Mr. David Corn,

Good post. I have posted before that the Rwanda crime should be Bill's legacy.

It is way too sad that most people that are Bill Bashers bash for a blue dress when the foul fruit of his inaction hangs on a drooping branch of the bad fruit tree.

It is our culture or counterculture that drives that kind of misinformation.

There should be more published on this. I am very glad to see the objectivity and willingness on your part to address the issue with candor, too little of that from too many that claim to care.

I cannot help but think some of the inaction and many other ways we (the west) just ignore issues in other countries is still standing on the old foundations of racism that were formed and set here in our shameful American history.

Mixed marriage has been legal since 1967?

We need to talk more about this and other important subjects but none of the history mitigates the misadventures of Bunnypants "cowboy-cheerleader."

To talk about them in the same piece is a disservice to the responsibility that is being denied by the coward in Crawford.

The issues today belong to Bush, nothing done before him made him make the piss poor choices that have us struggling to exit from his failed hobby war. To speak of the crimes of Clinton in the same piece is intellectually dishonest.

Thanks

Kirk

yes, clinton was a bastard and all of the free world did nothing to stop the rwanda genocide... just like today with darfur. maybe in 10 years or so you will report on that.

Why do I visit here?

Why did Jesus walk among the sinners? To convert them.

It is my grand plan to convert you to a life of abstincence, temperance and a new way in politics. (OK, so maybe not the first two.)

I enjoy the automatic assumption that if you dislike Bush you must be a Clinton fan, to paraphrase Fredrick Douglas, he was and is a first rate second rate man. The sad part is that you are incorrect in my estimation; the blue dress will be his legacy, not his real shortcomings, but an act of selfishness. Still for all his flaws I suspect the reasons the Republicans hate him so much is because he was able to accomplish so much more of their agenda than they seem willing to even attempt themselves. If Clinton is and was a first rate second rate man what of their leaders.

A little follow up from the last thread:

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

*****end of clip*****

I anybody has not read this speech, you should do so. It is so interesting to read stuff like this. A little history can offer a major insight if you have an open mind and want to expand your base of knowledge.

capt

Antoine is tripping.

One of the reasons I so detest those who point to Clinton as a major voice for the left. But, compared to the slime now occupying Washington...

It all come back to the fact that we need a new set of parties that actually represent the people of this country, dems and repugs are just two heads of the same snake, why do you think we got two SKull and Bonesmen for the same office, there are only 600 of them in the world. Hello? We need better choices and the process for selecting candidates for president are flawed and to close the debates because the two parties run the process is nuts. If we don't change this process we keep getting corporate stooges and the congress is no better.

Beware the military industrial complex! WE should have listened.

You know, I am no giant Slick Willie fan myself, but I do not see how Rwanda resembles Iraq in any way. Clinton may not have stopped the genocide, but I do not see any action he made that may have caused it. On the other hand, Bush created the Iraqi quagmire, pure and simple. We can only do so much for the world with direct military intervention. I wish we had not gone into Somalia.

Corky,

John Lennon, author of "Imagine" was tripping. Jimi Hendrix, doing the "Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock, was tripping.

Antoine is deluded, not tripping.

Here is a copy I sent to the editor of my local newspaper last month. To my absolute amazement they actually printed it.

Under Attack

Dear Editor,

Our nation is under attack.The Bush administration has successfully altered our reality with an unprecedented onslaught of propaganda and doublespeak. It has all but silenced the opposition party and anyone who opposes its radical ideology.
The government places this ideology above and beyond the freedom and security of the American people.The United States of America is quickly coming to resemble a one party dictatorship.
The genius of this campaign lies in its size and the confusion it generates. As when confronted with a big school of fish, its impossible to focus on any single one of the numerous examples of undemocratic action.
A hearing about the abuses of the Patriot Act was shut down in midstream illegally and with impunity by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Accountability, it seems is nonexistent.Rep John Conyers, D-Mich., was forced to hold an important hearing on the rush to war in Iraq in a tiny room in the Capitol basement.
Now a story has emerged that offers a possibilty to expose the true nature of this government. The architect of this movement, Karl Rove himself, lies at the heart of a horrible action to destroy a man who opposed the neoconservative steamroller. This time the security of our whole country has suffered, just so the Bush White House could silence another voice of dissent. No other story could be more important.
This administration will try and cover up this story with as much smoke as it can billow. It is accepted that the nomination of John Roberts was moved up in an attempt to distract our media. More smoke and mirrors are certain to follow.

Antoine;
From what I can gather I’m not sure I’d call you kind of politics particularly new. Monarchies and oligarchies have been around for a long time. They can be quite stable (is that what you mean by conservative?) but not particularly fulfilling for everyone who isn’t at the top of the heap.

As for Rwanda, I admit ignorance. I, the historian, admit that my life was so harried at that time that I did not know it was going on. My daughter saw a documentary on the subject years later in college and told me about it. She had tears in her eyes when she did. I could not believe that a story of this magnitude went on and I was oblivious to it. This isn't about politics. It's about human dignity. It’≥ about who we decide is important.

Yes, I hate what Bush has done and what he does.

The neocons want to take my "conservative credentials" and have asked me to return my "conservative decoder ring." HA!

If I do not fawn all over Bunnypants then I am a "librul" or a "lefty" and I get a kick out of it when these young neo's spew that kind of crap.

Neoconservativism was born of neo-liberalism and they HATE that fact. Well they have no use for any facts that do not support their messianic Machiavellian machinations in search of a prince.(still looking)

Those neo's crack me up~! HA!

I would claim paleo-con but that is just as wrong. This WH is MAJOR RADICAL, nothing conservative about them.

capt

Oh he is tripping. Just not on LSD. He is tripping on RSD. Rove Spun Delusion.

Antoine,
Tell Corky you're not Jesus.

The idea that the US has a duty to stop the evils of the world is what got us in Iraq. I disagree with the idea that Clinton, as the head of the US, is in any way responsible for the genocide in Rwanda. It would have been a noble act to do something to stop it, but to lump the deaths around Clinton's neck is not appropriate. If I help my neighbor during a time of stress, great. But I do what I do and I am not responsible for my neighbors acts. I disagree with the premise of Corn's post.

What?!?! Antoine is not Jesus? I was sure that our savior had returned!

As I slink into the shadow of the lurk I leave you, my like minded friends with a simple concept:

Never post to a proven liar or practiced prevaricator.

By doing so you surrender. Your response is affirmation to the simple minded blind lemmings.

That is UNLESS you are having fun. In that case "Wack-a-troll" ! HA!

Good day all!

capt

BRAVO! Corky.
Great letter. People read those letters. I know that before my paper was "fair and balanced" I used to get letters published. People would tell me they saw my opinion. We watch the opinions in our other newspaper to gauge the shift in opinion and shift in attitude at the paper. The fact they published that letter says something

.

#17

prabahata Im with you on this one. Maybe Corn just returned from an "off the record dinner" with Karl Rove. Just look at how botched up Somalia was. We lost a lot of good men for that.

Prabhata,
I really have to plead ignorance on the subject of Rwanda. I am ashamed. I see your point but as a nation with influence, as ours is, I think we had a responsibility to stop the killing. I think we probably could have. And I think Clinton knows we probably could have. If you ask him it probably is one of his greatest regrets. I could be wrong but he does, despite what Clinton haters think, he does seem to have compassion.

Thank you Jeanne. Write more letters! I have had three published so far. It keeps me from spontaneously combusting.

Okay capt., I will stop messing with the incogneocon Jesus.

Is it hot in here again? I gotta go, I see flames...

Back later...

Corky,

So you would equate the effects of propaganda to those of a nuerological catlyst? I wouldn't even equate the effects of differing nuerological agents. But, its only friendly conversation...

The Rwandan genocide is no one's fault but Madame Habarymana's and the Interhamwe's. Clinton did not lead an assault on Rwanda. Hutu extremists did. The Holocaust was not Roosevelt's fault, either. Clinton and the entire International community were negligent. Tragically so. But Clinton neither lied about it or was responsible. Bush is responsible for all civilian deaths at the hands of coalition forces since the war in Iraq began-- but he is not responsible for insurgent violence that has killed thousands of civilians. Be a little careful when assigning responsibility for mass slaughter, please. Just because you were ignorant of Rwanda before you saw the Don Cheadle vehicle over the weekend doesn't give you the right to blabber nonsense about it now, a decade later.

I think that if we pay more attention to our situation here at home we can forget the other ones, but not let the corps take them over either, why doesn't the government revoke the corporate charter of these criminals?

I think the point of Corn's piece is more that Clinton was not honest in his assesment. To wit:

Counting lives lost is certainly not the ultimate measure, and the comparison is indeed imperfect. Clinton did not cause the tragedy in Rwanda, and Bush authored of the war in Iraq (even if there were ghostwriters). But both men relied on prevarication in each episode. I won't detail Bush's falsehoods. One can write a book on the subject, and I did. (If you need convincing by now, you shouldn't be wasting your time on this site.) But let me remind readers that during the Rwanda tragedy, the Clinton administration engaged in deadly word games. It acknowledged that "acts of genocide" were underway, but for weeks it refused to state that these the killings amounted to a genocide. Such a statement would have obligated the US government, under international law, to mount actions to thwart the massacre. And the Clinton crowd wanted none of that. David Corn

It isn't that Clinton started the Rwanda situation, he just wasn't willing to acknowledge a word which if triggered would have obligated US action.

Are we the world's police man? If so then we might restructure our forces to fulfill that mission but if not then back off and let these people sort themselves out. we better clean up our country again and get it back on track.

Although Clinton fumbled on Rwanda, he at least admitted that he was wrong. Bush never admits anything.

Let us keep in mind that the repugnants came to power in 1994, early 1995. When they came to power, a full-fledge hate wave came upon America. This hate wave will continue until America falls to her knees and begs God for forgiveness. You do not attack God's children and expect God to sit idly by.

American pride will not ask for forgiveness and the demise of America will be upon us. America will rue the day that she attacked Iraq.

Robert;
I think that's a good point. I would disagree that such an obligation would have actually changed anything. Remember this was unfolding just before the congressional election cycle, I think it unlikely that Clinton could have sent anything more than toke forces. Even doing this would have pretty much handed an even larger slice of congress to the Republicans (can you say contract on America?). So while I agree with Louis that Clinton can not be viewed as the actor to blame, I agree with you that he is being disingenuous to claim ignorance. I think it was political calculus pure and simple.

I love all you hypocrite libs whining about Rwanda. You guys are always whining about "racisim, racisim" right? And you'd prefer we not "patronize" blacks, right? Yet, as son as the Africnas start killing themselves, the Great White Father is suposed to come in and rescue them. Had we been there a year before, you liberals, and the Rwandans themselves ( having been well trained to play the race card) would have been complainin of white usurpers.

Please, enough of the guilt over Rwanda. If we have no business there now, we had no business there when the killing was going on. Either the white man has the burden of colonizing Africa, or he doesnt. Either the whote race is superior, or it is not. If it is not superior, then we had no reason to clean up the Rwandans's mess.

( And dont even start with that, "we started it with the Europeans" nonsense. Or perhaps the Indians cam justify their ills on the American conquest of 200 years ago? Or the blacks on slavery that ended 150 years ago? Or the Muslims on the invaion of Andalusia 800 years ago?)

"toke forces" and he didn't inhale?

Robert Schwartz.

Almost, but not quite:

He refused to countenance a word which would have required HIM to take action.

He was the commander in chief. He'd have to have ordered a massively complicated (logistics are hell) op in the middle of Africa. We'd have had white guys killing black Africans to keep them from killing black Africans. This was decentralized. There was no Reichsbunker to capture and turn off the switch. This was a huge number of guys who just liked to do this stuff and weren't going to stop just because the government quit telling them it was okay. We'd have been patrolling the place for months, detaining (Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, anyone) or killing any armed man. Now, since the weapon of choice was the machete, that meant there would be a lot of guys who couldn't work their farms. Or walk down the road to help a buddy. Or "carry" for protection.
Compared to Iraq, this would have been pure hell.

In the meantime, the usual suspects (how would the congressional black caucus have reacted? How are they on Darfur?) would have been all over Clinton for murder and massacre and racism.

This would not have been the kind of thing Clinton liked.

And part of his problem is that a good proportion of the current left would have been hammering him night and day.
Hell, I even know missionaries who think the US military is the font of all evil who thought US paratroopers were the only answer.
But the left and some of the right would have been howling.
Remember all those clowns who insisted that Somalia must have oil? I'm sure there'd have been editorials in the Nation about cornering the wool market (Ruanda-Burundi is supposed to mean Land of The Painted Sheep).
Clinton was not the man for this job.

What did Clinton lie about exactly? The title you chose for this means you're obviously comparing him to Bush and the differences are too many to even attempt to list. Also, Clinton said that is his biggest regret as President when asked. Don't let your anger over what happened in Rwanda blind you to the facts. That's what happens all too often in this world.

I wish that Mr. Corn would write an article about Darfur and Bush's inactions. Let us not forget Niger and Bush's inactions. Bush's inactions in several African countries should also be noted. In fact I want to blame Bush for all of America's problems and all of our planet's problems. Bush is the problem. He is too much of a psycho and disengaged to to be a leader.

John,

Bill Clinton was, and still is, very much a political animal. I have little doubt that most of what he did was political calculus. Remember the term "triangulation"?

If your intent is Hillary-bashing, it would be more useful to focus on her and not on her husband's perceived failings. I have no idea if Bill Clinton could have done much to stop the genocide in Rwanda, but I do know that he is not averse to admitting his shortcomings (unlike the current resident of the WH).

Perhaps the Clinton Global Initiative is Bill's way of trying to make amends for not doing enough in Africa while he was president? He is serious about AIDS relief. Thousands upon thousands more people are getting anti-retroviral medicine because of his organization.

While on his 6-nation African trip, in Rwanda, he visited a Rwandan genocide memorial, and expressed regret for what he says was his "personal failure" to try to prevent the slaughter in 1994. When asked if part of his agenda for helping Rwanda battle pediatric HIV and AIDS was to right some wrongs during his presidency, he said, "I am not doing this as an atonement. I am doing this because it is what I think I should be doing. I think I should be helping as a private citizen to solve the problems of the world as I can solve in my private capacity."

Someone actually said to me recently, "Clinton's sex life was none of our business". She actually fell for that little rewrite of history! I had to remind her that the sex itself wasn't the problem. Jeesh if I had sex (of any kind) in my office during work hours, I'd be fired. Shouldn't the president be held to a higher standard? Worst of all, is that this "supporter of womens rights" lied over and over making all the women involved, including his wife, looks like liars, fools or both. As for Rwanda, Clinton and the UN knew what was going on. If you watched that documentary then you know they were getting direct reports of the atrocities and the people were begging for our help. It is to our everlasting shame that we did nothing to help those people.

Seems the UN is the center of ignorance, forget Clinton. That democrats still remain mum about its irrelevance and corruption, but decried Bolton's appointment pretty much shows their priorities.

Has the UN been relevant since 1991? No.

To quote Ralph Peters:

"Diplomacy is dead. Countless zombies continue to populate embassy receptions or feed from the trough at the United Nations, but as an effective tool to solve the world's most important problems, diplomacy as we have known it is finished."

Rwanda was something the World ignored, not just Clinton. Protecting the vehicle of diplomacy was Clinton's fault, the dems protecting it from Bolton is downright laughable.

An grievous error of inaction vs. a greivous error of action...

Interesting...

-T

Richard,

I agree with much of what you say, although, mandating US action, and mandating specific action by the commander in chief are not mutually exclusive. One involves the other.

Logistics are most assuredly hell, I learned that in Afghanistan. I've never been to Africa.

Many in the Black Caucus are now calling for more US intervention in Darfour.

I usually agree with James Joyce - "HIstory is a nightmare from which we must awaken."

"You do not attack God's children and expect God to sit idly by."

So you are saying that the insurgents, and their ilk that WAS the Taliban, are holy in God's eyes?

Democratic Israel, newly democratic (still suffering birth pangs) Iraq are evil and of this world...

How utterly medieval of you

Clinton told his people to not use the word genocide, as that would entail an obligation to intervene

They knew damn well what was happening, the French assisted the slaughterers from Gallic pride.

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Or banal men, like Slick Willy.

History is too often a recurring dream...

Good men doing nothing vs. Bad Men doing something... interesting.

-T

"Worst of all, is that this "supporter of womens rights" lied over and over making all the women involved, including his wife, looks like liars, fools or both."

WHAT????????????????????????

You may have perceived it that way, but most women did not. Speak for yourself.

Corn lied and Cornholio died.

Speaking of lying and dying...
_________

George Bush. "One dead American for every day in office".

by Mike Whitney

President Bush's latest milestone in the war on terror has been predictably
ignored in the mainstream media. Bush, who is now in the fifth year of his
presidency, has served 1727 days in office. With the death toll in Iraq
currently at 1873 servicemen, Bush can now boast that at least one American has
died for every day he's been in office; a sobering tribute to a man who wants to
be remembered "a war president".

Filling up Arlington Every Day

from ICH

But would any of you have supported military action in Rwanda? Or would that have been labelled a "misadventure" and a "quagmire" as soon as American blood was spilled in the name of freeing an oppressed people?

Rwanda didn't have a military on the scale of Iraq's, but an intervention to stop the genocide would have certainly required years of effort and probably the lives of numerous American soldiers and innocent Rwandan's caught in the crossfire (I rather doubt the Hutus would have just rolled over). Would that have been worth it to stop the genocide? If so, why weren't the Iraqis worth saving? I mean, Bush was wrong about Iraq's WMD capability (it's hard to honestly say "he lied" when Clinton, Gore, and France all botched their intelligence and thought Iraq had an extensive WMD program as well), but Saddam's acts of genocide against the Kurds were listed as a reason for going to war (maybe WMD got played up more, but I doubt the Kurds are going to quibble about that now that nerve agent isn't raining down on their families).

So basically what I'm asking is this: why was intervention in Rwanda (or Darfur today, for that matter) justified, while intervention in Iraq is not? Why would toppling Rwanda's murderous, genocidal terror regime have been a good thing, if toppling Saddam's murderous, genocidal terror regime was an unequivocable mistake? If anything, Iraq was certainly more of a threat to it's neighbor's than Rwanda ever was, so it would seem that regime change in Iraq was more essential.

I can see how one can realistically argue WTF's position, namely that we should have ignored both situations and not tried to play world police. The opposite stance is also defensible: we should have stopped the genocide in Rwanda, we should have stopped the genocide in Iraq, and we probably ought to stop all the nastiness going on in Darfur and North Korea, among other places. But it seems somewhat hypocritical for David to take a stance in the middle and say that one is right and one is wrong.

I guess the best question to pose to Mr. Corn is this: if it had been Bush in office during the Rwandan massacre, and he had sent military forces to Rwanda to force the Hutus to end the genocide, could you honestly say you would you have supported his actions? If yes, then what exactly is it you have against the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq?

Antoine, here's Arianna's old blog. You can check out Brock. I was a regular there from the beginning. I, for one, don't think you & Brock are one and the same.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/blog/index.php

Heyaah, Mr. David Corn, better up your deathcount--approx three million North Korean citizens died in the work camps and from famine during Clinton's presidency, while slick Willie tried to rework his role in history into a nobel peace prize by playing bilateral footsie with Kim Jong Il.

I only speak for myself, of course, but I'd have to be assured that what my governmental representatives were telling me was actually the truth, before I could agree to commit American lives and tax treasury to ANY intervention.

Since it has proven incabable of speaking and/or acting in an honorable fashion, my government would be hard pressed to garner my approval for any such action. Establish a truly representative government where the voices of the people and not those of the corporations who have most to profit from such worldly interventions are what counted and the likelihood of support changes significantly.

-T

Clinton should have gone into Bosnia sooner, he should have taken out Saddam after the inspectors were expelled. There are a lot of things that CLinton should have done but he was not elected on his foreign policy enlightenment and at the time the voices crying for us to get involved were few and easy to ignore.

I wonder how many will reevalute W ten years from now as they rethink Clinton.

jdymstryoda, Romeo D'allaire, the UN's soldier on the spot, said himself that as little as five thousand troops would have stopped the genocide. He pleaded for reinforcements.
Read his book.
Rwanda and Iraq are not the same a'tall.

Robert Schwartz;

Again, I call a near-miss.

Clinton could have done "something". But doing enough would have been a military op of substantial size with free and easy ROEs.

We are currently doing "something", with the USAF providing transport for AU troops and some commo and intel. This is more than Clinton did, and not enough.

In fact, Bush being Bush and the left being the left, the left is beating up on Bush for not doing anything when, in fact, he is doing something. It's not that they actually care, but it gives them an excuse. Should Bush have started doing "enough", there'd be a different set of excuses.

But, as we see, it's possible to do something short of recolonizing the place. But if that isn't what's done, then it isn't enough.

BTW. Found "Sanders of The River" by Wallace. Sort of a fictional account of a Brit keeping the peace, sort of, in Darkest Africa. Couldn't write that today (pub. 1930) But, in those days it worked. Can't even say that today. I found it in an antique shop and discovered that it's available at Amazon. I could triple my money.

The difference between liberals and so-called conservatives is that liberals demand honesty from even out own, while conservatives circle the wagons and tell lie over overlapping lie to gain political advantage. Alos did you mean that Congress wants to reduce Medicaid?

In ten years...when "The Pet Goat" is the only Book in the GWB presidential library and the legacy of "Choked on Preztel, fell off bike and run over by a Segway during the last week in office" is the HIGHLIGHT of the "memories" film...

-T

uhhh.. yugoslavia?

My favorite criticism of Bush? That he squandered the international support he had after 9/11. Which begs the question: When was the last time the world took action? (I will never trust the democratic party to handle foreign policy. Individuals yes, but the party,no.)

What happened to the UN after Gulf War I?

Watch the National Geographic shows on 9/11. Gives a whole new meaning to failure to act. We were absolutely adrift in foreign policy for 8 years.

Clinton may have been a friend to the world, but he was no leader of it. Please blame Bush for everything wrong with the world, at least we can agree that he is reponsible. I won't make that mistake about Clinton. Even hillary would have been better.

I'm confused. Mr. Corn seems to be saying that the U.S. had a moral obligation to do something effective to stop the Rwanda genocide. Yet he criticizes President Bush strongly for the Iraq war. In both cases, an innocent civilian population was suffering horribly and many, many people were being murdered. How does Mr. Corn distinguish the two? Is it that Mr. Bush didn't get U.N. agreement before going in? If so, would he have expected Mr. Clinton to wait to take action until U.N. agreement was reached? What if the U.N. had never agreed? Or, does Mr. Corn condemn Mr. Bush for making WMD the main reason for entering Iraq rather than the human rights violations? If so, what is more important - that people are freed from tyranny and murder, or that the "right" reasons for a military intervention are made?

I don't see how you can condemn Clinton for not acting, and condemn Bush for acting, when in both cases the lives and freedom of a people were at stake. You'd have to argue that Saddam wasn't bad enough to warrant action while the Hutus were. And that would seem like a curious distinction for a liberal to make -- just how many thousands have to be murdered, and how fast, before a Republican presdident's military intervention is acceptable? After all, hadn't Saddam murdered more people in his reign than the Hutus did? Does it mean that if a tyrant murders at a slow enough pace, then liberals don't care? Or does it mean that rescuing people is only acceptable if the hallowed liberal institutions (like the UN) give their stamp of approval first? Or do liberals like Mr. Corn only want to see people freed if a liberal President does it?

I do not count myself as an expert on African affairs, but on the whole:

Much of the violence on the continent today can be traced to the direct effects of colonialization, such as when the Dutch played one tribe off another in Leopold's personal fiefdom, the Congo. The notion that re-colonizing the place would be preferable is laughable.

History is a nightmare, as I noted.

One is reminded of Ghandi's comment on English Civilization...

One is also reminded of the British forcing the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis into a made up country called Iraq...

