Is that the best you have? A lame attack on a little known democrat and a jew?

Wheres the politican commentary? Where is the 'aahhh funny because I have seen that'.

99% of American's and the people on this board have no idea who Nancy Pelosi is.

Also, Steisand is supporting the war, as she did a Republican convention a while back supporting Bush and some senators.

If your going to attack the liberals on Iraq by posting a political cartoon, find one relevant...like this one ;)

http://www.theaxisofevil.net/gallery/bomb-iraq.jpg

I mean, if we just want to lambast political figures I would have posted something like this...

http://www.theaxisofevil.net/gallery/pres-vote.jpg

But I'm trying to keep on the topic of the Iraq crisis. I'm a Libertarian anyway, so blast away on all the democrats you want, I have 'toons about them as well (of course they have one good thing going for them - they don't want to start WWIII)

-S

Well then, you should be able to understand the meaning of this.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/tower1.jpg

Sure, the Libertarian stance on policing the world may say "stay out of the middle east." However, of the very few things Libertarians insist the federal-level government be responsible for is protecting the citizens.

Apparently, you see our new found situation as something to joke and be glib about.
The biggest joke are the people whom simply think this is just another round of political bickering.

I do find it something to joke and be glib about, as do millions of other well-informed American's.

I John Stewart so eloquently put it, if your out buying duct-tape, the terrorists have already won.

Having a background in the military and various other government agencies I can tell you this - if a chemical or biological agent is introduced into your neighborhood, how long do you think you have until it effects you? Do you have time to go get out the ladder and tape up all the windows? No. Besides, chemical agents dispearse within 5 minutes anyway.

So, yes, I think much of what our government is telling us is a big joke. Like mushrooms, the American people are kept in the dark and fed *****.

If you think that our government is actually 'protecting us' by attacking Iraq, then it means you are one of the 42% of Americans who responded to the CNN phone poll two weeks back who believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11. (Note - none of the attackers were Iraqi - and the Iraq Ba'ath government is an aethistic socialist government - they are not even muslim, which is why all muslim radical groups hate Sadaam as well).

So, if you really want to know why an Iraq war is a bad idea, a joke if you will, here are the top 12 reasons thus far:

1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.

With one of the weakest militaries in the region, Iraq is surely no
threat to the world's lone superpower. There is no evidence it has or is
close to having a nuclear capacity. There is no evidence that it has the
means to launch a chemical and biological attack against the United
States, if in fact it has such weaponry. There is no evidence of any
Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.

2. Iraq is deterrable.

Even if it had the means to threaten the United States, Iraq would be
deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming military response in event
of any attack on the United States. That Iraq is deterrable is shown by
its decision not to use chemical or biological weapons (CBW) against the
United States or Israel in the Gulf War.

3. Iraq's only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting
terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States,"
wrote CIA Director George Tenet in an October 2002 letter to Congress.
"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be
deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting
terrorist actions."

4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.

A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new
inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for al-Qaeda or other
terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of
terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.

5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a war.

Although there is little reason to doubt the U.S. military will triumph
relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. soldiers face non-negligible
risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad would be perilous.

If Bush administration accusations that Saddam maintains a CBW capacity are true, and if its claims of intelligence showing Iraqi plans to use CBW in event of war are both non-fabricated and accurate, then U.S.
soldiers are at major risk. Last Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that army
investigations show between 60 and 90 percent of its CBW protective gear malfunction. A Pentagon spokesperson actually suggested that holes in gas masks could easily be covered by duct tape.

6. Inspections can work.

To whatever extent Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction, it is
clear that the previous inspections process succeeded in destroying the
overwhelming proportion. Iraqi intransigence notwithstanding, inspectors
are now making progress. Despite the histrionics of the administration,
past experience suggests the inspection process can work and finish the job.

7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.

Since Iraq poses no imminent threat to the United States nor any of its
neighbors, it makes sense to continue to give inspections a chance. War
can always be resorted to later. But once a war is commenced, the
opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without violence are lost.
In addition to the obvious costs, the use of violence tends to beget
more violence, spurring a highly unpredictable cycle.

