Bush treatment has been a disgrace

Posted by guest blogger NickS.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

What must our enemies be thinking?

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

We will not have to worry about any bi-partisan resistance now....

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

It's worth your time to read it all.

Comments

[Mommynator]

Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to improve race relations. The majority of the ignorant (both black and white and others) are not the original denizens of the civil rights movement, whose hard work, dignity and patience, led by Dr. Martin Luther King who wanted to be judged by character, not skin.

It's still about skin, not community or America.

[Craig]

His approval ratings are as low as they are not because he worked with Dems and Repubs. that's not it at all. It's because of things like his handling of the war, his lousy handling of things like Katrina, his insistence on rewarding loyalty and not competence. torturing prisoners. what he's done to world opinion of america. his trampling of americans' privacy and civil rights. and many other things.

whether or not you agree is another issue. but these are some of the reasons why his approval rating is the lowest in history.

(also, sorry about the poor capitalization - my keyboard is busted)

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

“It's because of things like his handling of the war”

Though the average American may agree with you, while you all were bitching and moaning about it, we won.

“his lousy handling of things like Katrina”

And the state officials got a pass (and rewarding with re-election to boot). Amazing how we’ve had natural disasters before and since and everything went smoothly, so the one variable was…
Strange how 9/11 was handled so well yet that’s never mentioned or taken into account when placing blame for Katrina.

Yes, I know Booooshhh hates black people, (though he buts them on his staff).

“his insistence on rewarding loyalty and not competence”

Want argue that, unfortunately that’s business as usual in DC. Your about to get a taste of it soon.

“torturing prisoners”

False talking point, provide something to backup such an accusation.

“what he's done to world opinion of America”.

I’ve never understood this childish rhetoric. They hated before Pres. Bush and they’ll hate us after. Guess what, they’ll hate us no matter what, they’ll hate Obama in a couple years. It doesn’t matter what we do, “world opinion” will always not favor the U.S., it’s the consequence of being involved, being the world’s super power.

Personally, do you worry about people who don’t like you?

“his trampling of americans' privacy and civil rights.”

I’ve heard this many times but I have yet to hear ONE example. Its’hyperbole, plain and simple.

“and many other things.”

Ah yes, “many other things”, the easy out for people who have nothing else to say.
“some of the reasons why his approval rating is the lowest in history.”

I’d rather have a president who does the right thing versus worrying and letting approval ratings dictate his policies (Clinton).

[Mommynator]

His low approval ratings are because of:

1. the relentless unfair pounding of lies as evidenced by the trash talk Craig vomits out but doesn't back up.

2. how he has done what he's believed is right without regard to popular opinion (a bad gauge of what's right/wrong) or pressures to compromise. Most people who live like that are not well liked by most people because most people would rather be liked than respected.

3. how he successfully prosecuted the war in Iraq even with errors. We've won. The Iraqis are gaining strength and independence every day and people like Craig can't handle victory, have no concept of the honor of liberating oppressed people or defending what's good and right.

Mr. Bush has not been a perfect president, but which president has been? And against what standard?

And tim is correct - why are you so obsessed with people liking you? Look at who you're dying to have us liked by. Just like the unpopular kid in high school who will do anything - JUST ANYTHING - to be accepted by the popular kids who are probably not the best people to be with.

Do some introspection, growing up or get some help, Craig. These are not good enough reasons to slander a good and decent, if flawed, man.

[Marty F.]

This intended tearjerker on behalf of President Bush is full of vague heroic attributions to and misrepresentations of the Bush administration.

The writer says "Our country will recognize...what [Bush] accomplished in the wake of the September 11 attacks." What did he accomplish? He liberated the Afghani and Iraqi people. Great, but how did that make our country safer? The people who attacked us are still organized and their leader has not been killed or captured. The Iraq war is not an inevitable result of 9/11, so Bush's achievement of taking us to war should not (and does not) earn him great respect.

The writer goes on to cite the resistance to Bush's choice of Miers and then Alito as evidence that he was receiving no cooperation from Congress. But what of John Roberts' nomination? He seemed to be confirmed easily. Could it be that Miers and Alito were just bad choices rather than victims of some coalition of Bush haters?

Many of our problems did exist before Bush came to office; even 9/11 must have been planned before Bush was elected. It is not the existence of these problems that leads to criticism of Bush, it's the response to them. We are now known for torture tactics and unregulated foreign prisons, stronghanded imperialism, wars with little justification, and unilateral action. We are known for abandoning the people of New Orleans and helping dictators stay in power.

Don't blame Congressional leaders for not working with him. Bush himself is responsible for this divisiveness. He and his Republican Congressional majority drove a wedge between themselves and the Democratic minority. And even when he didn't have the support of his Congressional backers, he used Presidential signing statements to circumvent Congress. He signed more than 8 times as many such statements as did Clinton.

We are not showing our lack of character when we criticize and mock Bush. He showed our lack of character when he told the world that it has two choices: do what we demand or be our enemy. Our failure has not been in abandoning our Chief Executive, it has been in abandoning our ideals. That is what the world noticed and our enemies celebrated.

Criticize away, but be sure you have your facts straight.

Mockery? Okay - we reserve the right to mock your Messiah when he falls on his face, then.

[Craig]

my response was pretty long and didn't show up, so I'll post it here in pieces:

tim:
I guess it wasn't clear that I was trying to explain the reasoning behind why people who don't like Bush don't like Bush. I wasn't trying to start a debate here. But I'll explain myself and cite my sources where necessary just so everyone is on the same page.

Iraq war-

After 9/11 we went into Iraq looking for terrorists. It was confirmed later that there was no connection. (Bush even said so: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html, The 9/11 Commission report said so, too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html) Then we were going in to secure the WMDs that Saddam was hoarding. Then when we couldn't find any WMDs in Iraq it became about liberating Iraq from a tyrannical dictator. It seems like a lot of people don't remember the progression.

This might be ok with you, but I find it abhorrent that the president got it wrong twice and still decided to press on.

Now we've lost over 4,000 soldiers in addition to the 3,000 people killed in WTC (not to mention the literally hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians), and we still don't have Bin Laden. We're spending billions of dollars a month on this enterprise, borrowing more and more from China, and we still don't have the guy responsible for starting the whole mess. How is that a win for anyone?

