I am glad you are impressed with my primate fetish. Perhaps it is why I have been responding to your juvenile retorts and half-baked attempts at insult?
However, since that is obviously a useless and futile excersize, I'll stop trying.
Be proud however, as you do have a singular benightedness about you, yet from all the compelling and positive responses to your communications it would appear that the only person you truly impress, is you.
I have been watching the Senate for nearly 49 years, and there once was a time when Durbin's busy Nov. 16 would have attracted attention. But it went virtually unnoticed. The Senate has hardened, and so has Dick Durbin.
Can it be that many national reporters are so afflicted by Bush hatred that they can’t let go long enough to report stories straight? Could be. Consider the entire backward-looking thrust of so much reportage, focusing sharply on what happened in 2002 and 2003, less on the stake we have in prevailing in Iraq. If we lose in Iraq, it will be the first great victory for global jihad, with tremendous consequences for the U.S. Can the media get over their obsession with Bush and focus on that?
I challenge you to read this book cover to cover and emerge still believing -- assuming you did before -- that the modern Democratic Party is the party of tolerance and compassion. Especially read the chapter "When Angry Democrats Attack," and tell us with a straight face, "Each party has an equal number of crazies with violent propensities."
Opposition to quotas -- extreme. Belief that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion -- extreme. In short, an "extremist" -- to a liberal -- simply means someone with whom they disagree.
Is military experience a requirement to excersize the freedom to offer our opinions and personal, political beliefs in this forum?
Of course not and I do not remember ever saying it was. The point was you were questioning a person's military experience and I just thought we could compare yours to his.
Did these people mislead us, or didn't they?
Are you talking about the Clintons and the other Democrats who were saying the same things? Or do you believe that Bush (who according to you is not even as smart as a monkey) somehow outsmarted them before he was elected president and continued to use his powers over them after being elected? They must be pretty stupid to have been outsmarted by someone that you claim is so dumb.
Did you ever see the pictures of stuff that he had buried in the sands? How about the interim report by the inspectors that had pictures of the centrifuges he had retained? How about the fact that England still stands by their statements that he was looking for yellowcake or the many tons of the stuff that we got out of there? Even Joe Wilson has stated that Niger's Prime Minister was approached by a businessman (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf also known as Bagdad Bob) trying to expand commercial relations (livestock and uranium is all they got).  Ever seen the pictures of that passenger jet fuselage found in Salman Pak which was a known terrorist training camp?
It was no secret what Saddam has done and wanted to do, yet you continue to act like he is innocent. Why?
I have been to many, perhaps 10 in the last few years. I have also sponsored parties for two candidates, one of the Betty McCollum. Why would you say that the DFL is not tolerant, or diverse? Do they keep people out of their policy "gatherings"? Not that I have seen, in fact quite the opposite.
It's easy to just blurt out a caustic accusation like that, but to offer proof of the accusation? That is quite different, isn't it?
And Grandpa? I did see the pictures of the almost-empty holes in the sand with the out of date and useless artillery shells in them. What does it prove? Not much. Even David Kay, Bush's own inspector said that there was nothing of value to report on WMD's. Nothing.
The Aluminum Tubes that were alledged to be for Nukes? Also a false accusation. They were in fact to be used for something completely different, and were not even designed for the stresses and pressures of making nuclear fuel. That was a ludicrous accusation. Was/Is David Kay also wrong? Was Hans Blix?
The book had a release printing of 20,000 copies, and it will be interesting to see how many of those sell, but the mere fact that this woman was willing to put herself into the crucible like this for the sake of her dead son is a testiment to her courage, not something that should be made fun of. After all, have any of us lost children to war? Have any of us rallied literally hundreds of thousands of people in protest of that same war?
And, she was protesting against the war in Iraq BEFORE she lost her son. Comparing her to the politicians that stretched the truth about Iraq to the breaking point, so that we could go there in the first place?
That, is absurdity.
Cindy Sheehan might not be popular with the people who are still FOR this war, but she is far braver than most.
[D]o you believe that Bush somehow outsmarted them before he was elected president and continued to use his powers over them after being elected? They must be pretty stupid to have been outsmarted by someone that you claim is so dumb.