8. The doctrine of preventative war is a threat to international law and
humanity.

Conceding there is no imminent threat to the United States, the
administration has sought to justify the war under a doctrine of
preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were legitimate to start
a war because of what another country might do sometime in the future,
then there would be very little legal or moral constraint on war-making.
This proposition is dangerous and immoral.

9. Reject empire.

Many of the leading proponents of a war are motivated by desire to
demonstrate U.S. military might, and commence an era when U.S. military power is exercised more routinely to satisfy the whims of elite U.S. factions. Many proponents now overtly defend the idea of U.S.
imperialism, justified on the grounds that the United States --
apparently unique among all previous aspirants to imperial authority --
is motivated by promotion of democracy and human rights. But all empires have proffered such self-serving rationalizations to legitimize narrow self-interest. The present case is no different. Imperialism is
fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive for war.

There seems little doubt that part of the Bush administration motivation
for war is the desire to "get" Saddam, since he refused to go away after
the Gulf War and allegedly targeted the president's father. Saddam is an
awful and brutal dictator, and an assassination attempt, if there was
one, is a heinous act. But revenge should be no basis for war.

11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.

It overstates the case to say a war with Iraq would be a war for oil.
There are too many other contributing factors to the rush to war. At the
same time, it is not credible to claim designs on Iraqi oil are not part
of calculus. And it is hard to see the United States caring much about
Iraq if the country did not sit on the world's second largest oil
reserves. But it is past time for the United States (and the rest of the
world) to move beyond oil and carbon-based sources of energy. Existing
efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, if deployed, could
dramatically reduce reliance on conventional energy sources; and modest investments in renewables could soon move us away from an oil-based economy.

12. Iraqi lives are at stake.

Unless a war brings immediate abdication by Saddam, military action is
sure to cause massive casualties among Iraqi conscripts and especially
among Iraqi civilians. Solidarity with the Iraqi people -- not their
brutal government, but the people -- requires opposition to a war almost
certain to cause them enormous suffering.



So back to the topic, why do you feel that this ISN'T just the Bush Administration taking advantage of a situation to gain an upperhand over the American people?


*For more reasons to back up these statments check out:

http://www.theaxisofevil.net

-S

I think the original quote was:

"Any man who is not a communist at twenty has no heart, any man who is a communist at forty has no brain. I, of course, never had a heart."

As far as I know first used by Dennis Wheatley in the 1930s.

My even less useful $0.41.

I see that you are a fellow Libertarian, but we differ on this topic. There is evidence that he has chemical weapons. Saddam admitted to it! He said he would disarm and he has not. That was part of the conditions for him to stay in power. What is the UN doing when it just lets a rogue state like Iraq walk over them. This is not revenge. It is unfinished business.

If the USA was so interested in the oil fields, why didn't we take them when we were last there?

Sure there will be innocent Iraqi people killed, but like in previous wars, that was the fault of the dictator in power. There will especially be innocent people killed when he locates missile, armor,and any other piece of weaponary to be bombed by schools and mosques. If Saddam walks there is no war. Its as easy (not so easy) as that.

hoff -- LOL

stern --
“So, if you really want to know why an Iraq war is a bad idea, a joke if you will, here are the top 12 reasons thus far:

1. Iraq is no threat to the United States. “

Tons of chemical and biological weaponry in the hands of Saddam is a threat. . .regardless of any lacking evidence of an Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.
WWII; (after rumors of atrocities) the red-cross inspected a concentration camp to find only well treated prisoner enjoying a symphony. . . .as Hitler said "move along, nothing to see here"

“2. Iraq is deterrable.

Even if it had the means to threaten the United States, Iraq would be
deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming military response in event
of any attack on the United States. “
Iraq can still threaten by proxy. . . .do you think Saddam was smiling or sad when the planes hit the WTC?

“3. Iraq's only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting
terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States," “

Opperative word; appears (and even *that* is tough to give Saddam). It can still threaten by proxy.

“4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.