More info: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

[Craig]

Katrina-

FEMA was in shambles before Katrina was even chosen as a name in the hurricaine name list that year. Michael Brown was appointed by Bush in 2003 with no real disaster recovery experience to speak of. There were a number of important positions that were vacant at the time of the disaster. And the organization was largely geared toward the handling of another major terrorist attack, not a natural disaster. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-09-07-our-view_x.htm)

And I never said state officials got a pass. But we're not talking about state officials here. And the crap about black people is entirely irrelevant here.

Also, I'm curious about what natural disasters you're referring to when you talk of FEMA's handling of them.

Rewarding loyalty not competence-

The main person I'm talking about here is former AG Alberto Gonzalez. He presided during the attorney firings and the inital permutation of the wiretapping program (it's since been modified, and yes, Obama voted for the modification).

In regards to the attorney firings, the main issue I had was his constant retractions and clarifications, due to the inconsistencies of his story. Did his subordinate keep him in the loop or didn't he? And we can't forget his bout of temporary amnesia during his testimony. I found the whole deal really fishy but it's possible that it was just house cleaning. So if his story hadn't changed so much I wouldn't have included it here.

[Craig]

Torturing Prisoners-

Not false. CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed in February 3 cases of waterboarding by the CIA: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahi al-Nashiri

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm

Public Opinion -

It matters because under Bush we've made a lot of enemies. And in day-to-day life it's not usually such an issue. But we're talking about whole other countries with big weapons not liking us, countries that produce a huge percentage of the US's oil resources. I don't know if you've heard the reports about Hamas and Al Qaida numbers rising since the start of the Iraq war.

I'm not saying that we have to tiptoe around and bend over backwards to make people like us. I'm not saying we need to be craven and spineless. But Bush hasn't even been polite. Americans have a reputation of being arrogant because that's how the country has been run. The US might be the most powerful nation on Earth, but it hasn't been run with any humility in the last 8 years.

But I'll admit, I don't have a simple cut and dry case that I can point to here. I don't know that there is one.

And just because you don't understand it doesn't make it childish. You're so quick to throw insults around.

[Craig]

Privacy / Civil rights -

No, it isn't hyperbole. There are a lot of privacy and civil rights issues.

"Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?

On the PATRIOT ACT: "In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records."

Of particular note are the reported cases of improper NSLs by the FBI: "the FBI received private phone data on hundreds of people without any internal or external check on the genuineness of the need for that information." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070314.html

Indefinite imprisonment for American citizens deemed "enemy combatants" without trial or legal representation. Overturned after it had been in effect for more than a year. The most famouse case is Jose Padilla. Yes, he was a low-life. But he was an American citizen.

--

And Bush isn't the first president to preside during a war. Or during an economic collapse. Or during a massive natural disaster. And yet his approval ratings are the worst ever. Do you think this is some kind of massive conspiracy against him?

[Craig]

Mommynator:

1. See my post to tim above.

2. I and many others take issue to what he thinks is right. He entered us into a war that has dragged on for 5 years. It's been 7 years since 9/11 and we still haven't captured the mastermind. He's removed numerous EPA regulations protecting the environment, wildlife, air quality, all to the benefit of large corporations.

3. I "can't handle victory"? That's the most ignorant thing I've heard all week. It's also not constructive. I get why you think the war was a good thing. But I don't agree. The country is in shambles. After the fall of Saddam's regime the country fell into a civil war because there weren't enough troops there to control violence. Then the Suni and Shia began killing each other on an unheard of scale. Over 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the start of this war. That's close to the reported deaths attributed to Saddam Hussein. (As an asside, this is a pretty interesting article about him that you might be interested in: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm)

If the war hadn't been so completely botched, and had it not been presented falsely (see my post above) then I probably would have been behind it. But it was botched, and it was based on fabricated intelligence.

Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan is largely forgotten. Nevermind that intelligence says that's where Bin Laden has been staying.

and 4. No, tim isn't correct. I said "world opinion." When you said " Look at who you're dying to have us liked by" are you saying that it's stupid or pointless to want ANYONE outside of the United States to be our ally? Then who would we trade with? Who would back us up in our wars?

And please, in your response to this, leave out the name calling, thanks.

[Mommynator]

If you bother to read farther back here and on other websites, you will find that point by point, you are mistaken and your points have been deconstructed because they do not contain the whole truth.

Mr. Bush has made mistakes. Mr. Bush was not always right.

But this constant smearing of him and his reputation and his love for country needs to be addressed.

And by the time you realize the hubris contained within the heart of Mr. Obama (nice name, okay?), it'll be too late. You will wish for Mr. Bush.

Now let's see:

Iraq: Are you going to argue with the soldiers who are there, who see the mission and agree with it? Speaking to Marines who were there first and whose evidence has been buried, there WERE tons of WMDs. They were buried in caches. Our soldiers are still finding caches of things over there. I refer you to www.blackfive.net. You can do a search there for these stories. However, that was not the only reason we went over, but Bush hatred is responsible for blinding people and I'm not going to argue with fools.

Katrina: Mr. Bush pleaded with the governor of Louisiana to allow National Guard and others in to evacuate people from New Orleans and she refused. She refused! How do you explain that? It was even in all the leftist propaganda papers, however buried on their page 40s somewhere. How do you do that to your citizens? This last year, when another hurricane threatened Louisiana, Gov. Jindal was prepared - buses, supplies, medical equipment, etc., was mobilized and he worked with FEMA, the Red Cross and other agencies to ensure that if the worst happened again, it wouldn't be as bad as the utterly irresponsible neglect of the former governor. You go do the research. It's all there.

Privacy: Yes, let's let terrorists go unchecked within our borders and allow ourselves to be blown up again and again just because of some mythical agent listening to you review your grocery list with your wife. Yippee. Notice that there haven't been any more attacks in spite of the presence of enemy operatives in this country? Are you cleared for top secret documentation? Can you get into the files with all the thwarted stuff? No? Well, then.

