I'm wondering if Joe Wilson's motivation is not getting a sweet ambassadorial post to Germany or England, following his yoeman (wildman) performance in Iraq in '92. Personal pique can be a strong motivation.

"asking some hairy-legged college chick that reeks of clove cigarettes if she’d like to get together later"

Her name was Genevieve,
she had a whole henna sleeve
That said "Who cares what men achieve?"
And under her arm?
"America's Wrong,"
By Erica Jong.

Leanin' against the bus she sez:
No blood for oil, I sez
No cud for soil, she sez
No bills for spills, I sez
No swill in gills ...

-"N.O.W."
MC Paul Barman

What the hell is going to happen to our country if the unfortunate (Democrat President) occurs?

With their lack of respect for the truth that has been explained over and over, obvious love of our enemies and fear of using force against those who want us all dead. It scares the hell out of me.

While I was working distractedly on dismantling the Sire of JPod's "well, it was obvious Iraq had WMD's...everybody knew!" bullshit, it seems that Kevin Drum was working diligently:

"His basic case is that lots of people — including some liberals — believed that Iraq had WMD, so obviously the president did nothing wrong.

Fair enough. Lots of people did believe that Iraq had WMD before the war. The problem Podhoretz doesn't bother wrestling with, however, is that after the war concluded we discovered that there were also a fair number of people who had been skeptical about Iraqi WMD. INR, for example, thought the African uranium was bogus. DIA thought our prime witness for Iraqi-al-Qaeda WMD collaboration was lying. The Air Force found the evidence on drones to be laughable. DOE didn't believe in the aluminum tubes. None of these dissents was acknowledged by the Bush administration."

-snip

"Unless you think that going to war is no more serious than planning a marketing campaign for a new brand of toothpaste, all of this contrary evidence should have been publicized and acknowledged along with all the evidence that went in the other direction. It wasn't. Given this, the fact that so many people believed that Saddam had an active WMD program simply doesn't perform the analytic heavy lifting that Podhoretz thinks it does.

In any case, if it's really true that the Bush administration did nothing to spin, exaggerate, or lie about WMD before the war, why are war supporters so relentlessly trying to suppress any congressional investigation into this? You'd think they'd welcome it instead. For a bunch of innocent bystanders, they sure are acting awfully guilty."

...and, as I've pointed out numerous times, in their speeches- especially the SOTU- Bush and Cheney made it sound like a) we were in dire threat of imminent attack, and b) Saddam was solidly linked, if not personally reposnsible, in part, for 9/11.

I've heard too many people heatedly insist that Iraq was behind 9/11, and that Osama and Saddam were in cahouts...where did they get that information?

whoops...for got the link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007530.php

Spin all you want Zorro, but the intelligence, from many sources collected over the years, pointed in a direction that no responsible American president, and no responsible American legislator, were going to ignore.

The burden was on Iraq and they failed to meet it. In the changed climate after 9/11 they went from an acceptable risk to an unacceptable one, and they lost.

And so did you.

Wrong, Mikey. Saddam KNEW what the Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Podhoretz Cabal® wanted. He had to dismantle his WMD programs, but he could not look weak doing so. So, the game of cat-and-mouse with the inspectors, the rhetoric oh, and "Baghdad Bob". Saddam's success depended on his looking tough.

When it became clear that the US was set to invade regardless, he became open to the Bush suggestion that he go into exile. His acceptance of exile was ignored. It was all the same kind of bluff that Saddam was making.

The political weather changes just as the clouds do...

...in 5 years or so, when a Democratic centrist is in the White House, and the country puts away our rightwing—Christian glasses- realizing that we had perfect vision all along and didn't need them to see what was "right and just"— we will look back on our kneejerk reaction to 9/11 with shame.

Speaking of right and just— the ANWR drilling debate seems to have ended, with the muskox winning. There is hope.

lies or incompetence, your choice cretins:
There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“We found the weapons of mass destruction.”
– President Bush, 5/29/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

“Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03

Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor ” that “ will not require sustained aid ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

“The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

who's losing:

"And, by 55 percent to 44 percent, the public now believes that the Bush administration intentionally misled the public in making its case for war with Iraq, rather than telling the public what it believed to be true at the time.

