God, sounds like a speech by colin powell, someone you can trust.

That means we'll still need to check the intelligence, the level of this intelligence (meaning how selective, rarified, stupified and corroborated it is), whether it is designed to justify a predesignated policy (cant believe powell fell for it - at least it seemed so - though condi wasnt surprised), or is it just plain messiness of data whose reliability is any one's guess.

chalabi's plans were no different - where is he?

the worst fears, i can now reliably say, based on inteligence, will not come true.

best

Gazelle, that was just pure gibberish. What on earth were you trying to say there?

Powell didn't have access to any of this data at the time he made his defense of WMDs, though he did have photos of convoys of trucks transporting materials into Syria, which I guess I should also have mentioned in the article, but it's old news.

Regardless of what has gone before, the facts about WMDs and Saddam's links to Al Qaeda are there and they are not going away no matter how much you deny and distract.

Dave

This "report" from ABC News will go nowhere because it's nothing but a pack of disgusting lies, used by the Neocon Media/Government Complex to cover up the pure evil of their disastrous and muderous war on Muslims.

People, don't believe this ABC News bullshite. Plus, this story has already been floating around for a few weeks now at such reputable and respectable and even-flowed websites like "Free"Republic and WorldNetDaily......ya know, places that Dave Nalle likes to frequent.....

....just kiddin' around wit ya Dave. Don't hate me.

Tommy, what you call a 'pack of lies' is a collection of original documents from the Hussein government. Nothing even vaguely ambiguous about them.

How you can believe all the crazy conspiracy shit that you do and yet not accept simple facts is beyond me.

Dave

The inescapable fact remains, that the US has satelites and spotter planes capable of photographing a readable license plate from outer space-and to recognize human targets getting into a car, as evidenced by our military using them to order strikes on a motorcade to take out Bin Laden's underlings. It's impossible to comprehend that these same satelites weren't used to bolster Bush's battle cry to war, or to prove the presence of those claimed WMDs. As far back as the sixties even Kennedy used photos to prove the Cubans had Russian missiles, and I KNOW our technology has improved since then.

If indeed they moved Saddam's WMDs to other countries, the NSA, CIA etc would've known about it as it happened.

The questions remain. If we had concrete proof of Iraq's WMDs, why hasn't it been reported-you KNOW Bush would've splashed it all over the world? I'm not talking about (easily faked) papers that MIGHT prove it, that were discovered much later either. I'm talking concrete proved photos of victorious US soldiers standing in front of them. There aren't any, because there were any. We were conned into going to war because of something that MIGHT happen!

Bush would have those WMDs parked on the White House lawn to rub them in the "Leftist Media"'s face-and you know it.

If on the other hand the WMDs were moved to other countries for "savekeeping", our agents on the ground, our airforce observers in the air, and our satelites in space would've spotted and photographed their movements, and we would've invaded those countries instead of Iraq. And don't tell me they weren't concentrating on the region, with battle plans being drawn.

It seems clear to me that Bush was reaching at straws in a vendeta to clear his Father's name and cover Bush Sr's disasterous mistakes during the first Gulf War. He also was hell-bent on revenge for Saddam's attempt on his father's life.

But then again that's only my opinion.

Yea, Dave, and I'm sure Saddam's signature is all over the documents too, because he wanted everyone Neocon in America to know he chatted up Osama over a hookah pipe one night in Baghdad about kamikaze acrobatic plane piloting jihadis.

Does ABC "News" also discuss anything about the 24,000 volumes of Iraqi documents disclosing their weapons programs....which were non-existant after 1992. These volumes were handed over to the UN BEFORE Bush's shock and awe program for democracy in Iraq too. But all Iraqis were guilty I guess and had to be bombed for their own good.

Saddam's guilty, Bush was right, 'Merrikuh roooooools, war is peace, ragheads all suck, pulverize the Eiffel Tower, might makes right, do as 'Merrikuh says not as we do, and got darn it! let's go to the Mall and run up our credit cards to keep the economy going. Oh, Honey, do you have $200 bucks so I can fill up the Navigator to at least half a tank before we go?

Tommy, see item 5 above you, you might find it interesting since it was written at the same time you were posting you very well thought out comment...

If indeed they moved Saddam's WMDs to other countries, the NSA, CIA etc would've known about it as it happened.

What makes you think they didn't. Here's a link to multiple satellite photos of Syrian WMD facilities. And here's another link to the CIA's report on WMDs in Iraq at the time the war began.

The questions remain. If we had concrete proof of Iraq's WMDs, why hasn't it been reported-you KNOW Bush would've splashed it all over the world?

It HAS been reported. Over and over again. It's just being denied and distorted by people like you.

I'm not talking about (easily faked) papers that MIGHT prove it, that were discovered much later either.

Not one expert has even attempted to claim that these documents are fakes. There is a clear chain of custody. We know where they came from, who handled them and what they are, plus they confirm information direct from people like General Sada who were at the meetings.

If on the other hand the WMDs were moved to other countries for "savekeeping", our agents on the ground, our airforce observers in the air, and our satelites in space would've spotted and photographed their movements, and we would've invaded those countries instead of Iraq. And don't tell me they weren't concentrating on the region, with battle plans being drawn.

See the satellite photos linked to above. There are also photos of the truck convoy that moved some of the WMDs to Syria, but I'm still trying to dig up a web link to them.

Dave

Satellite photos! Documents! Then it must be true!

*deja vu feeling*

(what, no confessions by people with cute nicknames like Curveball?)

Let's see. We've got eyewitness statements, printed documents, tape recordings with the voices of Saddam and his advisors on them and satellite photos, all of which confirm the same information. They originate from former members of the Saddam regime, the CIA, Israeli intelligence, the US military and the news media.

In order for this information not to be believable you have to believe that all of these organizations and individuals are involved in a massive conspiracy and forgery campaign. And you reach that conclusion based on what evidence, exactly?

Dave

Jet In Columbus, yes, your post is spot on.

Why wouldn't BushCo openly release the undisputable evidence BEFORE the War on Iraqis?
Why send Powell to the UN with 10 year old intelligence and those laughable drawings of Iraqi mobile labs of chemical destruction if dated and authentic satellite photos were available?

But, Jet, ya know, we'll get called "leftists" if we question anything our government says or does.

Tommy, most of this information originated AFTER the war was already well under way. This is NOT the same data Powell took to the UN, this is new information coming from documents recovered during the war and people at liberty to speak now that the war is over. Even the Satellite photos are relatively new.

This is not the same old case for their being WMDs in Iraq, this is an entirely new collection of information supporting the relocation of Iraqi resources and technology to Syria.

Dave

Aha-then what was the evidence BEFORE the war started, not after? Sounds like "the ends justify the means" here!

"But, Jet, ya know, we'll get called "leftists" if we question anything our government says or does."

Oh I've been called worse Tommy, and on this very site!

By the way Tommy D-Big Brother Dave has you IP address!!!

I trust NOTHING the Bush administration says. If they say the sky is blue, I'll believe it only when I see it verified by an independent source I trust - and that disqualifies anybody anywhere in BushCo or their toadies like the NSA. They've spent their credibility lying so often about so much, they have none now. Except among the diehard fans of Dubya, of course.

Well then I guess Nancy's on my side in this since none of the Info comes from the White House or the NSA.

Dave

As well she should be, dare any of us think otherwise?