May I remind you that al-Qaeda has no country. They are therefore not regular soldiers or agents of any one country and are not entitled to any kind of rights under our constitution (no citizenship here) or Geneva Conventions (which only applies to the signatories). I know you'd like us to be nice to the people who are trying to kill us, but get real. Do YOU want to get killed by these people?

Whose approval ratings wouldn't be in the toilet with the constant pounding of people like you who have distorted facts over and over and over again? Let's see, who was it that said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it? It wasn't George W. Bush.

His approval rating, however, is higher than Congress. If the democrats are so superior in their policy and wisdom, why doesn't the American public buy that? If you're going to go by approval ratings, isn't that a sign of something wrong? But of course we know the answer to that - only Bush is evil and wrong and stupid and whatever else you can come up with.

The economy tanked after this most ethical congress took over and made Nancy Pelosi Queen. It has continued to tank because the democrats want to steal more and more from us - our money and our liberty.

It wasn't George W. Bush who tried to hush people about his background or his associations. It was Mr. Obama who kept threatening lawsuits against anyone who tried to dig into his past and associations.

We've been over this dozens of times here on this blog and elsewhere.

Face it, Craig. You are determined to slander this president. I'm not slandering anyone - Mr. Obama's record, as covered as it is, has peeked through and it's an ugly record - domestic terrorists, hateful church and pastor, abandoned by both his parents and looking for someone to fill those roles in his life and turning to cocaine and other drugs.

No one has ever proved that Bush ever took cocaine (yes, he was alcoholic by his own admission), but that keeps getting pounded and pounded. But Obama? He could sit there and snort a thousand lines on the Oprah show and it would be okay.

Craig, when the scales drop from your eyes, come back.

[Craig]

Mommynator:
You're so determined to win this discussion we're having that you've refuted all sorts of statements I never made. Calm down. And I wish you would understand that I'm not trying to win this debate. I'm trying to clearly explain why people agree that Bush is the worst president to date. You're perfectly entitled to your views, however different from mine they may be. If you can justify your beliefs and reconcile them with existing evidence, that's all I'm hoping for. I don't care what conclusions you reach.

The Iraq war:
That the soldiers agree with the war is irrelevant. It isn't up to them. And the fact that the Bush administration trumpeted for months that Saddam was hoarding WMDs and yet the American public at large was never shown any proof is pretty telling. If it were me, I'd be blasting it all over every news outlet I could think of. So I, and many others, don't think there ever were any. And there's also the fact that only days after 9/11 Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes in Iraq, even though Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, which makes people think that he was interested in going there but had no justifiable reason before 9/11.

And Bush hatred is not the reason I believe this. The Bush hatred is BECAUSE of this.

And please point me to the relevant stories on blackfive.net. I took a look but couldn't find any.

Regarding Katrina:
Please cite the "leftist propaganda papers" you're referring to here.

The administration even admitted a lack of preparation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102101862.html

If you'd like to read what the mostly Republican committee that investigated the Katrina response had to say, you can find their report here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/mainreport.pdf

Basically, there were problems all over the place. But the face of the whole thing was Bush. Which is why people dislike him. Is it fair to him? Probably not. But there you go.

And you didn't actually address anything I said about FEMA before, so I'm assuming you agree with it.

Terrorist attacks:
For one, your argument is based on a false premise. You're assuming that the privacy violations are necessary to prevent terror attacks. But there's no evidence linking the lack of warrantless wiretaps to an increase in terrorist attacks. Though things like the warrantless wiretaps, the NSLs, and the indefinite detention of terror suspects ("enemy combatants") are why people disagree with Bush.

Do I want to get attacked again? No. But I'd prefer doing things like paying attention to national security briefings stating that a terrorist attack on American soil is imminent, (like what WASN'T done with the August 6 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."). Or the 8 months of frantic letters from the then-counterterrorism czar warning of the same. (That guy was Richard Clarke, should you want to do your own research. Find more here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

And Clarke has been in service to the government for over 20 years. Were someone to call him a liar or a conspirator it would be both morally and intellectually bankrupt. You know, were anyone to do that.)

I haven't seen any proof that any of the measures Bush has taken have been effective. Maybe the terrorists haven't planned anything huge since 9/11. There haven't been any alien attacks since he came into office either. That doesn't prove anything.

But since we survived as a country for over 200 years before today without such intrusive surveillance on American citizens, I'm going to err on the side of caution until someone can convince me it's a necessary evil.

And you haven't addressed the fact that American citizens were held without habeas corpus at Guantanamo Bay yet. Does that mean you're ok with it?

And no, I don't want to be nice to people trying to kill us. So you must not know as much about me as you think. It's just that Bush hasn't been nice to me, and I'm not trying to kill anyone.

And the economy also tanked after Bush got re-elected. So what? Correlation does not equal causation. The economy tanked because the big lenders were greedy and stupid with their money. Pelosi had no more to do with it than Bush did.

And we're talking about *Bush's* approval rating here. Congress is a separate matter. We can go there if you like, once we address all the loose threads in this discussion. (Just so you know, I think Congress has been absolutely terrible for the past 4 years or so.)

So, there you go. Please point out-specifically-where my points do not contain the truth. If you want me to see your point of view, help me get there by posting your sources and clearly explaining your views, as I have tried to do for you.

And I'll ask you again to quit the unhelpful personal attacks.

[Harry]

I have never seen such an absolute dismantling of a person, at least not on the internet. I almost feel that Mommynator should be forced to stop blogging. Craig's skillful handling of this debate-his confident tone, his even keel, his use of, you know, facts-is just amazing. Point by point, Craig has "cyber-pantsed" the Mommynator. I cannot wait to see where this goes, because Mommynator has a lot on the line, she is a guest blogger after all. Right now, she's looking fatigued, looking weary, looking McCain. But can she pull off a stunning defeat? Will she use logic in her reply? It would be a surprising move, but we could see it. I tell you, I have not seen a drubbing like this since... well, since last week, the last time the Electoral College was in session. Maybe when the Obamas met the Bushes, Senator Obama gave President Worst Ever a lesson on the definition of the word "mandate."

[Nicks]

The new definition of the word "mandate."

