Must read WaPo article breaks down Kay Report, makes clear Bush's treason

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by superdave, Oct 26, 2003.

  1. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The article is very long, but good to the last drop.

    For all the back and forth jibber-jabber on these boards, it's clear that we went to war for fictitious reasons. That issue has now been definitively decided.

    That about covers it, right? the central assertions of the Bush administration's prewar nuclear case to be insubstantial or untrue. Doesn't get any clearer than that, right? Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after 1991,

    Translation: I don't want to be the guy whose name is attached in the media to lies. Check out the anecdote about Stephen Meekin in the article, too. Decide if you'd rather believe someone being willing to put his name and reputation on the line, or some man whispering from the shadows of anonymity. Make sure to note that the evil tubes haven't been seized, which should be the final proof, just in case you're a hardcore koolaid drinker who still can't admit what a tool he is.

    I'm not surprised these guys are all pus**** and won't put their reputations on the line. The hawks in this administration are wall-to-wall Vietnam Era chickenhawks, which goes to show that the conservatives were kinda sorta right in '92. They attacked Clinton because he dodged the draft for one year. (The next year he was in the lottery and got a good number.) But it turns out, the major character flaw that should disqualify one from public office is NOT trying to get out of a stupid pointless war. The flaw is trying to get out of a stupid pointless war that you want OTHER Americans to die in. Because then you'll start another stupid pointless war for Americans to die in.

    And if you're into dark humor, you can spend a few minutes contemplating the new spin...that the poor Bushies would never ever ever have wanted this war but were fooled into it by the evil CIA. Not only does this contradict about a million pieces of evidence, it contradicts the simplest evidence...the NIE that the Bushies are now blaming only happened because Democrats in Congress asked for it before voting on the Bushies' war authorization resolution. Now, unless the Bushies have perfected time travel and kept it a secret, they can't really blame the CIA, can they?

    Near the end of the article, there's this.

    Like I and many others have written, the way the search for WMDs happened, you can't logically argue that the Bushies were misled. They lied. They repeatedly raised the specter of a "mushroom cloud" to scare the American people and Congress into supporting this war, but they knew there was nothing there. That's why we didn't give a s*** about looking for nuclear materials.

    And then there's this ludicrous parsing of "reconstituted."

    Again, his anonymity is pretty powerful proof of the complete bulls*** he knows he's peddling.

    Once you've read the whole article, go back and notice who is speaking anonymously (defenders of Bush) and who is putting his name on the line. It's really startling.

    The Bushies are in a race now. They have to find something to distract voters before the voters' psychological defenses break down and they realize how badly they were misled. I don't think it will happen, but in all seriousness, if the voters come to grips with how bad this is, Bush will be lucky to hit 40% next year.

    Impeachment is too good for this crew. What form of death penalty does the federal government use? At this point, that's a relevant question. The execution of about a half dozen of these treasonous bastards won't bring back the hundreds of Americans and the thousands of Iraqis who died in this stupid pointless war, but it'll serve as a stark warning that should work for a hundred years for the next crew of traitors who might stumble into the White House.

    What's amazing is that it's clear now that wrt issues relating to this war (And before the koolaid drinkers freak out, ONLY ONLY ONLY relating to this war), Saddam was more honest and more honorable than Bush. Geez, I thought it was unforgivable that Bush made the god**** French look good. He even managed to make Saddam look good!!!!

    Finally, suck it Ian, Axis Alex, manny, IrishFreeState, argentinesoccerfan, etc. Bush lied, and soldiers died. You can't get around that now.
  2. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Deadly silence. That's all you get from them.
  3. dfb547490

    dfb547490 New Member

    Feb 9, 2000
    The Heights
    Can't speak for the others, but between writing a paper, studying for a midterm, various other committments, and sleeping off my BC-Notre Dame hangover, I haven't had time to read the article yet.
  4. NSlander

    NSlander Member

    Feb 28, 2000
    LA CA
    If only we were so lucky.

    What we WILL read is:

    1) attacks on on the source, and/or;
    2) insufficient post-hoc justifications.
  5. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Generally lethal injection, but the prisoner could also be executed by the method of the state in which the crime took place. (Source here.)

    Make no mistake about it, this is quickly approaching treason, and it is a capital offense. If Wolfowitz had been killed in that attack on the hotel this morning, that would have been an improvement over the treatment that he in particular deserves.