You said in your opening sentence these documents were released by the US government. Ergo, they are suspect. The US government has long been out of control when it comes to manipulation, lies, etc. not only of others, but of its own citizens ... which is recognized by a popular ironic/comedic saying, "Hi; I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

and I believe it was said in New Orleans!!!
It takes me a while to prepare, so I'll have to log off soon to get ready for "Real Time with Bill Maher"
The conservatives on the dias are usually hilarious and I don't want to miss it.

"By the way Tommy D-Big Brother Dave has you IP address!!!"-Jet In Columbus

Jet, Dave Nalle is probably a government mole. No normal human being can put this much time into supporting every policy Bush regime for free! Free!?! Who would constantly blog in support the most unpopular US President in US history here in the States as well as throughout the entire world, for FREE?! Like not getting paid? I mean Republicans are insanely obsessed with God and Money and I don't think Dave's a Christian.

My motto: Live free or die.

Now Now, If I'm to believe what I'm hearing from other sources, Dave has one of the most level desks in the country. While I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, I've never actually seen a comment or post from him even remotely left of center, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

For the moment I think Dave Nalle is as "Fair and Balanced" as Fox News.

My new tag line starting to day?

>>>... but of course that's only my opinion!<<<

Speaking of split personalities Dave; how can you have 11 comments in one place and 26 in another... on the same leader board????

For god's sake reassure me there aren't TWO of you!!!!

Jet, you can't even be troubled to scroll up and click on the link that gives you a complete lising of my articles and read a few of the 200+? Here, I'll help. And take a look at #s 10, 15 and 17 if you want to see me diverging from the Bush/GOP party line.

Oh, and I have two listings in comments because my laptop which is in the living room and my desktop in my office have separate IP addresses and that's how BC tracks comments.

Dave

I stand corrected...

...but of course that's only my opinion

Dave, I'm sure that Chip Spear will apologize for his "my team, right or wrong" attitude any day now. Unless - and time will tell - the priority is political points instead of truth.

Look at the replies you've gotten already. Nancy has lost the ability to recognize that the sky is blue, because she's afraid of agreeing with the administration. Tommyd is accusing ABC News of working for the neocons. ABC News, the defenders of Hamas, who practically interrupt their broadcasts to pray toward Mecca.

And then there's this Dave Nalle guy who really ticks me off, because here I am well to the right of him, and people think he's a neocon just because he doesn't hate Bush 100% of the time. Are there even any neoconservatives left? The Blogcritics commenters seem to think that (a)everyone hates Bush and knows that he's lying, and (b) everyone is secretly working for Bush and/or has been fooled by him.

Baronius knows too much and must be silenced.

Seriously, I have to wonder why dictators and their regimes insist on documenting all of their plans and schemes.

I never wonder why some people can't understand the basis of an article and go off on tangents that only detract from the discussion. The basis for this one was that documents were captured from abandoned Iraqi ministry and intellegence offices as Coalition forces moved through Iraq. These documents go a long way to confirming claims made before the war. The US Government has actually posted some of them on the Internet.

Dave, you may be a dirty elitist pig, but you always impress me with your research, detail, and scrupulous fairness.

In short, this is your regular excellent and carefully detailed work.

Thank you.

See Dave, I'm not the only one calling you names.

And Al, he's an excellent, intelligent, impressive, scrupulous, dirty elitist pig. If you're going to compliment someone don't use half measures.

...but that's only my opinion

In fact, while I'm thinking about it, Can a brother get a Shout out?

Well in fairness, rootin' ruthlessly through the filthy documentation of the Hussein regime is bound to get him dirty.

Someone dumped them in my trough and I didn't realize what they were until I'd already eaten the formula for Vx gas.

And thanks for the shout, Al. And the nice words from all.

And going back onto the topic itself, if only to undermine my own point...

In the article I tried to keep things as clear as possible, but the situation is muddied by the fact, that although it's pretty clear that WMD materials were transferred to Syria, it's not entirely clear what they consisted of. It's quite likely that they were precursor materials, not yet weaponized bioagents - like the anthrax mentioned - and a bunch of equipment and components. Aside from some Vx gas which was likely already fully prepared most of it might not have been finished WMD material, though I'm sure the various Iraqi exile scientists and syrian WMD experts would have no problem finishing the job.

Dave

Dave, this is a really great piece! You've done a fantastic job of putting together various discrete bits of info and making it into a brilliant report. Kudos.

Has it been reported so cogently in any of the old school MSM media, apart from the ABC report you mention, for I do not seem to have seen this elsewhere?

Mind you Dave, on re-reading this, I have to reduce your gold star to silver because of your third paragraph.

I'm reasonably optimistic that someone with as rich and varied a life as yourself, with such a fierce commitment to capitalism, democracy and "representative republics" such as the USA, would have managed to grasp the notion that it is the very role of the opposition and the media to help keep any governing party on the straight and narrow path of goodness.

Characterizing this vital work as you do in that paragraph strips you of any scrap of independent reporting credibility and allies you squarely with the current government. Also, it actually weakens the power and authority of your compelling story. In my opinion.

That and your apparent compulsion to flaunt your shinehead at us! Nobody's pulled that pose off well since the late Princess Diana practically copyrighted it!!

Don't feel too bad Dave. A silver star is a very high honor in the military!

...of course that's only my opinion

It must be height of frustration to think you KNOW everything, but have no access to information, whether it exists or not. Has intel ever been not able to reveal analysis due to divulging collection methods or accuracy?

I think so, in fact several instances in history prove it to be the case.

If you don't have a need to know, you're not going to know (in the intel world). If you don't know, it's mere opinion, and saying this nicely I put forth the adage... Opinions are expressions from people who have no authority. Or, to quote the oft repeating version [expletive deleted in respect to the unoffensive the new PC Blogcritics]

"opinions are like @)#&@^ everyone has one, and they all stink."

I don't think we'll ever truely know. In that case conjecture away.

Christopher, I appreciate the star of whatever metal it happens to be. The third paragraph is largely there because I disliked the ABC report so much. Not just the way it's presented but the absolute baldness of it - sort of like my head. It's basically just a summary of the documents with little or no effort to provide context or anything helpful. It's like some reporter just put his notes for a report into full sentences and then released it. I could have used better articles on the subject as sources, but I wanted to make sure I drew on one in the MSM and all the well-rounded articles on the subject are from 'suspect' sources like WorldNetDaily. So I think I was expressing my frustration with the prefunctory job ABC did with the material.

As for my shining dome, it's my best side. Believe it or not, pictures of me taken from other angles can be MORE scary. I have a unique face which is all weird angles and extremities and I hardly even look human in most photos.

Dave

Interesting try Mr. Nalle, but you know you've already lost.

War in Iraq was a mistake from every standpoints.
Bush is a joke for 99,8% of the planet.
Rumsfeld is a joke for 100% of the planet.
Neoconservatism is dead.

Just let it go, friend.

Mr. Nalle has impressed me with his meticulous methods and civil language. A little professionalism goes a long way in a blog, and he has more than a little.

I am still dubious about the Bush administration's initial rationale for invading Iraq, but must admit that my own rationalizations are not holding up entirely. This I see as a good thing.

Thank you for this piece, Mr. Nalle.

The article is clearly bullshit.

Original Iraqi documents...who has seen them? The US military?