People for the American Way Press Release in 2005 after Republican President George W. Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry by a 51-48 margin:

Clearly, President Bush, who won a narrow victory and leads a divided nation, has no mandate...

People for the American Way Press Release in 2008 after Democrat Barack Obama defeats Republican John McCain by a 53-46 margin:

Looking at yesterday's results, it's incontrovertible that the election delivered a sweeping mandate for President-elect Obama .

[Mommynator]

Uh, Harry, in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't been BLOGGING. I've been COMMENTING.

If that's how accurate you are, then there's a problem with your "blogging".

There is documentation out there refuting Craig.

It's just that I'm in school in the evenings and work full time.

If you want more of an analysis, I suggest you check out www.theanchoressonline.com and search her site for citations disputing Craig's demented slanders.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

I got your back Mommynator.

“tim:
I guess it wasn't clear that I was trying to explain the reasoning behind why people who don't like Bush don't like Bush. I wasn't trying to start a debate here.”

For someone not “trying to start a debate here” you’re doing a horrible job. And do “people” know you’re speaking for them or…

“Torturing Prisoners-
Not false. CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed in February 3 cases of waterboarding by the CIA: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahi al-Nashiri”

You do realize more than a few people don’t consider waterboarding torture, right? I would love to question the “people” you’re speaking for as to what constitutes “torture” and how many people they think have actually been “tortured”. The propaganda machine has been so successful in convincing people that we torture that waterboarding three people is enough to label America as a torturer. Beyond ridiculous.

“Public Opinion -
It matters because under Bush we've made a lot of enemies. And in day-to-day life it's not usually such an issue. But we're talking about whole other countries with big weapons not liking us, countries that produce a huge percentage of the US's oil resources.”

So it’s Bush’s fault that Iran doesn’t like us? Seriously, you believe that nonsense.
“I don't know if you've heard the reports about Hamas and Al Qaida numbers rising since the start of the Iraq war.”

Yes, and they were all American loving “moderate Muslims” before Iraq. Did you ever stop to think the reasoning behind the scum of Hamas and al Qaeda may have reasons to hate the Great Satan that started before Bush, will exist after Bush and have NOTHING to do with American foreign policy. Seriously, have you ever read anything about Muslim extremism or the ideology behind the Jihadist. Here’s a clue, it has NOTHING to do with Pres. Bush.

Privacy / Civil rights -
“No, it isn't hyperbole. There are a lot of privacy and civil rights issues.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda..."

Thanks for making my original point. Though you’ve intentionally left out the part of “suspected terrorist” Gee, slightly covenant for you.

“On the PATRIOT ACT: "In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants…”

This is you evidence of wrong doing “opponents of the law have criticized”. Not exactly examples wrongdoing or violation of civil liberties. You’re just regurgitating the same rhetoric we’ve been hearing for 7 yrs.

“Indefinite imprisonment for American citizens deemed "enemy combatants" without trial or legal representation. Overturned after it had been in effect for more than a year. The most famouse case is Jose Padilla.”

Thanks for proving that our justice system works. But you do point out the difference between your side and mine. They are enemy combatants (no quotations), they are not prisoners of war. Sorry, you don’t know the difference._

“And Bush isn't the first president to preside during a war. Or during an economic collapse. Or during a massive natural disaster. And yet his approval ratings are the worst ever. Do you think this is some kind of massive conspiracy against him?”

Though he may be the first to endure all three. Look, war presidents are not usually popular, doesn’t make them bad. But it’s interesting how all those who voting for the Iraq war in Congress get a pass. Why is that. And don’t give me that lie crap, because is that’s the case Clinton lied, Gore lied, Kerry lied, and on AND ON AND ON…

Here’s some good reading for you if you want to learn something other than the drivel you’ve spewed.

“THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
"In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden.

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."

Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp?pg=1

No WMD’S, yea just 550 metric tons of ‘yellowcake’-

"Secret U.S. Mission Hauls Uranium From Iraq On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq .
The opening paragraph is as follows: The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program – a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium – reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.”

http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/influence-warfare-not-it-appears-that-american-troops-found-the-550-metric-tons-of-uranium-in-2003-after-invading-iraq/

But I'm not trying to debate, I'm just presenting what intelligent and reasonable people think about your unwarrantied hatred for a fine man.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi announced this week that twice as many Iraqis died during the Clinton years as during the Bush years.

"Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.

Then again back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton's policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.
In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" back on May 12, 1996:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

There's video at--

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/egyptian-scholar-twice-as-many-iraqis.html#comments

[Mommynator]

Thanks, tim. I'm a little overwhelmed here trying to remember enzymes, cellular respiration and photosynthesis in all their detailed glory.

[Craig]

Lol..."cyber-pantsed"

Also, Mommynator, what are you studying?

[Craig]

tim,
I'm *not* trying to start a debate here because I'm not trying to win anything. I'm trying to get people to understand my point of view, while trying to understand theirs. As far as I'm concerned, there's no loser here. And I'm speaking for myself, and for everyone else who shares my views. Why you're insinuating that I'm stupid and irrational, I don't know.

Torture-
Fair enough. You and I have a different view of what torture is. But since I *do* think it's torture, the fact that even one prisoner was waterboarded is enough to label America a torturer. So, in my eyes, Bush did order and sanction torture, which is one reason I don't like him as a president. Hopefully, since you acknowledge that they were waterboarded, this issue is settled.

Public opinion-
You're thinking about this in black and white. No, it was no one person's fault that world opinion of America is low. But the difference here is that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have had their lives completely upended by the war. They may not appreciate what America is trying to do for them. Then there is everyone in the region that sees the U.S. as a bully or as imperialist.

This isn't something that is easily quantified. But we're less likely to get favorable responses from people and countries that dislike us. Down the road, that could be problematic.

And yes, I do think that there are members of Hamas and Hezbollah that would not have joined had we conducted the war differently, or not at all. Yes, I do think that terrorists existed before Bush, and will exist after. But I disagree with your assertion that our foreign policy hasn't affected their actions.