    The DoD strategy was to get first get Saddam out, second collect the accolades and mea culpas from the rest of the planet, and third clean up the little mess that we caused within a couple of months. To date:

    -- Saddam missing. Good and bad there, I suppose. Good that he's gone, bad that he's not dead or in custody.
    -- "End to hostilities" speech by Bush followed by daily ambushes by Iraqi insurgents, over 100 US soldiers dead.
    -- Other countries still refuse to send troops to keep peace; fundraising goals fall well short of targets. Congress attempts to put through Bush's aid request as a loan instead of a grant because there's no detail on how the money will be spent.
    -- Questions linger about awarding of Iraqi oil and infrastructure contracts; Halliburton in particular overcharging for daily supplies as part of their "cost-plus" contract.
    -- Rumsfeld admits internally that toppling Saddam didn't do much of anything for the war on terror.
    -- The majority of feel-good stories turn out to be p.r. events. For example. US troops sign form letters written by commanding that are sent back to local US newspapers saying that everything is great. Post-Saddam Iraqi schools reopen nationwide with cameras rolling, but no one realizes at the time that they were closed for summer break and never closed under Saddam.
    -- No set timetable for US troop withdrawal.
    -- Meanwhile, over in the real terrorism hotspot of Afghanistan, things have been described as "out of control" by aid workers there.

    And oh yeah, other than "Saddam is a bad man", nearly everything we were told in the run-up to this war was a load of horse manure. And the GOP really wants to face Dean next November?
  6. Ian McCracken

    Ian McCracken Member

    May 28, 1999
    SS Lazio Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Why don't you read David Kay's words themselves, rather than have the Washington Post decipher the news for you?

    “We Have Discovered Dozens Of WMD-Related Program Activities And Significant Amounts Of Equipment That Iraq Concealed From The United Nations During The Inspections That Began In Late 2002.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [Chemical and Biological Weapons] research.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW [Biological Weapons] agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “A line of UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “With regard to Iraq’s nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG [Iraq Survey Group] that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)

    “In Addition To The Discovery Of Extensive Concealment Efforts, We Have Been Faced With A Systematic Sanitization Of Documentary And Computer Evidence In A Wide Range Of Offices, Laboratories, And Companies Suspected Of WMD Work.” (David Kay, Statement On The Interim Progress Report On The Activities Of The Iraq Survey Group, 10/2/03)
  7. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Re: Re: Must read WaPo article breaks down Kay Report, makes clear Bush's treason


    Here's another traitor who wasn't convinced by the Kay Report:

    Q: On your meeting with Dr. Key [sic]. Although you said you (inaudible) mainly a process did you discover anything that you would - even how vague it might be that you can say and lead you believe that they have found evidence?

    Rumsfeld: I have so many things to do in the Department of Defense and Key reports to George Tenet. It is an intelligence issue and I made a conscious decision that I did not need to stay current every fifteen minutes on what's going on in that area. So my concern is are they getting the support they need to do their job? How can the process that they're engaged in be strengthened by things that the Department of Defense can do in support and therefore I literally did not ask, did not hear.


    Rumsfeld: (Inaudible) half hour meeting and say okay lay out what you found. I went in and said assuming he'll tell me if he got something that he thinks I need to know and I said what (inaudible) to be helpful and I received a report from both of them and there were some things that I think we might be able to be helpful on. Certainly I'll try this and if they need some additional experts from different departments and agencies I'll probably make (inaudible) some phone calls on.

    You have to at some point in your life, I work long hours, I like to work long hours and you have to know what you can know and what you can't engage in at a certain level and I have to compartment things and that is in my view something that the intelligence community is working on and they're working on it technically I believe and my job is to work on the things that are in my area hopefully affecting this.

    Yeah, Kay had LOTS of revelations.
  8. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    Whoever claimed that the nuclear issue was the only issue concerning the war?

    The report makes it clear that Iraq was still in violation of the U.N. treaties. Those violations were enough justification for the war. Do you realize how wacko talking about treason and leathal injections makes you look to the general public?
  9. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    I think what the report makes clear is that the shrill hysteria of the right-wing hawks about the grave and imminent danger Iraq posed us was a load of horseshit.

