heeeey, CONGRATULATIONS on 2 weeks, smoke free! That's an accomplishment! I couldn't do it with coffee, that's for sure, so you are a better man than I.

I'm with you on the latter statement, just think the CIA and a few Navy SEALs could have done a much better job with less loss of life, less chaos, less growth in terrorist training.

I'm not even sure why a "rogue" cruise missile didn't find Saddam well before the war. In the grand scheme of the world, it would have been a much better solution.

Sorry to get you all riled.

Don't get me wrong, I mean what I say just maybe with a little less zeal. I agree about the special forces stuff etc... But then there would almost surely be civil war and possible an even more crazy leader. Still possible now, just less likely.

Yep. Congrats.

I believed that Saddam probably had some banned weapons before the invasion, and I would not have objected to my government killing him and his sons, but I was still 100% against this war. Hopefully that clarifies my "liberal views" even further.

Nothing can change the fact that decisions made by my current government were not justified, legal, morally defensible or wise. The present state of Iraq was predictable and predicted, by everyone but the Bush administration and their supporters.

I have a different standard as to how many dead and/or horribly wounded people is an acceptable expendeture to achieve a political goal; most people in the world believe that all-out war is only alright when all other options have been exhausted, and their immediate security is at stake. That is of course why this debacle was sold as such, if anyone was told the truth the support would have been nil. Now the truth is out, and large numbers of people believe that we need to support the President who invaded on false premises because we have troops on the ground, what a pile of horse*****.

Either support the troops or the administration, pick one. :cool:

I don't recall saying "Support the President" though it would be nice:) I'm saying support the troops. Don't belittle the work they're doing, it demoralizes them and emboldens the enemy. You consider both of those bad right?

Or do you consider your right to speach/dissent more important than their chances of living/succeeding?

I gave no reason for invading? But... but...

I'm not gonna waste time repeating myself. I'm a happy in my own mind (why is there a cartoon in my head?).

I for one understand your points lendaddy.

The squirrel went "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

Len, we will never hear them admit that the enemy is emboldened by bickering on the home front (even though that is a goal of the terrorist).

Instead, Fox news will be blamed for leading the obviously ignorant, uneducated, war-mongering right wingers to this conclusion.

Anyone who doesn't think that exactly what I describe happened "ElGrande" during the Vietnam war is a fool. Why would this time be any different. To be clear, I doubt most bleeding heart libs have thought their actions through to this extent. They are ignorant to their negative effect on our boys.

Tim, do you have any evidence to support your two assertions? I would love to see evidence supporting the former.

Here is incontrovertible evidence that Fox, the same people who brought you Joe Millionaire, misleads its audience:

I saw this a week ago watching Fox and CNN flipping back and forth, documented it then in another thread.

Fox reported about the Gonzales hearing that it was a jovial affair, "a love fest at times with even democrats embracing him, one calling him "ol' buddy".

That was the entire story with a few clips of softball questions.

Same story on CNN revealed contentious questioning at times, even from Republicans. It showed one Republican talking about just the idea of looking to get around international laws against torture means you've lost the moral high ground.

But here's the topper! Remember Democrats calling him "ol buddy" in the Fox report? We'll, Joe Biden was questioning him on whether he thinks the President is, at times, beyond international law in regards to ordering torture.

Gonzales answers that it's a hypothetical question and that Bush didn't order the torture at Abu Graib and goes on to say that he can't say whether or not he thinks the President can order torture because it may effect the outcome of a future case. What is Biden's response?

Biden says his opinion now has absolutely no bearing on a future case, that it's "malarkey" and says "we're looking for a straight answer here, ol buddy"

Having an independent media source be an apologist for the government is the first step in slippery slope toward Fascism. Not saying that's going to happen in the US, but as a media source, Fox helps shape public opinion. Did Fox lie in their reporting? No, he really was called ol buddy by Democrat.

Is that really what happened? No.

I watch both to get both sides. This happens a lot. IT'S CALLED CONTEXT.

Now I know why so many people are confused in this country. They are being lied to on a daily basis and would never even know it. Poor souls.

See, I knew it!:D :D :D SmileWavy

like clockwork;)

Tim, I've never called anyone an idiot on this board, and I don't intend to start now, but if you read that nearly verbatim exchange and come to your conclusion, I honestly feel sorry for you.

When you have to say fair and balanced, it's usually the case that you are not. I worry for our country. Please, please, please don't procreate.

interesting poll regarding this subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpoll19jan19,0,7592168.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Shaun, he did nail you dead on, I mean it is sorta funny:) You gotta laugh at yourself every now and then. Anyway as far as your example, may I ask which person from FOX said that?

BTW I have Fox on here at the office most times, and I did not get that impression from their coverage.

Why gee Shaun, thanks for caring, it means alot to dumb people like myself when such wisdom is passed down from such knowledgable people as yourself. Well at least you do not bring up aliens.

Now go hump someone elses leg.

