Every great career eventually comes to an end, and when you're the president of these United States, you only get eight years (at most) to accomplish everything you set out to do. Then you're an ex-president for the rest of your life.
I'll bet that ex-presidents, like most retired people, find it to be something of a shock to have all that time on their hands when they leave the working world.
So they find things to do. They work on their memoirs. They build libraries. They give speeches. They support their favorite charitable causes.
But what about our current president? His term will be up before he knows it, and then it's back to private life. I'm afraid the transition will be especially difficult for Dubya. He is a man of action, and I worry about how he'll adjust to a life out of the spotlight.
I think that we, as a nation, owe Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office. I think we can do better for him. I think we should put him to work, and I know just where he ought to go. Iraq.
There is no question that Iraq will be the legacy of President Bush's tenure, and there is also no doubt that there will still be a lot of work to do there when he leaves office. I believe we should allow Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires.
The next president should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort.
The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the "hard work" of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished. Or until he leaves this mortal coil. Whichever comes first.
But I do not believe Bush should go to Iraq alone. He needs some trusted advisers by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. These men have been instrumental in the planning and execution of the Iraq campaign from the beginning, and I can only imagine how much more effective their work could be if they were onsite 24/7 right where the action is, getting their hands dirty in the cause of spreading freedom to that dark corner of the world.
I know this assignment would be dangerous. The three senior freedom fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq, and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment. But as Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high but our cause is just. Freedom is not free.
I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone despite the extreme danger they would face. This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, and not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right.
So let's start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2008. They deserve the opportunity to "finish the job" in Iraq, and I think that the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I'd also recommend an early (mass) retirement. This afternoon maybe?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Since you all think that the only thing that is wrong with the Islamofascists is that they are misunderstood, you should be the ones to go. All you need to do is grovel, and smile, beg for forgiveness, and all will be well.
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
This is the most logical solution to completing his mission that I have heard. I mean, they tried to kill his dad, remember? How could we deny him?
BS20 (anonymous) says…
What is meant by sitting ducks?
bucephalus (anonymous) says…
A lie and an insult? The Taliban, desperate to avoid the invasion of Afghanistan, basically offered us bin Laden's head on a plate. Bush passed.
We invaded, we didn't catch him. And then we decided to shift the majority of our deployed troops, the majority of our equipment and the majority of our defense budget into a different theater. I'd say it certainly sounds like abandoning the chase if not for the fact that Bush's heart doesn't ever seem to have really been *in* the chase.
A lot of people I knew enlisted after 9/11, for the express purpose of hunting bin Laden to the ends of the Earth. That they've been diverted from that into a completely different operation which still hasn't been adequately justified by the administration is a far greater insult to them, and to the rest of the men and women who volunteered to lay down their lives for their country, than any words you'll ever think of putting into the mouths of "liberals".
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
Here's your example, liar.
You consistently argue that the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden in 1996, when you know, from the very source you post (International Herald-Tribune, Thursday, October 4, 2001) that "unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture."
Lies of omission are still lies. Liar.
The best thing you can do is shut up, or I'll post more from the article showing the extent you'll go to in order to spread lies about Clinton.
Liar.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
That's it? You parrot an editorialist - Richard Miniter - who you routinely parrot like a bird in a cage - simply because he states an "opinion" much like your own?
What happened to the Herald-Tribune article you originally posted? It's not good enough anymore, because it's based on facts, on balanced reporting, not mere "opinion"?
Let's review more of the chronology of the bin Laden affair in Sudan. "Susan Rice, then senior director for Africa on the National Security Council, remembers being intrigued with but deeply skeptical of the Sudanese offer. And unlike Mr. Berger and Mr. Simon, Ms. Rice argued that mere expulsion from Sudan was not enough.
"We wanted them to hand him over to a responsible external authority," she said. "We didn't want them to just let him disappear into the ether."
"Mr. Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said, on efforts to persuade the Saudi government to take Mr. bin Laden.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since Mr. bin Laden has issued a fatwa, or a religious edict, denouncing the Hous of Saud as corrupt. Riyadh had expelled Mr. bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in 1994, but wanted no part of jailing or executing him, apparently fearing a backlash from militant opponents of the government.
"Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials (in the Clinton administration) raised the poossibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously considered because mr. bin laden had not been linked to a dead american, and it was inconceivable that mr. clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances."
You can opine as is your wont, but you also need to consider that, while it's possible to "indict a ham sandwich," you have to convict, which is another matter.
Liar.
flames_over_the_wasteland (anonymous) says…
"rightthinker": Why do you hate America so much?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
You cited the IHT article in one of your April 25, 2006 diatribes. Nothing like being hoisted on your own petard, eh, liar boy?
"Given that Osama played an important role in the murders of our soldiers in 1993." What are opinions like? Think real hard. Then review the most pertinent nuance of the article you yourself posted on this site: "Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American"
I recognize, as do so many others, that you have problems assimilating truth. But what part of "Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American" do you not understand?
Liar. As my colleague holygrailale remonstrates with you ceaselessly: lies of omission are still lies.
Liar.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
Now you want us to believe another "opinion," this time from someone who notes: "The offer, which would have brought bin Laden to the Arab country (Jordan, Egypt?) as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S." -
BTW, just where was bin Laden in July, 2000? Wouldn't be Afganistan, would it? And what kind of an offer could this Mansoor Ijaz make to induce bin Laden to leave the security of Afganistan for Jordan or Egypt? Seventy-two virgins? Life in eternal bliss with Allah?
Sounds like your Mr. Ijaz was trying to make himself more important than he really was, or could be, and cries sour grapes now. You need to learn how to separate fact from opinion.
You need to demonstrate how anyone could have gotten bin Laden out of Afganistan in 2001 . . . once you accept that the Clinton administration had no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan in 1996.
Hindsight sure is a wonderful thing. We liberal Democrats use it to good effect when considering the sleaze of the Nixon years, the national debt fiasco of the Reagan years, the "trickle down" nonsense of Bush I, and the profound mediocrity of The Present Occupant.
William the Great had no credible information or basis to eliminate OBL prior to his departure to Afganistan in '96. Anyone who contends otherwise is either a fool, or a liar, or both.
Once in Afganistan, once the measure of his evil became known, it is unrealistic nonsense to post that he could have been induced to leave his safe haven.
Anything else?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I have to go comfort this old girl, but I will be back to complete your chastisement in a couple of hours.
Use the time to contemplate your many baseless sins against William the Great.
oldgranny (anonymous) says…
Liberals aren't bad for America. Neither are a lot of conservatives. but this president is very bad for america!
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I'll be damned. Kevin's a poet; he just don't know it. Or did he plagiarize the lyrics from an old pop song?
Chrome off a '61 Cadillac. I think you all know - or at least should know - what I mean.
Now, down to cases. You sure are a sarcastic twit. Must be from all the pummeling and disembowelment you've suffered at my colleague's hands.
You claim that Mansoor Ijaz was "in Sudan, and took part in the negotiations to have Osama bin Laden turned over to the U.S."
I'm semi-weary of having to go back and review the record - as provided by your own source - over the "opinion" of purported "players." To wit: "The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
"The Clinton administration struggled to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsiblities, then and now, in counterterrorism.
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option against Mr. bin Laden in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment then, they said, there was no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan unmolested."
To summarize, in 1996 the Sudanese offered to arrest OBL, at least ostensibly. The U.S., unable to indict him for any crimes against Americans at that time, tried mightily to have Saudi Arabia accept responsibility for punishing OBL: the Saudis balked.
With no other, or very limited options, the Clinton administration allowed OBL to flee to Afganistan.
Those are the facts. Your opinions, much like your bogus websites, are fatuously irrelevant.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
observer:
Kevin the Liar keeps telling the lie that "Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States." What the Liar neglects to add is that the 9/11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support" this contention.
William the Great noted later that Sudan did make an offer to arrest OBL, but not to deliver him to the U.S.
In a speech to the Long Island Association in February, 2002, William the Great said: "He (OBL) was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him (OBL) At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, because they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
At no point did Clinton say that Sudan offerend bin Laden to the United States.
The bipartisan 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States.
Makes one wonder about this Mansoor Ijaz character Arminianus came up with.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
Just how dumb are you, anyway?
"The indictment in 1998 states . . ." Unless you haven't noticed, we've been talking about 1996, at which time, no one was able to lay responsibility for any American death at the feet of OBL.
No doubt you're in a depressed froth that no one wants to read your two pathetic rags, but that doesn't give you the right to take liberties with the truth.
Liar.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
Caught you in another lie.
"We have an audio tape of Clinton admitting that such an offer was made."
(Media Matters for America, 22 June 2004) On June 21, FOX News Channel co-host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused an offer from Sudan to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996, even though the 9-11 Commission found no "reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan made such an offer. This false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news sit NewsMax.com that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton . Lanny J. Davis, a former White House special counsel to Clinton, pointed out that Hannity was lying, but Hannity persisted.
"From the June 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:
Hannity: Here's what bothers me. Is Bill Clinton gave a speech and he said "I couldn't take him (OBL) for legal reasons, so I tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato." he admitted to the sudan offer."
Davis: No. That's a lie.
Hannity: He offered it. It's not a lie. I have the tape, Lanny.
Davis: It is.
Hannity: Lanny, I have the TAPE of the speech.
Davis: And I've heard tape. You've played it for me. He never refused, never refused to take Osama bin Laden.
Hannity: How can he offer - "I asked Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato" - how can he offer bin laden to them if he doesn't have him?"
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The Liar Arminianus: (continued)
"The truth is that Clinton never offered OBL to Saudi Arabia. Hannity distorted a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association (see the post above) in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand OBL to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. Hannity's mention of "the tape" is a reference to a video of this speech. NewsMax.com obtained a video of the speech in 2002 and began hyping the supposed Clinton "admission." In fact, Clinton did not "admit" to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.