This line of argument is particularly smarmy, since it boils down to "If the Democrats were dumb enough to believe what George Bush told them about taking the country to war, too bad. Neener neener neener." I don't think that it's too much to expect that when an American president wants permission to expend American blood and treasure that he be honest with the people and the Congress about the reasons for doing so.
The book had a release printing of 20,000 copies, and it will be interesting to see how many of those sell, but the mere fact that this woman was willing to put herself into the crucible like this for the sake of her dead son (for the sake of her dead son? get a grip, dude) is a testiment to her courage, (more like a testament to her ignornace) not something that should be made fun of. After all, have any of us lost children to war?Â
 I don't think that it's too much to expect that when an American president wants permission to expend American blood and treasure that he be honest with the people and the Congress about the reasons for doing so.
I know that you, in your dishonesty, would say he was a right winger. But that is simply more utter nonsense on your part.  The terms left winger or right winger seem to imply that the individual so labeled is working within the system. McVeigh was obviously not.
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment...
...With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels...
They were in fact to be used for something completely different, and were not even designed for the stresses and pressures of making nuclear fuel.
...Iraq is failing in several specific areas, Blix explained today. The country has refused to guarantee the safety of missions by a U-2 aerial reconnaissance plane at the inspectors' disposal. Iraq has also failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and an unknown quantity of VX gas, a chemical nerve agent, some of which may have been weaponized.
Blix referred to the highly publicized discovery Jan. 16 of 12 empty chemical warheads and Iraq's subsequent disclosure of four more a few days later. He said the 12 discovered by inspectors were in a "relatively new" bunker.
"The rockets must have been moved (there) in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions," he said. Iraqi government officials claimed the warheads had simply been missed in accounting. "They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg," Blix said.
Investigators also have found small quantities of a mustard gas precursor and evidence that the country produced significantly more anthrax than it disclosed...
...He disclosed that inspectors found 3,000 pages of classified documents regarding enriching uranium in an Iraqi scientist's home. He said this supports a long-held concern that Iraq is hiding sensitive documents in the homes of private citizens...
When Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was a Justice Department lawyer in the 1980s, he urged President Reagan to veto legislation that would have protected consumers from crooked car dealers by making odometer fraud more difficult. Alito’s rationale for urging a veto of the Truth in Mileage Act is as stunning as it is radical: protecting Americans is not the federal government’s job. “After all,” wrote Alito in his memo recommending a veto, “it is the states, and not the federal government, that are charged with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.”President Reagan rejected Alito’s advice and signed the bill.
"I am a lifelong registered Republican and have [contributed to] Republican candidates and conservative causes, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee ..... I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
Really? Perhaps you can share your information with us concerning how we supported him during his invasion of Kuwait.
In 1897 and 1898, Britain used assassination, intrigue, and threats to carve out a piece of Iraq and rule it through the Sheikh of Kuwait. In 1920, after World War I, Britain, France, and the U.S. seized the rights to 95% of the oil in Iraq. By 1932, Britain had expanded Kuwait from a small village on the Gulf into a colony occupying the entire coastline of the Persian Gulf from Arabia to Iran, completely shutting off Iraq from access to the Gulf. For the next half a century, British intelligence murdered almost every Iraqi leader and king, because they called for the return of Kuwait. By 1958 the U.S. was an equal partner with Britain in the coups and assassinations. Together they backed a coup against King Faisal II (who had himself been installed by the British). He was killed and replaced with Abdel Karim Qassim. But he too called for the return of Kuwait, so CIA chief Allen Dulles ordered his assassination. After the job was botched a couple of times, the CIA gave the assignment to one of its promising young assassins Saddam Hussein. With the help of a CIA airlift, he succeeded. By 1968, Saddam Hussein was in complete control and, under CIA direction, killing trade unionists, radicals, and Communists.
In 1977, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein, the Emir of Kuwait, and a Saudi representative, and proposed that Iraq invade Iran, seizing the Khuzestan oil fields. In 1982, US FBI chief William Webster met with the Emir of Kuwait and plotted the seizure of Iraqi oil fields and the slant-drilling with which Kuwait and western oil companies stole $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil.