ABC stories? They will print the truth even if the military is against it. Right...

CNN? Makes ABC look like they have integrity by comparison.

The US supported Saddam ever since he came to power, until the first Gulf War. All through the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988). The US also supported the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the same period. Hussein and bin Laden were both in receipt of US funds and armaments. OBVIOUSLY there was contact (probably via US radio phone if nothing else).

Among people who respect the military in general and the US military in particular, how many of you feel that is a capable of implementing military strategy? Probably most of you.

Do you people remember when Saddam set fire to the oil wells? Dave Nalle, I know you rode the short bus to school, but do you remember the oil wells?

The huge plumes of smoke that could be seen for hundreds of miles...that was proof. Shit you hear on ABC/CNN is not proof. Alleged original documents you will never see are not proof either. Stop watching that shit, and read some history, so that you can develop a context for news as it appears.

What I am about to say is also NOT PROOF, so feel free not to believe it. This argument requires only a x facts which I will present as givens.

1. Saddam set fire to the oil wells.

2. Saddam has proven himself willing to kill people who opposed him.

Added to these, some assumptions:

a)Given the events of the past fifteen years, Saddam probably hates both Bushes and America.

b) Give the choice, Saddam would have preferred to remain in power in Iraq.

c) Saddam knew military victory was not possible once the US had committed its military.

d) Saddam knew the US was intending on removing him from power.

e) Since Saddam had no problem killing to come to power, and killing to stay in power, he would DEFINITELY not have any problem killing US soldiers.

So, when Saddam knew the US had committed its military to removing him from power, and further knew that he could not defeat said military, he decided to do what? NOT use his weapons of mass destruction?

Come on, you fucking morons. Dave, dude, what the fuck? This is the man that set fire to the oil wells.

In terms of warfare, a chemical or biological weapon would be perfect to use against invading US troops. Such weapons need not be fatal--any military analyst will tell you that a dead soldier reduces the enemy numbers by one, but a crippled soldier reduces the numbers by at least two. Those families that grieve when GI Joe comes home in a body back would grieve even more when GI Joe comes home twitching and drooling in a wheel-chair, needing permanent long-term care. Think of the economic burden on the system if this happened to large numbers of soldiers. It would be perfect. I would love to see it happen to US soldiers in every engagement--it would make the cost of war prohibitive, both economicially and politically.

So tell me, if Saddam could have done this, WHY DIDN'T HE? To preserve his good fucking name? His image as a benevolent philanthropist? Decided to make nice?

So, yeah, fuck the documents, fuck CNN, fuck ABC. If Saddam had WMD, he would have used them. Since he did not use them, I believe he did not have them. Period.

If he did have them, HE MUST HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO USE THEM. And if he would not use them against the soldiers that were invading his country to remove him from power, then he not AS crazy and diabolical as he is made out to be. After all, he was good enough to sell arms to for a decade or more...

Arijaal, I congratulate you. This is without a doubt a definate case of not seeing the forest for the trees!

For all the reasons you just outlined there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam would've used his WMD to keep himself in power, without reservation or hesitation.

In fact, I'll go one further, he'd have used them on Israel the moment he knew he couldn't win, and before the US knocked out his communications, just to become a historical hero to the Arabic community, and a martyr as well.

Why didn't he-BECAUSE THEY NEVER EXISTED!!!!

Bravo!

...but that's only my opinion

Arjaal sure managed to write a whole bunch of words, so Nalle must be all wrong.

This incompetent Bush administration can't even manage to leak one simple frickin' news story about this idiot Plame woman without getting it broke off back up in them. But apparently we're to believe that they forged these documents that are proving some of the arguments made before the war.

You can make lots of reasonable arguments against the advisibility of the Iraq war, and the execution and follow up. There are some decent, reasonable arguments to say it wasn't worth it.

But if you're going to be responsible adults participating seriously in civic life, you have to acknowledge actual facts. Saddam Hussein did have some WMDs and programs for more. We haven't found as much as we might have feared- but you can't honestly say at this point in light of evidence that continues to trickle out that he didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs.

Also- and more damning in my book, more justifying of the appropriateness of our military action- you can't really honestly deny at this point that there was some king of ongoing co-operation between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.

You might still make an argument that our invasion was ill advised. What good are we accomplishing at what cost? Legitimate questions for opposition- but they have to be based on facts. An honest opposition at this point has to acknowledge that, yes, Saddam had some ties and co-operation with Al Qaeda, among other Islamic terrorist groups- but that this was not good enough justification for military action.

So then, as a supporter of the Iraq invasion, I will nonetheless acknowledge that we haven't found nearly as much in the way of WMDs as was widely expected- though there seem to be pretty good indications that we'd find at least some of that if we looked in the right places in Syria. Still, we've only actually found some scraps.

But then I would expect honest opponents of this policy now to acknowledge that Hussein did have at least some WMDs- and programs for more if he'd gotten any opportunity. Plus, you have to acknowledge that the Hussein regime was making some efforts at co-operation and support for Al Qaeda. They just flat were.

Put simply, short and sweet

The man knew he was being invaded-Even the russians told him so, he had time to prepare-communicate his orders, and prepare. If he had them, he would've used the WMDs to defend himself, and and in the process made a hero of himself to the other Arab states.

HE DIDN'T, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM-because if he had them-he would've USED them-PERIOD!!!

You can write 50 paragraphs and wander and verbally meander all over the place, but the fact still remains, and you won't and can't address it.

...but that's only my opinion

didn't someone say earlier that what he had were ready-to-make materials for wmds but not the final product. like anthrax bacillus, but not in final deployable 'powder' form. if that is true then he couldn't deploy them instantly so his best move was to get them out to his pal Assad so he could look relatively clean after the invasion.

Which we would've seen by satelite and tracking planes, you're not paying attention, or just ignoring the obvious.

... but that's only my opinion

Saddam DID have WMD's. He used them on the Iranians, and on his own people. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

The proper question is what happened to them. Were they all used up, destroyed, moved, or a combination of the above?

Again, he did have them, and used them. And invaded 2 countries. Oh, plus 300,000+ bodies in mass graves.

I think we fought a previous war this century when someone else did things like that.

If he had them, he'd have used them to defend himself against the invading US force. If he had no qualms about using them before, he wouldn't have any hesitation to use them again.

Maybe-MAYBE they were destroyed or dismantled as part of the peace agreement after the first Gulf War. I seem to remember seeing that on the news back then.

There were comfirmable reports of him moving mobile missile launchers aimed at Israel, and the Air Force bombing at them. They were being tracked closely. If they'd been moved-we'd have known about it. If new ones had been made, we'd have known about it, or we would've found them after this long.

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM

Gads!

... but that's only my opinion

Jet, repeating it a lot doesn't make it so. There are a variety of reasons why he would not have used them if he had them.

But I do agree that at the point where we invaded Iraq he no longer had whatever WMDs or related material he may have had a week, a month or several months or years earlier.

The question I raise in the article is where materials that we now KNOW he had - such as active Anthrax bacillus, the components for Mustard and Vx gas and the manufacturing equipment to weaponize these items went. You see the problem isn't that he had WMDs, the problem is that he DIDN'T have the ones we knew he should have.

Dave

But Dave. If he had them ... you know ... he would have ... um ... used them (runs away)

IF HE HAD THEM-...Oh never mind

Not if he smuggled them out of the country under the cover of disaster aid to Syria. Read the book.