"Again, here's the relevant portion of Clinton's remarks to the Long Island Association: "So we tried to be quite aggressive with them (Al Qaeda). OBL was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. so i pleaded with the saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The Liar Arminianus: (continued)
"Furthermore, during his June 20 interview on 60 Minutes with CBS anchor Dan Rather, Clinton categorically denied that such an offer was made: "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us," says Mr. Clinton. "As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."
"No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan - a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 - has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5", issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim.
Kevin googled to ask.com just like I did, so knew the truth before he told the lie. There was no "tape" of Clinton admitting anything.
Liar.
TJ_in_Lawrence (anonymous) says…
You know... Arminius does bash Clinton alot, but why wouldn't he? The guy was a skank, but he was still my president. Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for him, but once he was elected, he was my president. I gave that to him when I participated in the voting process.
What I find interesting is that you speak of Arminius constant bashing and hatred of Clinton like it is the worst thing in the world, and yet you defend people and even join in with your own irrational hatred of our current president, George Bush. Like it or not, he is our president and he does do many things that are good and kind and positive for our country. No one is as bad as you Bush Haters make him out to be.
TJ_in_Lawrence (anonymous) says…
By the way...Did you know that 90% of statistics are made up to try and illustrate a point that is not true?
TJ_in_Lawrence (anonymous) says…
By the way.. Did you know that 80% of statistics are made up to try and illustrate a point that is not true?
TJ_in_Lawrence (anonymous) says…
Ok, ok. I'll stop now. Just fooling around.
Later
TJ_in_Lawrence (anonymous) says…
By the way.. Did you know that 75% of statistics are made up to try and illustrate a point that is not true?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
One thing about the liar Arminianus: once he's been exposed as a bald-faced liar, he usually shuts right up . . . at least until it's time to run out the same old lie again.
Shawna (Shawna Huffman) says…
I liked this column. I think it is reflects a point of view that many think. What a concept, finishing a job and not dumping it on the next guy.
Isn't this what happened in Vietnam? The troubles of that unwinnable war just kept bouncing from administration to administration? Let Bush finish the job.
Shawna
PS. Enough of the name calling and bickering; just arrange for a meeting and clear the air. Goodness!
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
Like I said, just keep posting the same lies, even after they've been debunked over and over.
Could anyone in 1996 PROVE any connection between our soldiers being killed in 1993 and OBL. No. Just how big a dumb ass are you?
Did Sudan ever make an offer to deliver OBL to the United States? No. Who says so? The bipartisan 9-11 Commision. Just how big a dumb ass are you?
Did the Sudanese want the Saudis to pardon OBL? Answer that properly, and I'll drop you down on the dumb-ass register one notch.
"They must have had something on him (OBL) to make such a suggestion." Wow. That's enough to run to the bank. Just how big a dumb ass are you?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
I minored in French at KU, but I believe the Italian word you were reaching for is "capisce."
Did you go to college?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
You are both a liar, and a fool.
"No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5, issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:
"Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Laden to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. we have not found any reliable evidence to support the sudanese claim.
Sudan did offer to expel bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1966. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted bin Laden expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want bin Laden back in their country at all."
If you know more than the 9-11 Commission, please contact your elected representatives immediately and advise them.
No one, in 1996, knew anything about OBL being complicit in the deaths of any Americans. sources you posted on this site relate as much, which I have pointed out to you - without comment from you. As an aside, holygrailale laughed with joy when I told her of your dilemma inre being hoisted on your own petard (posts).
This Mansoor Ijaz dude sounds like a piker. If he can't produce anything more than his opinions, or if he can't tell us what wonderful trick he had up his sleeve to pull OBL out of Aghanistan in 2001 to Jordan or Egypt, then he must, as the 9-11 Commission indicates, be dismissed as yet another of your right-wing nut case lunatics.
I think that just about covers it. You're a liar, and not a particularly skilled one. I know, for I've told whoppers in courtrooms, in front of judges, juries, and prosecutors. You don't even rank.
Liar.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
scenebooster:
Ouch!
drewdun (anonymous) says…
"Like it or not, he is our president and he does do many things that are good and kind and positive for our country. No one is as bad as you Bush Haters make him out to be."
hosanna in the highest!
amerika amerika uber alles!
lead us, dear leader and supreme decider!
keep up the good work agin the islamohomoliberalosatanoevilocommunofascists, o glorious one!
Kookamooka (MJ Browne) says…
Dubya went to YALE. Harvard was too liberal!
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
Just because this Mansoor twit said he was a Clinton supporter don't mean squat. I guess you believe anything people tell you, at face value no less.
In the final analysis, what the 9-11 Commission said about the episode completely, irrevocably destroys your lies, as well as any contentions that this Ijaz dude was a serious player in any negotiaitons. Ol' Mansoor never reported that Sudan wanted Saudi Arabia to pardon OBL, which makes him even more suspect . . . something the editor of two - not one, but two - Kaw Valley monthlies should have recognized immediately.
Game, set, match. Liar.
tell_it_like_it_is (anonymous) says…
Ex college cheerleader turned wanna be cowboy (maybe its a Brokeback Mountian kind of thing?) retires to Baghdad! What a great idea!
tell_it_like_it_is (anonymous) says…
Good God man do you ever give it a rest?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
Maybe some will let you slide on your lies, but not me.
"Clinton initially admitted that Sudan offered bin Laden to the u.s." liar! Clinton never admitted any such thing, which you know very well, since we both read the same material.
Sudan wanted to send OBL to the Saudis, and have the Saudis pardon him. That is a nuance of this episode you consistently, conveniently, overlook. Wonder why that is, liar boy?
The 9-11 commission debunked the offer story. Call up Sean Hannity and whine to him about it: we're tired of your specious lies about William the Great inre this Sudan nonsense.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Granted, Clinton never admitted to it under oath, or when he was aware there was a recording. But, then, he never admits to anything in such circumstances. There is, however, a recording where he was unaware he was being recorded (kind of like the "stealth" recording of the Brownback speech that the LJW recently posted) and Clinton clearly says that he was offered bin Laden and gives his own plausible explanation for refusing the offer. This exists, it is history, you cannot change it.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
The official 9-11 Commission report (Diplomacy, Staff Statement No. 5; ppgs. 3, 4 & 5)
"The U.S. government was also interested in another individual with disturbing ties to terrorists, a Saudi named Usama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was then based in Sudan. Under the influence of the radical Islamist Hassan al Turabi, Sudan had become a safe haven for violent Islamist extremists. By 1995, the U.S. government had connected Bin Laden to terrorists as an important terrorist financier.
"Since 1979 the Secretary of State has had the authority to name State Sponsors of Terrorism, subjecting such countries to significant economic sanctions. Sudan was so designated in 1993. In February 1996, for security reasons, U.S. diplomats left Khartoum. International pressure further increased as the regime failed to hand over three individuals in a 1995 attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarek. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on the regime.
Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching US officials, asking what they could to to ease the pressure. During, the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan's defense minister visited Washington and had a series of meetings with representatives of the US government. To test Sudan's willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Laden was a request for intelligence information about Bin Laden's contacts in Sudan.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus: (continued)
"These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable information to support the Sudanese claim.
"Sudan did offer to expel Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Laden expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Laden back in their country at all.
"U.S. officials also wanted Bin Laden expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.
"According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Laden to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the U.S. since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Laden was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Laden, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The lair Arminianus: (continued)
Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea wasa not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Laden over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.
However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin Laden about whether they would take Bin Laden. One was apparently interested. No handover took place.
Under pressure to leave, Bin Laden worked with the Sudanese government to procure safe passage and possibly funding for his departure. In May 1996, Bin Laden and his associates leased an Ariana Airlines jet and traveled to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in the United Arab Emirates. Approximately two days after his departure, the Sudanese informed the U.S. government that Bin Laden had left. It is unclear whether any U.S. officials considered whether or how to intercept Bin Laden."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_s...
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus, and his trog colleague Godot:
You are a trifle too thick to reason with, but let me direct your feeble attention to sentiments expressed by your own Richard Clarke: "Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that sudan would ever turn bin laden over to a hostile country."
Kinda undercuts your lie about Clinton and a "tape," which does not and never has existed, since the Sudanese never offered bin Laden to the U.S.
According to your own authority.
Like I said, loser: game, set & match.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
Holygrailale is right: you are unbelievably dense.
I gave you the citation. Call it up and read it - pages 3,4, and 5.
I notice you conveniently ignore - your standard practice when you're getting trounced - that your hero Richard Clarke made a shambles of your entire effort. Let me remind you of what your own source said in the 9-11 Commision report: "clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that sudan would ever turn bin laden over to a hostile country."
Try as you will to deflect your failure into another of your trog diatribes inre Black Hawk Down, I insist you explain how, after Clarke and Berger note that Sudan would never have turned bin Laden over to a hostile country, you have any standing to convince anyone you are anything more than a fruitcake Clinton hater.
In case you forgot: game, set, match.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I'm off to bed. Should you want, or need, more punishment, I'll resume such tomorrow.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
Richard Clarke is YOUR hero; you proudly brandished his "Against All Enemies" like a shield and cudgel.
What? Now HE"S the enemy? After he obliterated your entire position? Let me remind you again what your source said: "the lack of an indictment made no difference. instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that sudan would ever turn bin laden over to a hostile country. if sudan had been serious, clarke said, the united states would have worked something out."
Now, as holygrailale has demonstrated on a fairly regular basis, you lack acumen and an essential grasp of the truth. But, what part of "There was no chance that Sudan would ever turn bin Laden over to a hostile country" do you not understand?
I'm willing to stay on this site and parse it for you, word by word, nuance by nuance, if you prefer, until you assimilate this very simple truth. Sudan wanted to send bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, and have him pardoned. Sudan did not "offer bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter," as you earlier lied on this site.