The War Party Unhinged

The Iraqi Constitution is a prelude to the New American Constitution that bush plans to unleash on Americans

IMHO, in cases like this presidents can't win. If a lot of people are being murdered, you can either take direct action or no. If you do take direct action, then people will criticize you. Like Bush and Iraq. Sure, you may say that Saddam was a great guy and good to the people, but the large number of mass graves and his documented support of terrorists says otherwise. If you don't, then people will criticize you. Like in this case. Invading (or sending troops in) to Rwanda would have the same basic results as Iraq did - every Jihadi in the area would stream in to fight. Except back then, I don't think we were as well prepared.

(first timer) Great title, reasonable post. The USA has signed up for, in the case of genocide, DOING SOMETHING. Does the signature of whoever signs in the name of the USA mean something or not? If genocide, THEN action. If not genocide, then non-action is OK. This is the current logic in Sudan, a slo-mo genocide. (Bush should ask for a declaration of war.) um, I guess I'm one of those neo-cons perhaps not welcome here. I believe world peace is a good goal, and even achievable in my lifetime -- in a World Without Dictators. Of course, all the criticism of Bush for being imperfect sort of justifies Clinton NOT doing anything -- and for many, that is the purpose of the criticism. To make sure "good" America does nothing, even if that allows evil to triumph. Most prolly think it was good for the US to leave Vietnam. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians would have had to be murdered before an anti-war protester thinks post-war genocide was worse than 15 more years of fighting? (1974 - 1989)

Savage Conservative Warmongers

Those who support the Iraq war should enlist and go to Iraq.

Hajji-

judging by your work, you are obsessed about Bush and where he has gone wrong, but like every bleating democrat these days, you can state no alternative.

Lebanon would be better in Syria's hands. Russia should have been allowed to 'annex' the Ukraine. Iraq would be a paradise, once Saddam died and Udai and Qusai got the keys to the realm. Lybia would be better able to defend itself with nukes.

You have no plan...that was the problem with Al-Queda in the 90's. Fear of action, a fear most of the world shares, means taking no action and finding justification in it. (Clinton knew about Bin Laden, but feared snatching him would cause massive terrorist counterstrikes. They decided not to address the Taliban precisely because they knew they couldn't declare it a victory...

A soldier a day? Where does that put Lincoln, FDR, Washington? I realize you must be incapable of evalauting anything but thru deaths. Go protest alcohol...you may save more lives.

State an alternative...please, at least there would be some debate. Go find a political party that agrees with you and can represent you-maybe you need to visit Stormfront(a neo-nazi democratic organization) which shares your views about taking actions in foreign Countries.

Find a hill, dig a hole and go live in it. Pray that no one bothers you.

For all of the people that Clinton should have "done something" about Rwanda, or that Bush should "do something" about Darfur, occasionally it would be nice if someone actually articulated what that "something" ought to be (or have been). People who are hell-bent on massacring one another will not be stopped by diplomatic initiatives or harsh words. At the very least it takes a sustained bombing campaign, but more often it requires boots on the ground. In the case of Rwanda it would have taken at least tens of thousands boots on the ground. That means thousands of troops who are trained and ordered to kill or dropping bombs that will necessarily kill a lot more people than just the bad guys. It could very well be the case that the devil's arithmetic would say that using military force would have resulted in lives saved. I don't know. But it seems like the height of hypocricy to condemn Clinton for not doing anything in Rwanda, and at the same time deem the Bush administration criminal for having "done something" when it came to Saddam Hussein.

Gerald,
I completely agree with you. Everyday citizens have no right in the actions of the military. Those who protest the War have as much validity as those who favor it.

I promise not to express my views if you promise not to express yours. Furthermore, no President should every be elected without having served in the military.

What a democratic country that would be...

MarkJ, I think it is imperative to remember that under international law, UN member countries are required to do something about genocide. And you know, David pointed that out in his article. And the people of Iraq are going to be a lot less free once the Islamic law written into the constitution takes effect. Then you can talk about the great emancipator that is Bush. Setting up a Theocracy was our goal in Iraq, that'll be the talking point for the 2006 elections. ~A!

Look, Liberals ought to drop the phony moralizing and admit what they are: neo-Isolationists on a par with Pitchfork Pat Buchanon. Rwanda and Darfur and Iraq and Afghanistan are far-away places filled with people with brown and black skins that Liberals just don't care about. Everyone knows that to stop people being hacked to death by machetes you need to kill them. Running around acting self important like characters from the West Wing (Clinton's fatal flaw) won't do anything or save a single life. Clinton over and over again would not expend ANY political capital to save lives when the US had the power to do so. This was the pattern in Bosnia (where the US did not intervene until well after Srebenica and that massacre), in Haiti (where the US sailed away after a group of thugs postured on the docks at Port-Au-Prince), in Somalia (where Osama boasted that Muslims had driven the US away "shamefully" by causing only 18 casualties). At every turn Clinton was weak in foreign affairs because he just didn't care. This isolationism to be fair was part of the humbug-Hypocrisy of the Media, political classes, and both Parties during the Nineties. If anything defined both Democrats and Republicans along with the Media it was hypocrisy. Pretending to care about victims far away but not really giving one damn. [Rwanda was basically the French Mitterand Govt encouraging the massacre to gain favorable mineral concessions for Total-Elf-Fina]. Give Bush credit at least for this much: after 9/11 he realized that yes, no man nor country is an island and that oppression and evil in Afghanistan can and would (just as State predicted in the 1996 Memo opposing the US acceding to Sudan kicking bin Laden out to Afghanistan) result in murder here at home on a mass scale. Over 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because Clinton (and Bush) allowed evil in the person and organization of bin Laden and Al Qaeda to fester unmolested in Afghanistan. US military force and foreign policy does not do "nuance" well, we either have the traditional isolationism or interventionism (to protect ourselves at home: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq). If you are really concerned about people in Rwanda or Darfur you'll have to support interventionism because ONLY the US has the capacity to stop the killing. Bosnia and Kosovo showed NATO's utter uselessness, Rwanda and Cambodia and Congo and most of West Africa the UN's total failure. Kofi Annan famously ordered Canadian UN Peacekeeper Gen Dallaire (a good man haunted by the genocide, attempted suicide) to "stand down to preserve the UN's neutrality." Dallaire and his tiny band of soldiers were willing to fight and die to protect at least SOME people in the face of evil incarnate. While people were hacking to death infants, women, children, and the elderly, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, and the Media shed crocodile tears. What this country needs IMHO is a real old-time FDR Democratic Party, purged of useless and hypocritical neo-isolationist Liberals who can rally the country for true mobilization and much bigger military (Clinton cut the military by more than 40%, remember the "Peace Dividend?") to address things like Rwanda, Darfur, and other places before the situation escalates out of control, millions die and the stage gets set for evil to metastisize and use the graveyard as a staging area to attack the Continental United States. Bush does not see this but at least he will fight somewhere, and however ineptly move to get rid of evil in some places, which is better than craven Clintonism (Dick Morris derived poll-watching). Neo-isolationism in the world of jet travel, the internet, global trade, and satellite TV is not realistic or sensible. Democrats ala FDR's Good Neighbor policy used to know this, too bad PC multi-culti moral relativism has changed them into humbug-filled hypocrites of the highest order (even Pat Robertson doesn't reach the humbug level of Democrats).

Saddam got action. Don't you remember GW1? The objections to bush's war is not that nothing should be done, but that Bush 1 did enough, and had good reason for not doing more.
Do you have so little faith in our Armed Forces, and Bush's father?
In both cases Rwanda and Iraq, it has proven difficult to gather both of the things needed to intervene in an internal problems of another country. Sometimes you can't gather the political will, and sometimes you can't gather the right information and strategy. Rwanda- no political will. Iraq- nogood strategy.

Why the HELL are we discussing what Clinton did or did not do 10 years ago? This hand wringing is taking us off course here. I personally did not like Clinton, and yes, he should have done something about Rwanda. But what does that have to do with the Lies of George W. Bush?

Clinton did not lie about Rwanda, did he? He ignored what was going on in Rwanda, and that was very bad. But did he lie about it? This whole thread is bogus.

Who speaks for the thousands who were raped, tortured and gassed in Iraq by Saddam and his Baath party sadists? Not David Corn, or the rest of the far left. If David Corn puts the blame on Clinton for ignoring Rwanda, then how is Corn's standing then with the Iraqi people's nightmare? Indeed, when the opportunity came, when it came down to the nitty-gritty, the left fought against saving them, purely because it was a "neo-con" with nads in office. Or because "the U.N." wanted a few more commitee meetings. Or because we needed to wait for Saddam to detonate a WMD during a televised conference where he says very slowly " I... have ... W...M...D".

Has it occurred to any of you on the far left that Bush's intention to clean up his father's mess in 91' is a noble, commendable, and "liberal" thing to do?

David, lamenting your own lack of scrutiny towards Clinton's fence sitting, 10 years after the fact, doesn't absolve you from anything, but only shows that liberty and life isnt your true focus. And Im sure the Baathist party in Iraq appreciated it.

I wonder if you will be lamenting your previous positions again when Saddam's trials start, and we see again, just what a monster he was?

So Clinton "knew" because a group of advocates told him? must a president believe everything he is told...even if from the best sources?

I would argue that it is the president's responsibility to be wary of agitated advocates....both President Bush and President Clinton should have questioned intelligence on Iraq's WMD potential as the prime examples.

You leave unexamined just what the USA, or NATO or the UN
could have done in the time available.

20/20 hindsight.

Jay T.

Remember, it was the Repubs who looked on with approval as Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians.

It was the U.S. who put the Baathists in power in the first place. Saddam was an assasin for the CIA - getting rid of pesky communists.

Saddam's trials should be very interesting - especially if televised and he is given the right to a fair trial.

At least Talabani has stated that he will not sign a death warrent, and will resign if one is proffered.

As they once said on Laugh-In "Verry Interesting."

As much as I think Clinton was as weasily as Nixon, I don't blame him for this one.

There's NO WAY we would have backed him, especially after Somalia, where our zeal for saving Africans from themselves was met by the reality that it can't be done.

One of these centuries, decent Africans will stand up.

If the left continues its Bush-Lied-People-Died trope long enough, it's possible somebody other than Sheehanoias might come to believe it. As the inestimable Hitchens points out, "Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; and Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz." Iraq was implacably advancing toward the acquisiton of a nuclear weapon and delivery system with the connivance of the UN, France, Russia and other interested and bribable parties. Yes, we could have continued to bury our heads in the sand the way we did as the Rwanda cauldron came to a boil. That certainly was an option.

John Benson,
You bring up an interesting point, believing that I favored monarchies or oligarchies. If people were infallible, those, perhaps, would be the best forms of government. The trouble is, every once and awhile, you need to throw the rascals out, and that cannot be accomplished under either of those scenarios.

If you will notice from my previous postings, I am just the opposite of what you think I am and very much for the triumph of the individual over both big government and big business. (Read Plato's recommendation of the Philosopher King state (monarchy/oligarchy) in "The Republic" and Aristotle's devastating refutation of it in "The Metaphysics".) Aristotle pretty well debunks both the monarcy and oligarchial forms of government in a totally empirical, a priori manner.

As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the rest." Of course, what we have here in the U.S. is not a true democracy, but a representative republic.

So, do we tweak the current system or throw the baby out with the bathwater? In some ways I am in favor of a parliamentary form of government, because that is closest to a true democracy. But sometimes elected officials have to make tough decisions that might not be in the immediate best interests of their constituents. Are we to have the elected officials penalized for choosing the right thing over political expediency?

First, if I were god/king, I would elect a President to one six-year term. We are forever campaigning for the next election these days, immediately after the last election. Next I would shorten the official campaign season to a few weeks, as they do in Britain. Finally, I would adopt a partial paliamentary type of government, allowing for the call of new elections under certain circumstances.

The computer age brings us squareface with all different types of alternatives. With instant access and instant feedback, why do we need a legislative branch of government at all? As dire chance and fateful cockup would have it, we are all now able to become our own legislators.

Those are but a few quick thoughts on the matter. More later.

Boy the irony is deep around here. You're bashing Clinton for having done nothing to intervene to stop genocide and, yet, had he done so, many thousands of Rwandans surely would have died in the fighting between U.S. and Rwandan government forces. What, then, would have prevented the same charges being laid at Clinton's door as you now lay at Bush's? If you would like to see the U.S. intervene to stop governments from butchering their own people and dumping them in mass graves then you're going to have to come to grips with the reality that defeating brutal tyrannies is bloody business -- it was during WWII, it was in Kosovo, it is in Iraq, and it surely would have been in Rwanda (and the Clinton administration fully realized this--which is why it did nothing). If the left thinks fighting tyranny is nonetheless worth it, it is doing an absolutely TERRIBLE job of making that clear.

At last! an honest man . Yhank you.

Diogenes

David, the title of this thread seems odd. I agree with flan, clinton committed many crimes in his 8 years in office, but what does that have to do with the current regime? Genocide has been an ongoing problem around the world, but that is a far cry from a president who lies about everything he said regarding Iraq in order to attack and occupy a foreign country. saddam was murdering innocents, but we have taken over that position, 100,000 and counting, 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under, and what for? There were no WMD's, saddam and OBL were in no way connected and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. David, you have dropped the ball on this one.

....a neocon with nads in office.
oh, he's got nads alright!

"Remember, it was the Repubs who looked on with approval as Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians."

FDR firebombed Dresden for the Soviets. We treated them like allies and ceded Eastern Europe to him...This argument that we cannot change our policy is precisely the reason dems have no standing in foreign Policy. We cannot correct mistakes? Then what is the obssession for dems to have Bush admit his? Moral vindication? By the way Bush has liberated more people than FDR...

"There's NO WAY we would have backed him, especially after Somalia" -so basically no sense in even bringing it up to Congress. What a leader.

"Why the HELL are we discussing what Clinton did or did not do 10 years ago?"

So we stop discussion of Iraq in 2013?

I love how the spin turns to clinton when bush is on the ropes.

folks, history is a good lesson. but stay focused on who is in control of the classroom today. btw what was clinton's approval rating during said crisis as opposed to bush's current approval rating with iraq? =D

Maybe this was brought up but in my mind the difference in the way Clinton reacted to things and the way Bush does is that Clinton understood the need for a coalition. He understood the need for the world’s cooperation. Saddam may have been a bad man but I don't see why our killing of 100,000 citizens of Iraq and destroying a country is somehow protecting it.
Clinton also understood that history was happening as the country acted. Every move he made would have a reaction. Bush is totally oblivious to that fact. That is obvious from the lousy planning. I don’t think Clinton would have walked into Rwanda thinking he could make money for Halliburton either.
The posts that discuss the logistics and intricacies of planning for an intervention speak to the nightmare. What should he have done? What did he do? It’s history. One post spoke with eloquence of Clinton’s actions now concerning HIV and the medical needs of those in Rwanda and his doing it not for atonement but because it is something that needs to be done. If you guys want to bash Clinton go ahead. He wasn’t perfect by any means. But I see a man who knows he has the ability to make a difference in the world and he goes out and tries to help.

The Two Green Zones by Dahr Jamail

Slocum, fighting tyranny is one thing. I would give my own life if it came to that. But what is going on in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting tyranny. If you think so, then you need to do some more research and then come back and tell me how this war is about fighting tyranny.

And before you use the Saddam was a very bad man and he killed thousands of his own people, don't even bother. We were not told we were going to war to free an oppressed people. We were told he had WMD's and it would be better to go in now than wait for a mushroom cloud. In reality we went in because 1) Saddam tried to assinate Bush's daddy 2) Oil 3) To build permanent bases - we've got 14 of 'em in Iraq now. 4)Carpetbagging opportunities (i.e. Haliburton and KBR getting rich off of this war). Saddam being a tyrant had nothing to do with it.

And beyond that, pretending we went in for that "noble cause" of getting rid of tyranny, we went about it all the wrong way and have totally f*cked it all up. If nothting else, this administration should be impeached for ineptitude.

Slocum, fighting tyranny is one thing. I would give my own life if it came to that. But what is going on in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting tyranny. If you think so, then you need to do some more research and then come back and tell me how this war is about fighting tyranny.

And before you use the Saddam was a very bad man and he killed thousands of his own people, don't even bother. We were not told we were going to war to free an oppressed people. We were told he had WMD's and it would be better to go in now than wait for a mushroom cloud. In reality we went in because 1) Saddam tried to assinate Bush's daddy 2) Oil 3) To build permanent bases - we've got 14 of 'em in Iraq now. 4)Carpetbagging opportunities (i.e. Haliburton and KBR getting rich off of this war). Saddam being a tyrant had nothing to do with it.

And beyond that, pretending we went in for that "noble cause" of getting rid of tyranny, we went about it all the wrong way and have totally f*cked it all up. If nothting else, this administration should be impeached for ineptitude.

sorry about that - it was acting like it was still in preview and so I clicked Post -

Robert,
I read the Dahr Jamail site earlier today. It was a very good article.

Hello all,

As a new comer I feel the need to point out some of my observations over the past few weeks.

Let me say first that I am a lover, not a fighter. But I care about the world and our roles in this world. Does that qualify me as a contributer here?

It seems that the bitter bickering is as infinite here as the problems abroad that lead to horrific bloodshed.

As a great nation, I wonder if keeping and holding peace is a possibility. If this blog is a microcosm of some of the worlds struggles, it would seem that we need to work much harder at discourse that invokes appreciation for ones views rather than provocation.

In scanning the posts of the past weeks, it is dissapointing to witness the turbity of political debate elevate to this critical mass. Particularly by the right leaning individuals.

How can we as a nation lead the way to peaceful solutions when the best of us, many who chat on this blog, allow ourselves to become so debased? Our IQ seems to drop a couple of digits in the attempt to show whose side is smarter. Thus both sides of the dispute seem as dumb as dog shit. Furthermore in such a primitive mind, violence becomes a likely option.

In all truth, it appears to me that 'Antoine' and 'bartender' would smile to see 'Haji' slaughtered. To hear his daughter beg for mercy.

I can only hope that is not so, but it sure seems like it.

I have great hope for the human experiment. Thank you for the time to allow me to put my two cents in.

Here's an example of our success in Iraq. Energy Security. Miss Manners whould be mighty angry if I posted the list of attacks on pipelines and refineries listed here. Does anyone have a solution to that little problem?

weefz- "I love how the spin turns to clinton when bush is on the ropes."

on the ropes? You mean he is unelectable? 10 months ago, was he on the ropes? AP/ipsos has it 60% stay and finish, 37% want to leave? I promise you that I won't be voting for him again, but then neither will the other 60 million who voted for him.

As a phrase 'on the ropes' also implies, he is getting pummeled. Who is doing this pummeling? Surely not the Democratic Party. I noticed that the Democratic congress has a lower approval than Bush. Of course they still have a higher approval rating tham Cindy sheehan...

You have no leaders. You have nothing. You have no vision, no plan, and no clue. If you want a referendum on the War, wait until the finish the job crowd drops below 50%.

You want change? State an alternative. You can't and you will keep getting pummeled at every election that foreign policy is issue number one. You won't have a democratic senate for the next six years, you won't have a democratic president for the next 7.

If this is a pummeling, then call me a masochist. Beat away drummer boy, beat away.

Jeanne,

First - I promise not to use your name on a post when I mean to write it to you. I think I did that not once, but twice last night.

Second - great, devastating post at 91. I will now do what I hate people doing to me. I will answer your question with a question and then a comment.

Primo - Do you think the attacks would decrease if we left?

Segundo - Please note that, on an annualized basis, attacks are down 39% in 2005 from 2004, even with the terrorists becoming more fanatical. Is that perfect? No. Is it getting much better? Yes.

Would Iraq make Rwanda look like a walk in the park in comparison if we left now? I think so.

And here's the list of members who are demanding an inquiry into the Downing Street Memo's. List. I don't see a lot of Republican names on here but maybe they don't think an inquiry is necessary. Let's see, the memo suggests the president intentionally deceived congress. Hmmm.

Here are some issues.
1. secretly decided to go to war;
2. decided to deceive and mislead the Congress and the American people with false claims about both weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam Hussein and 9-11;
3. secretly diverted $700 million from the War in Afghanistan and started bombing Iraq to provoke a war;
4. agreed to go to the UN only to "legalize" an illegal invasion - and then walked out of the U.N. when inspections worked.

Antoine;
Perhaps choosing the tone you use when interacting with Pandemoniac is unfair, but I see a very pronounced condescending tone in those posts. You keep saying we don't propose any ideas, yet I proposed one earlier. Pandemoniac made reference to it, and I stand by that as the core of the problem.

I'm prepared be disagreed with and told I'm wrong, I'm not often treated to this minimal level of courtesy by Bush supporters. The objections are not with what I write, as far as I can tell they don't even bother to read them, or scan them with the sole intent to find some minor point to resume the shrill scream. The compulsion is to prove they can scream with more hate than the other side. Usually they win.

If you are serious in you desire to change minds here, you would be better served with discussion and less liberals are non-thinking illogical sods. It is no more true than saying all conservatives are feral savages, based on some of the outrageous things said here at times.

Jeanne,

The Downing Street Memo is to the left what the missing White House FBI files were to the right in the 1990's - the Holy Grail of wrongdoing in the administration. Don't you think the New York Times would have been all over the memo like white on rice if there had been anything to it?

You know what Antoine,
I have no idea what the answer is. I really don't. What I do know is, this war is being managed by an incompetent neocon who needs to step aside and let the big boys do the work.
I think that the days of knowing what to do are long gone. It has been called a quagmire for a reason.
I think that if real, honest, reconstruction and planning had happened we would have been in much better shape.

Note to self,
Stop posting as me.

I wrote to me - Don't you think the New York Times would have been all over the memo like white on rice if there had been anything to it?
THE NEW YORK TIMES! HA HA HA HA HA
No.

This is a very good post from David Corn. I'd like to have a go at answering some of the points people have made here...

1) Clinton didn't lie about Rwanda

Unfortunately, he did. His administration consistently played down atrocities in Rwanda. In particular, they refused to use the word genocide, when they knew that reflected what has happening, because of the legal obligations using the word would entail.

As Christine Shelley of the State Department said, squirming before journalists:

Q. "...Why can't you say that word genocide has happened?"

Shelley: "There is a reason for the selection of words we have made... There are obligations which arise with the use of that term."

Shelley was at least honest about that. But not about what they knew.

2) Rwanda's genocide was not the direct responsibility of the US government

The US was certainly not complicit in the way that the French government surely was - but other than France, the US government was in the best position of any outside government to influence international policy and to stop the genocide, but chose not to.

The UN had a small peace-keeping contingent in Rwanda at the beginning of the genocide - the Clinton administration was instrumental in withdrawing it

3) If the US had intervened in Rwanda it would have required a major military effort of the kind David Corn does not support in Iraq

No it wouldn't have. As someone pointed out, General Romeo Dallaire called for a small number of troops to supplement his UN force.

They would not have had to have been American, either - the US could have provided logistical support and transport for an African force.

4) People wanted the US to "do something" - but what was that something?

Human rights groups offered very specific recommendations, many of which required no military action at all, including:

a) Jamming the radio broadcasts that were instrumental in organising the genocide - this would have been easily possible;
b) Expelling the Rwandan government from the United Nations to send a clear message - instead it continued to sit in on debates on its own genocide;
c) US pressure on the French government to stop supporting the Hutu chauvinist government and impose an arms blockade;
d) Acknowledging that a genocide was underway and condemning it forcefully to deprive the murderers of the impression that we didn't care - instead we er... showed quite clearly that we didn't care at all.

None of these basic steps were even tried.

Likewise, there are similar steps to be taken over Darfur right now that could make a difference before considering military action. Doing something about Darfur does not mean the United States invading and occupying the Sudan - it means listening to what people pleading for help on the ground have to say and seeing what can be done.

5) Why support intervention in Rwanda but not Iraq?

There is no comparision at all between contributing to a minor intervention to stop massive ongoing atrocities and a full-scale invasion and brutal occupation of another country at a time when there was not a genocide, with a view to controlling its economic and political future in the self-interests of a foreign state.

Intervening in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991, in Bosnia in 1995 and Sierra Leone in 2000 in a limited way during a period of huge massacres could count as humanitarian intervention. The Iraq War of the spring of 2003, and its ugly follow up from May 2003-the present, certainly does not, and will rightly be remembered in ignominy for the suffering it has caused rather than alleviated.

Human Rights Watch has written about and made a similar distinction in their own discussion of humanitarian intervention.