    So what are you? Pussies or just thick? Those are the only two options on the table as things stand.
  10. bungadiri

    bungadiri Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2002
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No they were not. Particularly when the UN itself opposed the war, when UN inspectors testified that they were making sufficient progress, and that we are, after all, talking about war. Even the Bush administration knew that violations of UN "treaties" was too low a threshold to justify war. That's precisely why they lied about a threat. That's precisely why they lied about ongoing weapons programs. That's precisely why they lied about connections between Iraq and 9/11.
  11. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    Besides, I thought the UN was irrelevant?
  12. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    Bush specifically said the danger was not imminent, and there was no shrill hysteria. The administration's position was that Saddam could not be trusted to live by the rules as he had shown clearly in the past, and that represented a danger. Kay's report showed that the administration was correct, and Saddam had no intention to live by any rules, and was just waiting for the opportunity to renew any weapons program he could get away with.

    The fact of the matter is, the inspectors were putting on a full court press just before the war, and Kay's report shows that Saddam was still hiding things. If the war wouldn't have happened, Saddam certainly would have called for restrictions on the inspections. It would have been impossible for the U.S. to maintain the military buildup necessary to represent a credible threat over an extended period of time.

    Can you honestly say that without the war within 10 years Saddam would not have begun to build chemical or biological weapons again along with missles capable of carrying those weapons into Isreal?
  13. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    "Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time."

    That's from the first thing a google of the words 'bush', 'speech', 'iraq' and 'threat' produced.

    Pfff. You were clearly not treated to any of Kanute Keller's posts at the time.

    Which is mealymouthed nonsense. Like I said, are you war-fans pussies or just thick?

    An opportunity we had successfully denied him for over a decade, as proven by the fact that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

    But hang on a sec, is that statement now the official position of the war fans? Because we started out with "has WMD's and will share them with terrorists". Now we're apparently down to "would probably have tried to develop or acquire weapons, IF given the chance and IF able to do so without being caught doing so - needed a beady eye keeping on him, that one".


    But never mind that. As above, can we take this post as confirmation that the war fans now fully acknowledge that the only threat Saddam posed was a theoretical one, which MAY have become reality in a decade or so ? Because that's not why we went to war. And that, by extension, means we went to war for reasons that were in fact not reasons at all.
  14. NER_MCFC

    NER_MCFC Member

    May 23, 2001
    Cambridge, MA
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's an article by Seymour Hersh describing the methods by which Cheney and Rumsfeld bypassed the filters that would otherwise have made selling this war vastly more difficult. Please note that the most damning assertions here are from publicly available sources or from interviews by the author. Hersh isn't saying this, he's passing it on from people who know.

    Basically, Cheney and Rumsfeld arranged to get raw intelligence data. They didn't want it to be vetted by the CIA in the usual way. The term 'cherry picking' is even used in describing how Cheney and Rummy got what they were looking for. As several of the sources in the article say, all intelligence information must be considered in the context of who provided it. Is this source reliable? Would this source be likely to actually have access to the information described? Does the information fit with known facts? The current administration bypassed these questions; they didn't want the answers; they wanted to be able to message the information to suit their purposes.

    Michael Russ, both Bush and Condeleeza Rice used the phrase 'mushroom cloud' in public statements in the weeks leading up to the Congressional vote to authorize the use of force. How is that anything other than a claim of imminent danger?
  15. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    And where is the word imminent in that quote?

    pfff yourself. You consider people on this board the representatives of the administration?

    It is not nonsense. Here is what the president himself said to the United Nations.

    It simply is not true that he was denied for over a decade. During the time after the gulf war and before the renewed inspections after 9/11 Iraq had indeed poseessed banned chemical weapons. It was only the massive military buldup that forced Saddam to finally submit. And there was no way we could have sustained that military presense over the long haul.

    The argument was always that Saddam was in violation of the U.N. resolutions, and he could not be trusted. If he would not agree to the propper inspections there was always the possibility that he did have WMD.

    Wow. And you probably would have said in 1990 that you could honestly say that Saddam would not invade Kuwait.

    Please answer this question. do you believe the U.S. would have been able to maintain the military presence necessary to convince Saddam to accept thorough inspections for an extended period of time?

    What do you mean never mind that. That is the key issue.

    It wasn't just theoretical, because Saddam had already shown himself capable of behaving in a violent and irrational manner, and was continuing to violate the resolutions that were designed to make sure he was not an actual threat.

    Yes, you are right, there was absolutely no reason to Remove Saddam Hussein from power. We all know he was just misunderstood. He didn't harbor any ill will towards us, so he never would have done anything to harm either us or his neighbors.
  16. Mel Brennan


    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Treaties? You mean resolutions, right? And your advocation of the invasion of Israel for being in violaton of UN Resolutions 262, 317, 444, 452, 465, 469, and, in particular, 694 and 799 is coming WHEN?