Do I agree. I agree that if there are satellite photos, we'll never see them (need to know).

If Hussein had a death wish and wanted to go down in flames? Obviously not. (He hid out until capture).

Hussein had a lot of time to prepare, months. Did he? We'll never find out (need to know).

If WMD's where moved to Syria, we'll find out someday, in a surprising fashion. (Can't hide a terrorist attack from the media).

Charlie Sheene is a know-it-all. (A Meathead is a more accurate term).

Good points, Earl. It looks to me like Jordan came damned close to finding out back in 2004 as referenced in the article.

Now, where the hell does Charlie Sheen fit into this?

Dave

There's obvious proof that Saddam Hussain (an obvious madman, as evidenced by the fact that he lit up Kuwait's oil wells) did not have WMD's.

If he did, he would have used them on the US forces when they invaded Iraq.

He didn't use them.

We're talking about an obvious madman, who knew overwhelming force was going to be used against him. In the end his enemy was in his capital city. If he had WMD's, he would have used them.

If the program to develop them wasn't completed (but the whole rationale to go to war was based on the fact that he had), the fall of Iraq would have put a stop to that program, meaning that any biologicals found in 2004 could not have had anything to do with Saddam.

Now, where the hell does Charlie Sheen fit into this?

He's come out recently saying he believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy. (story)

To be fair it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy by al-Qaeda.

Charlie Sheen has never struck me as the sharpest tool in the shed, and his father's influence likely warped his perception of reality.

MacD. You're covering old territory. Read #49.

Dave

Program FasleWar;
var
Bush,Saddam : TDICTATORS;
Begin
IF HE HAD THEM-HE WOULD'VE USED THEM
Else
Bush is Lying;
EnD.

thats great and all but saddam is gone and our troops are still there. why? time to bring em home.

Dave,
Great article! You do realize that you will never change the minds of the left using logic. In their minds if you bring up reports and documents as hard evidence, it is all just lies.

"the only way to change a liberals mind is the a rock"

"thats great and all but saddam is gone and our troops are still there. why? time to bring em home."

Wayne we were never there to remove one person. If that was the case, we could have just sent sent in a covert team and got rid of him.

The WMD's WERE NOT the only reason to go to war.

sorry about the typo:
"the only way to change a liberals mind is with a rock"

MacD in #53 sez "We're talking about an obvious madman, who knew overwhelming force was going to be used against him. In the end his enemy was in his capital city. If he had WMD's, he would have used them"

I think Hussein may be more akin to -- Crazy like a fox. Lethal, trecherous, dangerous, tyranical... but perhaps not insane, mad, crazy... a heavyweight for sure.

But look at what happened on two occasions... GWI and GWII; in both operations his troops cut and run. He didn't have the hearts and minds. He had a few, maybe 50%, but the other half was just living in fear (and loathing).

I contend that Hussein couldn't deploy WMD's because he doesn't deploy anything. His general's and troops do the dirty work. They were running. Did he have WMD's? He used to. Where did they go? They probably existed up to a point, and because Bush was advised by Powell to stop the push, the "crazy like a fox" leader of Iraq arranged to either expertly hide WMD's or to shift them to another country. Granted he still had to rattle sabers to keep Iran out of his skivvee's hence the subterfuge. Well, Hussein's "plan" didn't bode well in the new normalcy (post 9/11). Oops!

So you're saying that Saddam had WMD's, he had a heavily reduced fighting force...and he used his preciously low manpower to hide his force multiplier instead of using it?

That makes no sense. Why hide weapons you built whose use is exactly suitable to a last ditch defence of your arse? You wouldn't: you'd use them without prejudice.

Link to impeachbush.tv

The story I heard was, that Saddam's own scientists were lying to him about his WMD's cause they thought they would be killed if they told him the truth that he didn't have any. Anyone else hear that one??

Link to babblingmorons.com.

Dave

Link to selfrighteoushypocrits.us

Did I miss something? Why is this "evidence" of weapons in Syria in 2004 more reliable than the upper level executive who basically said all the production capacity was destroyed? Half of this case is based on an alleged meeting in 1995. I'll admit this demands further inquiry and examination, but it's not the "Smoking gun" it's made out to be in this article.

And anyone who is swayed in either direction by the opinion of Charlie Sheen is missing a whole lot of brain cells.

That's the problem JP, they're only using the right half of their brain!

...but of course, that's only my opinion

What is a president to do when a country is attacked so mercilessly on September 11, which killed thousands of innocent people? I am sure had taken a hard look at all the options available in stopping the next strike. In the case of Al Qaeda, even the leaders of the group hinted they were responsible for such a horrendous act, and everyone in the world agree that the US had the right to destroy their terrorist network. That is why a coalition was formed to remove Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and since they did not wanted to surrender Usama Bin Laden and his followers.
In the case of Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, there seemed to be new revelations that the Saddam regime might have moved chemical materials out of the country, probably to Syria, before the war started. Such evidence has been well known by the State department, and some members of the senate intelligence committee for some time. And as the president has said many times, the decision to removed Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision because the UN security counsel approved a resolution that said if he would not disclosed his WMD program, accordance to the cease fire agreement signed after the first Gulf war, Saddam should face serious consequences, meaning military force. Given the fact that every major intelligence in the world believe Iraq had a WMD program, I believe, in my humble opinion, president Bush made the right and difficult decision to send troops and achieve the mission of leaving Iraq in a stable condition. Now, I agree that mistakes were made along the way, but that does not mean there should be a timetable, as many had suggested, for the return of the troops. We all remember what happen when then president George H. W. Bush, in accordance to the UN resolution and the subsequence cease-fire accord, took the decision of not going into Baghdad and drive Saddam out of power. Hundreds even thousands of innocent Iraqis, who were waiting for the US troops to rebel against the regime and take over the country, suffered terrible consequences.

Dear Carlos, just for the moment, lets ignore the glaring word "seemed" in your statement below...

"there seemed to be new revelations that the Saddam regime might have moved chemical materials out of the country, probably to Syria, before the war started. Such evidence has been well known by the State department, and some members of the senate intelligence committee for some time."

That gave us a good excuse to attack Syria, not Iraq.

And another thing, why is the right wing ALWAYS dismissing the United Nations as useless and counterproductive, until they're needed for this or that quote to bolster their arguments???

It was an interesting sermon you wrote, but I started nodding off halfway through it.



...but of course that's only my opinion

Carlos, your memory is faulty. You say:

"We all remember what happen (sic) when then president George H. W. Bush, in accordance to the UN resolution and the subsequence (sic) cease-fire accord, took the decision of not going into Baghdad and drive Saddam out of power. Hundreds even thousands of innocent Iraqis, who were waiting for the US troops to rebel against the regime and take over the country, suffered terrible consequences."

Evidently, we don't all remember what happened.

We should not forget what caused the terrible consequences.

Although our cease-fire prohibited Saddam from using fixed-wing aircraft to attack his own people, we allowed Saddam the use of helicopters to do the job, which happened to be very effective in helping to kill the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who revolted.

And to top it off, we were the ones who encouraged the Iraqis to revolt.

Wars are notoriously good at applying the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That is a good reason why we shouldn't engage in them.

Amen, Mo

Would intended consequences mean leaving Saddam in power?

