So we just drop a few bombs on the mullahs in Tehran and all will be well? They'll fall, Syria will fall, and we won't stir up any anti-American nationalism in either country, or provoke Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow moderate states like Egypt or Jordan?

What are you smoking? I'd sure love to live in your fantasyland, mon.

Tell you what. Go take all your little plastic soldiers and plastic planes and plastic tanks to the sandbox and play "bomb the A-rabs" to your heart's content.

The rest of us live in the real world.

Except maybe Bush, who is still looking for Daddy to bail him out of our last failed trip to neocon dreamland.

You say, "What troubles me is his reluctance to publicly admit that those most responsible for the continued support and spread of violence in Iraq is not al Qaeda, but Iran and Syria."

That's SO funny!

It seems clear that the single person most responsible for the continued support and spread of violence in Iraq is George Bush.

Of course, that fact is in perfect alignment with the additional fact that the single largest individual holder of the T-Bills financing the Iraq War for Profit is George W Bush.

The more debt Bush creates, the more personal profit he rapes from the innocent taxpayers of America.

bush most certainly does not get it...but the neo-cons who brought you this war get it, and they got it way back in September 2001 when they urged a regime change in iraq even if evidence showed iraq was not associated with 9/11. they knew then that syria and iran would be involved as was the isreal/palestinian conflict. they saw that this would indeed extend beyond iraqs borders and was ultimately to become a region wide conflict. unfortunately these chicken-hawks had their ever-present blinders on, and refused to see the awful places it could lead. now we are stuck with a problem that could have been handled so much better in other ways. but the neo-cons had it all figured out. or so they thought.
do you actually believe the US is in a position to "...rebuild their societies from the ground-up..."? we don't even seem to be able to rebuild afghanistan - a relatively simple task. we have already put the country our children and their children will live in into an awful financial position. we have stretched our military to the breaking point. and you want to rebuild the societies of the middle east? what are you smoking? the blood of 2800 soldiers, and the limbs of tens of thousands of others are on your hands for supporting this war of choice. how many will be enough before you wake up from your delirium?

If syria is such a problem why do we outsource our torturing to them?

Yes, more war...that makes sense. This administration has prosecuted Iraq so competently. We're swimming in so much success in the Middle East.

What patently blows me away is the deliberate short-sightedness of my liberal guests.

They all seem to be under the delusion that if we simply pull out of Iraq, that terrorism will somehow cease to exist.

I’ve got a news flash for you, kids.

9/11 happened before we went into Iraq or Afghanistan, and if we retreat from either country, for any reason, those fighting us there will rightly consider it a victory, and attempt to execute more and more attacks against us.

I understand that you really don’t care about the Sunni genocide that would almost certainly erupt if we leave as you desire. Despite all your talk of respect for multiculturalism, like so much of your character, it is only skin-deep. The defeat for Bush and the neocons you dreamed of is certainly worth a few tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the spreading power of a nation that wants to “wipe Israel off the map,” right?

Of course, that might mean the deaths of a few million to tens of millions of more souls in a nuclear exchange, but you could always claim you didn’t see it coming, just as your ideological forefathers did as the made room for Nazism in Germany in the late 30s.

Oh, wait… you don’t have that excuse. You can see it coming, but you are just so focused on your short-sited goal that like Gollum, you can’t seem to grasp the larger effects of your myopic quest for power, or else, you simply don't care.

GET BUSH!

No matter the cost.

Joe et al.

Try reading something other than the WaPo, NYT and KOS for your news. Yes - there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. Very astute of you to figure that out. Now riddle me this because you are all so bright? How many insurgents are there? C'mon - you can do it. Just a simple number.

BTW - Iraq has been a growing problem for over 20 years - it became more critical after the Iran-Iraq War when Ambassador Maddy Albright gave Hussein the nod to invade Kuwait. So to state that the problems there sprung up overnight is preposterous. Start taking in the big picture - there is lots of blame - on both sides of our political spectrum - to go around. Do you truly believe that at some point we would not have had to go take on Hussein for good? Remember - OBL declared war on us in 1994 due to Clinton's policies and the Clinton administration sponsored the "regime change" policies that eventually sent us there. Like I said - Blame to go around. Can't just ignore that.

"What patently blows me away is the deliberate short-sightedness of my liberal guests.

They all seem to be under the delusion that if we simply pull out of Iraq, that terrorism will somehow cease to exist."

Haha. No, CY. We don't. Iraq was never about terrorism in any realistic sense. Now it is. Your side screwed up. Sorry, those are the facts, ma'am.
Your opinion has been relegated to the lunatic fringe of politics now, and you're simply flailing at this point - to our great amusement.

Here's an interesting article for you:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19720

"Remember - OBL declared war on us in 1994 due to Clinton's policies and the Clinton administration sponsored the "regime change" policies that eventually sent us there. Like I said - Blame to go around. Can't just ignore that."

So along that line of reasoning, Reagan et al were justified in CREATING OBL, arming, trainng him, and supplying chemical weapons to Iraq along with helping them coordinate their use against Iran?

Being a neocon means never having to admit you're wrong.

CY,

You're right, leaving Iraq will not eliminate terrorism. I know of nobody on the left or right that thinks that way. That does not mean that what we are doing in Iraq is at all productive. We all want the US to succeed in the fight against terrorism but Iraq has been a disaster in both judgement and execution. You say we only care about getting Bush. I say, you have blinders on if you cannot at this late date admit that Bush is primarily responsible any failure to succeed in Iraq. He's managed to create the current state of affairs whereby our true enemy, Iran is now the regional power broker. That has negative consequences for everyone in the region including our friends the Saudis, not to mention Israel. What we do from here is where we should center the debate. Taking Syria and Iran "out of the terror game" is not a serious policy proposal. They are winning thanks to the ignorance and bluster of this administration. Nothing in the short term is likely to make them want to stop what they're doing. Iraq is lost. The sooner we incorporate that into our thinking, the better off we'll all be.

Since I'm not a "neo-con", nor am I on ANY wing...perhaps the leftists here...(who continually bend themselves into pretzels attempting to point a finger at America for the "root causes" of all the evil in the world)...how does one explain that I too believe that the pernicious left is the gravest danger to our country?

I am quite "progressive" on domestic "hot button" issues...so I don't fall neatly into the scads of ad hominem attacks hurled by the leftists...I suppose they can simply lump me in with them and dismiss my disgust at their seditious and destructive slander against my country, my troops, ...since they are devoid of patriotism.

They are, in fact...jingoists for World Populism. They aren't Americans at all...they simply reside here. And their slander, mendacious lies and gregorian chanting of the World Populist Playbook...is tired and becoming a cliche'. Learn to think for yourselves and stop being mindless lemmings and parrots.

I don't like the arch-conservatives, nor do I have much in common with them (although I respect faith based morals, over the leftist principles of convenience)...but, I really, really hate the left. They are far more dangerous and they lie with impunity, protected as they are by their Ministry of Media.

Never about terrorism?

Someone is running from history. The 1993 WTC bombing was a failed attempt by an Iraqi bomb builder working for al Qaeda to set off a chemical/convential bomb.

The 1993 WTC bombing, financed by al Qaeda's Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was the first and to date only attempted WMD attack in America by al Qaeda and Iraq-affiliated terrorists.

Ramzi Yousef, a Kuwaiti-born al Qaeda terrorist using an Iraqi passport, concocted a plan to detonate a large ammonium nitrate bomb in the basement-level parking decks of WTC 1. The primary intent was to have the foundation of Tower 1 compromised, toppling it into WTC 2, bringing both buildings down and killing as many as possible of the 50,000 people who worked there.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi bomb builder who retreated to Iraq after the attack and lived under Saddam Hussein's protection and with his financial support until the 2003 invasion (just ignore the explicit al Qaeda-Iraq link), created the massive 1,310 lb bomb.

Yasin's bomb was designed to use both conventional blast mechanisms to attempt to topple the buildings, and create a poisonous cyanide cloud to kill anyone inside Tower 1.

As we know, Yasin's bomb failed in both of its goals.

The World Trade Center Towers still stood despite the al Qaeda attack, and the cyanide, instead of being released as a gas as Yasin had designed, was instead vaporized by the explosion. The first chemical weapons attack by al Qaeda on the United States was a dud.

Of course, Yasin wasn’t alone in the Saddam Hussein Condo for Terrorists.

Saddam's other Baghdad guests were Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, two of the world's most infamous terrorists before Osama bin Laden came around. As for other terrorists, Zarqawi came into Iraq in late 2001 (years before the U.S invasion) and has stayed there ever since (and now always will), while Saddam financed al Qaeda franchise Abu Sayyaf, and is famous for giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Bush screwed up in Iraq... I don't think this is much in doubt by anyone.

What is idiotic, however, is to think that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism prior to 2003, and to insist that leaving Iraq now for whoever wants to take it will be benficial for either Iraqis or Americans in the long run.

Once more, its blame Bush/necons/Jews/etc for the critics, without any indication of the horrors their "cut and run" solution will manifest.

I guess it's time to ask a question, and cfb, it's obvious you didn't read the link I posted earlier:

What are you using as a criterion by which you can tell who here is a "leftist"?

If you ask me, you're the unpatriotic one here - if simply for your fealty in front of an obviously incompetent administration when they obviously failed to plan for any semblance of the war after the war. Ignored calls for more troops, ignored State Department reports designed to smooth the occupation and transition, and just outright dismissed any ideas that went against their rosy predictions of all the dominoes falling just they wanted them to in the ME.

Is it unpatriotic of me to say that at this point, after the after-war has been so badly mismanaged as to render it nearly impossible to achieve anything positive in Iraq (if positive comes, it will be at the Iraqis' hands themselves)?

And now you want us, your shadowy "left" to support you in widening the war to include Iran, which indisputably presented a bigger threat than Saddam ever did, when we can't even manage Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think the patriotic thing to do at this point is to reassess and prosecute the criminals responsible for causing this mess in the first place. Spare me the "blame america first" bullshit too, because if anyone ever invaded this country, they'd have hell to pay if they came up against me.

It's people like you who cannot communicate in any fashion other than jingoism and have principles based only in convenience.

