Why Bush Should be Impeached

[BillyBob]

Good going! Capitalism rocks!!!!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Good going! Capitalism rocks!!!! Indeed. I remember an old episode of Captain Planet (a cheesey program, I know, but occasionally amusing...) in which the villain started a war between two countries, all the while providing arms to both parties.

Truly ingenious.

[HerodionRomulus]

Libya'a Quadafi isa survivor. He goes which ever way the wind blows.

Once he was a Pan-Arabist, now pretends to be a Pan-Africanist. Once he was pro-Western, then not, now he has shifted once again.
His only concern is his survival. Do business with him if you wish, but don't trust him. Ever.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey Skeptic, you still haven't shouted in the 'Shout Box'. C'mon, do it just once....for me! I guess I have not done enough exploring on tOL. What is the 'Shout Box'?

[Behira]

We did not have to invade Iraq!
Saddam was cooperating with UN inspectors.

It's about oil and $. What do you think would have happened if GW had negotiated an end to sanctions against Iraq, and the return of US investment? Did GW try this with Saddam?

THE UN; was the idea of Saudi Arabia, came out of the League of Nations which was idea from Arab League of Nations, the NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF UN is Arabic. The U.S. doesn't have a national language of English; which it should; but the UN does. The UN Security Council those people who are supposed to quell all the wars and rumors of wars; are made up of mostly Terrorist Arab Nations; that's mostly what GW meant when he said they were irrelavant. Tell me what great good has the UN done in the last 10 years. Where is the UN in the Sudan? Where is the UN when Gadaffi intends to take over Africa?

Gadaffi announcing he will hand over WMD to UN is not really any great thing to celebrate considering what the UN did in Iraq; virtually nothing.

[Behira]

The terror began; just after the fall of Adam and Eve; and won't end until the restoration of all things. Terrorism has always been present on the earth; the difference now is that it can destroy all humanity. Must be stopped.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Behira
Tell me what great good has the UN done in the last 10 years. Tell me, how many times has the US exerted its UN veto and denied funds for its selfish interests at the expense of global concerns, in the last 10 years?

Gadaffi announcing he will hand over WMD to UN is not really any great thing to celebrate considering what the UN did in Iraq; virtually nothing. Then, why isn't Bush planning to invade Libya? He can't afford to - the military is stretched too thin and, after killing thousands of Iraqis unnecessarily in an unjust invasion, Bush could not win approval at home. And, it's the oil, stupid!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Behira
The terror began; just after the fall of Adam and Eve; and won't end until the restoration of all things. Terrorism has always been present on the earth; the difference now is that it can destroy all humanity. Must be stopped. No, terror began millions of years ago, and will never end until the human species becomes extinct. However, humans could significantly reduce terrorism by (1) addressing the fundamental root causes of terrorism, not just killing them (more just keep coming), and (2) working to reduce religious fundamentalism (yes, Christian, Islamic, etc.) through reason and science.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I guess I have not done enough exploring on tOL. What is the 'Shout Box'?

Oh, it didn't occur to me that you wouldn't know what it is. Just hit the 'Active' icon at the top of the page and the TOL home page comes up. [They might call it something else] At the top right is a place to post called a Shout Box. It is only accessible to members and now that you're a member, I thought you should step up and shout occasionally.

I bet Knight a membership that you wouldn't so Knights gets 30 bucks out of the deal if you use it.

Merry Christmas!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I bet Knight a membership that you wouldn't so Knights gets 30 bucks out of the deal if you use it. Well, ... (wince) ... since you and I agree ... (cringe) ... on one or two more topics than than Knight and I, you get the 30 bucks.

Merry..... ah, I mean .... Happy Holidays.

[BillyBob]

:D

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, terror began millions of years ago, and will never end until the human species becomes extinct. However, humans could significantly reduce terrorism by (1) addressing the fundamental root causes of terrorism, not just killing them (more just keep coming), and (2) working to reduce religious fundamentalism (yes, Christian, Islamic, etc.) through reason and science.

individual terrorists will stop when they stop breathing.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by deardelmar
individual terrorists will stop when they stop breathing. Now there's a profound, and unfortunately true, observation on the subject. :thumb:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
individual terrorists will stop when they stop breathing. Merely killing individual terrorists will do nothing to stop the flow of terrorists into the world. It may, in fact, increase the rate of flow, as would-be terrorists vow revenge for the death of their father, mother, friend or other relative.

What's so aversive about addressing the root causes of terrorism? Are you afraid that addressing root causes might someday reduce the number of terrorists to kill? Do you feel the same way about crime? Are you afraid that addressing root causes of criminal behavior might someday reduce the number of criminals we can lock up or execute? Nothing like a good killing or execution, eh deardelmar?

Which approach would your buddy, Jesus, have preferred?

[HerodionRomulus]

Jesus himself, being the Executed God would probably not have much good to say about executions or death of any kind.
After all he came to defeat death, not to increase it.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
What's so aversive about addressing the root causes of terrorism?

Billy;
Absolutely nothing. And since the root cause of terrorism is Islam, I propose we address it by wiping it out.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Absolutely nothing. And since the root cause of terrorism is Islam, I propose we address it by wiping it out.
I'm sure the IRA will be very surprised to find out that they are actually Muslims...

And somehow, I don't believe you are willing to systematically exterminate one sixth of the human population, men, women, children and infants.

Now, if you can show that you are capable of picking up a Muslim baby and breaking its neck...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
What's so aversive about addressing the root causes of terrorism?

Billy;
Absolutely nothing. And since the root cause of terrorism is Islam, I propose we address it by wiping it out. Terrorism, as a method of rebellion, has been around long before the existence of Islam and will be around for as long as people are free to believe what they will. Perhaps we should work at changing the nature of what people come to believe? And I don't mean belief in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or other religions (even though the world could do without all of them), none of which are the root cause of terrorism. Regardless of one's religious beliefs, people can learn that there are other ways of dealing with problems than acts of terrorism. Don't you think this has a better chance of long-term success, BillyBob?

Please grab a cup of coffee and take the time to read this:
Islamic Terrorism? (http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_9.html)

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
I'm sure the IRA will be very surprised to find out that they are actually Muslims...

Billy;
Last I checked, it wasn't the IRA who flew planes into our buildings.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Regardless of one's religious beliefs, people can learn that there are other ways of dealing with problems than acts of terrorism.

Billy;
I am sure that you would be welcomed in the Middle East as someone who is going to teach them not to terrorize.

Skeptic;
Don't you think this has a better chance of long-term success, BillyBob?

Billy;
No, I do not Skeptic. Killing them has a better chance of success than begging them to please stop. Well, maybe if you said "Pretty please with sugar on top", they might quit blowing themselves up.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Gerald;
I'm sure the IRA will be very surprised to find out that they are actually Muslims...

Billy;
Last I checked, it wasn't the IRA who flew planes into our buildings. So, only those who flew planes into our buildings, and those who funded and supported them, can be considered terrorists?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Merry..... ah, I mean .... Happy Holidays.

Don't you celebrate Christmas?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, only those who flew planes into our buildings, and those who funded and supported them, can be considered terrorists?

No, I didn't say that. You do a pretty good job terrorizing this website.

Are you a Muslim? :shocked:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Last I checked, it wasn't the IRA who flew planes into our buildings. And if it had been, would you advocate the wholesale slaughter of the Irish population?

Even better, if it had been American Protestants...

Admit it, BB: you don't have the stomach for extermination; you have to be willing to kill children and infants, as well as adults.

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
Admit it, BB: you don't have the stomach for extermination; you have to be willing to kill children and infants, as well as adults.

Billy;
Whatever it takes.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Are you a Muslim? :shocked: That requires believing in a deity.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
No, I didn't say that. You do a pretty good job terrorizing this website.

Are you a Muslim? :shocked: Here's what you said: Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
What's so aversive about addressing the root causes of terrorism?

Billy;
Absolutely nothing. And since the root cause of terrorism is Islam, I propose we address it by wiping it out. So, according to you the root cause of terrorism is Islam. If you say there are such things as non-Islamic terrorists, you will have succeeded in contradicting yourself.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Whatever it takes. Yeah, right.

Who're you trying to convince, me or yourself? You don't have what it takes to pick up a baby and break its neck.

Someone could hold a gun to your head and you wouldn't do it.

Stop trying to be a tough guy.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald
That requires believing in a deity.

You guys have a new diety this week, Michael Jackson just converted to Islam.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald
Yeah, right.

Who're you trying to convince, me or yourself? You don't have what it takes to pick up a baby and break its neck.

