There you go. http://slate.msn.com/id/2097901/

Read about one of the erstwhile true believers in the Iraq/al Qaida connection, Richard Clarke (yes, the very same, that fleeting, self-inflating hero of the Left).

Excerpt: "As Richard Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week: "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning (Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center) over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." That's putting it mildly, when you recall that Abu Nidal's organization was a wing of the Baath Party, and that the late Abu Abbas of Klinghoffer fame was traveling on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. But, hold on a moment—doesn't every smart person know that there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and the world of terror?"

Hussein's depredations were indeed cited in the war resolution. But I'm more interested in what was just than what was used as a justification. And invasion was just. Bush played the cards he had, and he was justified in playing them.

As for massing other armies on borders, obviously we're not. I'm not clear why is this boogeyman is raised again and again. Do you wish that we were? Do you believe we're hypocritical for not? Every challenge requires its own strategy. Iraq had been warned for 11 years to conform to international law. But we are now deferring to multi-lateralism with Iran, yielding to the Europeans (which the Left has been yammering for us to do). Those talks will fail. Iran will not be persuaded to stop. Then we will face another choice: allow them to become a nuclearized Islamicist state, or do something about it. Any recommendations?

Hey, if you dig hard enough you can even find some wackos claiming that saddam was behind the OKC bombing too.

Then again if we want to play the several degree game we could also claim that Kevin Bacon and Al Qaeda are connected.

:rolleyes:

Saddam was a secular dictator. He may have sociopathic, he may have been pyscopathic, but he was a secular dictator. He had little in common with the religous nuts running America or those in AlQ. Control freak dictators do not hand over power to religous nutbag terrorists.

This is it, the proof?: "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning (Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center) over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." - then the British shouldve bombed the bejesus out of Boston for its support of the IRA.

By some estimates 100,000 Iraqis are dead. No one is really counting. The place is farked. Certainly, 1400 Americans are dead. And America's name is MUD, thanks to GWB and his neoCon boom boys.

Any recommendations? Well there is only nuclear capable terrorist state in the middle east. A state whose operatives routinely assinate its enemies within its own territories and abroad, a state which uses aggressive military capabilities against civilians, a state whose govt routinely conducts human rights abuses, a state who locks up its own dissidents, one that has broken more UN resoultions than old Saddam ever dreamed about. I suggest you start with Israel.

skipdub
"why did Bush go to war"
several possibilities
1) save face for his Dad who was told he couldn't go farther. I personally supported George Sr. and thought we should have finshed the job then, but we were not prepared to do that.
2) 9-11 gave a reason to go into preemptive attack mode, demeaning the high moral ground we have all grown up with, i.e. the guy in the white hat never shoots first.
3) Afghanistan doesn't have the infrastructure to make a democracy, but Iraq did. It was a target of opportunity.
4) if you think God's gift to the world is freedom and democracy, who can argue with you
5) if you are successful, you believe it will be of great benefit to the region
6) if we establish US bases in Iraq, we can exert our will fairly well
7) there's oil in them thar hills

I think the answer is a summation of all of this. But basically because he is the leader of the free world and who's really going to stop him.

rrpjr
here is one summation of just war
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

By this, this war is not just

I agree - I think Bush (and advisors) thought it was "right".

And I think they were ill-advised, and I'm not alone thinking this.

I was trembling with suspense in your run-up to the indictment of Israel. Always telling how the attack on Israel finds its way into the debate. It is the same old dirty rag from the liberal, and I daresay anti-semitic, attic -- the addled moral equivalence between Israel and terrorists. Putting the offensiveness of this equation aside for the moment (with some difficulty), what is your point -- that because Israel, as the most reviled and threatened nation-state in the world, has shown such nuclear discipline, we should give Iran the same chance? No, I don't see a point, just an attack.

Secularism as an argument against terrorist collusion strikes me as equally addled, and frighteningly naive. It presupposes that terrorists are truly religious in the first place. They are always, above all things, opportunists. It presumes, trusts, that somehow Hussein, being secular, would blanch at the prospect of dealing with terrorists, who were known to be in his nation in numbers and whom he'd also given sanctuary. It also misapprehends the danger from social and civil disintegration following Hussein or Hussein's sons. What would that power vacuum look like? Care to imagine a nexus of Iran, Iraq and Syria?