When discussing intervention, there are a range of different ways of intervening, some OK, some terrible, some hideous (none will be perfect). You can distinguish between them. It is not a question of being in favour of all or nothing.

6) Liberals are just isolationists who don't care about the world outside the USA

This blind bit of partisanship is clearly contradicted by the very post we are discussing, as well as plenty else.

The world's most committed human rights groups tend to be filled with liberals and left-wingers. You may wish to ask why. (My suggestion is because defending human rights consistently involves a mindset willing to challenge the powerful rather than inventing excuses for them)

Anyway, it has been a while since Bush mentioned Darfur. The post below about Uzbekistan is relevant too.

http://www.protectdarfur.org/

Right, i'm done now, hope i wasn't too boring...

John,
After four plus years of Republican dominance in all branches of government I think it begs the question...who's driving the boat?
Who's in charge?
Everything indicates that the simple answer to that is...Republicans. Conservatives.
And with full control for all this time still the best excuse you people have for why things still aren't right is...Liberals?
I thought you folks were all about the Ownership society. Well, then take ownership. Bush approval rating at an all time low, Congress approval rating down, Greenspan bursts the "property" bubble and accounts it to the massive deficits the country is running under the Bush administration, Afghanistan still a mess, Iraq an even bigger mess, Americans more deeply divided along social political lines than ever before, and gas prices soaring. Who's fault is all that...listen to Fox/Talk radio/tabloid propaghanda machine and you hear Liberals.
Take ownership, if you want to be in charge, then be in charge.
The liberals will be there when you're done.

Alex Higgins,
Too boring? No way. Thank you for your post. It was very enlightening.

John Benson,

I thought I had addressed most, if not all, the questions people had. I will read more carefully.

But remember - I'm not the one who screams obscenities. That is for children and malcontents.

I'm not the one calling people liars and frauds. That is for the flotsam and jetsam of the world.

Remember, I hate what I consider the stupidity, not whom I consider the stupid person. The posters here are all probably representative of society on the niceness scale.

I have posted on topics ranging from Iraq to health care to education to a number of different issues. Other than you and Jeanne I am met with either silence or snide commments on the serious postings.

It's hard not to be condenscedning when a valid question is met with a "Well, so's your old lady." -type response.

Please take a cue from some of the other non-liberal posters. Unless and until the bloggers here begin to formulate viable ideas rather than just baying at the moon, most Americans will not take them seriously.

There is a greatness in the American spirit, the American soul that transcends politics. We should all strive to celebrate that sensation, not our darker sides.

Don't spread this around but I do not place blame on Clinton for what occurred in Rwanda. I do not believe this country would have backed an intervention into what was essentially another country's un-civil war. If I recall correctly, I
didn't see France, Germany or the Brits lifting a finger to do anything either. What occurred there was tragic, but certainly not the fault of one man or one country. There is also proof that Clinton would not have obtained the backing to intervene there. When Clinton did intervene in Kosovo, he did it under the leadership of NATO. The U.N. wouldn't even get involved then. Here is what Noam Chompsky had to say about that action: "The removal of the brutal and corrupt regimes of Serbia and Croatia (Milosevic and Tudjman were partners in crime throughout) is an important step forward for the region, and the mass movements in Serbia -- miners, students, innumerable others -- merit great admiration, and provide an inspiring example of what united and dedicated people can achieve." But, not all of this country believed in what Clinton did even then. There were naysayers on the right and left.

Note to lovernotfighter. I enjoy Hajji's wit and humor. He can say more in 3 words than most can do in 50. He is my cousin and I am proud of that. We just come from opposite sides of the political spectrum on a lot of issues. I wouldn't wish to silence him or any of the other visitors to this site. Freedom of speech is a great thing.

Comparing Rwanda to Iraq produces some very interesting results. On the one hand, a president sat on his hands and millions of people died. On the other, a president did something, and several tens of thousands (max, both sides) have died.
Anyone ever remember how many Iraqis would be dead by now, in gruesome ways, if Saddam was still loose? Or are Iraqis not worth our money and sacrifice?
And what about Clinton and all the other Democrats saying Saddam was a "MAJOR DANGER" in the 1990's, and needed to be got rid of? Please, if Bush lied then so did they-first.

Note to self - quit doing what you just apologized for and said you wouldn't do again.

Of course Clinton and Madelaine Albright were telling us during the 90s that Saddam had WMDs and would get more WMDS without sanctions. And Albright was interviewed on TV saying that it was OK to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death to ensure that. And of course that bin Laden used that as a reason for attacking us. So perhaps you should add the deaths of Iraqis' during the 90s and those 3000 Americans who died on and before 9/11 to Clinton's account.

It's a strange day on the cornblog when Tim H sounds liberal? I won't spread it around.

Antoine, please, stop lumping everyone together. I have offered neither snide comments nor silence. I asked you a question in all seriousness and was completely ignored. Practice what you preach!

clinton fucked up this world so badly i dont know how we got thru the 90s. and yes, great plan, bust the mrs. for anything her husband said, did or didnt do. you sorry fuck. cant say something bad about bush and thugs unless you throw in some "what a sorry fuck clinton was". lets take care of the pile of shit we are in right now and then in 8 or 10 yrs, if we are back on the right path by then we can mother fuck clinton again. when i hear "axis of evil" i think of all the sobs in the white house[unless they are on vacation], then its all the sorry sobs who should be at the white house. i'd give 2 in. of my dick to be back in clinton days.

ed-
You had 2 years to select, pick, and groom a candidate with a message. You couldn't do it.

Republicans have held power over all three branches for 5 years, be patient.

So long as your party is split on the war, and the Ipsos poll shows you the divide, you will be adrift. Straddling two positions is a recipe for doom.

If as you believe that Iraq is a terrible mess, why is troop retention level higher than projected?

80% of the country was oppressed by 20%. Now the roles have reversed. Bush was hoping for perfection, but is done waiting on the Sunni's. when is the last time you read about Iraqi troop levels? when is the last time you saw a panel of soldiers(with conflicting views) on the news?

IF there was no clear policy in Iraq, do you think the troops would be reenlisting? You don't know what is happening there, and for you to establish your beliefs based on the media, you are the biggest fool ever.

Please stake the dems to the 'Iraq is a failure' position. When the Iraqi representative appears at the Whitehouse or the UN, shout him down as a liar. Unless Civil War breaks out, and it's kind of hard for the Sunni's to make a move against 80% of the country. This debate ends the day they vote on Constitution. We back off, and the Iraqi's will be hitting the streets. Their streets.

I would stump you by asking when the vote occurs, for someone who has been following failure, you'd probably want to take the day off-
its called for on October 15. More people than the 8 million who voted for the Assembly, will be voting. Worst case, the Sunni's reject in their 3 provinces, and the Assembly says:"Good enough".

The reality is that bribes are being made, and when push comes to shove, the Sunni's go along. If not we leave them to the Iraqi nationals. Our mission is to establish a government. They'll have a Constitution by the end of October. They'll have a government and a plan afew months later. We won't stay much longer. If we were, we would have increased troop levels by now. Part of the plan is to allow the Iraqis to win their own freedom rather than having it handed to them.

When we are bringing home 60,000 troops after the constitution and election, it is going to be real stupid to call it a failure. Maybe July 4th weekend?

When we have established a government we go. There is a constitution that must be ratified, and then the leaders will be selected. these are two short term goals that will break the anti-war dems.

If you guys could hold your chins out just a little further, Rove might do you a favor and knock you unconscious with the first hit. Brace yourself.

Antione;
Please take a cue from some of the other non-liberal posters. Unless and until the bloggers here begin to formulate viable ideas rather than just baying at the moon, most Americans will not take them seriously.
Followed by:
There is a greatness in the American spirit, the American soul that transcends politics. We should all strive to celebrate that sensation, not our darker sides.

I'll take that as a rejection of my belief that dialog is needed. Instead I see that in order to be smart, intelligent and well informed, and American I must agree with you in all particulars. Sounds like a boring world, but I'm sure you'll be quite happy.

Let me say up front, I am a conservative. I warned people of genocide in april 1994. I had a fear that Clinton would handle this the same way he handled Somalia and that is, put his own narcissistic political needs ahead of the proper policy. When the news media gave minimal coverage and almost no video, I was stupified. When Christine Shelley, the State department spokesperson stuttered through the convoluted press conference about "Genocidal acts", but "no genocide". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I thought to myself, using word games to sell Health care or whatever was good old fashioned politics and more of the same for the "war room" of the Clinton administration, but spoon feeding that pablum to the media and then the media walking away scratching their heads thinking what are we going to do now. I can't fault "all" of the left for allowing this to happen. I don't know for sure, but I believe that many on the left and most of the media were whispering to themselves, "Please Bill, Please do something, you can do it, come on boy". He was frozen by his political bungle in Mogadishu. He was in over his head and Stephanopolous said in his book, that Clinton's solution was to call for more brainstorming sessions in hopes that a consensus would emerge...then another, then another. Many people fault GWB for making decisions without consulting the UN or the allies or pollsters. Sometimes presidential leadership requires that America take a stand when the rest of the world is confused and frozen by fear and inaction. Many times the UN, the Europeans, and the American people are waiting to hear leadership get up and walk. Clinton loved to give speeches about, "Never again". He also claims that he would have a greater legacy if he had grand challenges like 911. In this case, nearly a milllion lives hung in the balance and he crawled under the covers and hid. Every time a foreign challenge knocked, he lowered the blinds. I am still disgusted to this day. I believe liberalism is dangerous for Americans and the world, but I can not bring myself to believe that the liberal media and most democrats do not secretly loath this particular episode of cowardice and ineptitude on the part of President Clinton. If they do not get sick at the thought of his indifference and his disregard for the sanctity of these lives, then the level of delusion and self deception of the left is so deep, that I fear that if they will try to spin a holocaust or say "so and so" did it too, then there is absolutely no limits to what horrors they will accomodate to defend their political bretheran and demonize their opponents and when there are no limits to loyalty, the term "never again" can be translated to "Coming to your neighborhood soon".

John, was that your best shot.

I do beleive that rose petals and chocolates marked the Iraq war as a success...greeted as liberators...LOL!
Only five years John...is that all? And yet nothing, still producing nothing other than tired old Liberal bashing.

You type and all I read is a sad monologue of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter talking points. I doubt you even really beleive half of it.
Is there any way you could whine about the Mexican border in your next post, that'd make my day.

Score three more conservative voters for Katrina, she'll hopefully thin out the Republican base, maybe blow a Fox reporter out to sea as well...if we're lucky it'll be OReilly.

Alex at #100. Great thoughts. Hope you will come back and contribute more. Someone above tried to claim that Hussein's Iraq was a grave threat to its neighbors while the situation in Rwanda was not. Actually, Bush the elder stopped short of "finishing the job" in part, many argue, because many of the governments persuaded him the destabilizing Iraw inernally by compeletly taking out its secular tyrant could leave to civil war in Iraq and further destabilize the Middle East as a whole as external interests (e.g., Iran) tried to influence the situation. Meanwhile, horrific tribal conflict and voilence of the kind that occured in Rwanda can and did "threaten" neighboering countries in very real ways such as: (i) send unmanageable amounts of refugees into already troubled countries, and (ii) drawing in members of the same tribal groups, the geographical boundries of which, as many may know, cross over many of the artificial national borders drawn by the colonial powers in Europe so long ago. Side note to Antoine, or shall I call you "Tonito"? If you're going to hang around will you please, please try to post in Spanish again? I had occasional fits of laughter thinking about your earlier attempts and it lifted my day. Must and odd mixed up dialect they use in Saltillo, eh? Riendome a carcajadas ... Cheers.

Sounds like clinton wasn't guilty of looking the other way, but was innocent of "misadventure" involving non-whites.

Of course if he had decided to undoubtadly ruin Rwanda with American intervention (that always happens somehow), we never would have heard about his mistakes for a single moment since he is not an evil inhuman "rethuglikkkan."

If being liberal equals self delusion on an unrecoverable scale (like say a 100,000 point scale) then I don't want to be one anymore, but I do agree that being an anti-war peace creep zealot in the face of genocide is an unforgivable mistake.

Iraq's National Assembly was set to vote on a new law today that would punish members of the parliament who don't show up to vote, but that didn't happen because not enough people showed up to vote.

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the proof is in the pudding.

I won't defend Clinton's dissembling about whether a genocide was occurring or whether he realized it at the time, but let's be clear here.

1. United States leaders have an obligation to protect the lives of American soldiers and we have no business sending our men and women to die unless it is in our national interest to do so. The genocides in Rawanda and Sudan are both horrible tragedies, but we do not raise an army and ask young Americans to die to police the world; nor do we have any right to do so.

2. Even if you assume that the United States military has some sort of business, in general, stopping bad people from doing bad things in other countries that have no effect on us, what the heck could we have done that would have stopped either genocide? Remember, military intervention is not simply a matter of good intentions. Without a clear exit strategy and clear criteria for victory, you can end up either stuck somewhere with Americans dying and no hope of leaving (see Iraq, Vietnam) or pulling out while leaving complete chaos in your midst and not solving the problem you came to solve (see Somalia, Lebanon).

The fact is, just as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and that gang thought we would be granted as liberators in Iraq, you seem to think it was just a matter of sending the troops over and *poof*, you stop the genocide. It is not that simple. Using the military never is. The military is a blunt instrument that always brings unintended consequences.

Indeed, in that sense, point (2) is one of the reasons why point (1) is so salient. Since military force is such a difficult instrument to use precisely, it is often ineffective or counterproductive, and that's one more reason why we shouldn't be risking the lives of our servicemembers when there is no compelling national security justification for doing so.

There is no way to educate ignorant people about the truth when they choose to cling to the most flimsy tropes, such as "Bush killed 100,000 civilians." Notice how the people who make that claim so offhandidly as if it wasn't bunk never bother to try and show evidence. They might as well try and prove the existence of unicorns. It must help them to believe all the rest of the lies they tell themselves. Disproving their conspiracies is like conversing with a potted plant, it is both pointless and silly.

"Without a clear exit strategy and clear criteria for victory, you can end up either stuck somewhere with Americans dying and no hope of leaving (see Iraq, Vietnam)"

Or Germany South Korea Okinawa Guantanamo Bay, right? Be careful trying to make statements you can't reinforce, war zones are never as orderly as a checker board. However, playing politics does not involve any strategy.

Dilan,
Good point.

Can you say "apples to oranges?"

Mr Corn I sincerely hope I've stumbled across your site on a bad day and that this post is not representative of your literary prowess.

Grade C- (and I could have easily made that a "D"). You can do better.

Was it Mark J who spoke of the Dutch and Leopold?

That was the Belgians. The Dutch didn't have much going in Africa, outside of Capetown early on.

Is recolonizing preferable or not?

It might well be preferable, in some countries, for the African people. I sure don't think I know of a country which would prefer to try it. Zimbabwe wasn't this bad under Ian Smith or even before.

I have a lot of respect for Genl Dallaire, whose treatment by the Canadian government was despicable. I get CBC on our cable and there was a pretty good bit of follow up for him. But five thousand troops wouldn't solve the capital. The Belgian paras had a contract that they slept under hard cover. No tents, even, which made them commuters. Not much field work with them. So they're in the capital and who's in the field? (Us, in case anybody was wondering.) Does anybody know how much ground five thousand guys can cover when any tree can hide three bad guys from aerial recon?

I don't know about African troops aided by US support. You have to be trained and disciplined and that doesn't seem to characterize African troops. UN troops, whom Mark Steyn characterized as pedophilic sex tourists with guns, don't seem to get much done.

As Gwyn Dyer said, several wars ago, the dirty little secret of the UN is that the UN's hammer is the nasty ol' US military. Because we can get things done and hardly anybody else can.

Kofi Annan wants US troops in Haiti. We need scarier soldiers, said one UN official. What they need is to have the US go all cowboy and kill a bunch of bad guys, thus solving the problems and, by being meaner than the ROE allowed, keeping the UN's hands clean.

The UN needs western militaries, which is basically white guys, to kill black and brown guys. Or nothing happens.

And that's basically the US, the UK, the Aussies, and....small contingents from, basically, countries that are newly free. El Salvador is strong, although few in numbers, and some of the newly-freed countries after the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. They know. The rest don't count and hardly care.

It's us or nobody and when it's a matter of doing the work, it's bloody work or nothing happens. Not many in the political class will accept that.

When things got really bad, which is to say, just too late, the pres got a temporary attack of the balls. I recall the press conference. I believe Shalikasvili was chairman of the chiefs at the time. We would be calling in our resources from all over the world. There would be an airhead and refueling point at Entebbe of bicentennial fame. If worst came to worst, the engineers were getting ready to drive a road clear through from Mombasa, about three hundred miles, if I recall.
Nobody on earth could have done that--that we didn't doesn't mean we couldn't--and the only thing others could do would be to provide truck drivers and route security.

All it would have taken was Clinton's "go" order. If he was prepared to take the heat, it might have happened.
The right and the left who, for different reasons, would have jumped over a weak man and who had signaled their intent by previous actions deserve some of the blame. Bush might have done it. He doesn't care about polls and he's got a higher Judge to worry about than puling complainers.

There's a lot of blame to go around.

Let's not forget the Hutu slaughter of l972, on Nixon's watch, I believe.

HEADLINE(has nothing to do with the subject of this Blog, but I had to say it to someone)
Coward of Craford faces the Courage of Cindy: His dry cleaner and taylor are immediately summoned to replace jis soiled trousers.

If she were a Democrat/liberal, people would be asking about a 50 year old, unmarried woman's credentials of womanhood/feminity. How does an attractive, intelligent, clever, powerful, educated woman avoid marriage or at least associations with male "friends"?
I have asked around and no one even wants to get into a dialogue. At least Hillary has the credential of marriage, motherhood and the apparent trappings of heterosexuality on display.
Just asking.
St. John

Ed-

Don't let me stop you from denial of the obvious.
The Shia get the Southern oil and pump out the gulf. The Kurds pump oil out to Turkey, and the Sunni's have nothing.

Unless Syria wants to offer as much cash as the Kurds and shiites, and they can't, sunni's comes along sooner as opposed to later. If they don't climb aboard they have nothing. The constitution will proceed even if rejected by the sunni's.

It's called amendment number one.

Once a representative government is established in those two regions, the Sunni's won't matter. Greed will do the rest. (or capitalism)

Then the problem you will face is trying to convince the returning soldiers that they accomplished nothing. Saddam overthrown, a representative government, an new ally...please go down to the parade ground and hold a sign that says "a war for lies'. Think of it as taking a poll.

Your planless braying only makes the legend of Bush greater. Think about it for a second. tyrant overthrown, representative government will be the litmus tests. By opposing Bush, you make him appear more resolute to accomplish what many said was not possible. (telling in that I hear no pessimism creeping out of the DEMOCRATIC hopefuls for 2008.)

Compare it to Vietnam, please.
So much of history is against you, and will always be against you. Bray on. what do you honestly believe the amercian people will (and will want to) perceive about what an amazing thing that has been done?

While the oil won't pay for the War, it does mean we will not be in a constant position to fund Iraq, thus paying for the reconstruction. Thus ends the long term commitment. (Which is a stark contrast for Rwanda. There was no exit strategy, other than kill the opposition and leave the Rwandans to starve.)

PS-Not that you need reminding, but you have no plan. But you do learn funny things to say...

Side wager about the (Iraqi)public reaction to approving the constitution? If that isn't good enough, when they vote for parliment?(End of December). Seems like there is a big gap, between elections in the US, and the Iraqi elections. Time is definitely on the GOP's side.

You can always try and call it a failure. An American failure. Wish you luck winning seats with that sentiment. This 2006 election is going to be an asswhipping for the dems, and you don't even see it coming.

Jeanne,

Your comment regarding me sounding like a liberal will get you 40 lashes with a wet noodle. I didn't agree with a lot of what Clinton did but to blame him for Rwanda is not wise. However, if
the "Blame America First" crowd takes their mantra to it's logical conclusion, they yes, Clinton was to blame for not only Rwanda but all the bad that went on in the world under his watch. Just like Bush is being blamed for everything now. I just don't happen to be a "Blame America First" believer.

Gracious!! Civility and ideas from both sides.

Must be the moon.

Saladin, I didn't mean to ignore you or group you with everyone. Please remember I acknowledged one of your posts and complimented you on it.

And I wish you folks would quit teasing me about my Spanish unless you want to correct what I said or how I said it.

Gracious!! Civility and ideas from both sides.

Must be the moon.

Saladin, I didn't mean to ignore you or group you with everyone. Please remember I acknowledged one of your posts and complimented you on it.

And I wish you folks would quit teasing me about my Spanish unless you want to correct what I said or how I said it. Am always open to constructive criticism.

Egads, after my post on #90 my progams and files got snafu'd. Just now got done reloading and backin up. What kinda mojo is in this blog?

At any rate, I can see that the temperments are still volitile, but less snarky.

>>>>>>>>>>

My thoughts on Davids post:

I have to question the USA in all its foreign policy matters. Because no one but us (the citizens) can hold our government accountable. No other nation has the power to do so. And god exists only as a concept, so accountability is in our hands.

To my mind, we have alot of dirty baggage, starting with the slave trade over 400 years ago.

Since the slave trade and the colonialization policies of our shared history with Europe, the nations of subSaharan Africa, Haiti, Jamaica, Dominican Republic etc. are a legacy of a host of broken and shattered people. Abandonned repeatedly by the world and the USA in particular. There is plenty of blame to last many milennia.

In my beliefs, until we as a nation begin to look back on the dirty past with the intent to meaningfully remediate our obligations to these broken nations, the bright future is out of our reach. This nation grew because we robbed millions of their souls, their land and thier resources.

Nation building just looks like more colonialization with a fancier name.

In an earlier post of David's he discussed briefly Uzbekistan. But also to ponder is Chezchnia. What type of slaughter is still occurring there? The slaughter Putin will dole out to prevent Chezchnia from becomming a republic is nauseating.

I just do not want my complacency to be one of the problems that allows slaughter to go unnoticed. The USA may not be able to intervene, but we can say...Hey we see what you are doing. We see.

Dilan (#118),

You said you wouldn't defend Clinton's dissembling...OK, let's call it what it is, Lying openly, knowingly and intentionally. The ample evidence is so overwhelming that they were swimming in data every day about the genocide that even he no longer tries to deny it.

Your point number one...if we have "no business" sending troops to what you characterize as no national interest to the US then Let's call John Bolton tomorrow and tell him to tear up the UN charter and fold the tent immediately. The whole point of the Cone article and numerous other movies, documentaries and written words is that Clinton was attempting to avoid the trigger of the UN directive to "obligate" us to act if their is genocide. Aside from that, if the US can invest minimal risk for a large ROI when atrocities occur, it is moral and right to act. Several things have been mentioned such as, effective and continous jamming of radios, support the existing International troops on the ground with armored vehicles under blue helmets, and the liberal favorite, effective diplomatic pressure on the French who always tend to have friends in low places , in this case the Rwandan Hutu army. Where was the french looking John Kerry* in 1994?

*Who served in Vietnam.

Your point number 2, which implies that we should never use our military unless their is a 100% guarentee that our luggage will be returned to our stateside hotel in time for the early bird buffet. Using your examples of quagmires, Somalia only became a problem when an inept Clinton turned a food delivery program into a state building project and then according to his SECDEV didn't provide armor to protect american GIs for "Political reasons". His words not mine. You said "no hope of leaving" Iraq and Vietnam? We did leave Vietnam, your wish apparently came true...and emboldened communist regimes commited genocide of millions. In Iraq, a majority (poll after poll) are glad we ousted Saddam and liberated them, since the introduction of democratic principles and human rights is not unanimously welcomed, that makes it a failure? If their is no hope of leaving Iraq, then why is the left acting like its easy to leave. We can leave prematurely as they wish and return this land to a central component in the destabilization of the middle east and an advocate of the destruction of the US and the west or we can stay longer and continue the courageous work of our volunteer forces rebuilding the country and planting the seeds of freedom where the left seems convinced they can not grow...or at least they are not willing to try. What is it about the poor starving and oppressed victims of stalinist regimes around the globe that makes the left yawn? How logical and strict our pottery barn policies become when a Democrat President lies to avoid UN compliance to save a million black people, but turns around and lies (Albright) and says that Serbia commited genocide up to a million white people when a decade later we are, by the way, still there and no numbers of civilian slaughter in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions. Best estimates are less than we lost in a day on 911. And the left props up a lady in a ditch in Texas that doesn't believe that the thousands of 911 victims are worthy of our compassion enough to neutralize their murderers. Sometimes Compassion drives men and women to volunteer to serve their country and seek out bad people and extinguish their lives from this earth. On Sept. 12, many brave people felt that compassion and did just that. Why Cindy Sheehans handlers from the ANSWER network and the other violent Anarchists don't have compassion for thier fellow americans and the victims of future 911s, I have no idea...unless like so many other value examples, they figure if their favorite president Clinton can hide from moral decisions, then they can too.