    Let's call your intellectual dishonesty what it is; Hypocrisy.

    In any case, the Post article is more than enough for impeachment...Bush-ites, stop your reflexive defense of the indefensible, and move towards reflecting some analysis of Bush and his cohort in the context of truth...or lies.

    There is only one conclusion for those who are not mooncalves.
  17. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    No, but they were more than representative of the sort of numpty that actually buys into the irrational scaremongering the Bush administration and the Blair government engaged in leading up to this war. Karl's particular forte was the eminently shrill allusion to "mushroom clouds over Trafalgar Square". Those of us with a less fantastical take on reality expended quite a few of these :rolleyes: on such twittering.

    LOL! Never one for unintentional comedy, your President, eh?

    But not when we invaded to "get the WMD's" right? They were gone, right?

    Nor was there any indication that we would need to. As we've already agreed, Saddam had nothing even approaching a Weapons programme at the time the massive military build-up was initiated. So the massive military build-up is not even remotely connected with Saddam's disarmament.

    Would Saddam have chosen to prevaricate, obfuscate and delay in every way possible without the troops on his doorstep? Yes. But that's nothing new and neither is it anything dangerous or threatening to 'world peace'. Like I said ... mealy-mouthed nonsense. Bottom line is that you just got all offended because this rag-head camel jockey was flipping the finger at the oh-so-mighty US of A.

    Which either is a Bad Thing or isn't - depending on what strategic interersts the US is currently pursuing.

    A possibility it would appear that Bush and co were in a strong position to discount long before they sent hundreds of US and UK soldiers to their deaths.

    No. But the issue is not in any way related to corralling whatever vague, peripheral threat Saddam Hussein was to us, as I've explained above. We didn't need to maintain a massive force there in order to ensure that he wasn't unduly naughty. He was never going to be anything other than a mild irritant. Ego trips are not just precursors for war, no matter what Rumsfeld told Bush to the contrary.

    And besides, how's that occupation going? I presume you're fully in support of the long haul in that instance, huh?

    He threw his weight around in the Middle East a bit. Whoopdeedoo. I say again - he was not a threat to us. We went to war to counter a threat that didn't exist.

    There were plenty of reasons. But none that we actually used as a precursor for this idiotic action and none that mark him out as being even vaguely remarkable in this mad old world of ours.
  18. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    You know what, before 9/11 George Bush probably would have agreed with you. In fact I was disappointed with his lazie faire foreign policy position during the campaign.

    But 9/11 changed things. We are no longer going to put up with a situation in the middle east where we allow minor annoyances and and mild threats to fester. It is a first step in a *long term* policy to once and for all defuse the situation in the region.

    To me it is much like Ronald Reagan's shift in policy from containment of the Soviet Union to active resistence within the Soviet block itself. It is no coincidence that many of the people who opposed Reagan are opposing Bush now.

    Just like Bush, Reagan took a beating from high minded pacifists at first, and I am convinced that just like Reagan, in the long run Bush's policies will bring an end to a situation where the U.S. lived in constant fear of what a fundamentally fraudulant political enemy might do.
  19. bungadiri

    bungadiri Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2002
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Same old same old.
    1. The only connection between Iraq and 9/11 is that the Bush Administration took advantage of the country's emotional response to it to launch a war that Cheney, Wolfowitz, et alia had been wanting since '91. Their reasons for wanting it had more to do with using the US’s new status as lone superpower to push a political agenda than anything else.

    2. If this war was part of a long term plan to address the issues in the Middle East, then that's how they should have been presented it. Not incidentally, this would have been seen as an extraordinary and outrageous reason for proposing war, which brings us right back to the fact that they had to lie about Iraq being an imminent threat with ongoing WMD programs and connections to Al Qaeda to get even the minimal support they got.

    3. If in fact this is part of a long term plan to address, among other things, terrorism then based on the evidence so far the plan stinks. Iraq has turned into a major recruitment tool (yeah, yeah, right, "fly paper") for new terrorists, it's made our troops easy targets for them, the war itself released a considerable amount of Iraqi weaponry into the wide world much more effectively than even the imaginary actions Bush imputed to Saddam Hussein would have. In short, so far from defusing the situation, all this "long term plan" of Bush's has done is make the world one hell of a lot more dangerous a place for raising my kids.
  20. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    Ah, the old "Reagan defeated communism" thing. Whatever ...