Anyway, this debate has probably gone as far is it can, at least for me. I leave you to your belief in the mudness of our nation's name, the badness of our president, the wrongness of my case, and the awfulness of the Israelis. Cheers.

Pretty funny! Yep, the Iraqis were just careless with their records...sorta like with their "oil for food" rceords...LOL...The fact is, Saddam is known for his fantical record keeping. LOL

Noone disagrees that Saddam had WMD prior to the Gulf War. He and his armies were thoroughly defeated and humilitaed. He prepared for death...and was given a last minute reprieve from US forces by UN politics. The then UN inventoried his WMD and told Saddam that he must destroy them and and provide very specific proof or else his country will be invaded and he will most likely be killed. So...you would have us believe that he then destroyed them and did not bother to keep records....or that somehow he preferred to pretend he had them up untill the day he was ousted from power to somehow scare his weaker neighbors....LOL

fintstone
Nothing any one shows you will dissuade you. The evidence gathered clearly shows he had nothing from 1991 on. And all the puported evidence of recent WMD has been shown to be at best misrepresentations. If you choose to ignore what our own government has acknowleged, that's fine, but your LOL comments do not discredit the facts

rrpjr
You want to establish your own definition of just, but that dog won't hunt.

Thank you.

You appear to be good for all sorts of hoary old gems yourself, including that any critism of Israel amounts to anti-Semetism (and btw, if you doubt Israel's terrorist pedigree, please google "King David Hotel 1948, and start from there. Pardon my addled moral equivalence, I will c&p a list of Israel's known terrost acts form te 40's-50's at the bottom of this post) -and that any critism of the neo-Con cabal makes one a "liberal". This is a consistant tactic- disregard the message and attack the messenger.

I'm inclined to agree with you re the pre supposition that terrosists are religous, but its worked pretty well for GWB so far and Wolfowitz so far. But that said, SH, ruthless dictator, had an ideological disconnect. These nutbags were his enemy, or at best uncomfortable bedmates. Terrorists were known to be in his country in numbers with sanctuary? The only evidence of this was in one cormer of the country in a region he did not control, bordering Iran.

The burden of proof lies with you my friend, so put up or shut up.

Where are the WMDs?
Where are the links to Al Qaeda?
Does anything achieved to date warrant this misguided imperial adventure?

regards, and thankyou for an intelligent discourse.

Stuart

1. King David Hotel, July 22, 1946.
2. Sharafat, Feb. 7, 1951.
3. Deir Yassin, April 10, 1948.
4. Falameh, April 2, 1951.
5. Naseruddine, April 14, 1948.
6. Quibya, Oct. 14, 1953.
7. Carmel, April 20, 1948.
8. Nahalin, March, 28, 1954.
9. Al-Qabu, May 1, 1948.
10. Gaza, Feb. 28, 1955.
11. Beit Kiras, May 3, 1948.
12. Khan Yunis, May 31, 1955.
13. Beitkhoury, May 5, 1948.
14. Khan Yunis Again, Aug. 31, 1955
15. Az-Zaytoun, May 6, 1948.
16. Tiberia, Dec. 11, 1955.
17. Wadi Araba, May 13, 1950.
18. As-Sabha, Nov. 2, 1955.
19. Gaza Again, April 5, 1956.
20. Houssan, Sept. 25, 1956.
21. Rafa, Aug. 16, 1956.
22. Qalqilyah, Oct. 10, 1956.
23. Ar-Rahwa, Sept. 12, 1956.
24. Kahr Kassem, Oct. 29, 1956.
25. Gharandal, Sept. 13, 1956.
26. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956.
26. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956.

You have not shown a thing that would make any reasonable person change their mind. If there was one bit of proof that he didn't have them...someone would have posted it long ago. Although we did not find very many during the war, the fact that we can not find them is certainly not very good evidence that he did not have them. There have been many reports like this one...that they were moved just before and throughout hostilities. What evidence is there to indicate otherwise? The fact that they are not there supports the conclusion that they were moved just as much as your suggestion that they were destroyed.

