20 Questions for President Bush About Iraq [Archive] - HungAngels

View Full Version : 20 Questions for President Bush About Iraq

chefmike

03-28-2006, 11:25 PM

chefmike

03-29-2006, 10:12 PM

I love this lady...

20 More Questions for President Bush

Arianna Huffington 03/28/2006

Yesterday, hoping to take advantage of George Bush's current question-answering state of mind, I put forth 20 questions about Iraq for him. I haven't heard back. But that's okay, I actually have some more questions for him. Because while Iraq is clearly the defining issue of his presidency, it is far from the only debacle he's overseen.

Here then, with a nod to Paul Harvey, are the... rest of the questions:

1.) Is the limit of your imagination replacing Andy Card with Josh Bolten?

2.) Why, during your 2004 campaign did you assure voters, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires... a court order" when you had been specifically authorizing wiretapping without court orders for nearly two years?

3.) Why was your attorney general unable to provide a response beyond "Um, none come to mind, Senator" to back up your 2006 State of the Union claim regarding warrantless wiretaps that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have and federal courts have approved the use of that authority"?

4.) The GOP crowd that was going to "restore honor and integrity" to Washington has instead given us Abramoff, DeLay, Libby, Frist, Santorum, Safavian, and Claude Allen. If this is what integrity looks like, can you blame those who'd like to bring back Oval Office blow jobs?

5.) Speaking of Claude Allen, your top domestic policy advisor, he abruptly resigned on Feb. 9 and was arrested a month later over a petty shoplifting scam (despite being in the highest White House pay bracket). In 2003 you nominated him as a judge to the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals - a nomination that the Democrats scuttled. Knowing what you know now, was this the right decision?

6.) In 2003, when you said "I want to know the truth" about who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, did you ask your staff what they knew? If you didn't ask them, why not?

7.) Do you consider Dick Cheney to be a successful vice president? Why do you think so few Americans approve of the job he's doing?

8.) Why did it take less than two weeks after the unveiling of Janet Jackson's right boob at the Super Bowl before the GOP Congress held hearings on the matter, but 14 months before you caved to public pressure and allowed the 9/11 Commission to be formed? Had the 9/11 widows not pressured you to form the commission, would you ever have done it?

9.) Why wasn't your testimony to the 9/11 commission under oath? Why did you insist on having Dick Cheney in the room with you?

10.) With the domestic war on terror underfunded and understaffed, do you consider it a smart allocation of resources to have the FBI form a squad exclusively devoted to cracking down on sexually explicit material involving consenting adults?

11.) After Katrina, you said "I take responsibility" for the failure of the government. Is this the only disaster during your five years in office for which you take responsibility?

12.) In its post-Katrina rebuilding efforts, your administration, according to the Wall Street Journal, "is importing many of the contract practices blamed for spending abuses in Iraq," including contracts awarded without competitive bidding and cost-plus provisions "that guarantee contractors a certain profit regardless of how much they spend." So what's the thinking on this one, Mr. President -- 'If at first you don't succeed...'?

13.) You came into office pledging to be "a uniter, not a divider." What grade would you give yourself on that?

14.) Given your public pronouncements about your extensive Bible reading, what are your thoughts on Jesus' teachings about the poor?

15.) Why did Vice President Cheney fight tooth and nail to keep the records of his energy task force secret? What is he hiding?

16.) Given that we now know the heads of oil companies attended the vice president's energy task force meetings, and given that they denied it when they appeared before Congress, would you say they lied to Congress? Is this why Senator Ted Stevens was so adamant that they not be sworn in before their testimony?

17.) Would you have sent your daughters to a school whose science department taught that the earth is 10,000 years old?

18.) You appointed Karen Hughes, a woman who speaks no Arabic or Farsi, and who has no education in Middle East matters, to be our goodwill ambassador to the Muslim world. If another country appointed a goodwill ambassador to the United States who spoke no English and knew nothing about our country, how do you think that person would do?

19.) Why do you think the United States is so much more unpopular in virtually every country in the world since you took office? Are being respected and being "strong" mutually exclusive?

20.) Would you say you are someone who is able learn from his mistakes?

this article and it's related links, etc. here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/20-more-questions-for-pre_b_17988.html

trish

03-29-2006, 11:55 PM

loved your question (4):

4.) Allawi has said: "We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people through the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Do you think this is something you might discuss with God next time you speak?

first it made be laugh.

for bush, american brand capitalism(which he confuses with democracy) is a religion to be forced upon all non-believers.