Why will we end up spending more than $1 trillion in Iraq, a rich country sitting on top of the 2nd largest oil deposits on Earth?

It is to rebuild in Iraq what we have destroyed and to save the face of Bush.

Americans will all pay in one form or another for the mistake in invading Iraq, our soldiers are paying with their lives already.

Saddam was contained during the Clinton administration, there was no need to invade Iraq. If you are concerned with the Kurds that Saddam gassed, put the blame with the administration of that period, not Clinton. Bush supporters are always too quick to blame Clinton on everything to distract Americans from the LIES, BLUNDERS and BAD DECISIONS of Bush and Cheney.

Pagliacci,
So you're using the Intent clause of the five elements of Fraud (of which there is no third since the "5" is a cardinal number not an ordinal number)?

I've already asked you this same question twice before and you ignored it like every other inconvenient question that is tilted your way. Smacks of Cowardice to me. You keep apologizing for avoiding questions and never actually answer them.

You asked Capt. to prove you a liar and promised to leave if he did. You also claimed that Toyota outsold the big 3. Did you ever back that up with proof as Don asked you to?

Here is proof that you are full of crap (again, on another front). I don't want you to use that as an excuse to flee this place. We need folks like you to remind us that Reactionaries are an arrogant pack of warmongering hypocrites that have trouble facing the facts.

And as I said before, if you'd been nicer to the folks (that never bothered you to begin with), I would've happily let your fictive little blog persona exist happily beside mine. I warned you to play nice, albeit in Spanish. How was I to know that you mislead us (unintentionally? See the five elements of fraud) into believing that you were a Spanish-speaking Texan? Otherwise, my warning would've been clearly sent in English.

I forwarded your comical pocho Spanish nonsense to some of my coworkers (two of which are recent immigrants, one who attended UAG and the other UNAM).

The reviews are in and you were universally panned (even the gringos on this blog will get the flava of their comments):

"Fue escrito por un niño o un adulto . . . o una gorila? . . . . Lástima que fuese tan pécima."

note the correct use of el sujuntivo (LOL)

"¿Inmenso voraz? ¡Inmenso imbécil! Se pierde en contradicción e invención"

Notice the switch in conjunctions from Y to E? Let's look at yours:

"vivia y iba estudiante"

E-translators don't always catch the change. Even a first year Spanish student would catch such a clumsy gaffe. What's worse, even the word "iba" is misapplied. It should be "era" or "fui" to agree with the verb "vivia." To top it off you miss the fact that vivia is a palabra aguda. Three grave errors in one single phrase. Pathetic.

I could rip the crap out of the rest of it; but I'll spare you and the folks on this blog. My mistake last night was in believing that you knew how "el sujuntivo" applied to your writing.

No eres hidalgo, Pagliacci, eres un payaso infantil.

Pande: The 'immense voracious' line was the one that made me laugh hardest. Ever read "Me Talk Pretty One Day" by David Sedaris? The funniest chapters are his recounting and translations back into English of his conversations with fellow beginning French students. All who learn a second language the hard way have been there, but at least most aren't pretentious clods who pretend they are something they aren't. Saludos. I'm off to catch some zzz's.

Clinton is a man possessed of great gifts. With these gifts come great faults. There is no doubt the USA knew the full extent of the genocide in Rwanda. I recall television programs showing pictures of rivers filled with floating bodies. One can only surmise that Clinton was chasing after some young gal and couldn't be bothered with making decisions that would interfere with his frolicking.

Bush is a man of limited talents who is spoon fed news by his hired help. A man who tells us he sharpens his mind by riding his bicycle rather than reading books. With his limited talents he fails to comprehend the folly of his ways. Even now he foolishly tells us that the Iraq constitution is a wonderful instrument. He fails to understand that no one is listening to him.

As for the Bush war, this noble endeavor, if it is such then we should not be relying on the poor to do battle for us. As Ms Sheehan notes, neither the president or his war architects will put their children at risk. It is high time we put all citizens at risk by instituting a draft.

But neither party is for this, just like neither one will face up to the inequalities in the tax system, the wide open borders, and our decrepit public schools.

We do need a new party. One that will not be run by the extremes either left or right. One that will recognize that our country has become a land of haves and have nots unlike anytime in its history. Even worse, there is no prominent member of any party who one can wish were in the White House.

100 years ago the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Fergusan said separate but equal schools were all right. This was once thought a horrific opinion. How times have changed. Now we have separate public schools in our big cities; but they are not even equal. Answer me how a country can reduce the taxes on the wealthy; spend a trillion dollars in a quixotic attempt to democratize another nation; and fail to educate its own children?

Throughout our cities "Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air." Is this the result of being limited in our choice of candidates to millionaires?

Interesting thread and good discussion. I would have to say that Dilan Esper makes same very good points in #118. I detect a hint of isolationism in his remarks, but I certainly agree that our military should only be used when there is a "clear exit strategy and clear criteria for victory."

The Clinton administration obviously neglected or failed to produce such a plan to convince the American people that it was in their best interest, as human beings, to intervene in the tragedy of the genocide in Rwanda, and that is a tragedy indeed.

Of course, Iraq is a different story altogether. Unlike Rwanda, we did indeed take action (and one can certainly argue the wisdom of taking action in this particular case), but we did it without a "clear exit strategy and clear criteria for victory." The thievery, incompetence, and malice of this administration boggles the mind.

Of course, some folks don't have a mind to boggle. I present to you TJ from post #131:

And the left props up a lady in a ditch in Texas that doesn't believe that the thousands of 911 victims are worthy of our compassion enough to neutralize their murderers.

Cindy Sheehan's son Casey died in Iraq. The murderers of 911 are supposedly along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. How can someone who refuses to acknowledge this simple fact be capable of even recognizing a "clear exit strategy and clear criteria for victory?"

Short posts today. It's my birthday. I believe I'm now qualified to say that I'm the same age as Hajji. I think.

As always, giggles first. Katrina drives the guys wild. Weathermen Gone Wild.

Can anyone really get behind Russ' candidacy? I say no, no, no. God no. I like his voting record, though. Does anyone else worry about this?

To this I say yes, yes, hell freekin' yes.

Is it me or is Billmon softening his stance on the whole "sending our brave men and women to die" just to create a Muslim Theocracy proposition?

Listening to the folks on this blog, some Liberals are just too soft on Terrorism. Please, bring me the head of Usama or Osama or whatever they call him these days.

I love these reactionary governors. They get freekier and freekier. God's own circus freeks.

Every circus needs a program (to ID the freeks and geeks). Time tries desperately to fill that role.

I agree with Jeanne (or Antoine) or whomever laughed maniacwise Ha HA HA The New York Times.

And finally, what ever happened to the guy that posted under the Arriana has small boobies name? I think that was really Ann Coulter. She was (as Pagliacci would say) projecting? Poor Ann, even the Reactionaries don't like her little boobies.

Pagliacci, I'm just funnin' ya'. Don't go away. I want you to 'splain us some more about your days in a city that:
* is famous for its tile
* has dozens of websites that show that they've been producing it (tile) since the middle of the last century
* my grandfather travelled to as part of its tile production line, and
* you say doesn't really make tile.

Oooof. DAmn. Dropped my laptop laughing so hard.

I share information and from my readings I will offer perceptual opinions.

Look, everything evolves. Reagan was a reaction to Carter's "buy the world a coke philosophy". Old guys at work told me that during the Carter adminstration sov spies would tour our aerospace plants with sticky tape on the bottoms of their shoes, to pick up fabrication samples.
After Reagan's Evil Empire attitude, the Clinton Culture was all peace dividends, treaties, PC lawyering, and anti-confrontation. Clinton was passive.
Now we're at the other end of the pendulum's arc. GW is very agressive-deterrent, pre-emptive strike. active.
Can't wait for 2008.

Pande,

¡Feliz Cumpleaños!

Ahora, pare por favor el hablar de la gramática española. Mi cabeza va a estallar.

WHEN GOD MEANS TO PUNISH A NATION HE DEPRIVES ITS RULERS OF WISDOM. Linda Schrock Taylor

Nellodee

I can't wait until 2008 either. By your reasoning, Republicans serve 12 years as President for every 4 years of Democrats.
Clinton served eight years. Set your sights on 2024!

Happy birthday Pan!! That means you are my age too!
What happened to the thread? Why are we talking about clinton? Where did the DSM go? This sucks!

Don in #136,

Your inference to my not having a brain because of your obsession with an exit strategy as an inadequate substitute for victory over our enemies is hilarious. You seem to imply that after 911 we are only justified in parking off the coast and tossing a cruise missle at a tent in afghanistan. That worked great for Clinton. The Global war on terrorism is a war against enemies in numerous countries on every continent including your home state. The 19 hijackers and the terrorists in numerous other murderous attacks that are apparently easily forgotten by you are a "network" that covers the entire globe.

Cindy's anarchist handlers are managed and funded by the same group that burned businesses in Seattle, opposed Desert Storm and Afghanistan and have welcomed speakers from Hezbollah and Hamas at their rallies in DC and NY. The Answer Network and the Freemont group among others are running this show and if you choose to hang on Cindy's words, here they are....She too opposed the removal of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan,she also refers to the evil forces gathered aagainst us in Iraq and by the way the real murderers of her son as, get this, "Freedom fighters" (Hello Stockholm syndrome!!),,,So from this brainless one over here....my question is...Do you also agree with the woman in the Ditch that we should have just let Afghanistan harbor Osama Bin Laden and his buddies after they killed thousands of your brothers and sisters in cold blood? ... or are you going to follow up with a yea but?

Read on Don:

In an August 15, 2005 interview [20] on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Sheehan told Matthews that she thought she would not have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was "almost the same thing" as the Iraq war and that in both cases it was wrong to invade an entire country to fight an ideology that did not necessarily represent all of the people of that country. When Matthews pointed out that "...Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.", Sheehan replied, "Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan." Sheehan also argued that American efforts in Afghanistan were not "having any success" and that "our troops should be brought home [from both Iraq and Afghanistan.]"

>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Don, can you say Dingbat? If this woman is your rally point and your brain trust, may good have mercy on your witless existence.

TJ, can YOU say dingbat? That dipshit in London said al quaida is not a group but a way of operating. So, tell me, how do you go after this operation, especially when a certain country has been caught red-handed impersonating said operations? Maybe it would be best if we just transfomed the entire middle east into one giant sheet of black glass, then all you whining neocons might feel secure from that boogeyman Osama.

Happy Birthday Pande !!

Wow, we had some good posts today. Some of the usual "talking points" from the Bushies too, unfortunately. The "re-enlistments were up" was funny. I believe the stats showed they were ahead of "new boots", but not "up". They aren't hitting their goals, that's for SURE. The soldier's 'poll' went something like this... There is a reason why a relatively recent Army survey found that 54% of all soldiers in Iraq reported either “low” or “very low” morale.
That was from 'Two "Green Zones"' posted earlier, by I forgot who (good one, thanks).
Tim H., does Hajji have more'n one cuz, or did you do a flip-flop? I could've sworn you hit this blog 'bout a week ago spathering all kinds of hatred, including at Hajji himself. If that was you, then I congratulate your transformation into a nice guy. I could even see how you guyz are related, to a point.
K, I missed some good posts from the Capt tonight. I'm thinking he hasn't posted because he doesn't agree with the choice of thread topics. I might be wrong, but... if not, then I agree with him. Myself, I wouldn't go as far as that one guy (2"), but a Clinton-led country was LIGHT YEARS better'n this one we have now.
hey

Happy Birthday Pande !!

Wow, we had some good posts today. Some of the usual "talking points" from the Bushies too, unfortunately. The "re-enlistments were up" was funny. I believe the stats showed they were ahead of "new boots", but not "up". They aren't hitting their goals, that's for SURE. The soldier's 'poll' went something like this... There is a reason why a relatively recent Army survey found that 54% of all soldiers in Iraq reported either “low” or “very low” morale.
That was from 'Two "Green Zones"' posted earlier, by I forgot who (good one, thanks).
Tim H., does Hajji have more'n one cuz, or did you do a flip-flop? I could've sworn you hit this blog 'bout a week ago spathering all kinds of hatred, including at Hajji himself. If that was you, then I congratulate your transformation into a nice guy. I could even see how you guyz are related, to a point.
K, I missed some good posts from the Capt tonight. I'm thinking he hasn't posted because he doesn't agree with the choice of thread topics. I might be wrong, but... if not, then I agree with him. Myself, I wouldn't go as far as that one guy (2"), but a Clinton-led country was LIGHT YEARS better'n this one we have now.
hey

my bad, I got an error message, so I went back and "posted" again. Sorry 'bout that.

I will not post when the trolls are being posted to, it just makes no sense.

Wonder why the thread was about Bill and not Bunnypants? hmmmm

I cannot stand it when my friends are getting themselves be played by fakes, liars, posers and trolls.

If that means I have to pull the nightsift so be it, I have always liked the quiet hours.

All of these posters (non-regulars) are not what they seem and it is not up to me to point that out to my friends. They will, in time figure it out for themselves. Or not, also not up to me.

capt

I do blame Clinton, not in the ways so many here have. I blame him because the buck has to stop with the person shining the seat in the oval office.

Bill would have never, NEVER been able to actually do anything but he did not even speak to the issue. (that was wrong, period)

Rwanda is not comparable to Iraq but it is to the Darfur genocide Bunnypants has ignored.

Iraq IS comparable to the war in Kosovo.

The reason Bill could not do anything is because of the support the republicans gave for anything Bill did was the hunting of the president not finding a consensus).

Here is an example:

Quotes from Repubs when Clinton Went to War

"You can support the troops but not the president." -Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program.

There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
------------------
You know how the pot is, always calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Saladin at August 27, 2005 06:50 PM

************

Thanks (as always) Saladin!

The two-faces dolts that call themselves republicans never ask any question of Bush, certainly all of their concerns are relative to what party is in power.

capt

To Pande -

Best wishes for a very happy birthday.

To Alan from a few days ago, thank you for the kind words. Glad your mom did OK on her scans. BTW, the "flowers and music" were lovely.

I can't keep up with all the links tonight. ... Why are we still serving up Clinton? We have more than enough current stuff to deal with. When we've solved the problems of this decade, if we wish we can re-think history and discuss What If - into eternity.

... and to all a good night.

To even consider mitigating the illegal and unwise invasion of Iraq by making a (false) comparison to Clinton and Rwanda is intellectually dishonest (see post #1)

Rwanda is important isuue and should be published and talked about. It is using "Clinton lied and people died" as a dastardly effot to inocculate Bush that is beyond bizarre and the discussion on this thread makes my point.

capt

Happy B-day Pande-man

You always rock, Humor and grace always finds a place while you crush the poor little trolls fantasy that being against Bunnypants is somehow not enlightened or intelligent.

You always wax 'em and tax 'em and the only snark-o trafficers that stay are too dumb to know better.

Kudos today and everyday.

I toast to many more years and celebrations to come. Now if we could just get you to work only one job. . . (your dream to I bet)

"For he's a jolly good fellow!"

capt

George W. Bush's Noble Cause - 'Political Capital'

by Thom Hartmann

Cindy Sheehan continues to ask George W. Bush what the "Noble Cause" was for which her son died in Iraq, and why Bush's daughters haven't enlisted in this Cause.

While Bush talked to us about WMDs, an imminent "mushroom cloud," and tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11 (when it was 14 Saudis who hit the World Trade Center), those all fell apart and were exposed (by no less than Paul Wolfowitz) as intentional lies. When Bush shifted his Noble Cause to invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, the Downing Street Memo told another story. And now, also, so does Bush's first biographer.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the way Bush lied us into invading Iraq, particularly the timing of it all (ginning it up just before the 2002 midterm elections), was done largely so Republicans could win take back the Senate in 2002 after losing it because of Jim Jeffords' defection, and so Bush could win the White House in the election of 2004.

It's apparently just that simple, just that banal, and ultimately just that traitorous to the traditional ideals of America.

This is why the greatest political threat that Cindy Sheehan represents to George W. Bush and his Republican Party is in her ability to point this out.

*****end of clip*****

The fact is Bush no longer has to worry about stealing elections. He is off his leash and he does not give a f**k what the people think unless they agree with his misadministrations miscalculations and mistakes.

Bush is a dyed in the wool psycho. Just like the rabid little lemmings that come here to the Corn blog to start pissing matches with those who enjoy reading what David Corn has to say.

Why do they come here to spew forth the hate that festers in their black hearts? There are plenty of echo chambers on the right that would love to hear their mindless ramblings.

They come to use us as a shooting gallery. They snipe and yip-yap and score one for their team if anybody posts in answer to their piffle.

I read the thread and still see not one troll that can admit mistake or be convinced regardless of the facts provided. When all else fails they say we are the ones offering insults and invective.

A silly and pointless effort, it just comes across as a snark-fest, an effort to change the subject, or in my book, a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

That’s my opinion so it is not factual but it is valid. I still offer a challenge: IF the discourse above is meaningful please direct me to a troll you have convinced or enlightened.

(sounds of crickets chirping)

capt

Bush accused of Aids damage to Africa

Jeevan Vasagar and agencies in Nairobi
and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday August 30, 2005
The Guardian

A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms, a move which may jeopardise the successful fight against HIV/Aids in Uganda.

Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).

In 2003, President Bush declared he would spend $15bn on his emergency plan for Aids relief, but receiving aid under the programme has moral strings attached.

Recipient countries have to emphasise abstinence over condoms, and - under a congressional amendment - they must condemn prostitution.

Brazil announced last month that it would refuse to accept $40m (£22m) in American aid rather than stigmatise prostitutes who Brazilian health workers said were essential to their anti-Aids strategy. Senegal was also cut off from US aid because prostitution is legal there.

*****end of clip*****

To allow the spread of AIDS is evil. Forget about the unwise war, how about the pandering to a hate filled base while killing untold numbers that will grow exponentially because the Kkkristo-fascists think their take on sex is somehow on par with their misunderstanding about Gods love.

The damage being done by the messed up policies of this WH will be killing people for generations to come. That does not sound like a good or right or Christian thing to do.

But what do I know?

capt

Call for anti-terror law ban on US evangelist

HAMISH MACDONELL
SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR

Key points

MP calls for Pat Robertson ban over alleged assassination comment

Evangelist said Venezuelan president Chavez should be 'taken out' on TV

Home Office declines to comment on proposed ban under anti-terror laws

Key quote:

"My view is that [Mr Robertson] is frankly not the sort of person we would welcome into Britain. The new law would catch him as someone preaching hate and murder" - Nigel Griffiths MP

*****end of clip*****

When is hate speech acceptable? When you are a republican.

This is what the world sees. An illegal and unwarranted war that has turned the world against the bluster and hubris. Hate speech from our religious leaders[sic]. We round up people, some American citizens, hold them for years without a charge and justify that act by saying the food is good?

This is not freedom nor democracy and we are all guilty of spreading manure and lies and poor and illogical rationale for these acts, these crimes against humanity.

We are no long "that shining city on the hill" Bush has reduced that high ideal to a muddy ditch on the side of a road.

History will be very unkind to all of us for letting, nay, making this happen.

capt

Thanks for the Birthday wishes, guys. The hilite of the night was watching little Tigre flirtin' with our waitress. Everytime she came around, he'd start cooing and giggling. When she reached over to hug him, he gave her a wet one on the neck. It took her by surprise. Too funny.

Hi Ho, hi ho . . . .

Presidential recount dispute back before NM Supreme Court

KOB-TV

NM - The state's highest court is revisiting a dispute over last year's presidential election in New Mexico.At issue before the state Supreme Court is the procedure for a statewide recount of ballots and a new law enacted because of the 2004 election flap.

Justices are scheduled Monday to hear arguments from lawyers for the state and last year's Green and Libertarian presidential candidates.

David Cobb and Michael Badnarik contend the state wrongly handled their request for a recount.

The two asked for a recount of presidential ballots statewide in late November, saying there were problems with voting machines.

There's no deadline for the court to issue a ruling.

*****end of clip*****

What happened was: When the recount was requested the state asked for and was given $140,000. Then the state asked for $1.4 million. A deviation that was not covered by state law.

The case is not about fixing the evoting problems it is about deciding if the actions (request for more money) by the state were legal.

The issue is important for our future elections here in NM because it will better define the law.

capt

Anyone posting on a political blog (either side) needs to load and run an anti spyware firewall.

I use Pest Patrol, but you can find recommendations at PCMAG.COM

If your connection is Cable or DSL get a 4 port Linksys router. If you are cable or dsl and you dont have a router, turn off power to your computer anytime its not in use.

Bush's War Crimes

Yes, Bush is a murderer and a war criminal.

Neocons will not back down

because they are crazy!

Pande;
Happy Birthday.

Just had to stick the key in his back and wind him up didn't you. Honestly though it's hard to get mad at him. I'm sure it's unintentional but he does seem like a parody of a right wing pundit. I think he's aiming for William F. Buckley, who you will no doubt note probably does use a dictionary even if he doesn't need one.

Oh well, I suppose it's your birthday present to yourself.

Capt;
I wonder if that was a demonstration for us amateurs. Obviously when it comes to troll bait, David is packin' and we're not.

What is the noble cause?

Yes, bush is fighting for a noble cause. He has united the muslims to unite and to fight their common enemy, the USA.

Let's get over it, clinton is out of the white house, and it has been five years, hello? the current idiot in the white house has a whole bucket of stupid decisions so what if clinton missed the opportunity to help in rwanda? Isn't that a french colony that was given independence? Let them handle it if they want to. We have no dog in that race, so let it be, the decisions or lack of them from a democratic administration that at least produced jobs is the best that you can do David? Well, better get a day job, you are not making any points when you let the shrub off of the hook. We still have troops in the field getting blown up daily, how about them? The economy is going in the dumper, gas prices are hitting record highs, and you want to distract the comments to rwanda that happened ten years ago? Who the hell paid you off?

President's Newspeaks

When you match bush against Cindy, bush looks more and more like a psycho.

IS a psycho!

The Sheehan Revolution

Thank God for Cindy!!!!!

"It is way too sad that most people that are Bill Bashers bash for a blue dress "

Look, I am a righty and do not expect to convince anybody of anything, but one thing I would ask any of you who consider yourselves "thoughtful" to do is consider that probably most of us who despised Clinton, did not really care about the "blue dress" beyond the fact that it was hard evidence of what a good liar he was.

Painting us as sexual morality police was one successful tactic of a brilliant politician. But if you believe it without question, you are drinking the kool-aide, as they say.

Final Exam

Students, since you are my graduate students, I have upgraded the final exam. An earlier exam was for my undergraduate students. You have worked really hard these past four and one half years. You have seen our country go from a democracy to a Nazi/fascist government. OUR ELECTIONS ARE ELECTRONICALLY RIGGED WITH NO PAPER TRAIL. SHALOM AND THE COMMON GOOD HAVE RECEIVED THEIR DEATH NOTICES. In the process of change you have encountered more stress, nightmares, sickness, loss in wages, diseases, more contaminated waters, no health care, higher cost in drugs, more autism due to the increase in mercury exposure, outsourcing of jobs, more corporate corruption, higher costs in education, more lies, more wrong and immoral wars, a new god known as the bushgod, more porn from companies that contribute great amounts of money into the coffers of repugnants, more hatred, killing, torture, more crimes against humanity, and murders.