Sudan never offered to give bin Laden to the United States. That is a simple, basic truth you cannot seem to accept. You need to look inside yourself for the reason(s) why.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I told the liar-idiot Arminianus that, although I minored in French at KU, "capisce" is probably the Italian word he was reaching for.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar-idiot Arminianus:
William the Great never said that Sudan offered to give OBL to the United States. What he said was that he pleaded with Saudi Arabia to accept Sudan's offer and accept OBL. Sudan wanted the Saudis to pardon OSB, but the Saudis balked.
Do you understand, comprehend, what you read? This is not advanced theoretical physics; it's fairly simple English. Sudan would never have handed OBL over to a hostile country. You consistently fail to understand what that means. You can indict all the "ham sandwiches" you want; Sudan would not have handed him over.
Just because that Hannity idiot lied and tried to lie about William the Great, and you pick it up and parrot it like the conservative mimic you are, does not lend you or him any credibility.
Before you blubber any more lies on this thread, just anwer one simple question: "Would Sudan, in 1996, have given Osama bin Laden up to a hostile country?"
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar-idiot Arminianus:
"Actually, my sources are Mansoor Ijaz and Richard Miniter."
The 9-11 Commission interviewed all the key players in the Clinton administration's dealings with Sudan . . . and Ijaz's "opinions" were not reflected anywhere in their official findings.
And Richard Miniter is a conservative editorialist - and noted Clinton basher - for the WSJ.
Again, liar-boy, just answer the question: "Would Sudan, in 1996, have given Osama bin Laden up to a hostile country?"
You keep trying to evade, avoid, wiggle out of it, but you will answer or I'll keep throwing it at you until you "volunteer" to exit this thread.
Liar.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
holygrailale:
Old girl, I'm slamming 'em on two threads. Been thumping on the idiot liar Arminianus for the better part of two days, and have the local contingent of Christian lollipops frothing a few clicks over.
Am sending stuff to publishers in New York; hope I don't have to do any major rewrites.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The idiot-liar Arminianus:
We're not discussing Able Danger or Madeleine Albright; we're discussing the lies you posted, and have posted almost incessantly, about William the Great inre Sudan and Osama bin Laden.
You claimed that "Sudan offered OBL to Clinton on a silver platter." That was a lie.
Again: "Would Sudan, in 1996, have given Osama bin Laden up to a hostile country?"
Still waiting for an answer.
Liar.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The idiot-liar Arminianus:
"I don't think the Sudanese were classifying the U.S. as a hostile country."
I had to look at this two or three times to make sure you had the temerity to post something so utterly, egregriously . . . illogical.
The U.S. embassy in Khartoum was evacuated and our ambassador to Sudan - Timothy Carney - called home to Washington on 7 February 1996, three months before OBL departed for Afghanistan. Paul Quaglia, then CIA station chief in Khartoum, had led a campaign to pull out all Americans after he and his staff came under aggressive surveillance and twice had to fend off violent, physical attacks.
Another factor in Washington's hostility was an intelligence tip that Sudan planned to assassinate President Bill Clinton's national security advisor, Anthony Lake, the most visible administration critic of Khartoum. Most U.S. analysts came to believe later that it had been a false alarm.
Not hostile, huh?
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Well the crowd that chanted "There were no WMD's found", can now eat crow.
It seems that we have found 500 munitions total which are of the howitizer projectile and larger rounds. The rounds were filled with Sarin and mustard, bad stuff and quit a bit of it. They were found since 2003. THey think thew will find even more now.
Here is the link:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1403794...
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
1. The sanctions and the US Congress did NOT stipulate to the issues only of WMD produced after 1991. That is Democrat Spin.
2. Yes these WMD's are "degraded" but WMD (which are highly reactive chemicals anyway) do degrade. IF you know what JACADS is, that is where I have been to. I say about 600 chemical rounds of this size processed for distruction. Even in a "degraded" form (which only a "few" of the "stockpile" is actually "degraded") the compounds are leathal and maybe not as efficient as a the "weaponized" concentrations, but it will kill a lot of people anyway.
3. I want all the screechers on the Left to apologize to Pres. Bush. You also need to apologize to Sen. Leiberman as well. You guys called him hideous things and lied yourself in attacking him. Stated unknowns and falsehoods as fact to condem the President, all for political gain. Wait for the Political loss, the American Public doesn't like liars and loosers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You accused Pres. Bush of Lying and his numbers went down, what do you think will happen now that dems have been proven liars?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Credit Pres. Bush for taking all that crap from the Democrat Senators and Congressmen when he knew and probably saw the report and kept it close to the vest in order in all probability to perserve intel leads. I will bet there is more discoveries coming, and huge amounts will probably be trotted out soon. Before the election season I would believe, and yes that would be political, however, calling the man a liar when you knew the attackers did not know the real story was also political. SO sit on it and spin.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
OH, we don't want to talk until we consult the democratic spin machine?? Can't think on your own?
Lack that "true north" on your "moral compass"?
Apologies are what is needed, and what a class act would do. The nation is watching.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The midterm election is five long months away - the neocons are already firing up "Stop Hillary!" direct-mail campaigns - and it will probably only get worse.
Democrats will do fine. I'll be satisfied if Kathleen gets re-elected (in a landslide); Kline gets soundly trounced, and the KBOE is cleansed of trog idiots.
It'll be nice if we can take back the House, or even the Senate, but most of us are content to wait till '08 and Hillary.
Watched "Frontline" last night and feel everyone who posts on this site has given Cheney pretty much a free pass; particularly when, in terms of villains, he is the architect of much of what has gone wrong with American foreign policy since 9/11.
I'd like to invite my colleagues to leave off being "Bush-haters" (he's essentially too mediocre to be truly bad) and instead focus on Cheney. Scooter Libby is just the tip of the iceberg.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
asbestos:
a whole five-hundred howitzer rounds of degraded chemical weapons, huh? Wow. That's really impressive. I'd go to war over that . . . sure, in a minute.
Apologize to Bush? Hmm. Let me think a minute. Tell you what: When Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz go - personally - to the parents and loved ones of all those killed in Iraq and apologize for rushing into an unnecessary war, with no clear idea of what to do once the country was conquered, and no clear exit strategy, then I will apologize to The Present Occupant.
Wow. Five-hundred whole rounds, you say. Impressive.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I agree with you Xenophonschild on the local Kansas race. The Republican Trogs is aptly named, and I do hope they loose big. I would call them "toadies".
however on what you said next:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I'd like to invite my colleagues to leave off being "Bush-haters" (he's essentially too mediocre to be truly bad) and instead focus on Cheney. Scooter Libby is just the tip of the iceberg."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is right after banging on Bush and calling him a liar, you now have to find another "villian", because someone will have to apologize to the President, and you can't apologize and then criticize. I would not taking as gospel the authors book "the 1% rule" or whatever. most of his "intle" is proven false already by the CIA.
Who is the "tip of the iceberg" originator in the "Bush lied and people died" chant? I think THAT iceberg is the one that is going to sink a ship[, the Cheney and Libby thing will get lost in the background as the press has a feeding frenzy on the Dems, or by falling over themselves to give Dems the mic to explain themselves for the "lying remarks".
Anybody put "JACADS" in their google browser? I was out there.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Xeno:
"Wow. Five-hundred whole rounds, you say. Impressive."
It actually is quite a lot and damn lethal. I know what I M talking about here and you are clueless. Put "JACADS " in your google browser. As I said, I know what I M talking about. You don't.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Only some of the "stockpile" was "degraded".
ANd you have no clue what "degraded" means do you? If so explain it to me. Remember, I know about these things! "Degraded" as you use it seems as safe as mother's milk. That is not the same as a "degraded" chemical weapon and only a clueless, uninformed mornon would make that utterly stupid statement OR believe it.
Did you pur "JACADS" in your Google browser yet????
HMMMM????
or in the imortal words of hga:
hahahhaaahhaahhaahahahhahhaahhahahha!!!!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Here is the Yahoo news link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/...
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Arminianus:
Chuckle. You wriggle and twist all you can once you are pinned like an insect to a board, but all your evasions and maneuvers will come to naught here.
Sudan had been on the State Department's State-Supported Terrorist Nation list since 1993 . . . and there was no evidence anywhere suggesting that the State Department had any intention of taking Sudan off the list.
Sudanese moderates? What kind of drugs are you on? This, from a "government" that refused to turn over three terrorists who attempted to assassinate Eygpt's Mubarek?
And, I'm sorry, but I can't work up much sympathy for Sudan or their aspirin factory. Our intelligence indicated nerve gas was being produced there, so it was attacked. Whether that was correct or not; I don't care. I want very much for our intelligence agencies to be much more effective and competent . . . and spare us disasters like the recent mess they've made in Somalia.
Bottom line, Sudan would never have given up Osama bin Laden to the U.S. If you will reflect - which you do so rararely on important details - Sudan wanted to return OBL to Saudi Arabia . . . and have the Saudis pardon him!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
NO I did not contradict myself, you are clueless and grasping at straws. You are trying to believe a lie that President Bush "Lied" us into this war and that ther are no WMD's. NOw they have been found, you cannot accept this portion of reality!
swbsow you are sad. You pick and choose what you want out of an article, and YES I did post the Yahoo newslink when I found it as I knew you would make that other issue about a "religious website". I really don't care where I get my news al long as I can verify it's accuracy, you obviously have to wash it through your "liberal rinse cycle". But the article also states this:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Nevertheless, "the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything," Hoekstra said.
"But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said.
Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So there is more. again like Xeno I will tell you to go to google and put in the word "JACADS" it is a place where I spent some quality time.
As for your selected quote:
""A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for.""