You need to stop listening to those talk radio guys who say the WMD all got moved to Bakaa valley or got buried somewhere. Our government has acknowleged there were no WMD. Why do you try to keep this lie alive?

I don't listen to any talk radio. I work all day. It is in our country's political best interest to play down the WMD now...and they are.

UN had nothing to do with the decision to stop Gulf War before they got to Baghdad and take down Saddam. Bush I's foriegn policy/intelligence team (J. Baker, C. Powell, R.Gates, L. Eagleburger, Woolsey) made that call. They were specifically concerned that Iraq would splinter into the three basic tribal territory's (Baghdad/Sunni, Basra/Shia, and Mosul/Kurd) that existed before Britain created Iraq just after WWI. Bush I staff were convinced there would be a civil war like in Lebanon.

Instead, they opted for the stability of an authoritarian regime and sanctions. According to most reports - Kay, specifically, Bush I sanction plans worked. Which is why we didn't find any WMD.

You can have multiple reasons to invade Iraq and sort them in any order you like: WMD at number 1 or 24. Nation building at 1 or 12. Oil is 7 or 3. It doesn't matter now - it only matters to history. Bush II used whatever reasons or justifications he could find or market to implement the strategy of creating democracy and dismantling terrorist resources in various ME countries.

I trust I am not the only here who thinks that is a very fine piece of comedy writing. Bravo.

When one says "the fact that they are not there supports the conclusion that they were moved", I wonder what evidence would ever "prove" to everone's satisfaction that Saddam lacked a WMD arsenal when we invaded.

I mean, if the Iraqis produced records, that just means they were forged. If the Iraqis produce the guys who destroyed them, that just means they are lying. If we've turned the whole country inside out during almost two years of occupation and can't find the WMD arsenal, then that just means they were smuggled out of the country. If the US government has admitted there wasn't a WMD arsenal, the President has stopped making that claim, and Director Goss has been busily purging the CIA for incompetence, that just means . . . I dunno, just another left-wing conspiracy I guess.

Uh-huh. The same "best interests" as having a long and painful inquiry as to why they weren't there?

The Deuffler report basically states everything in your previous comment, except the "LOL". The newsflash here is that Saddam was apparently not very stable and not subject to normal (or even staunch Republican or Democrat) thought patterns.

(edit) oh yeah, and from your post about "reports like this one". You need to read it again - it mentions no WMD being moved... just (predominantly) dual-use equipment.

Clearly our UN parnership in the Gulf War had everything to do with our stopping short. The same folks attempted to keep us from going back to finish the job.

Clearly WMD were in Iraq and they have never been accounted for....whether by choice or sheer incompetence. In either case, couple that with Saddam's history of using WMD and his willingness to shoot at our aircraft and attack our allies...there was plenty of justification to go back to Iraq. Freeing the Iraqis was just a positive byproduct. Of course the great success our military has had in Iraq has led to (at least temporary) peace/elections in Palestine, Saudi, and most likely Syria leaving Lebanon. As always, the Conservatives were right about the big issues and the do-nonothing liberals whine about insignificant details.

Much of the "dual-use" equipment was restricted from movement just as the actual WMD. There is not much difference between your neighbor having the equipment, materials and intent to make WMD or possessing WMD. It only means that it would require a slight bit more time and effort to kill you, but he gets better shelf-life on his components.

Will you at least step up and say that the might of the US army was totally frickin useless at guarding the equipment which was looted?

And that this was an oversight of enormous magnitude?

And that you might have to blame your own govt if that equipment is used to make WMD and those are (God forbid) used against anyone?

Go on - you can do it! Uncle Sam wants YOU, to say bad things about your govt and its troops.


As for me, I'll readily admit that the neo-con grand plan for the middle east has met a surprising degree of success thus far (and I'm pleased with the democracy/peace potential!), although I harbour a pessimistic view that there is still a reasonable chance it could all go to hell (again) over the next decade. It might - it might not.

