A History Lesson

[Scott Campbell]

For Ziggy. :)



For those that don't know about history...Here is a condensed version...



Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.



The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:



1. Liberals; and

2. Conservatives.



Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.



That's how villages were formed.



Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.



Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.



Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.



Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth; the elephant.



Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.



Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.



Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated-hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.



Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively.



Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.



Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.



Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

[MJZiggy]

So what inspired this dedication? (You do know I'm an independent, right?)

[Scott Campbell]

Oops - thought you were a Liberal. :oops:

[Kiwon]

You do know I'm an independent, right?

The only things in the middle of the road are double yellow lines and dead armadillos (or dead possums, depending on where you live). :)

[Freak Out]

Sorry Big Love...but you have it backwards.

[MJZiggy]

You do know I'm an independent, right?

The only things in the middle of the road are double yellow lines and dead armadillos (or dead possums, depending on where you live). :)

Nah, this just means I get to make fun of whoever's being the most stupid at the time. Bush is GREAT fodder as are a few of his constituents so lately I may look more liberal, but I look at issues independently of each other. Does mean I don't get to vote in primaries though...

[Scott Campbell]

Sorry Big Love...but you have it backwards.


It's not my piece. I'm just the messenger.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sorry Big Love...but you have it backwards.


It's not my piece. I'm just the messenger.

I feel dumber after reading it.

Well written stories must be something the weaker, more effiminate liberals are better at.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sorry for the large pics. Just thought it would be interesting to put a face on the conserative team of the last year.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/216222/6_21_080306_rumsfeld.jpghttp://www.tarfumes.com/political/dick-cheney-angry.jpg

http://craig.senate.gov/i/pcast.jpghttp://www.achievement.org/achievers/gon0/large/gon0-007.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/A/limbaugh_oxycontin.jpghttp://www.greatdreams.com/2008/tommy_thompson.jpg

http://blog.kir.com/archives/George-Bush%20frowning.jpg

[BallHawk]

Looks like the cast of Big Brother 9 if you ask me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey, that is the dreamy Donnie "I don't do quagmires" Rumsfeld.

[swede]

Harlan,

it wasn't very nice to use that picture of Tommy Thompson.

Here's a more recent one.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/dt.jpg

[oregonpackfan]

"Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women."

So this is how the female gender evolved, eh?

Scott, since you have so many wives, you must enjoy being around liberals! :lol:

[Joemailman]

Hey, that is the dreamy Donnie "I don't do quagmires" Rumsfeld.

And Attorney General Alberto "Senator, I Don't Recall" Gomzalez

[Freak Out]

Harlan,

it wasn't very nice to use that picture of Tommy Thompson.

Here's a more recent one.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/dt.jpg

Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

[Kiwon]

A history lesson, indeed....

It's a proud day to be a Democrat. Osama dictates the political policy and the Democrats fall right in line.

The only thing left is to spit on the soldiers and call them, "Baby killers."

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2007/9/7/070907173011.t8490oz7/SGE.SCE52.070907172559.photo02.photo.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/apgb_patraeus_070910_ms.jpg

[BallHawk]

Ha! I said to my Dad previously that someone in the media would use the term "Betray us."

Times change, but the American media always stays right on schedule. :D

[Joemailman]

Just to be clear, it was an ad by Moveon.org which ran in the New York Times that rhymed Petraeus with Betray Us. It wasn't an opinion by the Times itself. I don't really consider MoveOn to be media any more than I would consider the Limbaugh show to be media.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/dt.jpg
Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

hard to place that face. I see a little Alan Alda. Add a dash of Don Imus. And finally some forehead from Christina Ricci.

[Joemailman]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/dt.jpg
Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

hard to place that face. I see a little Alan Alda. Add a dash of Don Imus. And finally some forehead from Christina Ricci.


I see Jason Robards

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1097/2876_0201.jpg

[mraynrand]

Just to be clear, it was an ad by Moveon.org which ran in the New York Times that rhymed Petraeus with Betray Us. It wasn't an opinion by the Times itself. I don't really consider MoveOn to be media any more than I would consider the Limbaugh show to be media.

did you hear that the Slimes gave them 60% off on the cost of the ad?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

[Freak Out]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

[hoosier]

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I think what you're calling lefty bias is really just their collective guilty consciences trying to compensate for having been duped by Wolfowitz and company way back when. The NYT will never live that down. But move.on, it is not, unless anything to the left of Colin Powell sounds the same to you.

[mraynrand]

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I think what you're calling lefty bias is really just their collective guilty consciences trying to compensate for having been duped by Wolfowitz and company way back when. The NYT will never live that down. But move.on, it is not, unless anything to the left of Colin Powell sounds the same to you.