Your final exam will be only one question. How do you characterize and evaluate Bush and his Nazi/fascist regime?
a. corrupt
b. rotten
c. vile
d. scumbags
e. slime balls
f. demented
g. depraved
h. deranged
i. low life sludges
j. grubs
k. putrid stenches
l. definitely weasel like
m. decaying, smelling turds
n. broccoli farts
o. greedy
p. liars
q. warmongers
r. miserable
s. pathetic
t. worthless
u. all of the above

Good luck with your exam and have a happy and safe summer!

Bunny bugs war profiteers

Bush is not only the dumbest ruler but he is also the most corrupt.

Ten Reasons

Americans have died but they did not spread democracy.

Ten Reasons

Americans have died but they did not spread democracy.

David;
Is this Purina troll chow or some other brand? I think you should mix in some calf manna so they'll put on weight a little quicker. They seem kind of undernourished.

Oops!

This reminds of the good old days when Michael Moore was attacking the White House and their favorite general, Wesley Clark, for the bombing of Serbia. If you add up Rwanda, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, the Cole, Black Hawk Down, the actions by Richard Clarke and Jamie Gorelick that led from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, I still wonder how Bill Clinton can sleep at night. But just for the record, bad intelligence about current Iraqi WMD capabilities make neither Clinton nor Bush liars.

NY Times shame on you

Bush Administration Officials’†Lies about Iraq’≥ Supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Their Own Words

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…Æ The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

*****end of clip*****

Absolutely correct. The lies from this misadministration have nothing to do with bad intelligence it all has to do with no intelligence.

Nobody MADE Bush chose the option of war and nobody made him lie. That is ALL HIS baby! HA!

capt

Capt, what I can't understand is how bush managed to convince his base that he is a moral Christian conservative republican. It is simply mind boggling that anyone could accept this idea, as he is the polar opposite of all those concepts. I think it proves how many mean spirited, hateful people are really out there. America is God's gift to the entire universe and can do no wrong. They are like junkies in denial, and everything that goes wrong is someone elses fault.

Venezuela's CITGO to Provide Cheap Gas for U.S. Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Schools

Monday, Aug 29, 2005

Caracas, Venezuela. August 28, 2005 (VenezuelAnalysis.com).- Rafael Ramirez, president of Venezuela's oil company PDVSA, offered some details of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's offer to provide cheaper gasoline and heating oil to U.S. poor communities

Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and the fourth largest supplier of oil to the United States. Venezuelan oil accounted for 12% of U.S. oil imports.

Ramirez said that under the Venezuelan government plan, CITGO will set aside up to 10% of its refined oil products to be sold directly to organized poor communities, and institutions in the U.S. without intermediaries.

The plan calls for the sale of heating oil and gasoline to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and organized poor communities in U.S. soil, according to Ramirez.

Other Venezuelan government officials, who asked not to be named, said that Venezuela will not lose any money with this program because the idea is to "cut the middle-man", the intermediaries.

Ramirez said the beneficiaries will see a price reduction of about 30%.
-------------
This ought to send bushco and all their psycho supporters into blind fits of rage! Chavez is really asking for trouble. Cheap oil for poor people will not be tolerated by this "compassionate conservative!"

Saladin,

Right on all counts (as always)

I think old "Rat Pobertson" did give a bit of help for Chavez. Now if Hugo gets into a car accident it will look like we (USA) caused it.

One on the main reasons that public figures should be very careful with their words. One crazy can take it as an instruction. If one crazed lunatic managed to cause harm of any kind it will be Pat's fault.

capt

If Bush is a LIED, then so DID John Kerry!!

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

2002

Kerry Said We Owe It To US Troops To Be Informed Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Arsenal. “We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.” (Faye Bowers, “Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’,” Deseret News, 9/18/02)

Kerry Said Threat Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Is Real. “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Said U.S. Should Make Clear We Will Not Be Blackmailed By Iraq’s WMD. “I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create to simply be ignored by this dictator.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As A “Real And Grave Threat” To The United States. “Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran and potential 2004 presidential contender, said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)

2000

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said WMD Destabilize World. “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8322)

1998

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Used WMD And Has Intent “To Continue To Do So.” “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said We Must Make Clear We Cannot Allow Saddam To Use WMD. “[I]t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous. … But we cannot be pressured into a position that calls on us to give up what are the legitimate interests of our country and of the world with respect to the behavior of Saddam Hussein.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Stressed Need To Eliminate Saddam’s Weapon Capability. “Saddam Hussein has violated ... that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Decision Must Be Made Concerning Iraq’s WMD. “We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Has Used Hesitancy Of Other Countries To Hold Him Accountable To Influence International Community. “Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq’s call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. ... These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq’s weapons capability. ... France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98, p. S12287)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Defended President Clinton’s Decision To Bomb Iraq. “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam veteran, said Wednesday that no one should question the ‘legitimacy’ of Clintons decision to bomb Iraq. ‘I am confident that every reasonable member of the United States Congress and reasonable people of this country will understand the legitimacy of this moment. And no one will question that once again, once too many times, it is Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.’” (Eric Schmitt, “Many In GOP Voice Suspicion Of Attack Timing,” Topeka Capital-Journal, 12/17/98)

1997

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production. “[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do To Address “Grave Threat.” “[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam. “Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Warned Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice.If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD. “In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

1991

Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record,1/12/91,p. S369)

1990

Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. … The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)

capt

Like the crazed lunatic in the white house?

Capt, I just read an interesting theory on TBR News. That robertson and rove put together that outrageous statement to get Cindy Sheehan off the front page, if that is true, it worked beautifully. It also pointed out how the Plame scandal has quietly faded away. These evil minions of the elite cabal can literally get away with murder, and the sheeple continue to graze exactly where they are told to. As my favorite economist says, "we are freakin doomed dude!"

So Let Me Get This Straight!?!?

Fringe Kook of the Left Captain Jerk calls Bush a liar for saying Saddam has WMDs

But when John Kerry said that Saddam has WMDS.....Captain Jerk says NOTHING

Fringe Kook of the Left Captain Jerk is a HYPOCRITE!

So Let Me Get This Straight!?!?

Fringe Kook of the Left Captain Jerk calls Bush a liar for saying Saddam has WMDs

But when John Kerry said that Saddam has WMDS.....Captain Jerk says NOTHING

Fringe Kook of the Left Captain Jerk is a HYPOCRITE!

If bush is a lied? Kerry lied too? So tell us something we don't already know! Tim, your idiotic partisan ravings are boring, boring, boring! I have only to read the first sentence to know it is you. Are you TRYING to create civil war?

How come Capt calls Bush a liar for the same things Kerry said??

Saladin, well you already know Bush Lied right, so why don't you tell Capt to stop posting stuff about it?

I just want to know why Capt calls Bush a liar for the same lies Kerry said?? And aside from that, Kerry VOTED for the Iraq war, and last August he said he would have VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR, EVEN KNOWING THERE WERE NO WMDS!!!!

Now if that doesn't make Capt a complete idiot, not to mention hyprocrite!!!

Capt is calling Bush a liar for the same lies Kerry said!!!

Can someone explain this to me??

From a letter to WRG

An interesting tid bit posted on Randi Rhodes message board....... Today Randi was talking about Iraq and their constitution. She kept talking about Zalmay Khalilzad. He is the one there doing this constitution crap etc and ummm what she didn't mention...and many of you may not know....this man is one of the main signatories of the PNAC.

WRH: Zalmay Khalilzad was one of the UNOCAL "consultants" who went before Congress in 1998 after negotiations with the Taliban had collapsed and stated point blank that a gas pipeline to the Caspian could not be built until the government in Afghanistan was replaced.
--------------
I didn't know this. That would explain the PNAC determination to occupy Afghanistan well before 9/11. This also ties in with the Bridas Corp. scandal. Another reason to follow the money.

Saladin,

I still grasp at hope however tenuous. I am an admitted cynic but that does not mean I am a pessimist maybe more a realist. Fitzgerald could gain a major conviction very close to the president and it have little effect as the pardons are likely already in rough draft.

When poppy pardoned the Iran-contra liars the reason he stated was: they lied to congress under oath because they were "patriotic."

I kid you not.

I am pretty sure Kkkarl will end up with a medal and a position at the Carlyle Group or Halliburton. That is how this WH works. No success like failure. Loyalty to pals, party and donors before country.

capt

BUSH IS A PSYCHO!!!!!

"Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too." ~Richard M. Nixon (1913 - 1994)

Sorry, that was supposed to be WRH.

Tim, when will you ever learn? You are a babbling fool who pops in here once in a while, missing 99.9% of Capt.s posts, while being completely clueless about his stand on anything. I will address you once, ALL POLITICIANS LIE!! They lie about war, money, scandals etc. kerry lies, clinton, both halves, lie, bush lies, reagan lied nixon lied, they all lie. Have I made that perfectly clear? Capt. has said this, and so have pretty much all the regulars here. Why don't you go peddle your partisan war somewhere else?

Why does the Left always associate Karl Rove with the KKK??

Is it b/c he his name Karl is spelled with a "K"?

Or because he was actually former KKK member such as the Democratic senator from W. Virginia, Robert Byrd??

I guess the same analogy can be made of former presidential failure John KKKerry!

Former President Clinton awarded a no-bid contract to Haliburton while in the Balkans.

The Carlyle group also made donations to the Clinton Library.

God, the HYPOCRICY of the Left is unbelievable!

Isn't that right Capt??

The republicans lie, the democrats lie. On Iraq they told the same lies, so on that it was a draw.

Count, document, shreik...you gain nothing.

It always comes down to the lesser of two evils. Bush won. The end. If dems want more honesty from republicans, they should make it the standard of their party. They don't care about who represents them. I do take the time to thank the 20 plus dems who voted for the war. If they were lied to, don't you think they would point out where the adminstration lied to them? They can't, so they remain quiet.

To be honest the fringe dems don't really meet the standard of lying. They are too delusional to know the truth. Thank you for not associating your craziness with the GOP, you have made the dems the losers they are.

I'm always grateful to see these kooks demanding that their moronic messages be heard. America and the media will always give you voice, but if you think it helps your cause, continue, you are more priceless than any swift boat ad. Further I congratulate the dems who let these morons speak for them. If you are willing to surrender your politcal party to this mob, you get what you deserve.

I find it funny and ironic that all of you sit here outraged and surprised by Clinton's inaction to the Rwandan genocide because the same thing was happening in Iraq until good old Georgie "Bush Lied People Died" (as you call him) decided to take action and obliterate Saddam's Ba'athist genocidal, homicidal, psychopathic government. Tell me, if Clinton had taken military action (because that's what he would have had to do to stop the genocide) do you honestly believe that our troops would not have faced resistance and suffered casualties? Did you think that we could have just gone in there and said "No, stop that" and everything would have been fine? If that is truly what you believe than I pity those of you who are that diluded.

Hmmm,here's a thought, if all of you liberals/democrats/communists, whatever you call yourselves these days, really want to be taken seriously you need to learn to be consistent. If you're against genocide then you're against ALL genocide not just the tragedies that are left festering so you can blame someone after the fact to make yourselves feel better and to give yourselves a cause. To be effective and drive change in this world you have to stand for something not just some things.

Saladin, Capt, only criticizes Bush, but no other politicians. He calls Bush a liar for the same lies Kerry said!!

But he never criticizes Kerry for lying about the WMDs, only Bush!

Babbling fool. I rest my case.

Pando,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU! HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU! HAPPY BIRTHDAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!

All politicians lie and usually are scum sucking bottom feeders why do you think most of them are lawyers or exterminators, no news there. Nope they are all liars and not doing anything but get elected and then loot the system. INflating our money supply debasing our currency, no WMDs no reason to invade, obviously no oil, and gee we are paying for it, and will be paying for it, already cost more than WW1 so we are looking at four more years, ten, twelve? Where does this end? What is it going to take to get out of the sandbox and let the iraqis get on with settling their country themselves, or better yet let the brits clean it up they started this country let it be done.

Tomorrow is our 33rd wedding anniversary. Amazing. And better yet, I love the man even more each day.

Thank you David for this comment section, and thank yu everyone for letting me participate.

Saladin, I'm a babbling fool?? lmao! You come in here and rant and rave of conspiracy theories you read off websites and then state them as fact!

Do you believe everything you read off websites??

ANYBODY can post what they want on a website, whether it is true or not, and YOU would still believe it! You get duped on a daily basis, now that's a fool!

TJ #144,

...your obsession with an exit strategy as an inadequate substitute for victory over our enemies is hilarious.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I believe my point was that before we spend blood and treasure in any action involving our military, we need to define the criteria for victory and have a clear exit strategy in place once we meet that criteria. I am not at all suggesting that we "substitute" an exit strategy for victory, nor I am not "obsessed" with anything. However, I can't help but note your fixation with a grieving mother.

You seem to imply that after 911 we are only justified in parking off the coast and tossing a cruise missle at a tent in afghanistan.

I imply no such thing. It's just your imagination.

That worked great for Clinton.

*yawn*

You write:

Do you also agree with the woman in the Ditch that we should have just let Afghanistan harbor Osama Bin Laden and his buddies after they killed thousands of your brothers and sisters in cold blood?

And then you contradict yourself with:

Sheehan replied, "Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan."

Sheehan is not suggesting that the alleged murderers of 911 go free; it seems that she is implying, as many others suggested leading up to the war in Afghanistan, that it could have been done more as a police action than a military action. Personally, I don't believe we could have gone after bin-Laden without taking out the Taliban; however, I will reserve judgement on the mission's success because it isn't exactly like we're finished there. Perhaps if we had put the 150,000 troops being used in Iraq on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we might have caught some "#1" al-Qaida and Taliban criminals instead of so many "#3s." You point out that Sheehan questions our success in Afghanistan, but again...what is the criteria for victory there? What is the exit strategy?

You can continue parroting Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of Wingnut Central if it makes you feel better, TJ, but as Melvin Udall said, "Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here."

Thanks to Jeanne and Riff for their kind remarks above about my post at #100!

A few comments for What-the-f**k

so what if clinton missed the opportunity to help in rwanda?

Well, it made a big difference to Rwanda, and it tells us quite a lot about what we can expect the US foreign policy establishment to do when faced with a genocide that doesn't affect their strategic interests - sod all.

Isn't that a french colony that was given independence? Let them handle it if they want to.

Rwanda was a Belgian colony, but France has been one of the most active powers in the region, acting as if much of Africa is its own personal space, much as the US government sees Central America and the Caribbean.

As it happened, the US and British governments did opt "to let them handle it", and accordingly the French army intervened to protect its allies in the Rwandan government and fight the Tutsi rebels (we don't know much about what happened but it seems as if the Tutsis gave the French army a serious and unexpected kicking).

Philip Gourevitch's book "I Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed Along With Our Families" has some interesting stuff about this - take a look, i recommend it.

We have no dog in that race, so let it be, the decisions or lack of them from a democratic administration that at least produced jobs ...

The killing of a million people in 100 days is a matter of complete indifference to you?

The employment record of an administration excuses it of anything else?

Well, better get a day job, you are not making any points when you let the shrub off of the hook. We still have troops in the field getting blown up daily, how about them? The economy is going in the dumper, gas prices are hitting record highs, and you want to distract the comments to rwanda that happened ten years ago? Who the hell paid you off?

Huh? Are you saying that David Corn has sold out to the Republicans because he criticised Clinton over Rwanda?

That he has left Bush off the hook? What do you think Corn's book "The Lies of George Bush" is about? Take a guess.

The troops in the field getting killed in Iraq in Bush's rotten war feature on this website every week.

Perspective, people.

Pande,

You are FortyWONDERFUL too!?

What a perfect age to be!

-T

Hajji;
I give your cousin full credit for being able to make up his own mind. I think that is worth a lot, even if I disagree with him.

Well to reply, when does it become the US mission to stop every thing wrong in the world when we are having such a problem solving our own problems at home, going into somalia worked out well didn't it? If we had supported the formation of a military force with many members that could be deployed to areas of unrest, or react quickly to the generals request for more troops before the genocide occured it might have some validity but blaming Clinton is like blaming Putin whey didn't they send in some russian or chinese troops to help. NO it isn't our problem and if we are going to go around the world stopping these kind of things we might want to stop supporting despotic rulers in the first place, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekystan and a few other places, just to name a few, and quit supporting the overthrow of elected leaders, like in haiti, and now to not jail this wingnut robertson for advocating the assasination of another democratically elected leader of a soverign nation that has us by the oil. NOpe selective intervention in one country or other just because there are some interests that affect a certain group of people is foolish, especially since we are setting a precedent that we won't be able to sustain. SOrry about the death but it is a fact of life. Quit supporting the causes of this in the first place instead of reacting the final outcome. Perhaps we should have a leader that is more knowledgeable about history and the forces that cause these problems. Just a thought.

LOOK WHO IS NOT SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES:

Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush:
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush:
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.

Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush:
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush:
Marshall Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch:
Samuel LeBlond

Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another "noble war," Vietnam.

A New Label

They can change the name but murder and torture are still murder and torture.

"Hmmm,here's a thought, if all of you liberals/democrats/communists, whatever you call yourselves these days, really want to be taken seriously you need to learn to be consistent."

Actually, they have been given far more voice in MSM, then really is representative of their numbers.(Anybody got a body count on that Sheehan protest?) I take them seriously...that is why I vote Republican. These people scare me more than Bush ever could. They have no responsiblity and nothing to lose, and thus are unrestricted in their lies. In elevating them, the media has undercut all that was once democratic. To these people, a moderate(even if a democrat) is evil. They are dismantling an entire political party, for their own causes. Nihilism and anarchy.

Apply these current 'radical' dem policies to US history, and this country would have ceased to be.

"Japan attacked us, not the Germans."
"You want us to fight to free the slaves? They were better off under their masters, than they are now."

This trend will die a miserable death, but it will take the party with it. I'd vote for Jeb just to watch their heads explode. These moron will be the new face of the democratic party, a screaming, whining mob, without any leadership. It is a cancer that has metastisized, and is killing the party. Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Howard Dean- don't let me stop you. It's your party, as you say, and you speak for 50 million Americans, they did vote democrat afterall, take it back...

(to obscurity).

I'd vote for Jeb just to watch their heads explode.

And you're just the type of "thoughtful" voter your masters appreciate.

The military and the evangelicals

Now the kkkevangelicals want more say in the killing of human beings. If you want to see a real screwed up country, all you need to do is visit psycho heaven, aka USA.

We most definitely need separation of church and state especially from the psycho evangelicals and their psycho babble.

If you want to be a psycho preacher, all you need to do is send your money to kkkevangelical school and they will send you a certificate so you can babble away.

Joining in the Birthday greetings Pande...

Richard A. Uh, yes, Belgians not Dutch, my error, but be that as it may - your suggestion of recolonization is still not in the realm of the thinkable. The very notion assumes a superiority that is regretable.

As I pointed out earlier, it was the British who forced the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis together into a newly made country called Irag after the First World, which I might point out tangentially was the first war over oil resources, and the first in which trucks, and airplanes were used and all ran on the black gold. Furthermore, the British Navy had just converted its fleet from coal to oil, as well.

Just as an illustration of the attitude of the colonialist mind, let me present this quote from Winston Churchill:

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

oh and by the way Uncle Sam,

It is called free will. If parents have the right to enlist their 'children' (which is now, democratically defined to mean any offspring younger than their parents) without their permission...gives a whole new spin to defining minors.

God you are stupid. Casey Sheehan? reenlisted.

Seems you are obsessed with the Bush family, to a point where your myopia doesn't let you see anything else. Did I mention Bush was reelected? Without having to sign any of his kids, or relatives kids up?

We could have the 2004 vote over again...do you honestly think the results would be any different?

OOps - First World War.

Saladin,

You said: "...Maybe it would be best if we just transfomed the entire middle east into one giant sheet of black glass, then all you whining neocons might feel secure from that boogeyman Osama..."

So typical. You can't make clear logical arguments so you hide behind sarcasm and hyperbole. OK, let me see if I have this straight, OBL is a boogeyman? You mean that Whining Neocons have created a false image that he is evil?....So I guess you don't think he is evil. And Neocons are whining about OBL? Whining? I assume you mean that we are crying or maybe that we are complaining and crying to an excessive degree about his actions and the fact that he has murdered thousands of our Mothers, Fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and innocent children? ...and you think we are crying or whining? Yes we cried, yes we complained, yes we still hurt today. Yes we still Grieve. But whining might also assume that we cry but do not act. We have acted and we have done something about it. You sarcastically say turn the middle east to glass? When Neocons support the vast majority of the masses in the region of those oppressed by stalinist regimes and we oppose the tyrants and we extinguish the beheaders, you want to characterize it as black glass genocide? You seem to throw around terms like denial and that your mind is boggled,...hmm. The original post here is about a democrat that like you was boggled by forien policy and the moral leadership of the American Nation and its appropriate use of force, and beccause of his confusion, a "real" genocide occured, not an imagined one like you imply. And with regard to the stalinist regimes, the baathists, the islamo-fascists and the tyrants that you seem to think are better left to do what they wish... If you have no compassion for the oppressed in the third world and you have no compassion for the murdered 911 victims, then get out of the way so our volunteer army can do its job. The Socialists were responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than anyone and here in the 21st century, who do you cheer for in your posts?...Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the new Fidel Castro. Bad mouth our troops and cheer on the Stalinists! Yes , your mind is boggled!

We could have the 2004 vote over again...do you honestly think the results would be any different? Mark

Considering the mess the Ohio Republican Party is in right now - Coingate anyone? - it depends on who gets to count the votes.

Mark;
You are the man! Absolutely right about those wimpy democrats.

Japan attacked us, not the Germans.
No bull, and that looser FDR only presented a declaration of war on Japan. What a weenie.

You want us to fight to free the slaves? They were better off under their masters, than they are now.
Absolutely, and that loser Lincoln ran under just about that platform, except it was more like "It's better to have slaves than dissolve the union."

#210 Uncle Sam, thank you for the post! Apparently bush's family has not heard that the Iraq war or any war started by bush is a noble cause. I wonder if these family members will volunteer to fight in Iran?

Here's the Funny Part
By William Rivers Pitt

Read to the end for the punchline...

To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.[...] FDR

This, ladies and gentleman is what a REAL request for a declaration of war looks like...

Robert;
You bad boy, every one knows that it's the liberals who are anti-god and hate America. But wait, if it really was judgment by God then shouldn't Pat be building monuments to the brave martyrs who did Gods work, didn't Jerry Falwell agree with him?

look what you made me do. I'm trying to drink my coffee here, dangit.

Another Sad Day

BUSH IS PRO-WAR AND ANTI-TROOPS. I can see rejoicing in the West Wing of the White House. Bush says that war is a NOBLE CAUSE than why are his daughters at home and not in Iraq?

Casualties in Iraq lists that 2,108 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the Bush's evil lies and to keep the opium trade alive so the CIA and the Pentagon can have drugs flowing to pay for American terrorism in the USA and throughout the world. Police dogs, taser guns, and tear gas have been unleashed upon Americans for protesting against Bush's policies. Bush and Cheney plan to stay in power forever. America is under martial law and a complete police state. We are no longer a nation with freedoms and rights.

Bush I was interviewed in December, 1992. "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down the streets and lynched."
Barbara Bush was interviewed on Good Morning America on March 18, 2003. "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that." MY FELLOW AMERICANS I ASK YOU ARE BODY BAGS AND DEATHS IRRELEVANT?

There should be little doubt in anyone's mind where Bush II receives his sensitivity training toward human life.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." George W. Bush

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Herman Goering or are these the words of Karl Rove?

America is home to rigged elections, a shattered US Constitution, and damned souls.

Gerald- I think you forgot to take your meds this morning, you're acting delusional again.

Andrew Gumbel: All I did was say they can't run a fair election
[...]No wonder the passions continue to rage. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that the Florida election was fought dirtily and that there is at least a case to be made that the wrong man ended up in the Oval Office. Contrary to received wisdom, the problem was not ultimately with deficient voting machines or even the respective merits and demerits of the Republican and Democratic causes. What Florida suggested - and continues to suggest - is that the very foundation of the American democratic system is corrupted and rotten. And that's a reality many Americans may not yet be ready to confront.

As a committed supporter of President Bush, I am delighted to see the looney tone of David Corn's books, website and many of teh website comments.