SidChromeAU

03-30-2006, 05:59 AM

I've kept a low profile whilst Americans on this board have discussed politics, but - as I have said once before - your internal poiltics affect the entire world. That being said, I feel it reasonable to say something.
Firstly, this may interest many of you: http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3687 - sure, it's ironic and satirical in style, but it makes some good points. The link to the damning NY Times article is well worth following.
Further, a segment in the Australian programme Foreign Correspondent entitled 'Iraq's Missing Millions' was superb in exposing some of the shit that the US is pulling in Iraq. Go here for a synopsis: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2006/s1598397.htm - what the synopsis doesn't detail is a part about the awarding of initial contracts to Haliburton, which were awarded without even a competitive bid. Apparently, most contracts were awarded to the first company to put it's hand up. Funnily, Haliburton was first in line. In another Custer Battles fuckup, they were contrated to supply trucks as part of a security contract (I think it was, anyway) - so they did. Of the 35 or so trucks they promised, two worked. Their defence was along the lines of 'well, we delivered trucks, we didn't promise that they would work'.
A lot of this supports the articles chefmike posted - notwithstanding the enormous body of further evidence now available. It is absolutely clear that the US engineered this war, largely for commercial purposes (which dovetailed nicely with the dickhead-in-Chief's desire to get even for daddy). The aftermath is probably the greatest orgy of profiteering ever seen. You started a war to make money, not to make the world a better place. You - literally - have made a killing.
Surely this is illegal? I know that it is exceptionally difficult to impeach a president, but surely there is enough evidence to warrant an attempt?
Have Americans any idea of the contempt which which they are now held by just about everyone else on earth? Well - lots of people despise you, but even allies like my country no longer trust you. You no longer live in a democracy - you are certainly stumbling towards a religious/capitalist dictatorship in all but name. You allowed this arsehole two bites of the cherry. One term - particularly as the first poll was rigged - would have been forgivable, but two? You are now reaping what you have sown. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.
I realise that some members are now going to howl for my blood. In the past, some have reacted angrily to any foreign critique of your country. Too fucking bad - if you had cut the 'My country right or wrong' crap when you first became aware of how badly things were going, outsiders wouldn't have to speak out. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your actions as a nation. There is no 'right or wrong' here - you are horribly, breathtakingly wrong.
This actually isn't meant to be an attack on all Americans per se, but it is becoming so very difficult not to just write you off as a job lot. Get your fucking house in order.
Of course, now that I have dared to speak out against your ruling elite, I suppose I can expect my country to be listed for democratisation?

ezed

03-30-2006, 07:52 AM

SidChromeAU,
I don't even know where to begin addressing your post. I'm tired. But I'll let you know first, I think you're right in case I poop out before I'm finished. I think Iraq came about (as one of chefmike's 20 questions suggested) because we needed a new base in the mid-east. The fucking greedy, dickless Saudi's wanted our military bases out. Bush also wanted to avenge his father. Cheney was rubbing his hands saying, I see money to be made here. And they made plenty and will.

We have dicks in office. If Kerry was elected, we'd have a bigger dick in office. He need assistance to find his fly. Bush can find his fly but doesn't remember what it's called. We got problems, no one of character and talent will run. Why? The technological age. ie Media! Who the fuck that has balls, character and conviction would ever run for office today. They'd be gunned down out of the starting gate with everything in their past. Which by the way qualifies them for handling these type of situations.

America has it's foundation in law based on right and wrong. Unfortunately, this created a peitry (sp) dish for lawyers. And over 230 years lawyers, like a virus, have crippled our system. They go on to become judges, congress men, and senators. And they control the country and put forth figure heads like Bush, Clinton and Kerry to run our country. Who are immune to critisism because they have no character. And puppet masters such as Cheney roll up the dough, indirectly of course.

Back in the day, we had the Soviet Union to temper our idiocy. Now we don't. Now we have Dr. No (Osamha Bin I've got a long beard and I am tall) holed up in his secret enclave.