I think you're deluding yourself - or you just may have no perspective on the Times. They ran Abu Ghraib stories on the front page for 31 consecutive days (If you don't think that's biased, consider that Abu Ghraib brings up about 2.1 mil hits on google and Osama bin laden brings up 6.4 mil - Abu was a one week mistreatment of PRISONERS versus a multiple mass murdering terrorist. Zarqawi who beheaded at least 100 innocents, gets but 2.8 mil hits. Much of that skewed perspective is due to the constant pushing of what was a relatively MINOR incident in the overall war. ) the TIMES also reported on confidential surveillance, and practices and methods of our CIA. Time and time again, the TIMES will put left-wing stuff on page one (like Joe Wilson newstories critical of the administration) and when it's discovered that Joe Wilson lied through his teeth, that goes on A16.
Try reading the Times along with the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. Also, for somewhat lefty balance, add in the Washington post.

BTW, if the times has to live down what they reported prior to the war, so do the security services of Britain, Russia, etc. And for that matter, so do those working under Saddam who continually told him he had more capability than he actually had. A lot of people believed the same things prior to the war, and it wasn't because the were 'duped' by the U.S. government - perhaps there was some contribution, but not as much as the TIMES would have you believe. Try some other sources. Read the book by Ken Pollack (The Gathering Storm) Even the Washington Post fully discredited Joe Wilson.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

[Merlin]

Nothing was more embarrassing with the Petraeus report to the Senate then our own Senator Feingold asking a question of the general, then asking another one, then another on, then another one, then answering his own question himself without ever letting the general answer any of them. Feingold is an embarrassment to the State of Wisconsin. He has no clue what the hell he is doing. He is up for re-election and if you vote for him you are definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal. It took a lot for him to come out politically. He didn't start out writing that way.

[Freak Out]

Nothing was more embarrassing with the Petraeus report to the Senate then our own Senator Feingold asking a question of the general, then asking another one, then another on, then another one, then answering his own question himself without ever letting the general answer any of them. Feingold is an embarrassment to the State of Wisconsin. He has no clue what the hell he is doing. He is up for re-election and if you vote for him you are definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I said the same thing about people who voted for Bush the second time.

[Freak Out]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal. It took a lot for him to come out politically. He didn't start out writing that way.

I miss being able to read Krugman online...but I heard rumblings of times select going the way of the Dodo? .....and the Times was beating the drums of war pretty loudly in the run up to the Iraq war. Very leftist shit.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

i would say NY Times news is slanted left, but complete.

Brooks is certainly conservative. By "sort-of" you must mean he is intelligent. :)

Krugman is moveonish, ya. He bores me. Dowd writes a gossip and dating advice column. She is a superb writer, though, I admire her way with words.

I was refering to the staff editorials as middle of the road.

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal.

OK, you've convinced me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I miss being able to read Krugman online.

Just email me the title of each editorial and I'll tell you EXACTLY what he is gonna say.
He's clever in his styling, but no great thinker. Like Maureen Dowd.


and the Times was beating the drums of war pretty loudly in the run up to the Iraq war. Very leftist shit.

Good point. Anybody who dismisses the Times as knee jerk liberal is not paying attention. Or listens to too much talk radio.

[Badgerinmaine]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/dt.jpg
Yowza! Was that dude a member of the PT Barnum cabinet or what?

hard to place that face. I see a little Alan Alda. Add a dash of Don Imus. And finally some forehead from Christina Ricci.

:)

I think it's actually Pruneface, the villain from "Dick Tracy".

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda. That ad was so tone deaf, I doubt the Times was excited about running it.

If you read editorials in the NYT, they are far from moveon.org

Are you joking? Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd sound just like moveon. Sure the times has one sort of conservative in David Brooks, but Safire is gone and their news coverage is dramatically to the left. If you mean their staff editorials - perhaps you're right - I never read that. But their columnists and their news (what they cover and where it is placed) bias is pretty lefty.

I have very liberal views and have to say the moveon add was pretty sad. Petraeus is a stand up guy that has a tough job to do. I have no idea what his political views are but everything I know about him says he deserves a little more respect than that despite who his boss is.

Yep, economists are noted liberals. LOL

Not many, but noted left wingers include Krugman and Reich. It's pretty obvious that they are collectivists. And Krugman's commentary extends far beyond economics - similar to a right wing guy like Thomas Sowell.

Krugs economics are hardly liberal.

OK, you've convinced me.

would be hard to convince you of anything. The simple facts are that Krugman hardly falls into the moveon camp. He has stated many times that he doesn't believe the bush admin/cheney intentionally lied, etc.

He is a neo keynesian. He worked for Reagan. He was critical of the "new economy." Worked for Enron. He is hardly a socialist.

His economic views regarding Bush were pretty simple..large deficits created by tax cuts, iraq spending, increased public spending were unsustainable and would create a major problem. Regardless of his political views, i don't see how one can say that isn't sound economics.