When it became clear that the US was set to invade regardless, he became open to the Bush suggestion that he go into exile.

And we were quietly willing to accept that. It was actually the Arab League that vetoed that possibility.

Sorry Zorro. You're full of it, for reasons that have been laid out ad infinitum. It certainly shows your Mapes-like compulsion to find something, anything to hang Chimpy McHallibushitler with. The intelligence pointed in that direction and no reasonable, sane, non-BDS suffering member of Congress or President was going to make any other decision.

That the information may have been inaccurate, and inaccurate for a long, long time is something else altogether.

You really should get that obsession checked Zorro. It ain't healthy.

Mikey, you know better than that!

My obsession is this:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643703.html

Chips and Zorro, one more time down the memory hole. But Chips, at least, has it at least partly right. There were lies. So many, in fact, I can barely undertake it.

"[W]e 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy "Pants" Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002,

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Jay Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Lies or incompetence, cretins, your choice. I'll be the blue guy, over here in the corner, holding my breath for the tidal wave of indignation I'm sure is only moments away. Joe, Mike, have 911 on speed dial for when I pass out.

Mike, Joe, Al, John, Chrissie,

Sorry for the abuse of the bandwidth, guys, I just didn't have anywhere to link to. Over the past 3 years or so, I just clip and save those things when they come up. Got a whole file.

Yeah, I know its wasted on these pumpkinheads, but I guess it never really hurts to intellectually undress their arguments for all to see again.

More Lying? This certainly is VERY interesting:

"...in February 2003, when the U.N. presentation occurred, the local Pacifica affiliate contained an interview with a correspondent in Baqhdad, non-embedded, who watched the live broadcast of Powell's speech with a room full of Republican Guards. When the tape of the intercepted phone conversation was played, widespread laughter erupted in the room. The accents employed by the alleged Iraqi officers were so geographically inappropriate -- attributed by the actual Guards as either Saudi or Jordanian -- that the immediate effect was comical. I don't recall the reporter and can't identify him now. But with all the other pretexts for war now being identified as ill-considered at best and fraudulent at worst, this experiment is easily reproduced: Play the tape for a selection of Iraqi sources and have them identify where the speakers are from. If the result is as described, this would seem more of a smoking gun than possibly even forged memos: Somebody recorded fake audiotapes and couldn't even be bothered to cast the right nationalities -- or else couldn't tell the difference.

The clip itself is here(http://www.state.gov/p/nea/disarm ), it's the third clip, labeled "Modified Vehicle." If anyone knows someone out there with a knowledge of Iraqi dialects who isn't presently in some CIA black ops prison camp and could review the tape, we'd certainly love to hear about it."

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/colin-powell-still-1-for-6.html

Not a problem, johnny. You raise some good bi-partisan reasons for the war the IL's would rather forget, even if it is their own words.

Oh, just for fun:

"And, by 95 percent to 5 percent, the public now believes that the Bush administration was intentionally misled by the CIA in making its case for war with Iraq, rather than admitting to the President that they were totallly clueless and incompetent."

See, chipster? Anybody can make this stuff up.

Its sad when there are so many who would rather believe their own warped theories than embrace the truth. They discard the evidence and grasp blind partisanship like some holy icon. When we look at history and ask ourselves how could the Europens have deluded themselves about Hitler or taken the Oxford pledge we only need look at the rantings of Zorro.

What is disturbing is that the media in its blind hatred of the GOP is willing to sacrifice the truth for an agenda that will cripple the US for years, repeating their performance in Vietnam.

This does not bode well for the nation.

"...we will look back on our kneejerk reaction to 9/11 with shame."

We will look back with pride and those who opposed the liberation of 25 million people, instead of feeling shame, will pretend they hadn't opposed it.

Even if we admit (which, by now, we all should) that we were mistaken about WMD's, and even if we admit that Hussain had no relations with AQ (which I am not yet willing to do) then two of several reason for invading become invalid. That would underscore even more how our actions in Iraq are noble. Bush used WMD's and the AQ connection to create an "It's in America's best interest" argument. If those arguments break down, the only reasons left are totally selfless ones. We risked mostly American lives and spent mostly American money to help foreigners without any return payment expected.

I know Zorro is going to argue with my "mostly American lives" statement, so please allow me to preempt. I will use the most commonly accepted number of 25,000 to 30,000 innocent Iraqi lives lost since our invation. Of those, only about 9,000 to 12,000 were caused directly by coalition fire. The remaining were the result of increased crime and terrorist activity. I will concede, however, that those remaining deaths would not have occured if we had not invaded.

By doing the 4th grade math, we find that in the 30 months since our invasion, just over 900 innocent Iraqis have died per month, on average. Not good, but... According to Amnesty International (no supporter of Bush foreign policy) about 500,000 innocent Iraqis died between 1991 and 2003 - a span of about 144 months. (The 500,000 number is characterized as a low estimate because it represents the number of bodies actually found in mass graves. A.I. thinks there were probably more, maybe as many as another 500,000 who were murdered by the former regime. Just haven't found all the bodies yet.) That average is just under 3,500 per month.

So, almost four times fewer innocent Iraqis have died every month since our invasion than died prior to it.

And that's just the body count argument. Do I need to go on about liberty and democracy?

"And, by 95 percent to 5 percent, the public now believes that the Bush administration was intentionally misled by the CIA in making its case for war with Iraq, rather than admitting to the President that they were totallly clueless and incompetent.”
See, chipster? Anybody can make this stuff up."

I guess you have to believe all bad news about dipshit Bush is made to make it throught your rightwingnut day:

"By 55 percent to 44 percent, the public now believes that the Bush administration intentionally misled the public in making its case for war with Iraq, rather than telling the public what it believed to be true at the time."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005252.shtml

CBS POLL

Oh yeah, I forgot: CBS is part of the elitist left wing media.

How about:
" The survey showed 57 pct of Americans believed Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war, compared with 35 pct who said he gave the most accurate information he had."

from elitist left wing media rag, the Wall St. Journal

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/11/09/afx2328524.html

I will answer my own question, were doomed.

Dougie,

we weren't mistaken, we were MISLEAD.

I am certainly not trying to stand up for Saddam, he was ruthless and brutal, and should be where he is- in prison...

...BUT! That is not why congress authorized the president's use-of-force. That is not why the majority of the people of the United States supported Bush's decision.

Don't forget that we live in a country of, by and for it's citizens. If Bush had laid out the case that Saddam had to be removed because he was brutalizing 25 million people, the American public would not have supported a multi-billion dollar war, and most especially not the loss of US GI's.

No, Bush made the public believe that the threat was "to come in the form of a mushroom cloud".

By the way, what of all of the yellowcake that we removed to the US from Iraq soon after we invaded? It hasn't gotten much media play, but Saddam didn't need Niger...he already had his own, well known and documented yellowcake.

Zorro,

You may not assume that us hawks are only so because of what Bush told us. The intelligence I heard was mostly gathered before Bush took office. I and a great many others (including some of the current crop of doves) were convinced years before he even announced his candidacy.

But what if we were wrong? The possibility was slim, I thought, but still possible. What then? Would it have been OK for us to invade another sovereign nation, overthrow its government and replace it with one more to our own liking? The answer my consious always returned was, "Only if it was in the best interest of the majority of Iraqis, since it wouldn't be in the US's best interest." I thought all this, whether you believe it or not, before Bush's "Axis of Evil" SOTU address.

We were indeed mislead. Saddam Hussain had virtually everybody fooled.

"Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have."

left wing traitor, Pat Buchanan

"A CIA document shows the agency in January 2003 raised questions about an Al Qaeda detainee’s claims that Saddam Hussein’s government provided chemical and biological weapons training to terrorists—weeks before President George W. Bush and other top officials flatly used those same claims to make their case for war against Iraq."

Newsweek

"What the hell is going to happen to our country if the unfortunate (Democrat President) occurs?"

I'm guessing civil war before the succeeding election. Considering which side has all the men and all the guns, it should be short.

I do not trust the Democrats to protect me. The only thing that happens when you suck up to a terrorist is, you get blown up. Look at France, you see the Democrats in action.

"I’m guessing civil war before the succeeding election. Considering which side has all the men and all the guns, it should be short."

Considering which side gave us Mike "GREAT JOB" Brown, it should be short.

I See-BS was brave enough to show the demographics of their poll ... or perhaps not.

You're pathetic, chips: the best you've got is a CBS poll? It isn't official unless it's been faxed from a Kinko's in Texas, you know. Didn't you get the memo?

I wonder, did the NBC/WSJ poll, at least, give demographics? NO? Gee, I wonder why. No, I know, it couldn't be media bias - must just be sloppy reporting. Like those GM trucks that kept expoding, just sloppy work. Unless ... could it be both?

Surely Newsweek must be right:
A CIA document shows the agency in January 2003 raised questions about an Al Qaeda detainee’s claims that Saddam Hussein’s government provided chemical and biological weapons training to terrorists—weeks before President George W. Bush and other top officials flatly used those same claims to make their case for war against Iraq

The only problem with that claim is that it is a flat out lie: Bush and other top officials never claimed this at all. Neither Newsweek or any of you other lefty twits have produced a quote where Bush even hinted this, yet you bray it like donkeys as established truth because you've fooled yourselves into believing it. To put it in language you might understand, chips, the lying liars are lying to you, just as you are trying to lie to me. Let me try to make it even clearer to you - we don't believe "major media" polls any more. As I pointed out to you above, you can make a poll show whatever you want. The MSM have been caught in a lie too often where Bush is concerned, just like ... you, their clientele. Their credibility is as bereft as your own, and when they won't even provide the basic data on their polls ... well, their accuracy speaks for itself, happily for our side.

So we'll see you at the ballot box, losers. Getting used to it yet? The losing, I mean.

"Today, 36 percent of Americans approve and 53 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president."

left wing extremist media, FOX news.

"So we’ll see you at the ballot box, losers. Getting used to it yet? The losing, I mean."....

Dem win:
VA Governor (after dipshit Bush joined campaign)
NJ Governor

Dems Defeat the Arnold-ator

Dems Defeat the full slate of Dover PA/Creationist/Republican knuckleheads

...see you in 2006, cretin.

It really is amazing that the BDS sufferers here cannot accept that the Bush administration could actually have made the case for war based on an honest assessment of the available intelligence information, that the Bush administration is honestly trying to defend the country.

No, it must be some nefarious plot for some nefarious reason - and the various reasons are expounded: Bush's dad, Halliburton, oil, zionist rpodding, empire, racism, etc. Every reason but the most stright-forward of the reasons - that a psychopathic dictator who yearns for revenge against the United States and has a penchant for WMD's and a history of terrorist links really is not someone who can be trusted, and out of the available whackjobs in the area Saddam Hussein was the easiest one to take because of geography, military strength, internal dissidence, failure to abide by an armistice, etc.

No, it must be something much more sinister.

Truly, the pull of Bush hatred is a strong force, beyond logic, reason, and common sense.

here's a thought: Bush made the case for war out of ignorance and arrogance.

does that make you cretins feel better?

does it give greater meaning to the 17,000 American casualties?

does it change the fact that: Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan.

neocretins and dipshit bush: the worst things to happen in this country ever...

Well pilgrim, if they really are the worst thing to happen to this country, ever, (not that I grant you your delusion, but you seem to cling to it despite all efforts on our part to reason you out of it) then why are you still here?

Could it be that you're just another cowardly little shit with pretensions of adequacy, lacking (as all Leftards do) any strength of conviction?

I think it is.

Yes, there's a bit of twisted logic: The neocretins have fucked up the country so I should respond by emigrating...I guess it goes along with the chickenshit chickenhawks cheerleading a war they have no interest in taking part in.

crawl back in your hole, you're scaring the children.

My point proven. Thank you, chippy. It does appear to be a form of arrogance on your part. Because you disagree those who disagree with must not only be incorrect, they must be incorrect for all of the worst reasons, not that they looked at a set of facts and came to a different conclusion.

It certainly raises your status in your own lights when those you oppose are not merely incorrect, though honest (not that I'm concedeing anything to you) but that they are darn near diabolical instead.

You seriously need to get over yourself. You're not all that and a bag of chips. You're not even a stale pretzel.

Funny how chip didn't have a snappy little 3rd grade comeback for all the Democrats' quotes I posted, idinit, Mikey?. I wonder why that is.

And by the way, chips,

Jibes are the only thing that remain. The movement which once boasted it would rule the world through the vanguard of history calls it a triumph when they can camp out on a Texas field next to a lunatic woman. Or crows when a constitutional convention is postponed for a week. Celebrates when two incumbents don't lose their seats. Woo-hoo!! V for victory!!! But the sneers are empty now; the mantle threadbare.

In a way the only power you had was that of cant and obscurantism. People are waking up now. In the catalogue of human ideas the Left will rate no higher than the Cathars. Who are the Cathars, you ask?

Exactly.

By the way, chips,

Q: what do you call a Republican President with an approval rating of 1%?

A: Mr. President. For over three more years. Lol.

Better save some of that rage, its going to have to last you.

With whats going on in France,Jordans 9/11..damn this is such a bullshit discussion..period..

what do you call Americans who trusted Bush's competence?

dead

Dear chips:

Sept. 11, 2001 - About 3000 dead in one day on our soil, cost, about a dozen hijackers.

Iraq War, 2003-Present - About 2000 dead over three or so years, less than on that single day. Cost to our enemies, thousands of terrorists, one potential base, Saddam's regime of murder and mayhem, and millions of Iraqi oil funds going to Palestinian terrorists.

You can play it one of two ways. I wish there was a third one where nobody gets hurt. Unfortunately the US doesn't get to make that choice alone, or we would rightly make it every time. The enemy has a say as well, so it is one option or the other. I don't know about you, but the second seems to be more logical, unpalatable as either is from a moral standpoint.

I dunno, Mike, you're purty mouthy for a dead guy.

A few corrections needed for the chipster:
Dem win barely hang on:
VA Governor (after dipshit Bush joined campaignbarely keep seat)
NJ Governor (after dipshit McGreevey screwed them by preventing a mid-term vote when he resigned in disgrace - barely keep seat)

Dems Defeat the Arnold-ator a few pro-worker resolutions. Congratulations, the state employee's unions are stronger than ever!

Dems Defeat the full slate of Dover PA/Creationist/Republican knuckleheads

You're kidding, right, chippy? Even your brief little election fantasies are full of errors. The Dems manage to barely hang on to some of the few seats they still have, and win a local election, and you see this as a great victory? HAHAHAHAAHAAA!! By all means then, clown, you just keep on winning.

You missed the short bus to take you home for naptime again, didn't you, chippy?

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

Terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

Many Muslims are being used like the Germans and Japanese of WWII::being used to hurt others and envoke condemnation upon their people.

They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.

Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this."

This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
god is evil because of money.

I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.

But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, market domination being one clue, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

I offer an example of historical proportions:::

People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with a lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

I believe the coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals. Malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they "decided" who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.

Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. These seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.

Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
It was set up this way. Perhaps dyanstic thrones had a say, but maybe not.
Budda was the Asian's Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. "They came up at the same time for a reason."

Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect."
"You'll see lots of nuns where you're going:::hell!!!" St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their bondage in Egypt proves their disfavor. Were they preying on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite?

I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack "god's" most favored people will pay for it dearly one day.