free web counter

Maries Two Cents

Far Right Conservative And Proud Of It!..... Stories That I Think Need Special Attention, And, Of Course, My Two Cents :-)

My Photo
Name:
Location: Del City, Oklahoma, United States




Click for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Forecast





Homeland Security Advisory

January 16, 2008

Feed Shark Turbo Tagger

Do Any Of The Democrat Candidates Remember Iraq?

Of Course Not!

Iraq Casualties in December Down 80 Percent From Year Ago

Combat-related U.S. casualties in Iraq were 82.9 percent less in December 2007 than they were in December 2006, according to an exclusive Cybercast News Service analysis of Defense Department data.

In December 2006, according to an analysis based on casualty reports released by the Defense Department, 82 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq as a result of enemy action. In December 2007, 14 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq as a result of enemy action. (Overall in December 2006, 90 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq, including not only those killed by enemy action but also those who died in non-combat-related accidents and for other reasons. In December 2007, 19 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq overall, including those who died for non-combat-related reasons.)

U.S. combat-related casualties in Iraq in December were the fewest of any month since March 2006.



At a Heritage Foundation forum last week, U.S. officials and national security experts credited the improving situation in Iraq to General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, for conceiving and implementing an effective counter-insurgency strategy, and to President Bush for following through with it.

Not everyone in the White House was keen on the troop surge, Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Middle East Affairs, said during his presentation. He said some argued against a heightened U.S. military presence because they believed the troops would be exposed to escalating violence.

"No one last December [2006] had any idea we would see a Sunni awakening movement of such great scope and with such great effectiveness," he said. "No one expected the brilliant successes of our special forces against Al Qaeda in general. We have done better at the local level than we expected. But worse at the national level...The challenge for 2008 will be to link up these local efforts to the central government in a way that strengthens the latter while preserving the maximum space for local initiative."

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have'nt heard one Democrat candidate for President mention any of the good news from Iraq. Oh they keep argueing "I didnt vote for the 'Surge'", or "If I did vote for the 'Surge' if I would have known what I know today I would'nt have voted for it", and alot of other crap. But I have'nt heard one of them say we have had outstanding success since the 'Surge' in Iraq. In fact I have'nt heard the Dem candidates mention Iraq at all, unless of course it's bad. We all knew if the situation turned around in our favor in Iraq it would pretty much be off the Democrat table. Well folk's it's happened. Iraq is now on the back burner. Now it's the "Economy" and how the Democrat's plan on destroying it!

BAGHDAD - Iraq's parliament passed a benchmark law Saturday allowing lower-ranking former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to reclaim government jobs, the first major piece of U.S.-backed legislation it has adopted.

Story Here

Well what do you know? The Iraqi's passed an important benchmark in Iraq and no one even mentioned it. The Iraqi government is starting to make progress and nothing, no reports, only this little story. I guess that's why the Democrat's arent mentioning Iraq anymore!

Labels: ,

32 Comments:

Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

I have'nt heard one Democrat candidate for President mention any of the good news from Iraq...so so true Marie and we never will!

January 16, 2008 2:13 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

Marie, they won't mention it because it will be admitting that the surge was a success, and that is something they'll never do! They don't want us to be successful in Iraq because that would make Bush look good. As far as I'm concerned, they're traitors, both of them!

Now stop by my place to receive your wet and sloppy dragon's kiss. You've won "The Thinking Blogger's Award." :)

January 16, 2008 4:23 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Marie,

To the first part of your post, there's really nothing for anyone to comment on. Thankfully the violence has declined sharply. But remember that Bush had declared "Mission Accomplished" WAAAYY back in May of 2003. This is how it was supposed to be 5 years ago. Finally it's happening.

Secondly, had L. Paul Bremer not fired the 450,000 Iraqi soldiers back in the summer of 2003, you know, those soldiers who made up the insurgency (not al-Qaida)that killed over 3,500 of our men and women, the CIVIL WAR participants, the Iraqi parliament would not have had to pass this legislation to begin with.

Had Bremer not done that, there may not have ever been a need for a "surge".

January 16, 2008 5:51 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

LOL @ Gayle's post

January 16, 2008 5:51 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Angel,

I know I am asking to much from the Democrat party.

Just a little recognition on the Democrat side of how well the Troops are doing and just to mention any of the successes in Iraq made by our Troops is to much to ask isnt it?



Gayle,

I know, and I agree, the Democrat's dont ever admit that Bush was right.

They never give General David Patraeus any credit for virtually stopping the insurgency.

All the Democrat's can talk about is who can get out of Iraq the fastest, WHEN WE ARE WINNING!!! Unfriggenbelieveable!

The Democrat's I am convinced are not in touch with the American people, the Troops, the President, Iraq in General, nor winning.

The Democrats are completely invested in defeat and if we were to pull the Troops out NOW the Democrat's know the consequences and dont seem to give a damn!

But that's thier Montra isnt it?

They cant protect this Country, and want to turn any attack against America into a police action again which we have already been there and done that and it DIDNT work! 'ie' Clinton

But anyway, Thank You for the award, I snagged it and linked it back to you :-)

I am honored that you thought of me and Thank You very much :-)

You are a sweetie :-)

January 16, 2008 8:29 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

Marie,

To the first part of your post, there's really nothing for anyone to comment on. Thankfully the violence has declined sharply. But remember that Bush had declared "Mission Accomplished" WAAAYY back in May of 2003. This is how it was supposed to be 5 years ago. Finally it's happening

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

Uh.. Fed, you need to keep up. President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" after our Military toppled Saddam Hussein! That was the mission and it was accomplished!

No today the Surge is what has worked in Iraq as well as dipolmacy, and the Sunni's even got sick of all the Al-Qaeda attacks and laid down thier arms and threw in with the American coalition.


Secondly, had L. Paul Bremer not fired the 450,000 Iraqi soldiers back in the summer of 2003, you know, those soldiers who made up the insurgency (not al-Qaida)that killed over 3,500 of our men and women, the CIVIL WAR participants, the Iraqi parliament would not have had to pass this legislation to begin with.



On that part I agree, Bremmer should have never disbaned the Iraqi Military, but you also have to remember at the time they were thought to be the 'enemy'!

Everything has changed now and the mistakes that were made are now just a matter of record, ya know "Lessoned Learned"?

But ya know had Clinton delt with Saddam as he should of when he signed into law The Iraq Liberation Act We wouldnt be going through any of this at all!

But Clinton left it up to the next President to accomplish this because he was to busy poking Monica with a Cigar!

And dont forget most of the Insurgency came from Iran and Syria. Not much came from the civil rift in the Country. In all actuality it was somewhat civil, then ALOT of Insurgency, and ALOT of Al-Qaeda!!

Which General Patraeus has'nt gotten credit for, well not alot anyway.

The Democrats will NEVER admit Bush was right on any of this, yet Roosevelt during WW2 was applauded for firing Generals that couldnt win the war until he found some that could!

That's what has happened in this case also but you Dems will never admit it even though Roosevelt was one of your own!


Had Bremer not done that, there may not have ever been a need for a "surge".


Gee, had Clinton taken care of Saddam and Iraq when he was in office NONE of this would be happening at all!

It's pretty bad when our former President's greatest acheivement was attacking Waco, Texas!!

January 16, 2008 9:03 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Face it Federalist!

The Roosevelt "There will be hell to pay for attacking America" part of your party is GONE!

Your party is now invested in defeat, tax 'em high, and let's turn terrorist attacks back unto a Police Action!

You cant run a War that way.

We havent been attacked since 9-11 and that's no accident. It's been good Intelligence (Finally) and good Commanders, Generals on the ground and President Bush who has kept us safe since 9-11.

Your Democrat party hasnt and will never be able to keep this Country safe if we go back to "Police Action Tactics"!

Your Democrat party has let the American people down to many times and this isnt going to stand!

January 16, 2008 9:18 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

Marie, you aren't going to see anything about the success in Iraq from democrats. They put all their eggs in the basket of defeat. Their whole strategy was to make sure we were defeated in Iraq for their own political gain. That is treason in any dictionary definition and is still punishable by death under statute and the UCMJ.

Second of all here are the words of George Bush spoken from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that refutes every one of the lies has been said about it.
" Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

Because the anti war left never bothers to do any investigation for themselves because most cannot or will not think for themselves. They are led down the path to lies and distortions about the actual moments in history. Further more, George Bush went onto say to the Officers and crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln that day
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
you will also never see those words printed in any left wing publication that sponsors anti war treason like the New York Times, LA Times, or the Atlanta Constipation.

Now get up off the mat anti war man and apologize for your neglect and intellectual dishonesty with Marie and her readers.