While i can see how his political views (and sometimes it does appear that he blames everything on bush) can lead some to dismiss his economic work, but that would be akin to tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

[mraynrand]

I said you convinced me, what more do you want? Actually, you didn't, I looked it up myself, because sometimes I get the loons on the left confused. I still dislike Krugman immensely, but he does have 'mainstream' economic credentials. That doesn't change the fact that he writes opinion pieces like he's a collectivist. While he's critical of Bush's spending he still favors expansion of 'entitlement' programs at the expense of military spending for example.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I said you convinced me, what more do you want? Actually, you didn't, I looked it up myself, because sometimes I get the loons on the left confused. I still dislike Krugman immensely, but he does have 'mainstream' economic credentials. That doesn't change the fact that he writes opinion pieces like he's a collectivist. While he's critical of Bush's spending he still favors expansion of 'entitlement' programs at the expense of military spending for example.

I thought you were being sarcastic. My fault.

[Kiwon]

Reality bites, don't it?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5592

[mraynrand]

I seriously doubt that the 60% story is true, this sounds like propaganda.

The official explanation is that they give a discount to all non-profits on advertisements.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is really fun about the whole thing is that a conservative group put out an ad with the photo of the towers and saddam. No matter how many times it has been proven the two were never linked.

How about apologizing for continuously try to fool the american public.

[Kiwon]

Memory troubles? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&mode=related&search=)

Still more memory troubles? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRXFpHH0ClY)

Okay, do you remember now?

[mraynrand]

What is really fun about the whole thing is that a conservative group put out an ad with the photo of the towers and saddam. No matter how many times it has been proven the two were never linked.

How about apologizing for continuously try to fool the american public.

People continualy get this wrong. 1) Iraq was the number 1 foreign policy issue prior to 911. It was an unresolved (and to my thinking) intolerable situation that needed to be resolved. 2) Bush and Cheney and the rest of the administration NEVER linked Saddam operationally to 911. 3) It was well understood by ANYONE who had bothered to do even the minimal amount of reading that the case for war with Iraq wasn't primarily due to direct links to al Qaeda, but well-known links to ongoing terrorism in the mideast, allowing terrorists to remain in country, etc. Read Pollack's book, "The Gathering Storm" - a pre-war book that carefully and completely outlines the case for war. 4) Bush continually drew - and continues to draw - a direct link between 911 and the type of countries that allow terrorism to thrive. Such countries as Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to thrive, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, etc. People throw out the lame argument that 'why don't we invade Iran or Packistan - they're worse than Iraq.' That's so pathetic. It was clear that Iraq was easier to topple, and were it not for the weak-kneed congressional Democrats, it would be seen as a great strategic advantage - operational base in the mideast, influence over vast oilfields, the possibility to positively influence a muslim nation. All these are legitimate national security issues and goals. Going into Iran N.K. or Pakistan have unique problems and concerns.

The U.S. press continually focused on WMDs and 911. Many Americans saw a connection between Iraq and 911. People who knew the most - the congressional leaders who had access to the same intelligence that Bush, Britain, Australia, etc. also concluded that toppling Saddam was a good idea. People who paid attention realized that the threshold for tolerance for guys like Saddam and countries like Iraq had been lowered by 911. Saddam DIDN'T HAVE TO BE OPERATIONALLY LINKED to 911 and he didn't have to have a nuke ready to go in two months to see that he was a significant threat, and that securing Iraq was an important strategic move. 911 and Saddam were clearly conceptually linked, and most people understood that, even if there were those that were misled to believe that Saddam was directly involved in 911. To me, the fact that Iraq provided passports for the 1993 WTC bombers (who killed 6 and wounded 1000 more), and provided safe haven for the 1993 WTC bombing chemist should have been enough to g and take him out even before 911. But again, the 911 slaughter hadn't happened yet and that LOWERED THE THRESHOLD FOR TOLERANCE. Similarly, many Americans didn't want to fight WWII, but Pearl Harbor made them realize that the threat of countries that weren't operationally linked to the pearl harbor bombing had to be dealt with. Sure, there's a huge difference between the strength of threat of a WWII Germany and a weakned Saddam Hussein, but the world had changed to where a Saddam could help a terrorist with anthrax or a nuke hide out - or he could help aquire the same materials and/or finance such terrorist with his oil for food money. Again, the circumstances changed and even though Saddam looked weaker, there were plenty of reasons for taking him out.

As I've said before, you can disagree, and I've heard good arguments for what we could have done instead of invade Iraq, but for anyone paying reasonable attention prior to the war, the connection between 911 (or better put, the causes of 911 or the circumstances that allowed 911 to happen) and Saddam's Iraq was clear.

----
As an aside, I should point out that I think there was no direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda planning or carrying out 911. However, you argue that it has been proven that there was no connection. That's untrue. What is true is that no compelling/overwhelmingly convincing proof has been found that there was an operational connection. It's still formally possible that they worked togther in some capacity that has not yet been uncovered. Many have argued that bin Laden would never work with a secular guy like Saddam. That's just silly. bin Laden types worked with the U.S. to get rid of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There's no reason to think that Saddam and bin Laden wouldn't have worked together if it had been to their mutual benefit. It's been pointed out by many that the U.S. worked with Saddam when it was to our benefit to counter Iran. We currently are 'working with' Pakistan for the same reason. Like we worked with the Soviet Union to get rid of Germany in WWII. That's the way it goes sometimes.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What is really fun about the whole thing is that a conservative group put out an ad with the photo of the towers and saddam. No matter how many times it has been proven the two were never linked.