Carlos -- you should reconsider your "facts."

You say -- "I agree that mistakes were made along the way, but that does not mean there should be a timetable, as many had suggested, for the return of the troops."

Actually, there is no better reason for a swift timetable.

We all remember what happened when then president Lyndon Baines Johnson failed to get our troops out of Vietnam when "mistakes were made along the way."

The common thread here is what is most important -- in both cases the key mistake was going into a "preventive war" in the first place.

History shows that a "preventive war" is one which only fools enter.

don't kid yourselves

this is no preventive war...it is a straight up war of territorial aggression through which the US has liberated Iraq's nationalised resource...and hopefully its people as well

troll

"the US has liberated Iraq's nationalised resource...and hopefully its people as well"

Troll, have you checked out your dreams with the Shia Muslims?

Was Bush Right About Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs?

Yes

...but of course that's only my opinion

Now, see how easy it is to make a point without a 1000 word essay???? (see above)

Dave, thanks for writing all those words, even if it left some of us tired and cranky. I would have read about it in the paper, but I still can't find it.

Why would Saddam not use WMD's if he had them? Well, he had been trying to walk a line, looking like he had weapons while saying he didn't. There wouldn't be much of an international opposition to the invasion if the US found weapons. More importantly to Saddam, the absence of weapons encouraged the domestic resistance.

Other reasons: obviously, if the weapons weren't ready, he couldn't use them. It wouldn't have been easy to develop, test, or deploy them inconspicuously. And you don't use a few WMD's: you have to kill either 0% or 100% of your enemies.

Also, this is the guy who sent much of his Air Force to his hated enemy, Iran, during Desert Storm in order to retrieve them later. Sending weapon-making equipment to Syria is completely in character.

On January 19, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that exile for Saddam Hussein and other members of the Iraqi leadership would be a "fair trade" to avoid a military conflict. At the time Saddam's net-worth in Swiss Bank accounts was estimated anywhere from $2.5 billion to over $5 billion.

So, what are we to believe about why wily Saddam took a poison pill?

Could it be that Saddam thought he could win the war or could it be that he didn't trust Rumsfeld?

Dave, I do have a bigger question--let's assume these documents prove contact had been made between the two organizations and there was the potential for a joint effort. Is this not too late?

Are we, as a citizenry, not entitled to concrete evidence explaining why we're headed into a military conflict before our soldiers touch ground? Other than the Niger allegations, why weren't we provided more specifics about the contact that was supposedly made between Saddam and Al Qaeda, rather than just Bush administration assurances?

If you're arguing this somehow vindicates the administration, are you suggesting that we should therefore--by our upcoming votes--deem this acceptable? Suppose we are cleared to read even more concrete proof this October, should we show that we accept being kept in doubt and kept in the dark for so long?

Clearly the reason for withholding this will be "national security," the typical defense for withholding information. I don't think we can accept being sent into battle without being told why, for our own security; the only way releasing this info would damage our national security is by showing how flimsy the support for the administration's position really was.

Same old story-the ends justify the means. Bush gambled he'd find the proof later, and thumb his nose at nay-sayers like us.


Easy and effective. His supporters will believe anything he says, his detractors are labeled unpatriotic, perverted, narrow-minded and of course unchristian.

or or worse... (gasp) L L L Liberals

EEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!

...of course that's only my opinion

Are we, as a citizenry entitled to concrete evidence explaining why we're headed into a military conflict before our soldiers touch ground?

Of course.

The result of not providing this concrete evidence is made obvious by the latest polls.

You can fool some of the people...

I'm sure you know the rest.

But Mo, you haven't been paying attention, they say they've already explained it, to anyone with any amount of sense and intellect.

Shirley you not implying that they're uh they'd uh you know... Fib!

[explitive deleted] No!!!

I know don't call you shirley



... of course that's not really my opinion

Are we, as a citizenry, not entitled to concrete evidence explaining why we're headed into a military conflict before our soldiers touch ground? Other than the Niger allegations, why weren't we provided more specifics about the contact that was supposedly made between Saddam and Al Qaeda, rather than just Bush administration assurances?

Before we invaded Germany in WW2 we had no physical evidence of the existence of death camps, just some second hand reports which were largely discounted by the media and the public. Does that mean that our knowledge that Hitler was a psycho of the sort who had the capacity for evil on the scale of death camps was insufficient to invade Germany?

If you're arguing this somehow vindicates the administration, are you suggesting that we should therefore--by our upcoming votes--deem this acceptable?

Deem what acceptable? The administration didn't lie to us, they just presented a hastily assembled case as attractively as they could. Do you blame a shampoo company because your hair isn't as naturally wavy and thick as the model they use in their commercials? It's marketing. The shampoo still gets your hair clean, which is its primary function.

Suppose we are cleared to read even more concrete proof this October, should we show that we accept being kept in doubt and kept in the dark for so long?

We elect these guys to make decisions for them. When we vote we delegate authority to them. We may have buyers remorse after the fact, but that doesn't change the chocie we made as a nation when we elected them.

Clearly the reason for withholding this will be "national security," the typical defense for withholding information.

What has been withheld? These documents were acquired after the invasion and are in the process of being translated and released. If there are security issues, it only makes sense to not release the documents where such issues exist.

I don't think we can accept being sent into battle without being told why, for our own security; the only way releasing this info would damage our national security is by showing how flimsy the support for the administration's position really was.

The documents which have already been released and translated are pretty significant in their own right. A bunch more have been released but are only in arabic. I don't see any indication that anything major is being held back, and it's to the advantage of the administration to release everything that's significant, so if some are being set aside I'd guess there are some pretty damned good reasons.

Dave

Dave?????????? We entered World War II officially when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor-an attack on American soil. Now, Unofficially before that we were only supporting our British allies with material, and only entered that fray when the german u-boats began torpedoed our supply ships in the atlantic.

Can history books vary that much????????

sheesh!

You're missing the point, Jet. I realize WW2 started for a lot more reasons. The point is that sometimes you know things are the way they are before you have all the hard proof you'd like. Does that mean you should allow crimes to continue?

DAve

Of course I missted the point Dave! That's what I do best!

...but that's only my opinion

My bad. I forgot to use my rhetorical club.

Dave

Well thank God for that, the gun would've gotten smoke all over my screen.

Dave: "Before we invaded Germany in WW2 we had no physical evidence of the existence of death camps, just some second hand reports which were largely discounted by the media and the public. Does that mean that our knowledge that Hitler was a psycho of the sort who had the capacity for evil on the scale of death camps was insufficient to invade Germany?"

Huh? We invaded Germany because we were at war with them, not because of 'death camps'. What was the point of your statement?

I refer you to #86 bliff.

Dave

"Before we invaded Germany in WW2 we had no physical evidence of the existence of death camps, just some second hand reports which were largely discounted by the media and the public. Does that mean that our knowledge that Hitler was a psycho of the sort who had the capacity for evil on the scale of death camps was insufficient to invade Germany?"

Dave, you really blew it there.

Your country didn't give two shits about the death camps of the Germans. If all the Jews, Gypsies and other "subhuman trash" the Nazis were murdering off had all been killed, your government, and the Reform Jews in the States, BTW, would have all the happier. The fact that Hitler "missed a few" was a royal pain in the ass for your government. You were at war with Germany because Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on you, and because the Germans were at war with your ally Britain. Americans did not bomb the death camps or the railways leading to them even once, though they very well knew where they were.