History repeats itself over and over again. The Romans, The British Empire. They fall because bureaucracy strangles them. But I think we'll come back. I think we got another 100 to 200 years left in us. I don't know if America realizes how we look to our allies. We'll see in the next election. Bush won't be thrown out, too much money to be made for congress and the courts to act that fast. And if they did, then what? Besides Al-Qida seems to be focusing on fucking up the Iraq mission and not on taking out cities. Maybe I'm wrong on this but who knows. I know it's harder for them to communicate and organize.

Change moves slowly but does move despite the assholes currently in charge.

Well I've been all over the map on this post, forgive me I'm tired.

latrix67

03-30-2006, 09:30 AM

Here's onr I would hav asked

21) Would you have gone to war without the support of Tony bLair & the British Military to back you up?

Granted we have'nt lost as many Servicemen as the U.S,But we are tired of the losses ,both Military & Civilain & the is a strong belief within the British Military,more so at junior rank level,that it was a mistake to take the action that followed,all suppoed on the belief that WMD's existed.
L67

SidChromeAU

03-30-2006, 02:00 PM

Just to clarify (and I know that you haven't suggested this, but others may misinterpret my above post): I don't condemn individual Americans, but as a group you've pretty much blown it. Few among your allies trust you or your motivations, and it appears clear that you are no longer masters of your own destiny. Rather, a small elite (which frankly appears to cross party lines, as the parties themselves appear to be at the beck and call of the super-rich) decides your fate for you. I'm not pushing the whole conspiracy/hidden-government barrow, just commenting that real power is no longer held by a majority of your population - the bsllot appears meaningless. The entire west is afflicted - somewhat - similarly, but to nowhere near the extent you are. I once read that the difference between you and us (Australia) was that you achieved independence by force, whereas we did so via the ballot box. This has shaped our national characters. Due to your initial history of distrust of governmental authority (the British, initially) you tend to be much more antagonistic towards your government, and your private enterprise sees nothing wrong with pursuing it's own interests ahead of the national interest. We voted to become an independent state, and became one via the legal process. As such, we don't have a cultural imperative (as you do, it appears, at times) to defy government purely on principle. we do all the time, the national sport is practically hanging shit on any elected official (that's our strongly Irish background, which militated against British colonial rule), but we don't do so institutionally. We see government as a tool - something with which to work, that works for us. You seem to take amuch more adversarial approah, and see government as an impediment to be subverted and worked around.
It appears that this cultural difference has enabled your major corporations to take advantage of a distrust of government to your people's detriment. So - you end up as you are now, with major US corporations acting as privateers, and fighting a major war by proxy. Rather than raise their own armies (as, for example, the Dutch East India Company did) and appoint their own generals, they have merely subverted your government. After all, it's cheaper and less risky to use the legitimate armed forces to fight their dirty war for them.
As I come from a miltary background, I am absolutely certain that the majority of your professional men at arms are totally appalled at what they are being used for. Unfortunately for them, good, professional soldiers follow orders. It doesn't help them when their C in C is an outright puppet of those who have suborned them. I find it interesting that butchers like Milosevic have been - finally, when it became politcally convenient - called to account for war crimes. Surely a President who has gone to war for such spurious reasons, and wasted so many lives, and so much materiel, will not be similarly accused of war crimes. Really: when one fights a war for profit, and with such catastrophic consequences, surely the war becomes a criminal enterprise? I'm not damning the men - and women - on the ground. They are following orders (other than the unfortunately usual atrocities that are committed in time of war), but the cowards who are hiding in Washington and delivering those orders are the vilest of criminals. Iraq invaded Kuwait for - amongst other reasons - pillage, and was condemned for it. If one of the nations on Bush's shit list acted as he has, he'd fall all over himself 'puinishing' them, yet he will never be called to account.
As far as history repeating itself goes, I feel that the current conflict, coupled with some draconian internal politics, and the continuing rise of the religious right in the US, may well see the end of US dominance. I know that many Americans have little idea of what happens in the world beyond their doorstep, but you are now so thoroughly discredited that you may never regain your postion of trust - and leadership. I geniunely believe that the door has been left open for the Chinese to continue working toward their own hegemony. The American Century (pt2?) may well be ending. Anything that weakens you, strentghens your opponents - for instance, your chances of acting against Iran are now much diminished, because of your actions in Iraq. Syria is now much safer from your actions. Even if a legitimate case were to be presented for action against both - both much worse states than Iraq ever was - you will now struggle to find support for action. Guess who is lending more and more assistance to States such as these? Who needs an enormous amount of POL to drive a rapidly growing economy? China. Where is all of the oil? In places like - for example - the Sudan. How many Americans are aware that China is heavily financing, and actively supporting, the North Sudanese Muslim development of the oil fields in southern - Christian/Animist - Sudan, much to the detriment of the locals. How many Americans could find the Sudan on a map? China is, similarly, developing close relations with states such as Nigeria - I wonder what Nigeria produces tanker-loads of? The Chinese must be overjoyed at the disunity that is convulsing the west.
lartix67 - then Q22 could well be 'how much did you really tell the Australian Government to get them to come on board in Iraq?', because we are there, too. Many of us supported our initial involvement, because it was sold to us as a war of liberation. Few now would continue to spport the war, and the government that committed us to another US-promulgated war would be in Oppostion at the first opportunity - and our ballot boxes still work.