How about apologizing for continuously try to fool the american public.

People continualy get this wrong. 1) Iraq was the number 1 foreign policy issue prior to 911. It was an unresolved (and to my thinking) intolerable situation that needed to be resolved. 2) Bush and Cheney and the rest of the administration NEVER linked Saddam operationally to 911. 3) It was well understood by ANYONE who had bothered to do even the minimal amount of reading that the case for war with Iraq wasn't primarily due to direct links to al Qaeda, but well-known links to ongoing terrorism in the mideast, allowing terrorists to remain in country, etc. Read Pollack's book, "The Gathering Storm" - a pre-war book that carefully and completely outlines the case for war. 4) Bush continually drew - and continues to draw - a direct link between 911 and the type of countries that allow terrorism to thrive. Such countries as Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to thrive, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, etc. People throw out the lame argument that 'why don't we invade Iran or Packistan - they're worse than Iraq.' That's so pathetic. It was clear that Iraq was easier to topple, and were it not for the weak-kneed congressional Democrats, it would be seen as a great strategic advantage - operational base in the mideast, influence over vast oilfields, the possibility to positively influence a muslim nation. All these are legitimate national security issues and goals. Going into Iran N.K. or Pakistan have unique problems and concerns.

The U.S. press continually focused on WMDs and 911. Many Americans saw a connection between Iraq and 911. People who knew the most - the congressional leaders who had access to the same intelligence that Bush, Britain, Australia, etc. also concluded that toppling Saddam was a good idea. People who paid attention realized that the threshold for tolerance for guys like Saddam and countries like Iraq had been lowered by 911. Saddam DIDN'T HAVE TO BE OPERATIONALLY LINKED to 911 and he didn't have to have a nuke ready to go in two months to see that he was a significant threat, and that securing Iraq was an important strategic move. 911 and Saddam were clearly conceptually linked, and most people understood that, even if there were those that were misled to believe that Saddam was directly involved in 911. To me, the fact that Iraq provided passports for the 1993 WTC bombers (who killed 6 and wounded 1000 more), and provided safe haven for the 1993 WTC bombing chemist should have been enough to g and take him out even before 911. But again, the 911 slaughter hadn't happened yet and that LOWERED THE THRESHOLD FOR TOLERANCE. Similarly, many Americans didn't want to fight WWII, but Pearl Harbor made them realize that the threat of countries that weren't operationally linked to the pearl harbor bombing had to be dealt with. Sure, there's a huge difference between the strength of threat of a WWII Germany and a weakned Saddam Hussein, but the world had changed to where a Saddam could help a terrorist with anthrax or a nuke hide out - or he could help aquire the same materials and/or finance such terrorist with his oil for food money. Again, the circumstances changed and even though Saddam looked weaker, there were plenty of reasons for taking him out.

As I've said before, you can disagree, and I've heard good arguments for what we could have done instead of invade Iraq, but for anyone paying reasonable attention prior to the war, the connection between 911 (or better put, the causes of 911 or the circumstances that allowed 911 to happen) and Saddam's Iraq was clear.

----
As an aside, I should point out that I think there was no direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda planning or carrying out 911. However, you argue that it has been proven that there was no connection. That's untrue. What is true is that no compelling/overwhelmingly convincing proof has been found that there was an operational connection. It's still formally possible that they worked togther in some capacity that has not yet been uncovered. Many have argued that bin Laden would never work with a secular guy like Saddam. That's just silly. bin Laden types worked with the U.S. to get rid of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There's no reason to think that Saddam and bin Laden wouldn't have worked together if it had been to their mutual benefit. It's been pointed out by many that the U.S. worked with Saddam when it was to our benefit to counter Iran. We currently are 'working with' Pakistan for the same reason. Like we worked with the Soviet Union to get rid of Germany in WWII. That's the way it goes sometimes.

C'mon. The bush admin put them together often. And, with the direct purpose of confusing the american public. You and i both know that the majority of americans aren't savvy when it comes to foreign countries, foreign policy, or even our own country.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

The public believed this because this admin conflated the two.

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." - Bush

Must be nice for you to dismiss Clarke's assertion that Bush wanted/demanded a link between the two.

[mraynrand]

Must be nice for you to dismiss Clarke's assertion that Bush wanted/demanded a link between the two.

It's tempting to dismiss a lot of what Clarke has said. CYA much? It's interesting that you're willing to accept Clarke's assertions as absolute truth, but you don't give the same consideration to say, British intelligence, just for example.