    And quite how it ties in with Bush's attempts to "once and for all defuse the situation" in the Middle East by blowing large bits of it up and generally doing everything he can to prove that whole 'Great Satan' thing has legs is also not clear.
  21. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.

    I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that Cheney and Wolfowitz would have favored the war without 9/11 because they indeed recognized that our policy of neglect in the region was going to come back and bite us in the ass some day, and they were right. (I certainly don't think it is a "political agenda" that drives Wolfowitz, but an honest opinion about what is in the long term best interest of the U.S. If anything Bush dismissed their point of view prior to 9/11 fo political reasons.) I think it was 9/11 that convinced Bush that Cheney and Wolfowitz were right all along.

    Did you read the quote from Bushes address? That is how it was presented, if you took the time to listen to everything the administration was saying, not just the sound bites you hear on the news programs.

    Actually I think the *long term* security of the country is not a "extraordinary and outrageous reason for proposing war". In fact it could be argued that in Both WWI and WWII there was no imminent threat to the U.S. from Germany, and even prior to pearl Harbor many believed it was vital for the U.S. to stop the Nazis.

    Why do you guys keep using the term "imminent threat" when it has been demonstrated that the Administration did not use that term?

    The administration played the "sound bite" game that is the hallmark of current political discourse. It is a sad fact of current political life, and I find it hard to muster the outrage over it that you do. After all I remember a certain Democratic senator taking to the floor of the U.S. senate saying outrageous things like "In Robert Bork's America....."

    Do you really think "long term" is six months? Do you really think it will not get any better in Iraq? If we are truly succesfull in building a pro west regime in Iraq that respects the rights of all of the religious groups in Iraq, don't you think that will have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the region, and lay face to the lie that the U.S. is in a holy war with Islam?

    Do you think the relationships we are building now with the Shiite clerics in Iraq (which we had abandoned to the tyranny of Saddam after gulf war I) will be a usefull tool against the radical's in Iran?

    Do you think the fact that we have been able to remove large numbers of troups from Saudia Arabia will help the moderates in that country battle the radicals there who were trying to claim that the U.S. wanted to take over the holy sites?
  22. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    And how did abandoning the Shiite Majority in Iraq, to the oppression of Saddam help defuse the whole "great Satan" thing?

    I think the most critical part of the plan is occurring now, and although I understand peoples right to criticize the administration, I wish more people would focus on what needs to be done now, and how they can help get it done.

    You are right that just going in and blowing things up, is not a good long term strategy. Unfortunately that was the startegy that we followed in gulf war one as far as Iraq was concerned. Now is the time to correct that error.
  23. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    By going in and blowing it up again!?!

    Fact: there is a fundamental logic gap between the US's stated aim of long-term stability in the Middle East plus an end to the demonisation of the US in that part of the world and the means by which the US chooses to meet those ends. Viewing this latest act of idiocy as a "correction" of a previous one (the aftermath of Gulf War One) is beyond purile.
  24. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    For heavens sakes. I just said that the important part is just beginning, building a free Iraq. You ignore it and pretend that "blowing it up again" is our entire policy!

    And then instead of disputing my points you use words like idiocy and purile.
  25. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Nice article. Another great example of desperate liberals looking at an individual tree and failing to see the whole forest. (But, of course, they see the forest. they just don't want their followers to see it.)

    Both the radical fundamentalist terrorists and the leftist liberals are going to a great effort to try to make the liberation of Iraq into a failure. The terrorists are using bombs and suicidal fanatics. The liberals are using the media and their well-meaning followers.

    But why? I think the reason is that there is so much at stake in Iraq. The triumph of a democratic system in Iraq would be a huge blow to those who are against freedom. It would be seen as a disaster both by the anti-western fundamentalists and by the anti-american elite liberals.

    It is easy to understand why the Radical fundamentalist religious leaders dislike democracy. They need fanatic followers and they know that religious fanaticism is best fostered in oppressive totalitarian regimes. What I find harder to understand is why the liberal elite is so opposed to democratic principles. Maybe somebody can explain it to me, but I doubt that the liberal posters here even understand the depths of the liberal agenda. This goes well beyond trying to defeat George W. Bush. I don't doubt that many who post here mean well, but I think they are being misled and deceived by the left.

    I don't think the posters here have malice. However, I cannot help to see some irony in some posters calling our president a traitor and in the next paragraph wishing for the painful death of some of the top officials of their own country's government.

Share This Page