Right up to the time of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, US Department of Defense training manuals sang the praises of Saddam Hussein, noting how he had vastly improved education, medical care, and the standard of living of his people. His regime was called one of the most enlightened, progressive governments in the region. This was in an official DoD document used in the education of high-ranking officers of all the military services.
But there was a problem. The Berlin wall had come down. The Soviet Union had collapsed. And the American people were clamoring for a peace dividend. They had to find another bad guy fast. In May 1990, a National Security Council white paper stated that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were (and I quote) "the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw pact as the rationale for major military expenditures."
Two months later, on July 20, 1990, General Schwarzkopf conducted training exercises simulating exactly the contingency of an Iraqi attack on Kuwait. Five days later, April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. A week later, he did.Almost immediately, the U.S. deployed as many troops and twice as much materiel as was moved for the Normandy invasion. Do you think this was done without advance planning? Â Â
This was the war they wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over. This was the war that would demonstrate the capabilities of the smart bombs made by our weapons manufacturers. It was better than a hundred trade shows. This was the war that would prove that George Bush was not a wimp. This was the war that would make billions for the oil company owned by the president’s son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf.
Saddam was suckered into our trap. And he fell for it. He crossed the undefended border of Kuwait, and in response our government dropped 300 to 400 million pounds of high explosives on Iraq. This onslaught destroyed tens of thousands of buildings and essentially every bridge, power plant, and industrial facility in the country. It killed a quarter of a million Iraqis, including at least 100,000 civilians, of which half were children. Now here we are eight years later, and the shocking death toll from the Gulf War has been dwarfed by that from our continuing war against Iraq. Not only have we failed to rebuild what we destroyed; we have imposed economic sanctions which have prevented the Iraqis and everyone else from doing so.
In the eight years since the end of Desert Storm, one and a half million Iraqis have died as a direct result of US/UN sanctions. It is now estimated that among those who have lost their lives are three quarters of a million children under the age of five! And the dying goes on. A million Iraqi children are seriously malnourished, and 150 to 200 are dying every day.
Among the ordnance we used on Iraq were some 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust covering the southern part of Iraq has caused birth defects and cancer rates to soar. As if that weren’t enough, we periodically continue to drop bombs and cruise missiles on that devastated nation.
Who are the bad guys here? Ex-CIA agent Saddam Hussein is no saint. But he is only one pawn in a century-long history of western intrigue, torture, murder, and callous disregard for the people who live in what was once a proud nation.
- Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt Col, USAF, ret
and...
There were many ways in which the US government and other US institutions aided Saddam Hussein up to the point of the invasion of Kuwait. The support of US business interests over many years for Saddam Hussein is well documented, part of the general Western support for the Iraqi regime.
On April 12th, 1990 Saddam met with 5 US senators. Robert Dole, Alan Simpson, Howard Metzenbaum, James McClure and Frank Murkowski; the US ambassador, soon to be famous for her own 'green light' to Saddam, was also present. The US senators criticised the American press in their attempts to propitiate Saddam, emphasising that there was a difference between the attitudes of the US government and those of journalists. Senator Dole commented:
Please allow me to say that only twelve hours earlier President Bush had assured me that he wants better relations, and that the US government wants better relations with Iraq... I assume that President Bush will oppose sanctions, and he might veto them, unless something provocative were to happen... It was clear that Iraq's war on Iran, its human record, and its increasingly bellicose efforts to impose its will on the Gulf region were not judged to be sufficiently 'provocative'. Ambassador Glaspie then chipped in to affirm that she was certain 'that this is the policy of the US'(that is, that Presidnet Bush saw nothing about Iraq that would impede the development of good relations).