You ought to read this, and i promise it's not written by a "liberal":

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html

Iraq has been a growing problem for over 20 years - it became more critical after the Iran-Iraq War when Ambassador Maddy Albright gave Hussein the nod to invade Kuwait.

Ahem.

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942), American diplomat, is best-known for her meeting with Saddam Hussein prior Gulf War of 1991 in which she told the Iraqi dictator that the US official policy was not to get involved in Iraq's dispute with Kuwait.

You guys just have no interest in reality, history, or facts do you?

CFBleachers,

Since I'm not a "neo-con", nor am I on ANY wing...perhaps the leftists here...(who continually bend themselves into pretzels attempting to point a finger at America for the "root causes" of all the evil in the world)...how does one explain that I too believe that the pernicious left is the gravest danger to our country?"

A grave danger to the country? Please, let's look at the facts. This country has survived a civil war, two world wars, fires, floods, hurricanes and volcanos but you think that the left, who until this last election, governed nothing on the federal level, is a grave danger?
What's your solution? Maybe you want to have us all killed or loaded on ships headed for some far off land? It's how democracy works and if what some of your fellow citizens say and think is not to your liking, then you should use your intelligence and logic to educate us. If you have some ideas, let's hear them. If you just want tell us all how much you hate people to the left of you politically, thanks. We got it.

"Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi bomb builder who retreated to Iraq after the attack and lived under Saddam Hussein's protection and with his financial support until the 2003 invasion (just ignore the explicit al Qaeda-Iraq link), created the massive 1,310 lb bomb."

From the reviled Wikipedia:"On several occasions, Iraq offered to turn Yasin over to the US government in exchange for lifting UN economic sanctions. Tariq Aziz, spokesman of Iraq, claimed that in the 1990's all Iraq wanted in return was a signed statement that Iraq had handed over Yasin. But reportedly the statement presented to the U.S. at the time contained lengthy wording essentially exonerating Iraqi involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. Nevertheless, Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Leslie Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 (see below). Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994. Stahl also interviewed US Attorneys who acknowledged they had agreed to release Yasin to Iraq. (CBS 2002 Briley 2005)"

Illustrating that there's always a little more to the story than the neocons would like you to hear.
Incidentally, in 2003 ALL the prisoners were released by Saddam in anticipation of the invasion.

Abu Nidal? Give us a break on that one too:

Abu Nidal is known to have entered Iraq in 1999 after being expelled from Libya by Gaddafi, who was distancing himself from terrorism in an effort to re-establish diplomatic relations with the U.S. and UK after Lockerbie. The Iraqi government later said Abu Nidal had entered the country using a fake Yemeni passport and was not there with their knowledge, but by 2001, at the latest, he was living there openly, in defiance of the Jordanian government, whose state-security court had sentenced him to death by hanging in absentia in 2001 for his role in the 1994 assassination of a Jordanian diplomat in Beirut.

On August 19, 2002, al-Ayyam, the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, reported that Abu Nidal had died three days earlier of multiple gunshot wounds in his home in the wealthy al-Masbah neighborhood of al-Jadriyah, Baghdad, where the villa he lived in was owned by the Mukhabarat, or Iraqi secret service. [16]

Iraq's chief of intelligence, Taher Jalil Habbush, held a press conference on August 21, 2002, at which he handed out photographs of Abu Nidal's bloodied body, along with a medical report purportedly showing he had died after a single bullet had entered his mouth and exited his skull. Habbush said that Iraq's internal security force had arrived at Abu Nidal's house to arrest him on suspicion of conspiring with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments to bring down Saddam Hussein. Saying he needed a change of clothes, Abu Nidal went into his bedroom and shot himself in the mouth, Habbush said. He died eight hours later in intensive care. [31] He is known to have been suffering from leukemia.

Other sources disagree about the cause of death. Palestinian sources told journalists that Abu Nidal had in fact died of multiple gunshot wounds. Marie Colvin and Sonya Murad, writing in The Sunday Times, say that he was assassinated by a hit squad of 30 men from Office 8, the Iraqi Mukhabarat assassination unit. [16] Jane's reported that Iraqi intelligence had been following him for several months and had found classified documents in his home about a U.S. attack on Iraq. When they arrived to raid his house on August 14 (not August 16, according to Jane's), fighting broke out between Abu Nidal's men and Iraqi intelligence. In the midst of this, Abu Nidal rushed into his bedroom and was killed, though Jane's writes it remains unclear whether he killed himself or was killed by someone else. Jane's sources insist that his body bore several gunshot wounds. Jane's further suggests that Saddam Hussein may have ordered him arrested and killed because he regarded Abu Nidal as a mercenary who would have acted against him in the event of an American invasion, if the money had been right. [32]

Taking Syria and Iran "out of the terror game" is not a serious policy proposal.

And precisely why not?

Are you referring to the mechanics of such an operation? Such strikes are easy to effect, and given the delapidated state of Iranian naval, air, and air defense forces, quite technically acheivable, getting easier to repeat each time they are necessary.

Or are you referring to the effect that removing the state support of terrorism might have? In this instance you are equally wrong.

Hezbollah is presently a threat to two Middle Eastern democracies precisely because it is funded and supplied by Iran and Syria. Cut that funding, and after the next inevitable Hezbollah/Israeli war, Hezbollah will no longer be able to rearm or buy off the civilian population with cash settlements. Remove Hezbollah's money and munitions flow, and they lose a lot of their influence.

In Iraq, troublemaker al-Sadr is on the ascent because the Iranians are supplying him with money, men, training, and munitions. The Iraqi government is terrorfied to act against him because of Iran's support. Knock out that support, and al-Sadr reverts to being another loud-mouthed street thug without the power to threaten the central government.

More likely, it "isn't serious" because you simply don't like the sound of it, so you would dismiss it out of hand.

But the basic facts remain:

1. rogue states sponsor terrorism as a tool for "cheap" foreign policy
2. make the cost of support too high by holding them accountable for the cost of that support, and you force these states out of the terrorism game

Libya used to be a major state sponsor of terrorism until operation El Dorado Canyon, and after that they decided it was not in their best interests. We have the capability to carry out far more successful operations against Iran than we did against Libya for many reasons, technical, diplomatic, and geographical.

As much fun as this is, I have to go run some errands.

Let me quote from the article to which I linked above:

"The unseriousness began not long after 9/11. On Oct. 15, 2001, for example, National Review—still the most powerful brand in conservative opinion, whose pronouncements the movement must either accept or at least refrain from challenging—wrote, in an editorial entitled “At War: Defining Victory”:

The logic of a ‘war on terrorism’ points beyond itself. … The phrase is meant to suggest that our hostility is not confined to those people who can be proved to have materially aided the attacks of September 11. It encompasses all those who mean to do our people harm. … Bombing bin Laden, if we find him, will not end [this war]. Nor will overthrowing the Taliban. Victory requires either changing the regimes of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan, or frightening them enough to change their behavior towards us.

“Defining Victory” describes the post-9/11 world in terms that have since become familiar. First, it insists on a war that has no definite enemy and no foreseeable end. Short of one-world despotism or universal brotherhood, the U.S. cannot literally defeat “all those who mean to do our people harm.” To trim the hyperbole, NR goes on to name five examples of potential enemies (plus, in later editorials, Saudi Arabia) but does not explain how the list was generated or whether it is even complete. The reader gathers only that we should threaten or go to war with an unspecified number of troublesome nations."

and

"Second, the editors use the term “war” in a purely figurative sense. At the time of the editorial, the U.S. was not at war with Syria, Sudan, or Iran nor, realistically speaking, with any other nation on the list. No matter how vulnerable or despised, no Muslim nation can be turned into a sacrificial substitute for bin Laden. Nor, no matter how often incanted, can the phrase “at war” be made to describe an actual state of affairs. A rhetorical bludgeon designed to compel assent to certain policies, it begs the question of whether war is advisable in the first place.

Third, “Defining Victory” does not identify a casus belli. Neither Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, nor Sudan attacked us on 9/11. Later debate would focus on the legitimacy of preventive war as a defense against future threats. All foreign nations, however, by definition pose hypothetical threats; at some point, those threats become so remote, trivial, or contingent that preventive war cannot be distinguished from an aggressive war of domination. By urging belligerence against nations with no known designs—to say nothing of any capacity—for harming the U.S., “Defining Victory” surely advocated crossing that point."

Hear that? That's the sound of your pet foreign policy pretty much blown out of the water with a few simple sentences.

And for the sake of posterity, here are the links again:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19720

jay k.

Not what I said at all. You obviously misread things in order to bolster your opinion.

As I said - the problem in Iraq goes way back. And yes - Reagan did have something to do with it. So did Carter. So get off your high horses and accept the facts that the problem there now DID NOT grow overnight just because Bush took office. I have not seen one of you be able to counter that argument. Instead you want to point fingers and call names and change the goal posts. I said in my previous post that THERE WAS BLAME TO GO AROUND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. I did not just blame Clinton. What I said was true. Sorry if you think terrorism started just after Bush took office. Kind of short sighted aren't you?

But now we are downstream from all of the events that got us to this point (get it? it didn't just happen in the last 6 years - prove me wrong - I dare you to try). We are there and that's that. There is an insurgency which may or may not be being fueled by Iran and Syria. That's that. If we withdraw we face not only humiliation, but probably more attacks from terrorists, and a humanitarian crisis in Iraq on a level not seen since "oil-for-food" (who caused that now?).

Now you folks ran on "Fix Iraq" and won. Great. What's your plan? Got any yet? Four weeks and counting until the great "New Direction" comes into power. What's the plan? Why is it that most Americans (57% at last count) feel the dems have NO PLAN? Could there be a reason they feel that way?

At least I am honest enough to admit that all sides have screwed up on this. Most of the leftists here just say "Bush Bush Bush" and that is egregious and intellectually dishonest. So much for liberal ideals, right jay k.?

Specter: Who was President when Saddam was 'given permission' to invade Kuwait? Bush I.
KC: Who put permanent bases in Saudi Arabia that OBL used as an excuse for his jihad? Bush I.
Just a little history for you all. You can try to blame Clinton, but he spent most of his time in office trying to deal with the consequences of the failures of the Reagan/Bush years.