White_Male_Canada

04-01-2006, 08:43 AM

Sorry, no dick in this thread... with the exception of the chimp-in-chief, of course...

20 Questions for President Bush About Iraq
Arianna Huffington 03/27/2006

As part of his latest PR push on Iraq, President Bush has been giving another round of speeches and -- wonder of wonders -- fielding questions from audience members and reporters alike. He even took a question from Helen Thomas for the first time in over three years -- a decision he later said he "semi-regretted."

Well, as long as he's in a question-answering state of mind (or is it a poll-driven state of desperation?), I thought I'd offer up a few questions of my own about Iraq for the president.

1.) Last week, you insisted: "I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong... it's simply not true." Yet source after source after source suggests otherwise, including your former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neil, who has said that invading Iraq was a goal set out at your first National Security Council meeting, just ten days after your inauguration: "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'" Mr. President, is Paul O'Neil lying?

2.) Despite the fact that dozens of Iraqis a day are dying in sectarian violence, you continue to insist that Iraq is not in a civil war. How many dead Iraqis per day would it take before you'd be willing to concede that civil war has broken out?

3.) Speaking of civil war, your Iraq-is-not-a-civil-war assessment was directly contradicted by former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a man whose credibility you considered unimpeachable in 2004, saying: "He's a brave, brave man... You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq." Has your opinion of him changed now that he's no longer saying what you want to hear?

4.) Allawi has said: "We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people through the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Do you think this is something you might discuss with God next time you speak?

5.) You have steadfastly supported Secretary Rumsfeld, recently claiming: "He's done a fine job." Just how bad would things have to get before you'd be willing to downgrade that to "a so-so job"? What, in your eyes, would you consider "a really crummy job"?

6.) You have indicated that you now believe that there will be American troops in Iraq until at least 2009, saying the decision about withdrawing all U.S. forces will be made by "future presidents and future governments of Iraq." Given that, do you now feel that your May 2003 Mission Accomplished moment, during which you claimed "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," was a tad premature?

7.) Was the flight suit you wore intentionally one size too small?

8.) Yes or no, are we building permanent military bases in Iraq? If yes, how many?

9.) Total U.S. expenditures on the Iraq war have now been pegged at $320 billion. Assuming the war had never happened, what would we have done with that money?

10.) No one died as a result of Watergate, but thousands have died to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't. Will history declare your administration's actions in the lead-up to the war in Iraq a greater scandal than Watergate?

11.) You and several members of your administration have repeatedly said members of Congress saw "the same intelligence" as you did before the invasion. But in the Sept. 21, 2001 PDB, you were told that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks. And yet you never gave this information to Congress. Do you still believe they saw "the same intelligence" you did?

12.) In your opinion (as opposed to Halliburton's), has there been war profiteering in the Iraq war? Do you know how many billions have gone unaccounted for? Are you even curious?

13.) Do you agree with Harry Truman that war profiteering is treason?

14.) You have said America has no choice but to remain in Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from using the country as a terrorist base. Would you say Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq has increased or decreased since we invaded?

15.) You claimed, in September 2002, that "you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." Did you really mean this?

16.) Can you not differentiate between a group of evil ultraradical Islamic fundamentalists who carried out the September 11 attacks and an evil secular nationalist who, despite the frantic efforts of your administration, has in no way been directly linked to 9/11?