That is true, they were designed for "weapons grade" capability, which means the concentraction has to be sonsistant, and "degraded" also means that the chemical compound may have interacted with it's metal "cask" (you probably do not know some of these weapons meanings) inside the projectile and made inconsistant compounds and secondary compounds...which are still very lethal and for all intents and purposes still a "weapon of mass destruction">
SO As I told Xeno:
_______________________________________________
Only some of the "stockpile" was "degraded".
ANd you have no clue what "degraded" means do you? If so explain it to me. Remember, I know about these things! "Degraded" as you use it seems as safe as mother's milk. That is not the same as a "degraded" chemical weapon and only a clueless, uninformed mornon would make that utterly stupid statement OR believe it.
Did you pur "JACADS" in your Google browser yet????
HMMMM????
or in the imortal words of hga:
hahahhaaahhaahhaahahahhahhaahhahahha!!!!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
You don't read very well, you just post. I already pulled this one off on xeno. read the thread and responses already!!!!!! That was argument #1 put to bed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I stated to XENO above:
1. The sanctions and the US Congress did NOT stipulate to the issues only of WMD produced after 1991. That is Democrat Spin.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your response:
"Oh also...
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.""
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BTW, have you put JACADS in your google browser yet??? I really do know something about these things
OH, but you don't want to know the truth, remember you guys said that
there are no wmd's in iraq!!. You DID not qualify it with all this "pre-1991 BS either. By the way this is not wine here we are talking about OLD Chemical weapons and even "degraded" ones will kill lots of people. "Degraded" Chemical Weapons are NOT as safe as mother's milk, no matter how hard you try to spin it.
DId you put JACADS in your browser yet?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
This is just BS dude, and shows how stupid you are.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"According to Ritter, the chemical weapons which Iraq has been known to possess -- nerve agents like sarin and tabun -- have a shelf life of five years, VX just a bit longer. Saddam's major bio weapons are hardly any better; botulinum toxin is potent for about three years, and liquid anthrax about the same (under the right conditions). "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ALL the Chemical weapons we destroyed that were non-binary were from the 40's and 50's and 60's, and we were destroying them until 2000 at JACADS, so you are FOS on that and so is Scott Ritter. He should know better than that. Botulinium in suspended dry form can last 10 years and anthrax can last hundreds of years because the spore is covered with Chitin, it is virtuarlly impervious, even in the natural environment. On Russias "Anthrax Island" that is one of the problems of this cold war storage for "degraded" chemical weapons. They are all over the place, and they are persistant, they remain deadly for decades!!!
That is why the US went to "binary weapons" for chemical warfare, they used a mixture that was safe until detonation. Saddam's program was "non-binary" chemical weapons, ie already mixed up, and hazardous from the start, unstable, and persistant, it is the nature of the chemicals, Hell we have old ships off the eastern coast that are full of WWII chemical weapons that are intact after all this time in salt water. They are highly unstable, unpredictable, and persistant.
So you loose this argument to a more informed participant, namely me, an Environmental Scientist and remediator who was actually "out there".
Roll that one up and smoke it!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
OK one by one;
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See my other post below yours.
1. The "weapons" are pre-1991 so they are 15 years old and the chemical weapons that they "found" have a shelf life of 5 years. The biological weapons have a shelf-life of approximately 3 years.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They have a shelf life of over 40 years dude, regardlsess of what Scott Ritter says. I know I saw our stockpiles, these things lcan ast a long time and they are not all Degraded. Where you got this is not consistant with usamrid and others that deal with WMD's and the guidance on WMD destructin. It also follosw none of the ordinance guidance, so if you would be so kind as to quote the table I have right in fromt of me for longevity of nerve and chemical agents found it older DOD documents.
In short, you are blowing smoke!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. The Pentagon does not take this "threat" seriously.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Haven't seen that in ANY of the news articles, FOX, Yahoo, CNN. You made that one up. Lying again I see!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. A senior Defense official states that these are not WMDs & that they are not in a useable form.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Un yeah, I answered that one already. It was designed to be really lethal like say 100% dead in 100 yards and completely incapacitated in 1200 yards in the effected area. So now in the "degraded state (that is not as it was designed to be) it would take 2 to 4 rounds to get that level of effectiveness. ASs I said, not as designed and "degraded" in regular vocabulary is much different than a Pentagon Offical talking about an "Ordinance", as in degraded from being something really really really bad to something really really bad.
That is the level of your understanding of WMD's and chemical agents and it is limited....very limited. so limited in fact if it were an actual thought it would die from lonliness.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"1. The sanctions and the US Congress did NOT stipulate to the issues only of WMD produced after 1991. That is Democrat Spin.
------------------
???? Sanctions began in 8/6/90 under Bush41."
Yeah what sanctions do you think I am talking about? ALL those US resloutions.............they went up through Clinton and then to Bush 43. President Clinton also believed there were WMD and her was right, he was right up until 2000 until he left office it appears. It also appears that Pres. Bush was right too.
What I don't get is you guys were ripping this President with things like "there have been no WMD's found in Iraq". NOw that they have been found, oh, those wmd"s well those wer not the ones we meant>
Well, it makes little difference which one you meant, either one kills people just as dead, and this is a stupid argument with you.
You again have no clue about WMD's and you have as I posted earlier:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lack that "true north" on your "moral compass"?
Apologies are what is needed, and what a class act would do. The nation is watching.
no class and no moral compass to admit you were wrong. Your hate is more important to you than the truth.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"If you think this is such a serious issue & these chemical weapons are so dangerous, then why is a Pentagon official & a senior Defense official stating that these are not WMDs & are not useable?"
Not what he said. He said:
" "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for.""
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To which I replied and YOU did NOT read:
"Un yeah, I answered that one already. It was designed to be really lethal like say 100% dead in 100 yards and completely incapacitated in 1200 yards in the effected area. So now in the "degraded state (that is not as it was designed to be) it would take 2 to 4 rounds to get that level of effectiveness. ASs I said, not as designed and "degraded" in regular vocabulary is much different than a Pentagon Offical talking about an "Ordinance", as in degraded from being something really really really bad to something really really bad."
degraded does = "Not Designed for" however
degraded does = "Not Designed for" and does not = safe nor non leathal. It meaqns it is not as efficient at killing as it was designed for.
With troops in the field, our PEntagon and Department of Defense certianly does think Chemical agents and their secondary reactant compounds are a damn BIG deal. And yes it is in the Charts/formulas/ and whatever. I would rather they had found intact and nondegraded weapons rather than this chemical agent soup that they did find, See you don't understand. This is a helluva lot dangerous for our boys to deal with and the real scourge with WMD's which you fail to grasp. YES this is a big deal and the pentagon and DOD know this, you just don't register it and believe what you want to.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have you ever seen ordinance and chemical agent handling protocols let alone chemical agent destruction? No you haven't otherwise you would not have made the statement that you did. This is definately democratic spin and you are hearing what you want to hear. The DOD does NOT believe this is no big deal or not dangerous, if you believe it you are mentaly challanged or clueless on ordinance grade chemical agents.
I am done here, and have proven my point and mad you look insanely foolish. Did you ever look up JACADS yet? Obviously not!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA:
"The weapons of mass destruction issue is dead. They weren't there. Sorry.
Your thinly disguised neo-conservativism comes out time after time."
I am so glad you cleared that up. Have you looked up JACADS yet?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Un yeah, I answered that one already. It was designed to be really lethal like say 100% dead in 100 yards and completely incapacitated in 1200 yards in the effected area. So now in the "degraded state (that is not as it was designed to be) it would take 2 to 4 rounds to get that level of effectiveness. ASs I said, not as designed and "degraded" in regular vocabulary is much different than a Pentagon Offical talking about an "Ordinance", as in degraded from being something really really really bad to something really really bad."
degraded does = "Not Designed for" however
degraded does = "Not Designed for" and does not = safe nor non leathal. It meaqns it is not as efficient at killing as it was designed for.
With troops in the field, our PEntagon and Department of Defense certianly does think Chemical agents and their secondary reactant compounds are a damn BIG deal. And yes it is in the Charts/formulas/ and whatever. I would rather they had found intact and nondegraded weapons rather than this chemical agent soup that they did find, See you don't understand. This is a helluva lot dangerous for our boys to deal with and the real scourge with WMD's which you fail to grasp. YES this is a big deal and the pentagon and DOD know this, you just don't register it and believe what you want to.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
NOw for the WHOLE story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2...
washington - The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
¢ Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.
He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.
"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.
"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.
Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
2nd Part:
The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.
Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.
"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.
"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.
The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Last Part:
At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.
Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.
"This is an incredibly - in my mind - significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.
As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.
"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
There you go in full contest. SO you cannot send people to left wing websites and muddle the story. It says Saddam lied when he said he destroyed them all. It says there may be some on the black market.
Concern? Hell Yeah!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
1.
Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.
2.
The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"This is the only important part of the article."
Maybe in your opinion swbsow., I think this is much more inportant:
"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
and this:
The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.
Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.
"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.
THOSE points are the important ones dude, just because you want to obfuscate the truth and hollgrill wants to yack one, does not change one iota the fact that:
the dems ar$e wrong wrong wrong on the Iraq war.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
We will find out today about the Pentagon's official response and that of the White House. So you guys were speaking a little prematurly.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Sorry dude we have had no "official administration response from the department of defense."
i have not heard Rummy talk about this, but I bet he will during his 1 o'clock press conference. Ther is also a whole warehouse stacked to the rafters with WMD. The sources are now talking and it is getting out.
The reason we went to war is going to be validated regaardles of how much you spin.
It is funny and sad how you will trust an "un-named Pentagon Offical" but will not trust what the main man ie Rumsfeld says. We will know, I think about election time late Oct, or so.