January 16, 2008 9:43 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Most of the insurgency was of the former Iraqi soldiers, whom were promised to retain their positions, only to be fired by Bremer. With no record of their names and locations and no inventory of their weaponry, they came out 6 months later organized and angry and armed. Much to the dismay of the right, Al-Qaeda was not the biggest part of the insurgency (those coming from Syria and Iran were only a minority as well).

Civil war=when two or more factions of the same country engage in war

When will you all give up the right-wing talking points that you are stealing from Hannity and Rush and come up with something different to carry your hate? And you're all Christians? Wow!

"Democrats want to see America defeated", "Democrats hate America", "Democrats love Osama bin Laden"...ZZZzzzz. Same old thing everyday.

I think given the mess that is Iraq, Petraeus has done an unbelievable job. I have no problem whatsoever admitting that.

The first Bush (the smart one) and his advisers made a very intelligent decision: kick Saddam out of Kuwait and come home. They knew that instigating a regime change was a bad idea. James Baker knew this and he advocated the policy of containment. It was working quite well as under Clinton there were more bombs dropped than under the first Bush.

Many military experts, friends of your superhero Petraeus, agreed that containment was working and that Saddam could and probably would be toppled from within.

But...why not attack, invade and occupy a country that A) had no WMD B) had nothing to do with 9/11 and C) posed no threat to us and D) had no operational ties to al-Qaeda

The soldiers who were fired were not the enemy. They had no choice: fight for Saddam or be killed. Their loyalty was based on personal survival.

Democrats are not against war. Sometimes war is very necessary. It just wasn't necessary in Iraq. We are not any safer for having gone into Iraq.

January 17, 2008 4:06 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

And talk about wanting to lose in Iraq, one of your former congressman is stealing money and funneling it to terrorist organizations...?

Ouch...how are you going to wiggle out of this one?

And the fact that he's an evangelical Christian....uh-oh...

January 17, 2008 4:13 AM  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Trust me Marie they remember it but are ignoring it hoping that the success thatthey fought for so long won't come back and bite them in the butt this year and especially in November.

Of course the MSM is helping them in their amnesia as they refuse to report the success because it looks so bad for the Dems.

January 17, 2008 7:41 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Jenn,

You remember everything dont you? lol

Thank's for the reminder of what Bush said.




Federalist,

You are just a broken record, repeating the same crap over and over again!

January 17, 2008 11:40 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Federalist,

And talk about wanting to lose in Iraq, one of your former congressman is stealing money and funneling it to terrorist organizations...?

Ouch...how are you going to wiggle out of this one?

And the fact that he's an evangelical Christian....uh-oh...



I'm not wiggling out of anything.

Whoever this guy was he should be hung by a rope in front of Congress till he's dead!

That's the most upsetting form of Treason imaginable.




Ken,

The MSM sure is helping with thier amnesia as well as the rest of the Country's! But not me, I will continue to hammer home the successes made by the best Military in the World :-)

January 17, 2008 11:45 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Jennifer,

Thanks for reprinting portions of the speech. I think I've posted on it 3 years now, during its anniversary. It still holds up, to this day. Unfortunately, the banner's made the speech a source for ridicule, by those who don't even bother to check out what the speech was about, and what it said.


Much to the dismay of the right, Al-Qaeda was not the biggest part of the insurgency (those coming from Syria and Iran were only a minority as well).

But the influence of the foreign fighters and the al-Qaeda leadership was steep and deep, recruiting al-Qaeda footsoldiers amongst Iraqis. Al-Qaeda as much as anything, instigated the so-called "civil war", and is blamed for orchestrating the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra. That's when things really took a nose-dive.



When will you all give up the right-wing talking points that you are stealing from Hannity and Rush and come up with something different to carry your hate? And you're all Christians? Wow!

I'm not Christian. Not a Hannity fan; never listened to Rush.

Thanks for painting us all with the strawman conservative stereotype.





kick Saddam out of Kuwait and come home. They knew that instigating a regime change was a bad idea.

Regime change at that point in history was not the mission objective. But I have on audio, President Bush Sr. saying from that time period, "It's better to deal with this guy now, than 10 years from now."

James Baker knew this and he advocated the policy of containment. It was working quite well as under Clinton there were more bombs dropped than under the first Bush.

We were criticized heavily for sanctions; rather than Saddam being responsible for violations of the original cease-fire agreements and 17 UN resolutions, we were blamed for the suffering of Iraqi children. So we agreed to the UN Food for Oil Scam. You think that sort of "status quo" was working?!


Many military experts, friends of your superhero Petraeus, agreed that containment was working and that Saddam could and probably would be toppled from within.

That is was what partisans within the State and CIA wished to have happen: A coup from within. And because of that, they actively undermined the plans of the Bush Administration, and the post-war efforts.

Paul Bremer was a big mistake. And Bush is responsible for hiring Bremer. But Bremer was not communicating everything honestly to the Administration. He almost singlehandedly made the unilateral decision to turn post-war operations into an occupation (although there were post-war reconstruction plans, long-term occupation hadn't been part of the original intent- State and CIA officials and Bremer screwed that one up).

You also mentioned about the disbandment of the Iraq army. President Bush was right when he mentioned that it wasn't originally part of the plan, despite Bremer's attempts at face-saving, by taking his letter to the news media, showing that President Bush signed off on it. According to Tommy Franks book and George Tenet's, as well as others involved, the Iraqi army basically dissolved itself right after the toppling of Saddam's regime. This, despite the fact that they dropped millions of leaflets, telling the Iraqi military to disarm, but to remain in uniform. The original plan was to use the Iraq army as part of the security force. The police force, however, definitely was so corrupt from top down, that it needed to be rebuilt from scratch.

There were other things that Bremer screwed up on, that led up to the beginnings of the insurgency. And yes, Bush is to be held accountable for the incompetence of Bremer.


But...why not attack, invade and occupy a country that A) had no WMD B) had nothing to do with 9/11 and C) posed no threat to us and D) had no operational ties to al-Qaeda

My God....when is this yesterday's argument ever going to go away?!! Do people still not get that the connection between 9/11 and Iraq is not that Saddam had a hand in orchestrating 9/11, but that after 9/11, we were following the Bush doctrine, that would have us no longer tolerate state-sponsored terrorism? That this was a larger struggle, aimed not just on al-Qaeda, but all Islamic terror?

For more, go to Regimeofterror.com and go to Flopping Aces, and click on the categories "Saddam documents" and al-Qaeda/Iraq connections. There's postwar stuff that only confirms to me, that Saddam was a danger, and that removing him from power had to happen sometime; and better sooner than later. Otherwise, Iran and North Korea would not be the only regimes still posing a threat to the free world.



Democrats are not against war. Sometimes war is very necessary. It just wasn't necessary in Iraq. We are not any safer for having gone into Iraq.

January 17, 2008 11:12 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Democrats are not against war. Sometimes war is very necessary. It just wasn't necessary in Iraq. We are not any safer for having gone into Iraq.

Sorry, that last part should have been truncated from my reply, up above.

January 17, 2008 11:14 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

The "surge" is not a policy. If the Iraqi government does achieve considerable progress for the lull in violence then it is all for nothing. You can "surge" all you want but it will remain a temporary solution to a very permanent problem.

The part about the Iraqi army is not true. Col. Paul Hughes was 125,000 soldiers into the process: collecting data, names, addresses, getting them organized to regroup and reassemble. He had generals of the Iraqi army anxiously awaiting his orders to be able to work again and provide security.

When Bremer came in and fired all of them, it was a punch to the gut because he had worked so hard to gather all of the information and most importantly, having the trust of the former army that he would not leave them out without a chance for employment. Their families were starving and when they got the word that they had been fired, chaos erupted and thus the insurgency.

I'm not quite sure why one would need to undermine the post-war plans of the administration. They were designed with less than 6 weeks prior to the invasion. The plans were doomed to fail because of the lack of planning and the failure to listen to experts who time and again called for more troops to stabilize the region once Saddam was removed.

While museum after museum was looted, artifacts dating back to 3000 B.C. in arguably the holiest land in the Middle East, we stood there and did nothing.

I understand the denial of labeling it a "civil war". It has a negative connotation. But that is exactly what it is and many warned of this prior to invasion. "Shock and Awe" was more important at the time.

I didn't paint everyone with the Rush/Hannity brush. J_G is a machine for regurgitating empty rhetoric that she accumulates via radio. SHE is the one who is painting the left as Rush and Hannity do---that ALL Democrats hate America and want the terrorists to "win". It gets old, fast.

Your points about justifying the invasion (larger war on terror, radical islam ---which is funny because Saddam was the only balance against that ideology) were never mentioned by Bush. I believe the order went like this: WMD, involved in 9/11, state sponsors of terror, larger war on terror, Saddam was evil, we're better off now, fight them there so we don't fight them here....what will the next one be? The reasons change more often than the platforms of Hillary and Romney combined.