The weird blend of political extremism, hate mongering and anti-Bush slander/canard present is really disliked by thoughtful people. It will propel the angry left further into the margins of American politics, where it really belongs.

Don, I would love for you to clarify how it is contradictory.

Again....You quoted me here:

"...Do you also agree with the woman in the Ditch that we should have just let Afghanistan harbor Osama Bin Laden and his buddies after they killed thousands of your brothers and sisters in cold blood?

And then you contradict yourself with:

Sheehan replied, "Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan."

..."

***end of clip***

Don, I really want to know. Is there a special neutron bomb that can be dropped on afghanistan that only kills naughty people and leaves the innocent standing? Since I don't believe there is, what other option are we left with? Bush and the UN gave the Taliban the option of handing over OBL. They refused. They had elevated OBL to a position equivelent to Secretary of Defense or minister of Security of the Taliban regime. How do we conduct a police action as you say to bring him to justice? Do we send him a parking ticket in the mail and persuade him to come to city hall to pay it?

You said: "...Sheehan is not suggesting that the alleged murderers of 911 go free; it seems that she is implying, as many others suggested leading up to the war in Afghanistan, that it could have been done more as a police action than a military action. Personally, I don't believe we could have gone after bin-Laden without taking out the Taliban..."

I really want to know how you in leiu of any other option can consider Sheehans statement anything but goobledy goop. Even you flip and then distance yourself from her blabbering when you express doubts that we could have brought him to justice without removing the evil Taliban from power. Clinton set in place the police action policy with Al Qaeda and thousands of our people were murdered (more blood on Clintons hands). Really, Really,....Please, explain to me what you mean. I hear criticism of our military actions but no real practical alternative. It was the democrats prior to the Afghan invasion that said we could never expell the Taliban in a thousand years with a million troops, but they were wrong. We knew it would be hard to kill every bad person in Afghanistan, but eliminating a state sponsered base to operate from and hindering their ability to operate in the open is better than shooting a cruise missle up a camels butt which is the police action model of Clinton. All Show and no go. I really want to know. Come on, Don... Sheehan is a tragedy. In our reality TV era, the Media is putting her on display like the run way bride as we peer into her private life. Radical leftist groups moved in on a grieving mother, took advantage of her grief and her fragile state and are using her now and will discard her when her 15 minutes of fame has passed. Her children are begging her to come home, her family is concerned for her mental state, and her husband gave up on any hope that she would rejoin her family and he is now divorcing her. What will she be left with when the kleeg lights go dim. It is a tragedy. And the left claims to have sympathy while they push her in front of the microphone and she spits out these non sequiters. I am not obesessed with her as you state. I brought her up, because many people on this site offer her as proof to some organic growing movement when in reality she is being used by them as a prop in a sick game that is as immoral as a trial lawyer trolling for clients at a funeral. She has no exit strategy and I feel very sorry for her. Nonetheless, she makes no sense when it comes to foreign policy. None.

This issue needs to be addressed b/c it is so illogical to believe, but here it is:

Gerald said:
"America is home to rigged elections"

First of all, why would you think the 2004 election was rigged? Is it b/c you don't want to admit that YOUR vision or ideas, or lack thereof, we're defeated at the ballot box Nov. 2, 2004?

Kerry was NEVER EVER ahead of Bush in the polls after the Republican convention. Kerry came close to Bush after the 1st debate, since Bush did not do well. So for someone to say the election was stolen just seems they're in denial and don't want to face reality.

John,

I think you may be on to something. Furthurmore, shouldn't we be thanking the Corporate Elite types for continuing to add more calories to a system which will then exhibit a tendency to more frequent turbulence of greater intensity?

First of all, why would you think the 2004 election was rigged? Tim L.

I'd say lack of a paper trail is a good place to start. Would you trust an ATM without a reciept? Add to that the lack of voting machines in dem. counties, changing of polling places with little notice, purging the voter roles, and on, and on some more.

NEWS ALERT: A FBI report lists social activists, animal lovers, and white supremacists as potential terrorists.

In small print at the end of the FBI report lists Gerald as a potential terrorist. His posts are driving Rove and other WH officials crazy. Also on the list is David Corn's website. The FBI states that there are too many thinking Americans who are posting on Mr. Corns website. Plans are to disrupt the website with new and no known cure for computer viruses.

Robert, that was absoulutey no WIDESPEAD evidence that voter disenfranchisement occured in Florida in the 2000 election. The Civil Right commission held hearings that concluded this. They only found isolated incidents.

Most of the people that were on the purge list were WHITE, not black and the purge list only had a couple 100 people on there that should have not been on there. But there were not enough people on the purge list mistakenly to effect the outcome of the election-Bush still would have won.

EVERY RECOUNT that was done, Gore was NEVER ahead. Why do you think Gore only wanted recounts in democratic counties?? If he really wanted it to be fair, he would have demanded a full state recount. But that wouldn't have mattered anyway, Bush still would have won.

Several media outlets and news papers conducted a statewide recount, by examining EVERY BALLOT THAT WAS CAST, i.e. undervotes, overvotes chads etc, and guess what, they concluded that Bush would have WON BY 1,665 votes over Gore.

There are several other reasons why Bush should have won by several THOUSAND votes over Gore.

1. 6,500 felons voted in Florida in 2000, and felons are PROHIBITED from voting. It has been concluded that felons vote democratic by 70%. So if we take the 6,500 felons who voted in Florida in the 2000 election, times it by 70%, it equals 4,550. Take that away from Gore's total and Bush wins!

2. Democrats often make the claim that there was widespread disenfranchisement of minorities, already proven UNTRUE by the Civil Rights Commission. Anyway, a case can be made that MILITARY voters overseas were DISENFRANCHISED by the Gore campaign. The Gore lawyers got THOUSANDS of military votes THROWNOUT on a technicality b/c they weren't post marked. Thousands of votes that undeniably went to BUSH.

3. The liberal media called Florida TOO EARLY. The Florida Pan Handle, a republican stronghold has a central time zone, opposed to the rest of Florida which has an eastern time zone. Thousands of voters in the Pan Handle said they decided not to vote b/c the media had already called Florida for Gore. Democratic strategist and pollster, Bob Beckel said that if the media didn't call Florida early for Gore, Bush would have won Florida by 8,000 votes, as opposed to republican estimates of 10 to 12 thousand.

Also, what does it say about a politician who can't even win his own state? In this case, Gore failed to win his home state of Tennesse.

Also on the FBI jackals hit list of terrorists are librarians and bag ladies. Duke, the dog, from bush's pork and beans is also on the terrorist list for stealing family secrets.

Tim L.

From parts of the article I didn't originally post, and which, I gather, you didn't read:

By Andrew Gumbel, The Independent

I've got bad news for anyone already made queasy by the marathon length of American presidential elections. Not only is the 2008 race already concentrating political minds, it is becoming ever clearer the country has not recovered from the infamous mano a mano between Al Gore and George W Bush in Florida in 2000. In fact, in many important - and depressing - ways, the battle over Florida is still raging.

I've learned this the hard way, by becoming part of the battle myself. This past week, a posse of internet screamers who clearly don't like the idea of an uppity Brit questioning the legitimacy of George W Bush's first election took it upon themselves to denounce me as a "conspiracy journalist", a "left-wing hack" and a bare-faced liar.

The occasion for their fury was a book I've written chronicling, and attempting to explain, the inability of the world's most powerful democracy to conduct fair and transparent elections by any recognisable international standard. It came as no surprise that some people would find the premise of the book troubling, even offensive. My conclusions are hardly tender towards voting machine manufacturers, local and state election officials, or indeed the entire two-party system that underpins US politics.

What I was not expecting, however, was that the object of the internet screamers' fury would be the raw arithmetical data from the 2000 presidential race, something I had naively believed had moved on from the stuff of partisan brick-throwing into the realm of historical research and analysis.

The storm broke out when the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman generously cited my book and argued that many Americans are unaware of some deeply troubling facts about their country's electoral system. He, like me, pointed out what extensive analysis of the Florida ballots after the election had indicated as far back as 2001: that a full statewide recount - an option rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the heat of the battle even though it was the only democratically responsible thing to do - would have narrowly tipped the balance of the race in Al Gore's favour.

I'd just like to offer a correction.

Medicaid is the program that offers medical care for low income people. It's mostly a state program.

Medicare is the federal program that pays for medical care for people over-65 plus some younger people with disabilities.

#223 Robert Schwartz, thank you for Pitt's article!!!

Why would I care what Krugman says? He's a left-wing conspiracy theorist.

Give me an independent source.

Tim L.

This is just like old times...I could almost like you.

But, you're still a loon:

CURRICULUM VITAE
Paul R. Krugman

BORN: February 28, 1953

EDUCATION: B.A., Yale University 1974
Ph.D., MIT 1977

EMPLOYMENT

Yale University - Assistant Professor, September 1977 - June 1980
Visiting Assistant Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 1979 - June 1980
Associate Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 1980 - June 1984
Council of Economic Advisers - International Policy Economist, September 1982 - August 1983
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 1984 - June 1994
Professor, Stanford University, July 1994- July 1996
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 1996-June 2000.
Professor, Princeton University, July 2000-

OTHER AFFILIATIONS

National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Associate, 1979 -
Institute of International Economics, Board of Advisors, 1986 -
Econometric Society, Fellow, 1987 -
Group of Thirty, Member, 1988 -
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow, 1992 -
Columnist, Slate, 1996-1999.
Columnist, Fortune, 1997-1999
Columnist, The New York Times, 2000-

HONORS

Eccles Prize for Excellence in Economic Writing, 1991
John Bates Clark Medal, 1991
Adam Smith Award, 1995
Nikkei Prize (with M. Fujita and A. Venables), 2001
Alonso Prize (Regional Science Association), 2002

BOOKS PUBLISHED

Market Structure and Foreign Trade (with E. Helpman), MIT Press, 1985.
Strategic Trade Policy and the New International Economics (ed.), MIT Press, 1986
International Economics: Theory and Policy (with M. Obstfeld), Scott Foresman/Little Brown, 1988.
Exchange Rate Instability (Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures), MIT Press, 1988.
Market Structure and Trade Policy (with E. Helpman), MIT Press, 1989.
Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (with E.M. Graham), Institute for International Economics, 1989
Rethinking International Trade, MIT Press, 1990
The Age of Diminished Expectations, MIT Press, 1990
Geography and Trade, MIT Press, 1991.
Exchange Rate Targets and Currency Bands (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 1992
Currencies and Crises, MIT Press, 1992.
Peddling Prosperity, Norton, 1994.
Empirical Studies of Strategic Policy (ed.) (with M.A.M. Smith), University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Trade with Japan: Has the Door Opened Wider? (ed.), University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Development, Geography, and Economic Theory, MIT Press, 1995.
The Self-Organizing Economy, Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Pop Internationalism, MIT Press, 1996
The Accidental Theorist, Norton, 1998
The Return of Depression Economics, Norton, 1999.
The Spatial Economy, (with M. Fujita and A. Venables), MIT Press, 1999.
Currency Crises (ed.), University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Fuzzy Math, Norton, 2001

JOURNAL ARTICLES

“Flexible Exchange Rates in the Short Run” (with R. Dornbusch), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3 (1976), pp. 537-584.

“A Model of the Portuguese Economy” (with A. Abel, M. Beleza, J. Frankel, and R. Hill), Economia (Lisbon) 1 (1977), pp. 113-120.

“Contractionary Effects of Devaluation” (with L. Taylor), Journal of International Economics 8 (1978).

“Purchasing Power Parity and Exchange Rates,” Journal of International Economics 8 (1978), pp. 397-407.

“A Model of Innovation, Technology Transfer, and the World Distribution of Income,” Journal of Political Economy 87 (1979), pp. 253-266.

“A Model of Balance of Payments Crises,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 11 (1979), pp. 311-324.

“The Economic Consequences of the April 25 Revolution” (with J. de Macedo), Economia (Lisbon) 3 (1979), pp. 455-483.

“Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade,” Journal of International Economics 9 (1979), pp. 469-479.

“Vehicle Currencies and the Structure of International Exchange,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 12 (1980), pp. 513-526.

“Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade,” American Economic Review 70 (1980), pp. 950-959.

“Trade, Accumulation, and Uneven Development,” Journal of Development Economics 8 (1981), pp. 149-161.

“Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade,” Journal of Political Economy 91 (1981).

“Foreign Industrial Targeting and the U.S. Economy,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1 (1984).

“New Theories of Trade Among Industrial Countries,” American Economic Review (May 1983).

“A ‘Reciprocal Dumping’ Model of International Trade,” (with J. Brander), Journal of International Economics 15 (1983), pp. 313-321.

“The Problem of Competitiveness in U.S. Manufacturing” (with G. Hatsopoulos), New England Economic Review, (January/February 1987).

“The Persistence of the U.S. Trade Deficit,” (with R. Baldwin), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1 (1987).

“Is Free Trade Passé?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 (1987).

“The Narrow Moving Band, the Dutch Disease, and the Economic Consequences of Mrs. Thatcher: Notes on Trade in the Presence of Dynamic Economies of Scale,” Journal of Development Economics, January 1987.

“Rethinking International Trade,” Business Economics, July 1988.

“Financing vs. Forgiving a Debt Overhang,” Journal of Development Economics, 1988.

“Differences in Income Elasticities and Secular Trends in Real Exchange Rates,” European Economic Review, May 1989.

“The J-Curve, the Fire Sale, and the Hard Landing,” American Economic Review, May 1989.

“The Case for Stabilizing Exchange Rates,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 5 (1989).

“Persistent Trade Effects of Large Exchange Rate Shocks” (with R. Baldwin), Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1989.

“Target Zones and Exchange Rate Dynamics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1991.

“History vs. Expectations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1991.

“Increasing Returns and Economic Geography,” Journal of Political Economy, June 1991.

"History and Industrial Location: The Case of the Manufacturing Belt,” American Economic Review, May 1991.

“Myths and Realities of U.S. Competitiveness,” Science, November 8, 1991.

“The Right, the Rich, and the Facts,” The American Prospect, Fall 1992.

“Second Thoughts on EMU,” Japan and the World Economy 4 (1992), pp. 187-200.

“What Do Undergrads Need to Know About Trade?”, American Economic Review, May 1993.

“The Narrow and Broad Arguments for Free Trade,” American Economic Review, May 1993.

“First Nature, Second Nature, and Metropolitan Location,” Journal of Regional Science 33 (1993).

“On the Number and Location of Cities,” European Economic Review, March 1993.

“Why Have a Target Zone?” (with M. Miller), Carnegie-Rochester Series on Public Policy 38 (1993), pp. 279-314.

“Leapfrogging: A Theory of Cycles in National Technological Leadership” (with E. Brezis), American Economic Review, 1993.

“The Uncomfortable Truth About NAFTA,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 1993.

“Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 1994.

“Trade, Jobs, and Wages” (with R. Lawrence), Scientific American, April 1994.

“Europe Jobless, America Penniless?” Foreign Policy, Summer 1994.

“Does Third World Growth Hurt First World Prosperity?” Harvard Business Review, July 1994.

“Technology’s Revenge,” The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 1994.

“Past and Prospective Causes of High Unemployment,” Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City), Fourth Quarter 1994.

“The Myth of Asia’s Miracle,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 1994.

“Past and Prospective Causes of High Unemployment,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 4th Quarter 1994.

“The Localization of the World Economy,” New Perspectives Quarterly, Winter 1995.

“The Illusion of Conflict in International Trade,” Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 1995.

“Innovation and Agglomeration: Two Parables Suggested by City-Size Distributions,” Japan and the World Economy 7, 1995.

“Dutch Tulips and Emerging Markets,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995, pp. 28-44.

“What the Public Doesn’t Know Can’t Hurt Us,” The Washington Monthly, October 1995.

“Cycles of Conventional Wisdom on Economic Development,” International Affairs, 72(1), 1995.

“Growing World Trade: Causes and Consequences,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1995.

“Globalization and the Inequality of Nations,” NBER Working Paper No. 5098, 1995.

“What Difference Does Globalization Make?” Business Economics, January 1996.

“A Country is Not a Company,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1996.

“It’s a Wonderful Life,” The Washington Monthly, January/February 1996.

“Stay on Their Backs.” New York Times Magazine, February 4, 1996.

“What are the Lessons of Asian Growth?” Journal of Industrial Competitiveness, February 1996.

“How is NAFTA Doing?” The New Democrat, May/June 1996.

“On ‘Workers and the World Economy,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 1996.

“Trade Policy and the Third World Metropolis,” Journal of Development Economics, vol. 49, 1996.

“America the boastful”, Foreign Affairs, May 1998.

“It’s baaack! Japan’s slump and the return of the liqudity trap”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2:1998.

“Thinking about the liquidity trap”, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, forthcoming.

“How complicated does the model have to be?”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, forthcoming.

"The fear economy", New York Times Magazine, Sept. 2001.

CHAPTERS IN EDITED VOLUMES

“The Decision to Migrate” (with J. Bhagwati), in J. Bhagwati, ed., The Brain Drain and Taxation, MIT Press, 1976.

“Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade,” reprinted in J. Bhagwati, ed., International Trade: Selected Readings, MIT Press, 1980.

“Trade in Differentiated Products and the Political Economy of Trade Liberalization,” in J. Bhagwati, ed., Import Competition, University of Chicago Press, 1982.

“Oil and the Dollar,” in J. Bhandari and B. Putnam, eds., Iternational Interdependence Under Floating Exchange Rates, MIT Press, 1983.

“The International Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect,” in J. Bilson and R. Marston, eds., Exchange Rate Theory and Practice, University of Chicago Press, 1984.

“Oil Shocks and Exchange Rate Dynamics,” in J. Frankel, ed., Exchange Rates and International Macroeconomics, University of Chicago Press, 1984.

“Import Protection as Export Promotion: International Competition in the Presence of Oligopoly and Economies of Scale,” in H. Kierzkouski, ed., Monopolistic Competition in International Trade, Oxford University Press, 1984.

“International Competition and U.S. Economic Growth,” in C. Hulten, ed., The Reagan Administration and U.S. Economic Growth, Urban Institute, 1984.

“International Debt Strategies in an Uncertain World,” in J. Cuddington and R. Smith, eds., The World Debt Problem, World Bank, 1985.

“Targeted Industrial Policies: Theory and Evidence” (Presented at Conference on Structural Change in the U.S. Economy, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 1983), in Industrial Change and Public Policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 1983.

“A Technology Gap Model of International Trade,” in K. Jungenfelt and D. Hague, eds., Structural Adjustment in Advanced Economies, MacMillan, 1986.

“Is the Strong Dollar Sustainable?” in The U.S. Dollar: Prospects and Policy Options, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 1985.

“Increasing Returns and the Theory of International Trade, “ in T. Bewley, ed., Recent Developments in Economic Analysis, North-Holland, 1988.

“Pricing to Market When the Exchange Rate Changes,” in S. Arndt and J.D. Richardson, eds., Real-Financial Linkage Among Open Economies, MIT Press, 1988.

“Industrial Organization and International Trade,” forthcoming in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, North-Holland, 1989.

“Is the Japan Problem Over?” in R. Sato, ed., U.S.-Japan Trade Frictions, 1988.

Prospects for International Debt Reform,” in United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, International Monetary and Fiscal Issues for Developing Countries, New York: United Nations, 1987.

“Market Access and Competition: A Simulation Study of 16K Random Access Memories” (with R. Baldwin), in R. Feenstra, ed ., Empirical Studies of International Trade, MIT Press, 1988.

“Prospects for European Integration” in T. Padoa-Schioppa, Equity, Efficiency, and Growth, (a report to the European Commission ), 1988.

“Responding to External Shocks,” in R. Dornbusch, ed., The Open Economy, Wold Bank, 1988.

“Slow Growth in Europe: Conceptual Issues” in C. Schultze and R. Lawrence, eds., Barriers to European Growth, Washington: Brookings, 1988.

“Long Run Effects of the Strong Dollar,” in R. Marston, ed., Exchange Rate Misalignments, University of Chicago Press, 1988.

“Sustainability and the Dollar” in R. Bryant, G. Holtham, and P. Hooper, External Deficits and the Dollar, Brookings Institution, 1988.

“New Trade Theory and the Less Developed Countries” forthcoming in R. Findlay, P. Kouri, and J. de Macedo, eds., Growth, Debt, and Development (memorial volume to Caros Diaz-Alejandro), 1989.

“Private Capital Flows to Problem Debtors,” in J. Sachs, ed., The International Debt Problem, University of Chicago Press, 1989.

“Market-based Debt Reduction Schemes,” in J. Frankel, ed., Analytics of International Debt, International Monetary Fund, 1989.

“Market-based Approaches to Debt Reduction,” in R. Dornbusch and J. Makin, Alternative Approaches to the Debt Problem, American Enterprise Institute, 1989.

“Is Bilateralism Bad?,” in E. Helpman and A. Razin, eds., International Trade and Policy, MIT Press, 1990.

“Integration and the Competitiveness of Peripheral Industry,” in C. Bliss and J. de Macedo, Unity with Diversity: Enlargement and the European Community, 1991.

“Speculative Attacks on Target Zones” (with J. Rotemberg) in P. Krugman and M. Miller, eds., Exchange Rate Target and Currency Bands, Oxford University Press, 1991.

“Lessons of Massachusetts for EMU,” in F. Torres, ed., The Transition to Economic and Monetary Union, 1993.

“Multilateralism vs. Regionalism: Analytical Notes,” in J. de Melo and A. Panagariya, eds., New Directions in Regional Integration, 1994.

“The Age of Diminished Expectations,” in Raquib Zaman, ed., Competing in a Global Economy,” Ithaca College Press, 1995.

“Europe Jobless, America Penniless?”, in Don Cole, ed., Economics 95/96, Brown & Benchmark Publishers, CT, 1995.

“Incidents from My Career,” in Arnold Heertje, ed., The Makers of Modern Economics, Vol. II, Edward Elgar, 1995.

“Does Third World Growth Hurt First World Prosperity?” in Kenichi Ohmae, The Evolving Global Economy, Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

“What Do We Need to Know about the International Monetary System?” in Peter B. Kenen, ed., Understanding Interdependence, Princeton University Press, 1995.

“Urban Concentration: The Role of Increasing Returns and Transport Costs,” Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, March 1995.

“How to be a Crazy Economist,” in Steven G. Medema and Warren J. Samuels, eds., Foundations of Research in Economics: Ho Do Economists Do Economics? Edward Elgar, 1996.

“The practical theorist: Peter Kenen’s contributions to economics” in B.J. Cohen, ed., International Trade and Finance: Essays in Honor of Peter B. Kenen, 1997.

“And now for something completely different: an alternative model of trade, education, and inequality” in R. Feenstra, ed., The Impact of International Trade on Wages 2000

“Fire-sale FDI” in S. Edwards, ed., Capital Flows and the Emerging Economies, 2000.

"Crises: the next generation" in Razin festschrift volume, forthcoming, E. Helpman, ed.

"Was it all in Ohlin?" in Ohlin celebration volume, forthcoming, M. Lundahl, ed.

REPORTS

“Foreign Experience with Industrial Policy: A Critical Review,” prepared for the U.S. State Department, July 1980.

“Restoring Growth in the Debt-Laden Third World,” (with M. Feldstein, H. de Carmoy, and K. Narusana), Trtilateral Commisssion, 1987.

“Adjustment in the World Economy,” Group of Thirty Occasional Paper #24, 1987.

“Market-based Debt Reduction: Principles and Prospects” (with S. Claessens, I. Diwan, and K. Froot), World Bank, 1990.

“The Philippine Economy” (with J. Alm, S. Collins, and E. Remolona), Philippine Government publication, 1992.

Robert, Krugman's qualifications mean nothing to me, nor does the fact that Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale mean a damn thing to you.

Show me a PROVEN study that proves Bush stole Florida in the 2000 election. Hell, even the NY Times, which Krugman works for concluded that Bush would have won.

I'd love to compare Bush's published works with Krugman's. Anyday.

Election 2000 redux addition to Tim L.

Good post Tim. It was recently noted that only 13% of active military votes democratic. Although the number of Democrats was slightly higher before 911, it is true the Democrats openly and knowingly attempted to disenfranchise the troops that they now claim to support.