Don't screw your analogies up that way, man.

Your country didn't give two shits about the death camps of the Germans.

Ruvy, I did say "largely discounted by the media and the public"

Which is a nice way of saying 'didn't give two shits'. But you know, if Roosevelt had proof of the death camps in '40 he could have used them as a justification instead of Pearl Harbor and would have.

This reminds me never to use anything even vaguely related to Hitler as an analogy because people ignore the point and start talking about their favorite war instead.

Dave

Ha, Dave I won't get into a complicated analysis of the rationale for WW2 here, just as I won't compare the misadventure in Vietnam to this conflict as many do, but it will require touching on. Your question, using Germany as an example, was "Does that mean that our knowledge that .... had the capacity for evil ... was insufficient to invade Germany?"

Given that the reasoning was much more complex, as it is with Iraq, I'd say it's fortunate that our entry into WW2 was not based solely upon what you suggest was an incomplete case for death camps. We were brought into the war because of Pearl Harbor, whether or not some of the conspiracists are correct in suggesting there was foreknowledge of the Japanese attack or not; had Pearl Harbor not occurred, we'd have had to actively choose whether or not to become involved in the conflict in the role of what I call "World Police" - again, is it our duty to correct all the wrong in the world, particularly when we ignore that of our allies?

"Deem what acceptable?" I'm suggesting that even if we buy the newly released documents as "proof" of the case that there was some rudimentary connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, that at the voting booth we are being asked to accept that going into war based upon a clearly incomplete case was the right choice. We were not scared into supporting a war effort based upon the complicated geostrategic and geopolitical case Eric made in his article; we were scared shi*less into supporting war with Terror Alert Levels and suggestions that Iraq would somehow spearhead a "mushroom cloud".

In my opinion, giving the public only part of the reason is not enough. It's also not enough to make broad allegations when you don't have concrete evidence to prove them; it's especially deficient when your own intelligence experts are openly doubting many of the evidence you're citing. That the doubt of our intelligence folks was withheld is misleading at BEST.

Therefore, I cannot bring myself to vote for the party--particulary trying to hold onto the executive branch in 2008--which brought that overinflated case to the public in an attempt to obtain support for war. It's ludicrous to ask for support NOW after having failed to be forthcoming from the beginning, if you ask me.

Mo - concerning #75

I figure that once the US is boxed in protecting the oil infrastucture and off the 'street' the Shia will be 'free' to align with Persia - the Sunnis will be 'free' to align with Arabia - and the Kurds will be 'free' to pursue their (bloody) dream of a greater Kurdistan

troll

President Bush rewards terrorism by aiding and abetting the "Palestinians," they're weapons of mass destruction, and he rewards terrorism by his confused support for the treacherous Israeli party (politicians of mass destruction) who would DIVIDE JERUSALEM: the Kadima cult of death.

May all who love our Jewish brethren and pray for the peace of Jerusalem, pray that the Israeli party of hardened criminals, Kadima, is defeated in the Israeli elections.

Sharon: From Zionist to Traitor


Kadima train to Auschwitz borders: Don't get on board!

Someone needs to explain to me again, as to why if Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and we actually won the still unnamed war, why our gas prices are so high?

If Iran does cut off our oil supply from their country, why can't our Iraqi pals/conquered masses/best friends in the middle east, bring up the slack???

I warn you Dave I'll probably be too naive to understand your answer, but give it a shot anyway.

Therefore, I cannot bring myself to vote for the party--particulary trying to hold onto the executive branch in 2008--which brought that overinflated case to the public in an attempt to obtain support for war. It's ludicrous to ask for support NOW after having failed to be forthcoming from the beginning, if you ask me.

Well, the Bush administration isn't running for reelection. And both parties were equally involved in making the actual decision to launch the war. So I take it you're voting Libertarian? Good choice!

Dave

Someone needs to explain to me again, as to why if Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and we actually won the still unnamed war, why our gas prices are so high?

Because we aren't pumping any more oil out of Iraq than was being pumped when Saddam was in charge. There's a bottleneck in the lack of processing facilities and the number of wells. Efforts are being made to increase production, but that's a slow process.

Plus, this thing about Iraq having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is debatable. They may have the 2nd largest in the middle east, but given the enormous oil reserves of the US, Mexico and Russia I don't see how they can be any higher than 4th or 5th on the list.

If Iran does cut off our oil supply from their country, why can't our Iraqi pals/conquered masses/best friends in the middle east, bring up the slack???

I think that's the eventual idea, but it still won't help. The real problem isn't oil production, it's oil consumption. Oil use in China is increasing at a geometric rate. Within 20 years China will be using as much oil as the rest of the world put together. In the face of that it's impossible to keep prices down or to pump enough oil in the long run to fill demand. We're going to have to move away from oil as our main source of fuel just because there won't be enough available at a reasonable price.

Dave

well said Dave

troll

Can you spell F-U-N-G-I-B-L-E?

Oil is a fungible product.

That is indeed a lovely word. Need to remember it next time I explain why it makes no difference if oil we end up drilling in ANWR goes direct to China instead of to US consumers.

Dave

Good point.

Dave,

"Well, the Bush administration isn't running for reelection. And both parties were equally involved in making the actual decision to launch the war. So I take it you're voting Libertarian? Good choice!"

Hahaha! The Republican Party hopes to retain power in 2008; sorry to confuse you.

I dispute strongly the idea that both parties were "equally involved" - remember the "White House Iraq Group"? I believe they maintained control of the flow of information.

If you're trying to filter out the information-gathering in order to focus on the yes-or-no vote on the authorization for Bush to move forward, by the words "...the actual decision...", I'm not falling for it. (If the decision maker doesn't have all the facts, he's not making an educated choice.. if he's prevented from having all the facts, he's making an influenced choice)

Rhetoric won't work here.

If you're trying to filter out the information-gathering in order to focus on the yes-or-no vote on the authorization for Bush to move forward, by the words "...the actual decision...", I'm not falling for it. (If the decision maker doesn't have all the facts, he's not making an educated choice.. if he's prevented from having all the facts, he's making an influenced choice)

Well then, all the more reason to vote the Democrats out for allowing themselves to be duped so thoroughly.

Basically, your entire argument is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee had full access to the intelligence services and the information and could have asked any questions and requested any added information they needed. Govem their postions they ought to have had the experience to ask the right questions.

And of course, what you don't even take into consideration is that the administration's fault was an excess of eagerness rather than a deliberate intent to deceve. But keep on believing the disinformation and the hate if they make you feel better.

Dave

"The House Intelligence Committee had full access to the intelligence services and the information and could have asked any questions and requested any added information they needed."

Evidently, the Committee didn't ask for a secret memo of the Blair-Bush deal before the Iraq war started.

Shame on them for not knowing there was a secret memo.

"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons program."

Check it out
here.

Well thank god for the Brits and their bottomless supply of 'secret memos'. As with most of these memos and the Guardian's slanted coverage of them, we're looking at much ado about nothing. Another example of a brainstorming session where people were throwing out hypotheticals being built up into some sort of conspiracy. I've seen it before.

Dave

"Basically, your entire argument is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee had full access to the intelligence services and the information and could have asked any questions and requested any added information they needed. Govem their postions they ought to have had the experience to ask the right questions."