You are wrong, wrong wrong, dude!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
BTW did you check out JACADS yet? The Dope says NOPE. IF you did you would quit arguing with me.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Why don't you guys like America? Why do you want us to loose, because of your hatred of Bush?
Your arguments are circular, not intellectual, not factual, and highly rationalized.
Do you really expect people to be won over by your rantings over the facts of the matter?
meggers (anonymous) says…
From today's Washington Post:
"Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Santorum is just grasping at straws to save his Senate seat. His days are numbered and he knows it.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Amen to that. I just finished a proof copy from the Republican Senate apparatus, and they are panic-stricken about Dumbo Santo being ousted.
Even George Will doesn't give him much of a chance to survive.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA:
"He's nowhere close to moderate, despite his protests that he is objective."
Not when it comes to the WoT and Iraq, I am NOT moderate, I am pro American. Which means we will wind, despite all your bellyaching.
Just wait for the "other shoe" to drop. When Rummy talks about it then we will know. You know they are licking their chops, and did you see the senate votes today, both defeated.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HGA stated:
"Paragraph 2 --- (debunked) weapons of mass destruction
Paragraph 3 --- (debunked) weapons of mass destruction
Paragraph 4 --- (debunked) weapons of mass destruction
Paragraph 5 --- (debunked) weapons of mass destruction
Paragraph 6 --- (debunked) weapons of mass destruction"
I believe with finding 5000 munitions renders your reprints and re runs and re posts moot. No matter how hard you try the "debunked" is now "debunked" Sorry lady!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Do you guys always cut and past form Wikipedia?? Is that your form or "objective data"? You have got to be kidding. ANy substance (in what little there is) in HGA, Xeno, or swbsow are almost word for word from wiki! astounding!!!
Can you guys debate using your own brain??
Keith_GS (anonymous) says…
Apparently the sarcasm of the piece was lost on a few people. Quite the furor over a funny article, folks.
Kevin, xeno, all you ljworld.com stalwarts: do you have jobs, hobbies, interests, that kind of thing? Other than posting on this site, that is? I'm just curious.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Does anyone know if there is a way of "killing" the discussion of the mind-numbing minutia between Arminius and those trying to contest his diatribes? Good Lord, who in the world wants to wade through all that!! How about trying to stick to the article in question.
I, for one, think it would be entirely fair and fitting that he be asked to serve his country by continuing to help the fun loving folks in Iraq as they build their new nation. He cannot be forced, of course, but if he is not willing to volunteer for such an assignment we can only surmise that he does not support our brave troops and must be in favor of the terrorists, or maybe cutting and running. Afterall, his recent 300 minute visit to the Green Zone in Baghdad established rather conclusively how well received he would be by the grateful "citizens" of Iraq. And besides, what else does he have to look forward here in the States. A ranch in Texas? Please! Iraq is a veritable garden in comparison. And besides, something tells me that with his "golden touch" and all around level of competence, the fine folks in Iraq may be more favorably inclined to welcome him in 2008 than the vast majority of the citizens of our once great nation.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Of the 500 shells (howitzer and rocket) about 75% were NOT degraded, that is in the released info, and an interview that Sen. Santorum did with another person. That means 25% are degraded, that mean they just won't kill and disable as many or as effectively as "new" agent. Degraded does not equal safe. More than that, the Mustard will get "gooey" after a few years, it is still blister agent, but because of its viscosity it won't atomize as well as it would in liquid form.
This proves a few things.
1. The inspectors of the ISG and UN sucked, as there are many more types of these finds out there, Rumsfeld said in a news conference that we find this stuff "almost everyday". So there was WMD in Iraq. The dems lied and pileried Bush for political gain by lying.
2. WMD's are one of the reasons's we went to war, and not only for "new" stuff. That is nowhere in ANY of the votes or sanctions. There is nothing true to the fact that "older chemical agents" are safer or not of concern than "newer chemical agents". In fact the older ones are harder to trace, and handle and have also formed multiple of other chemicals by setting for a while. These chemicals are after all designed to br reactive.
3. Degradation is also the housing in which the chemical agents are stored as well. In a function weapon simply shooting the weapon will not cause an exposrue to the gun crew, but in a degraded one the agent may be just fine, but the cask or flask is so degraded by simply setting off powder primer in a howitzer will split the housing and not sentd the round anywhere but desinegrate in the gun.
4. Democrats are just spinning. That is all there is to it. There is no class, no fortitude, and no moral compas pointing north, all they have is hate toward this President and it clouds their judgement. They now have to lie to protect their position.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Arminius:
Try as you may to distract, disguise, obscure, etc. the facts are what they are and are as plain as day for all to see. Any fair-minded person would read the dozens and dozens of posts back and forth on this discussion and conclude that each side has been engaged in the diatribes. You are always so, so quick to point the finger and distract (usually with some nonsense about Bill Clinton) when you get called on this stuff. It is a shame that you are not intellectually honest enough to own up to your juvenille behavior which, boiled down to its essence, is to ignore any statement/fact/point of view offered by another person and instead find a way to allege that Bill Clinton and/or some other liberal person at some point in time may have made a contradictory statement, may have been accused of something similar or would not measure up to the same standard being applied to Georgie Bush. To wit, the post to which I am responding.
It matters not whether Bill Clinton should be in Bosnia. The subject of this tongue in cheek article is Georgie boy. Funny, or, I guess I mean, telling, how you cannot meet the point of the article head on and offer any reasons why Bush should not go to Iraq to help finish the crusade. How lame and pathetic your attempt to muddy the issue by reverting to a criticism on Bill Clinton.
There have been some intelligent and funny posts back and forth taking both sides of the topic discussed in the article. None of them have been yours. As I said in my first post, if only there were a way to eliminate the blather that you spew, I could more quickly get to those people with something relevant and intelligent to add to the discussion. Until I learn how to do that, I guess I am stuck periodically pointing out the error of your "thought."
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Hey swbsow,
BIg Deal. David Kay? You are kidding me right? Already read that one.
"There are safer things under your kitchen sink." I don't think so. We will see. THere are more of these caches out there and known, we are just getting to the outside intel, the other intel will be illuminating, and cause you to eat more crow.
Remember the rallying cry of the Democrats was "Ther is NO WMD in Iraq" Well I guess there is. The second was to leave or set a timetable. Well that one was shot down too.
That my friend is the will of the people, you may disagree, but you must accept it.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
swbsow,
When you post from pro conbservative sites you took them entirely out of context, and as for your quoting the gospel of the left wing sites well there you go. You have no real opinion. Just what you cut and paste form a multitude of out of context cut and pastes or straight from the left wingers talking points.
You are not very good at debate. OK this time you have to call me a name I believe it is every 4 or5 times you loose an argument on fact that you revert to namecalling. Go ahead, look and count.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
scott3460:
You gave us a diatribe and a good dose of hypocrisy. You have offered nothing of value to the discussion.
"How lame and pathetic your attempt to muddy the issue by reverting to a criticism on Bill Clinton."
Of course, you're silent when swbsob and holygrailale went all the way back to Reagan. Hypocrite."
1. You still are doing exactly what I accused you of doing.
I could explain that I don't see any hypocricy in my post, but you apparently could not or would not understand or accept it, so I will not waste my effort.
2. You apparently do not get the point of my post. Why not post an opinion about why what the author of this article proposes is something you can or cannot support/agree with. The minutia of the Presidential actions of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, et al are beside the point of the article. George Bush evidently thinks the cause is noble enough to ask 2,500+ troops to die for the cause, and thousands and thousands more to be maimed and forever injured. Once out of office why would he not go and join the cause? As I have said in an earlier tongue in cheek post, I think it would be entirely fitting that he do so. That he will not speaks volumes about his character and, I believe, is one of the points of the article. If you are a supporter of the President's, why don't you try to make some points about why it would not be fitting, ironic, just desserts, etc... to have Georgie retire to the cause in Iraq. Seriously, what is the reason that "Mr." Bush should not be asked to contribute in such a way to the cause? Please enlighten us.
oldgranny (anonymous) says…
Better yet. Why not send his darling twin daugters? He thinks its okay for our kids and grandkids.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"You chastised me for suggesting that if Bush should go to Iraq to finish the job after he leaves office then Clinton should have gone to Bosnia......."
Liar. The point of my string of comments is that 1. I wish I had a way to tune out both you and those you are arguing about , 2. the reason I want to tune your blather out is that it is so far off topic, and 3. I wanted you to address the article and not wander, as you are so fond of doing, in to the minutia of the alleged shortcomings and Presidential acts of William Jefferson Clinton. My point, which was made explicitly, is that Clinton (and Reagan, and all the rest) are irellevant to the issue of whether it is fitting to suggest, as the article does, that Bush go.
Distortion: "You said I shouldn't bring up Clinton, yet apparently have no problem with others in this very thread bringing up Reagan. How is that not hypocrisy?" How do you know I don't have a problem. My earlier post specifically said both sides were engaged in diatribes. It is not my duties before posting to go back through and address each and every point and counter point that has been made previously. You are assuming that because I didn't make any comment. That is a distortion based on your assumption of my intent. We all know what happens when you assume. Better to judge me by my words, not your assumptions.
"How do you know he will not? " Nice ploy. It is impossible, of course, to prove that something will never happen in the future. But to answer your question, I have formed an opinion based on observing his actions for the too, too many years of his Presidency. To cite but one example, there is his recent 300 minute visit to the Green Zone. Had he really cared I think he might have ventured out a bit, might have chosen to spend more time there. He is constantly telling us about how things are improving there and painting a happy face on the status of his war, you'd think he'd spend more than 300 measly minutes there if he was really concerned about the cause.
"Has he said that?" That's the point of the frigging article!!! So now, why won't you answer the article's point and tell us why he should not, or should not be expected to. I've offered what I think is a pretty compelling reason why he ought to - because he was willing to expend the lives of American troops. What is the compelling reason why he should not head to Iraq the moment his Presidency is over.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Let me ask you something. Clinton deployed our military more than 40 times. Did you oppose all those deployments? If not, did you send all your children and grandkids to serve during those deployments?"