A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new
inspiration“

The ones looking for “inspiration” certainly found it by witnessing a successful strike at the US.
Further “inspiration” will certainly be found if the US just lies down because we “have no stomach for war”
We will be seen as weak little snot-nosed dweebs whom need to be further dominated.

5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a war.

Although there is little reason to doubt the U.S. military will triumph
relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. soldiers face non-negligible
risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad would be perilous. “

6. Inspections can work. “

Not with out the threat of war.
Not with out the threat of war.
Not with out the threat of war.
Not with out the threat of war.

7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence. “

Common sense said; no one could take down the WTC with a dozen box-cutters.


Mostly I wanted to tell you, sternn; If there is chemical attack near you, keep believing they "dispearse within 5 minutes anyway. "
If you believe your words you are a danger to yourself and others.

As for house to house fighting in Iraq, the USA has ordered the kits for the tanks that the Israeli's use in street fighting. They are kits that put a giant blade on the front of tanks. Their tactic is instead of sending troops in a house full of enemies, you bulldoze it over. Makes perfect sense.

Tons of chemical and biological weaponry in the hands of Saddam is a threat. . .regardless of any lacking evidence of an Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.


Ok, first how do you know he has them? Are you an expert on the topic of Iraq? Studied it for years? I myself don't claim to be, just as I don't claim to know for a fact someone has something in a country I haven't visited. Just because you hear someone say it on CNN doesn't mean it's true. I'm one of those 'show me' critics, like the other 16 million people who marched last weekend.

Even more important: Sadaam has been in power since the 70's. He hasn't attacked us in decades of being in power, why would he now? He wasn't a threat before 9/11, why is he now?

And the most important factor, if he does have chemical weapons, he got them from us. We said as much, which is why just a few hours ago Iran filed charges in the World Court against our country for violating international law by supplying Sadaam with chemical weapons in the 80's. Talk about irony.


Iraq can still threaten by proxy. . . .do you think Saddam was smiling or sad when the planes hit the WTC?

Half of Africa from Egypt to Mogodishu was jumping for joy as well. Should be bomb them next? Oh wait, we tried Somalia and learned that we are not the bad-asses we thought we were. Off topic, but the thing about that movie (Black Hawk Down) which irked me the most was how they changed a few key facts, which they talk about in the Discovery special if you saw that. In the end, our troops ran and left half of their own men behind. In the movie they changed it to the Pakistani's so it didn't look so bad for our military. One of many things they changed to make us look better than we were.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting
terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States,"

Opperative word; appears (and even *that* is tough to give Saddam). It can still threaten by proxy.

Once again, are you a well versed political science theorist who has studied the Ba'ath regime for years? You know Sadaam well? Personally familar with his polices? How can you judge a man and his polices whom you have never met in a place you have never been in a political siutation you have yet to fathom. Not attacking you personal but too many people act like Sadaam is their neighbor down the street and talk about him as you do in a personal basis. You know what you have been told, which is what our government wants you to know. Thats it. If you check around some of the international media sites and read the headlines from British papers, Australian papers, the BBC, and other news sources you get a very different picture of the man. If you don't belive me watch the special the BBC did two weeks ago when they personally interviewed him. For a madman, he did well during a live interview and came off as very rational and a good public speaker.

I mean, have you ever heard him speak? Seen him give a speech? Or just seen the quick clips they throw at you on CNN? Ever wonder why they never show his full speeches? Ever wonder what he has to say?

Don't get me wrong, he's not the nices guy in the world. He is a dictator, but so is the Columbian government, and most all the governments of Africa, and the Baltic states. No one ever has a issue with the way those countrys restrict human rights and execute people daily. Hell, Russia and China still execute people for voicing political oppinion on a daily basis but you don't see us up in arms anymore.

The ones looking for “inspiration” certainly found it by witnessing a successful strike at the US.

Further “inspiration” will certainly be found if the US just lies down because we “have no stomach for war”
We will be seen as weak little snot-nosed dweebs whom need to be further dominated.


Ummm...no. To say more martyrs will come because others were able to kill is just silly. They want to make a statement. If you take away their cause, they cannot make a statement. If you feed their cause, you make an enemy.