Len, I can certainly laugh at myself, no problem there, and I intentionally gave him what we was after since it was actual proof that Fox misleads. that Tim would see this as proof rather than question his sources pretty much seals the deal for me that no one wants to think anymore, but rather enjoy the spoonfed pablum today's media. Did you see Bill O'Reilly last night? He think Intelligent Design should be taught in biology class. Furthermore, and this is nearly a direct quote, he said that if God came down tomorrow and revealed himself, it would be science.

Now I have no problem wiht ID and think it has some merit, but it's not science which is theory, test, refine, reevaluate, conclude. IP is interesting from a phylosophical point of view, but no one endorsing it has ever subjected it to the scientific process. they just say, look at all this stuff, must have been made by somebody, and that's the argument. And quite honestly, so many things in nature are so backward, that whoever made it, wasn't very intelligent. Yes, I have a Bio/Biochem degree and studies structural molecular biochemisty and X-ray crystallography, so I have an informed opinion.

Len, you wouldn't get the idea from my transcript of watching Fox unless you were flipping back and saw the entire clips on CNN. Like I said, it's all about context!!

You don't know you are being lied to unless you see the truth. In this case, CNN rolled footage before and after the "buddy" language give the correct context.

Fox said that it was a love fest with Senators call him ol buddy.

Do you see the difference?

lastly, if was on the 5PM news show, who ever hosts that.

Just keep your sperm to yourself, 'K?

Sheesh...even when i don't post..you have to malign me. I saw this was going nowhere on the first page where someone actually quoted Scott Ritter (Iraq's paid representative) regarding WMD...LOL...Sorta like quoting the recipients of the stolen "oil-for-food" money about feeding Iraqi children...Or a liberal on "supporting the troops."

Fintstone, prove it. Refute the message..

Refute what message?

Could you possibly mean the statement that Ritter made defending Saddam? It is not a big surprise that Ritter changed his opinion regarding Iraq WMD completely after he was paid off by Iraq. $250,000.00 buys a lot of friends. It might be a bit more convincing if he had made similar statements before his payoff and while he was actually an inspector with current knowledge of the situation...but not years later. The last time Ritter was an inspector, he was adamant that Saddam had WMDs....why would he have better info as a private citizen?

Ritter recieved 400k from an American of Iraqi descent(Shakir Khafaji - to say he was paid off by Iraq is a joke) to help finance Ritter's documentary "Shifting Sands" which chronicles the history of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.

He never said Iraq was WMD free, he said the inspectors needed time to do their job. I have a hard time believing that someone with his level of dedication to the Marines and his country would abandon it all for such a paltry sum - he could make that in a month on the lecture circuit.

The fact remains that Iraq said they had abandoned all WMD programs and had destroyed their stockpiles, the inspectors said there was nothing there and agreed with Iraq's 12 000 page report, Bush came in, killed 100 000 people, and found nothing.

As much as I try to understand it, your position just doesn't hold water.

Once again, Ritter was sure there were WMDs before he got paid..and was sure there were not afterward. He had not been an inspector in the interim and, as thus, had no new information. He had never been a filmmaker and to pay him $400k to learn to make a film is just silly. What makes you think he was such a great marine and had such a great level of dedication to his country?...and why did he abandon the Marine Corps if not for money? $400k is certainly not a paltry sum to a GI that never made over $80k a year in his like. The only reason he could make any money on the lecture circuit is his reversal of position on Iraq.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it probably is a duck.

Although the inspectors could not find significant amounts of WMD, they did find that Saddam never accounted for the WMD (as required) that he acknowleged having earlier

Heck, they just found WMD stockpiles in Albania that were lost for 30 years. The fact that we found no WMD in Iraq does not prove that there were none. I have not been able to find a '73 911S in a barn but that does not prove there are none. Just like the US soldiers....I cannot look in every barn.
As much as I try to understand it, your position seems to come to conclusions that are not supported by fact or logic.

Time: In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

Ritter: I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Sound like he was sure to you?.. well, maybe to you

Scorsese wasn't always a filmmaker either..

12 years as a Marine Corps intelligence officer isn't dedication? He only leaves to head a team who's mission is to rid Iraq of WMD. Definitely no dedication there..

Since when do think Marines are so shallow? That if you dangle some cash in front of them they will commit treason at the first opportunity?

Yeah, why on earth would any institution hire someone to speak about the events that have led to what your leader has called "the greatest challenge in our nation's history".. I'm sure they'd much rather have Coulter.. with all her intelligence experience.

I wonder if having your country bombed to hell and back makes you lose track of stuff... hmmmm.. I wonder. Maybe when your country is bombed to smithereens things actually get, you know, destroyed...

Lost in Albania eh? Wow. How many weapons inspectors did they have in Albania? I bet you a gazillion dollars that there are ZERO WMD unaccounted for in any former communist republics. I'm good for it, really.

If you tell the whole world, "I know EXACTLY where to find HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of '73 911s'" and then you can't find one.. not even sport seats or a tranny? Well, you look pretty damn stupid, and the world tends to think you were lying in the first place.