I'm pretty sure the Congress was Republican controlled in both houses as of the 2002 election. Hard to have subpoena power if you're not in control of any committees, now isn't it? Plus, in 2002 if anyone had questioned the Bush admin warnings, they'd have been lynched or arrested for treason. And you know it.

Excess of eagerness doesn't explain the comments by Rumsfeld, etc. guiding the team to dig up any links to Saddam, comments that were made before all the dust had settled from the Twin Towers. That's not eagerness, that's opportunistic linking of a pre-existing goal to a current event.

But keep believing the conventional wisdom if it makes you feel better.

JP, what's wrong with the administration wanting to take out Saddam and wanting to assemble the best case for doing it that they could. Yes, it's not the same as going directly after Al Qaeda, but incase you didn't notice Al Qaeda doesn't have a door you can knock on and deliver an arrest warrant. There's no question Iraq was a nation which supported terrorism, and of the pro-terror nations available it was the weakest and easiest to attack after Afghanistan. You've got to start somewhere.

Dave

"Al Qaeda doesn't have a door you can knock on and deliver an arrest warrant. There's no question Iraq was a nation which supported terrorism, and of the pro-terror nations available it was the weakest and easiest to attack after Afghanistan. You've got to start somewhere."

Al Qaeda did have a door to knock on after it drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. But the neocons wanted to start somewhere else. All they had to do was wait for the weakest and easiest president and con him into getting an arrest warrant.

Dave, it was so easy they didn't even finish the job in Afghanistan (getting Osama "dead or alive") before moving into Iraq, then?

There's one additional party, other than the left and the media, who has pushed forward the notion that Iraq did not have WMDs.

"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
--George W. Bush
October 7, 2004

Clearly, nothing has been reported or uncovered in the time since he made that statement that has convinced the President that Iraq did, indeed, possess the weapons. Otherwise, one assumes that he would have made a statement to that effect--seeing as how he has more staked on those weapons and more reason to trumpet their existence than anyone else on Planet Earth.

If the evidence we're talking about hasn't convinced Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq, why should it convince me?

Michael, you believe everything Bush tells you?

JP, it's clear that the idea was much better than the execution. That seems to be the hallmark of this administration.

In general, what you see going on here is a lot of good intentions and relatively well conceived objectives with very poor follow through and confused presentation of the rationales for administration actions.

As for the possession of WMDs, as always Bush goes for the simple answer. Technically Iraq had no active WMDs. They had a WMD program ready to turn out full-fledged WMDs on demand in a matter of weeks, but no stockpiles. So he's right when he says what he does, and he sticks with that because explaining the reality would be too complex a message for him to attempt to convey to the public - I'm not sure whether this constant talking down is a function of his own limitations or his perception of the limited capacity of his audience.

Dave

I'm sorry, Dave, I just don't believe that. As I said, if the evidence that Iraq had WMDs was genuinely solid and unimpeachable, Bush would have far more to gain from throwing it in our faces than he would to just take the path of least resistance for the sake of his audience's limitations. I can't imagine that, even if it were his own limitations that kept him from doing so, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld wouldn't make it a point to do it for him.

George's Adventures in Wonderland.

The rabbit-hole [Iraq] went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that George had not a moment to think about stopping himself before he found himself falling down what seemed to be a very deep well.

Either the well was very deep, or he fell very slowly, for he had plenty of time [over three years] as he went down to look about, and to wonder what was going to happen next. First, he tried to look down and make out what was coming, but it was too dark to see anything: then he looked at the sides of the well, and noticed that they were filled with IED's and RPG's: here and there he saw headless people hung upon pegs.

"Well!" thought George to himself, "After such a fall as this, I shall think nothing of starting a war with Iran! How brave they'll all think me at home! Why, I wouldn't say anything about it, even if I lost control of the Republican party!" (which was very likely true.)

Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end? "I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?" he said aloud. "I must be getting somewhere near the WMD's."

[fast forward]

`Wake up, George!' said someone; `Why, what a long sleep you've had!' 'Oh, I've had such a curious dream!' said George, and he told everyone as well as he could remember them, all these strange Adventures of his that you have just been reading about;

Dave,

Two points.. "In general, what you see going on here is a lot of good intentions and relatively well conceived objectives with very poor follow through and confused presentation of the rationales for administration actions." - So is the focus on WMD as rationale simply poor presentation, or deliberately selective as its favorable impact could easily be predicted (fear)? I'm not sure we can make a firm conclusion here because the question has to do with motive. Some of the 'Downing Street' memos shed light on motive, but we don't know for sure.

As for "Technically Iraq had no active WMDs. They had a WMD program ready to turn out full-fledged WMDs on demand in a matter of weeks, but no stockpiles." Not sure where you get this conclusion. Even the administration admits the latest batch of prewar documents isn't a 'smoking gun':

"Our view is there's nothing in here that changes what we know today," said a senior intelligence official, who would discuss the program only on condition of anonymity because the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, directed his staff to avoid public debates over the documents. "There is no smoking gun on W.M.D., Al Qaeda, those kinds of issues."

Michael, I think the operating principle here is 'once burned, twice shy', which suggests that Bush didn't lie, but rather was the victim of bad information and doesn't want to take any risk of that again.

And JP, as I said the main factor here seems to be a combination of enthusiasm and poor presentation, which could easily be mistaken for other motivations. And the fact that Negroponte and others are taking a very conservative position on the mounting evidence about materials being moved to Syria doesn't change the information one bit.

Dave

with 48,000 boxes of goodies I wonder where They will put the Saddam Hussein Dictatorial Library

troll

[Mo - about #101:

'oil' becomes a fungible at the well head when it enters the distribution system

'oil' in exploration and extraction are different critters altogether

the saying - 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' - holds true for the oil industry

troll]

Just so long as they don't put it in my garage - it's already too full of useless papers.

Dave

Troll

Are you saying that a fungible barrel of oil on one tanker heading to market, has a different price than a fungible barrel of oil on any other tanker?

Dave: "Michael, I think the operating principle here is 'once burned, twice shy', which suggests that Bush didn't lie, but rather was the victim of bad information and doesn't want to take any risk of that again."

I don't think Bush was victimized by bad intel, I think he encouraged bad intel to support his pre-disposition to invade Iraq. It's the simplest explanation to fit the available facts. Why search so hard for contrived excuses for bad action? And what happened fits better with Bush's style: he acts first and justifies later. Some call this decisive leadership. For example, he didn't seek anyones approval to expand the scope of NSA warrantless searches and wiretaps, he just did it and only attempted justification when he was caught. Some call this leadership, but I think it's a character flaw. And character counts, as some remind us.

"And JP, as I said the main factor here seems to be a combination of enthusiasm and poor presentation, which could easily be mistaken for other motivations."

Poor things: they're just misunderstood.

"And the fact that Negroponte and others are taking a very conservative position on the mounting evidence about materials being moved to Syria doesn't change the information one bit."

Mounting evidence? All I know of is the gossip of one guy who claims to be more important than he seems to be, presumably for power, fame or money. I suppose we could call this the "Chalabi syndrome".

You know, JUST when I thought it was safe to come back, I see you guys using words like "fungible" and "Chalabi syndromea". Gads guys!!!