Being from Northern Ireland and having relatives thrown in the Kesh I can speak about this subject with full knowledge and first hand experience.

1998 Good Friday Agreement ended the current hostilities. Why did that come about? Because the government finally decided after years of fighting rebels that the more you try to take away the rights of the people the more the people will fight back.

The British government controlled Iraq until the 1940's. Why did it 'liberate' it (i.e. let them govern themselves)? Too many attacks on the military outposts. Why did the 'sun set' on the British empire? Why did it lose all of it's colonies? Because the people fought back. We now call that terrorism, of course as I mentioned before our country was founded by terrorists.


6. Inspections can work.

Not with out the threat of war.
Not with out the threat of war.
Not with out the threat of war.
Not with out the threat of war.

Repeating it doesn't make it more true. Look at Kosovo. We didn't go to war there. We sent in a few planes to help the mission that was conducted by the U.N. peace keeping force. It was a war, but it was conducted by many nations including the U.S. The U.N. can get a military force togther and deploy it if need be. They don't need us. The bombing of Serbia happened before we got there and continued after we left, until it was done. We played just a small part of the world effort, as it should be in this case. Having Bush act as a bully boy doesn't make the war any more imminent, it just makes us look like war mongers.

Contrary to what the Bush administration would have you believe, the rest of the world can get along great without us butting in to every global situtation that occurs.

7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.

Common sense said; no one could take down the WTC with a dozen box-cutters.


No man is an island. No door is a chair. Hey there are lots of things that happen that surprise us, but that has nothing to do with the fact if we err on the side of peace, less people will die.



Mostly I wanted to tell you, sternn; If there is chemical attack near you, keep believing they "dispearse within 5 minutes anyway. "
If you believe your words you are a danger to yourself and others.

You think I'm wrong on this? I have a few manuals I can email you if you like. Aside from a good read they are the current field manuals involving NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical). It's funny, the Army, Marines, and other branches of the military have manuals on what works and how to stay safe during a chemical attack, and as I said earlier, they reflect my statements.

FM3-4 NBC PROTECTION
FM3-4-1 NBC FIXED SITE PROTECTION
FM3-5 NBC DECONTAMINATION
FM3-6 FIELD BEHAVIOR OF NBC AGENTS
FM3-7 NBC FIELD HANDBOOK
FM3-9 POTENTIAL MILITARY CHEMICAL AGENTS/COMPOUNDS

FM = Field Manual

Ever go through basic training? Been hit with OC? Every been exposed to a blistering agent? If not, check these out. You can find many on the web if you search, or find a friend in the military and ask them if you can borrow their copy.

I laughed when I saw people buying plastic sheeting on the news. Know why? Certain plastics stop the agents, others are more porous and let various chemicals and biological agents through. Half the people who rushed to Home Depot more than likely bought worthless plastic that even if applied properly will do nothing to help them in an attack, that is barring they have time to set it up properly. Of course as previously mentioned, the chances of you getting hurt in the situation someone does release one of these agents is extremely low anyhow.

Like I said - 5 minutes in most cases your clear. Think SMOKE bomb, like ones you had when you were a kid. Watch how fast one dissapates in open air. Even on a larger scale, they still dissapate in the same manner.

Besides, Iraq is only known to have mustard gas. Mustard gas is a blistering agent, and is not designed to kill. It burns the skin. If you breath it in, it will burn your lungs, but death only occurs in like 15% of the people exposed, and that is usually if they are within a few feet of where it is deployed.

They claim they may have VX nerve gas (much like sarin, but a little more dense). Your probably thinking the about the incident a few years back when some whackos let loose some sarin in the Japaneese subway and killed five people and injured over 500. They used a good amount of the stuff, in a closed subway system, and only killed five people, all of which were near 'ground-zero' where the chemical was deployed.

The whacko in Korea last week killed more people (160+) with a milk carton full of gasoline because thick smoke will kill more people than nerve gas (or any other chemical weapons) any day.