And yes, I have also tried to learn about the motivations of the Muslim extremists, and how there are many in the middle east who actually think that the U.S. is run/used by Satan. I'm not so naive as to think that we could somehow change their minds with a more humble foreign policy, but I also don't think that the Islamic terrorist groups operating over there are comprised entirely of people that extreme.

The people I'm talking about here are more moderate and balanced; further to the center.

Privacy-
It's been documented that there are people in the U.S. who have been spied upon via illegal wiretap. I'm talking about before the program was modified once it was discovered and outed by the NYT. So, there were also people who were later spied upon by legal wiretaps, too. This is all documented, so hopefully I won't have to find some source confirming this.

The thinking here, among people like myself, is that the chances that there were 0% mistakes when wiretapping international-to-domestic phone calls is close to nil. And even if that was not the case, the entire notion that the government is spying on its citizens to the degree that we now know it to be doing is extremely distasteful.

And for me personally, I think there were a lot of things that could have and should have been done prior to 9/11 that could have lessened the devastation or prevented it completely. So, the fact that I now have to live in a country that spies on large swaths of its citizens for no reason is very upsetting.

And add to that the recent FISA updates that further enhance the government's ability to wiretap who it wants, when it wants, and why it wants, and the whole endeavor becomes absolutely repellant. My view is that this move is a power grab clothed in a terrorist-deterrence measure.

The government was previously allowed to wiretap citizens and later get a warrant after the fact. Originally it had to be within 3 days, I think, but an amendment by this administration lengthened it to something like 70. Now, there are situations where the government doesn't have to get any warrants to wiretap.

I don't care who is in office. I don't trust the government with that kind of power. Bush and his administration are the ones that pushed so hard for it. That is why I dislike Bush when it comes to this. Obama will have this power come Jan. 20, and I won't trust him with it, either.

Weekly Standard:
I read the article. It's an interesting piece and it raises some interesting questions. But it's the only article like that one that I can find. I haven't seen any other article make those same assertions. And that was written almost 3 years ago. The government hasn't finished translating or finding those DOCSIS documents yet? How has this not gone nuclear by now?

And I also find it interesting that his main source for corroboration - Ahmed Mohamed Barodi - spent 3 weeks in a camp in Iraq back in 1982. That puts him in a training camp at the same time the US was encouraging Iraqi attacks on Iran. Is it terrorism? Yeah. Is it Al Qaeda? No. Were they targeting Americans? No. Hussein was in America's good graces back then.

So if there's more information I'd love to see it. I couldn't find any. But right now there's still not enough to convince me that there was a connection to terrorism targeted at the US.

As for the yellowcake story, you'll have to give me more. Yellowcake is used for basically anything nuclear, including fuel rods for power plants. So it doesn't conclusively prove anything. And even so, it's still just *the materials necessary to produce* a WMD -- not a WMD in itself.

And regarding your other post about Clinton--we aren't discussing Clinton here. Clinton's ineptitude does not excuse Bush's. So it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

And I just can't wait for the next fun insult you throw!

[Craig]

Mommynator:
I just found this gem of yours from October:

"It's must be awful to be so narrowly focused on denigrating people you disagree with that your head threatens to explode, but there you have it."

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/10/the-infuriating.html#comment-134116581

I really wish you'd listen to yourself here. I've just been trying to educate myself and others by commenting. You've been attacking me from the very beginning, offering no actual substance to go with them.

Just as with tim, I've received only hostility from you, with no justification. Or at least, no explanation.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

“I'm *not* trying to start a debate here because I'm not trying to win anything. I'm trying to get people to understand my point of view, while trying to understand theirs. As far as I'm concerned, there's no loser here. And I'm speaking for myself, and for everyone else who shares my views. Why you're insinuating that I'm stupid and irrational, I don't know.”

Your debating and don’t be so thinned skinned. I can only find two comments of mine that could be considered insulting, “childish rhetoric” and “drivel”, hardly anything close to calling you “stupid”. The site name is Brutally Honest for a reason.

“Public opinion-
You're thinking about this in black and white. No, it was no one person's fault that world opinion of America is low.”

But according to you earlier, you blamed it on Pres. Bush and now…And yes, I don’t care for nuanced thinking, things are right and things are wrong, not a big fan of people who try and sell me a sh*t sandwich by trying to tell me ‘but it taste good’.

“But the difference here is that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have had their lives completely upended by the war. They may not appreciate what America is trying to do for them.”

Millions of Iraqi’s are now free because of the US and Pres. Bush, I’m sure more than a few of them are grateful.

We may make some people upset when we do something but worrying about that is a waste of time. If something needs to be done, then let’s do and worrying about certain country’s or people reaction is a waste of time.

“But I disagree with your assertion that our foreign policy hasn't affected their actions.”

It’s an excuse by them and people like you who say “under Bush we've made a lot of enemies.”

Middle Eastern Muslims have been, waging war on us for about 30 years, (though many can argue for hundreds if not thousands of years) it doesn’t matter what we do or not do, they hate us either way. To give them an excuse for their hatred fails to recognize the real threat and gives to them a sign of our weakness.

“I'm not so naive as to think that we could somehow change their minds with a more humble foreign policy, but I also don't think that the Islamic terrorist groups operating over there are comprised entirely of people that extreme.”

So let me get this straight, terrorists are not always extremists? This is where we have a major disagreement and not a lot of reason to go much further debating.

“The thinking here, among people like myself, is that the chances that there were 0% mistakes when wiretapping international-to-domestic phone calls is close to nil. And even if that was not the case, the entire notion that the government is spying on its citizens to the degree that we now know it to be doing is extremely distasteful.”

You’re paranoid and have no idea how the system works. There are many checks and balances in the system.

“And for me personally, I think there were a lot of things that could have and should have been done prior to 9/11 that could have lessened the devastation or prevented it completely. So, the fact that I now have to live in a country that spies on large swaths of its citizens for no reason is very upsetting.”

Yet you’re not comfortable with the government listening in on “overseas suspected terrorists” contacting someone here but you feel that 9/11 could have been prevented. So then you’re aware of the documented terrorist attacks since 9/11 by the Bush administration, right? But you don’t trust them and feel that they spying on “large swaths of its citizens for no reason”?