And CY, Nobody expects the terrorists to just go away if we leave Iraq. You are arguing with a straw man. However, if we were not bogged down in Iraq, spending $Billions on Halliburton contracts, phantom WMDs, and getting thousands of our troops killed and wounded, maybe we could spend a little time and effort going after Al Qaeda. You know - the folks that pulled off 9/11 while Bush the dumber was ignoring all the warnings. Remember them - the folks who WERE NOT in Iraq until we invaded.

But - that makes too much sense for it to sink in when you can start more 'easy' wars in Iran and Syria. Why not Libya, Yemen, North Korea and a few other places that might be fun to bomb while we're at it.

Let's see - we don't much like the folks running Cuba and Venzuela either. A few days of bombing will surely bring them down. Some leftist just won election in Ecuador. Bomb him! May as well take out those pesky French while we're at it.

Face it. You are NUTS if you think creating more wars, which will breed more terrorists and more enemies, is any kind of an answer. We're dealing with religious zealots here. When was the last time a bunch of 'true believers' backed down after a few bombs?

I do hope Bush "gets it" that he has failed miserably in Iraq, but I'm afraid he's too stubborn and too egotistical to stop wasting our brave military personel in the crossfire of the mess he created.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. We will be insane as a nation if we let that happen.

CY,
Interesting discussion so I'll remember this site. Like a lot of Americans I really want to see some serious butt kicking after 911 and Saddam was a handy target and a bad guy with WMD to boot. Even after VietNam... Well live and learn.
Your neocon proposal is, of course, absurd. Wars are not won from the air - they require grunts up front. See Persia Gulf I & II, WWII, VietNam. Regimes are not taken out by air strikes unless you wanna go nuclear - see WWII, VietNam, etc.
Think about it - would carpet bombing DC put the American govt out of it? Would London surrender to an onslaught of bombs and cruise missles? Would Paris...well, never mind about Paris.
After Berlin was flattened in 1945, it still cost the Russians 100,000 to finally take out the govt. I hope we've learned from Persia II that the Powell doctrine is not only viable but necessary to prevent a failed state.
So while you barricade the seas to cut Iran off of gasoline, are you gonna bomb russian pipeline and trucks, stop and board russian and arab tankers? Sink them if they don't stop. WTF is the matter with your head?

CY,

You wrote:

"More likely, it "isn't serious" because you simply don't like the sound of it, so you would dismiss it out of hand."

Not so. I do not see how it is possible. I'm far from alone. You may think Iran is going to be easy to topple but you are definitely in the minority. We are unlikely to confront Iran militarily and to pretend otherwise is a fools game. We have to think about how we can limit Iranian influence. It will be years before we can be in a position to defeat them militarily. Right now, the Russians are busy building them a nuclear reactor. Do you think Russia would stand around and watch their cash cow disappear? Do you think you can gather enough military strength to occupy Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq all at the same time? Do you think anything short of that will have the desired effect? I don't see how it's possible.

We cannot attack Iran because that would be an act of war which would rally support around the mullahs and probably provoke an open war between Iran and the United States over Iraq that we would have started and thus would not be supported by the American people. Also, even though we do not import oil from Iran, destroying their refineries will drive oil prices upward (which i am in favor of because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil) but Bush is deathly afraid of an increase in the price of oil and would not do anything to increase them.

Percy,

I'm arguing exactly the same point as you are here. CY is building straw men with his arguments and knocking them right on down.

And you're completely right when you say that they are looking for an "easy" war that will be carried out by planes and weapons designed and built by Halliburton, NG, LMCO, etc. (yes, I know - Halliburton doesn't build planes - yet)

The war-is-the-answer posters here are making the same mistake by advocating these strikes on Iran and Syria that Bushco made when pushing for war with Iraq. Namely that all the dominoes will fall conveniently into place as they say they will. Nevermind the inconvenient reality of a Middle East already destabilized and ripe for radical Islamification due to the policies of this president, that not too long ago CY and the like were supporting blindly.

Citing lightning raids on Libya which were done in response to specific incidents is just silly, as the situations are completely different.

All of the sudden they're not just (baselessly) blaming Carter and Clinton. You can't tell me that you saw that sentiment here just 6 months ago. Now there's blame to go around "everywhere"! Well, how convenient.

The fact is that both WTC attacks were planned and made possible on the watch of Bush I and Bush II. That the first WTC attack came during Clinton's term is irrelevant.

The Republicans couldn't care less about actually fighting terrorism when there's a Global War on Terrorism to worry about!

Finally, if you think that CY and the others here DON'T want to take NK, Yemen, etc. down in short order, you're kidding yourself. What you have here are adults stuck in the sand box, with everyday waking fantasies of ruling the world. They just happen to live in the only country that they feel is capable of doing it.

KC,

You weren't here 6 months ago so don't try putting words in my mouth. My attitude has not changed. Maybe you aren't old enough to have been around during all the other crises that have led to this point. Don't be disrespectful.

"You weren't here 6 months ago so don't try putting words in my mouth...."

Yeah Specter, I was. I've commented here longer than 6 months ago under the exact same name - but if you're unwilling to admit that at one point you backed Bush's vision for the Iraq war, praised Reagan (undeservedly) for bringing about the downfall of the Soviet union while ignoring his role in the proliferation of terrorism, and at the same time blamed Clinton and Carter for terrorism as we know it, then that's your problem and not mine.

And you're also just proving the point I made earlier.

Being a neocon means never having to admit you're wrong. How convenient and disingenuous of the "right" to simply assert: "well, here we are - no matter how we got here." After calling anyone who opposed the Iraq war in principle, execution, or both traitors, un-American, a fifth column, and worse.

Believe me, you don't want to get into a "which side calls the other side worse names?" match with me.

I hope you're ready for some Congressional investigations and oversight for a change.

"A grave danger to the country? Please, let's look at the facts. This country has survived a civil war, two world wars, fires, floods, hurricanes and volcanos but you think that the left, who until this last election, governed nothing on the federal level, is a grave danger?"

I'm not sure I'm following, NYNick...our civil war and two world wars outline your time frame...and the left has not governed anything on a federal level during that time frame????

Forgetting for a moment that surviving two world wars was accomplished with the SUPPORT of most Americans, that fires, floods, volcanoes are GENERALLY not fodder for complaint by the pernicious left (nor were other acts of nature, such as hurricanes...that is, until recently)...this has NOTHING to do with the left's nauseating, incessant, shrieking about how the (here please place one of the following: Government, Right-wing, military, greedy corporations, religious Christians, George Bush personally) is/are to blame for all the ills of the world.

The left have shown themselves to be puerile, obnoxious, inconsistent and incoherent in their never ending litany of complaints about America. (see also, Israel).

Their inexorable march toward World Populism (warmed over European Socialism), fuels this loathing of all things American.

They suffer from arrested adolescence and they are insufferable in their irrational and wild-eyed hatred of "the establishment"...whomever that might be for the moment.

They act like spoiled little brats, think they are much smarter and better informed than everyone else...but the smug and pedantic attitude is unwarranted and their self-proclaimed air of superiority is undeserved.

Facts are inconvenient. Reason is replaced by shrieking. The goal is simply to crap on the home team...and this is somehow "chic". The left needs to grow up. They want a nanny state, because they need a nanny.

I will defend to my last drawn breath, the right for anyone to engage in principled dissent. What I can't stand...is studied sedition disguised as dissent. If you hate the country you live in, if you despise all that she stands for...then stand up and say that you are an enemy of state...don't hide behind the pretense that you are FOR America...just against all that she is and all that she has been and all that she stands for and against.

The seditious left has NEVER been behind America, in ANY conflict. That's because it represents the parent...in a parent-adolescent relationship. And you want your cookies and Coke and cake for breakfast and if you don't get it you are going to hold your breath until you turn blue.

You want intelligence and logic? Show some appreciation for it.

Nice strawman links, Larrie, by why should we consider them relevant in the slightest?

By your own links, you admit that bin Laden himself as an individual is irrelevant, a position most of us on the right came to when he went deep into seclusion, and removed himself from anything other than a titular role. To this very day, those might likely to be griping about bin Laden are those lefties that are still under the delusion that if we can kill this one man, that the War on Terror will be over.

You will note that as for Syria, we do have a clearcut by the definition you cite; Qaddafi was scared enough that he has changed his behavior, to the point of disclosing and disposing of a WMD program we knew nothing about. We are currently only fighting in Iraq, while Iran--the driving force behind Shiite militancy affecting three countries, a contributor to the training of Janjaweed militias conducting genocide in Darfur, and the only true ally of Baathist Syria--somehow gets a pass.

No more.

Take out Iran's capability to attack Persian Gulf shipping, and the world's economies can no longer be blackmailed by mad mullahs that oh, by the way, have made perfectly clear their intentions to trigger a regional nuclear war.

Blockade inbound shipments of gasoline and diesel, outside the Persian Gulf in the Gulf of Oman (outside of Iranian reach) and Iran's economy literally sputters to a halt. They either capitulate, or their fragile economy collapses.

As I stated in the original post, and as facts prove, we are at war with Iran, and Iranians are doing their very best to kill American soldiers and our allies. We now need to do what only American's have the technical capability to do, and that is to use the surgical application of force projection to bring a rogue regime to heel by making terrorism literally too expensive a proposition for them to support. If Iran's leaders are forced to choose between supporting Hezbollah and al-Sadr, or watching their own rule collapse under a blockade that crushes their economy, which do you think they will choose?

As for Percy, sad little Percy (I'm sorry he has to go through life named Percy, for that matter), I simply don't think you have enough of a a single oar damp (much less both oars in the water), for me to be able to simplify things enough for you to understand them.

Iraq was a terrorism-supporting state before we invaded, supporting four terrorist groups and four major terrorism figures in addition to the quite real terrorism supported by Saddam's official government branches. Musab al-Zarqawi, now-dead leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, established himself in 2001, two years prior to our invasion. You contention that terrorists were not active in Iraq prior to our invasion is disingenuous, as would be any attempt to say that any one terrorist group is any more important than another anti-American terrorist group. They all want us dead, and we'll have to dead with all of them at some point.