Senator Howard Metzenbaum ('I am a jew and a staunch supporter of Israel') payed Saddam a compliment: '... I have been sitting here listening to you for about an hour, and I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man and that you want peace.. if.. you were to focus on the value of the peace that we greatly need to achieve in the Middle East then there would not be a leader to compare with you in the Middle East..' On July 25 1990, a day after 2 Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border, Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador April Glaspie to his office. Even at this late statge , with an obviosly deteriorating situation in the Gulf, Glaspie still made efforts to placate Saddam Hussein. She emphasised that President Bush had rejected the ideaof trade sanctions against Iraq, to which Saddam replied: Â Â
There is nothing left for us to buy from America except wheat. Every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."Glapsie was quick to reassure to Saddam: "I have direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq." She then went to say her much-quoted comment that was perhaps the biggest 'green light' of all:
I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country.But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait. In short, the US ambassador to Baghdad was here telling Saddam Hussein that he had a legitimate case against Kuwait and that the matter was no business of the United States.
On July 31 (2 days before the invasion of Kuwait), the US Assistant Secretary of state John Kelly testified on Capitol Hill before the Middle East subcommittee of the House of Representatives. Aimed at clarifying the attitude of the Bush administration to the escalating crisis in the Gulf:
Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this? Assistant Secretary Kelly: .. We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country... Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors? Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations... Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces? Kelly: That, Mr Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers. Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces? Kelly: That is correct. Hamilton: That is correct, is it not? Kelly: That is correct, sir. These statements broadcast on the World Service of the BBC, were heard in Baghdad. At a crucial momment, a senior offical of the Bush administration had sent Saddam Hussein a signal that the US would not intervene. The American setup for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had been complete.
"I am a lifelong registered Republican and have [contributed to] Republican candidates and conservative causes, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee ..... I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
I am glad you are impressed with my primate fetish. Perhaps it is why I have been responding to your juvenile retorts and half-baked attempts at insult?
However, since that is obviously a useless and futile excersize, I'll stop trying.
Be proud however, as you do have a singular benightedness about you, yet from all the compelling and positive responses to your communications it would appear that the only person you truly impress, is you.
Since you admit to a primate fetish. Tell us about it.
I bet that Morti sings the tune "in the navy" to himself.
I have been watching the Senate for nearly 49 years, and there once was a time when Durbin's busy Nov. 16 would have attracted attention. But it went virtually unnoticed. The Senate has hardened, and so has Dick Durbin.
Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/11/28/176876.html
Can it be that many national reporters are so afflicted by Bush hatred that they can’t let go long enough to report stories straight? Could be. Consider the entire backward-looking thrust of so much reportage, focusing sharply on what happened in 2002 and 2003, less on the stake we have in prevailing in Iraq. If we lose in Iraq, it will be the first great victory for global jihad, with tremendous consequences for the U.S. Can the media get over their obsession with Bush and focus on that?
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2005/11/28/176879.html
I challenge you to read this book cover to cover and emerge still believing -- assuming you did before -- that the modern Democratic Party is the party of tolerance and compassion. Especially read the chapter "When Angry Democrats Attack," and tell us with a straight face, "Each party has an equal number of crazies with violent propensities."
h
ttp://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2005/11/24/176689.html
Opposition to quotas -- extreme. Belief that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion -- extreme. In short, an "extremist" -- to a liberal -- simply means someone with whom they disagree.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/11/24/176684.html
Two words: Tim McVeigh.
"the modern Democratic Party is the party of tolerance and compassion."
Not that tolerant or compassonate. They just look like it next to Republicans.
The DFL is neither tolerant or diverse.
"Ever been to a DFL caucus?"....God no!
Is military experience a requirement to excersize the freedom to offer our opinions and personal, political beliefs in this forum?
Of course not and I do not remember ever saying it was. The point was you were questioning a person's military experience and I just thought we could compare yours to his.
Did these people mislead us, or didn't they?
Are you talking about the Clintons and the other Democrats who were saying the same things? Or do you believe that Bush (who according to you is not even as smart as a monkey) somehow outsmarted them before he was elected president and continued to use his powers over them after being elected? They must be pretty stupid to have been outsmarted by someone that you claim is so dumb.
Did you ever see the pictures of stuff that he had buried in the sands? How about the interim report by the inspectors that had pictures of the centrifuges he had retained? How about the fact that England still stands by their statements that he was looking for yellowcake or the many tons of the stuff that we got out of there? Even Joe Wilson has stated that Niger's Prime Minister was approached by a businessman (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf also known as Bagdad Bob) trying to expand commercial relations (livestock and uranium is all they got).  Ever seen the pictures of that passenger jet fuselage found in Salman Pak which was a known terrorist training camp?