That's not the point. You are distorting again. The President can be judged a hypocrite for not sending his daughters in to harms way if one did not sign one's own sons and daughter's up for service in Bosnia under Clinton.
So, there's another question for you? Why aren't the President's daughters serving?
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
they would be a national security risk.
oldgranny (anonymous) says…
Clinton Clinton Clinton. You really are obsessed whether or not you believe it.
But for your information. My son was in the army during the Clinton years. But no he never did go overseas.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
This is pathetic! THis is not debate or anything resembling debate. It is political wonkery with liberal leanings.
This sucks.
AM leaving, nothing to do here really.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"they would be a national security risk."
Good point.
See Arminius, it is possible to make a point without referring to Bill Clinton.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Arminius:
Don't have enough time remining tonight to point out all the flaws in your most recent post. So, let me offer the following:
Here is your most recent assertion:
"You made no mention of others' diatribes, just those trying to contest my alleged diatribes."
Here is what I posted:
"Any fair-minded person would read the dozens and dozens of posts back and forth on this discussion and conclude that each side has been engaged in the diatribes."
Facts, buddy, facts. They do you in every time.
BTW, you missed my point about both why I thought Bush's brief 300 minute stunt in Iraq suggested he'd never go help fight for his cause after he is out of office, and you also missed my point about his daughters. Why don't you go back, reread what I said, and see if you can come up with anything on point. I must go, but I am sure someone else here will try to keep you in line.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
oh hell guys just send him to dafur and be done with all this bickering remind me of a couple of grumpy old men
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
swbswo you are a crybaby. you post a private emial on a blog. What a light weight. What a cry baby. Do you do anything else but eat muchies and type on a computer screen? I ran 4 miles tonight and fixed a microscope. All you do is make up stuff and when you get caught you whine about it.
you posted:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Suggest removal)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:04:43 -0500
Subject: Message from Arminius via LJWorld.com
From: no-reply@www2.ljworld.com Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: swbsow
Hello,
The user Arminius sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:
==============================
That had to be one of the most hypocritical responses i have seen.
You're obviously a mental midget.
==============================
Please do not reply to this e-mail message. To send Arminius a
response, visit this Web page:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
Dial 1 800 wah baby
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Since U are not on top[ic any way and none of the stuff you post makes sense I will show you what you do>
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Trees and unicorns
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
President Bush was responsible for Jimmy Hoffa's death
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Liberals are always right and take most of the proac in the country. Prove me wrong.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Who cares about what the thread is about "I Hate Bush" and I take prozac.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
See None of that proves I am more intelligent, it just makes me look silly. That is what some of the arguments here have been.
You wanna talk and discuss then do so. But use some good sources and knock off the nutty fruitcake issues or just don't post here, as your contribution just renders everything to noise.
That is the point of the above posts, which si what Xeno, swbswo, and HGA do. You guys are not the smartest kids in class, no matter what you post.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Just shut up swbswo, you add nothing but noise.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I can be annoying too and play childish games too dude.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
you two go to timeout already
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
just going to bury his post so far back no one will read them so why would he post?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
That is all they try to do HGA and swbswo do they post and post ans post ans say the same thing over and over and do not listen.
makes for a very boring and uninformative blog!!
so knock it off!!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
NOW I am outta here. Later lawrence. I will check back if KDHE screws up again and lets houses blow, I will post the rules they are breaking, but politic in this blog is usless.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
you two crack me up
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Que? I leave this thread for a few hours to instruct Christian idiots a few clicks away, and return to find mayhem and carnage among the conservatives?
Arminius and asbestos at each other's throat? Shocking!
I don't recognize swbsow, but the pattern of posts is familiar. Good work. Anytime you make the trogs throw up their hands and run away, you've done a good job.
Just for the record, any contention that "Sudan, in 1996, offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter" is a bald-faced lie, and anyone who posts such dreck is not merely a liar, but a damned liar! (Hope the censors at LJW don't pull me for that like they did last evening.).
Also, Iraq did not have WMD at the time The Present Occupant (I'm sorry - the decider) caved in to his vice-president, and Cheney's merry band of imperialists, and agreed to invade Iraq.
What you should all turn your attention to now is Somalia. Bush/Cheney have failed to keep islamofascism from prevailing there, and if you think this is just powder puffery on a newspaper blog, consider what Eygpt is pondering with a radical, export minded Islamic fundamentalist terror group triumphant nearby - at a time when Islamic fundamentalism is mounting its most serious challenge to the Mubarek regime.
Enjoy.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
now all hel* is gonna break lose should I just ground you all?? :) ha ha guys have fun
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
no on your own with that one.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
I said no Armi
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
maybe we should send him to south central l.a? see how well that works out oh yeah send the senate with him. Just cuz
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The idiot-liar Arminianus:
It's one thing to post incorrect information by mistake. It's another thing entirely to post information that has been previously debunked - and which the postee knows to be patently false.
Like your false contention that "we have a tape" of William the Great "admitting" that he declined a Sudanese offer of Osama bin Laden to the United States. On 21 June 2004, Fox News Channel (go figure) Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused an offer from Sudan to turn over OBL to the U.S. in 1996, even though the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence" to support the claim that Sudan made such an offer.The false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news site NewsMax.com that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton .
Hannity extrapolated on a Clinton comment - "I asked Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato" - which is the total substance of your "tape." Hannity extrapolated - "how can he offer bin Laden to them if he doesn't have him?"
That is the total substance of your right-wing nutcase argument that Sudan "offered OBL to Clinton on a silver platter."
You persist in your lies even after I demonstrated on this thread that your own sources - the people and citations you "used" to formulate your lies - actually supported positions and issues that obliterated your entire argument i.e., Richard Clarke telling the 9/11 Commission that "Sudan would never have given OBL up to a hostile country." I also pointed out that Sudan intended to send OBL to Saudi Arabia - to be pardoned! A point you blatantly, conveniently ignored since it also rendered your arguments pointless.
You are both a liar, and a fool not to accept that you have been exposed as a liar . . . again.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
are you two still at this? move on to something new, nothing with bush or clinton maybe.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
It is incorrect to badmouth the French.
Four million French troops lost their lives in the First World War; the country was too exhausted to stand for the Second. Perhaps the essence of the French nation was the Imperial Guard at Waterloo. The Guard demonstrated loyalty to their emperor by choosing to die rather than surrender.
It is difficult to imagine Cheney or Bush doing the same for their country. Maybe it would be a good idea to send them to Iraq and tell them to either return triumphant, or not at all.
Something to remember the next time you think to disparage a proud country.
hottruckinmama (anonymous) says…
i see your still crabby rightthinker.
hottruckinmama (anonymous) says…
me and some of the other gals decided the other night that he may have gotten...um...crabby while in mexico last week. if thats really where he was of course.
hottruckinmama (anonymous) says…
i doubt thats even where he was.
adavid (anonymous) says…
legalize it
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
swbsow:
Do they even realize that their existence here is coincidental? That they could just have well been born, or attainted adulthood, in Hitler's Germany?
What they don't understand is that they would be wearing the brown shirts, the death-heads and hob-nails. They would be brutalizing, even killing the innocent - without compunction or remorse.
It is beyond sad that so many American fascists think they are regular, patriotic citizens. Put simply, they are monsters without a venue to vent their evil.
owenowen415 (anonymous) says…
And you wonder why Knight-Ridder papers are losing subscriber's by the thousands each day.
You people amuse me. Lib's that care more about Iraq terroists than they care for our troops. Protests at a Lawrence recruitment center with tomato paste reading Iraqi names. really funny, no i mean really funny. Good thing they weren't running things in the 40's. They would have probably been calling the Japenese with information on troop movements.
Another discrace.....
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
I think you all are beating a dead horse you are just repeating yourselves.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Back to the WMD and Baghdad and Pres. Bush. Here are some interesting links to the weapons that are "safe and degraded".
From the CIA:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_w...
This is all the stuff that the Dems are running around saying were reported, yes they were, but the 500 munitions are discoveries that the congress was not yet informed of. See how your partyies are lying?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-...
NO Uranium either , huh?
How about the Washington post, you guys like them don't you? two tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 radioactive samples used for research had been removed from Iraq's Tuwaitha Nuclear Center and brought to the United States for security reasons.
======================================
The post talking about their shortcomings on not reporting more on WMD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
From recently translated Feedayeens documents:
In the Name of God The Most Compassionate The Most Merciful The Republic of Iraq The Presidency of the Republic Saddam Feedayeens Secretariat The Supervisor of Saddam Feedayeens
2002/9
The Respected Supervisor of Saddam Feedayeens
Subject: Information
Salute and regards Sir
We received information that state the following:
1. A team from the Military Industrialization Commission when Hussein Kamel Hussein was conducting his responsibilities did bury a large container said that it contains a Chemical Material in the village (Al Subbayhat) part of the district of Karma in Fallujah in a quarry region that was used by SamSung Korean company and close to the homes of some citizens.
2. The container was buried using a fleet of concrete mixers.
3. Before the departure of the international inspectors in 1998 a United Nations helicopter flew over the region for two hours.
4. A large number of the region residents know about this container from the large number of machines used to hide it then.
5. It was noticed a non ordinary smell in the region.
6. No official visited the burial site through out the years which give the impression that it is not currently known by the Military Industrialization Commission.
7. Positions for the air defense were digged in the region that surrounds the quarry place without them knowing anything about the container. Also next to it are important headquarters like (Saddam factories-The warehouses of the Commerce ministry- Headquarters of Mujaheeden Khlaq).