It should also be remembered that when Democrats including Gore himself claim that the Supreme court "selected" President Bush, that it was Florida courts that ruled in favor of Gore to allow a second bite at the apple for heavily democrat districts that would be recounted by democratic controlled local election officials by standards that they could make up as they go and in some cases standards that could be remade after a preliminary recount in order to fit their desired results. The Florida supreme court passed it up to the US Supremes and when the US Supreme court vacated the ruling of the FLA supremes (overuled...UNANIMOUSLY) the Florida supreme court ignored the constitutional position of the US Supreme court and ruled again in favor of recounts for some but prohibitting recounts for Republican districts. Even the Liberal Chief Justice of the Florida Supremes voted against the majority in his own court and eventually the US Supreme Court ruled again that the ridiculous scheme for an unequal recount was not going to continue. It is rarely noted that had Gore not been greedy and had he asked for a statewide recount instead, the rulings may have gone differently. Once again, the Democrats overplayed their game, tried to cheat the system, and when they made poor choices and lost, they blame some right wing conspiaracy. Better luck next time...Oh wait, there was a next time,....Bush won again, by an even wider margin.

p.s. I quoted Gumbel's work, not Krugman's

p.p.s. look up the consortium work for yourself.

TJ, if I'm not mistaken, the lib media only brings up the 5 to 4 vote of the Florida Supreme Court to stop the illegal recounts Gore demanded, but not the UNANIMOUS vote by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount.

And TJ, where were all those supposed THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS of disenfranchised minority voters to win Florida for Kerry?? LOL

[...]UNANIMOUS vote by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount.

??????

If Krugman knows so much, how come he has to teach?

I mean Bill Gates didn't graduate college...
Dave Thomas? High school.

And in all the works cited, I see nothing to indicate expertise beyond economics. If Mr. Krugman were to confine his opinion to economics, he would be a unknown.

Why doesn't Krugman open a financial consulting firm, or better yet, make more money than Soros in order to impliment his plans?

Have you ever seen him when someone tells him he is wrong? Like a pouting child.

Follow the Krugman model-buy your bonds. I'll stick with equities.

I have also noticed that he is leery of supply siders, but then the trend in Nobel prizes, is towards supply side economics. For someone who is so smart, why hasn't he even been in the running?

Just so I'm clear, he is emotionally unbalanced, (I've seen him in class,) and aside from writing, he is not considered a credible source on economic policy, except by ivy league acadamia...he is the equivalent of a glorifed meteorologist, unable to predict the future, but certain of its outcome.

I noticed that the obsession was with the volume of work. Great thinkers and economists are known, by great acts or ideas. The list is compensating for the fact that he has failed to independently predict anything of import.

He still thinks Laffer was wrong...mind numbingly ignorant. The perfect spokesman for the dems.

What is his stand alone achievement?

Robert:

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5-4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.

Tim -

The question marks refered to your use of the word unanamous...neither 5-4 or 7-2 is unanamous.

Mark -

I posted Krugman's CV only to counter the assertion that he is some left-wing conspiracy theorist. Again, I posted Andrew Gumbel's article, which stands on its own, and accurately describes the finding of the media consortium. The finding of which was somewhat obscured in the press by the occurance of 9/11.

Mr. Corn

Why in heaven's name would you blog about Clinton's faults at this juncture? Bad timing and bad taste. Because of Bush's folly, we spend billions of dollars every month to keep the Iraq fiasco chugging along. During Clinton's administration the budget was balanced and the country was not beholden to the Chinese to keep the money flowing. Believe me, I was no Clinton fan, but I do not think now is the time to start bashing him again.

By the way, MediCAID not MediCARE offers health care to low income people.

Paul Krugman on Paul Krugman

The Unanimous ruling by the US Supremes was unanimous in that the all Justices favored the over ruling of the FLA supremes, Breyer and Souter were dissenting not in the over ruling , only in the remedy. From the order itself: "The only disagreement is as to the remedy". Make note that the former general counsel to the ACLU Ruth Buzzy Ginzberg, ruled with the Majority against Albert Gore. The second ruling was irrelevent for the fact that the FLA court was acting in opposition to a previous ruling which was the grounds for FLA chief justice ruled against his fellow justices in the second ruling. So the truth of the 2000 election is it never had a snowballs chance in hell as Gore presented it before the court, even for ACLU minded Judges. Gore muffed it on so many levels, which is one reason why even local Democrat city council members wouldn't want to be seen with him.

It's tough to lose a game in extra innings, but Bush won and 911 happened and even many democrats said we dodged a bullet in Florida 2000.

Robert;
We should thank Tim L. Mark, they pretty much prove my point. It's not about what you say, it's the fact that you are saying it and thinking things they know are wrong. I'm starting to see similarities with the description of Americans and Britons being divided by a common language, but I'm not sure it's even a common language. Still you understand the confusion about voting now I'm sure. Unanimous means 7 to 2, 51% is a mandate. 8 out of 5 Republicans agree.

U.S. Poverty Rate Rises to 12.7 Percent

Asian Currency 'Crisis':wrong. (or 3 paragraphs down-"Anyway, enough apologies.")
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/DISINTER.html

"How economist Paul Krugman became the most important political columnist in America."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.confessore.html

"It's not immediately clear why." (You'll like the article, but it doesn't bolster his credentials)

"Krugman didn't take the rejection well, and lashed out at Clinton's appointees." This is a pro-Krugamn article, but it has to admit that he is child...

or more from the article...

"In a Times article that January, he was quoted as saying Tyson lacked "analytical skills"--just a few weeks after giving a speech at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association lambasting Reich and Ira Magaziner as "pop internationalists" who "repeat silly clich?s but imagine themselves to be sophisticated."

Reich, Tyson, and a handful of other alleged policy entrepreneurs came in for further attack in Krugman's next book, Peddling Prosperity (1994). It wasn't just that they were wrong, Krugman declared. It was that they were all dangerous hacks, snake-oil salesman selling foolish remedies to credulous politicians (like Clinton)."

Apparently Krugman is singing the praises of the Clinton economic team NOW, but when he was spurned he cried like a baby.

or...
"serious error was in a column written last July about Bush's dealings with the Texas Rangers, of which he became a part-owner in 1989. It's well known that Bush put $606,000 into the syndicate that bought the Rangers in 1989, about 2 percent of the total cost. When the deal was initialized that same year and Bush became the team's general manager, the syndicate awarded their well-connected partner an additional 10 percent stake, gratis. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush earned $14.9 million on his original investment. But Krugman went further, charging that Bush's extra return was "a 12-million dollar gift" to "a sitting governor," when in fact the gift had been awarded years before Bush's election as governor in 1994. Krugman later admitted the error--on his Web site, but not in the Times."

Seems Bush isn't the only one who won't admit to mistakes. His recent failure to recant his mind numbingly stupid statements about the election are merely symptomatic of the Krug.

But the question remains, even in an article describing his influence, what is his claim to insight?

If there was one, Paul would be the first to tell you.

Robert Schwartz said:

"U.S. Poverty Rate Rises to 12.7 Percent"

I guess that is good news for democrats and liberals, bad news for America means good news for them.

John,

I'm still trying to find someone who can explain the British use of the word "fixed".

As in, "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Now, unless someone can point to British usage that makes that mean "we were determining policy based on fact," I think it is clear grounds for immediate impeachment.

No, The Associated Press said poverty rates rose. Which goes to show that current economic policies are not helping those who need it.

"U.S. Poverty Rate Rises to 12.7 Percent"

I guess that is good news for democrats and liberals, bad news for America means good news for them.

Are you saying that Democrats and liberals are not Americans? I assume you just forgot the capital D in your quote, but I've been wrong plenty of times in my life. On second thought you are never wrong, so I guess you don't like democracy, I've always been opposed to people who label Republicans as Nazi's, but I must say I'm shocked to find one openly willing to admit they are opposed to one of our fundamental liberties.

"51% is a mandate."

Actually, it is a spoof on the Clintons. Hillary had the misfortune of declaring a 42% popular vote, a mandate.

Bush did also get 25% or 13 million more votes than clinton in his reelection.

So in regards to who is the most popular president...I'll let the numbers speak.

Did Clinton ever crack 50%?

Clinton wasn't afraid to speak to a room with detractors in it.

"U.S. Poverty Rate Rises to 12.7 Percent"

So what democratic pork will be cut out to help raise these people above the poverty line?

Also considering that the Poverty Line is determined based on income, and Social security is a joke, the more retirees, the more below the poverty line.

Let's hear the democratic ideas for increasing social security payments to offset this growing number below the poverty line. Let's give away more soc security now, so we'll have less in the future. Pelosi has said we will still recieve 75% of what was promised to us, in the year 2030.

Like dems really have a plan. Gutless, reactionary mob...

Robert;
My U.K. friends assure me it means to repair something that is broken or not functioning correctly, or when talking about games of chance and sporting events that the events are manipulated in advance to suit the desired outcome. Let us assume however that it is the first, how does one "fix" intelligence and facts without fundamentally changing them, in which case they are no longer the facts you began with. It's a quandary, all right. Maybe it's more of that common language problem we're developing in this problem. They are 16 to 9 unanimous.

John Benson,

Neoconservatives are NOT republicans at all. They are much closer to facist's.

261: Your numbers are dead wrong. Do you just make stuff up, like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O Rielly? Show the source for your statistics.

51% is not a mandate, especially if you lie your ass off about mushroom clouds and WMD's to get re elected.

You also failed to mention the presence of Ross Perot, whom many voted for to express thier frustration with both parties.

Clinton won both times, without having to suppress hundreds of thousands of voters. W. lost in 2000. This is common knowledge.

I don't see how you can say that. There WMDs in Iraq and numerous violations of the UNSCRs and Saddams closest aides admitted in the Duelfer report among others that they had every intention of and were in the process of rearming their WMD arsenal.

TJ ,

Watching FOX news is like trying to read in the dark! You were lied to just like the rest of us! It is time to admit it!

John, I don't think democrats and liberals are anti-American. Although some are. But you can't deny that democrats only have success when things are bad in America?

If the economy was really bad or the Iraq war was going really bad prior to the election, then Kerry would be president.

I'd argue that Clinton only won in 1992 b/c Perot siphoned votes away from George H. Bush, since Perot was a right-leaning independent.

But Clinton would have been elected president in 1996 even if it were just him and Dole and not Perot.

Carter won largely b/c of the republican scandals with Nixon.

Senator Boxer on Social Security

Robert Schwartz said:

"As in, "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Okay Robert, well what about countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Australia and Russia who had intelligence that was INDEPENDENT of U.S. intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein had WMDs? Were they lying too? Even Russia, who was AGAINST the Iraq war, had intelligence indicating Saddam had WMDs. Forget that the U.S. and Britain had intlligence that said Saddam had WMDs.

How do you explain this?

I will admit that Bush did cherry-pick the intellgience, but he did NOT lie or exaggerate it.

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Donald Rumsfeld before the illegal invasion of Iraq

"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."

President George W. Bush, addressing congress

I'm starting to wonder if the "T" in "TJ" stands for Tim.

Unanimous indeed. I have determined that any further response to your idiocy is useless. You aren't even worthy of my contempt.

Have a nice day!

I will admit that Bush did cherry-pick the intellgience, but he did NOT lie or exaggerate it.
Tim L.

Tim, cherry-picking, or the use of some data and the deliberate suppression of other data, is lying.

Daniel Okrent(NYT public editor) on the Krug:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDE1539F931A15756C0A9639C8B63

"2. Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

This was from May 2005, way ahead of Krugman's recent stupidity.

Corky said:

""It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Donald Rumsfeld before the illegal invasion of Iraq"

The Iraq war was perfectly legal, Saddam Hussein violated 17 U.N resolutions, including 687, 688 and 1441. Hussein violated his Cease Fire Agreement he signed in 1991. 688 is for you bleeding heart liberals who actually care about human rights, since Saddam brutalized his people.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
Found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations.
Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply.
Demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days.
Demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections.
Decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach.
Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

Oh, and by the way, for the sake of those who do bother to read your moronic gibberish, could you please buy a fucking paragraph break?

In the State of the Union Adress the President said Iraq had 25,000 liters of Anthrax, 38,000 liters of Botox, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and nerve gas. He also mentioned that Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium oxide from Niger, despite Joe Wilson's trying to convince him otherwise. We all know what Joe got for trying to tell the truth. The memo George used as evidence was an obvious fake. Oh, and don't forget those scary aluminum tubes.

I watched the whole speech. I was scared. I thought we were in serious danger. I trusted our President. I thought he was serious when he said those things. It was unimaginable to me that anyone would misrepresent this percieved threat. Even though it was clear that The Center for the New American century had been planning invading Iraq since the 90's.

None of this stuff was ever found. Nothing. Nada.

Daniel Okrent's attack on Krugman was the act of a coward. That's a pretty poor example, mark. Krugman ended up eviscerating him.

As a debater, son, you blow.

Are you trying to convince me that you are right, or yourself.

"Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney

Tim L.

Let us assume that he did have weapons of mass destruction. He did at some point. That much is clear. He used them in Iran and in Halabja. Donald Rumdfeld went and shook his hand. We know all that.

So let's skip ahead to when Scott Ritter was telling all who would listen that the Bagdahd regime had accounted for about 95% of the weapons he was thought to have had. The other 5% of this was known to have partially decayed in the case of chemical weapons, as was witnessed by the very few old shells that were found.

At this point, the U.N. inspectors are all over Saddam, like flies on you know what. There was absolutly no reason for the admnistration to claim rocket tubes were centrifuge parts, that there were mobile bio-weapons labs, yellowcake fron Niger, all fabricated out of one source named Curveball. And this man committed the prestige, honor and blood of the United States of America on this travesty.

Cherry-picking isn't lying, it's just choosing info that suits your opinion.

But you still haven't answered my questios:
Okay Robert, well what about countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Australia and Russia who had intelligence that was INDEPENDENT of U.S. intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein had WMDs? Were they lying too? Even Russia, who was AGAINST the Iraq war, had intelligence indicating Saddam had WMDs. Forget that the U.S. and Britain had intlligence that said Saddam had WMDs.

Robert let me break it down for you:

U.S intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
British intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Egyptian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Jordanian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Australian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Russian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS

These countries' intelligence are all INDEPEDENT of U.S. intelligence.

Intelligence from the Clinton administration says Saddam has WMDs.

The Director of the CIA, George Tenet look you (as President) straight in the eye and says "Iraq's WMDs are a slam-dunk Mr. President."

Are you telling me that you wouldn't believe Saddam has WMDs w/ the preponderance of evidence?

"We know that he's (Saddam) been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Dick Cheney

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Condeleeza Rice

A Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an insurgent soldier badly injured and unconscious. Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert.

As first aid was given to both men, the Marine was asked what had happened. The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent.

Seeing each other we both took cover. I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable low-life scumbag, and he yelled back that President Bush is a rich, good-for-nothing egotist."

"We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."

Are you telling me that you wouldn't believe Saddam has WMDs w/ the preponderance of evidence?

WHAT evidence, Tim? The best evidence for the existence of WMD would be the existence of WMD...and in case you haven't noticed, WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY!

*shaking head with disgust*

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan."

Colin Powell in his infamous speech before the UN

Scott Ritter also thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs:

"Six months is a very reasonable time scale for Iraq to resume weapons capabilities." Scott Ritter, August 30, 1998

"Iraq's job is to avoid bringing the world's attention to the fact they've retained these weapons," Scott Ritter, August 1998

"Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." Scott Ritter, August 1998

Also, if you remember, Saddam Hussein KICKED OUT U.N weapons inspectors, so it was perfectly logical to assume he was up to something, why else would he kick weapons inspectors out?

"Every statement I make is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Colin Powell, during the same speech to the UN

Corky?

Here's the actual transcript for Cheney:

http://msnbc.msn.com/news/886068.asp

The quote? The actual quote was "reconstituted weapons PROGRAM." You believe your own lies and editors.

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

So the National Security Adviser is crazy for suggesting that we could be attacked by a nuclear weapon? No need to look into the matter any further? She must be crazy...it could never happen, no one wants to do that to our country.

9/11 shows that ANYTHING is possible. for you to dismiss it, suggests wishful thinking, and denial on a democratic level. You have no business discussing Foreign policy, if ideas are too big for your little mind.

The Director of the CIA, George Tenet look you (as President) straight in the eye and says "Iraq's WMDs are a slam-dunk Mr. President." Tim L.

Tim, first let me remind you of the vast collaboration between many of those agencies you mention. I'd be questioning the independence therefrom, and probably everything devolves to a common source. Next, that slam dunk comment seems to have been taken out of context, according to JOHN MCLAUGHLIN. former #2 at the CIA, in CNN Presents: Dead Wrong.

"This is not just an academic exercise or the United States being in a fit of pique. We're talking about real weapons. We're talking about anthrax.We're talking about botulism toxin. We're talking about nuclear weapons programs."

Colin Powell testifying before the U.S. Senate

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Queda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident there was an established relationship here."

Dick Cheney

Robert Schwartz said:

"At this point, the U.N. inspectors are all over Saddam, like flies on you know what. There was absolutly no reason for the admnistration to claim rocket tubes were centrifuge parts, that there were mobile bio-weapons labs, yellowcake fron Niger, all fabricated out of one source named Curveball. And this man committed the prestige, honor and blood of the United States of America on this travesty."

No, the weapons inspectors were not "all over Saddam". The U.N. inspectors called for tenative inspections, meaning, they could examine any area at any time. Saddam did NOT allow that. He only allowed inspections when he wanted them, not when U.N. officials wanted them, so it was thought he was trying to conceal or hide his WMDs. That is why Bush decided to pull the inspectors out b/c Saddam was not fully cooperating.

Secondly, the U.N. weapons inspectors had not been to Iraq
since 1998, after Saddam kicked them out. Now why would Saddam kick them out for no reason?

The uranium from Niger was from British intelligence, which STILL stands by their claim that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

Cherry-picking isn't lying, it's just choosing info that suits your opinion. Tim L.

Not opinion Tim. Policy. Big difference. And when cherry picky involves not using information you have in your possesion, that undermines your pre-determined policy, that is lying. And it is lying to a deadly purpose.

After hearing his tiny nation was included in the "coalition of the willing".

"I was unaware of it."

Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands

We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,” push for “regime change” in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
- “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000

Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]….Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.
- Donald Rumsfeld notes, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 11, 2001

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, CBS’ 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

I don't think they [WMD] existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s.
- David Kay, former chief weapons inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2004

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

Bush lied. No question.

Corky said:

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Queda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident there was an established relationship here."

Dick Cheney

Democratic Vice President of the 9/11 commission Lee Hamilton:

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.”
“So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”

"The predictions of those who opposed this war can be discarded like spent cartridges."

Richard Perle

Robert Schwartz said:

"Not opinion Tim. Policy. Big difference. And when cherry picky involves not using information you have in your possesion, that undermines your pre-determined policy, that is lying. And it is lying to a deadly purpose."

Robert, that's how intelligence works! You weigh it. The evidence that stated Saddam had WMDs was greater than the evidence that said he didn't have WMDs.

Uh, the weapons inspectors were told to get out by the US. before we unleashed shock and awe, and cherry picking scott ritters statements dated in 1998 are missing the point, but what the hell you usually do anyway. Geez get off of it and wake up your country if you are even in the US is going downhill rapidly and you can't see it, I guess when you don't have any interest in this country you do this, why don't you enlist to go to Iraq and spread some of that democracy around you would make a great bullet stopper no experience necessary.

"Next year at about this time, I expect that there will be a really thriving trade in the region, and we will see rapid economic development. And a year from now, I'll be very suprised if there is not some grand square named after President Bush."

Ricard Perle, shortly after the illegal invasion of Iraq

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

"By THIS and other governments"

Bush Lied in BOLD FACE TYPE

"Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit."

Tony Blair

Well Tony, I'm still waiting. Tony has a job at the Carlyle Group waiting for him.

Icarus:

The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) was signed into law by the US President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." After findings of past Iraqi military action and denial of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction, congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Icarus said:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

"By THIS and other governments"

Bush Lied in BOLD FACE TYPE"

Intelligence from this (US) and other governments:

U.S intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
British intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Egyptian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Jordanian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Australian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS
Russian intelligence says Saddam has WMDS

Mark, #261

It is the policy of this neonservative movement to repeat the same talking points OVER and OVER again. Sometimes the repeated talking points differ a bit. My qoute was simply from a different propaganda regurgitation cycle.

"In my line of work you have to sort of keep repeating the same thing over and over again... to sort of catapault the propaganda."

Emperor George W. Bush

"The predictions of those who opposed this war can be discarded like spent cartridges."

This is correct.

Can Corky provide us a statement of doom that came true?

Look no further then Wesley Clarke: "We'll lose 3000-5000, just to take the country." oops.

If Corky has a prediction from one of his fearless leaders, that demonstrated insight, it would have been on a protest sign. Haven't seen any yet....

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

let's see, congress in 1998(?) passed a unanimous bill to overthrow Saddam. Seems the bad person, has to go theory was out there for some time.

"Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004 "

Bush never said imminent. John Edwards did 4 times however, in one discussion about Iraq. Tenet did say, "slam-dunk", about something, maybe you can find the quote for me.

"Not opinion Tim. Policy. Big difference. And when cherry picky involves not using information you have in your possesion, that undermines your pre-determined policy, that is lying."

I'm all for looking for WMD's in the Bekaa Valley. Saddam knew we were coming for six months. Do you think Syria would help the only other Baathist regime hide their stuff?

200 pieces of intel support your belief, 30 do not...does this not mean you have to use your best judgement? Once again, when the CIA director says, 'slam-dunk', it's on.

Secondly, the U.N. weapons inspectors had not been to Iraq since 1998, after Saddam kicked them out. Now why would Saddam kick them out for no reason? Tim L.

Saddam did not kick them out. He accused them of working for US intelligence. He claimed they were gathering targeting info.

Timeline from Frontline

18 November

UNSCOM inspectors return to Iraq.

23-26 November

Iraq makes it clear that it will not cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors, alternately intimidating and withholding information from them.

30 November

Butler meets with US National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to coordinate time lines for possible military strike against Iraq.

9 December

UNSCOM inspectors show up for an unscheduled search of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party headquarters. Only four inspectors are allowed to enter. Butler then calls off the inspection.

11 December

Iraq announces that inspections can no longer take place on Friday, the Muslim day of rest. They refuse to provide test data from the production of missiles and engines.

13 December

Clinton secretly approves attack on Iraq.

15 December

Richard Butler provides a report to the UN Security Council which argues Iraq is still blocking inspections. This report serves as the basis for a military strike.

16 December

UNSCOM withdraws all weapons inspectors from Iraq.

16-19 December

Operation Desert Fox: bombing commences against Iraq. The House vote on impeachment is delayed.

17 December

Some members of the UN Security Council attack Butler, saying that he manipulated the report that the US used to justify the attack against Iraq. Butler vehemently denies the charges.

19 December

Just before bombing ceases, Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan announces that Iraq will no longer co-operate. He declares UNSCOM's "mission is over."

21 December

Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, France, and China) call for lifting the eight-year oil embargo, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing Butler. A US official (unnamed) indicates that the US will use its Security Council veto against any such measures.

4 January

The Washington Post reports that Kofi Annan obtained evidence that the US collected eavesdropping intelligence through UNSCOM with the UN's permission.

7 January

US officials confirm their role in the monitoring operation of communications in Iraq. They say that intelligence agents from several countries, including the US, were assigned to work on inspection teams.

4 February

Richard Butler tells CNN that when his term expires on June 30, 1999, he will resign.

*****

"Not opinion Tim. Policy. Big difference. And when cherry picky involves not using information you have in your possesion, that undermines your pre-determined policy, that is lying. And it is lying to a deadly purpose." Me

Robert, that's how intelligence works! Tim L.

Need I say more?

" I don't beleive that anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons"

Donald Rumsfeld, after NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND

My, my what incredible amounts of old, stale and previously utterly, repeatedly vanquished troll slop are being deposited in here. Some of it is funny, in an ironic way. Citing Egyptian intelligence? The Egyptians claim they had a spy in Al Qaeda and gave the Bush administration repeated warnings of the plans to use aircraft well before 9-11, which warnings the US ignored. Medal-bearing George Tenet sent Hosni Mubarak a letter begging him not to express publicy Egypt's opposition and puzzlement over the invasion of Iraq. Mubarak's answer in the press?