Someone could hold a gun to your head and you wouldn't do it.

Stop trying to be a tough guy.


Depends on the scenario. If they were your children I would have no problem doing it.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You guys have a new diety this week, Michael Jackson just converted to Islam. Michael who?

Oh, the white woman trapped in a black man's body.

Never heard of him...:p :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Do you put little turbans on their heads and give them fake little beards? :baby:

[Skeptic]

Oh, BillyBob? Do you admit to contradicting yourself? :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Depends on the scenario. If they were your children I would have no problem doing it. Just like I'd have no trouble with yours...or your mother...or your father...

(Are you sure you wanna go this route...?)

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, BillyBob? Do you admit to contradicting yourself? :chuckle:


NEVER!!!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald
Just like I'd have no trouble with yours...or your mother...or your father...

(Are you sure you wanna go this route...?)


It doesn't bother me...:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
NEVER!!! That's what I kinda figured. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

:D

[BillyBob]

Hey, where did Gerald go????? His Mom musta put dinner on the table....:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Italy Anarchists Suspected in EU Letter Bombs (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20031230/wl_nm/security_europe_dc)

Hey, these Italian anarchists can't be terrorists! Why, they aren't even Muslims!! Right, BillyBob? :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

OK, so we'll kill all Muslims and Italians. You gotta problem with that?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
OK, so will kill all Muslims and Italians. You gotta problem with that? :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

==========================
Published on Sunday, December 28, 2003 by the Toronto Star
Bush is Author of Dark Chapter for America
by Haroon Siddiqui

CONOOR, India—Up here in the tea estates of Nilgiri Hills, where teak-floored bungalows with vast verandas offer spectacular vistas, one feels grateful for the distance from the ubiquitous American media and for the time and tranquility to think and reflect.

As the year of the war on Iraq draws to a close, the larger perspective that emerges is clear: George W. Bush, a small man in a big job, has dragged America into one of its darkest chapters.

He commands unprecedented military power, but his word carries little or no weight in much of the world.

This odd equation remains unaltered by Saddam Hussein's capture, hyped in America but seen elsewhere as inevitable, given that Iraq is not an Afghanistan of a million caves. If anything, the video of his captivity exposed the Bush administration's desperate need to display a trophy catch.

Bush's next declared mission, that of toppling Yasser Arafat, only reinforces the image of the president as a king who knows not the boundaries of his kingdom, nor the limits of his power. Or, as a captive of pro-Israeli hawks hell-bent on remaking the Middle East to Likud designs.

While the president struts and smirks for the cameras in contrived situations — landing on an aircraft carrier to prematurely declare victory in Iraq or serving Thanksgiving turkey to soldiers in Baghdad — terrorism has increased under his watch. Not unlike the record rise in suicide bombings in Israel under Ariel Sharon.

Bush's use of fear as a key tool of governing has turned the world's most powerful nation into its most paranoid, despite two invasions and an expenditure of nearly $200 billion (U.S.).

The administration, invoking 9/11 and the murder of 2,900 innocents as its licence to wage unilateral wars, has so far killed about 10,000 innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's a guesstimate, since America does not count the Afghans and Iraqis it kills in the process of "liberating" them.

The gap between Bush's words and deeds gets bigger by the day, as does the disparity between his illusions and reality.

His war on Iraq was waged on a pack of lies, shoving aside the United Nations when it refused to play its part in the sham exercise of rubberstamping a predetermined course.

Just as he manipulated intelligence to tie Iraq to terrorism and portray its non-existent nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as a threat to America, Bush ignored the State Department's warnings of post-war troubles. He spoke instead of flowers greeting the U.S. liberators and oil revenues paying for the war and rebuilding of Iraq.

He invoked democracy but ignored its expression abroad and suspended its principles at home.

His war was universally opposed, even by the electorates of the governments that joined his "coalition of the willing" — Britain, Spain, Italy and Australia. His most enthusiastic allies were dictators and oppressors, the worst violators of human rights, who used the war on terrorism to stifle dissidents and kill secessionists.

He keeps delaying direct elections in Iraq for fear that the majority Shiites would win and won't be the puppet he wants installed in his subject kingdom.

His administration's violations of the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution are not explained away by the need to cut corners to get at terrorists. Besides not catching any, his policies alienated the very groups whose help was crucial and also sapped the moral strength of his rhetoric and America's $240 million public-relations campaign in Muslim nations.

American courts are reasserting, as they always do, albeit slowly, the rule of law.

But the human and political damage is already done.

Bush promised to avoid a clash of civilizations, but that's what he is widely perceived as presiding over. The anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic discourse — often unapologetically racist — is supplied by Christian fundamentalists and pro-Israeli neo-conservatives, two key constituencies Bush dares not alienate.

The mollycoddled Sharon is thus set to blithely ignore Bush's road map and steamroll over Palestinian lands and Palestinians' human rights in hopes of imposing his version of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

But this will no more bring peace than his previous policies did.

So long as the Israeli-Palestinian issue festers, anti-Americanism and, presumably, terrorism will keep growing. The link has been unmistakable.

Surveying these geopolitical ruins, it is politically incorrect to blame the American public. But its gullibility is alarming. Even now, a majority believes that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. The Bush crowd knows only too well the usefulness of Saddam, a former ally now a demon.

All of the above is self-evident, except to a majority of Americans and their apologists, including, sadly, some Canadians.

The latter are still whining over Canada's decision to sit out the Iraq war, which history will record as Jean Chrétien's finest hour — something Paul Marin would do well to always remember.

What of the future?

Saddam's trial should be conducted, not as Bush wants, by the Iraqis he controls, but by the International Criminal Court.

Saddam should be charged with crimes against humanity as well as war crimes — hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured, raped, mutilated, murdered; groups brutalized in Stalinesque campaigns: Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Shiites; neighbors Iran and Kuwait invaded, their civilians and properties destroyed.

Iraq should be turned over to the United Nations.

But since that's not likely, the United States should let the world body play as great a role as possible while keeping military control in American hands.

That would help improve security for Iraqis and American soldiers alike. It would attract international help, especially from those, like France, Germany, Turkey, Pakistan and India, who do not want to be caught dead cavorting with Bush.

Iraqi sovereignty belongs to Iraqis. They need to write their own constitution, elect their own leaders and make their own mistakes.

They could not possibly do any worse than their occupiers, who have been lurching from crisis to crisis for the last eight months in a haze of incompetence and ignorance.

From: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1228-03.htm
=============================

[BillyBob]

:vomit:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by BillyBob
:vomit:
yeah

[Sealeaf]

Bush should be impeached because tar and feathers are too good for him.

[BillyBob]

He should be honored by adding his likeness to Mount Rushmore!!!!!!

We could change the name to Mount Bushmore! :D

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
He should be honored by adding his likeness to Mount Rushmore!!!!!!

We could change the name to Mount Bushmore! :D Oh, right. Just knock those four other pansies off and put Duhbya's face up there.

For that matter, we could melt down the Statue of Liberty (after all, the (ugh) French gave it to us), recast it in likeness of G.W. Bush and call it the Statue of Conquest (picture him in Roman garb, bearing aloft a sword)...

[BillyBob]

Yeah!!! I Like It!!!!!!!

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by BillyBob
OK, so we'll kill all Muslims and Italians. You gotta problem with that?

hay
my wife is Italian
can I please keep her:D

[BillyBob]

I think there is a marriage clause which allows exemptions.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I think there is a marriage clause which allows exemptions.
good
it took me a long time to find a woman dumb enough, I mean smart enough to marry me

[BillyBob]

We all have that same problem. :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I think there is a marriage clause which allows exemptions. Are you sure that's wise...? Remember, the sweetest, most demure wives are often the most dangerous... :noid:

[BillyBob]

Do you sleep with one eye open? Or does your wife make you sleep on the couch?? :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Do you sleep with one eye open? Or does your wife make you sleep on the couch?? :chuckle: Sleep? What's that?

I just swap out my plutonium power cell every 18 months... ;)

[Skeptic]

my bold:
======================
Published on Thursday, February 5, 2004 by TomDispatch.com
A Modest Proposal
by Chalmers Johnson

So the Bush administration -- under considerable pressure from people outraged that we invaded Iraq not only without U.N. approval but on false intelligence that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" -- has now decided to investigate itself. For this important task it is proposing a panel of former CIA officials (Robert Gates, Richard Kerr), former Congressional members with "intelligence expertise" (Warren Rudman, Gary Hart), and David Kay, the weapons inspector whose recent report and change of heart have so discomfited the administration. Unsurprisingly, if this administration has its way, the investigation will not make public its results until well after the November election.