To this day, there is still no factual evidence of WMD nor of any involvement in 9/11, and no operational ties to al-Qaeda: only "truthiness" ---see Marie about this one.

January 18, 2008 5:02 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

* First sentence should read, "If the Iraqi government DOES NOT achieve..."

January 18, 2008 5:04 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I have'nt heard one Democrat candidate for President mention any of the good news from Iraq. Oh they keep argueing "I didnt vote for the 'Surge'", or "If I did vote for the 'Surge' if I would have known what I know today I would'nt have voted for it", and alot of other crap.

Well, how about
Hillary Clinton taking credit for the surge?



If the Iraqi government does not achieve considerable progress for the lull in violence then it is all for nothing. You can "surge" all you want but it will remain a temporary solution to a very permanent problem.

Of course. But Democrats and the anti-war left have been calling for defeat, EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY. They have done nothing helpful at all, but have stood in the way of progress with every abu Ghraib story, every Haditha Marines slander, every NYTimes smear of our soldiers, every leak to the NYTimes and Washington Post, all of it has done nothing but given aid and comfort to our enemies. Abu Ghraib helped to inflame the Arab world, not because of the severity of the actual shame of it, but because of how the media spun and conflated it.

The glass is always half empty. Even now, with the success of the surge, you and others are always looking for that dark cloud attached to the silver lining. When political reconciliation does happen, all of you will continue to find something to gripe and bitch about.

It's been that way throughout the war and occupation.

The anti-war left have been nothing but a ball-and-chain to success. They, as much as anything the Bush Administration has done, have stretched the war out and made things worse by hurting morale, and giving hope to the enemy with every hippie parade against the evil Bushitler regime.

What did President Bush actually say on the Abraham Lincoln?

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.



If we want things done right, we won't place a timetable on Iraq. It will be over when it's over. Time and patience.

The part about the Iraqi army is not true. Col. Paul Hughes was 125,000 soldiers into the process: collecting data, names, addresses, getting them organized to regroup and reassemble. He had generals of the Iraqi army anxiously awaiting his orders to be able to work again and provide security.

I understand all of that. What we have are different people's recollections, and time frames; and misunderstandings about who said what, when.

When Bremer came in and fired all of them, it was a punch to the gut because he had worked so hard to gather all of the information and most importantly, having the trust of the former army that he would not leave them out without a chance for employment. Their families were starving and when they got the word that they had been fired, chaos erupted and thus the insurgency.

Read Kenneth Timmerman's account in "Shadow Warriors". There's a lot more than just that.

I'm not quite sure why one would need to undermine the post-war plans of the administration. They were designed with less than 6 weeks prior to the invasion. The plans were doomed to fail because of the lack of planning and the failure to listen to experts who time and again called for more troops to stabilize the region once Saddam was removed.

Again, I'd refer you back to Timmerman's book. The CIA and State were never fully on board with the Bush Administration; and they took action and initiatives that undermined the war plannings, due to partisan politics and personal grudges and agendas.



Your points about justifying the invasion (larger war on terror, radical islam ---which is funny because Saddam was the only balance against that ideology) were never mentioned by Bush. I believe the order went like this:

You're wrong, there. I've understood the Bush Doctrine from the very beginning; of course, the mainstream media didn't quite get it, and heard what they think they heard.

And as for Saddam, again check out the links at Regime of Terror and Flopping Aces, in the category section. The big myth is the CIA notion that Saddam would never cooperate with religious radicals, because he was secular. The CIA lacked the imagination to think outside the box, and left unexamined ample evidence to investigate any possible al-Qaeda-Saddam connections. The prevalent attitude was to be dismissive of anything that did not fit their preconceived notion of Saddam cooperating with "jihadists".

Regarding Iraq, President Bush offered at the minimum, 4 justifications for war.

Going back to your argument about the war never being clearly defined, the reorientation of American defense policy was articulated in about five speeches the president gave:

1. President Bush speaking at the National Cathedral Sept 14, 2001.

2. Address to the Joint Session of Congress on Sept 20, 2001.

3. State of the Union Address, Jan 29, 2002

4. Commencement Address at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY, June 1, 2002.

5. President Bush's remarks to the UN General Assembly in NY, Sept 12, 2002.




Can you point to me the exact text in which President Bush said Saddam took part in the events of 9/11?

January 18, 2008 10:28 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I forgot about Hillary taking credit for the surge lol

She has flipped and flopped around so much I forgot.

Carry On :-)

January 19, 2008 10:49 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

You equate "calling for defeat" to not giving blank check support for infinite preemptive war. There are two issues working here: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Since we couldn't get the first one, at least we could get the second, right? Wrong. We couldn't even conduct an illegal war correctly. NY Times? People still read that paper? The one that labeled Ahmed Chalabi the Iraqi James Bond? Chalabi who conned the neocons into buying that 6th rate intelligence from Iraq to get him a position as next dictator in Iraq? No, I don't even restaurant reviews from that paper. I would choose Fox News before reading that paper and I like Fox News about as much as Dick Cheney likes to answer questions from the press.



You can throw links around all day but you will never find one that has absolute, positive, factual evidence of what is considered an operational WMD found in Iraq. Bush AND Cheney made the claim about Iraq being tied to 9/11 ("we have evidence that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta in Prague 6 months before 9/11") You know too well that if there were any proof, Bush would not miss the photo op to give a thumbs-up pose with one foot planted atop the pile.

According to your logic then, and I am assuming you are not a foot soldier for the Project for a New American Century, any country could simply attack another sovereign nation based on any given reason. And it could even change frequently according to the day of the week. If Russia had invaded Iraq or Iran before 9/11, what would our reaction be? That Russia's actions are acceptable? We would remain indifferent and disinterested? Russia could say that Iraq was trying to make a better Vodka and therefore, they viewed that as a potential threat. Doubt it.

You take any remarks by a Democrat congressman and you interpret them as "for defeat". It's YOUR side that cannot identify and draw out what "win" means. Is "win" when Bin Laden comes out, waves a white flag and says, "My bad, you guys are too tough, we surrender...and can we get a couple of ice-cold Pepsi sodas? We're parched!"

You know that is not going to happen. So what is YOUR plan to "win"? We "won" 5 years ago. Since when did our military become a reconstruction/occupational military? Is that their specialty? I thought it was kick ass and come home?

You want to bring up the hippie anti-war movement on the left? I can bring up the "we're bombing for Jesus" far right. Those cancel out as fringe lunatics. As I stated earlier, war, at times, is necessary. Out of conflict typically emerge many necessary changes as well as significant growth (on both sides). I have always been for chasing al-Qaeda and Bin Laden (if you recall that is who Bush claimed was responsible for 9/11...the event that got us here, no?) But I also advocate a self-inventory approach to discover why it is that they hate us so much as to wage that type of violence. Is it our super-selective foreign policy in the Middle East? Is it the support of Israel and Saudi Arabia? It certainly is not "they hate us for our freedoms". ALL of Europe is free and I don't see towers falling over there.

Afghanistan and Pakistan should have been the two targets. One to eliminate the Taliban and the other to eradicate the radical Islamic movement. ("yeah but Pakistan is our ally and they have nukes") Deals are made and Musharaff would come out looking like a hero.

The empty rhetoric by Bush you bold-faced typed is merely a way out of the mess that has become Iraq. There never was a policy and/or objective and there still isn't. All his words did was make this an open-ended deal that could go on for decades. And in the end, people will say, "he was right, this did take a long time". They just didn't think it would take 65 years to secure Iraq and have a functioning government that needs no support from the U.S.

Your dispute of Col. Hughes is rather political (and comical). Your reply to that is so empty I cannot dissect it. What he did is fact, what he said is fact and what came about as a result from his efforts was voided due to Bremer's ignorance, ego and arrogance.

"lacked the imagination to think outside the box"...I thought you wanted to discuss facts, not theories and fairy tales. Read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to understand the expertise that was left out of the decision-making process. This war was going to happen under any circumstance. 9/11 was the perfect scenario.

American Defense Policy? You mean, "American OFFENSE Policy"? NO ONE can prevent ANYONE from threatening another country. That's absurd! That is right up there with, "We cannot let Iran obtain the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb". Good luck with that one! What do you want to do? Remove all the books from their libraries and shut off their internetS?

Well, I certainly don't want to revisit the State of the Regime Speech from 2002. Was that the one where he claimed that Iraq had just bought uranium from Niger when the CIA and NSA had both concluded that the documents were forged and there was ZERO evidence of such transaction? Or was that 2003? Or was it the one where he mentions North Korea? Forget about them---they were only waving their hands, jumping up and down and screaming, "WE HAVE A NUCLEAR MISSILE AND WE'RE TEST FIRING IT AND IT'S AIMED AT CALIFORNIA!!!" White House reaction: ZZZZzzzz...(dreaming of oil)

I refer YOU back to February 2001 when Condi and Colin, in a clear moment of sanity and intelligence, categorically and systematically described how Iraq had no WMD program. And how is it that in the Axis of Evil, we invade the 1 country that DOES NOT HAVE WMD?