The people who voted for going into Iraq knew the distinction between Iraq being operationaly involved and being a threat independent of 911, they decided that Iraq was certainly more relevant and immediate a threat because of 911. The reason we are supposed to have reps is that they deal with things that the average citizen either can't become an expert at or doesn't have the clearance to view. Plus, the average person can listen to the various arguments for the war, which included many things other than 911. The average citizen realized that the bar had been lowered. The average citizen understood the basic similarity and common threat of a terrorist supporter, WMD user like Saddam and the same bastards who carried out 911, whether Saddam was giving Bin Laden double coupons or not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Must be nice for you to dismiss Clarke's assertion that Bush wanted/demanded a link between the two.

It's tempting to dismiss a lot of what Clarke has said. CYA much? It's interesting that you're willing to accept Clarke's assertions as absolute truth, but you don't give the same consideration to say, British intelligence, just for example.

The people who voted for going into Iraq knew the distinction between Iraq being operationaly involved and being a threat independent of 911, they decided that Iraq was certainly more relevant and immediate a threat because of 911. The reason we are supposed to have reps is that they deal with things that the average citizen either can't become an expert at or doesn't have the clearance to view. Plus, the average person can listen to the various arguments for the war, which included many things other than 911. The average citizen realized that the bar had been lowered. The average citizen understood the basic similarity and common threat of a terrorist supporter, WMD user like Saddam and the same bastards who carried out 911, whether Saddam was giving Bin Laden double coupons or not.

The british/blair were in bed with bush. Most foreign intelligence didn't back up any of this admin's assertion. Nor did our own CIA. Let's just count how many times this admin put those words back in speeches.

Even today, the right wingers are still linking 9/11 and Saddam. Just had ads out with pics of both in the ad.

I think you give the senate/congress way to much credit. They are briefed just like citizens. They were given flawed evidence.

Average citizen doesn't know squat, and this admin exploited it. The average citizen still believes saddam and 9/11 are linked.

[mraynrand]

I think you give the senate/congress way to much credit. They are briefed just like citizens. They were given flawed evidence.

That's both funny and frightening that you believe this.

Do you concede that there existed people prior to the war that were fully informed as possible, without being mislead in any way by the Bush administration, that had the best interests of the U.S. as their overwhelming guiding criteria, who were in favor of ousting Saddam?

[Kiwon]

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=148375&highlight=#148375

[Freak Out]

Yo Kiwon...
I thought of you last night as I was driving back from Denali and the CD changer in my ride went Tango Uniform...I was forced (well...not really) to listen to an AM talk radio station that was the only thing that would come in for about 80 miles.... it was a show with that Savage guy and all he could talk about was bombing Iran to dust....he said he has been dreaming every night about nuking Iran with as many bombs as we can throw at them and that he prays every morning that his dreams have come true.

Do you have those same dreams my friend? :lol: Does the image of a fried Ayatollah give you morning wood?

It was funny and frightening listening to Savage, His guests and the calls that would come in to the show for an hour or so, thankfully I was able to pick up a station with MNF just south of Talkeetna.

[Kiwon]

Yo Kiwon...

...that was the only thing that would come in for about 80 miles.... it was a show with that Savage guy and all he could talk about was bombing Iran to dust....

....thankfully I was able to pick up a station with MNF just south of Talkeetna.

Oh my gosh, 80 miles of listening to Michael Savage is torture. Are you okay? No blurry vision or suicidal thoughts?

I'm no fan of "The Savage Nation." After listening to him, I think everyone in San Francisco is crazy, liberal or conservative. You need to spring for satellite radio, specifically Sirius since I own their stock.

Like my new avatar? That's a real picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad checking in with the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Reminds me of Darth Vader consulting the Emperor in "Star Wars."

Any other time we would have already attacked Iran over their many provocations or at least begun a campaign to aid reformers that want to topple the government. But we are going to wait until a crisis is impending as usual.

Israel bombed Syria and degraded their nuclear capacity recently and the world did not stop spinning. Iran is coordinating terrorist activities around the world, including the manufacture of armor-piercing IEDs that are killing our troops and training Iraqi Shite militia groups.

When you hear the president of France warn of war with Iran then you know that they are up to some serious no-good.

[Kiwon]

Here's an interesting little tidbit...
.................................................. ..........................................

'Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment'

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Defence Weekly report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

link to article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411428847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

[mraynrand]

Michael Savage is a cross between Howard Beal and Jonathan Swift.

[Kiwon]

Michael Savage is a cross between Howard Beal and Jonathan Swift.

mraynrand, unreal. :D

You need to change your moniker to "Conservative, Eclectic Rat."

We aren't worthy. :worship: :worship: :worship:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think you give the senate/congress way to much credit. They are briefed just like citizens. They were given flawed evidence.

That's both funny and frightening that you believe this.

Do you concede that there existed people prior to the war that were fully informed as possible, without being mislead in any way by the Bush administration, that had the best interests of the U.S. as their overwhelming guiding criteria, who were in favor of ousting Saddam?

Congress/senate: Have you actually heard some of them. C'mon, they are no different than the rest of us, other than having alot of ambition and/or money.