"When it is over, if it is over, this war will have horrible consequences," Mubarak told Egyptian soldiers in the city of Suez.

"Instead of having one (Osama) bin Laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens," he added.

Maybe some Bush administration apologists could relieve the cerebral constipation induced by blind loyalty and too much Limbaugh/Drudge/O Lielly et al, if they could just start by admitting (12 step program fashion) that the invasion and occupation has made us less safe. Then maybe all other diversions and crazy retrospective rationalizations would fall away, and a dialogue could start about what to do. But this administration is all about acquiring and maintaining power first, and therefore has not and will not ever admit a mistake, much less a lie, even when lives are lost and destroyed and national security is subordinate. It's criminal and amoral.

Check out the picture and caption here to be reminded why: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-01.htm

Bush continued to attack the Clinton-Gore administration's military readiness before a veterans' group yesterday, proudly wearing the campaign hat of the Texas National Guard. As Governor of Texas he is the head of the Texas National Guard, but being Governor does not allow him to misrepresent the present administration's record. Several weeks ago Bush said 2 of the Army's 10 active divisions were not ready for combat. However, he did not furnish the real reason for that circumstance. According to Steven Lee Myers in Monday's issue of the NYT, the two divisions in question, "the 10th Mountain and the 1st Mechanized Infantry, were briefly classified as unready for war last fall, not because they suffered from budget cuts and low morale, as Mr. Bush suggested, but rather because large parts of the divisions were keeping peace in Bosnia and Kosovo."

Meanwhile, Bush has intimate knowledge about an Army division that really isn't in readiness, the 49th Armored Division of the Texas National Guard, which, as Governor of Texas, he commands. Myers reports that the 49th "has the lowest ranking for wartime readiness that the Pentagon gives, according to military officials. It has been that way for the last three years." Today, Bush plans to appear before veterans groups in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, falsely accusing Gore of a "dereliction" of duty that, he, not Gore, is guilty of.

Bush lied as Gov. with no compunction.

"George Bush is a very bad person and he needs to go."

corky

So Robert, what's your point of all that?

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

President Bush, when asked about the absence of any evidence whatsoever that supported the pre invasion claims of his administration.

Tim L., I'd like to say again, "props" for being more social (nice) with your comments. Unfortunately, we can't say you got any smarter.
*shrug* I think your cuz was right when he insinuated you were a lost cause. A LIE is a LIE, and there were alot of 'em, but you still make excuses and say they weren't lies.
So, the economy is good, the war is going wonderful, and America's good will and prestige in the world haven't been better. "Freedom is on the march" and all that...
is it the Kool-aide duuude?!

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south, and north, somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld commenting on the lack of any evidence whatsoever to support that wild claims of Saddams reconstituted WMD program.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Secondly, the U.N. weapons inspectors had not been to Iraq since 1998, after Saddam kicked them out. Now why would Saddam kick them out for no reason? Tim L.

"Saddam did not kick them out. He accused them of working for US intelligence. He claimed they were gathering targeting info".

What don't you understand? That you misrepresented history? Or that fixing intelligence to fit a pre-determined attack on another country is an heinous crime?

"Most of the country is, in fact, orderly,"

Paul Bremer

"It is the policy of this neonservative movement to repeat the same talking points OVER and OVER again."

You mean like "Bush lied, soldiers died"?

The liberal wing of the democratic party is nothing more than parrots. Not a single idea offered on Iraq. Leadership, please.

Corky-you mistated earlier Cheney's quote about Saddam's 'reconstituted nuclear weapons PROGRAM'. Yet you continue to believe that he lied. You are in the same circumstance that the administration was in...some information was bad, but not enough to change their(or your) minds.

Everytime you put foward a falsehood to prove something, you commit the same sins you believe the adminstration has. You are no better then they are. you believed it because you wanted to, just as they believed as they wished. Did you lie when you misquoted Cheney? No, you just didn't have the facts.

Am I calling you a liar? no. You just had bad intel, but the same justifcation you use to label the Adminstration as liars, is the same method that the Invasion was allowed to occur.

Flip Flops

"has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his nieghbors."

Colin Powell Feb 2001

" We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Condi Rice April 2001

Flip Flop(s)

If I Knew Then What I Know Now…

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.

Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.

But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.

Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, “it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11.”

But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated “replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.”

Then:

" If anyone in this administration was involved (in leaking the name of a CIA operative) they will no longer be working in this administration."

Emperor Bush

Now:

"If anyone in this administration was convicted of a crime they will be fired."

Eperor Bush

Kerry sucks. Tell me something I don't already know.

Tim did you call 1 800 USA ARMY yet? Chickenhawk.

Forget about Corky. He is a liar. He lied about what cheney said, therefore he is a liar, not to be believed ever again.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – "Meet the Press" 3/16/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Lies, lies and more lies.

You voted for him Corky! LOL

Now you have to defend him!

Tim L.
I don't think democrats and liberals are anti-American.
That's better than some people. (capitalize the D if you mean the party).

Although some are.
Sure but you'd have to say that some Republicans and conservatives are as well. For the most part we can't even agree what it means to be an American or what America stands for anymore. So that position is so vague you can draw the line pretty much anywhere you want if you are trying to exclude folks.

But you can't deny that democrats only have success when things are bad in America?
Only have success when things are bad? No I'm not sure I'd agree. Times of trouble usually favor the party not in power. Incumbents start with an enormous advantage and generally don't lose unless they are presiding over a true mess.

This really more about how bad you think Bush is, we can disagree, and as long as you don't try to remove my citizenship in this country because we do, I guess I can live with that.

Thanks, you gave me a better response than I may have deserved.

Walter Brasch: 'George W. Bush, by the numbers'

Fair enough. Corky has been show to be a 'liar', so his crediblity is in the toilet. Give up on quotes Corky, your record paints you as lacking any crediblity for discussion. The lie you presented calls into question everything you say and write. It is one thing to present opinion based upon facts, but your opinion is based on lies and misrepresentation. Rummy, Wolfowitz, and Pearle have more crediblity.

Change your name and do better research.

Now Icarus regurgitates the same lie.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – "Meet the Press" 3/16/2003

If you stop lying long enough Icarus, you would put out the whole quote which goes "reconstituted (his)nuclear weapons PROGRAM."

See the above discussion, but now everything you say is shaded by the fact that you are a "liar".

No need to read your work further.

March 2003
As War Began, Kerry Said Saddam Chose “To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.” “Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)

Kerry Said Saddam Hussein’s WMD “Are A Threat.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

February 2003
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Described Secretary Of State Colin Powell’s Evidence Of WMD In Iraq As “Real And Compelling.” “[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’” (Wayne Washington, “Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)

January 2003
Kerry Said, “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real, But Not New. “[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

October 2002
“Mr. Kerry … Said Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ‘A Real And Grave Threat’ To The United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)

Kerry Questioned Saddam’s Actions With Respect To His WMD Capability. “Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Called It “Naive To The Point Of Grave Danger” To Leave Saddam “To His Own Devices.” “It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said “Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real.” “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry: “I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02)

September 2000
Kerry Said “There Is Nothing More Destabilizing Or Threatening [To The World] Than Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8321)

December 1998
Kerry Defended Clinton’s 1998 Attacks Because Saddam “Is Pursuing … Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

September 1998
Kerry Said, “‘We’re Going To Have To Make Some Fundamental Decisions About Whether To Follow A Policy Of Containment Or Deprive Iraq Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)

February 1998
Kerry Said Saddam Had Already Used WMD And Had Intent “To Do So” Again. “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Kerry Said That If Saddam’s Weapon Capability Was Not Eliminated “We Will Be Called On To Send Our Ships And Our Troops At One Point In The Future Back To The Middle East.” “Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people's expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

December 1997
Kerry Urged U.N. To Eliminate Iraq’s “Suspected Infrastructure For Developing And Manufacturing Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” “Democratic Senator John Kerry has said: ‘The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.’ He added that ‘Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security.’” (“US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq,” Agence France Presse, 12/12/97)

November 1997
Kerry Warned U.S. Senate Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

January 1991
Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ....” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)

October 1990
Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ... The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

"It is the policy of this neonservative movement to repeat the same talking points OVER and OVER again."

You mean like Icarus and Corky tell the same lies over and over?

Kerry sucks, I know this. I said this before Tim.

I don't lie!

Tim L.

1 800 USA ARMY! What are you still doing here?

I don't think democrats and liberals are anti-American.
That's better than some people. (capitalize the D if you mean the party).
John said:

"Although some are.
Sure but you'd have to say that some Republicans and conservatives are as well. For the most part we can't even agree what it means to be an American or what America stands for anymore. So that position is so vague you can draw the line pretty much anywhere you want if you are trying to exclude folks."

I don't consider the Left anti-American, just the Far-Left. You know, people like Michael Moore, Howard Dean, the Air America crowd, George Soros, Cynthia McKiney(sp) Captain Kirk, Gerald, etc. These people think America is a BAD country. They hate America and are actively trying to undermine it for it's defeat.

And let's get one thing straight! I am not a republican, I am an indepedent. I'd gladly vote for senators Evan Bayh of Indiana or Ben Nelson of Nebraska if they ran in 08.

Patriot Act Support Shrinks with Increased Info
The Associated Press Monday 29 August 2005

Why did you vote for Kerry then, Corky??

Tim? Don't worry Tim, I will watch your million dollar home and your 60,000 dollar car for you while you are in Iraq! So why don't you join up Tim?

I voted for Dean in the primary. I considered a vote for George to be a one way ticket to an eternity in hell. And there was no independent on the ballot in my state.

Why don't you join the Army Tim?

I don't blame you for your ignorance Tim, I blame FOX news.

Corky, and I blame, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and PBS for your ingnorance!

Here is just one more account of findings in the run up to the war.

Witnesses that testified for the Duelfer report, which was widely hearalded by the left as 100% true claimed that Saddam had a solid plan to maintain and grow WMD capability. Tariq Aziz for instance explained the plan. Saddam's plan was to split the allies, bribe the UN with Oil for food, buy votes on the security council, wear down the countries administering the no fly zones and inspections, and in the mean time in breach of UNSC resolutions buy long range missles and CW dual purpose materials. He would focus on delivery systems that included illegal missles that took years to acquire and hide the precursors for Chemical and biological warheads that could be ramped up "...in a matter of months".

They focused on maintaining the brain trust of the WMD and worked feverishly to research more, while hiding the material evidence. Another delivery system he cultivated was reaching out to terrorist groups.

The official pre war accounting by the Iraqis claimed to have misplaced 500 tons of mustard gas. They later claimed to have accidentally burned it. A high ranking General interogated after the war admitted that they had it hidden.

After the American invasion hundreds of missing mustard gas shells were found. Cultures of Sarin, Botulinum, small pox, and VX were found. some that could be easily grown into larger quantities in a short period of time.

Even if we found 150 warheads with mustard gas. Or even if the few IEDs that contained Sarin that failed to disperse the Sarin because the two capsules were vaporized before mixing properly. Or the 50 or 60 mustard gas shells mentioned in the following article that were later dismissed by Duelfer himself because it didn't appear they had been manufactured in a post desert storm era.

Missle parts with UN inspector tags were found as far away as scrap heaps in the Netherlands. The tags were dated within a year prior to the war.

All of these things considered, There may have not been "massive" stockpiles found, but WMDs were found.

If they had 50 warheads with mustard gas, how many would it take to ship those out of Beirut and detonate them in the Hudson river or Malibu. And knowing the recent remarks by the anti bush protestors against Israel, I don't suppose it would bother them much if those long range missles dropped mustard gas on Tel Aviv. Whether you think its likely or not, what is the alternative to having Saddam, who had the UN in his back pocket, long range missles, and verifiable chemical warheads, continuing to grow his arsenal and swearing to make America pay.

What was the alternative?

Here is an excerpt from an article about Duelfer, Kay and Blix:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18497

"...
As part of his effort to vacuum up all the evidence, his men resorted to tactics like dumping mustard gas barrels and cyanide in the Euphrates, never minding that the local people use this river for their drinking water. The US Marines found “significant quantities” of the poisons in the river near Nasiriyah in June of 2003. Duelfer never mentions this find.

Shortly before the war, Hans Blix’s UNMOVIC teams found and destroyed at Al-Muthanna 10 155-millimeter artillery shells and four plastic containers filled with mustard gas. Duelfer mostly denies Blix’s find here has any significance, because it doesn’t fit his model. He writes off the 58-plus chemical weapons shells found all over Iraq after the War as being “residual” shells left over from before the 1991 Gulf War. I somehow doubt that the Marine unit that was targeted by terrorists with one of these shells was interested in the date of its construction. I also doubt that if Saddam wanted to send over the next Ramzi Yousef to dump one of these shells in the Sears Tower HEVAC system, the thousands of victims’ families would much care, either. Duelfer also doesn’t pay much attention to how the Polish Army actually purchased cyclosarin (five times deadlier than sarin) rockets from the black market in Iraq to keep them out of the hands of Zarqawi's terrorists. So clearly Saddam didn’t have time to bury all the evidence.

It’s really too bad about Duelfer’s work being “cut short” because of Zarqawi. The trail of WMD isn’t cold. It leads to Syria and the Bekka Valley of formerly Syrian-occupied Lebanon, according to a Syrian defector to US intelligence. Gen. Tommy Franks himself leans this way, telling the media that "Two days before the war, on March 17 [2003], we saw through multiple intelligence channels - both human intelligence and technical intelligence, large caravans of people and things, including some of the top 55 [most wanted] Iraqis, going to Syria." What was so important to move to Syria immediately before the War with the top regime officials? Duelfer’s next stop should have been Damascus. With Syrian President Bashar Assad now admitting that he has stockpiles of WMD, perhaps it should be ours.

..."

The Left says Iraq in no way posed ANY threat to the US or the West.

So what should we have done with Iraq in 2003? Come on give it a try. I want to know.

[...]ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and PBS for your ingnorance! Tim L.

And every single one of those channels so-called news shows were unceasingly banging the war drums. Even the NYTimes which you didn't even bother to mention.

Thanks for your concern Tim, but T.V. news is as useless to me as your opinion. Or should I say Bill O'Riellys' opinion.

You're right Corky, you go to michaelmoore.com and Air America radio to get your facts!

So why have'nt you joined the Army yet Tim?

Actually I do like Moore's site. It has links to good news stories and avoids the op-ed stuff.

I have access to three great newspapers where I live. If I want to catch up on the latest news about Michael Jackson or about one missing white girl in Aruba, I will waste my time with T.V. crap news.

1 800 USA ARmy! Call now Tim!

Igonorance abounds.

Lets's see, if one can not prove that Iraq HAD WMD, not WMD programs, or program related activities (I love how people stretch the first into the third as if the rallying cry for going into Iraq was "we've got to stop them from wanting to obtain weapons that could possibly be used against, IF WE gave them a reason to.", then they resort to proving that other people were also WRONG in their assumptions by quoting Kerry, Clinton, et al (out of context the majority of the time as their quotations did not appear in cases where they said their abilities were of such magnitude that war was necessary, mind you, just a minor point, I guess)

Is that the old 2 wrongs make a right or the old mob rules mentality that they wish to invoke?

Then their are the Sheehan bashers who can not fathom that her pain is genuine(I pray none of you ever learn firsthand just how incredibly WRONG you are) and she must be the puppet of some left wing conspiracy, egged on by Michael Moore, George Soros, or anyone else willing to be critical of the President in recordable form.

They can't address her pain and the genuosity of her question, "for WHAT noble cause?" so they attack the same people they've been attacking for years, and claim she is their puppet, and by doing so absolve themself of having to take anything she says, or the support she receives as being genuine.

It's straight out of the 7 propaganda techniques, it is called association. you take item A, and unrelated item B and you associate them as being the same.

Stupid people fall for it daily.

Of course, when it comes to WMD, it doesn't matter who has them if they have no reason or desire (real or imaginary) to use them against you.

Address that issue, please.

A lie is different than being wrong. It looks to me like Bush, and Blair, like Clinton and all other intel services, was WRONG about WMDs. The Downing Street Memos show that, because Bush & Blair KNEW Saddam had WMDs, they needed a plan to take him out. Maybe what they "knew" was wrong (Bekka unsearched, not finding them doesn't prove they weren't there) -- but it is very clear that Saddam did NOT have evidence of destroying his prior stockpiles. He might well have destroyed them AND destroyed the evidence of destruction. His game was to act like he had them with his neighbors. It's good that he's not in power; it's good that Bush took action to take him out. It would have been good if Clinton had taken action to stop the genocide. It's too bad that, almost certainly, Reps would have been vehemently against Clinton's action if "too soon" -- but pictures of Hutu work (machete sliced Tutis, raped teens, etc) would likely have made him more a hero. The US has signed up for the responsibility of TAKING action to stop genocide, even if not otherwise in the US national interest. Usually the USA takes its signed authority more seriously -- which is why we didn't sign Kyoto, unlike Euro countries who sign, but merely plan on ignoring it.

corky, thank you for the quotes. These quotes remind us of the killer Nazi Americans. These Nazis did quote what you have shared with us.

When are the Bush twins enlisting to fight for oil???

J-Dub,

You still didn't respond to the question.

Were there any WMDs in Iraq?

Duelfer said he found Sarin and mustard gas shells. The polish army claimed the same. Hans Blix (not known for being pro american ) claims the same thing.

Were there any Mustard gas or Sarin shells (WMDs)?

My final question: What should we have done with Iraq in 2003 if not follow through on our UN threat in the form of UNSCR to use force if necessary. What should we have done?

Your remarks are nonsensical at best. I am not sure with regard to Cindy Sheehan if "Genousity" is a word, but what the hey.

From Bush to every conservative I have ever heard, I have not heard one conservative doubt her pain or express sympathy for her loss of her son. If you have seen someone say her grief is not genuine as you paint with a broad brush, I'd like to see it. Please provide one example . Even uncorroborated. I would like to see that. If you provide that, then direct your "how incredibly WRONG you are" statement at them.

That being said, if you think that a woman losing her son, or even the loss of an entire family and the grief that she suffered creates an instant epiphany that grants her the qualifications to understand foreign policy and in turn to encourage actions that would put our soldiers, our nation, and the entire western world in danger, then your grasp of the socratic method is weaker than your ability to make a valid argument.

With regard to your other point that some consider her a puppet of a left wing conspiracy, I don't claim their is a conspiracy. It's worse than that. The groups that are running her group are out in the open. It is not a secret conspiracy.

Yes Michael Moore supports her. He was one of the first to feature her on his website and offer his assistance for her political protest. Soros does too. Camp Casey is being funded by the Fremont group and funded by Ben and Jerry. I don't doubt that there is "Genuine support" for her political views as wrong as they might be. I believe much of it is very genuine. I just think the genuine support she is receiving is from radical groups, and not mainstream america. For example, with regard to her anti Israel remarks which Democratic strategist Susan Estrich characterized as Anti-Semitic today, she has a lot of support from people like David Duke who has rallied to her side.

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350

Her earliest appearances, even before Crawford she relied on Lisa Fithian, a famous radical leftist that encourages violent protests like the shutdown of Seattle during the WTO meetings. Fithian claims to be responsible for setting up Camp Casey.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200508290901.asp

She has also called on the Answer network which shared offices with the Iraq Sanctions Challenge whose raison d' etre in the late 90s was to end the sanctions against Saddam.

http://www.internationalanswer.org/

I've seen their rallies before. Many of the groups in their alliance are the american communist party and the Workers World Party.

Medea Benjamin and Eugene Bird, they are even more radical, you can google them.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/media081505.htm

Your reference to "association" makes me think that her financial supporters and the leaders and organizers of "Camp Casey" mean nothing to you. You can call it propoganda if you want, but is this a lone woman standing in a ditch attracting participents from mainstream america? Hardly.

Nice try. Your lame argument that if we disagree with her political views or those that are paying to mobilize her camp or her motorcade or her press machine, that somehow we don't think that any woman that loses a son would feel pain or grief or that in turn we don't feel sorry for her loss, well now thats a nice piece of propoganda. ..and you know what. Mainstream americans can see right through it. ABC News today showed that in a poll, that Cindy Sheehans political protest has caused more people to support the war than to turn against it.

You say people fall for it everyday? Well some of the people some of the time,...well, you know the rest. Nice try.

I answered the Noble cause question in previous posts and Bush has done the same, Now maybe you can answer the question that the Left still refuses to answer. What should we have done with Iraq in 2003.

Your closer is the biggest laugher of all:

"Of course, when it comes to WMD, it doesn't matter who has them if they have no reason or desire (real or imaginary) to use them against you."

Name an individual in the last 50 years that acted on a "real or imagined desire" to use Chemical and biological weapons on more occasions and on more people than Saddam Hussein, a Stalinist that waged war on every one of his neighbors at one time or another and has vowed to destroy Israel and attempted to assasinate an american president.

Come on J-dub, give it a try. What should we have done in 2003? Its not so hard.

Address that issue, please.

Bush launched a war in Iraq that has cost several thousand American soldier's their lives and approximately 100,000 Iraqi lives. This was a willful act.

Clinton failed to stop the immoral actions of others. He failed to stop others from others performing willful acts of immorality.

These things are no equivalent.

Even if they were, the issue of Darfur has been ommitted. If the blame for Rwanda is to be laid at the feet of President Clinton, so too must the blame for Darfur be laid at the feet of our current President.

As I entered my post, the last post caught my eye. I guess when facts are that blatantly wrong - from ignoring that Blix, the UN, the US military and the Duelfer Report all say active WMD(the mustard shells had degraded to unusable levels a decade before the invasion) were not found in Iraq to the nonsequitor about Saddam being a Stalinist - it isn't that hard to understand why some still think this war was not ill conceived or that it has been conducted competently.

Jake,

Saying that Bush waged war and people died does not prove in of itself that it was an immoral act. FDR and Churchill waged war and by that standard they must be demons.

I was not comparing it to Clinton, I was responding to a previous post, but since you bring it up, Clinton not only refused to act, he hindered the ability of others to act to save them for fear it would drag us into it or shame us into action. His intent was to have it pass quietly through the news cycle and hopefully go away. The media did give him a pass on it, but history has not. If he had done nothing, he might claim ignorance or incompetence as he almost always does. In this case what he did was narcisistic to the point of wickedness.

With regard to Darfur, it depends on what you are refering to being Bush's responsibility. Sudan has been at war for over a decade. The war that raged in the south throughout the Clinton years that sent so many into Slavery, was defused for the most part after he left office. The tragedy in the west has improved since Colin Powell pressured the UN to intervene. Is Bush responsible for the behavior of the UN soldiers treatment of young girls in Africa, I think Bush could apply more pressure on the European nations that are lax in this area, but unfortunately up until recently, there has not been strong enough leadership in the US ambassadors seat to the UN thanks to the blocking of John Bolton. Maybe now we will be able to apply some pressure to hold them accountable.

All in all, I think the improvements in the Sudan, while trying to work in a previous OBL safe haven, have been good considering the challenging situation. It can't be said he did nothing or hindered others from acting. Far from it.

With regard to the Chemical weapons all being degraded as you contend, you are mistaken. There are several different accounts by several different countries of discovering Sarin and Mustard gas. You are refering to the account of the Sarin and mustard gas shells that were found the day a a binary Sarin shell was used as an IED and the same day a mustard gas shell was discovered. The analysis was that the mustard gas shell had been handled improperly and although still deadly, was not lethal enough to cause widespread carnage. The mustard gas attack on the Green zone also was considered old but still considerably lethal. The Sarin shell was rendered useless by vaporizing the two containers before they could mix for the fact it was detonated using conventional explosives.

The many other discoveries of Mustard were not as you contend degraded. Read the links above.

If you refer to Saddam's self described obsession with emulating Josef Stalin as a nonsequiter, then you obviosly know nothing about his history, his philosophy or the Origins of the Baath party. In your failure to comprehend the depths of depravity of this man's legacy, I can understand why you imply that we should have followed Clinton's model in the region and that is sit idly by and let him escalate his murderous reign.