“My view is that this move is a power grab clothed in a terrorist-deterrence measure.”

This speaks volumes about your arguments and it obviously clouds your rationale.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

"So then you’re aware of the documented terrorist attacks since 9/11 by the Bush administration, right?"

Should have been -

So then you’re aware of the documented PREVENTED terrorist attacks since 9/11 by the Bush administration, right?"

[Craig]

"Your debating and don’t be so thinned skinned. I can only find two comments of mine that could be considered insulting, “childish rhetoric” and “drivel”, hardly anything close to calling you “stupid”. The site name is Brutally Honest for a reason."

Did you forget "But I'm not trying to debate, I'm just presenting what intelligent and reasonable people think about your unwarranted hatred for a fine man." Do I really have to explain how this implies that I'm stupid?

And the only thing I've been debating is whether or not I've been debating. It's stupid. So call it whatever you like. I'm not wasting any more time talking about it.

"But according to you earlier, you blamed it on Pres. Bush and now…And yes, I don’t care for nuanced thinking, things are right and things are wrong, not a big fan of people who try and sell me a sh*t sandwich by trying to tell me ‘but it taste good’."

It IS partially his fault. That's what I said before. This is nuanced, so I guess I can see how you wouldn't get it. And your analogy about the shit sandwich is completely disconnected from reality.

"Millions of Iraqi’s are now free because of the US and Pres. Bush, I’m sure more than a few of them are grateful."

More than a few, eh? So what? I didn't say that there weren't people that were satisfied with how the US has been conducting the war. I said that there have been people that have been UNsatisfied with how the US has been conducting the war, and have joined al Qaeda as a result. Check out this quotation from Richard Clarke (the guy GWB appointed the national crisis manager after 9/11) regarding al Qaeda:

"Despite what it would do if in power, its call is resonating with many discontented Muslims who want change. More and more people in the Muslim world buy al Qaeda's propaganda about America and the West suppressing and being at war with Islam. The movement's strength is growing, in part because of what America has done and not done."

So, the fact that we as a nation retaliated against Iraq even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan might make some of those disaffected people agree with al Qaeda's assertion that the US was at war with Islam. Which is what I was saying before.

"It’s an excuse by them and people like you who say “under Bush we've made a lot of enemies.”"

An excuse for what? Not liking Bush? If so, I think the word you mean is "reason," not "excuse."

"Middle Eastern Muslims have been, waging war on us for about 30 years, (though many can argue for hundreds if not thousands of years) it doesn’t matter what we do or not do, they hate us either way. To give them an excuse for their hatred fails to recognize the real threat and gives to them a sign of our weakness."

Of course it matters what we do. If it didn't matter what we did then why are they waging war on us in the first place? Boredom?

"So let me get this straight, terrorists are not always extremists? This is where we have a major disagreement and not a lot of reason to go much further debating."

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant they don't start out that extreme. See the quotation from Richard Clarke above.

"You’re paranoid and have no idea how the system works. There are many checks and balances in the system."

I DO know how the system works. Or at least, how it's supposed to. But I also know about all the failures the government had in preventing 9/11, and all the missed opportunities. The CIA knew about Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaz al-Hamzi more than a year before they participated in the 9/11 attack. They'd gotten copies of his passport. Hell, they'd tapped al-Midhar's phone all the way back in 1998. He had been tied to several other foiled or failed terror plots before 9/11.

And yet he and his co-conspirator were both allowed to pass through immigration into the US, no questions asked.

So now, instead of fixing the issues that allowed 9/11 to happen, the country is now engaged in widespread wiretapping, hoping to catch al Qaeda operatives that way. And now millions of American citizens are being unknowingly eavesdropped on, because the government was incompetent handling the run-up to 9/11, and either lazy or incompetent in assessing the reasons afterward.

"Yet you’re not comfortable with the government listening in on “overseas suspected terrorists” contacting someone here but you feel that 9/11 could have been prevented."

See above. There were documented failures in the handling of vital 9/11 intelligence. So yes, there were ways 9/11 could have been prevented that had nothing to do with wiretapping.

"This speaks volumes about your arguments and it obviously clouds your rationale. "

While it may speak volumes about my arguments, my opinion of the wiretapping program has nothing to do with them.

[renee]

Craig, I will agree with you on the power-grab with wire-tapping and habeas corpus; the laws in place were sufficient, what was, and may still be, lacking was cooperation between the different intelligence agencies and internally with the way information is processed.

I will agree with you on the issue of torture, it can never be right and America is better than that. Defining what torture is or is not, can be a matter of opinion that has to be taken into consideration, too.

I will not agree with you on the issue of why Bush decided to attack Iraq, although I would agree that there were mistakes in policy prior to the Bushes, that did much to create a direction of terrorism our way that was many years in the making. The policies of Peanut head comes to mind.

Bush had to deal with the fallout of those mistakes. It could also be that an equal threat and event would have manifested itself regardless because the leadership and goals within the powerhouses of the middle east who see the West as their enemy because of who we are and what we stand for, and against.

There is a great battle raging of good against evil and if you have looked into the mind of the terrorist organizations masterminding these attacks, you can see that line drawn. Although our nation hasn't always done everything the right way in the right time, it has tried to stand on the side of right when it is called upon. That is more than what can be said of most civilizations or nations in history. Ours is young and still learning, hopefully it will survive to grow old.

I have been perplexed and remain perplexed on why Bush didn't defend himself better when there has been evidence to the contrary of what most MSM reported and his opponents to the war will admit. I'll post some links to those few articles out there that talk a little about that evidence. There is and was much discussion of those evidences prior to 911 in certain circles who had a need to know, and that would include the presidency and his advisors. They should have connected all the dots and stopped it from happening but hindsight is everything in love and war.

Hamas and Hezbolla are the arms of Iran and a different sect of Islamic belief, while al Qaeda and those that support it, are a horse of a different color. There is disturbing evidence that would support that old saying "that the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of cooperation between the two has taken place, but they have different and conflicting ideologies and for the most part are enemies of each other. As such, they are two separate battles that we face which are geographically rooted in many arenas which might not appear clear on the surface to the many who have not followed their history. Any one place at any given time may pose the greater risk that needs to be dealt with accordingly and result in difficult and hard decisions.