The whole exercise smacks of "cover-up" and is about as trustworthy as asking Enron executives to investigate themselves. A group of men, deeply protective of their former colleagues, friends, and Washington connections, will doubtless tell us in due course that U.S. intelligence on Iraq was "thin" (at the time of the war it had been two years since there had been a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq). The now-famous misinformation about "yellow cake" being purchased from Niger will be blamed on England's MI6, the equivalent of our CIA. The real reasons why former ambassador Joseph Wilson's first-hand report on Niger yellow cake was ignored and Wilson's CIA wife subsequently outed will be conveniently forgotten. The real story of how and why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq will be lost in a miasma of words - and undoubtedly an endless commission report with endless appendices, some of which will surely be declared top secret and shielded from public view -- and no one in particular will be blamed (much as Robert McNamara now blames "the fog of war" and not himself for the failures of American policy in Vietnam).

Let me propose that if the Bush administration really wants to find out what went wrong with our pre-war intelligence on Iraq, it should appoint a commission consisting of first-class investigative reporters, including first and foremost the New Yorker magazine's Seymour Hersh and the Atlantic Monthly's James Fallows. These two journalists have, in fact, already told us in damning detail what really went on inside the Bush administration. In several of his New Yorker articles, but particularly "The Stovepipe" (published in the October 27, 2003 issue), Hersh describes the process whereby a pro-war cabal within the administration -- Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and others -- set out to cherry-pick the intelligence tidbits that supported their preconceived plans for war in Iraq.

In an equally well-documented Atlantic article in the January/February 2004 issue of that magazine, James Fallows explores why so much went so badly wrong after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why the looting? Why the continuing guerrilla attacks? Why the failure to bring the mass of the population over to our side, even after the capture of Saddam Hussein? Fallows's answer is that most of what went wrong had long been predicted by non-governmental organizations that tried to work with the Pentagon but whose advice was studiously ignored.

Perhaps the most amazing discovery Fallows made with regard to intelligence concerns Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who taught for years at the National War College and who compiled a "net assessment" of how Iraq would look after a successful U.S. attack. Not only did Gardiner's predictions regarding the infrastructure prove devastatingly accurate, but his report was compiled entirely on the basis of information freely available on the Internet. No need at all for $30-plus billion worth of intelligence agencies. Of course, Gardiner's warnings went unheeded in large part because the administration was already bent on war and uninterested in anyone else's thoughts, let alone intelligence on the coming "post-war" era in Iraq.

In its desire to evade responsibility for its lying and reckless decisions, the administration is now trying, on the one hand, to place all blame on the Central Intelligence Agency while, on the other hand, protecting the CIA from the full brunt of such blame by carefully choosing an "old-boy" commission to absolve it. If we really want to know who skewed, manufactured, or otherwise diddled the data about Iraq (and who is doubtlessly still doing so), then we need some good reporters who can develop their own "deep throat" sources of information. Although journalists are not infallible, the best of them are incorruptible to the extent of being willing to be jailed in order to protect their sources. It is hard to imagine the administration's commission getting that sort of data from bureaucrats who want to keep their jobs and protect their families from retaliation. Since the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court have become so dangerously collusive and disregarding of the American public's interests, let's see what the "4th estate" can do to save us.
=========================

The last thing we need is for the Bush administration to control an investigation into WMD by handpicking the investigators. What we need is an independent public investigation of the Bush administration, including intelligence and whether it was used to "sex-up" the justification for invading Iraq.

[Skeptic]

my bold:
=======================
Published on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
by Jonathan S. Landay

WASHINGTON - The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that's claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.

The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.

That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

Both versions were written by the National Intelligence Council, a board of senior analysts who report to CIA Director George Tenet and prepare reports on crucial national security issues. Stuart Cohen, a 30-year CIA veteran, was the NIC's acting chairman at the time.

The CIA didn't respond officially to requests to explain the differences in the two versions. But a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained them by saying a more candid public version could have revealed U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.

Last week, Tenet defended the intelligence community's reporting on Iraq, telling an audience at Georgetown University that differences over Iraq's capabilities "were spelled out" in the October 2002 intelligence estimate.

But while top U.S. officials may have been told of differences among analysts, those disputes were kept from the American public in key areas, including whether Saddam was stockpiling biological and chemical weapons and whether he might dispatch poison-spraying robot aircraft to attack the United States.

Both documents have been available to the public for months. The CIA released the public version, titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," in October 2002, when the Bush administration was making its case for war. The White House declassified and released portions of the NIE's key findings in July 2003.

Knight Ridder compared the documents in light of Tenet's speech and continuing controversy over the intelligence that President Bush used to justify the invasion last April. There are currently seven separate official inquiries into the issue.

What that comparison showed is that while the top-secret version delivered to Bush, his top lieutenants and Congress was heavily qualified with caveats about some of its most important conclusions about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, those caveats were omitted from the public version.

The caveats included the phases "we judge that," "we assess that" and "we lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) programs."

These phrases, according to current and former intelligence officials, long have been used in intelligence reports to stress an absence of hard information and underscore that judgments are extrapolations or estimates.

Among the most striking differences between the versions were those over Iraq's development of small, unmanned aircraft, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

The public version said Iraq's UAVs "especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents - could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland."

The classified version showed there was major disagreement on the issue from the agency with the greatest expertise on such aircraft, the Air Force. The Air Force "does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents," it said. "The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

There was substantial difference between the public version of the estimate and the classified version on the issue of Iraq's biological weapons program.

The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version.

In a section on chemical weapons, the top-secret findings said the intelligence community had "little specific information on Iraq's CW (chemical weapons) stockpile." That caveat was deleted from the public version.

The classified report went on to say that Iraq "probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents - much of it added last year."

"Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents," said the public report.

Deleted from the public version was a line in the classified report that cast doubt on whether Saddam was prepared to support terrorist attacks on the United States, a danger that Bush and his top aides raised repeatedly in making their case for war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington with a stronger case for making war," the top-secret report said.

Also missing from the public report were judgments that Iraq would attempt "clandestine attacks" on the United States only if an American invasion threatened the survival of Saddam's regime or "possibly for revenge."

John Walcott contributed to this article.

Following are excerpts from the public and classified versions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities. The first set of quotes is from the classified version of the report; the second set of quotes is from the public version, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," which the CIA released in October 2002.
Unmanned aircraft

Classified version

" ... The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

Public version

"Baghdad's UAVs — especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents — could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland."

WMDs

Classified version

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)"

Public version

"Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

Classified version

"We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. ... We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs."

Public version

"Iraq hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts."

Nuclear program

Classified version

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons programs, INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

Public version

" ... most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Biological weapons

Classified version

"We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.

"... Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington with a stronger case for making war.

"Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge.

" ... we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."

Public version

"Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."
=======================



In other words, Bush and his neocon buddies sexed up the evidence to justify invading Iraq, unnecessarily killing thousands of people in the process!

[wholearmor]

No 9-11, no attack on Iraq.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor

No 9-11, no attack on Iraq. I agree!

This is because 9-11 was the excuse Bush and his neoconservative Pentagon buddies was looking for to launch an invasion of Iraq. Publicly, the invasion was to prevent Iraq from using their alleged vast stockpiles of WMD against America and other countries. Privately, the invasion was hoped to give Bush and his cronies a political, economic and strategic advantage.

No 9-11, no opportunity to capitalize on the paranoia of the American public and no excuse to invade Iraq as a part of an alleged "war on terrorism."

Killing thousands of people because of what Iraq MIGHT have done if given YEARS to develop WMD is NOT ethically justifiable.

UN inspections were working, before the invasion, nothing was (or has been) found, and Saddam was boxed in. Iraq did not pose a significant enough (if any) threat to warrant killing thousands of Iraqi people, and over 500 U.S. troops, spending billions of American tax dollars, and hurting the support the U.S. had following 9-11.

Invading Iraq was the WRONG thing to do, and Bush must pay!

[BillyBob]

There wouldn't have been a 9-11 if Clinton had imprisoned Bin Laden when he had the chances.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I agree!

This is because 9-11 was the excuse Bush and his neoconservative Pentagon buddies was looking for to launch an invasion of Iraq. Publicly, the invasion was to prevent Iraq from using their alleged vast stockpiles of WMD against America and other countries. Privately, the invasion was hoped to give Bush and his cronies a political, economic and strategic advantage.

No 9-11, no opportunity to capitalize on the paranoia of the American public and no excuse to invade Iraq as a part of an alleged "war on terrorism."