To quote Whoopi Goldberg in Jumpin' Jack Flash
"ENGLISH, MICK!!! SPEAK ENGLISH...DAMN!!!

Okay, while I go running for my thesaurus and my dictionary, to make myself APPEAR to have a halfway intelligent reply to all this silliness, I leave this, from one of my other posts, which is just as applicible here...



In Federally funded study 3349 concerning FUNGIBLE Oil reserves, I quote, "With a negative aspect concerning resulting rationales towards percentages of population expansion in those areas, taking into account economic class distinctions, along with affiliated variables, versus the positive anti-reactionary conclusions based on several politically and commercially motivated studies, yielding several unsubstantiated claims, there would appear to be various destinations that the untrained mind could meander without the proper guidance..."



However, in Federally funded study 4547 concerning the CHALABI syndrome I quote, "However, there contain several portions of the study that appear truly contradictory if not unsubstantiated, as opposed to partially substantiated, or completely substantiated. Whenever confirming scientific comparisons can be initiated through both layman and university classroom studies, resulting in not only a quorum on this very complicated subject, but also quite a bit of doubletalk, doublespeak, and of course deranged vocabulary lessons, yielding several radically different yet esoteric but conflicting conclusions.

Bet you didn't miss me at all did you?

...But of course that's only my opinion

I don't think Bush was victimized by bad intel, I think he encouraged bad intel to support his pre-disposition to invade Iraq.

Is there a functional difference?

It's the simplest explanation to fit the available facts. Why search so hard for contrived excuses for bad action? And what happened fits better with Bush's style: he acts first and justifies later. Some call this decisive leadership.

In some circumstances this can be a good thing, in others not so good.

For example, he didn't seek anyones approval to expand the scope of NSA warrantless searches and wiretaps, he just did it and only attempted justification when he was caught. Some call this leadership, but I think it's a character flaw. And character counts, as some remind us.

I think it's both. Andrew Jackson had exactly the same problem and some think he was a disaster and others think it was genius.

Mounting evidence? All I know of is the gossip of one guy who claims to be more important than he seems to be, presumably for power, fame or money. I suppose we could call this the "Chalabi syndrome".

So you're just not paying attention, right? Check the article for the confirmation of this from Saddam's own documents, and keep an eye out because as more documents get translated the non-Chalabized facts are becoming very clear.

Dave

Michael, I think the operating principle here is 'once burned, twice shy', which suggests that Bush didn't lie, but rather was the victim of bad information and doesn't want to take any risk of that again.

But if the evidence is THAT solid, THAT certain, THAT hard to argue with, what's he got to worry about?

Dave, is there a way to contact you directly by e-mail?

Mo - nope...I'm saying that oil is not a fungible product until in fact it is extracted

Jet - 'fungible' is simply a fancy word meaning that it is a commodity with a (variable) unit price

troll

*I don't think Bush was victimized by bad intel, I think he encouraged bad intel to support his pre-disposition to invade Iraq.

Is there a functional difference?*

in the first case he goes to purgatory...in the other he goes straight to hell

troll

fungible...isn't that an eligible fungo?

I've always thought so

Dave, is there a way to contact you directly by e-mail?

Click on the politics tab in the header and use the email link there.

Dave

in the first case he goes to purgatory...in the other he goes straight to hell

He's a politician. He has a spot reserved in hell already.

Dave

Youse guyz wuldn't know a fungible if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

Troll sez

"Mo - I'm saying that oil is not a fungible product until in fact it is extracted"

Troll -- you wouldn't know a fungible if it jumped and bit you in the ass even after it was extracted.

Mo...your point is - ?

by the way and I mean this in the best possible sense - fuck you and the mule you rode in on

troll

This is really begining to look like a fungible conversation. Come to think of it I didn't know that gibles could be fun?

Mo, now I'm confused-bit him on the ass, or bit him on the mule????

I had a fungi bull once, but I chopped him up and fried him up with some eggs to make an omelet.

Dave

Probably the same one I got drunk and tipped over the night before!

What were we talking about again?

Troll

I didn't ride in on your fungi-mule.

I rode in on my fungi-bull.

But that was before Dave fried it.

better a mule or a bull than a gerbil...that wouldn't be fun

troll

Does that mean you've tried a mule and a bull?

Troll -- you should try a fun-gible.

As advertised, it's more fun.

AND more sanitary!!!

I've heard that there's a real market for fun-gerbils in San Francisco.

Dave

San Francisco has bathhouses full of fungible fun-gibles.

Mo 146, and how many did you visit to find that out?

I don't visit. I just read about it. Do you have first hand knowledge? If so, tell us about it. Inquiring minds want to know.

Does Richard Gere like fun gerbils?

Mo, as a matter of fact in the 70s before the age of AIDS, I used to go quite often, and found it very enjoyable. Once I get my own blog, I plan to write about it.

In all that time, I never saw a single Gerble, much less a roll of duct tape.

I'm actually very sorry I brought up the whole pun about fungibles, because I left myself and others open to turn a very serious and important topic into a string of fag jokes at my own expense.

Sorry Dave Nalle.
Dave' (who ever you are) go fuck yourself, and take the mule, ass or whatever with you...

Jet....you really should get your own blog...you have an interesting perspective on things and you seem to have a lot to say about it all....

Many of us would be interested in reading. As far as the "fag jokes"...I know of at least one great writer who has stopped coming to Blogcritics because it seemed, to him, a fight not worth fighting anymore...more of an insult to him and his family. Please don't let it get to you, there are enough of us here who will have your back.

Dave Nalle...my apologies for the hijack. ;)

...we now return you to the original program...

I just did, but as yet Eric Olsen hasn't gotten back to me about it.
My first one was the one I did at Brokeback Mountain that you were so nice about

it's at

Thanks for the encouragement...

However, I'm not sure how to get it published here?

Okay Chantal, I think I have it now, after doing some first-timer fumbling around.
I'm known as "The Absent Mind" The insane ramblings of a Conservative trapped in a Liberal's body!

That aught to raise a few eyebrows!
I even put my picture there-YIKES! To get there, until I can figure out how to contact Eric right, you can just click on my URL

Thanks again for the encouragement, and all of you were right, it WAS easy!

good job Jet....I'll check it out.

I'll contact Eric about getting you set up with a login and such, Jet.

As for hijacking the thread, it ran on for quite a while on topic, which is all we can really hope for.

Dave

Dave, let's see if this revives your string a little... I'm working on composing a blog about what happened on Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO last night. It'll be repeated several times, and I hope you can catch it.

The Republican Senator on the panel was defending Bush's decision to go to war on faulty intelligence, and his wire tapping without warrants, and when he got a little vohement, Bill looked up, interupted his defending Bush, and asked "so, that means that you would've defended Clinton 10 years ago if he'd done the same thing?"

The senator's jaw dropped and he sat dumbfounded and lost for words. The audience gave a standing ovation, and I nearly fell off the couch laughing!

...but of course that's only my opinion

I recorded Bill Maher, but haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

As for the GOP senator's reaction, I'm not surprised. But I think that there ARE quite a few who would have been able to answer that question in the affirmative. They're the real GOP. This guy is probably one of the many neocon/theocon latecomers.

Dave

It was Dana Rohrbacher from Huntington Beach, CA

Three trucks carrying 20,000 tons of .... Perhaps this should be 20,000 pounds of....

20,000 tons is incredibly heavy.