I would also love to have seen if this much effort and $300b had been spent on peaceful means to accomplish these goals in the ME, whether an even better outcome might have occurred. But we'll never know.

Your “criticism” of Israel was without reference or pertinence to Iran’s nuclear capability or to our argument. It stands therefore as gratutious. If I inferred anti-semiticism incorrectly, my apologies. Still, you do not couch your attacks on Israel within some larger point. They hang out there, outside the subject of the thread, and open to the most unattractive inferences. As for your citations of “known terrorist acts,” by whose standard? Again, it is the moral equivalence argument. The King David Hotel? This attack followed the confiscation of documents by the occupying British and the arrest of 2,500 Jews in Palestine and the murder of an equal number of Jews in Poland. The Israelis made three phone calls to the British warning them of the impending explosion so the building would be evacuated. All were ignored. "We don't take warnings from Jews," they said. Regarding Deir Yassan, the Jews were trying to open up the road to Jerusalem and provide critical food and supplies to fellow Jews trapped in the Old City. Again, repeated warnings were made to those in Deir Yassin. The subsequent battle there killed dozens of both Jews and Arab, including combatants. The list goes on. If you choose not to make distinctions between Israel’s response to its circumstance as an emerging nation within a total surround of nations avowedly dedicated to its destruction, and the methods of terrorists and terrorism, who practice the murder of civilians and non-combatants as stated policy, who train young boys and girls to glorify themselves by the suicidal murder of as many Jews (and others) as possible, there are fundamental problems with this argument. I will leave it at that.

There were known links between Hussein and Abu Nidal Palestinian terror organization and al Qaida’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the world's top terrorists. Hussein gave sanctuary to al-Zarqawi. You may ignore this or dismiss it. But we all don’t have that luxury. You may argue that you cannot find evidence of an ongoing collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida, but you cannot say there was no connection. These are not entities who formally meet and declare partnerships, as businesses do. These are demonstrably violent anti-American elements who occupy a common ground, of territory, of motive, and of barbaric techniques.

I’m satisfied my proof meets my burden, though I don’t appreciate being told to “shut up.” This is not a phrase I even use on dogs, and wouldn’t think of using in this forum.

LOL. Is there no end to this? Saddam had and used WMD, or chem weapons, in the 90's. He had no capability, nor delivery capability, by the time of the 2nd war. Kay was running around with millions of $$, green cards, the whole Soprano relocation treatment for anybody who could provide evdence of WMD. THERE WAS NO WMD. Ol' Mission Accomplised has admitted that, as have most of his cabal.

The great success of the military in Iraq. Right, if you say so. Becasse as always, the Conservatives were right about the big issues (starting wars and occupying countries) and the do-nonothing liberals whine about insignificant details (starting wars and occupying countries).

Can you concieve of any other POV than Conservative and liberal, I wonder?

rrpjr:

There were known links between Hussein and Abu Nidal Palestinian terror organization and al Qaida’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the world's top terrorists. Hussein gave sanctuary to al-Zarqawi. You may ignore this or dismiss it. But we all don’t have that luxury. You may argue that you cannot find evidence of an ongoing collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida, but you cannot say there was no connection. These are not entities who formally meet and declare partnerships, as businesses do. These are demonstrably violent anti-American elements who occupy a common ground, of territory, of motive, and of barbaric techniques.

9-11 Commission report (I think) found "no collaborative relationship".

I believe Syria and Saudi Arabia would have been more worthy of invasion based on you burden of proof wrt Al Qaeda ties, so you might need to reconsider.

Surely you're not arguing that Israel's position on the Palestinian question is ethically superior? Or that their strategy is more successful? They've only been at war since 1948. The policy of annexation and attack is more suited to Israeli domestic political needs rather than long term strategic goals of resolution.

Firstly, rational secularism has been the only successful democratic response to fanaticism, religous or political, in the 20th and now 21st century. Clearly we need MORE secularism in response to irrational political goals - not less. I'm not sure where you're going with this - are you suggesting some kind of Judeo-Christian jihad?