Killing thousands of people because of what Iraq MIGHT have done if given YEARS to develop WMD is NOT ethically justifiable.

UN inspections were working, before the invasion, nothing was (or has been) found, and Saddam was boxed in. Iraq did not pose a significant enough (if any) threat to warrant killing thousands of Iraqi people, and over 500 U.S. troops, spending billions of American tax dollars, and hurting the support the U.S. had following 9-11.

Invading Iraq was the WRONG thing to do, and Bush must pay!

Ah, without the left, the rest of this nation wouldn't have anything to talk about. Thank you Democrats for the Save the Whales, Marriage Penalty Taxes, Baby-murdering, Gay marriages, and all the other nonsensible things your platform has dreamed up since LBJ took office.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Ah, without the left, the rest of this nation wouldn't have anything to talk about. Thank you Democrats for the Save the Whales, Marriage Penalty Taxes, Baby-murdering, Gay marriages, and all the other nonsensible things your platform has dreamed up since LBJ took office. Hey, count your blessings; they aren't rounding up the Christians and gassing them...not yet, anyway...

Mwahahahaha...

:devil:

[HerodionRomulus]

[b]Originally posted by Skeptic
In other words, Bush and his neocon buddies sexed up the evidence to justify invading Iraq, unnecessarily killing thousands of people in the process!

"sexed up" Is that a new way of saying LIED?

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Rv 21:8 caps mine

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Gerald

Hey, count your blessings; they aren't rounding up the Christians and gassing them...not yet, anyway...

Mwahahahaha...

:devil:

Philippians 1:21

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Philippians 1:21

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If you truly believe that, why have you not made your way to someplace like Sudan? There, I understand, they hunt Christians for sport...

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald

If you truly believe that, why have you not made your way to someplace like Sudan? There, I understand, they hunt Christians for sport...

Why haven't you?...then we would all find out if you're as tough as you say you are.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Why haven't you?...then we would all find out if you're as tough as you say you are. Simple. I'm not a Christian. They'd have no reason to hunt me.

And anyway, it is Swordsman who's talking about how "to die is gain."

If he truly believes that, he should go someplace where he can die a proper martyr's death.

Far be it from me to not point the way, if possible...:chuckle:

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Gerald

If you truly believe that, why have you not made your way to someplace like Sudan? There, I understand, they hunt Christians for sport...

See, its because you pick certain points in Scripture that totally negates your arguments. If you were at all honest with yourself, you would not have a reply like you did.

Paul is talking about in the latter half on Philippians 1 about while he is still alive to rejoice and to progress the faith throughout the world.

So yes. I truly believe that while I am alive (by God's grace) I will do the will of God, and when the day comes for me to depart this wretched world, I'll be with my Savior in eternity.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Swordsman
See, its because you pick certain points in Scripture that totally negates your arguments. If you were at all honest with yourself, you would not have a reply like you did.You are the one who started quoting Scripture; I just took your comment at face value.So yes. I truly believe that while I am alive (by God's grace) I will do the will of God, and when the day comes for me to depart this wretched world, I'll be with my Savior in eternity. But you have no interest in hastening that day by deliberately endangering yourself.

Interesting...:think:

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Gerald But you have no interest in hastening that day by deliberately endangering yourself.

Interesting...:think:

No. Perhaps I'm here for a greater cause. You have to agree, it makes for interesting conversation between those like yourself and Christians.

So......... let's get it on! :box: (j/k) ;)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Ah, without the left, the rest of this nation wouldn't have anything to talk about. Thank you Democrats for the Save the Whales, Marriage Penalty Taxes, Baby-murdering, Gay marriages, and all the other nonsensible things your platform has dreamed up since LBJ took office. So, your response to my specific points regarding the invasion of Iraq and the killing of thousands of people is to make some general off-topic remarks about the left and Democrats? This is your tactic? Paint anti-war folks with the broad brush of "liberalism," then there is no need to address their specific points? Just say "typical liberal ranting" and that's all you need to do? How rational is that?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Skeptic

So, your response to my specific points regarding the invasion of Iraq and the killing of thousands of people is to make some general off-topic remarks about the left and Democrats? This is your tactic? Paint anti-war folks with the broad brush of "liberalism," then there is no need to address their specific points? Just say "typical liberal ranting" and that's all you need to do? How rational is that?

I think I'm being just as rational as yourself. It seems lately all the left wants to rant about is the war in Iraq. What they don't realize (which is unrational, mind you) is that its such a small part of what is happening in the world today. Take the thousands of people dying here in the US with cancer, AIDS, alzheimers, etc. Or SARS in Asia. Just a few for you to think about.

But please, don't be ignorant. You and I both know it is the left that is running this anti-war campaign. Had Clinton invaded Iraq, you know the screaming would be coming from the right. So please. Be honest with yourself first.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Swordsman

I think I'm being just as rational as yourself. It seems lately all the left wants to rant about is the war in Iraq. What they don't realize (which is unrational, mind you) is that its such a small part of what is happening in the world today. Take the thousands of people dying here in the US with cancer, AIDS, alzheimers, etc. Or SARS in Asia. Just a few for you to think about. But, if the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, and thousands of people were killed unnecessarily by the Bush administration, then this is a HUGE issue and gets to the heart of whether America should have a President who is willing to kill thousands in an invasion when there was significant reasonable doubt, even within the intelligence community, whether Iraq had WMD and was a threat!

But please, don't be ignorant. You and I both know it is the left that is running this anti-war campaign. Had Clinton invaded Iraq, you know the screaming would be coming from the right. So please. Be honest with yourself first. If Clinton had launched a massive invasion, killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq, given the shaky evidence we had before March 2003, I would have called for Clinton's impeachment for that reason! I could care less about Clinton's sex life.

[Skeptic]

=======================
Published on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 by TomPaine.com
Never Saying 'Sorry'
by Laura Flanders

When Halliburton, the vice president's former firm, received a no-bid contract to do billions of dollars worth of work in Iraq, the public was told that Halliburton got that contract, and that much money, in that way, because in a fast response situation like the one in Iraq, Halliburton was simply the best in the business. Now one Halliburton unit stands accused of over-charging the U.S. taxpayer for millions of dollars and its own internal reviewers are acknowledging that the unit took on work for which it was in fact, ill-suited.

Since January, the Pentagon has been engaged in a criminal investigation of Halliburton's unit, Kellogg Brown and Root. The Defense Criminal Investigative Unit, an arm of the Pentagon's Inspector General's office, is examining whether KBR engaged in "substantial overcharging" on millions of troop meals overseas. Pentagon investigators charge that KBR charged for nearly four million meals that were never served. There is also the question of whether KBR paid as much as $61 million too much for fuel last year by buying it from a Kuwaiti source rather than from cheaper sources in Turkey. The billings now under review bring the total cost to the U.S. taxpayer to more than $176 million.

The Wall Street Journal is virtually alone in following this juicy story. For months, staff reporter Christopher Cooper and his colleagues have been digging up revealing documents. In February, the paper reported that two former employees of Halliburton's Kellogg Brown and Root unit were "coached by their superiors to evade competitive bidding rules by breaking up purchases into small pieces." (Pentagon procedures require contractors to seek competitive bids on supplies costing more than $2,500.) The latest revelation is an internal KBR report which calls the company's cost controls "antiquated" and "inadequate."

The memo amounts, said the Feb. 27 Journal, "to a frank admission that Kellogg Brown and Root's critics are voicing valid concerns about the possibility of overcharges under the company's massive contract to supply U.S. troops."

The company's procurement system is "disorganized," and marked by "weak internal controls," declare the company's internal review team. As Cooper and company point out, KBR's reviewers also challenge KBR's President and CEO Randy Harl's claims made in January. The company has "a rigorous system of internal controls for government contracts" Harl said in a conference call on the company's fourth-quarter earnings. In fact, the memo acknowledges that KBR's "paper-based, labor intensive and bureaucratic procurement system isn't suitable for a fast-response situation like Iraq."

It boggles the mind why this isn't a bigger story.

Pressed on the appearance of impropriety last fall, Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke defended the no-bid contract awarded KBR. "If you actually look at the facts, there are actually very few companies around the world that are the size and scope to handle some of these tasks in the rebuilding of Iraq," Clarke told Paula Zahn on CNN last September."

Now the Pentagon itself is weighing criminal charges against KBR, the company has been forced to withhold billing on some $140 million while that investigation proceeds; KBR's own reviewers say the unit wasn't up to the Iraq work, and just one U.S. newspaper appears to be interested.