Please your Excellency review and order what is appropriate Sir: With regards
Signature
General
Moohsen Abdel Karim Mahmood
General Relations
15/9/2002
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Conservatives:
You got life dead wrong. I'm a liberal Democrat; I fervently hope Hillary gets elected in '08; that Kathleen gets re-elected in a landslide; that Kline's silly can gets kicked out the A.G.'s door, and the KBOE gets clean of the idiot trogs.
But I'm not a communist. I'm no fan of big government. Remember William the Great's government reduction effort, one that shrank the size of the federal government to what it was when Harry S. Truman was president? We need that kind of discipline again.
I don't know any communists . . . or socialists. Everyone I know works - most of us work hard (50+ hours@ week) - and we love money. I, and almost everyone I know, believe that everybody should work, carry their fair share of the load, pay their fair share of taxes . . . and basically take care of yourself and your loved ones.
I believe in private property. I like the power and autonomy money gives you. I want to earn and acquire as much as possible.
Communism was a disaster as a political/social/economic system. Some theorists go goofy over it, but no sane person gives it any credence any more.
Socialism by itself cannot stand. However, mixed in carefully calibrated measures, it can actually make capitalism stronger, more vibrant. Social Security was, when it was introduced by FDR, denigrated by conservatives as Bolshevikism, a red menace, a brief prelude to communism. But it provides income for seniors and affords them a measure of comfort and dignity that would cost our society much, much more in so many ways if it was not made available to them.
I am a liberal Democrat . . . not a communist or socialist.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
All well and good Xeno but the thread is not about you is it? You are a bit self absorbed aren't you? I personally never called you any name like that. My bit in this baileywick is about what WMD are and aren't, and if that is in Iraq as the resolutions and congressional record of voting illustrates. It appears that while not able to make the WMD, Saddam still possessed a large amount.
One small thing ONLY 10% of the known and suspected Iraqi CW sites were investigated, so that leaves 90%. It appears as if the much vaunted "Dilfer Report" was not read as thourghly as some believed that they read it. And, these 500 munitions were NOT in the ICS group list. SO they were in fact "found" and are "extras".
As for them being safe or not a threat, the BBC is running a lot of print and tape on finding these WWI and WWII chemical weapons and people are getting injured. So after even 90 years in a cannister they are still bad bad stuff. There are fishermen off the coast of Europe and the US that routinely pull up "globs" of mustard and get chemical burns. It is a common occurance insome areas. That is after 40 years in salt water and the chemistry of a reactive chemical, well you get the idea, they are persistant, and even more so in a fladk or cask.
Possession of those undeclared WMD shells violated several UN resolutions and the 1991 cease-fire accords, no matter what the congresswoman thinks.
What the ATSDR thinks of Mustard Gas
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/toxp...
Breakdown components
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/toxp...
It shows how long in the environment how long mustard and Sarin exist, you can look that up in ToxFAQ on the ATSDR website.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I am with ya on cleaning up the KBOE and getting the fundamentalists out, as they have to go!
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
asbestos:
i understand, and as far as possible sympathize with, your position inre WMDs; however, whether Saddam had them or not was - and is - immaterial.
Cheney and his crew were going to war, no matter what. They wanted to establish a strategic presence in the area, and provide more security for Israel. They were fooled by memories of Iraqi troops surrendering to unarmed drones at the end of the First Gulf War.They were fairly optimistic that, as soon as Saddam was deposed, the country would lay down and accept American liberators, much like the French did the Allies in 1944.
Whether Saddam had WMD's or not doesn't matter; Cheney was going to dupe Bush into war, no matter what.
tell_it_like_it_is (anonymous) says…
Wow. 379. I wonder what the record number of posts is?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Xeno what you have stated below is a "belief" and an "opinion" in which you are entitled to and guaranteed to have that right. My question is how do you "Know" this? Do you know what is in Dick Cheney's mind? Do you have document's that show this?
No of course you do not. You just "believe", and quote others that "believe" as you do. That is fine, but is is not reality.
"Cheney and his crew were going to war, no matter what. They wanted to establish a strategic presence in the area, and provide more security for Israel. They were fooled by memories of Iraqi troops surrendering to unarmed drones at the end of the First Gulf War. .... Whether Saddam had WMD's or not doesn't matter; Cheney was going to dupe Bush into war, no matter what."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This one however I take issue on:
"I understand, and as far as possible sympathize with, your position inre WMDs; however, whether Saddam had them or not was - and is - immaterial."
It may be "immaterial" to you, but it is definately "material" for the 17 or so resolutions, the cease fire agreement, and the congress voting on the war, and actually going to war. It is also "material" because the way Pres. Bush was maligned and called a "liar" and "Bush lied...people died" stuff. Sorry the old "decider" was right. (BTW, I voted for H. Ross Perot, and wanted to vote for McCain, definately a third party guy here, as I am upset with other things Pres. Bush has done, the war with Iraq and the WoT however the President got it right. President Clinton had it right when he was in office too.
The WMD's matter and they matter a great deal. You need to read the whole cia report because we need to find where these things went. The UN and the ICS missed a whole lot of area there, and those things are bad, and I hope you never have to see the effects.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
asbestos:
It's Sunday morning; I'm listening to Howlin' Wolf and eying a bottle of Smirnoffs to take the edge off last night's excesses, and don't really feel like posting page after page (Haven't learned to do the cut-and-paste thing the liar Arminianus does routinely) of text.
Go to www.PBS.org and call up the most recent "Frontline" - The Dark Side. It lays out how Cheney massaged the information, how he buffaloed Tenet at the CIA, how they duped Colin Powell into putting his prestige on the line at the U.N., how Cheney & Co. were adamant about going to war, about using force to create a more viable American presence, not just in the Middle East, but Southeast Asia as well.
Again, I sympathize with your position inre WMD - and they are deadly gruesome (the pictures of dead infants lying in the Kurdish village after Saddam's gas attacks resonates); but Cheney & Co. were going to war, WMD or no, no matter what.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The Liar Arminianus:
I'm shocked; you actually read a post.
The essence of my post - one that you recognized and have accepted as truth - is that William the Great reversed a trend set by his Republican predecessors - who obviously forgot their party's ideological roots, much like the most recent version of The Elephant - and drastically cut the size, and budget, of the federal government.
Fiscal conservatism was once the hallmark of Republicans; now, thanks to the tradition of William the Great, and the continuing excesses of your party, fiscal responsibility is an attribute of Democrats. It will be a powerful message that will help us to success, here in Kansas in a few months, and nationally in '08.
Glad that you recognize William the Great as a fiscally-responsible president.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
all of you do realize that in just a few months none of the william and george debate will matter right? not that it really does now.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
You must be kidding XENO! DId you checkout who paid for this piece of trash reporting? Did you see who the executive producer is? THis is leftist propaganda all the way.
"Go to www.PBS.org and call up the most recent "Frontline" - The Dark Side. It lays out how Cheney massaged the information, how he buffaloed Tenet at the CIA, how they duped Colin Powell into putting his prestige on the line at the U.N., how Cheney & Co. were adamant about going to war, about using force to create a more viable "
If you are going to cite a source at least cite one that has more than ONE source. That dude was BS, totally!
And yes WMD makes ALL the difference. Back when you were raising heck about Bush taking us to war on a "lie" the WMD's made all the difference in the world. Why are they not that important anymore? Because you "believe" something else.
Your hatred of the Bush Admin clouds your thinking.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
asbestos:
i don't hate the Bush administation; I'm frustrated beyond understanding at their incompetence and outright stupidity.
And, no, WMD make no difference what so ever. Don't you understand the mentality of these people? Cheney was going to orchestrate a war with Iraq, no matter what! It wouldn't have mattered if their dead Galilean had suddenly materialized off the cross, dripping blood, and forbade them to invade Iraq . . . Cheney & Co. were going to invade! Period.
It didn't matter that Saddam was essentially nothing more than the mayor of Baghdad; it didn't matter that America had outfitted and supported his military in their conflict with Iran for most of a decade; it didn't matter that America looked the other way while he gassed Kurdish villages . . . and it didn't matter that, only days prior to the American invasion, Saddam confided to a meeting of his top generals that "there were no weapons of mass destruction to use against the Americans" . . . Cheney & Co. were going to war.
You have WMD on the brain. Chill out. Look at the bigger picture(s). It does not matter whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He offended too often, he did not bend when he should have, he meddled where he should not have meddled, and he set himself up for deposition at the hands of the arch-villain Dick Cheney. End of story.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
This below says a lot about your warped perspective. You listen to too much left wing media and worse yet... believe it!
I myself am frustrated by the leanings and statements of Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy, and DNC Chair Howard Dean that undermine our very effort when we have troops in the field!!! But you do not see me making mean and false statments about them.
I am frustrated by a nation split by polarization and hatred of "the other guys". We like Clinton so we have to hate the Bush's and the Republicans or we Like the Bush's so we have to hate the CLintons and the Dems!! Hell! When will it end? If you haven't noticed we at war whether you like it or not. An whether we like it or not we have to take out badguys and that is that.
I am totally frustrated that those on the left do not see this as just another front on the WoT and this is what the front will look like, probably Syria next.
I am totally frustrated by the left in their harshest criticizm of Pres. Bush that "he lied about WMD's that got us into war." tha is why i am obsessed with WMD's. And you had better be glad we are finding them and tracking them down rather than some radical that doesn't care whether you voted for Bush or Clinton, just that you are an evil American.
I am totally frustrated by people who consider themselves so in tune and educated about the issues miss that very important point!
"He (Saddam) offended too often, he did not bend when he should have, he meddled where he should not have meddled, and he set himself up for deposition at the hands of the arch-villain Dick Cheney."
Your must be kidding! How are we supposed to take you seriously? I M done with you. You have shown to everyone here that reads, your true motives and beliefs.
Thank You!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
WMD's are central to this issue with Iraq. Whether you will admit it or naught!