We must accept that while I have great faith in the media to be a watchdog (NOT!!!) there will always be information that the public is not, and should not, will never be, privy to. To know that information would cause the masses to live in constant fear of what could happen and build a collective mindset towards our enemies that could create an increased hostile environment, even a dangerous or reckless response, which runs the risk of being misdirected, too. There have been leaders in history who have manipulated information to the masses to evil means. While some would question the wisdom of how our nation's leaders handle intelligence of a threat, I do not envy the man, or men, who receive that information and hold our nation in their hands. That is why God asks us to pray for our leaders and for our enemies.

Article links to follow.

[renee]

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=1054.0.63.0

From the Editor
The Shocking Story About WMD in Jordan
From the June 2004 Trumpet Print Edition »
By Gerald Flurry

Have some of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (wmd) been found in Jordan?

Around the first of April this year, the Jordanian authorities captured an al-Qaeda terrorist cell that worked out of Jordan. The terrorists had about 20 tons of chemicals, including poison gas! That’s right, 20 tons of chemicals—or weapons of mass destruction.

The al-Qaeda leader in Jordan has confessed that they planned to kill 80,000 Jordanians with those chemicals.

King Abdullah ii of Jordan told the San Francisco Chronicle that “It was a major, major operation. … It would have decapitated the government” (April 17). Yes indeed—“a major, major operation.” This is chemical warfare of the worst kind! But it is getting hardly any attention from the media and politicians.

Do many of these institutions truly understand what the war against terrorism is and what the United States must do to win?

Where did these terrorists get the poison gas? The Jordanians know it came from Syria—which in itself is a dangerous act of war by that terrorist-sponsoring nation. But do America and Britain have the will to stop Syria’s terrorist activity?

Terrorism expert John Loftus was interviewed by Larry Elder of Creators Syndicate concerning the lack of media interest in the origin of the chemicals found in Jordan. Loftus, a respected author, lawyer and lecturer, is a former Army officer and Justice Department prosecutor who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Here is a part of that interview:

“John Loftus: There’s a lot of reason to think [the source of the chemicals] might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al-Qaeda, who’ve been trained in Iraq … and now they’re in Jordan with nerve gas. … You have to have obtained it from someplace.

“Larry Elder: They couldn’t have obtained it from Syria?

“Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam’s Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. … So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. … [T]here’s no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq. … And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as vx. It’s very rare, and very tough to manufacture … one of the most destructive chemical mass production weapons that you can use. … They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch’s brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals …” (May 6; emphasis mine throughout).

There may be more information revealed later about these chemicals, and this information could be slightly altered. Regardless, this is an Earth-shaking event that deserves headlines in our media! Unfortunately, little is being reported—even though the terrorists have made shocking confessions.

Here is more from that interview:

“Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, ‘There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons.’

“Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have weapons of mass destruction. It’s not generally known, but the cia has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.

“Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.

“Loftus: It’s embarrassing to the [press]. They’ve staked their reputations that this stuff wasn’t there. And now all of a sudden we have al-Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with weapons of mass destruction.”

…more to read at site…

[renee]

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/a...-081256-6822r/

Ex-spy fingers Russians on WMD

Originally published 08:12 p.m., August 20, 2003, updated 12:00 a.m., August 21, 2003

On March 20, Russian PresidentVladimir Putin denounced the U.S.-led "aggression" against Iraq as "unwarranted" and "unjustifiable." Three days later, Pravda said that an anonymous Russian "military expert" was predicting that the United States would fabricate finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov immediately started plying the idea abroad, and it has taken hold around the world ever since.

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction -- in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit."Iimplemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.

All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction. Chemical weapons, especially those produced in Third Worldcountries,which lack sophisticated production facilities, often do not retainlethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway. And all chemical weapons plants had a civilian cover making detection difficult, regardless of the circumstances.

The plan included an elaborate propaganda routine. Anyone accusing Moammar Gadhafi of possessing chemical weapons would be ridiculed. Lies, all lies! Come to Libya and see! Our Western left-wing organizations, like the World Peace Council, existed for sole purpose of spreading the propaganda we gave them. These very same groups bray the exact same themes to this day. We always relied on their expertise at organizing large street demonstrations in Western Europe over America'swar-mongering whenever we wanted to distract world attention from the crimes of the vicious regimes we sponsored.

Iraq, in my view, had its own "Sarindar" plan in effect direct from Moscow. It certainly had one in the past. Nicolae Ceausescu told me so, and he heard it from Leonid Brezhnev. KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, told me so too. In the late 1970s, Gen. Primakov ran Saddam's weapons programs. After that, as you may recall, he was promoted to head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service in 1990, to Russia's minister of foreign affairs in 1996, and in 1998, to prime minister. What you may not know is that Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. He was a personal friend of Saddam's and has repeatedly visited Baghdad after 1991, quietly helping Saddam play his game of hide-and-seek.

The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed them how to make them "disappear." Russia is still at it. Primakov was in Baghdad from December until a couple of days before the war, along with a team of Russian military experts led by two of Russia's topnotch "retired"generals,Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. They were all there receiving honorary medals from the Iraqi defense minister. They clearly were not there to give Saddam military advice for the upcomingwar--Saddam'sKatyusha launchers were of World War II vintage, and his T-72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes were all obviously useless against America. "I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee," was what Gen. Achalov told the media afterward. They were there orchestrating Iraq's "Sarindar" plan.

The U.S. military in fact, has already found the only thing that would have been allowed to survive under the classic Soviet "Sarindar" plan to liquidate weapons arsenals in the event of defeat in war -- the technological documents showing how to reproduce weapons stocks in just a few weeks.

Such a plan has undoubtedly been in place since August 1995 -- when Saddam's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological programs for 10 years, defected to Jordan. That August, UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors searched a chicken farm owned by Kamel's family and found more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes containing documentation dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear

…more to read at site…

[renee]

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5329.3625.0.0

Saddam’s WMDs Slip Under the Media Radar—Again

July 18, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
Uranium, 550 tons of it, writes the last chapter in Saddam’s nuclear weapons program, and another chapter in media dishonesty.