I'm quite sure you are aware that many prominent families sent the "idiot" son into politics so as to gain advantages, but more importantly not screw up the business.


Concede: I will agree that there are people who have the best interes...ousting saddam. What i also believe is that they were also fed misleading evidence that swayed them as to what action to take. Those people are the ones authorizing change.

The people you refer to are in the military/intelligence field..which for the most part didn't feel that saddam posed much of a threat to us.

[Freak Out]

Michael Savage is a cross between Howard Beal and Jonathan Swift.

Well I definitely heard a little mad as hell in my 80 miles but I don't remember anything resembling Swift. Maybe it was an off night.

[mraynrand]

I think you give the senate/congress way to much credit. They are briefed just like citizens. They were given flawed evidence.

That's both funny and frightening that you believe this.

Do you concede that there existed people prior to the war that were fully informed as possible, without being mislead in any way by the Bush administration, that had the best interests of the U.S. as their overwhelming guiding criteria, who were in favor of ousting Saddam?

Congress/senate: Have you actually heard some of them. C'mon, they are no different than the rest of us, other than having alot of ambition and/or money.



Yes, they are human. But they are humans who get briefed on confidential materials that the rest of us don't see. Isn't that obvious? They knew much more than the 'average American' and voted for the war.

Your military claim is a bit of chicanery. The military thought that Saddam didn't pose much of a threat - of course - he was ousted in 3 weeks. he was no military threat. Neither was the Taliban. Saddam's military capabilities were not the reason for overthrowing him. The miliray estimated that his rockets plus his older anthrax would only kill about 800 Israelis if launched into tel aviv. That wasn't considered "much of a threat" either. The bombing of the WTC (twice) wasn't much of a military threat either. Saddam's proven track record of supporting terrorism, allowing terrorists safe haven (including terrorists that bombed the WTC in '93) and continuing to (at the very least) convey the appearance of running WMD prrogams, U.N. violations, etc. etc. were the reasons for ousting him.

[Freak Out]

Ok Kiwon...a little more news involving your favorite Iranian leader.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/iranian-leader-seeks-to-visit-ground-zero/index.html?hp

[Kiwon]

Having the United Nations based in the U.S. brings these awkward moments when the U.S. public has to bend over and grab their ankles as dictator and thug leaders get to come into "enemy territory" and play it up for all its worth.

So this piece of crap wants to go to the WTC site? What's next, visiting the Memorial to the Holocaust that he claims never happened?

Oh, it'll be a fun few days as he and Chavez will rip Bush in every way possible. The media will report it with relish. Anything to embarass Bush.

If Bush were a wild cowboy as portrayed, he would let this guy leave the country until the American citizens that they are holding in Iran are released.

Now, if we could only arrange Ahmadinejad to attend a NYC policemen's or firemen's union meeting while he's in New York.

[Scott Campbell]

Having the United Nations based in the U.S. brings these awkward moments when the U.S. public has to bend over and grab their ankles as dictator and thug leaders get to come into "enemy territory" and play it up for all its worth.


I don't mind that so much as the abuse of diplomatic immunity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think you give the senate/congress way to much credit. They are briefed just like citizens. They were given flawed evidence.

That's both funny and frightening that you believe this.

Do you concede that there existed people prior to the war that were fully informed as possible, without being mislead in any way by the Bush administration, that had the best interests of the U.S. as their overwhelming guiding criteria, who were in favor of ousting Saddam?

Congress/senate: Have you actually heard some of them. C'mon, they are no different than the rest of us, other than having alot of ambition and/or money.



Yes, they are human. But they are humans who get briefed on confidential materials that the rest of us don't see. Isn't that obvious? They knew much more than the 'average American' and voted for the war.

Your military claim is a bit of chicanery. The military thought that Saddam didn't pose much of a threat - of course - he was ousted in 3 weeks. he was no military threat. Neither was the Taliban. Saddam's military capabilities were not the reason for overthrowing him. The miliray estimated that his rockets plus his older anthrax would only kill about 800 Israelis if launched into tel aviv. That wasn't considered "much of a threat" either. The bombing of the WTC (twice) wasn't much of a military threat either. Saddam's proven track record of supporting terrorism, allowing terrorists safe haven (including terrorists that bombed the WTC in '93) and continuing to (at the very least) convey the appearance of running WMD prrogams, U.N. violations, etc. etc. were the reasons for ousting him.

Sorry, but you asked about being briefed with unbiased material. Congress and the senate weren't.

Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

WMDs..c'mon. Inspectors found nothing. they asked for more time. Ritter, etc. said nothing was there.

[Kiwon]

Having the United Nations based in the U.S. brings these awkward moments when the U.S. public has to bend over and grab their ankles as dictator and thug leaders get to come into "enemy territory" and play it up for all its worth.


I don't mind that so much as the abuse of diplomatic immunity.

The U.N. is a non-stop gravy train that allows reps from the most corrupt or backward governments to come and do pretty much whatever they want to do. They are living off someone else's dime and they couldn't care less.