The clarion call for the last 6-12 months was "quagmire and Bush Lied on WMD in Iraq and Lied us into a war".
It seems that was the central issue, whether you buy it or not.
This thread is dead and flogged. Give it a rest.
I think 390 is a good time to stop!
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
"I'm not as stupid as Kevin, but I'm trying!"
What a rallying cry. What Democrats will do after November will be relatively non-controversial. They'll focus on energy issues by rolling back tax preferences for oil companies. Their health care agenda will begin with work on prescription coverage. They will also cut the interest rate on student loans, and raise the minimum wage, which the elitist mutts in the Senate recently killed . . . again.
More importantly, fiscal conservatism and responsibility will return with the Democrats to Congress. "Pay-as-you-go" means no new deficit spending, no more unfunded mandates on the states, no ballooning federal budget deficit and national debt.
Rich corporations (Halliburton, Mobil/Exxon)and individuals who have socked it away due to their connections with Republican elected thieves may have their ill-gotten gains reduced a trifle, but there will be no orchestrated effort to reduce the deficit on the backs of the rich.
No matter what Dems do, it will be an improvement on the incompetent, venal twits who run things now.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
rightthinker:
Thirty-three thousand dollars. Each. That's what your Republicans have added to the debt for each of us.
8.4 trillion dollars is almost unimaginable, but even ultra-conservatives must recognize the annual interest payment on the debt - 504 billion dollars - will eventually suck the life out of our economy. Most of it will go to foreigners . . . Arabs, Japanese, Chinese.
There is much to be overlooked in politicians, much that is best ignored, but not this. This is too important, too potentially damaging to who and what we are.
Somebody has to get a handle on our debt problem, and it sure isn't conservative Republicans. If Democrats can't, or won't, deal with it, and effectively, then they need to be gotten rid of also and someone else found who can. And I'm a liberal Democrat.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Xenophobe wrote: "Most of it will go to foreigners . . . Arabs, Japanese, Chinese."
Living up to your name, I see.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Godot:
No one is waiting for you.
You're not in law enforcement, by any chance, are you? You sound like a cop. "Officer, officer! There's a disciple if D.H. Lawrence posting on the LJW website! He's out to corrupt the morals of our daughters! And he drinks beer at Louise's West!
Have nothing against foreigners; actually glad somebody has the money to buy our treasury bonds, pay for the financial excesses of Republican spendthrifts.
But we need to consider that foreigners, and foreign governments, are not always our friends and do not have our best interests at heart. China, particularly, is not as stable as many seem to think. If something would happen to change their focus or attitude (Taiwan, Iraq, access to Russian oil and gas), they would sell us out in a nanosecond. Cash in their bonds and tell us to come up with the money.
But, of course, that's probably beyond your ken.
Like I said, no one is waiting on you.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
rightthinker:
Haven't talked to her in a few days. She's probably taking a well-deserved rest after splattering the liar Arminianus' guts all over his keyboard, again.
I notice that she treats you much kinder, perhaps moreso than you deserve. I'll ask her about that sometime.
Benched 340 today. Not bad for 56, with a busted clavicle.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
The liar Arminianus:
The "shadow of government" that is cast through its vast inventory of private, nonprofit and state and local partners makes a correct reading of the exact size of the federal government an inexact effort. Further, we are unable to compare and contrast properly, for 1984 is used as the base in discussions about the size of the federal government because its the first year for which good data are available on the contract and grant workforce; 1996 is the most recent year for which comparable data are available.
The best way to determine cost - size cutting is to determine whether or not the federal budget is balanced, and a surplus is produced. The only balanced budget, and federal budget surplus, in the last thirty years occurred during the two terms of William Jefferson Clinton . . . William the Great.
www.govexec.com
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
the horse is beyond dead time to bury it
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
dead I say dead
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
have you not heard the 4th is coming on quick time ofr a new debate one that has nothing to do with clinton or bush.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
opps, for, a new debate
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
just egging you guys on now come on you guys just crack me up. besides I am meither disagreeing with one or the other just reading what you write.
but fine have at it and enjoy.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Flogging a dead horse = "beating meat".
enough already
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
To whom it may concern:
George W. Bush is a profoundly mediocre President. Dick Cheney is the real power behind the throne. Bush does pretty much whatever Cheney and Karl Rove want, or tell him to do. He lacks the capacity for complex thought.
William Jefferson Clinton was the greatest American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Because he served all Americans, not just the wealthy or powerful, he was attacked by wealthy Republican fringe lunatics who used their wealth to foment unprecedented public campaigns of lies, slander, and character assasination against the President, and his family.
There are those who infest this site who are still dupes of the decades-old campaigns to disparage the Clintons, which demonstrates that the longevity of common stupidity is lengthy indeed. But their efforts to continue lies and character assassination of a great American president will not be tolerated or countenanced while some of us have keyboards. The mountebanks of the right, the charlatans of neofascism will be contested, they will be defeated.
George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst American presidents, and rightfully so. Liberals Democrats have a responsibility to our acumen-challenged enemies to point out the failings of their leaders, with the hope they will choose much wiser leaders should the public ever again enterain the idea of letting them return to power.
William Jefferson Clinton was fiscally conservative; he demonstrated budget discipline that revitalized a sagging economy that foundered under the false premise of Republican "trickle down."
As William the Great probably thought on numerous occasions, "Trickle down this!"
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
No wonder psychiatrists can charge outrageous fees.
I don't care diddly squat about a president's private life. I don't care who he sleeps with, or who gets down on her knees before him. I don't care how many sheets of paper he uses when he goes to the bathroom.
All I care about is whether or not he is competent. William the Great was competent. He kicked Republican asses, even when they controlled the Congress, for years: up, down, front to back, side to side. They did everything they could short of paying for his assassination, and he straight kicked their asses.
Ever heard of "pay-as-you-go"? William the Great instituted the budget policy to introduce budget discipline in Congress, which eventually led to both a balanced budget and a federal budget surplus.
What did The Present Occupant do as soon as he took office? Acquiesced in the Republican Congressional leadership doing away with "pay-as-you-go." And what happened? Let me give you a clue: 8.4 trillion . . . with a $504 billion ANNUAL interest payment.
It is a cheap shot to lay 9/11 on William the Great. If laying blame is your game, you should perhaps look instead to the career intelligence officers in the FBI and CIA who failed, miserably, in the performance of their duties. Presidents are often only as good as the intelligence they receive from the various intelligence acronyms - in short, the intelligence community failed.
It would be an equally cheap shot to point out that GWB was president when 9/11 occurred - it being on his watch and all - so I will pass over that and note that the 9/11 Commission outlined several basic, institutional errors in the ways our intelligence agencies operate.
William the Great was a fine president; he accomplished many positive, needed changes and improvements in the country.
George W. Bush is profoundly mediocre, and should have lived out his life as the failed oilman he was.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I stand by it, because it's the truth. A commander has to delegate authority/responsibility to subordinates. He has to trust that they will carry out their duties properly.
Not just a few figures in the intelligence community, but entire levels of senior inteliigence officers and administrators failed two consecutive presidents, leading up to 9/11. They underestimated the enemy, underestimated their capacity for daring and initiative.
And that's the truth.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I love Jason Giambi! All hail the mighty New York Yankees!
Seriously, you mistake me for holygrailale. Check my posts: I don't care about the legality of the war, and I have never called GWB a "war criminal."
What I have consistently maintained is that Iraq is the wrong war, and GWB lacks the acumen - intestinal fortitude, whatever - to stand up to Dick Cheney, Don Rumseld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, who are, moreso than anyone else, responsible for the foreign policy fiasco.
Afghanistan is the right war. That's where OBL is. Do you really think Saddam would have allowed al-Qaeda to operate in his territory? If you do, you don't know squat about gang-leader mentalities, about how ruthless tin-horn dictators operate.
Call up www.pbs.org and check out their latest offering, "The Dark Side." Read how Cheney & Co. massaged the information, buffaloed George Tenet at the CIA, duped Colin Powell into putting his prestige on the line at the U.N., and prodded GWB into a rash, wrong decision to go to war.
Sadly, I can't burn any "magic" till I'm off paper.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
His fixation with William the Great is psycho-sexual as well.
I wonder; does he fantasize about being William the Great . . . or does he fantasize about wearing a blue dress?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Old girl:
What's going on? You show up on a thread, and the conservatives scatter like rabbits when a hawk flies over.
Maybe you should offer to remove some letters from your keyboard - make it a little more fair for them - or promise not to use certain words or phrases.
Con-man is on another thread, his "organ-harvest" theme in high spin. I saw, and had to live around, some real fruitcakes in the joint, but never imagined there are looney tunes like him out here.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"I saw, and had to live around, some real fruitcakes in the joint, ...''
THAT explains alot to me! LOL
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
IF anyone is interested in the Irag/Al Qaida connection (not between Saddam and 9/11, but Iraq and Al Qaida) here is a recently translated diary from 1999. This is an intel file with photos of the diary and the forgoing translations. It is a bit large at 29 MB but the answers are there.
http://70.168.46.200/released/03-22-0...
So there was WMD's found (old or otherwise) and there are more and more documents showing these meeting between Saddam's people and Al Qaida.
Hmmm!
So now do you understand the probems with a madman (Saddam not our President!) with chemical weapons and opening dialouge with the Al Qaida folks that 2 years later flew planes into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon and a filed in PA? NOW do you see the picture?
How you gonna spin those? Dick Cheney lying again?
That is what is ment about a dark war, not us but the other guys, they are the bad guys.
now will you all leave this one alone?
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Nope. Iraq is the wrong war. Afghanistan is the right war. GWB is Cheney's dupe.
You can't see that, there's not a lot anybody can do for you.
Comments are frozen
Comments are no longer accepted for this story.