Secondly, All politicians are opportunists - that's a given. But to think that Hussein would trust power or military might with ANYONE - especially religious fanatics - in his paranoid world is just misreading Iraqi history. It was a classic paranoid fascist state and tolerated nothing but Hussein's vision.

Thirdly, most terrorists were in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan training camps - not Iraq. Most tactical and economic support for the terrorists comes from Syria via Hezbollah. Hezbollah was created in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Hezbollah developed and fine tuned the suicide bomber tactical weapon (theory: we have more malleable minds than we have industry to create bombs - use the bodies in which the malleable minds reside as the delivery system). Hezbollah trained Al-queda in terrorist tactics and weaponry in Pakistan - not Iraq. Before that training Al-queda was a guerilla war army developed in Afghanistan.

This is like arguing with scientific certainty the marketing claims of different brands of laundry detergent that are all made by Proctor and Gamble. It's all just soap. There is a fundamental disconnect between why we went to war and the reasons given for going to war. Can we not speak the truth about WMD and Iraq? We invaded Iraq because in the best estimate of the Bush II administration it was a smart thing to do. Amidst the foggy intelligence available at the time was the possibility that Iraq was on the path to WMD. That and the terrorist connection was the selling point.

My critisism of Israel is not gratutious- it is offered in the context of your request for "suggestions". Many people think that Israel and its activities lie at the heart of middle east stability.

YOu seem to be saying that some terrorism can be justified, and some cant depending on the worthiness of the ends?

The terrorist links are simply not substantiated, and frankly, not credible. But even allowing your point, is this ridiculous adventure justified? Lordy, 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi, afterall. Want support and succour for AlQ? Look no further than Saudi Arabia.

"Put up or shut up"? I am sorry if you taken offence. Simply a turn of speech. Perhaps you should consider something a little robust than debating politics on web boards, as it can get pretty willing for someone with delicate sensibilties.

War mongers who win wars are always "right".

There is only one thing clear about WMD in IRAQ, there weren't any after 1991.

You clearly show that WMD doesn't matter, you believe we had plenty of justification w/o them. All's well that ends well. Might makes right. Is that what you promote?

I guess you could be correct if success is defined as deposing a secular dictator and handing over the territory to forces allied to iran, syria, saudi arabia and the US.

Its like a shooting gallery over there now with our soldiers caught in the middle of it all.

So let's look at the major underlying inconsistency here:

TWO major intelligence failures on BushCo's watch. (1) resulted in 9/11 (2) the assertion on WMDs.

Solution? Let's put MORE money into intelligence! Yes! Throw money at the problem! More money than at any other time in history!

Keep in mind this is from the same guy that says we "shouldn't reward failing progams" such as schools and assistance for the elderly (and more recently, food stamps).

Yep. What a guy. I'm glad he's on our side. No inconsistencies there. Nosirree.

That's because there's no Intelligence Agent's Union - or at least not one we know about...

The comments on Israel were entirely gratutious, and remain pointless. You still have not clarified what you mean or how it relates to the dilemma of Iran -- which was the issue, I thought. "Many people think that Israel and its activities lie at the heart of middle east stability"? What does that mean? What people? I suppose that many Islamicists believe very strongly that the non-existence of Israel would make for a far more "stable" region.

Contrarily, I could say that by your comments you are implying jihad terrorism, through analogy to Israel's activities, can be justified. Silly, right? But you raised the Israel issue. Your nebulous equivalence of Israel and Islamicist terrorism lingers in the argment like a bad odor. How does it relate to a "recommendation"?

To you, the terrorism connections remain unsubstantiated. I do not agree. And I would not ascribe a nationality to the terrorists as a unifying criterion for their behavior. It is more of a creed. No? It crosses borders, it finds its havens. We routed it from Afghanistan. Now we are doing so in Iraq.