The United States transported 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” concentrated natural uranium to a Canadian destination earlier this month. The departure point: Baghdad, Iraq. The uranium came from a 23,000-square-acre nuclear weapons complex 12 miles from the Iraqi capital, called Tuwaitha. The secret transfer operation included “more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives—kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way,” the Associated Press reported.

The $70 million evacuation and transportation of 3,500 barrels of uranium required an overland military convoy to Baghdad, 37 military planeloads to an Indian Ocean atoll, and an 8,500-mile trip by ship to Montreal. It also required top secrecy, as officials guarded against possible disruption or theft by Iranian-backed insurgents or terrorists.

The military also evacuated four irradiation decontamination units from the facility earlier this year. The devices contained highly radioactive parts that could potentially be used for a weapon, it was reported.

The operation is being hailed as the last chapter of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program, and has stirred up major questions over whether the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified

…more to read at site…

[tim aka The Godless Heathent]

“Of course it matters what we do. If it didn't matter what we did then why are they waging war on us in the first place? Boredom?”

Again, you don’t have even an elementary understanding concerning the history nor present day violent Muslim Jihad. The Quran, Caliphate, Sharia law…no, none of that means a thing to you. Yup, don’t let little things like that get in the way of your moral relativism.

And to have such a juvenile outlook that it is because of what we do that we have enemies is not worth my time to hold your hand through the process of explanation. And it’s reprehensible that you so easily give the benefit of the doubt to our enemies but unwilling or unable to give any to “us”.

Your insistence that WE are to blame for the deeds of evil scum is sickening and reeks of the propaganda spewed by those 6th century cave dwellers. Congrats on picking such a noble argument.

“And now millions of American citizens are being unknowingly eavesdropped on”

Yes, and soon they will be rounded up and shot. The REAL question is, will you be one of them? Now there’s a debate worth having.

[Craig]

tim:

My quote:
“Of course it matters what we do. If it didn't matter what we did then why are they waging war on us in the first place? Boredom?”

This is basically splitting hairs and I'm tired of trying to straighten it out, but I'll respond one last time. This isn't even very important to the issue here, so that's why I'm not bothering with it after this.

I'm not saying that any one thing that we did provoked the 9/11 attack. I'm saying that there MUST have been a reason that the US was chosen by al Qaeda as a target. And unless that reason is that the US was chosen as a target in a random drawing they had one day, it's a safe bet that the decisions the US made had something--even the tiniest little bit--to do with it.

I don't know if you honestly think that the US had NOTHING to do with the attack, or if it just makes you feel snuggly inside to pretend that innocent ole' us got attacked by the big bad al Qaeda monster for no reason. And I don't really care.

As for your feigned indignation, give me a break.

A more concrete example to illustrate my original point about public opinion is Bush's initial decision go to war without the consent of the UN. I think it was a bad idea, and painted the US as arrogant to the rest of the world. And I disliked that. Therefore, I dislike Bush, partially for that reason.

And that's why.

"Yes, and soon they will be rounded up and shot. The REAL question is, will you be one of them? Now there’s a debate worth having."

This is ridiculous. All I can do at this is roll my eyes. And since you didn't disagree, I guess we're finally done with this thread.

[Lands’nGrooves]

“This is basically splitting hairs and I'm tired of trying to straighten it out, but I'll respond one last time. This isn't even very important to the issue here, so that's why I'm not bothering with it after this.”

Actually you arrogant fool, it’s very important to the main argument we’ve been having here – blaming Pres. Bush and the U.S. in general for the actions of our enemies

“I'm not saying that any one thing that we did provoked the 9/11 attack. I'm saying that there MUST have been a reason that the US was chosen by al Qaeda as a target.”

I understood you the first time and I stand by my earlier statements. You comprehend nothing of history concerning Islam and their aggressiveness towards the West and the U.S. specifically.

There have been over 12,000 deadly terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorist JUST since 9/11.(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) They occurred all over the world, in China, Chechnya, Thailand, the Philippines, just to name a few, against non-Muslims AND Muslims. To you, those are the fault of the U.S. To people who actually can think they are the fault of the scum who perpetrated them.

“I don't know if you honestly think that the US had NOTHING to do with the attack, or if it just makes you feel snuggly inside to pretend that innocent ole' us got attacked by the big bad al Qaeda monster for no reason. And I don't really care.”

It doesn’t matter per se what the U.S. does, we will always be seen as the enemy by certain people. We can free, directly or indirectly, Muslims in Kuwait, Afghanistan (against Russia), the Balkans and the Muslim world will still hate us. We can send aid to predominately Muslim countries every year and /or when a natural disaster strikes, and the Muslim world still will hate us.

So while you feel better and self righteous about blaming America for the ills of other countries and fall for the misdirected blame of their own failures, I’ll pass on the elitist snobbery and misplaced guilt that affects you ability to reason.

“As for your feigned indignation, give me a break.”

There’s nothing fake about my disgust for people like you who see death, destruction and barbarism and blame the victims instead of the cretins responsible.

“A more concrete example to illustrate my original point about public opinion is Bush's initial decision go to war without the consent of the UN. I think it was a bad idea, and painted the US as arrogant to the rest of the world. And I disliked that. Therefore, I dislike Bush, partially for that reason.”

What absolute drivel. So the UN is your compass for morality? You could never, ever imagine an example when we may need to go to war WITHOUT the approval of the stinking UN Security Council? You’d put the well being of this country, your family and friends, at the decision of Russia and/or China?

The President of the United Sates does NOT take an oath to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic ‘if the UN agrees’.

Also, using your logic and reasoning you must not like Pres. Clinton either, right? He didn’t get the UN’s approval so…or does your standard only apply to Republican presidents?

"Yes, and soon they will be rounded up and shot. The REAL question is will you be one of them? Now there’s a debate worth having."

This was sarcasm dimwit. You’ve got your head so far up you’re a$$ you can’t think straight. And the only thing that’s ridiculous is your unfounded comment that I was responding to - that “millions of American citizens are being unknowingly eavesdropped on”.

tim aka The Godless Heathen