The parking tickets during shopping sprees by African leaders and the drunk driving cases are legendary. I seem to recall that finally Russia in the 1990's allowed one of its guys to be prosecuted after repeated offenses and after he killed an American citizen while driving drunk.

You might remember that earlier this year that U.S. forces arrested some Iranian military folks (Islamic Revolutionary Guards) in northern Iraq. The government claimed that they were diplomats. Funny thing, their diplomatic status was conferred on them 3 days after they were arrested.

Diplomatic immunity is a necessity, but you're right, it certainly can be abused.

[mraynrand]

[quote="Tyrone Bigguns"]
Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

[mraynrand]

BTW, invoking the Saudis just illustrates your childishness. That's like the kind of argument I heard from grade school kids who argued that we should just stop using oil right now, or that we should leave the middle east immediately. maybe you could go hang out with Ron Paul. But as you probably know, but don't want to admit, there's the reality that if we're not in the middle east, China certainly will be (recall what happened when we gave away the Panama Canal). Since the U.S. only gets 11-18% of our oil from the Mideast, other countries (our allies) would certainly be put at risk if we left. So we have to support nations that at least aren't directly hostile to us, like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, and then hope that we can improve things through other (diplomatic, economic) methods. If you've been paying attention, the Saudis have been helping with rounding up al quaeda terrorists (they are a threat to Saudia Arabia as well). it's not a perfect world by any stretch, but sorry, you don't get simple, 6th grader pie-in-the-sky solutions like you're hinting towards. "We should have gone after the Saudis" We should, but not in some absurd direct attack alternative to ousting Saddam.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, invoking the Saudis just illustrates your childishness.

There's something funny in this sentence. Can't put my finger on it.

I know! It's been some time since I've seen a child invoke the Saudis.

[mraynrand]

BTW, invoking the Saudis just illustrates your childishness.

There's something funny in this sentence. Can't put my finger on it.

I know! It's been some time since I've seen a child invoke the Saudis.

It happens more often than you'd think.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote=Tyrone Bigguns]
Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

Diminished capacity. exactly. Sure, lets go to war over that. We could have employed much more effective mehods.

NYT: Ok. So, which is it..liberal rag or trusted source?

Yellowcake: Not a chance. Cooked intelligence all the way. Our own CIA discredits that. Try reading Craig Unger's work, then get back to me.

My problem: You make huge assumptions based on very limited knowledge of me. But, that is expected.

Pollack: Please provide me with the number of congress/senate or aides that read the book or were debriefed.

Saddam: No, not my opinion. My opinion is that when you mention tubes, uranium, and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a nuclear bomb" you are certainly whipping people into a frenzy. You and the rest of the neocons had a hardon for him for years and wanted him out regardless of the data. There is no disputing that truth.

Was Saddam a bad guy. Of course. Was he a real threat to our country. Not a chance.

[mraynrand]

[quote=Tyrone Bigguns]
Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

Diminished capacity. exactly. Sure, lets go to war over that. We could have employed much more effective mehods.

NYT: Ok. So, which is it..liberal rag or trusted source?

Yellowcake: Not a chance. Cooked intelligence all the way. Our own CIA discredits that. Try reading Craig Unger's work, then get back to me.

My problem: You make huge assumptions based on very limited knowledge of me. But, that is expected.

Pollack: Please provide me with the number of congress/senate or aides that read the book or were debriefed.


Was Saddam a bad guy. Of course. Was he a real threat to our country. Not a chance.

I'll get that list of congressional leaders who read Pollack to you right away (it was such a reasonable request).

I'm not in with the neocons at all (you assume as well). I make the argument that there was sufficient justification for taking Saddam out, even without all the WMD stuff. That doesn't make me a neocon.

Saddam wasn't a military threat, but he could very easily have allowed Zarqawi to have free reign to hatch terrorist plots. Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan. The threshold was lowered. The threat was Saddam allowing terrorist to exist indside his country and funding them. Not taking him out could easily have allowed a safe haven to plan another 911 scale plot. Is that a threat to our country or not?

About the NYT - I've said all along that they are slanted, but that they still report the news. Their slant in the news comes from where they place the news (A1 vs. A16 for example) and how often they stay with a particular story. Their editorial staff is left leaning in general. Still it is possible the get a broad view of the news from reading their pages. That's why I read the NYT, Wash TIimes and Post, and the WSJ - and the Plain Dealer.

The one thing you did say that was reasonable is that in dealing with Saddam we could have employed much more effective methods. That's a defensible position, depending of course on what the methods were.

A final question: do you ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong - that the long term result of ousting Saddam will be far better than having left him in power? I know I've considered the reverse - that getting rid of him the way we did could end up making things worse.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote=Tyrone Bigguns]
Ah, the saddam supported terrorism claim. Yet, no link between him and al-queda. NONE. Yet, all the saudis on the planes and we do nothing.