Quite frankly, you are staggeringly ignorant if you think acting as we are not at war with Iran will make the fact that they are killing our soldiers disappear. You're like someone being molested denying that the assaults ever happened, instead of taking steps to stop the assaults.

Sami, you, and I suspect most liberals here completely misunderstand what I've stated are my goals here, perhaps because you haven't read the linked posted. Fair enough; I'll make it simple.

The initial military strikes are to cripple Iran's ability to threaten Persian Gulf Shipping. Considering the state of their fleet. that is relatively easy. Once their offensive capability to attack shipping has removed their ability to blackmail the rest of the world, we simply impose a blockade on any ships attempt to bring refined fuels into Iran, which we could quite easily do. We aren't trying to "win a war from the air." We're simply reducing their ability to threaten civilian shipping but sinking a mostly obsolete Navy. Our "war" would be a blockade, not a war. Against this, Iran has very little in the way of defense.

Josh, Iran's refineries are not for export, but for internal consumption. Destroying them would not affect the price of gas elsewhere one cent, and removing the threat Iran has had dangling over Persian Gulf shipping might even cause prices to drop. Nor do I need to remind you that sending shaped charge IEDs into Iraq to be used against U.S forces is already an act of war, as is their Revolutionary Guards fighting us as part of al-Sadr's militia.

As for You NYNick, you've proven on this and other threads that are simply unable to comprehend what I say, without reformulating them in your head first into something else. You are exceedingly dense, and seem to think all conflicts have to involve a massive occupation to achieve some sort of optimal resolution. What I propose is a naval blockade of fuels to Iran, not an invasion, not an occupation. Please try to address what I say, not what it gets twisted into in the tiny recesses of your mind.

Larrie, you honestly think that somehow the 9/11 plot starred during Bush 41's administration, went on vacation during the Clinton years, and then came back only when a Republicans was re-elected? I'm honest in my partisanship, yours is patently deranged.

This following charge, BTW, is completely false:

Finally, if you think that CY and the others here DON'T want to take NK, Yemen, etc. down in short order, you're kidding yourself.

North Korea is kind of a self-isolating nutcase factory, isn't it? I've never advocated an invasion of the Norks. you're just flatly wrong here. I've also never advocated taking down Yemen (in fact, I've rarely mentioned Yemen at all, for any reason).

The difference between Iran and these Syria and these other nations is simple: Iran is an admitted state sponsor of terrorism, primarily through Hezbollah, which, the NY Times confirms today, is now threatening all three democracies in the Middle East (Israel, Lebanon, Iraq). It really is quite simple: if you force Iran via an economic blockade, to stop sponsoring terrorism, then you've contributed towards creating more a stable democratic situation in each of these nations.

I don't think anyone credible will dispute that Iran is the most powerful engine of state-sponsored terrorism today. Kill the sponsorship through the threat of severe economic violence, ant it could save thousands of lives, which beat the living Hell out of a cut and run redeployment plan favored by liberals that will only contribute to thousands of more deaths in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Darfur, and elsewhere, while simply prolonging the war and extending the total number of casualties.

I look to today’s Left, and I see the Faces of Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Kennedy—less anti-Semitic—perhaps, but every bit as much in denial, and every bit as much to blame for any coming genocides borne of appeasement and inaction.

You would negotiate with the wolf to be eaten last; I seek to see him starved.

The Iraq War is lost.
Over.
Finished.

The only Right(wing) thing to do now is "support the troops" and send more of them to die in the meatgrinder.

libp and KC,

The problem here is that you don't see my whole message. Iran has been in our political and economic eyes and interests since WWII. The Shah - Reza Pahlavi, was installed in power by the US and Great Britain because the Shah's father was pro-Nazi.

It goes further than that. Based on the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, Truman had plans drawn up to stage a coup against Mossadegh who had become Prime Minister. The plans were sat on until Eisenhower became President. The PM and the Shah were at odds with each other and the PM asked the Shah to step down. He did not and formally dismissed the PM. Mossadegh refused to go and there were riots in the streets, eventually ending with the Shah's forces arresting the PM.

The Shah was the principle power in the ME until islamic fundamentalists started attacking him on his ties to Israel, US, and his stance on women's rights. He was forced to leave the country in 1979. Carter was President and the Iranian Hostage Crisis took over the news. An act of war against the US, with a weak (failed) response from Jimmy.

Now, Kohmeni and Hussein did not like each other. Quickly after the Shah was thrown out of power, the border skirmishes started. Hussein kept saying that he did not want to engage the Iranians in war, but secretly planned to take over a large section of Iran - Khuzestan. He did that, with US support in 1980 (again during the Carter administration). Some speculate that the support by the US was in retaliation for the hostage crisis.

Remember that the US gave arms and support to the Shah, and then to Iraq after the Shah was deposed. The idea was to get even, and to stop the spread of the brand of islamic fundamentalism that Iran supported.

During the Iran-Iraq (1980 - 1988 covering Carter and Reagan administrations) war was one of the first uses of WMD against armed forces and civilians by Iraq - chemical weapons. In fact - March 16, 1988 - the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked using a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents. Killed - 5,000. Maimed and disfigured - 10,000 more. And the news says that one day last week was the bloodiest day in Iraq ever. What nonsense.

As Iraq grew in stature, so did Hussein's meglomania. Which leads us into Bush I and Clinton administrations. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, we used diplomatic means, which did not work, to force Hussein to leave. Then we used force, which did. But we did not finish the job. That was mostly because nobody knew what to do afterwards - with the continuous history of unease between Shia, Sunni, and Kurd, it was feared that the whole country would disintegrate. It was hoped that if we left Hussein in power, we could eventually turn his own country's opinion against him and he would be overthrown, while still maintaining some political stability within (which he enforced through brutality - killing hundreds of thousands of his own people because they had the temerity to speak out against his regime).

In the Clinton years we tried diplomacy with Hussein - remember all the UN resolutions against Iraq and the way Hussein openly thumbed his nose at the rest of the world? Clinton bombed Iraq in 1988 (December - Operation Desert Fox)for 4 days because of Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions and with the stated goal of degrading Hussein's ability to produce WMD.

Maddy Albright said:

I don't think we're pretending we can everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century.

And Kissinger, at that time, said:

It doesn't make any significant difference because in six months to a year they will be back to where they are nd we cannot keep repeating these attacks...At the end of the day what will be decisive is what the situation in the Middle East will be tow to three years from now. If Saddam is still there, if he's rearming, if the sanctions are lifted, we will have lost, no matter what spin we put on it.

Remember that on October 31, 1988, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1988, which said "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Then we get to Bush II. He took action. And now, all you can say is that he was responsible for the whole mess. And there is no doubt it is a mess, but maybe not as big as people have been led to believe - I dare you to show me where I said it was not.

My point today, and for many, many months (that is for you KC) is that this situation did not develop overnight. It has grown over the years with many twists and turns in US policy from both sides of the aisle. You tried to give me a history lesson. I just schooled you. Try to pay attention.

CY,

You sir are an idiot if you think that your plan has a remote chance of being implemented. It has even less chance of succeeding. But it's a fools game to argue with you about it. It's not going to happen. By all means, continue with your delusional rants. Wrap yourself in the blood stained cloth of those brave people in our military who have to carry out the stupidity of others. Call yourself a patriot for your unwavering devotion to the cause but when it's all said and done, I will be right and you will be wrong. Just like the last time and the time before that. You advocated invading Iraq and suggested that anyone who disagreed was either a traitor or a moron. I argued that it would make Iran stronger and ultimately more lethal. You said stay the course, Democrats were weak cowards who cannot be trusted to keep us safe. Now, you look for a magical solution to Iraq from these same Democrats, expecting them to somehow fix the mess your side created. And when that expectation isn't met, you will whine about how badly Democrats messed up your plans for world domination. What a sad and lonely existence it must be for you. You sir, have my pity. I wouldn't wish your kind of ignorance on my worst enemy.

Heh...but I already know your answer to all that. Ignore history, blame Bush for everything, and change the goal posts quickly. Idyuts. Carter and Clinton had nothing to do with today's mess...yeah right. They ALL DID. It's not a snapshot in time - it is time itself - it flows forward.

So, now admitting as I have that both sides are at fault (and remember your side did vote for this war - and don't give me any of that misled crap or I'll have to pull out their floor speeches again). So now how is the "New Direction" going to handle it? Cmon guyz - the onus is on you now - you promised to save all of us. So What's the PLAN? Got one yet?

Nick,

Read my long post above. Then come back and tell me again how "we" created the mess. Don't be such a maroon.

Bleacher,

I think you should get yourself some help. Seriously. You're way to angry. Try and relax. Take a walk in the woods. Breathe the fresh air.
Think about why you're so angry at the left. I bet it has more to do with your failures than you might think...

specter...
the post you seem to be responding to was censored, so i'll have to respond from memory.
obl declared war on us. yup - not iraq - obl. no conflation please...they were not the same problem until we made them the same. clinton endorsed regime change that sent us there? while clinton did endorse regime change only, bush attacked and occupied iraq. no one else. you seem to be saying bush took the only he had open to him. bush took the way neo-cons told him to and they were flat out wrong.
democrats ran on a platform that bush foreign policy was wrong, incompetent, and congress had failed to provide oversight. bush is still commander in chief...this war was his choice and no election will change that.
since the democrats took over rumsfeld is gone. that's a major step. stay the course is gone. that's a major step. there are alternative courses of action being considered. that's a major step.
bush has had three years to f' this up beyond all recognition...and you want the democrats to fix it over night. thinking like that is what got us here in the first place.

Specter,

If you read my posts, I do not argue with shared responsibility for the rise of terrorism. I post almost exclusively about the war in Iraq. Iraq was not invaded and occupied by anyone other than this administration.

hey specter...
maybe the democrats will take a page from the bush playbook and simply post a mission accomplished banner on a carrier in san diego. pelosi would look hot-hot-hot in a top-gun issue jumpsuit.

Jay k.

Mission Accomplished referred to taking down the Hussein regime. Are you attempting to say that did not happen? History...context...something you seem to have a problem with.

Specter --
"Mission Accomplished referred to taking down the Hussein regime. Are you attempting to say that did not happen? History...context...something you seem to have a problem with."