Keep it coming 'stoner. :D

I imagine that he didn't get his very first, no experience attempt in the industry fully funded. Yep, Any ex-marine that wants to make a little documentary (non-profit) gets $400k thrown at him...LOL

No, 12 years in the service does not impress me too awfully much. Clearly he could have stayed in the service and continued to serve his country instead of serving Saddam. As far as $400k being just "some cash"...lots of folks have betrayed their country for an awful lot less.

It seems that they would hire someone with more current experience/knowledge than Ritter...unless of course, he changed his story and said what they wanted to hear....Then he suddenly was in demand to speak at the liberal event du jour.

Of course Albania was not bombed...and they didn't even know where their WMD stockpiles were themselves. The WMDs were not even hidden and were lost in a very small country for 30 years! Imagine if, like Iraq, they had 12 years to hide them!

Iraq clearly and admittedly failed to provide documentation of the destruction of their WMD (as they had agreed to after the first gulf war) before being bombed...that is, of course, why they were ultimately bombed.

Please don't resort to namecalling.

After Ritter's last inspection (but before his payoff)....

Once again, Ritter has never said Iraq was WMD free, he said the inspectors should be allowed to do their job to try to avoid an unnecessary war.

Here's some other opinions on Saddams arsenal..

“He has not developed any significant capabilities with regards to weapons of mass destruction and he is unable to project conventional powers against his neighbors.” - Colin Powell (Jan, 2001)

“We are able to keep weapons of mass destruction from him and his military forces have not been rebuilt.” - Condoleeza Rice (Jun, 2001)

Blow 'em outta the water, Fintstone..

Scott Ritter's testimony to Congress, 3 Sept 98…before he left the military to accept a high paying job working for Iraqi (Saddam's) interests.
quote:


After Ritter is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Iraq he comes out with the conclusion that there are no WMD there:

Ritter quit in 1998 during the the Clinton administration after claiming that Iraq had not disarmed and that he felt that Clinton was not nearly hard enough on Iraq. After 4 years of not going to Iraq or receiving any type of intelligence...suddeny he started claiming Iraq was disarmed. Of course his current liberally funded lecture circuit story is otherwise. I guess it is good to be a liberal and when things don't work out as you planned...all you have to do is change your story and all your supporters ignore your previous mistatements..Kerry is not the only flip-flop down artist in liberalland.

If Ritter resigned as an inspector in 1998, he has less knowledge of current intel than even I do. How do you suppose that he is any more knowlegeable about Iraq's weapons programs after he stopped being an inspector than when he was one? We know that on the day he resigned, he felt Saddam had an active program. The only thing that really changed was where his paycheck was coming from. Of course he done a good job, aided by the liberal press, revising what he said and wrote about at the time.

I agree with you 100%, Ritter's a lying traitor.

What are your thoughts on Condi and Powell's pre 9/11 position?

I guess it depends on what Powell meant by "significant." If that meant on par with Russia or the US...or with Libya and Israel. Unlike Ritter, Both Powell and Rice were privy to current Intel and were (hopefully) not on Iraq's payroll. US intel assessments significantly changed after the quotes you posted while our tolerance for risk decreased. Like all leaders, they must depend on the accuracy of the info they are provided. An attack in the US on civilians was unthinkable prior to 9/11....After Saddam clearly rejoyced at our losses in 911..."significant WMDs" with mature delivery systems were not the only thing to fear from rogue regimes. Obviously, less capable WMDs in the hands of ruthless terrorists could be quite effective. A reasonable person would assume that if Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have met the terms of his agreement after the first Gulf War before going to war with a superpower. Now we know he felt secure in the knowledge that he had paid off members of the Security Council to prevent such a war. Since he was used to dealing with Clinton, he did not count on the US having a president with courage and resolve to go it alone.

I understand you now. The administration gets a pass but Ritter is a traitor.

Good day to you, sir.

Either you did not read my posts entirely or you intentionally misrepresent my position.

I am not sure if making a propaganda film for Saddam would actually make Ritter a traitor...he speaks for himself in no official capacity...other than the staus that you and other anti-war folks give him. The same folks that call similar Marine Corp majors "brainwashed fools" when they speak in support of the war.

The point is...Ritter changed his mind without any new information...other than his increasing bank account.

The administration received new information for four years prior to our excursion into Iraq...that Ritter was not privy to (as a... LOL.. "filmaker") ...clearly a difference.

I do not expect that David Kay or any of the other inspectors illegally shared any classified intelligence with him after he lost his clearance. Especially since he was being highly paid for his work on a project that benefitted Saddam. Unless, of course he learned something new when he was in Iraq as a guest of Saddam.

He was paid through an intermediary..an Iraqi-American who is currently being investigated for the large amount of money he made through the "oil for food program."

Seems several prominent anti-war democrats were also given money by the same "oil for food" benefactor as Ritter had. I'll bet that didn't affect their position on the war either. LOL.

I would tend to agree with the administration's original position.....although prohibited WMD and delivery devices were indeed found in Iraq...stockpiles, in fact, have not been. Not finding them does not indicate that they did not/do not exist....only that they have not been located. We also cannot locate Bin Laden, so why is that a suprise?

Good day to you also.