I didn't say al Quaeda. Saddam supported terrorism. I was in favor of taking him out after he provided visas for the 1993 WTC terrorists and then had them in his country as honored guests following the bombing. But I guess you don't care about a guy who supports terrorists who only kill 6 and wound 1000. What's your kill cutoff?

Go back an read the two congressional reports on prewar intelligence. They report that the prewar intelligence on nuke WMDs and some other intelligence was flawed (e.g. 'Curveball') , but that the intelligence on bioweapons (specifically anthtrax) and chemical was solid. UNSCOM reports at least 500 pounds of manufactured weapons grade anthrax from 1995, and possibly more from 2000-2002, based on equipment recovered. The 500 pounds was diminished capability, but according to the intelligence reports was capable of killing 800 Israelis by missile delivery. The original estimate was 8,000 to 80,000, but it was downgraded on the assumption that the Anthrax was the 1995 (diminished effectiveness) versus the never stuff that wasn't confirmed manufactured. The NYT published articles just before the 2004 election outlining how the Bush administration failed to secure nuclear weapons manufacturing equipment that had been buried to hide it - their intent was to smear Bush before the election, but by reporting the story they revealed that the equipment did exist. Christopher Hitchens outlines in detail the efforts of Saddam to secure the yellowcake uranium from Niger. The bottom line with you, Tyrone, is that you trust people who have the same POV as you, rather than trying to rationally dissect the issue.

Your position on congressional leaders being misled is laughable. So you would argue then that Ken Pollack could publish a book in 2002 that was basically spot on accurate, but that 'secret information' in a NYT bestseller was somehow being withheld from congress. The bottom line is that you believe that no one was in favor of taking out Saddam, except those that were being misled or fed inaccurate information. That's an absurd proposition.

Diminished capacity. exactly. Sure, lets go to war over that. We could have employed much more effective mehods.

NYT: Ok. So, which is it..liberal rag or trusted source?

Yellowcake: Not a chance. Cooked intelligence all the way. Our own CIA discredits that. Try reading Craig Unger's work, then get back to me.

My problem: You make huge assumptions based on very limited knowledge of me. But, that is expected.

Pollack: Please provide me with the number of congress/senate or aides that read the book or were debriefed.


Was Saddam a bad guy. Of course. Was he a real threat to our country. Not a chance.

I'll get that list of congressional leaders who read Pollack to you right away (it was such a reasonable request).

I'm not in with the neocons at all (you assume as well). I make the argument that there was sufficient justification for taking Saddam out, even without all the WMD stuff. That doesn't make me a neocon.

Saddam wasn't a military threat, but he could very easily have allowed Zarqawi to have free reign to hatch terrorist plots. Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan. The threshold was lowered. The threat was Saddam allowing terrorist to exist indside his country and funding them. Not taking him out could easily have allowed a safe haven to plan another 911 scale plot. Is that a threat to our country or not?

About the NYT - I've said all along that they are slanted, but that they still report the news. Their slant in the news comes from where they place the news (A1 vs. A16 for example) and how often they stay with a particular story. Their editorial staff is left leaning in general. Still it is possible the get a broad view of the news from reading their pages. That's why I read the NYT, Wash TIimes and Post, and the WSJ - and the Plain Dealer.

The one thing you did say that was reasonable is that in dealing with Saddam we could have employed much more effective methods. That's a defensible position, depending of course on what the methods were.

A final question: do you ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong - that the long term result of ousting Saddam will be far better than having left him in power? I know I've considered the reverse - that getting rid of him the way we did could end up making things worse.

I've never addressed the long term implications of ousting saddam in this forum.

Clearly if we had committed enough troops, had better leadership, better excution, non-corrupt defense contractors, not employed private no-control militias (blackwater, etc.), not ousted all the sunnis from power, not detroyed the infrastructure, not gone in with insane expectations we could have made things a lot better.

Let's be honest. Things are terrible for most iraqi's. The infrastructure blows, etc.

I'm very much torn on this. Part of me says, "we broke it, we gotta stay to fix it." The other part looks at the mess and says that the iraqi's can't get their act together and prolly never will..unless we break them into 3 countrys (i advocate that..and have for a long time, but you can't seem to get bush to realize this). And, I don't see us ever getting it under control. The cynic part of me looks at the infrastructure we built (heavily fortified embassy,etc.) and thinks we never planned on leaving and this was going to be our strategic base to control the oil...oops..middle east.

Clearly, destabilizing iraq has lead to a stronger Iran. Anyone with a brain saw that ahead of time. and, i know this admin saw it as well. However, since things went horribly wrong..and they won't take any credit for that..that obviously wasn't their plan. It is as plain as the nose on my face that they were planning on moving on Iran in 04ish, but with all the problems and the subsequent change in congress/senate they couldn't make their move.

At this stage of the game i'm having a hard time seeing the benefits of ousting saddam. Iran saber rattling and an increased power. Iraqi's suffering. U.S. still in the mid-east giving the jihadist more ammo that we want to control them/have their oil.

As i've said before, it is going to end badly. The question is do we want to lose the leg above or below the joint.