What a load. They had no idea of what was coming, so they couldn't be referring to it. Anyway W's embarassed by it now:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4460/

Why do you suppose they edited the film this way?

Nick at Nite

I'm perfectly calm. I'm not angry...just disgusted. The pernicious left thinks there are no mirrors in their fragile glass houses.

The President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense ALL said that Iraq was a grave danger, Saddam was a threat to the US, Israel and the world at large, believed that he was capable of exporting death and destruction around the world.

Yet, you say they are all liars, I presume.

By the way, if you want the quotes...I can give them to you.

From...President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Sandy Berger, William Cohen. Do you want them? You said you responded to logic and reason.

Or is it simply not convenient for you and the other lemmings to face facts? After all, you all know your World Populist playbooks by heart.

Do you guys blow a fuse or something if you have to think for yourselves...or do your handlers have extra fuses?

I wonder who said this? Another hate America first pinko no doubt:

“‘Stay the course’ is gone. We’re going to try and devise some new strategies, hopefully with the President’s concurrence. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen should not be in there, risking their lives, losing their lives to stop a Civil War.”

--John Warner R Virginia, Chairman Senate Armed Services Committee

Whoops. I'm sure sorry about Clown World. But, as I mentioned before, the jig's up now, boys.

cfbleachers --

"The President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense ALL said that Iraq was a grave danger, Saddam was a threat to the US, Israel and the world at large, believed that he was capable of exporting death and destruction around the world."

Of course they did you oaf, and nobody in their right mind denies it. The problem is not whether they believed it, the problem is that they were wrong and screwed up horribly. Iraq is busted and nobody knows what to do. It's cute how W blames Tenet and Blair and everybody else, but he's the president, it's his fault.

So...let's see NYNick - no other options were ever tried. Hmmmm.....we just saddled up and attacked. No attempts were made right? Didn't Clinton attack - commit and act of war - against Iraq? Could that be...wait for it...Operation Desert Fox?

I agree that our planning for post-war Iraq was ... very poor. But then again, how many of the Senators that voted for AUMF suggested that at the beginning? Not one. Did anyone plan for Iran to sponsor terrorists into Iraq? Terrorists from Syria? From Lebanon? I suppose in the realm of "What-ifs" it could have been brought up. But really, can you plan for every single contingency? Or do you just state your strategic goals and then adjust tactics as needed? It appears that not enough adjustments were made.

The big question that underlies all of this is when do you get tired of the bully trying to push you around and hit back? It's that simple. For 12 years Hussein ignored everybody else in the world - did what he wanted. 12 years. And he was given many, many diplomatic opportunities to cooperate. When do you actually take action so you don't look like an empty-threat? And once you do, you can't just take it back. You keep going until the teachers pull you apart or somebody is standing over the bloody-nosed opponent. Simple.

BTW jay k.- the Dem platform was not foreign policy - it was we will get us out of Iraq. Don't change the goal posts again.

Leftists et al. - the "Stay the Course" quote has about run out of steam. Give me one link where Bush said that. Just one. Bet ya can't.

Crusty-the-Earl,

Did you ever notice that I am the only one who responds to you. That should tell you a lot little boy.

[IGNOREON target=EARL;&AKA=Crusty-the-Earl]

I will defend to my last drawn breath, the right for anyone to engage in principled dissent. What I can't stand...is studied sedition disguised as dissent. If you hate the country you live in, if you despise all that she stands for...then stand up and say that you are an enemy of state...don't hide behind the pretense that you are FOR America...just against all that she is and all that she has been and all that she stands for and against.
Posted by cfbleachers at November 28, 2006 04:31 PM

That's just nuts, you know that don't you?
Nobody in the United States hates America so much that they want to see it destroyed by outside forces.
However there are very powerful and unprincipled people on the political right in America who have financed a large media propaganda machine to encourage you to think that way.
Sad.

I always thought that America's cold war victory came at a cost. No War is won without a cost. The cost was the mental dimentia of the political right in America from noble principles to dishonest ideology.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html

Crusty,

Did you actually read CFBleacher's post? You said:

Of course they did you oaf, and nobody in their right mind denies it. The problem is not whether they believed it, the problem is that they were wrong and screwed up horribly.

But of course you realize that he was talking about:

President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Sandy Berger, William Cohen. Do you want them? You said you responded to logic and reason.

You just claimed that those folks screwed up horribly. Gawwwwd...what a maroon.

Specter -- "Did you ever notice that I am the only one who responds to you. That should tell you a lot little boy."

It tells me that of all the denizens of Clown World you are the most shameless and simple-minded. Is that what you meant?

Seriously, why did the White House edit that video? I'm burning with curiosity to get the Clown World take on this, and who better to give it to me, friend?

Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."

On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon. The president declared that the great danger confronting the U.S. and its allies was the "threat Iraq poses now-a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." Before the Gulf War of 1991, he noted, "Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people.

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.

The "record will show that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction," Albright stated, "which he's clearly not collecting for his own personal pleasure, but in order to use." She continued: "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."

At Tennessee State on February 19, Albright told the crowd that the world has not "seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein." In answering a question, she sketched some of the "worse" case scenarios should Saddam "break out of the box that we kept him in."

One "scenario is that he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction."

"Another scenario is that he could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction -- that he could be the place that people come and get more weapons."

One of the lessons of history, Albright continued, is that "if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far -- that he can do untold damage." "If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier," said Albright, "then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War."

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech reminiscent of the comments he made on February 17 at the Pentagon.

The president warned Annapolis graduates that our enemies "may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction - not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war. Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected, and sometimes supported by hostile countries." The U.S. will work to "prevent the spread and use of biological weapons and to protect our people in the event these terrible weapons are ever unleashed by a rogue state or terrorist group or an international criminal organization." This protection will include "creating stockpiles of medicines and vaccines to protect our civilian population against the kind of biological agents our adversaries are most likely to obtain or develop."

On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.37 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."38 In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life"

On December 8, National Security Advisor Berger delivered an address at Stanford University on U.S. policy on Iraq. He stated:

"As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

"Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

"For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them."

"We will continue to contain the threat Iraq poses to its region and the world. But for all the reasons I have mentioned, President Clinton has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is 'through a government in Baghdad - a new government - that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.' Our policy toward Iraq today is to contain Saddam, but also to oppose him."

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day missile and bombing attack on Iraq. "I acted quickly because, as my military advisors stressed, the longer we waited, the more time Saddam would have to disburse his forces and protect his arsenal," Clinton explained in his December 19 radio address to the nation. "Our mission is clear: to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction."43 (It should be noted that on July 27, 2003 President Clinton assessed the effectiveness of Desert Fox. He stated: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know." )44

Secretary Albright held a briefing on Desert Fox and was asked how she would respond to those who say that unlike the 1991 Gulf War this campaign "looks like mostly an Anglo-American mission." She answered:

"We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves.45

Secretary Cohen replied much the same way to comments made in March of 1998 by Senator Campbell of Colorado, who chided the administration for not keeping the "coalition together" during an Appropriations Committee hearing. Cohen responded:

And that's one of the reasons why you haven't seen the kind of solidarity that we had before; much harder when the case is the threat of weapons of mass destruction versus Saddam Hussein setting off 600 oil wells in the field of Kuwait and seeing that kind of threat, which is real and tangible, as opposed to one which might take place some time in the future, as far as the use of his chemical and biologicals.

Oh, I guess I forgot....only right wing, warmongering, bloodthirsty neo-cons...could have possibly believed that Iraq was a threat worth confronting. They MUST be lying. After all, the leftists tell us so. Let's cut and run...the cowards among us make such great leaders. They look so sexy when they tremble.

cf,

Man...the temerity...confronting the left with facts and their own words. Just who do you think you are...you might give them a conniption fit...LOL

Here's a fun new game, kids! Guess who I am!

"I have been hanging out on the internet since the days of telnet and gopher"

Ooooh! Bound to be a mensch if he used Gopher! Too bad telnet is no longer in use.

"[I] have participated in many forums in Usenet (under various nicks), and have now graduated to the 'blogosphere'."

So experienced! And all grown up!

"I really believe that we, as a world, have lost the ability to communicate and share ideas - especially in a written manner."

Now that is packed with content. Let's think it over. 'Really' adds a lot to the sentence. At first I wondered if he believed it or not. 'Written manner'! Fancy! To think some philistines say 'writing'. It doesn't sound nearly so erudite. How do you communicate and idea that you don't share or vice versa? Very intriguing.

The answer? Our very own Specter! Now you know why his communication and sharing of ideas is so effective -- his secret is his writing manner. Hats off to Specter! Let's all emulate him.

cfbleachers -- no way am I going to read that slab of palaver. The debacle in Iraq is W's fault. End of story.

"They look so sexy when they tremble."

Oh man do you have issues. You're unsavory even by Clown World standards.

15% of the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf comes from Iran and you think military strikes won't change the price of oil at all? It doesn't matter what the refineries are used for, there will be a ripple effect on the cost of oil, but I was mentioning that as a positive, not a negative, I just don't think the president is willing to expend the political capital necessary to accomplish such a strike.
And currently we are fighting a war by proxy with Iran and do not have the military capapability handle an open war with Iran as well as pacify Afghanistan and Iraq, which was my main point and the one you ignored. Unless you support Rangel in his quixotic effort to bring back the draft, which I think we can all agree is ridiculous.

Specter,

I'm not even going to acknowledge the majority of your purported history lesson of a post, because it is for the most part skewed and guilty of lie by omission. If you want, we'll take up the history of the middle east and the effects of western influence on another thread. Schooled? Please. Who do you think you're talking to?

Let me focus on this:
"Then we get to Bush II. He took action. And now, all you can say is that he was responsible for the whole mess. And there is no doubt it is a mess, but maybe not as big as people have been led to believe ...
Then why did the "adults" take this course of action when the following quote was said by his own Veep, at a time that Iraq DID have WMDs and the intent to use them?

Cheney - "Once you get to Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it’s set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?"