As for secularism, I agree that it is a bulwark against terrorism. But I don't agree with the glib classification of Hussein as "secularist." Hussein was everything and he was nothing -- he was what he needed to be. He certainly was a megalomaniac, with a pornographic longing for mass destruction and a declared wish to remove Israel from the map. Whether or not he hosted parties at his palaces for al Qaida, his longings would have inevitably intersected with those of others equally or even more determined to assemble the means of mass destruction for various ends, many in Hussein's interests. As his nation inevitably disintegrated into sectarian violence (does history ever produce another end for this sort of thing), how would terrorists have responded to that opportunity, a lawless, resource-rich nation with a weaponry infrastructure? We're at war; these possibilities must be considered by serious-minded people.

The invasion was not an "adventure" based on the supposition of Hussein's affiliations with terrorists but a necessary action with a totality of legal and moral justification that extends back decades.

quote:The invasion was not an "adventure" based on the supposition of Hussein's affiliations with terrorists but a necessary action with a totality of legal and moral justification that extends back decades.

Again I point out that this invasion fails the historical criteria for being just. What new criteria are you using?

The problem I see with Israel is that they could hardly be seen as going out of their way to try and accomplish peace in the region - I realise that this is because of complex reasons, but justifiable or not they are not blameless in the continuing violence they face against them.

Yeah? But....

...this doesn't change the original three legged rationale for war which was sold to the American public and the world:

- Iraq has WMD (that this threat was imminent was implied, if not specifically stated)
- Iraq has links to Al Qaeda (implied that they were very strong links - to the extent that well over 50% of Fox viewers thought Saddam had a degree of responsibility for 9-11)
- Saddam was a bad man

Your govt would NEVER have gained support if the reason sold to the public were the ones you set out in your last post. They are too uncertain and absolutely not a poroper justification for war.

Let me be more specific then. Until the question of Palestine, and therefore Israeli occupation of same is resolved, there will be no stability in ME. Israel, and the US support for Israel, remains a focus and lightning rod of Islamic extremist sentiment in the ME. This is a widely held view, if you wish scholarly support for it, there is ample available.

"Glib classification"? If you wish. Fact remains SH, manical dictator, held Islamic extremism in check in Iraq. Im sure you remember the Iran/Iraq war, and on which side the US came down durng that conflict. And the FACT remains that no documented, substantative connection can been made between Islamic extremist terrorism and his regime. This is beyond dispute. To continue to argue otherwise is simply silly.

"We are at war" Yes, we are. Because we invaded and occupy another country. Under utterly false pretences.

"The invasion was not an "adventure" based on the supposition of Hussein's affiliations with terrorists but a necessary action with a totality of legal and moral justification that extends back decades."

I suspect you would disagree with the UNs view on that, and sadly, the UN has not covered itself in glory in this matter. But the UN reamins the only UN we have. However, the war would not have happened on the basis of your justification. The war was sold on the imminent threat to the US of WMD, and of the implied connection between SH and AlQ, and therefore Sep11. On the basis of your- after the fact- justifcation, totalitarian regimes all over the world should quaking in their jack boots.

WMD, Alq links - All utterly, totally false, and despite your evidenciary challeneged assertions to the contrary, they have been revealed as such.

Possibly the greatest fraud in history, Goebells would be delighted.

Yes, they are and should be. Makes it much easier to "negotiate" and/or mold them to our will if they're scared of us. ;)

Here's an idea... Totalitarian Regimes are BAD. Freedom and democracy is GOOD.

- Skip

"Let me be more specific then. Until the question of Palestine, and therefore Israeli occupation of same is resolved, there will be no stability in ME. Israel, and the US support for Israel, remains a focus and lightning rod of Islamic extremist sentiment in the ME. This is a widely held view/.."

Widely held, for sure -- this is the most worn-out catechism of Hamas apologists and Israeli floggers in the world. And you really believe that if the US denounced Israel today and/or if Palestinian sovereignty were settled tomorrow jihadism would begin to recede in the world? Rather, the forces of radical nihilism in the Middle East oppose, and have always opposed, progress on Palestianian sovereignty. It was Arafat himself who launched the infitada on the cusp of the most sweeping concessions by the Israelis in history. The poor Palestianians -- pawns for a generation. But now that Arafat is dead, it appears there may be real progress. Signs are good. So perhaps we'll be able to know before too long if this was indeed the true "source" of extremism.


