you wanted down the road if we hadn't invaded?

From the Iraq Survey Group Report.

"ISG judges that the Iraqi Regime did not attempt to reconstitute the EMIS program after 1991, although many of the former EMIS engineers and scientists still worked for either the IAEC or MIC in roles that could preserve their technical skills. These technical skills, if maintained, would have helped build the foundation for a future nuclear weapons program and would have allowed scientists to reenter a nuclear program further up the learning curve."

Sounds eerily familiar to NK doesnt' it.
Evolution of the Chemical Warfare Program

"Over a period of twenty years, beginning with a laboratory operated by the intelligence services, Iraq was able to begin and successfully undertake an offensive CW program which helped ensure the Regime’s internal and external security. By 1984, Iraq was operating a number of CW agent production plants, producing hundreds of tons of a range of weaponized agents annually, for use against external and internal enemies of the Regime. The program was supported by a complex web of international procurement, R&D, weaponization and indigenous precursor production efforts. Iraq fired or dropped over 100,000 chemical munitions against Iranian forces and its own Kurdish population during the Iran-Iraq war and then later to help put down the Shi’a rebellion in March 1991."

This and more is in the ISG Report and if you'll take the time to read it, you'll see where you've gone terribly wrong with your conclusions. Unless of course you're calling the ISG liars?

Not only did Saddam fake us all out, he retained the capabilities to ramp up once the dust settled.

You libs are so blinded by your hatred for GW that you completely neglect the facts.

"According to Iraq’s declaration to the UN in 1996, from 1981 to 1984 Iraq purchased 40,000 artillery shells, and 7,500 bomb casings from various countries that were to be modified for delivery of CW." Deliver Chemical Weapons Gar!!!!

"Iraq also declared that by 1989, it had manufactured 10,000 CW bomb casings and 18,500 rocket warheads, all reverse engineered from imported munitions." Reverse engineered Gar!!!! This means they purchased them from someone or traded for them.

So what were these...toys?

"Name a war, any war by any nation, that went as expected."

The last two major conflicts America was involved in, the Persian Gulf War and the Kosovo War, went very well. But that's besides the point. I agree that war can be unpredictable and full of setbacks. I only raise the point about the pre-war preparation because I feel that we still have learned very little from this war. If, God forbid, we invade Iran or Syria, I want it done avoiding all the mistakes we made in Iraq (not enough troops, dissolving of civil service, etc.)

Gar Wood

Navydad,

I'm turned of debating this with you. Even Bacon (keefer?) agrees that we were wrong about WMDs.You've convinced me that Iraq had WMDs during the 1980s and early 1990s, which was never in dispute. What I'd like to see is hard evidence that Iraq had WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion or evidence that they moved the weapons to Syria.

Gar Wood

No one is disputing that WMDs were not there upon the invaison Gar. But history dictates that Saddam concealed every aspect of his WMD programs from UNSCOM and since all programs were NOT fully revealed within any of the post commission reports and the evidence proved that the programs were intact, it's pretty hard for anyone to dispute that they weren't there at some point.

When a child molester says he's given up child porn, do you believe him...no, you continually question him and eventually he trips up and back to jail, or worse yet, he commits another crime. But wouldn't you rather incarcerate him the first time so you don't need to worry. The same applies to punks like Saddam and Hakmadumbojob.
These guys are/were aching to slip up just to prove they could.

Now, left to the Dems, history also dictates you'd do nothing.

Gar,

What you need to do, however, is go back to March of 2003 WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD said Saddam had large stockpiles of WMDs and tell us, from that perspective, how many lives you are willing to bet that he didn't...

You don't get do-overs in life - you don't get to retroactively be in favor of or opposition to something.

Mark,

Scott Ritter, the former UN Weapons Inspector for Iraq, was right...the media and the right thought he was crazy. And of course Hans Blix found that Iraq was conditionally "actively cooperating" with renewed inspections in 2002. Those are two highly credible individuals right there. There were other also rare voices in the MSM, such as Knight Ridder's Washington bureau, that were highly skeptical of the charges.

What do we learn from this? In the last 6 years we've faced perhaps the 2 largest intelligence failures in American history. We need to dissect and challenge and authenticate the intelligence that we get now, especially towards Iran. Otherwise we will be making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a different result.

Gar Wood

Gar

No problem with the "root cause analysis". All of us agree that it was a major blunder by all...and I mean all. You cannot sit back and say "I told you so" when we all know damn well that Saddam had and used WMD's in the past against his own people and Iran. Nor can we simply pull out and leave the place high and dry. So please, get off the past and if you have some advice, other than cut-n-run, cough it up and be productive here.

The problem with your argument is that you believe that unless we'd found huge stockpiles of WMD's that it wasn't worth the sacrifice. Yet, 17 terrorists flew 747's into the WTC, 190 people died in the Madrid train bombing and on and on. So what does matter when it comes to the WOT? Do we need another 911 to say it's justified.

You really need to start looking at the WOT as more of a global issue rather than simply in Afghanistan.

The "wait and see" argument doesn't work when it comes to my grandchildren's lives Gar. Not at all!

Gee fellows,
That was real thoughtful of y'all to censor Daddy's rant calling for the assasination of a congressman, liberals in general and some left-wing bloggers (probably kept you out of a possible liability problem). Quite frankly, I've never seen that sort of thing aside from the right-wing blogs -- where it is all too common.
Our old friend Keefer used to hope (pray) for the chance to round up traitors and perform whatever acts his perverted little mind could imagine on them.
Why is it that this type of blog attracts sociopathic nutjobs --oh that's right -- they're the "base."

"The problem with your argument is that you believe that unless we'd found huge stockpiles of WMD's that it wasn't worth the sacrifice."

That is precisely my point. Not only did Iraq not have the WMDs to attack us with or to sell, it also had a highly tenuous connection with Al-Qaeda. Iraq was successfully contained, and contrary to what you said, there were many people who realized that at the time. Because Iraq posed no direct or indirect threat to us, invading it was pointless. Now that we're there, and the longer that we've been there, the more inflamed the Islamic world has become, rendering our task in the GWOT more difficult.

"So please, get off the past..."

But it has direct application to the present. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we made in Iraq in Iran.

Gar Wood

Sal,
You don't have to remind us that Dems celebrate anyone who attacks our country and subverts its defenses rather than threatening such people. I wonder if in your mind it is against the law to recite the law:

"TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 >
§ 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Or are you Dems planning on repealing that once Obama gets elected? I mean, it's not really a measured response to kill someone for just working with our enemies, right? Bush is evil and our soldiers are torturers and murderers, so what kind of people wouldn't work with our enemies, right? If you ask me, that law was written by some neocon sociopathic nutjob, eh?