KBR has its defenders. Critics are just partisan, they allege. Until 2000, Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, and the VP still holds stock and receives monthly deferred payments from the company.

"In spite of the many misleading and inaccurate reports you may hear or read, we are proud of the work we are doing and appreciative of the continuing confidence of our customers," Harl said in the Jan. 29 conference call.

The fact is, he's right. Being Halliburton seems to mean never having to say you're sorry. In the Balkans, Harl recalled, a similar situation arose in 2000. Indeed it did. KBR stands accused of overcharged the U.S. government for millions of dollars. (Among other things, KBR purchased plywood in Texas at inflated prices, instead of buying cheap wood locally.) "Issues like this do occur, and investigations can take a while," said Harl.

Meanwhile, since 2000, the number of U.S. contracts awarded to KBR has mushroomed—from $500 million in 2002 to $3.9 billion last year following the Iraq invasion and occupation. Halliburton is now the government's seventh-largest contractor in terms of work awarded. Allegations notwithstanding, the company recently signed some "impressive" new contracts for work in the Caspian, said Harl. In fact, "KBR is in a good position to expand our business in the rapidly growing Caspian market."

No matter how many strikes, Halliburton never seems to strike out. Can anyone give me three good reasons why this story isn't making headlines?
========================

I'll give you three: $ $ $

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
No matter how many strikes, Halliburton never seems to strike out. Can anyone give me three good reasons why this story isn't making headlines?

Billy;
Because it is a 'non story'. You Libs can't find anything positive or solid to say about your man 'Kerry', so you have to invent some clandestined conspiracy and blame the Bush administration.

Pathetic.

[Emerald]

Does anyone really know what the Kerry platform is? I cannot find anything conclusive at all!

[BillyBob]

His platform?

'I'm not George Bush'!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

His platform?

'I'm not George Bush'! Kerry was not my first choice. But, I'll vote for him.

ANYBODY (Democrat) but Bush!!

[BillyBob]

I'm glad to see that you have such confidence in your candidate's abilities to be President. What particular views of Kerry's do you agree with? Can you define his platform? Can you determine where he stands on any particular issue? All you really care about is that he is a democrat and you hate GW.

Kerry's Campaign Slogan: 'I'm Not Bush'

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I'm glad to see that you have such confidence in your candidate's abilities to be President. What particular views of Kerry's do you agree with? Can you define his platform? Can you determine where he stands on any particular issue? All you really care about is that he is a democrat and you hate GW.

Kerry's Campaign Slogan: 'I'm Not Bush' Any Democratic candidate would have been better than Bush. I preferred Dean. However, Kerry will do. Anyone who favors repealing most of Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich, providing health care to the widest possible population, stopping the shipment of jobs overseas, providing REAL protections for our environment, and eliminating Bush's dangerous policy of military pre-emption, would get my vote.

Bush is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people in Iraq! Bush ignored the many reasonable doubts in the intelligence community that Iraq posed a threat, and invaded Iraq without clear hard evidence that they posed a significant and imminent threat to America or other countries. Yet, he still gave the order to massively invade Iraq, even though he knew thousands of people would be killed unnecessarily. Bush knew Iraq did not pose a significant imminent threat, but he lied to the American people anyway.

As far is Saddam is concerned, even though he was a brutal dictator who had killed many thousands of people by the late 1980s, he was not performing mass killings in the years leading up to Bush's invasion, and was not likely to do so, given the close scrutiny of the UN inspectors and the international community. There were other options for dealing with Saddam that did involve the unnecessary killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi people!

[Frank Ernest]

Looks like typical liberal Democrat politics to me. Kerry is the choice so far because he can declare firmly that he is on all sides of an issue. Being a liar, reprobate and opportunist, he continues the tradition of the traitorous Democrat party.

He could crumble to dust tomorrow and the liberals would all fall in lockstep behind the next Democrat saviour. However, as near as I can tell from weather-vane Kerry and the liberals, the current campaign goals are:

1. We need to complete the sell-out of American sovereignty and freedom and turn everything over to the anti-American and atheist socialist UN.
2. Taxes aren't high enough. We need to tax the US population into submission to liberals' tyrannical government. Equally-spread poverty is the key. Citizens must then beg government for their daily bread.
3. No more war. We must appease our enemies and give them anything and everything they want. The United States is the focus of evil in the world and liberals must expiate their guilt by allowing them to attack us, kill our citizens and take what they want without resistance.
4. We must get rid of all religion and morality and make the state into a god which would decide what we shall believe and how we shall believe it.
5. All opposition to liberals' government must be crushed and eliminated. That means getting rid of Christians, conservatives, especially Constitutionalists. Method and means make no difference. End justifies the means.
6. Thwart any attempt by the people to determine their own futures and destinies. This is done by installing "friendly" judges who will overturn any popular referenda deemed to be unliberal.
7. Weaken the military and make political decisions that will cause us to be defeated in any military engagement. (See item 3.) That way the United States can be embarrassed and demoralized which makes it easier for liberal saviours to take over.
8. Gut the intelligence effort so that we cannot find out what our enemies are up to. In combination with liberals spilling and selling state secrets to our enemies, this will defeat any unliberal foreign policy effort. Idea is to sow the seeds of defeat and dishonor, then liberals can claim they knew it all the time and have the perfect solution: absolute liberal power and control.

Far-fetched? See Canada.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Any Democratic candidate would have been better than Bush.

:darwinsm:


I preferred Dean.

:darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm:

However, Kerry will do.

Do what???

Anyone who favors repealing most of Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich,

...is a commie.

providing health care to the widest possible population,

...is a commie.

stopping the shipment of jobs overseas,

...is a commie.

providing REAL protections for our environment,

Such as?

and eliminating Bush's dangerous policy of military pre-emption, would get my vote.

The real danger is a President who does nothing to stop terrorism, look what Bill Clinton did for Al Queda!

Bush is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people in Iraq!

:darwinsm: You sound like a broken record. [or a liberal propagandist]

Bush ignored the many reasonable doubts in the intelligence community that Iraq posed a threat, and invaded Iraq without clear hard evidence that they posed a significant and imminent threat to America or other countries.

Bush said he was attacking Iraq before they became a imminent threat.

Yet, he still gave the order to massively invade Iraq, even though he knew thousands of people would be killed unnecessarily.

Hey, Saddam should have complied with the UN Resolutions and none of this would have happened. The only person to blame for any Iraqi who died is Saddam.

Bush knew Iraq did not pose a significant imminent threat, but he lied to the American people anyway.

Bush said he was attacking Iraq before they became a imminent threat.

As far is Saddam is concerned, even though he was a brutal dictator who had killed many thousands of people by the late 1980s,

He killed many hundreds of thousands.

he was not performing mass killings in the years leading up to Bush's invasion, and was not likely to do so, given the close scrutiny of the UN inspectors and the international community. There were other options for dealing with Saddam that did involve the unnecessary killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi people!

Saddam was a terrorist. He harbored terrorists. He funded terrorists. He trained terrorists. He is gone and the world is a better place because of the resolve of GW Bush. Even your buddy John Kerry was in favor of removing Saddam as recently as 2003.

[Duder]

Originally posted by BillyBob:

...is a commie.

...is a commie.

...is a commie.

You expect us to think you are that much of an ignoramus and a simpleton? Ain't no one here buyin' it!

I can see how there'd be some fun in coming off like an old, soiled undershirt-wearing, wife-abusing, cheap beer-drinking, uneducated red-baiter who is stuck in the year 1960. Perhaps you do it to make right-wingers look silly.

Yeah, that's it!


Boy, the way that Miller played
Songs that made the Hit Parade
Guys like us, we had it made

Those were the days!

And you knew who you were then
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister, we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again

Didn't need no welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
Gee, our old La Salle ran great

Those were the days!

[BillyBob]

No, I mean every word of it. Any person who actually thinks that taxing people at different rates to illegaly redistribute wealth is a commie. John Kerry fits that description. Do you?

[Frank Ernest]

I've heard some older hard-core Roosevelt Democrats in this area say that they would vote for the Devil if he were a Democrat.

I suspect what they're saying is true.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

I've heard some older hard-core Roosevelt Democrats in this area say that they would vote for the Devil if he were a Democrat.

I suspect what they're saying is true.


They have been true to their mis-guided word. They have been voting for the devil starting with "Please don't call me "Jimma," Carter. These Secular Humanist ignorant scum would vote for the Devil rather than support moral absolutes. This vile group of vipers have damned near destroyed this nation morally with there Secular Humanist belief system. This includes so called "devout" Christians that ignorantly vote for the Godless Secular Democrat Party.