"The FACT remains that no documented, substantative connection can been made between Islamic extremist terrorism and his regime."

And we should have trusted him that the frequent commerce of terrorists within his country was nothing for us to be concerned with? Clearly, we should have given him the benefit of the doubt. He earned it.

"We are at war" Yes, we are. Because we invaded and occupy another country. Under utterly false pretences."

This is why we are at war? You are willing to accept your nation's responsibility for a war that began in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. You are willing to overlook the 10 years of skirmishes in the no-fly-zone, when our pilots were under fire for standing between the Kurds and their slaughter? This wasn't a "country" we invaded, it was the fiefdom of a crimelord. But it will be a country when we leave.

"On the basis of your- after the fact- justifcation, totalitarian regimes all over the world should quaking in their jack boots."

I believe they may be doing just that.

"Possibly the greatest fraud in history, Goebells would be delighted."

No. I don't think Goebells was a fan of the regeneration of totalitarianisms into democracies.

We should invade Spain then, since we were at war with them in 1889.

No, but we, the US, can invade N. Korea at any time, but must without UN troops or UN concurrence, otherwise that would break the Armistice agreement.

Now, isn't that convenient for this neocon empire builder.

Now, of course, the left is screaming that Bush deliberately deceived the American people while he contends he was given faulty intelligence. Unlike the Clinton administration that was quick to blame any underling for a public gaffe (remember all those bureaucratic snafus?), Bush didn’t distance himself from the many men and women who are crawling around with the roaches, putting their lives on the line to gather intelligence and blame them directly like his predecessor would have. That's called loyalty.

It's true that the CIA, British, Israeli, Russian, and Egyptian Intelligence all got the weapons of mass destruction thing wrong. But before you blame President Bush for not getting it right, I'd like to remind you that he was in good company--company that got it wrong years ago.

On February 4, 1998, President Bill Clinton said, ''One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.''

Less than two weeks later, Clinton added, ''If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.''

If you haven’t noticed, Clinton has steered clear of the whole WMD thing, because his assessments were, at the time, indisputable.

His mouthpieces began to chime in and added to the percept.

On February 18, 1998, Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated, ''Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.''

Madam Albright has been making negative comments about President Bush for years now, but fails to remember that she was confident in the intelligence she received at that time.

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has recently been more restraint, seeing how on February 18, 1998 he said, ''He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.''

Democrat senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John F. Kerry, and others sent a letter to President Clinton on October 9, 1998, that read in part: ''We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.''

California Congresswoman, now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who has many times called into question the judgment of the president during this time of war, on December 16, 1998 said: ''Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.''

Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham and others sent a letter to President Bush on December 5, 2001, that in part read: ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.''

On September 19, 2002, Michigan Senator Carl Levin said: ''We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.''

The same Al Gore who now calls President Bush a liar and an incompetent said on September 23, 2002: ''We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.''

Kerry campaign bigmouth and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on September 27, 2002 said: ''We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.''

Anti-war diatribe deliverer West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd on October 3, 2002 said, ''The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.''

I guess the intelligence was okay two years ago.

Massachusetts Senator, veteran, and eventual Democrat nominee for President John Kerry on October 9, 2002 said: ''I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.''

Liberal Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia on October 10, 2002 said: ''There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.''

Ultra-liberal California Congressman Henry Waxman on October 10, 2002, said of Saddam: ''He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.''

Not to be left out, New York Senator Hillary Clinton on October 10, 2002 contributed: ''In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.''

Imagine that: Senator Hillary unequivocally linked Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. I believe President Bush made the same case.

Lastly, on January 23 of last year, Senator John Kerry said: ''We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real....''

How John Kerry can now be going around saying the President Bush misled the nation when he basically said the same thing several times before, is another clear example of HIS dishonesty and the selective memory of the press.

All these people received the same pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusions George Bush did prior to going to war. In some cases, years before he took office.

It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and call someone a liar because it'll make you feel good and help you get your guy elected. It’s just too bad that more of those who are paid to give the public information aren't making all these clowns eat their words…with ketchup on the side.