Wordsmith, I applaud your enthusiasm for coming to Marie's defense. I intuit that in your heart of hearts you realize that her arsenal for this type of discourse is limited and fragile. I can also say that I believe you to be one of the more cerebral conservatives, generally placing intellect over emotion, rather than purely emotionally charged and hyper-patriotic rhetoric.

That being said, our exchanges should remain entirely based on factual evidence as well as based on international laws. These categories I know are difficult for you to engage in because you simply lack the physical evidence and the legal justification necessary to support and justify the United States waging war on Iraq.

But perhaps we should be as clueless as Dana Perino, who recently remarked that we are not occupying Iraq but rather there "by invite of the democratically elected government of Iraq and the mandate of the United Nations."

Now that's looking at the glass half-full!

January 19, 2008 10:56 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Holy Ego Batman! I didn't realize what a cut throat business there is in taking credit for sending more troops into a conflict! Wow! Wasn't that the idea 5 years ago?

If anyone should get credit for the success of the surge, it's Rumsnuts. Had he not done so poorly in the strategic planning of post-war Iraq, there would not have been an opportunity for a surge at all, much less a spotlight for David Petraeus.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know." --Donald Rumsfeld

January 19, 2008 3:17 PM  
Blogger J_G said...

What a waste of space arguing with someone that has no idea what he's talking about. The points he makes are mere carbon copies of everything that is written over at Huffy Po blog and the other shit for brains blog that is so favored by the left.

If I thought it was worth wasting my time I'd slam em to the mat again but there's no use in it, you have to be intelligent enough to know how wrong you are when it's pointed out to you again and again and again.

January 20, 2008 12:30 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

J_G,

I know how badly you want to pull out your O'Reilly sword and put down your Christian principles and let loose with the name-calling. Fight the urges though, you're stronger than that.

Name-calling, personal insults, theories and "truthiness", sadly, are not legitimate tools in debating an issue as important as this one. Because I do not support this war and I am listing facts, evidence and truth as my reasons for why I do not support it, you and others are struggling to determine which course to take.

As a result, we should move our debate to how best to reconcile the situation in Iraq and how quickly our troops can come home.

Everything up until that sunny day in May where Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" is really not something you on the right can debate. It's illegal and wrong on nearly every level. What happens/happened after is certainly up for debate and discussion.

Remember, "judge not, that ye be not judged..."

January 20, 2008 6:30 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

J_G,

I don't recall you ever slamming me to any mat, electronically or otherwise.

But if you are a follower of "The Secret", it just may happen someday.

January 20, 2008 6:32 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

You equate "calling for defeat" to not giving blank check support for infinite preemptive war.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Why do you suppose it is, that statements given by Osama since the war, sound so much like Democratic talking points?

I don't think Democrats are, as a whole, unpatriotic. But in how they conduct their criticism, some are way over the line, and it is undeniable that it helps the enemy. Don't you think the enemy is rooting for those who call for a George Bush defeat? Don't you think they'd love nothing better than a retreat from Iraq, by our forces? Anti-war Democrats may not be on the side of the terrorists, but the terrorists are for sure, rooting for them to achieve their political goals of undermining George Bush's ability to prosecute the war against them effectively.



We couldn't even conduct an illegal war correctly.

Illegal? Opinion.


NY Times? People still read that paper? The one that labeled Ahmed Chalabi the Iraqi James Bond?
Chalabi who conned the neocons into buying that 6th rate intelligence from Iraq to get him a position as next dictator in Iraq?


Thank you for the partisan perspective and the CIA-State Dept slander of Chalabi. The Jordanian authority fed our media lies, and convinced powerful allies within the CIA and the White House to turn against Chalabi.

The CIA hated Chalabi and the INC because Chalabi embarrassed them by knowing things they did not. He was always coming out with information (later confirmed) that the CIA just didn't have, and they've never forgiven him for it. There's a lot of rumors spread about Chalabi, thanks to an out-of-control CIA, filled with political partisans.



You can throw links around all day

Ok, how are these:

No Ties to Al Queda?
http://www.scottmalensek.com/PhaseIIrebuttalrpt.pdf

Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9/11 Plot
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/

BUSH LIED; pt1/5 "Those NO TIES Lies"
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09252006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 2
Only 18% of Intel Still Says There Were No Ties Between al Qaeda and Hussein
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09262006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 3
Is Saddam a Liar?
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09272006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 4
There Are No Jihadis in Iraq
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09282006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 5
The Real Ties and Truth About the Lies
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09292006.htm

No WMD?

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Introducing Iraqi General Georges Sada
Part 1 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04032006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
The Russian Connection
Part 2 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04042006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Russian Intelligence, Belarus & Highway 11
Part 3 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04052006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Saddam’s “Special Weapons”
Part 4 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04062006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
The Documents Tell the Story
Part 5 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04072006.htm

Democrats as grownups:
How Opposition Rhetoric Helps Terrorists
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/07312006.htm

Progressives Try to Plagiarize National Security Strategy…Again
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/08182006.htm

Dem Lies Dey Are a Dyin'
http://www.conservativepunk.com/ColumnItem.asp?reviewId=15

pics from the Duelfer Report can be found here and linked to from this site for use on other boards-po's the moonbats something bad
http://www.scottmalensek.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=248

?


but you will never find one that has absolute, positive, factual evidence of what is considered an operational WMD found in Iraq.

You miss the point. Regardless of whether Saddam ever had the stockpiles or not, all signs- saving the rare exceptions anti-war folk like to cherry pick out of the bulk of the intell- pointed to his having weapons, and posing a danger. And the threat of WMDs was just one of the worries in regards to Saddam. Saddam, himself, is as much responsible as anything else, for perpetuating the notion that he had wmd capabilities. It's like a criminal with his hand in his pocket, pretending to have a gun, then getting shot by the police. Who's at fault? The police? Or for the criminal who acted like he had a gun with his hand in the pocket? Regardless of whether he had an actual gun or not.

David Kay is cherry-picked for having said it's unlikely wmds would be found; yet he also said from what they did find, it appears Saddam was an even greater danger than we realized.

Postwar documents that have been translated, since, seems to bear this out.


Bush AND Cheney made the claim about Iraq being tied to 9/11 ("we have evidence that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta in Prague 6 months before 9/11")

On Atta and Prague, the head of Czech intell prior still maintains that the meeting took place, as do others. Deroy Murdock has interviewed him and others in Czech intel as has Edward Jay Epstein.



According to your logic then, and I am assuming you are not a foot soldier for the Project for a New American Century,


Lol...not the PNAC! Good grief!


any country could simply attack another sovereign nation based on any given reason.

This didn't just happen on a whim!

Violations of the original cease-fire agreements and 12 years of 17 UN Resolutions later, and a new determination to no longer give state-sponsors of terrorism a free pass.

Everything else aside, do you not perceive that Saddam did pose a grave threat to the world?

Russia could say that Iraq was trying to make a better Vodka and therefore, they viewed that as a potential threat.

I'm sorry, but that is the lamest bit of analogizing, ever; lamer than my "criminal with his hand in his pocket" analogy.

You take any remarks by a Democrat congressman and you interpret them as "for defeat".

No. It's the tone of the rhetoric; the grandstanding and demagoguing for the cameras.

There is legitimate criticism to be made, and could be made; but instead, Democrats mostly want to score political points, or undermine the war efforts, to get their way. Without regards to consequence of action.

It's YOUR side that cannot identify and draw out what "win" means. Is "win" when Bin Laden comes out, waves a white flag and says, "My bad, you guys are too tough, we surrender...and can we get a couple of ice-cold Pepsi sodas? We're parched!"

I hear this so often, and I've heard it explained out so often, that I feel like hitting my head against the nearest brick wall, because it seems you just don't want to listen. It's the same ol' talking point question that's been answered.

Just like, "Bush never admits to mistakes" line that keeps getting touted around (um..yes, he did admit mistakes, and let it be known that he was ultimately responsible).

"Winning" as far as Iraq goes, will happen when we leave behind a government stable enough, that it can fend for itself.

Wars don't have timetables and deadlines. And, as President Bush stated from the beginning, the 21st century warfare we are engaged in against terrorism will look like no other war fought previously. There won't be any "surrender ceremony" by the enemy aboard a flagship. And we could be in it for generations. That's not Bush's fault. But it's the war we are engaged in. It's ludicrous to say, "Bush is passing the buck on to the next President to deal with". By that logic, Clinton kicked the can down the road on the growing al-Qaeda threat, for Bush to deal with.

You know that is not going to happen. So what is YOUR plan to "win"? We "won" 5 years ago.