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Art Deco

They have been true to their mis-guided word. They have been voting for the devil starting with "Please don't call me "Jimma," Carter. These Secular Humanist ignorant scum would vote for the Devil rather than support moral absolutes. This vile group of vipers have damned near destroyed this nation morally with there Secular Humanist belief system. This includes so called "devout" Christians that ignorantly vote for the Godless Secular Democrat Party.

And what was so terrible about Carter? The fact that he plainly said he had been born again? That he seriously tried to change policy, esp. foreign to promote ethical values such as liberty, equal rights and human dignity, that he tried to make a serious dent in the nuclear stockpiles of the world?
Or that afterwards he personally supported agencies which were trying to make a real improvement in people's lives? How many times have YOU volunteered your labor and money to help someone buy and build a home? Are you a deacon in your church?

Unlike that practicing adulterer, Reagan whom the right venerates, even though he has never pretended to profess Christianity or to promote it's values.

Why do you hate so many people? Hate is NOT a Christian value.

[BillyBob]

Are you a Democrat, Herod? :noway:

[Duder]

Ode to Art and Billy

Art Deco's a funny debater
A secular humanist-hater
He's red, white and blue
And he wishes on you
A thermonuclear crater

That evil and Satanic nest
Of Democrats won't pass his test -
I laugh till I'm chokin'
But he isn't jokin'
And BillyBob's really impressed

Ol' Carter's a communist spy,
And Clinton in Hades will fry -
And without hesitatin',
They'll tell ya who's Satan -
That Frankin D. Roosevelt guy

BillyBob's blood prob'ly freezes
When reading quotations of Jesus
"If me you adore,
Take care of the poor -
Through a needle's eye no camel squeezes"

When Mary His mother was haulin'
The miracle child with a callin'
Did a commie accost her -
Produce an imposter -
The offspring of comrade Joe Stalin?

All over the earth, they see revels
Of commies or demons or devils -
Art Deco and Billy,
Can sound rather silly -
And mistaken on so many levels.

[BillyBob]

Roses are red
Violets are blue
John Kerry is a commie
And so are you

:D

[Frank Ernest]

My, my, my! To dispute Jimma and the boyz is "hate."

Typical liberal adhominemburger (with extra fries) when they have absolutely No Answer to the truth.

Well, Jimma, along with his born-again ethics and morality, tried to take over the oil industry. His wonderfully ethical foreign policy got us the Ayatollah Khomeini. And what is happening in Iran today? Jimma sure put a dent in the nuclear thingy. And, at home, we got 20% inflation, pardons for traitors, etc.

Reagan a practicing adulterer? My, my. Isn't that a little "hateful?" I would guess Herod has some evidence for that? Hope against hope tells me no.

Let me see, as I reckon my Bible history, Jesus never built a home, Jesus wasn't a deacon in his church, Jesus didn't form government agencies to improve peoples' lives. Guess Jimma was better than Jesus to ol' Herod. Seems like Herod the new is much like the Herod of old.

Roosevelt? In the 12 years of Roosevelt we had 8 years of economic depression and 4 years of world war. Quite a track record for you libbies.

Liberal Rule: If you can't attack the record, attack the person.

[Duder]

BillyBob -

Roses are red
Violets are blue
John Kerry is a commie
And so are you

You're writing in "dactylic monometer" - a kind of poetry meter in which there is just one foot per line, where each foot has four syllables - a stressed syllable, followed by a soft one, then another soft one, then ending with a stressed one - like this: "BOOM - ba - ba - BOOM"

. . . as in the line, " RO - ses - are - RED"

So your third line doesn't really work, does it? "John - KER - ry - is - a - COMM - ie" is an altogether different pattern:

"ba - BOOM - ba - ba- ba - BOOM - ba"

Too many syllables, and the stresses don't follow the pattern.

Try this line instead: "Kerry's a commie . . ." (Boom - ba- ba- BOOM - ba). That's five syllables, but it's permissable to sneak in an extra soft syllable at the beginning or the end of a line on occassion.


Duder's a Red,
Kerry is too -
Hearts that have bled,
Bigots eschew

Not very good, perhaps, but you see the dactylic monometer pattern.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Duder

BillyBob -



You're writing in "dactylic monometer" - a kind of poetry meter in which there is just one foot per line, where each foot has four syllables - a stressed syllable, followed by a soft one, then another soft one, then ending with a stressed one - like this: "BOOM - ba - ba - BOOM"...
Good analogy! He'a musician, you'll communicate better when you put it in his terms:

:drum:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Duder

BillyBob -



You're writing in "dactylic monometer" - a kind of poetry meter in which there is just one foot per line, where each foot has four syllables - a stressed syllable, followed by a soft one, then another soft one, then ending with a stressed one - like this: "BOOM - ba - ba - BOOM"

. . . as in the line, " RO - ses - are - RED"

So your third line doesn't really work, does it? "John - KER - ry - is - a - COMM - ie" is an altogether different pattern:

"ba - BOOM - ba - ba- ba - BOOM - ba"

Too many syllables, and the stresses don't follow the pattern.

Try this line instead: "Kerry's a commie . . ." (Boom - ba- ba- BOOM - ba). That's five syllables, but it's permissable to sneak in an extra soft syllable at the beginning or the end of a line on occassion.


Duder's a Red,
Kerry is too -
Hearts that have bled,
Bigots eschew

Not very good, perhaps, but you see the dactylic monometer pattern.


Typical commie, demanding that everything be strict and regimented.

Try this:

Each line is a measure in 6/8 time. The first line 'Roses are Red' would be written in quarter notes with 2 quarter rests at the end.
Same for the second line. The third line is written with the first word 'John' as a quarter note, then 'Kerry is a Commie' is written in 8th notes. It will sound exactly like a triplet in 4/4 time, but we are still in 6/8. The last line is easier to imagine in 4/4 with the word 'And' as a pick-up note from the previous measure with the last words 'So are YOU' as quarter notes leaving one quarter rest at the end of the measure. It's really quite simple.

[Zakath]

See, I told you he was a musician. ;)

[BillyBob]

No, I don't like it that way.

Try this:
Every line is a measure of 4/4. The first and second lines are triplets with the last two pulses written as rests. The 3rd line has the pick-up 8th note form the previous measure and then written in straight 8th notes with a quarter rest at the end. The last line has the word 'And' as a pick up 8th note from the previous measure then 'So are YOU' are just quarter notes with a quarter rest at the end.

Much better.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Zakath

See, I told you he was a musician. ;)

:guitar:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest


Reagan a practicing adulterer? My, my. Isn't that a little "hateful?" I would guess Herod has some evidence for that? Hope against hope tells me no.



Ronald Reagan was married to Jane Wyman, he divorced her and then married Nancy Davis. Jane Wyman is still alive.

"Mark 10:11NRSV "He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;"

I assume you will accept the word of Jesus as evidence?

[Zakath]

The same situation describes many Christian pastors I know. :think:

Of course, that particular law about killing adulterers is almost always one of the ones that gets dropped when people want to re-instate OT law in modern society. :chuckle:

It's always much more comfortable to punish someone else's sin than one's own.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Art Deco
This vile group of vipers have damned near destroyed this nation morally with there Secular Humanist belief system.And we're not finished yet, nosirree!

Just you wait: any day now, the Red and Blue Lists will go into effect, and black-clad Agents of the Cabal™ will begin kicking in the doors of Good Christians™ and hauling them off to liquidation facilities.

Oh, go ahead and keep your guns; it won't matter, because the armor worn by Agents is very thick...

:devil:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Gerald
...black-clad Agents of the Cabal™ will begin kicking in the doors of Good Christians™ and hauling them off to liquidation facilities.Oh no!!!! :shocked:

We're not gonna have to eat Soylent Green™ again are we? :chew:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath

Oh no!!!! :shocked:

We're not gonna have to eat Soylent Green™ again are we? :chew:

Not to worry, we've got some new products on the way.

From the Doctor Geisel's Favorite Dishes collection, we have:

Soylent Green Eggs and Ham™.

:jump:

[Zakath]

I do not like them, Gerald man!
I do not Soylent Green eggs and :spam:! :chew:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Zakath

The same situation describes many Christian pastors I know. :think:

Of course, that particular law about killing adulterers is almost always one of the ones that gets dropped when people want to re-instate OT law in modern society. :chuckle:

It's always much more comfortable to punish someone else's sin than one's own.