Don't forget the biggest threat in any situation like this is fear. Of the 160+ people injurde last week and the 500+ during the gas attack, the majority in both cases were caused because people panic, freak out, and run crushing/trampling each other trying to run away. Even more recently, look at Chicago - not even an attack but people though there was some gas in the air and 65 died while 300+ were injured all by nothing more than fear.

I'm not a threat, I'm the guy who saves your life. People spreading fear to promote public polices are the ones who we have to watch out for.

Don't believe me? Then go read about it. Browse the web, maybe the information you find will save your life one day. Don't however believe the hype on TV and become a panic freak and think some NBC attack is going to end your life if you don't buy duct-tape.

-S

We're all saying the same things over and over.

Hoff - Better toon. I even laughed at that one.

However you can sum up my rebuttal in one line from a Tennesse State Trooper who was policing the protests in Nashville.

...said he was “surprised it’s not just the usual suspects” participating. “Bush must really be screwing up to bring out the mainstream.”

I mean first, this is Tennesse. How many aging communist college kids do you think there are in Tennesse? For him to say that, this crowd must have REALLY been straight edge.

And war protests in EVERY southern state? How many communists settle below the mason dixon line? How many hippies you know of driving VW buses through Alabama?

When you get the people in the south, north, east coast, west coast, AND the heartland all coming togther to protest in the millions, that says something.

I can't think of any other event that would make that diverse group of people express themselves in such a way. In fact as many articles point out, never has our country been so united and so vocal about an issue since Vietnam.

You get hippies coming out to fight for envirnomental causes, and college students too for some, and maybe hippies for some as well, but only in certain areas (i.e. Washington State, Oregon, Cali). You might have people in NY/NJ protesting workers rights. You may find people in DC/Virginia Maryland protesting against gun laws, but never before have you had all these groups act as one.

When you get the fat couch potatoes off their Lazy Boy recliners, get the soccer moms to skip practice, people in the southern states to miss a NASCAR event, and get the west coast to forgo their yoga lessons, all simultenously across the country, well that says something.

-S

Your comments about the events at Mogadishu are a discrace and insult the brave men who fought and died there. There are plenty of resources available online much more credible than the Discovery channel and Sony pictures - I suggest you seek them out before trash talking men of much greater honor than yourself. Like most large scale tragedies the events of that day were fed by a combination of failures starting with planning and resource allocations, timing, poor intel, and cumbersome CSAR operations. From all accounts nobody ran or abandoned their brothers, they stood their ground and against overwhelming forces fought their way out with courage and grit.

If anyone can be called a quitter it has to be the then President Clinton who responded by pulling our soldiers, tossed a few cruise missles, and then turned tail. We're paying for that mistake today.

Amen dmoolenaar.

Sternn: If you look at the majority of the groups that organized the protests and the people that attended these rallies, they fall into one of six catagories:
1. Socialists, Marxists and their left-wing fellow travelers.
2. Those who hate America and want to see American influenced weakened .. no matter what the consequences.
3. Supporters of Saddam Hussein and radical Islam
4. Teenagers and young “adults” who don’t know what they don’t know. 5. Uninformed idiots at that age when they know everything and have the answers to all of the worlds problems.
6. True pacifists would wouldn’t raise a fist to protect their own children.

dmoolenaar - The Discovery channel special was done with the writer of the movie (Mark Bowden) and the ACTUAL men who survived the ordeal and the movie was based on. I find it hard to believe they would make something up like that, especially since it makes themselves look bad. They were honest in the interviews. They thought the men running behind the hummers were enemy soldiers who killed the other American's and stole their uniforms, so they left them.

The actual soliders who drove the hummers said so in those exact words. I'm not disgracing anyone, just the guy who bought the DVD and the Discovery DVD as well. And if you read the book (which I also own) it says as much. Pakistani's let the US borrow the extraction vehicles, but American's drove them. They give personal accounts in the book and the documentary. Some even apologize for leaving their own men behind.

If you don't believe me, read the book or watch the documentary or preferably both before you take personal attacks at me. As they say - don't shoot the messenger.