That's right. And for the crew of the Abraham Lincoln, the mission was accomplished. Major combat operations had ended. This is the next phase, we are in. How irresponsible to just pack our bags and go home, handing Iraq over to al-Qaeda for their new super-caliphate?

Since when did our military become a reconstruction/occupational military?

Since Paul Bremer and CIA and State officals screwed up the original plans, which included using the INC and Iraqi ex-patriots to fulfill security obligations and vacated Ministry positions, as well as a host of other things.


Is that their specialty? I thought it was kick ass and come home?

Historically, it is quite the norm for us to turn our warriors into social workers, as an occupying force. As Max Boot writes, in Savage Wars of Peace,

Soldiers follow orders, and presidents have often found it convenient or necessary to order the armed services to perform functions far removed from conventional warfare. Throughout U.S. history, marines at home and abroad have found themselves providing disaster relief, quelling riots, even guarding mail trains. Soldiers also have often acted as colonial administrators- in the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Veracruz, to say nothing of post-World War II Germany and Japan or the post-Civil War South.

In fact occupation duty is generally necessary after a big war in order to impose the victor's will on the vanquished. If ground forces win a battle and go home, as the Powell Doctrine advocates and as actually happened in the Gulf War, the fruits of victory are likely to wither on the vine. Only boots on the ground can guarantee a lasting peace.


You want to bring up the hippie anti-war movement on the left? I can bring up the "we're bombing for Jesus" far right. Those cancel out as fringe lunatics.

Nice try. The only Jesus Campers, here, are Fred Phelps people. And he's a Democrat.

So who's "bombing for Jesus"? I know of a couple of isolated statements from Christian leaders; but for the most part, they are the exception, and not the rule, unlike the hippies.


As I stated earlier, war, at times, is necessary. Out of conflict typically emerge many necessary changes as well as significant growth (on both sides).

Yes, and that would even include what you would label "an unnecessary war" or "illegal" war.

Things are fluid, and you adapt. That's why much of the bickering about what got us into Iraq doesn't help solve the question, "Based upon where we are today, what now?" To keep harping on "no wmds" as an argument for "immediate withdrawal" by the Code Pink crowd, is to still "be stuck on stupid".

I have always been for chasing al-Qaeda and Bin Laden (if you recall that is who Bush claimed was responsible for 9/11...the event that got us here, no?)

Yes, but if anyone paid attention, Bush made it clear that the Bush Doctrine went beyond merely going after al-Qaeda.

But I also advocate a self-inventory approach to discover why it is that they hate us so much as to wage that type of violence.

I agree, that the root causes should be examined.

I just don't agree that Michael Scheuer has the right conclusions on "why they hate us". It may be part, but there's more going on there.

Is it our super-selective foreign policy in the Middle East? Is it the support of Israel and Saudi Arabia? It certainly is not "they hate us for our freedoms". ALL of Europe is free and I don't see towers falling over there.

Yeah, and there is plenty of anti-American sentiments in Europe, but I don't see Europeans going around blowing themselves up and purposefully taking out innocent civilians with them.

"They hate us for our freedoms", as simple as that sounds, is close to accuracy, in a simplistic way, that intellectuals like to "complexify".

For the Wahhabists and Salafi fundamentalists, any government- any society, that does not subjugate itself under Sharia is an abomination. They reject modernity, and see the mere existence of governments created by man, as an affront.

I've written quite a bit on this, in my attacks (some not so serious, but just to poke a stick at his supporters for a reaction) against Ron Paul.

Afghanistan and Pakistan should have been the two targets. One to eliminate the Taliban and the other to eradicate the radical Islamic movement. ("yeah but Pakistan is our ally and they have nukes") Deals are made and Musharaff would come out looking like a hero.

Others would say, "we should have dealt with North Korea first", "we should have dealt with Iran". Those things being the case, Iraq would still pose a problem. I think Scott Malensek examines a very important question: Intell Reports: Saddam Could Have Had Nukes by 2007.

The empty rhetoric by Bush you bold-faced typed is merely a way out of the mess that has become Iraq.

As if the Invasion of Normandy or Iwo Jima wasn't "messy".

The "empty rhetoric" was in response to your contention that "the war was never clearly defined." What I provided were speeches before the war.


There never was a policy and/or objective and there still isn't. All his words did was make this an open-ended deal that could go on for decades.

As if we could fix the problem of "Islamic extremism" within 7 years, before Bush's tenure expires. There is no expiration date. It ends, when it ends, and not a day sooner.

Maybe next time we engage in a war, we should state, "we're going to war for 5 years, after which time, our war effort shall reach it's expiration date, and we'll just pack it in, thank you very much." Regardless of the situation on the ground.

And in the end, people will say, "he was right, this did take a long time". They just didn't think it would take 65 years to secure Iraq and have a functioning government that needs no support from the U.S.

Again, you only hear what you want to hear, and ignore what you will. Go back to the Mission Accomplished speech. I've never felt misguided from the very beginning, or left under any illusion and pretense, that we were in it for the long haul. That dealing with radical Islam will take generations to deal with.

Read "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to understand the expertise that was left out of the decision-making process. This war was going to happen under any circumstance. 9/11 was the perfect scenario.

And that's not a politically partisan book? Actually, that's on my list of things to check out from the library. Thanks for the suggestion.



Well, I certainly don't want to revisit the State of the Regime Speech from 2002. Was that the one where he claimed that Iraq had just bought uranium from Niger when the CIA and NSA had both concluded that the documents were forged and there was ZERO evidence of such transaction?

And you claim not to read the NYTimes and listen to media spin? The real lie is the lie about what President Bush said in the famous "16 words". He was citing from British intelligence, not Joe Wilson's report (which Wilson misrepresented in his NYTimes op-ed). And the British have never backed down from their intell report.

George Tenet notes in his book that "Later some would allege that this handful of words was critical to the decision that led the nation to war. Contemporaneous evidence doesn't support that, but just try convincing people of that today."

The Robb-Silberman Commission on stated categorically in March 2005 that the CIA continued to believe in the authenticity of the Niger documents, btw, when Bush made his speech, and that "no one in the Intelligence Coummunity had asked that the line be removed." The CIA continued to claim that it never actually looked at the documents until after the 16-word scandal broke, because they had other sources for the conlusion that Saddam was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

in May 2007, A Senate Select Committee report reveals "the Intelligence community used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the president's SotU address and four times after."






I can also say that I believe you to be one of the more cerebral conservatives, generally placing intellect over emotion, rather than purely emotionally charged and hyper-patriotic rhetoric.

Federalist,

I have to say, that I am still trying to make sense of everything. Which is why I'm not abject in reading a book like "Fiasco" and "Imperial Hubris". I find it fascinating to cross-reference differing accounts on what happened. I had done this a while back in regards to the criticism of "disbanding the Iraq army" decision.

I don't think everything will be known until everyone's memoirs come out.

I cross-referenced General Franks, Tenet, an interview by Garner where he often says, "I think" and "I'm not sure, but" revealing how people's memories can be faulty. President Bush is in that same boat, not quite remembering, but mentioning the original plan (which is in Timmerman's book) was to keep the army intact, which brought Bremer into going to the NYTimes and media with his letter showing Bush signed off on the official decision to disband the Iraq army. What I've concluded is that the decision was made, but that there was an original plan to keep the army to act as a security force, but that the army had dissolved itself. Some came back, when it became clear that they needed a job. Bremer, instead, basically outsourced the jobs. Bremer also didn't understand how the tribal system worked. After the UN Security Council Resolution 1483 in May, 2003, declaring the U.S. and occupying power, the insurgency was to begin.

The original strategy was to use the INC and expatriots to help set up an interim government; to not become "occupiers". Bremer knew that; but when he gets to Iraq, he changes the game plan. And to the Administration's shame, no one fights it.

Bremer was a big mistake. And ultimately, Bush is responsible for having appointed him.

January 20, 2008 2:51 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Nice try on the Phelps thing. You guys beat that to death. But he did register as a Democrat on his voter ID. Problem: Ann Coulter claims that liberals are godless, so he's not one of ours. You can't have it both ways. There are actually right wing, neoconservative evangelicals that are for bombing, killing, etc. Just ask Rudy's foreign policay adviser. He prays for war with Iran before going to bed. Fact.

April 9, 1992: Ahmed Chalabi is Convicted of Embezzlement and Sentenced to 22 Years. After a two-year investigation, Ahmed Chalabi is convicted in absentia and sentenced by a Jordanian military court to 22 years of hard labor and ordered to return $230 million in embezzled funds from his crimes connected with the Petra Bank. The 223-page verdict charges Chalabi with 31 counts of embezzlement.