Indeed, nearly half of marriages end in divorce and many remarry. The divorce rate among Southern Baptists is higher than the general population. Right Charles Stanley?

[Zakath]

And Pentecostals divorce rates are even higher than the SBC's, right Tammy Faye?

[BillyBob]

Considering re-marriage as an act of adultery committed against your previous evil, lying, selfish, vile, conceited, insane sister of Satan wife is ridiculous.

Jesus would never have said such a thing if he had spent 1 stinking year with my 'ex'!

Instead, it would have been more like:
"Any man who stays married to such an insanely evil woman will suffer in Hell on Earth long before he is ever dead."

Or something like that.....

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Considering re-marriage as an act of adultery committed against your previous evil, lying, selfish, vile, conceited, insane sister of Satan wife is ridiculous.

Jesus would never have said such a thing if he had spent 1 stinking year with my 'ex'!

Instead, it would have been more like:
"Any man who stays married to such an insanely evil woman will suffer in Hell on Earth long before he is ever dead."

Or something like that..... Ah, but you're missing the point; a few years of suffering in this life is a small price to pay for the Heavenly Bliss™ you'll get in the next one...

And consider: if your "evil, lying, selfish, vile, conceited, insane sister of Satan wife" murders you in your sleep, it just means you get to experience that Heavenly Bliss™ that much sooner.

See? You can't lose!

:chuckle:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Zakath

And Pentecostals divorce rates are even higher than the SBC's, right Tammy Faye?


Well, lacquered-up-big-hair-do's tends to put so much weighty pressure on the brain that sometimes it goes 'poof!" Just look at how the hairspray has ruined Benny Hinn.
:chuckle:


PS Some you who don't live in the South may not understand the big-haired Pentecostal phenomenon. Count yourselves lucky.
:help:

[Frank Ernest]

From Zakath:
"It's always much more comfortable to punish someone else's sin than one's own. "

I agree 150%! Which is why I enjoyed all the posts pointing out the moral failings of (yuck) christians.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest
... I enjoyed all the posts pointing out the moral failings of (yuck) christians. It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, though. ;)

[Frank Ernest]

From Zakath:
"It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, though."

Or course it is! It's always easier to sit upon a Pharisaical (Luke 18:10-14) perch pointing out the flaws of singular "others" while disregarding and dismissing everyone else. Find some "bad" and define it as all bad.

I just love it when you talk logical "dirty" too. BTW, the logical flaw is called Inclusion. It is the assumption that because one member of a designated group has certain characteristics, all members of the designated group share exactly those characteristics.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

PS Some you who don't live in the South may not understand the big-haired Pentecostal phenomenon. Count yourselves lucky.
:help:

Are you a Pentacostal, Herod?

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Are you a Pentacostal, Herod?

Not really. I come from a high church Charismatic background.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

...a high church Charismatic background.

Interesting mix of terminology. The only orthodox Christian group I've ever heard use the term "high church" is the Anglicans. So you were part of the Anglican Communion at one point?

I attended an Episcopal Church that was also Charismatic for several years. They were an interesting blend of high and low church...

[BillyBob]

I never heard of a 'high church'. What does that term mean?

[HerodionRomulus]

High church: liturgical service with all the trimmings, chanting, incense, bowing, kneeling, crossings and other trapping.

Visit St Andrews Episcopal in Green Hills for an extreme example.

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by Zakath

Interesting mix of terminology. The only orthodox Christian group I've ever heard use the term "high church" is the Anglicans. So you were part of the Anglican Communion at one point?

I attended an Episcopal Church that was also Charismatic for several years. They were an interesting blend of high and low church...

Zak, grew up Lutheran(LCMS) in college I attended a Charismatic Catholic church which was very Vatican II(folk masses etc) drifted from one thing to another, got hitched to a National Baptist and have in the past 10 years been sort of a mix of Bapti/Costal/Anglican.
No one 'flavor' does it all. :D

[Skeptic]

======================
CIA Chief Clueless on Neo-Con Intelligence Channel

Analysis - By Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Mar 10 (IPS) - Was Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet really the last person in Washington to find out that both the president and vice president were being fed phoney or ''sexed up'' intelligence about pre-war Iraq by a Pentagon office staffed by ideologically driven neo-conservatives?

It is highly doubtful, but in his desperate attempt to walk a tightrope between his increasingly irreconcilable loyalties to the administration of President George W. Bush and to his own intelligence professionals, Tenet is suggesting that he really was in the dark about what was going on just a few miles down the Potomac River from CIA headquarters.

Just a month ago, in a rousing defence of the intelligence community's professionalism, Tenet boasted to students at Georgetown University that he and only he was the sole purveyor of intelligence information to the president.

But on Tuesday he admitted to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was unaware until just last week that officials based in the Pentagon's policy office had given intelligence briefings directly to the White House.

''Is that a normal thing to happen, that there (is) a formal analysis relative to intelligence that would be presented to the NSC (National Security Council) that way, without you even knowing about it''? an incredulous Democratic senator, Carl Levin, asked Tenet during contentious hearings.

''I don't know. I've never been in the situation'', Tenet replied, insisting, ''I have to tell you senator, I'm the president's chief intelligence officer; I have the definitive view about these subjects''.

''I know you feel that way'', Levin said, betraying a hint of sarcasm.

The exchange reflected the latest development in what is building into one of the biggest intelligence crises in modern U.S. history, one the administration is trying desperately, but with increasing difficulty, to quash.

The scandal, which is based on Washington's abject failure one year after invading Iraq to find any evidence to back up the administration's pre-war claims that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed massive stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons; reconstituted his nuclear-weapons programme (to the extent that, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, he had obtained weapons); and had operational ties with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, has been building since last summer.

But it gained momentum in January when the CIA's chief weapons inspector, David, Kay admitted that U.S. intelligence, including himself, had been ''almost all wrong'' on its pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities.

Both Kay and the administration, as well as members of Congress from Bush's Republican Party, immediately blamed the official intelligence community, which Tenet heads as CIA director, for the failure.

But opposition Democrats, backed up by former intelligence officials and some media reporting, charged the administration had systematically exaggerated and manipulated the intelligence by both intimidating the professional analysts who disagreed with them and by producing its own intelligence, much of which now appears to have been fabricated, through unofficial channels.

As a result, the intelligence committees in both houses have expanded their investigations in recent weeks.

While it is now clear that professional intelligence analysts made some serious errors assessing Iraq's WMD programmes -- largely through a combination of assuming ''worst-case scenarios'' in the absence of hard evidence and lacking reliable agents or assets in Iraq either as informants or investigators -- the ''Feith factor'' has now emerged as the key focus of the committees' work.

Shortly after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith set up two groups, the Office of Special Plans (OSP) and the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG).

They were tasked to review raw intelligence to determine if official intelligence agencies had overlooked connections between Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups and between al-Qaeda and secular Arab governments, especially Hussein's.

The effort, which reportedly included interviewing ''defectors'', several of them supplied by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group close to neo-conservatives who support Israel's Likud Party, closely tracked the agenda of the Defence Policy Group (DPG), chaired by Feith's mentor, Richard Perle.

The DPG also convened after Sep. 11 with INC leader Ahmed Chalabi to discuss ways in which the terrorist attacks could be tied to Hussein. Neither the State Department nor the CIA was informed about the meeting.

The OSP, which was overseen by Abram Shulsky, brought on Michael Malouf, who had worked for Perle in the Pentagon 20 years before and specialised in obtaining authorisations giving the office access to analyses produced by official intelligence agencies, according to knowledgeable sources.

Malouf's operation, called the ''bat cave'', permitted hawks in the Pentagon and Cheney's office to anticipate the intelligence community's more sceptical arguments about the alleged threats posed by Hussein, and then to devise questions or develop their own evidence that would be used to challenge the more benign views of the professional analysts, according to these sources.

At the same time, OSP, which consisted of only two permanent staff members, but which employed dozens of like-minded consultants, developed its own ''talking points'' and briefing papers, one of which -- on the subject of Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaeda -- was leaked last November to the neo-conservative 'Weekly Standard'.

It consisted of 50 excerpts taken from raw, mostly uncorroborated intelligence reports from sources of varying reliability from 1990 to 2002, which purported to show an operational relationship between the captured leader and the group.

But when it was published, former intelligence officials dismissed the work as amateurish, unsubstantiated and indicative, even if most of the allegations were true, of the absence of any operative relationship.

''This is meant to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated'', former State Department intelligence officer Greg Thielmann told IPS at the time.

As recently as last month, Cheney referred to the paper as ”the best source of information” for intelligence on Iraq.