So what changed? Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot. 9/11. How stupid of me. But in order to start a war with Iraq after 9/11 Bush had to forget two things:
1. The inconvenient fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and
2. that you just don't practice, unprovoked "preventive" war on nations that, no matter how miniscule the threat (and we're talking sub atomic here), harbor some kind of ill-will toward the U.S - if for no other reason than that the very perception of the world at large will be that the U.S. is playing bully and flailing around blindly after having been attacked. As Kissinger said: "Afghanistan wasn't enough."

And tell me, minus any proof that Saddam was actively supporting terrorism against the U.S. and knowing that he had indeed dismantled his WMD programs well in advance, and with Bush being unwilling to allow the U.N. inspectors to finish their jobs, how exactly is it that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.? If you're going to revert to some sort of argument based on the no fly zones, then in effect you've embraced an economic argument against perpetual containment. Looking at the cost of the current effort, that one's out the window too. Body counts? Again, out the window.

"I agree that our planning for post-war Iraq was ... very poor. But then again, how many of the Senators that voted for AUMF suggested that at the beginning?"

Perhaps it is you who needs a history lesson.

1. The AUMF was based on intelligence presented to a REPUBLICAN Congress by the President and his Staff.
2. Because the UN was not so bought and sold on said phony and/or trumped up evidence, it was the duty of the prosecutors of the war to listen to the advice given to them (in fact, by the State Department ) on the possibilities of stabilizing a post-Saddam Iraq.

You can put your fingers in your ears and scream and shout all you want, but facts are facts. Bush and his staff IGNORED and DENIGRATED advice and advisors telling them anything that they didn't want to hear, and resisted any and all oversight by a REPUBLICAN Congress that couldn't have cared less anyway.

So yes. Bush and those of you who voted for him, defended him, and are now apologizing for him in the form of the blame game are all responsible. The question is, then, Specter, WHERE WERE ALL OF YOU besides being busy defending the war, moaning about the lack of "good news" being reported from Iraq, and turning your attention to the next war when we couldn't even win this one?

Finally, since you're all so concerned with what we're going to do there now (as if anyone should be responsible for cleaning up the mess that the Republicans allowed Bush to create), we've got a few years too, don't we?

In the mean time, why don't you concern yourself with fantasy attack scenarios that accomplish exactly what you think they will because, well...you believe enough that they will.

Ignore that:

1. Thanks to Bush, we're largely out of political capital with the rest of the world - so any possible diplomatic solution is already stunted and handcuffed to plenty of other unsavory and expensive situations - including a far more devastating financial impact on us and our allies than on Iran or any imagined target.

2. The implications of anything other than the perfect scenario involving any real military attacks on Iran and/or Syria range from terrible (the economic devastation resulting from the effects on the world oil market) to the apocalyptic (involvement of Russia and the REAL World War III).
3. That ground troops WILL have to be involved, and we don't have the troops to do it much less continue the other losing battles.

4. That the cabal of idiots at the helm in the White House right now has proven itself time and time again incompetent of waging any effective war, much less a third simultaneous one.
and...

5. That radical Islam and its terrorist offshoots are never going to be defeated by means of bombing Muslim countries and that doing so will only create more disenfranchisement among the people who will be more likely to flee and end up in western nations bringing all the problems they've brought to Europe.

But maybe I'm not the expert in foreign policy and military strategy that you people are.

That is hilarious, cfb. You can quote Clinton and his staff until the cows come home. They didn't embark on any regime change exercises that I can remember though.

So the PNAC crowd got to them? Who'd been in charge of all the intelligence agencies for the prior 20 years, anyway?

"Oh, I guess I forgot....only right wing, warmongering, bloodthirsty neo-cons...could have possibly believed that Iraq was a threat worth confronting. They MUST be lying. After all, the leftists tell us so. Let's cut and run...the cowards among us make such great leaders. They look so sexy when they tremble."

Again, the difference lies in the actions. And like I said - PNAC.

But just for the record - are you saying you supported Clinton, and that he should have pursued unilateral regime change in Iraq via military force?

Then you also must believe, contrary to Dick Cheney did at the time, that we should have toppled Saddam during the GWI?

Instead all GHWB did was leave the Kurds hanging out to dry, and be massacred after his administration implicitly (if not overtly - we can't prove it) gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.

Leaving the Kurds to hang out to dry...was a despicable act.

Yes, I supported Clinton...in every international endeavor. I thought he was a brilliant communicator and a skilled politician. I thought the impeachment hearings were a farce and a blight on the country.

I only wish he had been stronger...he wanted to prosecute each exercise from 30,000 feet...I think...to pander to his base on the left.

Hillary should have learned the lesson (as did a very good man, Joe Lieberman) that you don't stick with your principles against the pernicious anti-establishment left. It will cost you. They will turn on you.

And I don't find it "hilarious" that these quotes came from the President, The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor. I find it hilarious that the leftists have nothing of substance in response.

"no way am I going to read that slab of palaver. The debacle in Iraq is W's fault. End of story."

"It is, it is, it is, it is, it is....and if you show me any more facts I'm going to throw myself on the ground and kick and scream and cry and hold my breath until I turn blue. Take it back, take it back, take it back.

It's aw dat bad, bad, bad, man's fawt, an' you won' make me beweeve anyding else!!!!"

LOL. Earl, time for a diaper change. And go stand in the corner and have a time out. LOL

"Oh man do you have issues. You're unsavory even by Clown World standards."

Sucks to be you, huh? You are used to getting softballs tossed to you by the Ministry of Media and getting the choir of World Populists to sing your rote memorized refrains. A little bit tougher when someone hits you with facts from your own side, eh, Little Earl?

That's ok. When you grow up...you may grow out of your peachfuzz thinking and get to sit at the adult table.

"Yes, I supported Clinton...in every international endeavor. I thought he was a brilliant communicator and a skilled politician. I thought the impeachment hearings were a farce and a blight on the country."

I agree.

"I only wish he had been stronger...he wanted to prosecute each exercise from 30,000 feet...I think...to pander to his base on the left."

And I think that Clinton, inclusive of all the rhetoric about Iraq, understood that not every war that "needs to be fought" can realistically be fought in the way that it "needs to be fought". Bush certainly didn't.

"I only wish he had been stronger...he wanted to prosecute each exercise from 30,000 feet...I think...to pander to his base on the left."

I think what he did mostly worked in the Balkans. Sorry. Sure didn't lose too many people. And containment in the hopes of implementing regime change (note no specific mention of military force), and when done properly is an infinitely more reasonable solution to Saddam than what's happened.

"And I don't find it "hilarious" that these quotes came from the President, The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor. I find it hilarious that the leftists have nothing of substance in response."

And here's where your paranoid, uneducated, fantasmagorical fear of the shadowy "left" rears its ugly head. I offered my response - in several posts, actually. PNAC, whose members largely controlled the intel community in D.C. heavily influenced a lot of people back then. Heck, they should have known - they also were some of the same people SUPPLYING Saddam with the weapons, but a lot of their later "intelligence" ended up being a bunch of b.s. designed to achieve a goal. Clinton and his staff were victims to much of it.

What do those on the "right" or "wingers" have to say about these quotes, 'specially you cfb -

Verbatim quotes from when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
---Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain the y have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

Guess that "leftist base" was Clinton's downfall in your eyes, eh?

Hey! You folks that can 'plan for exit strategies and the aftermaths of wars' are there any horses running tomorrow?

Track, race and number(s), please.

Lotto numbers for Texas would also be appreciated.

Date and numbers.

Thanks.

CY said:
>>Sami, you, and I suspect most liberals here completely misunderstand what I've stated are my goals here, perhaps because you haven't read the linked posted. ...I'll make it simple.

Thanks for the response. I don't think my politics would be defined as liberal but nobody wants to use my own preference(druid) so what the hell.

Forget all this noise about who did what to whom and when. Clinton,Reagen,Bushes I & II -- Who gives a flying flip. We are where are we are and the solution and/or disaster will come out of a process subject to comprise and posturing. It doesn't take a liberal to know we're screwed regardless of who we kissed last.

For all the talk about initial bombing taking out the refining capacity and a blockade leading to the Iranian mullahs and govt collapsing - nonsense. First - I addressed a wide spread air war because that is how America does it. I know its your plan but every fantasy has to have internal consistency and what is consistent with the US Air Force is taking out the infrastructure - massive raids by both bombers and fighters.

Second, you did not address the main problem with blockades except to say a blockade is, essentially, easy. Again, nonsense. What happens when a tanker operated by the Emirates or the Russians decides to just keep going. How much of a war do you want?

Finally, would you fall supine before a superstate because you run of gasoline? I mean you, personally. If you have all these ragheads who are so willing to die for Islam or whatever, why do you think they will kiss our ass(just like they did in Iraq) just because their state fails (your best case scenario because we are not nation building here). Would you? Would Bush? Or Cheney? Why would whats-his-name Persian?

You assume we are not facing a foe as tough, as smart or as determined as us.

Eg. I see 7-89-36-1-12 powerball 34
12-2-2006

I've never read a comment by anyone that can match KC for the dumasses. Maybe he/she will wake up when the WMD (missing from Iraq) bomb goes off in the city/ town where they live. The attack on 9-11 was only to prove they could do it after the 1993 WTC attack failed. The six Islamic idiots removed from an aircraft this week were probing to see if they can still take over aircraft with items already on the plane, like the seatbelt extensions.
The only thing standing between millions of Americans and death is a president that won't bow and scrape to the enemy and their supporters (Arabs, media and dim's) in the U.S. I suspect it won't take long after Jan for restrictions to be placed on the presidents ability to protect the country and one or more massive attacks will soon follow. We won't even have to say 'told you so' those left alive will already know it.

See - I told you at in my post what KC and Earl would say. I said:

Heh...but I already know your answer to all that. Ignore history, blame Bush for everything, and change the goal posts quickly. Idyuts. Carter and Clinton had nothing to do with today's mess...yeah right. They ALL DID. It's not a snapshot in time - it is time itself - it flows forward.

And - Ta Da - that's exactly what happened. I must have some of those "Comey-Fitzgerald" Mind Rays to have known that.

So KC - mind specifically pointing out how my history lesson was "skewed"? Guess not, huh. It was right on. The problem is that you can't see beyond "I Hate Bush, So No Matter What Facts Are Presented, I Will Always Say It Was His Fault, No Matter What". I presented facts - present some of your own - and not OPINION, and EMPTY RHETORIC which you seem to specialize in.