March 1995: Chalabi Military Operation against Saddam Hussein Fails Ahmed Chalabi creates a militia army of about 1,000 fighters in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and bribes tribal leaders in the city of Mosul to support a planned rebellion against Saddam Hussein. He is also hosting members of Iranian intelligence who promise that when the operation is launched, Iran will simultaneously hit Iraq from the south. But the CIA learns that Baathist officials have caught wind of the plot and the CIA instructs agent Robert Baer to tell Chalabi that “any decision to proceed will be on your own.” Chalabi, who has no military experience, decides to go through with the plot anyways. But the operation quickly flounders when many of Chalabi’s fighters desert, the bribed Iraqi tribal leaders stay home, and the Iranians do nothing. The CIA is furious that it funded the operation, which
becomes known within the agency as the "Bay of Goats".
January 1996: CIA Ends Its Relationship with Chalabi The CIA—concerned about Chalabi’s contacts with Iran and convinced that he is not capable of delivering on his promises—severs its ties with him and the Iraqi National Congress. [ABC, 2/7/1998; New Yorker, 6/7/2004; Christian Science Monitor, 6/15/2004]

Former CIA base chief Robert Baer recalls in 2006 that “[t]he quality” of the INC’s intelligence “was very bad. There was a feeling that Chalabi was prepping defectors. We had no systematic way to vet the information, but it was obvious most of it was cooked.”

1997-1998: Ahmed Chalabi Befriends Neoconservatives, Advocates Overthrow of Iraqi Government According to Middle East expert Judith Kipper, around this time, Ahmed Chalabi makes “a deliberate decision to turn to the right,” having realized that conservatives are more likely than liberals to support his plan to use force to topple Saddam Hussein’s government. Chalabi’s aide, Francis Brooke, later explains to the New Yorker: “We thought very carefully about this, and realized there were only a couple of hundred people” in Washington capable of influencing US policy toward Iraq. He also attends social functions with Richard Perle, whom he met in 1985 (see 1985) and who is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Dick Cheney, the CEO of Halliburton. According to Brooke, “from the beginning, Cheney was in philosophical agreement with this plan. Cheney has said, ‘Very seldom in life do you get a chance to fix something that went wrong.’” Paul Wolfowitz is said to be enamored with Chalabi. According to an American friend of Chalabi, “Chalabi really charmed him. He told me they are both intellectuals. Paul is a bit of a dreamer.” [New Yorker, 6/7/2004] He also becomes friends with L. Marc Zell and Douglas Feith of the Washington-Tel Aviv law, Feith and Zell. [Salon, 5/5/2004] Chalabi tells his neoconservatives friends that if he replaces Saddam Hussein as Iraq’s leader, he would establish normal diplomatic and trade ties with Israel, eschew pan-Arab nationalism, and allow the construction of a pipeline from Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, Zell later tells Salon magazine. Having a pro-Israeli regime in Iraq would “take off the board” one of the only remaining major Arab threats to Israeli security, a senior administration official says in 2003. It would do this “without the need for an accommodation with either the Palestinians or the existing Arab states,” notes Salon. [Knight Ridder, 7/12/2003; Salon, 5/5/2004] But Chalabi has a different story for his Arab friends. He tells his friend, Moh’d Asad, the managing director of the Amman, Jordan-based International Investment Arabian Group, “that he just need[s] the Jews in order to get what he want[s] from Washington, and that he [will] turn on them after that.” [Salon, 5/5/2004] Chalabi also says that the Iraqis would welcome a US liberation force with open arms. [Christian Science Monitor, 6/15/2004]

March-June 1998: Al-Qaeda Leader Attempts to Meet Hussein, but Is Turned Away In 2006, a bipartisan Senate report will conclude that al-Qaeda leader Mahfouz Walad Al-Walid (a.k.a. Abu Hafs the Mauritanian) travels to Iraq this year in an attempt to meet with Saddam Hussein. This is according to debriefings and documentation found after the 2003 Iraq war. But Hussein refuses to meet him and directs that he should leave Iraq because he could cause a problem for the country. Different documents suggest Al-Walid travels in March or June, or makes two trips. He will make a similar attempt to meet with Hussein in 2002, and will be similarly rebuffed (see 2002). The Senate report will conclude that, despite many alleged meetings, these two attempted meetings by Al-Walid and an actual meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi agent in 1995 (see Early 1995) were the only attempted contacts between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda before the Iraq war. [US Senate and Intelligence Committee, 9/8/2006, pp. 73-75 ]

You mean this Chalabi? British intel did not back Chalabi's story from the word "go". That is all over and done with. No way to spin that. Sorry.


Wordsmith,

I basically have about 673 more of those little nuggets. The fundamental difference between you and I comes to this: you are using the "Bush doctrine" as your factual base, peppered with "truthiness" and fear, and I am using facts and international law, such as the UN Charter, Article 51.

I post facts and you post links to a blog for me to reference. Hmmm...okay.

And the super-caliphate? You are actually buying that? When half of our citizens are armed you really think that would ever happen here? Over my dead body...literally.

They really don't hate us for our freedoms. You quote Sharia law like's it's a virus attacking the world. Why don't you start with Saudi Arabia? They just passed a new law Wordsmith...women can now stay in hotels all by themselves! They can even pay with real money! Look out freedom, here we come!

It's never a good idea to say that you can invade a country because you THINK they sponsor terrorism. Well, wait a second. We could invade Pakistan...no, bad idea. Then we'd find Bin Laden and this whole thing would be over. Then who would make money and what would you and I have to discuss Wordsmith?

Win=stable Iraq, self-sustaining government and calm. Well...I have a new perspective. I hope the "surge" continues to bring incredible success. So much success that it will work against the Republicans this fall. Here's why: success equals calm and stable Iraq. American people then begin to ask, "Well, why can't we come home then?" Natives get restless...no pullout? That could be damaging in November.

Sounds like the neocons need to ratchet up the violence or report another "thwarted" terror attack. Keep 'em scared!

You give the terrorists WAY too much credit. On one hand, you claim they want to kill us all. Then you're saying that they're hoping for a George Bush defeat and anyone speaking out against Bush emboldens and "comforts" the enemy. Not sure about you Wordsmith, but how much more emboldening do you need when people drive planes into buildings or suicide (not homocide) bomb a movie theater. I don't see them really sitting on the fence with this terrorism thing. Then, they're watching our debates and political ads, hell, they might even be watching C-SPAN 1,2, and 3.

It's just not working anymore Wordsmith. You caught us in an emotional moment after 9/11 but we can all see a bit clearer now.

Let's just debate what to do with Iraq now. Here's my starter solution: divide into 3 parts with state and federal laws and unanimous votes for oil-profit sharing.

Your turn...

January 22, 2008 7:18 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wordsmith,

Regarding your comment that Bush is not leaving this mess for the next president:

This was just released by the White House.

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

In confirming the decision, the White House refused to say precisely how much bridge funding will be requested for Iraq and Afghanistan in the new budget. But Republican and Democratic staffers in Congress predicted it would be between $70 billion and $80 billion—less than half the annual spending in recent years.

That is what I call "cut and run"--literally.

"Go get the money and run..."

January 24, 2008 7:50 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Your turn...

Sorry. I thought we were done. Ha!


Nice try on the Phelps thing. You guys beat that to death. But he did register as a Democrat on his voter ID. Problem: Ann Coulter claims that liberals are godless, so he's not one of ours. You can't have it both ways.

Nice try. 1)I challenge you to find anywhere on my blog where I cite from Ann Coulter. 2)Regardless of what Coulter says or thinks, it doesn't change Phelp's being a Democrat.



There are actually right wing, neoconservative evangelicals that are for bombing, killing, etc.

Oh? Who's for making war?

Just ask Rudy's foreign policay adviser. He prays for war with Iran before going to bed. Fact.

Rudy's got a team of about 12 advisers. Who do you mean? Norman Podhoretz? I don't see him as a warmonger. So, do you think it would be dangerous to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or not?



April 9, 1992: Ahmed Chalabi is Convicted of Embezzlement and Sentenced to 22 Years. After a two-year investigation, Ahmed Chalabi is convicted in absentia and sentenced by a Jordanian military court to 22 years of hard labor and ordered to return $230 million in embezzled funds from his crimes connected with the Petra Bank. The 223-page verdict charges Chalabi with 31 counts of embezzlement.

Yes, his own Petra Bank was raided by the Jordanian military at the request of Saddam Hussein. They had orders to deliver him to the Butcher of Baghdad. For being put on Saddam's hit list, the CIA labeled Chalabi a "con man" and a "convicted felon". Your citation is nothing more than the trumped-up "indictment" of a kangaroo court at a time when the Jordanian prime minister was known to be working with Iraqi intelligence. Jordan never filed extradition papers against him with any other country. Chalabi, btw, filed a civil Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2004, Ahmad Chalabi et al v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, when the king of Jordan continued the smear campaign against Chalabi.

This goes all the way back to the 80's, and the Jordanians were furious with Chalabi for exposing their back-door deals with Saddam. This includes a scheme to give falsified end-use certificates to the U.S. for Iraqi arms purchases during the 80's. Jordan wanted revenge, and convinced powerful allies within the CIA and the White House to give them aid. Much of the slander on Chalabi has been fed by Jordan to the U.S. media.


March 1995: Chalabi Military Operation against Saddam Hussein Fails Ahmed Chalabi creates a militia army of about 1,000 fighters in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and bribes tribal leaders in the city of Mosul to support a planned rebellion against Saddam Hussein. He is also hosting members of Iranian intelligence who promise that when the operation is launched, Iran will simultaneously hit Iraq from the south. But the CIA learns that Baathist officials have caught wind of the plot and the CIA instructs agent Robert Baer to tell Chalabi that “any decision to proceed will be on your own.”


Yes, because as one Clinton Administration State Dept official said, "we're not going to hold their hands."

Chalabi did his best to keep the coalition together, at one point personally standing in front of an armored column sent to capture one of the Kurdish leaders, Barzani, telling the other rival, Jalal Talabani, "You'll have to capture me first."

Undersecretary of State Peter Tarnoff and his deputy David Litt promised Chalabi that the U.S. would help finance an INC peacekeeping force, but we failed to deliver on that. After the summer of 1994, Barzani began receiving arms from Iran to help him against his rival.

At the beginning of 1995, the INC and the two main Kurdish rival groups begin planning their first military operations against Iraq.

On March 3rd, the day before the attack was planned to start, Robert Baer delivered a cable to Chalabi from National Security Advisor Tony Lake: THE ACTION YOU HAVE PLANNED FOR THIS WEEKEND HAS BEEN TOTALLY COMPROMISED. WE BELIEVE THERE IS A HIGH RISK OF FAILURE. ANY DECISION TO PROCEED WILL BE ON YOUR OWN."

The U.S. had promised Chalabi air support. Basically, we abandoned him, right before they were to carry out their military operation. Whose shame is that? Chalabi's or ours? It's a last-minute betrayal of the weak-kneed hand-wringing Clinton Administration.

Nevertheless, according to CIA officer Warren Marik, "The operation was a stunning success. I personally interrogated two Iraqi brigade commanders. We felt we had the Iraqi army on the run." The INC and Talabani's forces defeated two Iraqi army divisions and top officers of Saddam's army defected to the INC.


The CIA is furious that it funded the operation, which
becomes known within the agency as the "Bay of Goats".


The CIA had decided to throw in with the Wifaq (unbeknownst to Chalabi- essentially, a betrayal), a group of former Baathists who claimed to have significant following within Saddam's inner circle and the Iraq army. They claimed they could topple Saddam's regime from within.

When the Wifaq learned of the INC military operation in March 1995, they dispatched General Adnan Nuri to Washington where he met the head of the CIA's Near East Division, Steven Richter. Nuri convinced Richter that the INC offensive would ruin their chances of a coup. He scared the CIA into the belief that Chalabi's INC would lead the U.S. into a protracted war with Saddam. So, on the eve of the INC offensive, we back out, leaving Chalabi stranded to "go it alone". The INC stood down, after it's initial battlefield success, in the absence of U.S. air support.

The Wifaq never delivered on their coup.


January 1996: CIA Ends Its Relationship with Chalabi The CIA—concerned about Chalabi’s contacts with Iran and convinced that he is not capable of delivering on his promises—severs its ties with him and the Iraqi National Congress. [ABC, 2/7/1998; New Yorker, 6/7/2004; Christian Science Monitor, 6/15/2004]

There's more going on behind the scenes, than this. Chalabi had information that the CIA did not. He warned them that one of their operations had been compromised, and Saddam was looking to embarrass the U.S. on it. Chalabi flew from London to Washington to warn us. Yet, idiots in the CIA, like Steve Richter who headed the Middle East Operations, scoffed at the warnings. 3 months later, things happened as Chalabi had warned: Saddam made arrests, followed by a number of executions of those involved in the coup plot. Saddam then turned his attention to the INC to the north, forging a secret alliance with Barzani (who did it for selfish survival), and moved troops and tanks northward, in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions (Saddam's quite an expert at snubbing his nose at UN resolutions, you know).



Former CIA base chief Robert Baer recalls in 2006 that “[t]he quality” of the INC’s intelligence “was very bad. There was a feeling that Chalabi was prepping defectors. We had no systematic way to vet the information, but it was obvious most of it was cooked.”


Again, Baer and Richter, and partisans within the CIA have smeared Chalabi for political reasons. In December of 1998, Tenet admitted to Chalabi and an aide that he himself was behind much of the smears cooked up to the press. Among them, is blaming Chalabi for the failed 1996 coup, when it was the CIA's own arrogance who were furious that Chalabi possessed knowledge they did not already have.

1997-1998: Ahmed Chalabi Befriends Neoconservatives, Advocates Overthrow of Iraqi Government According to Middle East expert Judith Kipper, around this time, Ahmed Chalabi makes “a deliberate decision to turn to the right,” having realized that conservatives are more likely than liberals to support his plan to use force to topple Saddam Hussein’s government.

Awesome!


March-June 1998: Al-Qaeda Leader Attempts to Meet Hussein, but Is Turned Away In 2006, a bipartisan Senate report will conclude that al-Qaeda leader Mahfouz Walad Al-Walid (a.k.a. Abu Hafs the Mauritanian) travels to Iraq this year in an attempt to meet with Saddam Hussein. This is according to debriefings and documentation found after the 2003 Iraq war. But Hussein refuses to meet him and directs that he should leave Iraq because he could cause a problem for the country. Different documents suggest Al-Walid travels in March or June, or makes two trips. He will make a similar attempt to meet with Hussein in 2002, and will be similarly rebuffed (see 2002). The Senate report will conclude that, despite many alleged meetings, these two attempted meetings by Al-Walid and an actual meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi agent in 1995 (see Early 1995) were the only attempted contacts between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda before the Iraq war. [US Senate and Intelligence Committee, 9/8/2006, pp. 73-75 ]

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 3
Is Saddam a Liar?


Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 4
There Are No Jihadis in Iraq


Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 5
The Real Ties and Truth About the Lies





Wordsmith,

I basically have about 673 more of those little nuggets. The fundamental difference between you and I comes to this: you are using the "Bush doctrine" as your factual base, peppered with "truthiness" and fear, and I am using facts and international law, such as the UN Charter, Article 51.

I post facts and you post links to a blog for me to reference. Hmmm...okay.


lol. Why don't you take the time to actually research what those blogposts link to? Scott Malensek's not a Republican. He's a Democrat who loves reading released intell and cross-referencing and analyzing them.



And the super-caliphate? You are actually buying that? When half of our citizens are armed you really think that would ever happen here? Over my dead body...literally.

Hope it doesn't come to that. I'm not one who believes that the majority of Muslims are "out to get us". Your biggest problem is, you aren't addressing me. You are creating strawmen perceptions about who you think I am. Basically, a cardboard cut-out conservative.

What I am saying is, you look at what al-Qaeda itself says it wants. And then think about allowing al-Qaeda to seize control of, say, Pakistan with its nukes. Still think you aren't in danger? Good luck, Mr. well-armed citizen.



They really don't hate us for our freedoms. You quote Sharia law like's it's a virus attacking the world. Why don't you start with Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia's a problem, but Iraq was as good a place to start as any.

Those who follow the Qutb ideology and interpretation of Islam do hate us for our freedoms, in essence. What they reject, is modernity; and they perceive our very existence as a threat to their way of life. Our corrupting influence.



It's never a good idea to say that you can invade a country because you THINK they sponsor terrorism.

We did more than "think" Iraq and Afghanistan supported and sponsored and harbored terrorists.


Well, wait a second. We could invade Pakistan...no, bad idea. Then we'd find Bin Laden and this whole thing would be over. Then who would make money and what would you and I have to discuss Wordsmith?

You're being cutsey for lack of any real examination of "why Iraq" as opposed to why any number of other countries to attack and invade.



Sounds like the neocons need to ratchet up the violence or report another "thwarted" terror attack. Keep 'em scared!


Yup. It's not like real terrorist plots have been foiled for the last 6 years. God forbid we should actually be awake now, post-9/11.

Yup. Let's let the Democrats back in, so we can live in our 9/10 bubble, and enable the next terror attack to occur. And then let's blame it on Bush. Just because!



You give the terrorists WAY too much credit. On one hand, you claim they want to kill us all.

Unless you want to turn to fundamentalist Islam and live under Taliban-like conditions. The Sunnis in Iraq tried it, and decided it wasn't for them. Something about not really appreciating having their children cooked and served up to them, their women raped, etc.

But maybe you can convince them to keep you around for a joker, instead?