Clinton did exactly what was needed. We were not supposed to be there in that capacity. We were supposedly guarding food deliveries to the people. However the CIA turned the mission into an attack on the powers that be because thats the kinda thing they love to do. Thats why Delta Force ops were used instead of normal military ops. It just turned out this was one of those times they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar (like the Iran/Contra scandal). Of course Clinton pulled thr troops out. He found his military was running a full scale military assualt on a nation we were supposedly protecting behind his back. That doesn't bode well for America, must less the administration.

Hoff - 16 million people and they all fall neatly into your sub-culture categories? Even though the media interviewed large cross-swatches of the crowd and found very mixed groups, including people who most would call 'average' Americans. Also the protests included very large groups of Veterns from various wars. Many of the persons involved in the Human Shield project right now in Iraq were former soldiers who fought in Desert Storm. Are they commie liberals as well?

Once again, the topic degrades from a political discussion to nothing more than name calling on the part of the war hawks. Don't feel bad though, Bush resorted to that too when he ran out of intelligent things to say months ago. Now its just 'he is evil' and 'we need to fight this <fill-in-the-blank-with-some-ignorant-texan-slur>'. No rational, just name calling.

-S

I give
 

okay, okay; stop typing now.

I'll admit you have turned me on one prior belief;
your assertions *do* validate your decleration.

"Sternn -- Drunken Member"

There is no name calling to anyone on this board. Just a simple statement. Go look at who sponsored the majority of these protests. They are what they are. Also I didn't say all. I said, "majority". How about going to www.brain-terminal.com It sounds like you're the one wanting this to become a name calling session.

The name calling was more aimed as the person who said I things about the movie (...I suggest you seek them out before trash talking men of much greater honor than yourself...) along with his other thinly veiled insults.

Irony is - I just pointed out a few passages from the book and the interviews with the men he is defending.

Anyhow, I was at the protests in DC. It wasn't just the normal protest groups you normal see out. I was there with a half dozen Dept. Of Defense contractors and some Pentagon employees. They were protesting as well. Thats one reason I laugh when you throw all of the protestors into those neat little boxes and try to file them away.

Some Marine buddies from Norfolk that haven't been sent out yet were even there, as were many congress persons and others. This is the second time DC has had a protest and many politicians, military personel and other imporant government employees came out to protest war.

I chuckle to think some of these guy who I know, who have never had more than one beer in their lives, and make it to church every Saturday with their families, working in security clearance government positions were out protesting and people call them liberal hippie communist beatniks.

If you knew them, you would laugh too. Think Ashcroft clone in a nicer suit. This is a guy who will eat the wrong food if the waitress brings it because he doesn't want to make a scene.

But the bottom line is, those people are there protesting as well, and in numbers.

-S

Jeez you're becoming annoying. Just trolling perhaps? First you state Now after being called on it you change up and offer a more favorable explaination that the troops were just confused. Big difference between being confused in battle and outright abandonment. Huge. The Pakistani troops were slow to organize and the coordination between commands was to difficult to overcome for a search and rescue mission. Not once in the movie did I get the feeling that soldiers wanted to abandon their fallen or trapped. The few in the trucks screaming to move out were panicked and not aware that others were still not accounted for.

(Edit)- This was also echoed in the first hand accounts taken from statements and interviews with those that were there.(/Edit)

Jesus its sure easy for you to sit and pick apart their actions under battle in the comfort of your chair.

Secondly, the U.S. was there in support of the UN, along with other Pakistan, France, and Italy, to help those being murdered/starved by Gen. Mohamed Farah Aidid. Things turned ugly and people were killed on both sides so the decision was made to extract Aidid. This was not a full scale assault against the nation but a measured response to the resistence offered by Aidid and his legions of terrorists.

Man what gets me these days are the folks who only offer portions of the truth to undermine the U.S.. Who am I gonna believe, President Bush, Cheney, and Powell, armed with the latest intelligence, or some dude in a penis costume with a poster of President Bush in his hand (today on CNN).

Once again let me emphasize I did not say "all". I said "majority".

Also, had the US gone in with tanks like it had intended, the out come would have been totally different I believe. That was just one of the "tea cup" wars from the Clinton administration