And Crusty - I see you could not contend with the fact that I pointed out, yet again, how noodle-brained you are. You called your own party leaders stupid because you didn't bother to read, or actually understand (or maybe it could be that you just plain cannot comprehend), what cf posted. So instead of contending with it with actual facts (which I have asked you for over and over again - and you haven't done), you went to my blog and copied some of my bio and tried to use is in a "I can't say anything so I will attack and call names" manner. Pretty typical for a vacuum-between-the-ears leftist. LOL, Not laughing with you Crusty - but at you. LOL

cfbleachers: "Sucks to be you, huh? You are used to getting softballs tossed to you by the Ministry of Media and getting the choir of World Populists to sing your rote memorized refrains. A little bit tougher when someone hits you with facts from your own side, eh, Little Earl?"

You can hit me with all the facts you want from 'my side'. There in Clown World, Clinton started the war or whatever, but here on Earth it was W. There isn't the slightest iota of doubt about that. It's just his fault, deal with it. He's a disastrous president and the signature item of his presidency is a debacle.

Specter --

"And Crusty - I see you could not contend with the fact that I pointed out, yet again, how noodle-brained you are. You called your own party leaders stupid because you didn't bother to read, or actually understand (or maybe it could be that you just plain cannot comprehend), what cf posted."

It's true, I misunderstood him. If this is the best you can come up with then perhaps you should find a new pursuit.

"So instead of contending with it with actual facts (which I have asked you for over and over again - and you haven't done)"

You have not asked me for something over and over to which I have not replied. You mean, what is my great idea for Iraq? I answered that at least twice -- there aren't any good answers. We have the wolf by the ears. That's my answer, so please shut up about it. Or do you mean some other question? If so, fire away.

Here's my question to you which you have avoided: why did the White House edit that video?

"you went to my blog and copied some of my bio and tried to use is in a 'I can't say anything so I will attack and call names' manner."

That was a 'this person is demonstrably a fool' manner. You bio is vapid. This:

"I really believe that we, as a world, have lost the ability to communicate and share ideas - especially in a written manner."

is laughable. You are a lightweight.

And, best of all, the jig's up in Clown World.

The lesson that should be learned, but probably won't, is that we should'nt be in the business of overthrowing the leaders of Middle Eastern Countries (or any other Country).

Our foreign policies of the past fifty years or so, have had dire repurcussions that we are seeing today. We would never tolerate another Country interfering in our business, but for some strange reason, we think we have the right to interfere in the business of anyone we please.

Until America decides that we can't do what we want, when we want, and how we want, we will be hated and attacked.

AkaDad -- all my life I've heard that nation building was the worst of frothy liberalism, and that liberals love spending and big government. I guess I'm the conservative around here.

Jig's up, boys.

"And here's where your paranoid, uneducated, fantasmagorical fear of the shadowy "left" rears its ugly head."

Just a guess...but, again...I'd be happy to match my "uneducated" background against yours...anytime.

I have no "fear" of the "shadowy" left...I think mostly they are puerile mental lightweights who get their information from the Ministry of Media and can't think their way out of a paper bag.

The problem is, cattle are cattle. Lazy, stupid, incapable of original thought.

The left undermines America with their mendacity. The Ministry of Media distorts the truth and the bovine masses simply moo back what they are told and when they are told. There are very few traditional "liberals" remaining. I could at least respect that. What's left...are the mindless lemmings and moo-cows, herded for their useful idiocy by the enemies of state.

You weaken morale of the country, our troops in harm's way and embolden the fanatics who want to kill us. (and have back when Democrats were in office...if you have an ounce of historical integrity, which I doubt)

You slander America, and are faux patriots. Mostly white...you essentially are what the black community would call Uncle Toms. White Uncle Toms are people who bow and scrape for the enemy, trash your own country and countryment in order to curry favor with the enemy. You act as sychophants and supplicants for anyone who stands against America. You do the enemy's bidding.

And for that reason...the pernicious left is the greatest danger in America. You are cowards and weaklings. You won't stand up for America because your handlers will turn on you.

A man of principle (or woman) doesn't stand a chance in your midst. Ask Joe Lieberman. Hillary got a whiff of your stench as well.

You stand for nothing, you believe in nothing. You can only stand against. And what you stand against...is everything America stands for.

You aren't liberal. You aren't progressives. You aren't open minded. You aren't reflective. You are closed-minded, bigoted, unthinking, knee-jerk, mindless lemmings. And you aren't hip or chic or cool by being reflexively against your own country. You are simply despicable.

I offered my response - in several posts, actually. PNAC, whose members largely controlled the intel community in D.C. heavily influenced a lot of people back then. Heck, they should have known - they also were some of the same people SUPPLYING Saddam with the weapons, but a lot of their later "intelligence" ended up being a bunch of b.s. designed to achieve a goal. Clinton and his staff were victims to much of it.

cfbleachers -- reading between the lines of your post, you're pretty much asserting that you dance naked by the light of the full moon. Oh God I had another flashback about you getting aroused at the sight of trembly, fearful people. Let me summarize: "The right is the source of all that is wholesome and good, and the left is rotten and insidious." Such bold views are no doubt a hallmark of intelligence and discrimination.

You Clown Worlders had an impressive run. It's a shame that the jig's up.

cfbleachers,

Who hates america?

The hippies who were 100% right about Iraq, or you--the guy who hates his fellow americans (hippies) who were right about iraq?

"I offered my response - in several posts, actually. PNAC, whose members largely controlled the intel community in D.C. heavily influenced a lot of people back then. Heck, they should have known - they also were some of the same people SUPPLYING Saddam with the weapons, but a lot of their later "intelligence" ended up being a bunch of b.s. designed to achieve a goal. Clinton and his staff were victims to much of it."

You left that as the last text in your message. I take it you have no answer.

Look forward to more disingenuous debate on future threads. Thanks.

"Just a guess...but, again...I'd be happy to match my "uneducated" background against yours...anytime."

OK, my email is mister.larrie@gmail.com.

AND - let me preface with this: It saddens me to think that Iraq may be lost. I take NO pleasure in failure there. So let's have a real discussion about it. I think about it every day...

Right Crusty,

Remember in the other thread when you called me a nitwit when I said that there is a UN mandate for troops in Iraq? Remember that oh mister-I-am-so-smart-and-you-are-a-nitwit? Remember when I posted the fact that there is a mandate, and even referred you to al-Maliki's statement and the UN resolution number? Guess what? According to this source, the al-AP, the UN mandate you say did not exist was renewed yesterday for another year. Imagine that - I had the FACTS and YOU DID NOT. Not even close Crusty.

Remember how those posts went Crusty? You tried, using words with no back-up, to state your proclamation. I used links to reputable (well...in your eyes...MSM) places to prove my point. You came back and stated (again with no proof) that you had given more facts than I did. 'Course that was pure BS. And then you made a lame attempt to link your equally lame statement that Bush was given a "dire warning that terrorists were planning to use planes as bombs" by actually posting a link to an article where what you claimed was never said. Remember how I pointed that out to you? And asked you to show me where in your "factual" link it said what you proclaimed to be fact? And you couldn't. Remember that, Crusty, or do you want me to go get the actual quotes?

Now I know what you will do - you'll come back, call me yet another name, and make another empty assertion that you are right because you are you. Whoopee - your lack of knowledge shows every time you post. You are simply a troll - nothing more - and that is all. You don't want to debate/discuss an issue. All you do is issue proclamations that you are right, no matter what. And we are supposed to bow down to that, even though you have been proved wrong over and over. Get a grip.

You fit the Rules of Disinformation to a tee.

Wooohooo for the Democratic Leadership and the "New Direction" - Hastings is out. After all the head-butting, and internal arguing, Pelosi just lost another battle. What great minds. Just like Howie "AAAAIIIIIIYYYYYEEEEEE" Dean! You should be sooooo proud. And still no plan. tick...tock...tick....tock....

specter...
bush said stay the course something like 58 times. here's just one where it took until the third question before he said it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html
do you get the RNC talking points faxed directly to you or do you wait for fox news to give them to you?

those most responsible for continued spread of violence are not al-Qaeda,but Iran and Syria

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this allegation, or did you just pull it out of your behind?

It certainly looks to me like neither al-Qaeda, Iran or Syria are most responsible for the violence, i.e., it's the Sunni and Shia militias.

Indeed, if we're looking for proximate cause of sectarian violence in Iraq - look no farther than George W., Dick and Rummy. There was, as far as I can tell, NO unauthorized sectarian violence in Iraq prior to our invasion thereof.

Hey how about baning thid f**King clown Earl. He is so full of himself he should choke.

"reading between the lines of your post"

Perhaps that is the problem, in between the lines is nothing but empty space, try reading the words, or have your handlers read them to you.

"The right is the source of all that is wholesome and good, and the left is rotten and insidious." Such bold views are no doubt a hallmark of intelligence and discrimination."

Uh...no. The childish, pernicious, smug, pedantic, arrogant, mendacious, closed-minded, bigoted, shout you down, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, pro-ANY enemy of America (and Israel and the West in general), World Populist, lockstep lemmings OF the left...are the greatest danger to the future of this country...and their voice...the Ministry of Media are among the worst offenders.

The isolationist, xenophobic, throw our allies to the wind, bigoted, anti-Semitic, narrow-minded, OF the RIGHT...are less effective at getting their message out...but are no more desirable...just less dangerous to our future.

"You Clown Worlders had an impressive run. It's a shame that the jig's up."

Do you seriously believe that by the center shifting to teach the Republicans a lesson...that "the jig is up"? Are you that much of a child?

As goes the center, so goes the national vote, son. I'm not impressed with what has become of the left at all. Really, they suck. And you are pretty much their poster boy. Blissfully ignorant, incapable of rational thought, inarticulate and immune to reason. You are a lemming, reading directly from the assigned playbook. Facts are foreign to you, truth is like kryptonite. You basically are a dumb frat boy, playing as if you know something about...well, anything, really. Your knowledge is less than pedestrian. It has no legs.