It was no secret what Saddam has done and wanted to do, yet you continue to act like he is innocent. Why?
It must be pretty depressing to hold a book signing and not even the press wants one.
it's no secret that we supported him while he was doing it either, yet we continue to act like we are innocent. I wonder why.
Ever been to a DFL caucus?
I have been to many, perhaps 10 in the last few years. I have also sponsored parties for two candidates, one of the Betty McCollum. Why would you say that the DFL is not tolerant, or diverse? Do they keep people out of their policy "gatherings"? Not that I have seen, in fact quite the opposite.
It's easy to just blurt out a caustic accusation like that, but to offer proof of the accusation? That is quite different, isn't it?
And Grandpa? I did see the pictures of the almost-empty holes in the sand with the out of date and useless artillery shells in them. What does it prove? Not much. Even David Kay, Bush's own inspector said that there was nothing of value to report on WMD's. Nothing.
The Aluminum Tubes that were alledged to be for Nukes? Also a false accusation. They were in fact to be used for something completely different, and were not even designed for the stresses and pressures of making nuclear fuel. That was a ludicrous accusation.
Was/Is David Kay also wrong? Was Hans Blix?
Of course not.
"It must be pretty depressing to hold a book signing and not even the press wants one."
Are you gloating, Dan?
The book had a release printing of 20,000 copies, and it will be interesting to see how many of those sell, but the mere fact that this woman was willing to put herself into the crucible like this for the sake of her dead son is a testiment to her courage, not something that should be made fun of. After all, have any of us lost children to war? Have any of us rallied literally hundreds of thousands of people in protest of that same war?
And, she was protesting against the war in Iraq BEFORE she lost her son. Comparing her to the politicians that stretched the truth about Iraq to the breaking point, so that we could go there in the first place?
That, is absurdity.
Cindy Sheehan might not be popular with the people who are still FOR this war, but she is far braver than most.
I'm sorry her son died, but she's a fruitcake and should be ignored.
No one showing up for her book signing was predictable. She's a wackjob. America knew it. Now it's proven.
Now she's profiting off her son's death by receiving an advance and a % of sales.
She's disgusting. Case closed.
This line of argument is particularly smarmy, since it boils down to "If the Democrats were dumb enough to believe what George Bush told them about taking the country to war, too bad. Neener neener neener." I don't think that it's too much to expect that when an American president wants permission to expend American blood and treasure that he be honest with the people and the Congress about the reasons for doing so.
Two words: Tim McVeigh.
The book had a release printing of 20,000 copies, and it will be interesting to see how many of those sell, but the mere fact that this woman was willing to put herself into the crucible like this for the sake of her dead son (for the sake of her dead son? get a grip, dude) is a testiment to her courage, (more like a testament to her ignornace) not something that should be made fun of. After all, have any of us lost children to war?Â
I'm sorry her son died, but she's a fruitcake and should be ignored.
 I don't think that it's too much to expect that when an American president wants permission to expend American blood and treasure that he be honest with the people and the Congress about the reasons for doing so.
He was known to go into rages and throw things at television sets when Bill Clinton appeared.
He was known to go into rages and throw things at television sets when Bill Clinton appeared.
Surely you're not claiming that McVeigh was a left-winger . . .
I know that you, in your dishonesty, would say he was a right winger. But that is simply more utter nonsense on your part.  The terms left winger or right winger seem to imply that the individual so labeled is working within the system. McVeigh was obviously not.
McVeigh seemed to not care for government in general.
Saying he was aligned with either party doesn't seem right.
I saw him at my local DFL caucus with Morti.
it's no secret that we supported him while he was doing it either
Really? Perhaps you can share your information with us concerning how we supported him during his invasion of Kuwait.
Â
 I did see the pictures of the almost-empty holes in the sand with the out of date and useless artillery shells in them.
One of over two dozen Iraqi jets buried in the sand.
Even David Kay, Bush's own inspector said that there was nothing of value to report on WMD's. Nothing.
STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
...With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels...
They were in fact to be used for something completely different, and were not even designed for the stresses and pressures of making nuclear fuel.
Really? Then why was there so much discussion about it at the ISG? http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-05.htm Were these people so incompetant as to not see what you see?
Are you gloating, Dan?
No. I do find it strange that they didn't at least have some staged signings for the press though.
Was Hans Blix (wrong)?
...Iraq is failing in several specific areas, Blix explained today. The country has refused to guarantee the safety of missions by a U-2 aerial reconnaissance plane at the inspectors' disposal. Iraq has also failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and an unknown quantity of VX gas, a chemical nerve agent, some of which may have been weaponized.
Blix referred to the highly publicized discovery Jan. 16 of 12 empty chemical warheads and Iraq's subsequent disclosure of four more a few days later. He said the 12 discovered by inspectors were in a "relatively new" bunker.
"The rockets must have been moved (there) in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions," he said. Iraqi government officials claimed the warheads had simply been missed in accounting. "They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg," Blix said.
Investigators also have found small quantities of a mustard gas precursor and evidence that the country produced significantly more anthrax than it disclosed...
...He disclosed that inspectors found 3,000 pages of classified documents regarding enriching uranium in an Iraqi scientist's home. He said this supports a long-held concern that Iraq is hiding sensitive documents in the homes of private citizens...
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n01272003_200301273.html
Thanks, for providing the same tired and misleading non-proof that the administration has been pushing and claiming as "Proof", for 5 years.
Not exactly Pearl Harbor.
But if it is good enough for you, then fine.
When Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was a Justice Department lawyer in the 1980s, he urged President Reagan to veto legislation that would have protected consumers from crooked car dealers by making odometer fraud more difficult. Alito’s rationale for urging a veto of the Truth in Mileage Act is as stunning as it is radical: protecting Americans is not the federal government’s job. “After all,” wrote Alito in his memo recommending a veto, “it is the states, and not the federal government, that are charged with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.” President Reagan rejected Alito’s advice and signed the bill.
Score one - for Bonzo's Dad.
"I am a lifelong registered Republican and have [contributed to] Republican candidates and conservative causes, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee ..... I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
Alito 1985 letter to Ronald Reagan
What the fuck is proof if that's "Non Proof"?
Are you possessed or something?
What the fuck does -is that proof if that's- even mean?
Try another topic, or don't. I really don't care.
Do I listen to David Kay or do I listen to some "anonymous" poster on the internet?
If rising early is offensive to you, then stop posting before say, noon?
And just so I know, what possesses anyone to transfix themselves on RV's?
(Oh and, I didn't know we could actually Listen to posters? That's pretty cool. Is there some download I need to hear these posts?)
If rising early is offensive to you, then stop posting before say, noon?
Uhm. Where did I say rising early is offensive?
And just so I know, what possesses anyone to transfix themselves on RV's?
It's one of my turn ons.
Some people are turned on by male nurses or administrative assistants.
An old guy in an RV gets me hot every time.
(Oh and, I didn't know we could actually Listen to posters? That's pretty cool. Is there some download I need to hear these posts?)
Technicality.
That's terrific. Whatever floats your boat.
Why do you post only in BOLD?
Why do you post only in BOLD?
It's just my thing.
Much how you like to post in italics and bold in arbitrary places in your posts.
Why does it matter?
and...
Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this?
Assistant Secretary Kelly: .. We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country...
Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors?
Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations...
Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces?
Kelly: That, Mr Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers.
Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces?
Kelly: That is correct.
Hamilton: That is correct, is it not?
Kelly: That is correct, sir.
These statements broadcast on the World Service of the BBC, were heard in Baghdad. At a crucial momment, a senior offical of the Bush administration had sent Saddam Hussein a signal that the US would not intervene. The American setup for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had been complete.
Not exactly Pearl Harbor.
But if it is good enough for you, then fine.
"I am a lifelong registered Republican and have [contributed to] Republican candidates and conservative causes, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee ..... I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
sounds like a very good man.
The American setup for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had been complete.
only a crackpot, mind-numbed dope smoker believes such a blatant falsehood