It was this paper that reportedly formed the basis of a briefing by Feith given to the NSC and Cheney's office in August 2002. Tenet said Tuesday he ''vaguely'' remember having received a similar briefing by Feith, but was never informed that it was also presented to the White House.

The presentation to the CIA reportedly omitted certain remarks made to the White House to the effect that the CIA was deliberately ignoring evidence of Hussein-al-Qaeda links.

''Did you ever discuss with the secretary of defence or other administration officials whether the Department of Defence policy office run by Mr. Feith might be bypassing normal intelligence channels''? Levin asked Tenet on Tuesday.

''I did not. I did not,'' he replied.

Why he did not remains a major question, particularly in light of the fact that several publications, including 'The New Yorker', Knight-Ridder news agency and IPS, were reporting already last July that Feith's office was constantly ''stovepiping'' intelligence directly to Cheney and the White House in order to circumvent official channels.

These accounts have now been accepted by Democrats and some Republicans on the intelligence committees. Last Friday, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives committee, Rep Jane Harmon, raised the issue directly in a speech at Perle's AEI.

''The president should direct a review of the activities of various (Pentagon) offices, particularly an early analytic unit that reported to Undersecretary of Defence Doug Feith, as well as the Office of Special Plans'', she said.

''Disclaimers notwithstanding, many in Congress and intelligence operatives in the field now believe these entities fed unreliable and ''unvetted'' intelligence to (Pentagon) policymakers and the Office of the Vice President''.

From: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22788
=======================

[Zakath]

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Zak, grew up Lutheran(LCMS) in college I attended a Charismatic Catholic church which was very Vatican II(folk masses etc) drifted from one thing to another, got hitched to a National Baptist and have in the past 10 years been sort of a mix of Bapti/Costal/Anglican.
No one 'flavor' does it all. :D Well, if the flavors are complimentary, it makes life more interesting. :thumb:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

High church: liturgical service with all the trimmings, chanting, incense, bowing, kneeling, crossings and other trapping.

Visit St Andrews Episcopal in Green Hills for an extreme example.

Doesn't sound like my cup o' tea.

Hey Herod, ever been to BCC? [Bellevue Community Church] It's pretty hip, lots of artists and musicans there. Check out a service sometime, I'm playing on the Worship Team the first weekend in April, come and say hello.

[BillyBob]

I love how everybody is ignoring Skeptic's latest post...:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I love how everybody is ignoring Skeptic's latest post...:chuckle: I don't care if anyone responds to the articles I post. I'm confident there are some on tOL who read them.

Just giving y'all information that you won't find from fundie right-wing conservative sources. :thumb:

[Frank Ernest]

You won't find them in "fundie right-wing conservative sources" because they're progressive (commie), left-wing lies, distortions, and conveniently rewritten histories.

[BillyBob]

:crackup:

[Keith73]

Skeptic,

Saddam lied about what he had, he refused to live up to the conditions his generals agreed to in good faith and generally acted like a schmuk.

Bush went on the best and most reliable information that he had at the time and in all honesty, I don't really care if Bush lied.

I'm used to politicians lie. It's what happens whenever they talk. Clinton lied. Kenedy lied, Reagan lied, Nixon lied, Carter was retarded.

Why does it surprise anyone anymore that politicians lie?

As far as I'm concerned I'm damn glad that America is the worlds police force. We are the only country with the military might and the ability to move that might at a moments notice to anywhere in the world, and don't let the press fool you.

The Middle East is spitting happy to have Saddam out and that's a fact so you can stop with your internal dialogue right now.

Now, here are some facts for you to digest.

UNSC Res687; Sec H; Para32 states "Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;"

Does "Salman Pak" mean anything to you? Do a simple search, I'm sure that you will be scared by what you see. Some of the base's former commanding officers have openly admitted that Salman Pak was not only used as a biological weapons research center but that it also tought various Islamic terror groups the use of hijacking, explosive and bombings.

Strike one for Saddam.

UNSC Res1154; Para3 states "Stresses that compliance by the Government of Iraq with its obligations, repeated again in the memorandum of understanding, to accord immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to the Special Commission and the IAEA in conformity with the relevant resolutions is necessary for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991), but that any violation would have severest consequences for Iraq;"

What does this mean? Well, in a nutshell Iraq [a.k.a. Saddam] is being warned that his continued non-compliance with allowing the IAEA inspectors not only admittance to the coutnry but unfettered admitance at that will reasult in the "severst consequences for Iraq."

Strike two for Saddam.

And here comes the death blow, by the UNSC's own words.

UNSC Res1441 states the following:

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

This part refers to the Al-Samoud missles found in Iraq by Blix's team. The missles clearly violate the distance regulations set forth by the UN after the 91 war. The UN, and not other legal body, ever received confirmation that these missles were destroyed prior to America's stepping in a deposing Saddam.

and

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

Why is this last piece so interesting? Because in these very words the UNSC gave the US [ a "Member Nation"] the legal right to intervene if it felt that Iraq was not acting in comlianc e with any of the Resolution set forth by the UNSC. Please also note that this language was given just 17 resolution after 661, the ceasefire agreement of 91. Even this early in the game the UNSC realized that Saddam was going to be trouble. Also, there is no language in more recent resolution to remove or nullify this clause in any way.

Here are some more juicy excerpts from that very same Resolution.

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,'

"Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,"

This section clearly states that from 1998 until 2002 there were zero arms inspectors inside Iraq. More than enough time for Saddam to get rid of what he had.

More

"Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

And now, my favorite piece.

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,"

with regard to terrorism - Here even the UNSC is saying that even they are not stupid enough to believe that Saddam is still not tied into terrorism in some manner.
repression of its civilian population - nuff said!
provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq - 50,000 people supposedly died due to the sancions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War and some how these deaths are put on Americas hands. Can some PLEASE explain this to me?
to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq - At least we give our "wrongfully detained foreign nationsl" decent lodging, clothes and food. I wonder what the conditions were like for the foreign nationals detained by Iraq.

All in all Skeptic, the US got a tad bit bored of the UN saying, "If you do this you will get punished" to Saddam, Saddam doing it and not getting punished.

For those who want you can read the entirety of UNSC Res1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

[Skeptic]

==========================
Published on Monday, March 22, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
Carter Savages Blair and Bush: 'Their War was Based on Lies'
by Andrew Buncombe in Atlanta

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticized George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgment to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

In an interview with The Independent on the first anniversary of the American and British invasion of Iraq, Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981, said the two leaders probably knew that many of the claims being made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were based on imperfect intelligence.

He said: "There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the] 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence ... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

Before the war Mr Carter made clear his opposition to a unilateral attack and said the US did not have the authority to create a "Pax Americana". During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in December 2002 he warned of the danger of "uncontrollable violence" if countries sought to resolve problems without United Nations input.

His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Center in Atlanta, are notable for their condemnation of the two serving leaders. It is extremely rare for a former US president to criticize an incumbent, or a British prime minister. Mr Carter's comments will add to the mounting pressure on Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

Mr Carter said he believed the momentum for the invasion came from Washington and that many of Mr Bush's senior advisers had long ago signaled their desire to remove Saddam by force. Once a decision had been taken to go to war, every effort was made to find a reason for doing do, he said.

"I think the basic reason was made not in London but in Washington. I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq. I think it was that commitment of Bush that prevailed over, I think, the better judgment of Tony Blair and Tony Blair became an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush policy".

Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qaida before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.

With an eye to November's presidential elections, Mr Bush sought on Friday to use the anniversary of the Iraq invasion to say that differences between the US and opponents of the war belonged "to the past".

Speaking at the White House, he told about 80 foreign ambassadors: "There is no neutral ground in the fight between civilization and terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy."

But in the US and Britain, and elsewhere, there is growing anger among people who believe the war in Iraq was at best a deadly distraction and at worst an impediment to the war against al-Qa'ida - diverting resources and energy from countering those groups responsible for attacks such as the train bombings in Madrid.

Over the weekend millions of anti-war protesters poured on to the streets of cities around the world to call for the withdrawal of US-led troops from Iraq. It was estimated that in Rome - which saw the biggest crowds - up to one million turned out.

Mr Carter, 79, has recently published a novel. The Hornet's Nest is centered on America's revolutionary war against the British. That period had many lessons for the present day, Mr Carter said.

=======================

[Duder]

Thanks, Skeptic - I enjoyed that report.

Ya gotta love 'ol Jimmy!

[BillyBob]

Great Post, Keith73! :up:

Bad Post, Skeptic! :down: