Today on Blogcritics
Home » Iraq War: 1,000 Days And A Million Questions

Iraq War: 1,000 Days And A Million Questions

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This past fortnight the 1,000th day of the Iraq War passed. My greatest wish is that our government had not lied to us about virtually everything to get us into it.

I don’t like liars. I don’t like arrogance. I don’t like being taken for an idiot; too stupid to make up my own mind based upon “silly things” like facts.

And it’s not just me who feels this way, though all of those are very personal reasons.

The war started on March 19, 2003 with American bombs falling on Baghdad. I was one of those who didn’t trust much of anyone else saying we needed to go to war to protect America. The country of Iraq had sat there for more than 30 years without threatening to or planning to attack America or American interests.

It was my mistake to trust Colin Powell, then Secretary of State. How could what he said before the United Nations not be true; there were biological weapons labs and facilities everywhere; missiles were being built that could attack not only immediate neighbors but reach “Old Europe” – England, France and Germany. It was all grim.

Powell, since his retirement – after the re-election of George W. Bush (Why do politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, get their spines returned to them only when they’re out of office?) – has admitted he was wrong; that his assertions were based on shaky ground. That sitting in front of the UN reeling of a series of “facts” that turned out to be false, was one of the worst moments in his professional career.

I don’t think we should be there in Iraq, but now that we are, we as a country have a lot of questions and our government and our military has to come up with a lot of answers.

Also this month, elections were held in Iraq to elect members of Parliament and other offices. There are over 6,600 candidates.

This was the best plan to get democracy in Iraq?

There is now a lot of good happening in Iraq, but getting any place based on many lies isn’t something I accept. Getting there and losing the trust of people who are meant to govern us, isn’t a price worth paying. Getting there when it was clear so many of the assumptions made were not clearly thought through; that “Yes” men and women guided us into war without listening to those who said they had questions about why we were going and what we would do when we got there. More than 2,000 American soldiers, – more than two a day – are dead, at least 30,000 Iraqis are dead, through various means but mostly at the hands of insurgents. And because President Bush said it, I’m willing to bet the figure is at least double that. The Bush II administration famously said they weren’t counting Iraqi casualties. So how come there is a figure all of a sudden? It was a stated claim that it was an American goal to bring the terrorists together in Iraqi in a “flypaper strategy.”

It worked and apparently military planners were not ready. Whether it is a bad war depends on what you ask and who you ask. All war is bad some people say, though I don’t agree. Sometimes there is a just cause; a reason for American blood to spill. Bringing Iraqi democracy may in fact be a just cause. But if this were so, then why weren’t the American people told this was our reason for going; why couldn’t the American people have decided the argument on its full merits.

This is a war that is as hard to write an opinion about – for fear of missing some part of the discussion that when you look back you realize should have been there from the beginning.

(This editorial, written by me, first appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the Eloy Enterprise)

About temple

Always been a writer, always maintained an interest in politics, how people communicate and fantasy worlds within photography and books. Previously wrote for Blogcritics back in 2005 and interested in exploring the issues and topics I'm interested - the changing landscape of entertainment. all from the POV of a creator first, consumer, second.
  • troll

    back at ya Gonzo – and happy new year to all

    troll

  • SFC SKI

    gonzo, I guess my point was not clear, it is that with so much data and so few analysts, the NSA or whomever is doing the searching has to focus its relatively limited resources on the terrorist threat rather than domestic crime unrelated to terrorism, or just against the rantings of disgruntled bloggers and cranks.

    COuld thes powers be abused? sure, and no law will prevent it. What I want to know is if these domestic surveillances werre used for purposes other than counter-terrorism, in lieu of the policies and procedures in place to protect US citizens, only THEN I would like to see action being taken against the responsible parties.

    Temple, Freedom of the Press is a great thing, no doubt. The problem that I and other Soldiers have is that there are news reporters and news agencies trhat cherry-pick our comments to suit their story/bias/slant etc. Those reporters are not honest brokers of the public trust, IMO. I have met a few reporters I felt I could speak with openly, but nowadays I feel that the best comment I can often give is “No comment” for fear that my name or words will be associated with some opinion piece disguised as factual reporting.
    Furthermore, why is it that, outside of MilBlogs and the Stars and Stripes, I have no way of finding out about the heroic actions of those serving in the military. Not even positive stuff about National Guard troops and Coast Guardsmen saving lives after Hurricane Katrina, let alone a very small story on SFC Paul Smith, first recipinet of the Medal of Honor in 10 years makes headlines, but is usually located several pages deep in all but the most local papers.
    The press does the readers a great disservice by not telling Americans what it is we are fighting for, and what we have accomplished so far.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    By the same measure, Ski, why do I have to go to Al Jazeera or people blogging directly from Iraq to find out about progress for the Iraqi people, or even just to get an accurate assessment of the post-election formation of the government. Where is coverage of any of that in the US papers? If we’re so concerned about the war and about Iraq and about getting out, shouldn’t these things be of concern too?

    As for out of control surveillance agencies, do any of you remember J. Edgar Hoover? His FBI wiretapped and observed and bugged people on a regular basis with no warrants at all, and included in their scrutiny people who were seen as dangerous only because Hoover didn’t like their politics. They even fabricated evidence to arrest people. Nothing was done then, and nothing even fractionally comparable to that is going on today in this administration.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    to Ski…i completely Understood what you are saying Ski…it’s just as a Technologist myself, i am trying to tell you that the vast Majority of that data is mined by Programs, NOT People

    weh should be freaking out about that Stuff that is NOT translated…one would think that is the most important info that needs to be covered and that the data mining filters woudl set it on highest Priority

    my problems deal with some of the things shown in trolls second link above, the FISA court’s worry that domestic criminal proseutors woudl be directing the much lowr standard for surveilance that FISA utilizes for purely domestic purposes

    an example…one of the first cases Prosecuted under the Patriot Act’s provisions, from data gathered via the expanded anti-terrorist data taps…was last year arrest and prosecution of a boy scout master for having illegal porn on his hard drive…no other crime…now, it IS a crime to do what he did, and he should be prosecuted for it

    my Question is, do you think that is/was a proper use of anti-terrorist rules? or was it a way for Ashcroft to utilize Hooverian tactics to fish the mined data ?

    it is interesting that Nalle brings up Hoover, and attempts to imply that since J. Edgar was o horrible and so blatantly violated citizen’s Rights that it makes it peachy keen to do so today

    please, fucking spare me…

    the whole bullshit Concept of “well he did worse” as anexcuse or justification for breaking the Law is such a weak and pathetic Apologist attempt that mere words fail me in an attempt to describe my personal disgust

    Ski sez…
    *What I want to know is if these domestic surveillances werre used for purposes other than counter-terrorism, in lieu of the policies and procedures in place to protect US citizens, only THEN I would like to see action being taken against the responsible parties.*

    and THAT is exactly what i am talking about, Ski
    as has come out so far, the NSA has admitted to at least 30 cases so far of purely domestic spying by “accident”

    what troll’s second link deals with are the back and forth between the FISA court and AG Ashcroft in clearly delineating the separation between utilizing the FISA provision for anti-terrorism(which no one has ANY problems with) and the possibility that the looser restrictions of the FISA provisions would/could be used for purely domestic criminal prosecutions circumventing Due Process

    a bit esoteric for some…but that’s the “nut”

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I don’t mean to suggest that anything is excused just because Hoover or Nixon or Kennedy did worse. But what I am definitely saying is that we’ve moved the line of toleration and maybe we’ve moved it too far. Hoover was clearly way too abusive of the law, but in reaction to that we’ve gone to a zero tolerance policy, and you know how fair those are. Maybe we need to find a moderate position, where we don’t tolerate wrongdoing, but we understand that some things which are questionable may be done with good intentions and should be answered with a solution to the problem they represent rather than the death penalty.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    Nalle sez…
    *Maybe we need to find a moderate position, where we don’t tolerate wrongdoing, but we understand that some things which are questionable may be done with good intentions and should be answered with a solution to the problem they represent rather than the death penalty.*

    yeah..it’s called the Law

    you want the kind of changes you are talking about, then it’s up to the Legislature to hammer it out, send it to the Senate…work out the differences, get signed by the Pres and stand the Constitutionality test of the Supreme Court

    THAT is the system in place by our Constitution

    NOT “excecutive orders” that bypass said System

    but we all know i am silly about shit like this…to me the “ends” NEVER justify the “means”…under the Rule of Law HOW we do something is just as Important as WHAT we do as a Nation

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • SFC SKI

    I understand that most of the accidental intercepts are just that, accidental, but what was done with the data that was collected? I, too, can imagine this technology and policy being abused, but has it been?

    As for the programs doing data mining, until some human gets eyes on the product, it just sits until it’s deleted or if necessary and meeting the criteria above, exploited.

  • SFC SKI

    Without an Executive Order, the Armed Forces might never have become integrated in 1948. Just one example of the Executive branch’s positive use of the Order.

    I don’t disagree with your comments, gonzo, but there are times when time is of the essence, that is why the Executive branch has the power it does, and the Legislative branch has to catch up in its often glacial pace.

  • gonzo marx

    Ski sez…
    *I don’t disagree with your comments, gonzo, but there are times when time is of the essence, that is why the Executive branch has the power it does, and the Legislative branch has to catch up in its often glacial pace.*

    good points, Ski..same with the order for integrating the Military

    might i point out that as Commander in Chief, such usage of executive orders is well within Constitutional authority….but that over our History…some of those “orders” have NOT been…and that is my Concern

    as for “time is of the essence”…as has been pointed out by myself and troll’s second link which has the transcripts of the dialogue between the AG and the FISA court…much latitude is built into that System…and i have yet to hear any clear Reasons to bypass the Law…

    the ONLY one given so far is that it is not “convenient” to follow

    fuck that

    hey..it’s not convenient for me to obey the Law when i go into a bank, much easier for me to just take some money rather than filling out that boring paperwork and waiting for approval…so why not?

    not the perfect Analogy, but it makes my point

    BTW…i’m glad to *see* you around again Ski, i’m hoping that you are safe and sound…keep yer fucking head down and yer powder dry, eh?

    Excelsior!

  • troll

    moderate positions can end up as no position at all…as E.E. wrote:

    “there is some shit I will not eat”

    troll

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    troll, was that E. E. Doc Smith?

    Gonzo:

    yeah..it’s called the Law

    No, the law is one thing. How the law is applied is another. Applying the law rigidly and with absolutism is what leads to the death sentence for reading porn. Applying it judiciously and with common sense means ruling Bush’s actions unconstitutional and telling him to go back and file the papers and find a better way to do it in the future.

    you want the kind of changes you are talking about, then it’s up to the Legislature to hammer it out, send it to the Senate…work out the differences, get signed by the Pres and stand the Constitutionality test of the Supreme Court

    Wrong. That’s if you want to change the law. All I’m suggesting is that the application of the law be made with consideration for the circumstances.

    THAT is the system in place by our Constitution

    NOT “excecutive orders” that bypass said System

    but we all know i am silly about shit like this…to me the “ends” NEVER justify the “means”…under the Rule of Law HOW we do something is just as Important as WHAT we do as a Nation

    Gonzo, if your attitude had prevailed during the Civil War, then the slaves would still be in bondage. Lincoln basically ran the country by executive order – including the emancipation proclaimation – and he did it that way because it was a crisis situation in which as commander in chief he had to exercise swift executive leadership.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    Nalle…bullshit

    Lincoln had a fucking legally Declared War now didn’t he?

    that changes the Rules a bit

    do we have a Constitutionally defined Congressional Declaration of War here?

    fuck no

    nice try with the straw man…the President wants War Powers, then he should convince the Congress to legally Declare War

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    As we’ve been over before, Gonzo, that argument doesn’t fly for the two reasons we’ve outlined before:

    1. When the country is attacked you are defacto and dejure in a state of war whether it is declared or not.

    2. The courts have already ruled that the Congressional act authorizing the war in Iraq is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

    You’re arguing the semantics of the name put on the war, because your position isn’t supported by reality here.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    and we will just have to agree to disagree

    me, i’ll stick with the Constitutional definitions

    and i don’t know what “court” you are talking about that has made this ruling, until it hits the Supreme Court..or they choose not to take it up, thus giving it their thumbs up…then as a Constitutional matter it has not been settled

    and it’s NOT semantics i am arguing about here, but legality

    why?…cuz i LIKE the Rule of Law for our Nation, and i distrust ANY politicians to define things themselves…when in doubt, the Constitution and Federal Law are the guidelines…when those get deliberately blurred by politicians, i tend to get a bit pissed

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    So a terrorist sinks a Washington ferry and the country is in war, in a state of liberty-striping that rivals Phelps Dodge mining practices? How does one set the level, the standard of war; is it just that a country is attacked? No; that’s brazenly nonsensical and trying to discuss with someone who wants you to argue for an hour about nonsense is just an treadmill exercise without the benefit of kilo joule burn.

    Gonza, I welcome and understand that you talk big principles because there are big principles involved; again obvious to anyone not trying to be obtuse for the sake of a sittign swivel ride. Maybe this realization comes naturally because I’ve never credited much waste of my time.

    Clearly there are distinctions to be made; clearly the law is there for a reason not to be gang-raped by people and politicians who don’t do anything right but are given unadulterated power to fight a never-ending war on terror. Keen. Who “think” they know better and whose path for our “security” is paved with good intentions.

    One way to sound reasonable Gonzo – and you should know better and be able to see and stop this ugly spectacle you waste so much time with here (and of course it’s your time) – is to say something outrageous and then backtrack and say, that’s really not what was meant. I never said that. It depends on what the definition of “bullshit” is.

    It’s all braggadocio.

    With respect for tactics to fight the war on terror, there is a complete process in place for changing laws as well as for emergency situations – that still involves checks and balances. Saying all politicians are scum so who cares if the one in office is coating the walls is another cop-out. And it’s not true. But it does beg the question why people run for office to become one; they MUST be different from each and every one now existing. Eitehr that or they plan to embrace the worst of what being a politician entails – the ends justfy the means – and won’t change anything.

    SKI – I have to agree with you. There is a breed of journalists who have a task and rather than report something they see, they report what they want; they have a storyline already. There are more good stories than bad reported – I have spent a lot of time wading through Newswires and local papers around the country – but I have to agree that the ones that speak to tragedy garner the bigger headlines. But just as one soldier’s torture of a prisoner is not indicative of the American military, don’t paint the entire field of journalism with the same broad brush. Big media is not my media. Broadcast media is not print media etc.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Sorry gonzo, didn’t mean to feminize ya.

  • gonzo marx

    lol..no worries Temple, well do i understand the typo

    Temple sez…
    *It’s all braggadocio.*

    well now..i understand your thinking that some of my back and forth tirades are a “waste of time” but let me give ya my View on it

    you see, i get into them because i think that the Topic is an Important one that warrants Discussion

    i don’t mind some of the pedantic bullshit that flows form it, within that are smoe very salient Points that NEED to be made

    and, to me at least, if a single one of the gentle Readers out there come away with a bit of a better Understanding of what is being discussed, then i think it has been Time well spent, rather than wasted

    does that make any Sense? i dunno…but it’s the way i Operate around here

    and bits like troll’s links in the FISA discussion, as well as the back and forth, have provided MORE info for the readers than ANY of the MSM coverage on this subject that i have heard of so far

    now, i DO think it will be covered much deeper in the months to come…but when that happens, some of us will know that it was done HERE on BC…first, and that we did a damn fine job of it

    i have noticed, over the months that i have been hanging around here, this exact phenomena occurring…days, sometimes weeks after we have beaten a Topic into glue, i see them start to talk about it on the MSM political yell fests…and many of the same Arguments that we have had here are replayed to a much broader audience

    to me, that is a “good Thing”…and i’m kinda Proud of being some small part in that

    to me, that’s part of the Best in the blogosphere, and one of the things that BC does well

    and so i say unto thee…

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    braggadocio

    not meant for you Gonzo. It’s a nice word, though. I think you give too much credit. I could also obsfucate my way through an argument, changing POVs and facts and meanings as I go just to trivialize an issue or waste toomuch time. Or I could ignore that downward spiral. Or I could do what I do – provide launching points. I’ve usually shot my wad and have not much else to say unless others bring in something I hadn’t thought of. I wish others would partake of the discussion instead of the same old same old (was it you or Shark that said something similar?)

  • gonzo marx

    i know it wasn’t meant for me…and i do think both Shark and i have made the point about partisan bullshit overwhelming intelligent discussion

    as for “giving too much credit”…perhaps, but i woudl rather err on the side of being polite enough to take folks by what they fling onto the screen, and deal with it as honestly as i can

    silly of me, i know…but i do have my own “rules” to live by

    and i understand your not liking to get down and dirty in the comments…different strokes and all

    viva la differance!

    otherwise it would get pretty fucking boring, eh?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    So a terrorist sinks a Washington ferry and the country is in war, in a state of liberty-striping that rivals Phelps Dodge mining practices?

    This is awfully hypothetical. We have a REAL situation to deal with. Why do we need to bring up alternative scenarios?

    How does one set the level, the standard of war; is it just that a country is attacked? No; that’s brazenly nonsensical and trying to discuss with someone who wants you to argue for an hour about nonsense is just an treadmill exercise without the benefit of kilo joule burn.

    I don’t think the question of whether the word of the law is absolute and rigid in the face of changing conditions is nonsense or a treadmill exercise. It’s at the heart of a major problem we face in our nation right now.

    Gonza, I welcome and understand that you talk big principles because there are big principles involved; again obvious to anyone not trying to be obtuse for the sake of a sittign swivel ride. Maybe this realization comes naturally because I’ve never credited much waste of my time.

    I don’t think Gonzo is wasting anyone’s time with his persistence. He has a position which is perfectly valid. It’s unfortunate he’s unwilling to at least consider an opposing point of view long enough to assess its validity, but moralistic absolutism is certainly a position to argue from.

    Clearly there are distinctions to be made; clearly the law is there for a reason not to be gang-raped by people and politicians who don’t do anything right but are given unadulterated power to fight a never-ending war on terror. Keen. Who “think” they know better and whose path for our “security” is paved with good intentions.

    God forbid we should have leaders with good intentions. The leader with good intentions will hopefully have a conscience and some sense of when he reaches the balancing point between necessity and doing the right thing and stop.

    One way to sound reasonable Gonzo – and you should know better and be able to see and stop this ugly spectacle you waste so much time with here (and of course it’s your time) – is to say something outrageous and then backtrack and say, that’s really not what was meant. I never said that. It depends on what the definition of “bullshit” is.

    I have yet to see gonzo backtrack. He’s got a position of principle, and he’s unwilling to consider anything else. A bit of realism thrown in with all that principle might not be a bad thing.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    Nalle sez…
    *It’s unfortunate he’s unwilling to at least consider an opposing point of view long enough to assess its validity,*

    oh, i consider it more than you might think…i just don’t agree to it’s “validity” in most cases, where i think there is some…i say so

    Nalle sez…
    *I have yet to see gonzo backtrack. He’s got a position of principle, and he’s unwilling to consider anything else. A bit of realism thrown in with all that principle might not be a bad thing.*

    again..i DO try my best to consider as many angles on an Issue as i can, then my own sense of Ethics kicks in and i go from there…as for “realism”…well, i have set my own Life on the line for my Ethics and Principles on numerous times….

    that “real” enough for you?

    but i DO appreciate that fact that you show some understanding of what i am attempting to do with my mad peckings at the keyboard, even if we do rarely agree on most Issues

    as i said above, i do think the actual Discussion has great Value in both the Abstract and the Practical

    but then again, this could all be an Illusion and i am alone in the Cosmos having some sick Joke played on me by a malevolent Deity/Devil who is trying to convince me that all this is “real”

    but i doubt it

    and so…i’ll just rant on as it amuses me

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, I hope you do realize that you and I actually agree on the principle here, it’s just that I believe that principle has to be tempered by practicality. Experience has taught me that an unwillingness to compromise dooms you to failure.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Again, I know willful stupidity is oh so fun, but wasn’t saying Gonzo backtracks. He does though when he thinks he may be wrong. Politely and without getting anything on hi=s shoes.

    It’s not the down and dirty I particulalry object to, Gonzo it’s the indulgence of others egos and the beating over and over and over again of the same points so all threads come to be the same thing. As you said, 1,000 questions covers quite a lot so I’m not talking about this thread.

    Vive la difference.

    Que?

  • gonzo marx

    Temple sez…
    *Que?*

    i was merely stating that i enjoy and revel in the Differences of Opinion

    it is my Opinion that those very differences of View contribute to the actual strength of our Republic

    tell me ya can’t visualize me and Nalle in powdered wigs on the floor of the Continental Congress shouting at each other trying to hammer shit out while telling a Paine-in-the-ass to shut the fuck up and print more pamphelets?

    now THAT imagery should be enuff ta give ya the night sweats

    but i digress

    points taken , Temple…and no worries, each to their own Battle

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Points understood completely. I would like to meet you Gonzo. … I could enjoyably disagree with you all day. Such is not always the case.

    My battles are not on BC – and most of them involve deadlines :-)
    No work tomorrow though astoundingly. Draft Guinness is on my horizon. Wait, beer before liquor. OK, that’ll come a little later …. LOL.

  • gonzo marx

    lol…fair warning Temple, there mere sight of me is enough to drive most away screaming

    be that as it may, if yer ever up in Maine….just holler

    and “battles” are everywhere…most just go unRecognized and thus unFought

    you keep tossing out the Post topics, and i’ll keep yammering away

    Excelsior!

  • Dave Nalle

    tell me ya can’t visualize me and Nalle in powdered wigs on the floor of the Continental Congress shouting at each other trying to hammer shit out while telling a Paine-in-the-ass to shut the fuck up and print more pamphelets?

    Beautiful analogy. I’d be Franklin (who I look a bit like) and you’d be Sam Adams. But here’s the catch. When it came to the Constitutional Convention the Massachusetts Legislature pointedly chose not to send Sam Adams because they thought his rigid adherence to principle would make him unable to work with others – or more coloquially they decided he was a pain in the ass.

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    Temple, I am not saying all reporters are bad, it’s only that one has to work harder than ever to find factual reporting rather than opinion pieces disguised as news. IT’s great that you speak with military members and there families and report what they say and thank, if only all reporters (and their editors) would do that. So, when are you going to Iraq to write your Pulitzer -winning piece? Also, if you have read Imperial Grunts, what’s your take on it. I thought it was a very good book,, tying together the challenges we face and those who face them first hand.

    Differences of opinion are fine, And if the person I dsagree with can state clearly what the didderence of opinion is, with facts and logic to back it up, I might even change my mind.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I read through all the comments on this piece, as well as Temple’s fine article. Temple, I especially admire your choice of books to push in connection with it.

    Vic aka Screen Rant: Please keep us out of this mess. Whatever America’s foreign policy is, it is not pro-Israel. The big shots in Washington – particlularly guys like Wolfowitz and Wolfenson and the other JEWISH neo-cons – don’t give a tinker’s dam if we die here at the hands of Arab terror. If they did, the Arab rebellion of 2000 would have been crushed in March 2001, there never would have been a withdrawal from Gush Katif, or even a bombardment there and Moshe Saperstein would still be writing funny pieces from his home in Nevé Dekalím. He is too depressed to write from his hotel room in Jerusalem.

    And this unfit middle aged man would not be on patrol twice a week with a rifle.

    In addition, any violence from Gaza would have been dealt with by simply shutting off the juice and the water – People with no drinking water or electricity don’t worry about firing off missiles.

    Quite frankly, I believe that there were WMD’s in Iraq and that they were moved out of the country six weeks before the Americans started bombing Baghdad. This waxz pikcked up from Debkafile and repeated to an audience in Jerualalem by John Loftus in Jan. 2003. And I have the nasty feeling that we will eventually see them used – to bombard Haifa and Tel Aviv.

    It is common in Israel to cover up a problematic truth with a scandal, and that is that I believe is happening in your country. And most of you are taking the bait and arguing about it.

    As for what is happening on the ground in Iraq now, I woulsd take my news from SFC SKI. He’s been there.

  • Bliffle

    WMD? What kind and where? Gas? Nukes? Hard for me to believe that nukes wouldn’t leave a trail that could be followed.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    To my knowledge, the WMDs were fitted with gas or chemical warheads, or didn’t have warheads, but the warheads were stored separately.

    Saddam Hussein never got to the nuclear stage, but some of the warheads may have “dirty” radioactive material.

    To my understanding, the missiles were moved to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    There’s no question that at one point Saddam had a great many gas warheads, a good portion of which were never definitively accounted for.

    But I think we’re pretty sure he never had nukes.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    SFC SKI: “Temple, I am not saying all reporters are bad, it’s only that one has to work harder than ever to find factual reporting rather than opinion pieces disguised as news.”

    Not really. You can read Michael Yons frontline reports, and, admirably, he’s an entrepeneurial reporter living off PayPal contributions. Plus, he writes terrific articles on the Iraq war.

    If the admin is getting bad press it’s their own fault: they have everyones attention, they make the news. If they don’t hear what they’d like to hear it’s because they’ve mistreated and misinformed the press. They can lead but they can’t dictate. The only way the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy Of The Press can operate is if the admin leaves a vacuum of news or bad news which is easily disregarded.