"Who hates america?

The hippies who were 100% right about Iraq,"

Sorry, this is mindless drivel. The "hippies" weren't 100% right about anything. And they started spouting their "knowledge" about things....BEFORE the facts were in. This is like saying the tarot cards were 100% right about your sister-in-law's pregnancy.

" or you--the guy who hates his fellow americans (hippies) who were right about iraq?"

I hate traitors. I hate liars. I hate people who root against my country and for their enemies. I hate people who root for my troops to die and for enemy troops to kill them. I hate people who distort the truth about my country to curry favor with the latest fad country du jour. I hate people who blame the Jews for being persecuted in Israel. I hate people who blame Christians as a sport. I hate people who slander this country because it makes them feel superior to their neighbors.

The "hippies" weren't right...they were just the same uninformed anti-establishment assholes they were in the 60's who have managed to infiltrate the Ministry of Media and sway easily led and equally uninformed lemmings to parrot their tripe.

Specter --

"Remember in the other thread when you called me a nitwit when I said that there is a UN mandate for troops in Iraq?"

I called you a nitwit because you think that is a good reason to watch our youth die in lost cause, namely forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun. I didn't say the mandate doesn't exist.

"Remember how those posts went Crusty? You tried, using words with no back-up, to state your proclamation."

I remember someone (Purple Avenger?) trying to point out that Iraq was actually Carter's fault or some such. Is that what you are talking about? More of your "plenty of blame to go around" thing? Oh wait, yes I do, partially. I thought the August 16 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" was a big deal and you didn't.

Either way you slice it though, Iraq is Bush's fault, not Carter's, not Clinton's, not John Kerry's. That's just the way it is, Specter. If you want to give me a link or two I'll discuss it, but not lots and lots of them at once, it just takes too long.

And seriously, I've asked you at least twice why the White House doctored that video, a simple question, and you just ignore it. Who's unwilling to answer the charges here?

Hey lucifer f**k yourself your filty traitor hippie

Hey lucifer f**k yourself you filty traitor hippie

How about we eliminate their capacity to wage war and terrorism with a minimum of *American* lives lost?

Bombing their refineries, navy, and other infrastructure is a good start. Why not continue until they no longer represent a threat to us?

P.S. "Re"building their society is a red herring that we need not pick up.

Earl,

As to the "nitwit" thing - here is exactly what you said:

"And believe it or not, if we leave we may actually be in violation of the UN resolution. What about that? What about the other 40 countries that are a part of our coalition, have troops there, and have lost soldiers in the war? What do we say to them?"

What UN resolution? God you're a nitwit.

That is directly from your post. Now you claim:

I didn't say the mandate doesn't exist.

Just how stupid are you? My guess is that you really are Crusty in disguise.

As for your "movie" thing - I though Bush appeared in front of the cameras and the "Mission Accomplished" in uniform - or at least a flight suit of some sort. Am I mistaken in that recollection? Somebody fill remind me. But, Crusty, if my recollection is correct, you have pointed to the wrong video because Bush is in a suit in the one you are asking about.

specter.

I notice in your blogs you like to pick on little facts here and there to try to sound "intellectual".

Was Bush on a suit or not at the carrier? Are you for real?

You want to have a debate let's have it on .

Iraq is the subject... A bit more important than your Bush on a suit or not remark...... Or your U.N. mandate for troops in Iraq... You are talking about the troops that will be living Iraq in 2007, and our troops traped in Iraq... Those troops? - So what if the U.N. had a mandate.... Who ever listens to U.N. "mandates" anyway? You like the Ghotjaa!! game try that one with me see if you can "get me".

So for starters, tell us Mr. smart man.... How do we get out of the mess your fellow Right Wingers got us in ????

Or you like to continue to talk about Bush's wardrobe?

gil,

Another troll I see. First off - read the whole thread to get up to speed. Don't skim - read and think (are you capable of that?).

Now - if you read the whole thing, you of course can quote back to me all of the posts dealing with your empty assertion that the mess in Iraq was solely the Right Wing's fault. Care to attempt to back up that statement with facts? Or are you just going to assert that the last 60 years of involvement in the ME had nothing to do with where we are now? Are you going to assert that Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1988, which said:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

C'mon Mr. Brains, let's see you dispute any of that with FACTS. So far - all of the trolls come in and make proclamations of their OPINIONS as if they are fact. Show me you are different. I don't think so, but then again.

As to your challenge to my last post, IF (note the BIG IF), you had read the thread, you would know where the argument with Crusty came from. But like I said, it is obvious that you could not be bothered with actually reading....LOL. Another empty headed TROLL.

BTW gil (are you a fish?),

It's not up to me to come up with a plan on Iraq. You voted in such inspired leaders, and it is now in their hands. You voted them in on a "Hate Bush, Get Out OF Iraq" platform, now it is up to them to come up with a plan. So where is it gilly? Got one yet? 4 Weeks and counting to the "New Direction" and according to the last AP/Ipsos poll 57% of Americans (poll oversampled in favor of Dems mind you) say that the Dems have NO PLAN for Iraq. So much for your posturing. You've got the reins - now govern. LOL - that is as soon as your illustrious leaders get over fighting amongst themselves.

gilly,

Learn about how this works too. These are properly "comments" on a blog. These are not "blogs".

I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/11/re-one-war-not-yet-fully-engaged.html

Specter.

I am speechless about your knowledge about the Iraq mess!!

Hey, If you don't want to talk about your "plan" to get us out of the quagmire from hell that the Neo-Cons got America into... I understand... It most be a classified plan.

I'll waith for the usual lick by the New York Times.

Specter.

I am speechless about your knowledge on the Iraq War.

Hey, if you don't want to talk about your "plan" to get us out of the quagmire from hell that Bush and his Neo-Cons got us into I understand. Your plan most be classified, and can't talk about it.

I'll just wait for the usual New York Times lick. But my guess is that your plan is to blame the entire fiasco on Clinton and the Democrats.

Good luck.

Specter,

I wondered why you decided to call me Crusty. No, I've not posted here under username 'Crusty', and I don't know who that person is.

Gil's right about you. You pick up on details like I misread a post or whatever as a vindication for your Clown World beliefs. I asked you why the White House edited out the Mission Accomplished banner in the Bush speech video, and you spout off about what clothes he was wearing during the speech. I guess you think somebody is smearing him with photoshop? What an oaf. It's plain as day that the White House did it. The question is WHY they did it, and you don't have any good answer.

As for the UN resolution, who cares? We need to do what's right for the US. I know you loathe the UN, so it's lame to quote a resolution in the first place. Here's an idea: go to the parents of dead soldier and quote your resolution to them. They'll clearly explain to you that you are nitwit, since you won't take my word for it.

One of our commenters and has finally gone over the line. In the words of the Ditzy Twits, "Goodbye, Earl".

Several others of you are pushing it including a couple of long-time commentors.

I'm in a banning mood, kids.

Keep it up.

See Crusty - I told you you would try to shift the goal posts again. And I was right - AGAIN.

I also see you can't answer my question about the clothing - even though I made it clear why. Tell you what master sleuth - find the original video that you claim had the banner wiped and let's compare them side by side. Not a photoshopping problem here. Just google it and find the cached "original" you claim was out there. Burden of proof is on the accuser.

I'll leave it to your udder-intelligence to find out the reference to Crusty-the-Earl.

gilly,

I know all about Iraq. I see you haven't read the thread yet, and I am not about to recreate all that has been said because you are too lazy to read. You know, specifically the posts (comments on a blog)where we talked about what a mess it is - and where I specifically detailed the history of Iran and Iraq going back to WWII, pointing out how each administration; how both sides of our political aisle, contributed to the problem we face today. Prove to me that the whole thing just "sprang up" overnight when Bush took office. C'Mon - you made the accusation - now live up to it. But read all of my "comments" on this "thread" first. You said you wanted to debate - so bring it on. Let's see your proof that the problems over there only started with Bush - I mean something besides your proclamation that it is so.

What I've said all along gilly is that we are not dealing with something that happened as a snap-shot in time. It is a problem that grew over about 60+years based on the twists and turns of American policy over that time. Different administrations went different ways, supported different governments (even dictators) against others, did about-faces on the people we were supporting, and let megalomania flourish in the region. So get off your high horse of proclamation by realizing and understanding the BIG Picture.

And if you had read, I admitted that Bush is the one that went into Iraq, and even though the basic war (you know the toppling of the regime) was over quickly, the WOT was not. And we did not plan properly for that. I've said that numerous times. In fact, I tried to point out in the "historical" comment that what we are facing now is the same problem that we faced - and in fact the reason we decided to pull back in the first Gulf War.

But I also pointed out that at some point you've got to actually act rather than posture. For 12 years, and multiple UN resolutions, Hussein thumbed his nose at us and the rest of the world. From kicking out inspectors to hiding components of his WMD program (You should check out project Harmony), to terrorist camps, to firing on planes in the no-fly zone, and everything in between.

Now - don't use the lame excuse that Bush misled the Dems into believing that Saddam posed a threat, because I can pull tons of quotes from all of those great leaders of yours from BEFORE Bush was President. I can show you where in 1988 Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act and where he actually attacked Iraq in December 1988 (Operation Desert Fox) to "denigrate" Hussein's WMD capability. Now - 1988 was long after your side now claims Hussein got rid of all his stuff like a good boy - like 6 years after. So, why did Clinton attack Iraq - actually make an ACT OF WAR against a sovereign nation?

And if you want me to believe that you truly think Bush, the man your side claims is stupid, was able to "mislead" all of your brilliant leaders in 2001 and on, well - I'll just have to laugh some more at you. Think of the logic there - you think Bush is stupid, yet he was able to mislead your leaders - leading to the inevitable conclusion that they are more stupid, by your logic, than Bush is. Go ahead - make that argument, LOL.

KC - you got all that refutation on the historical perspective I presented - you know - the historical facts that you said I skewed? I've been waiting for you to respond. What's that? You can't find a place I "skewed" it? Imagine that.

Well, it seems pointing out that your position is foolish just gets the comment removed. I had a nice long post pointing out many of the disingenuous statements made in the above post and comments, but it has been removed. Good to know that rigorous debate is practiced here.