Then you're saying that they're hoping for a George Bush defeat

Is there a difference between Democratic talking points and statements made by Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri?

Osama bin Laden: "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment."

"And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?"


The chatter on "jihadist" websites is that they are pulling for Democratic Party victory in '08.

and anyone speaking out against Bush emboldens and "comforts" the enemy. Not sure about you Wordsmith, but how much more emboldening do you need when people drive planes into buildings or suicide (not homocide) bomb a movie theater. I don't see them really sitting on the fence with this terrorism thing. Then, they're watching our debates and political ads, hell, they might even be watching C-SPAN 1,2, and 3.

Absolutely. They watch our political infighting in Congress; they pay attention to our media and anti-war protests. You don't think that influences their thinking? When Dick Durban hyperbolically grandstands over Guantanamo? When Newsweek falsely claims a koran was flushed down the toilet? When the NYTimes feels the need to publish 32 consecutive frontpage stories on abu Ghraib? You don't think these things help the enemy of the U.S.?

January 25, 2008 12:36 AM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

I have to admit that I stopped reading your last post after you asked, "Who's for making war?" The Bush Regime is for making war. No one that I know has ever said that Iran having a nuclear weapon would be a good idea. No one. I'm not fearful of it because I have faith.

But you see, we need this silly thing called evidence that they have a weapon before we annihilate them. I know, it's stupid but blame those weak liberals...always wanting the truth first!

There's really not much we can discuss. You refuse to base anything on factual information but rather on intuition and on the "extreme scenario" and then you refer me to blog information which is not cited at all. (i.e. "Well would you like a nuclear bomb to blow up in your backyard?")

You appear to not have much faith in the military, which is rather ironic.

No one has ever said that terrorism is not a threat. What we are saying is that Iraq was neither a threat nor affiliated with the radical Islamic terrorist movement. The facts that constantly pour out do nothing but remove any credibility of anyone for this war.

Norman Podhoretz is for war and he prays for it (NY Times op-ed piece that HE authored himself).


You said, "Unless you want to turn to fundamentalist Islam and live under Taliban-like conditions"...

They really have you hook, line and sinker?

I was mistaken. I thought you placed intellect over emotion. You are fear-ridden and I can't communicate with someone who is not in their adult.

God speed to you and I wish that your fears may pass and that you return to the path that does not stray.

January 25, 2008 2:29 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Lol.

I did you the courtesy of responding, and you cut-and-run from reading further, after the first few sentences? What an intellectual coward you are.

Much of what I am linking to is connected to analysizing direct intell, Senate Committee reports, etc.

But you've already entrenched yourself, and closed your mind from the possibility of learning anything new. Instead, all you want to do is look down upon and denigrate anyone who doesn't see things your way. "I'm right, and you're wrong- so there!" LMAO!

It's intellectual snobbery and presumption at it's finest. Meanwhile, you refuse to learn anything new that doesn't fit your worldview of Bush-blame and Bush-hatred.

And you are so fixated with your own preconceived notions about what Bush-loving conservatives must think, that you cannot even translate in your own mind, what exactly it is that I've typed out, misrepresenting to your brain, what I actually said on certain key points.

Your brain is so far rotted away by BDS, that I type one thing, and your BDS conservo-filter twists and spews it out as something other than it is.

I suppose that's the only way for you to make sense of what my perspective is; although, from some of your responses, you fail to truly comprehend what my point is.

January 26, 2008 7:37 PM  
Blogger The Federalist said...

Wordsmith,

I've understood what your position is from the last 3 posts. You are for the Bush Regime Doctrine and believe it to supercede international law. I, along with most people, do not agree with that.

Then you go on to posit numerous IMPLAUSIBLE scenarios to ask questions that are so severely rhetorical that they are unworthy of an answer.

EVERYONE thinks a nuclear-weaponized Iran is dangerous. Please point me to the debate where someone is FOR having Iran armed with a nuclear weapon.

Norman Podhoretz NOT a war-monger? Holy Partisan! And you accuse me?

All I'm saying Wordsmith is that you are inclined to debate your side using impossible, unlikely scenarios as a backdrop. I am using facts and international law that all nations must abide by.

That being said, there is no reason to continue to debate with you: I'm living in the moment and in the supreme reality and you are living in a futuristic, alternative reality.

Last time I checked, you cannot arrest someone for their thoughts...so you can't invade a country on what you think they WANT to do or WOULD LIKE to do.

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Saddam's interrogator was pretty clear: Saddam admitted that he had NO WMD and that he HAD NO TIES AL-QAEDA.
This is problematic since Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said THEY KNEW WHERE THE WMD ARE. (And Cheney tied him to Al-Qaeda).

What a nightmare on our history these 8 years have been. Horrific, irreparable damage has done to our democracy, our Constitution and our image.

It's not that I'm not open to learning new things, it's that I'm not open to hearing new theories or rapidly changing reasons as to why invading a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not pose a threat to this country was a good idea. Sorry. If you want to give me a link to pictures and facts with findings of operational WMD's in Iraq, I'd be happy to check it out. Likewise, if you find a picture of Saddam and Bin Laden together or if you find some type of communication and agreement between the two, I'd be even more enthusiastic to look at that.

But, I won't hold my breath.

January 27, 2008 8:30 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

That being said, there is no reason to continue to debate with you: I'm living in the moment and in the supreme reality and you are living in a futuristic, alternative reality.

You keep telling yourself that.

Maybe your wish will come true.

Last time I checked, you cannot arrest someone for their thoughts...so you can't invade a country on what you think they WANT to do or WOULD LIKE to do.

Lol...so we arrested Saddam for "his thoughts"? Good grief!

The case put forth was fully justified. It's really a continuation of the first war.

The majority of intell and opinion overwhelmingly was in the direction of Saddam posing a threat. Even some of the ones who did not desire to go to war over it, thought he had wmds and posed a danger to the world.

Was his regime not a state-sponsor of terror?




Tonight on 60 Minutes, Saddam's interrogator was pretty clear: Saddam admitted that he had NO WMD and that he HAD NO TIES AL-QAEDA.
This is problematic since Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said THEY KNEW WHERE THE WMD ARE. (And Cheney tied him to Al-Qaeda).


That's what you came away with from George Piro's interview? Scott Pelley's eyes just lit up when he came to that part, didn't it? I bet so did yours.

Give me the exact interviews where Cheney directly said Saddam and al-Qaeda were working directly with one another. Not vague references. But clearly and unequivocally were working with one another.

Here's a valuable link for you to peruse and dismiss (since it doesn't fit your belief system): The lie that Bush lied.

The 60 Minutes piece, btw, is almost verbatim what is in Ronald Kessler's book, Terror Watch. This is old news to me, and I was disappointed with the interview, in a way. Unfortunately, you probably overlooked it, since it doesn't fit in with your BDS barometer on acceptable reading material. Since you cherry-picked rather nicely from the interview, what else did you come away with learning from it?

How about the fact that Saddam did as much as anything to perpetuate the perception that he did possess those stockpile of wmds? In which case, we would have been highly irresponsible not to have taken decisive action. How about the fact that he still sought to reconstitute all wmd programs:

Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.

"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.



What a nightmare on our history these 8 years have been. Horrific, irreparable damage has done to our democracy, our Constitution and our image.

Oh, give me a break with the chicken-little syndrome. These last 8 years have been great! Thank God George Bush prevented Al Gore and John Kerry from running this country.

It's not that I'm not open to learning new things, it's that I'm not open to hearing new theories or rapidly changing reasons as to why invading a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not pose a threat to this country was a good idea.

This is the thing that gets me: What new reasons?!!! All your side can do is harp about wmds and 9/11-Saddam connections (largely a strawman pushed more by the media than by President Bush directly STATING that Saddam had a hand in 9/11). Tell me where President Bush said Saddam had an operational hand in orchestrating 9/11.



But, I won't hold my breath.


No, but what you continue to do, is cherry-pick kernels of contrarian information as evidence that this was all wrong; and ignore the whole cornfield of statements and available intell at the time, that pointed toward Saddam as a threat and as having ties to al-Qaeda, as well as harboring and sponsoring terrorism. When pressed on the nature of the "ties", Cheney, in the interviews I saw pre-war, said "he didn't know".

I guess that will be one of my homework assignments. I know the left loves to play "gotcha" when it comes to finding these Cheney statements, so maybe you can help me out.

January 28, 2008 1:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

RepublicanGOP.com The Ring of Republican Websites
Ring Owner: Republicans Site: republicangop.com/ - The Ring of Republican Websites
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Free Site Ring form Bravenet

Proud Member Of The Alliance

........In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan....................................................................In Memory Of President Ronald Wilson Reagan........


Click for Harbor City, California Forecast


Click for Carthage, Tennessee Forecast


Click for Dekalb, Illinois Forecast