17.) Given that you claim intelligence about Iraq was not manipulated, was intelligence that suggested Iraq didn't have WMD as welcome as intelligence that suggested it did? Could an intelligence official who brought you the former expect to advance as quickly as one who brought you the latter?

18.) You've said it is "preposterous" to claim that the diversion of troops and equipment to Iraq had anything to do with the government's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina, but a secret Pentagon report and the head of the National Guard say otherwise. Were people suffering and dying in Louisiana and Mississippi because so many of our National Guard members and so many billions of tax-payer dollars were diverted to Iraq?

19.) Given that you've made the Iraq war a top priority of your administration, have you ever discussed military service with your daughters? How would you feel if they enlisted?

20.) More than 2,300 American soldiers have been killed and over 17,000 wounded since the Iraq war began. Care to predict what these numbers will be at the end of the "long, hard slog"?

This article and all related links, etc. here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/20-questions-for-presiden_b_17966.html

1. O`neil is a nutjob. What does a treasury secretary know about warfare.He spent his time galavantly around the globe with Bono. Bono! ( Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 HR 4655 )

2. Iraqi`s are now assuming more and more control,ergo becoming a larger target.For some reason terrorists dislike getting into firefights with Marines.

3.Allawi the FORMER PM. The death rate in Iraq is lower than in the US 5.7 per thousand vs. 8.3 per thousand according to the 2005 World Almanac.First the "quagmire,lets cut and run" didn`t work.Now the "civil war" mantra. The marxists left`s wet dream.

4.See # 3.

5. LOL This is too easy. Robert McNamara (D)

6. The war was over in weeks.Show me where Saddam`s standing army in uniform is?

7. An asinine juvenile emotional venoumous question .

8.Why not.There are bases in Germany aren`t there? And it`s been what,60 years since WWII ?

9. Spend it on the poor. We`ve spent over 5 Trillion on the war on poverty.Let`s cut and run,we ain`t winning that one.

10.Read Saddam`s mukhabarat files,now available.In their own words how they support and engage in terrorism.Poor Huffy must feel like an arse now.

11. Refer to #10

12.Name at least 3 other companies that do what Halliburton does?

13. Huffy is now just deranged and completey unhinged. No bid contracts are subject to limited profitt margins of about 3% Besides that, they did nothing very wrong in an extremely stressfull job: Halliburton to be reimbursed for most disputed Iraq contract costs http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/02/27/afx2557300.html

14. Ansar-Al-Islams terrorist bases in Iraq,operated by Saddam,are now gone.Name me 3 bases run by terrorists in Iraq today?

15.Read saddam`s own spy agencies (mukhabarat) documents . Full opertaional relationships with OBL/Al-Qaeda ,Abu Sayef and more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/30/iraq/main551632.shtml
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq

16.No one claimed a direct link.The opertaional link is glaringly self-evident.

17.No WMD`s ? LOL Heard that canard too many times. Even the IAEA admit to 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at Al-Tuwaitha,south of Bagdahd.1.5 tons of it highly refined.Yeah,no wmd`s at all.

18.Oh boy,Katrina again.Show me which article of the Constitution that says," And there shall be a FEMA." There is none, and the USA is a Republic.The Feds are not and never have been the primary first responders.They cannot under law enter a State without permission.Go ask Kathleen Blanco why she waited over 24 hours to allow the Feds into Louisiana.

19.The ol` chickenhawk routine,"why don`t you go and serve!" Well,first off,there`s a little thing called division of labor.Read about it Arrianna,then get back to me.Secondly,why don`t YOU go serve in an abortion clinic and perform abortions,being a pro-baby killer yourself.
See how that argument easily whipsaws.

20.More than 300,000 civilians were killed by Saddam. Can you predict how many more hundreds of thousands of lives would be lost by doing nothing.

Arrianna is a well known idiot. Don`t pin your hopes on an elitist snob.

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

chefmike

04-01-2006, 10:45 PM

White_Male_Canada

04-02-2006, 02:15 AM

Arrianna is a well known idiot. Don`t pin your hopes on an elitist snob.

Arianna is not the idiot. If you believe the reich-wing rubbish and excuses that you "answered" her questions with, well...you know what they say, if the jackboot fits...

Elitist snob? I don't know if you listen to him or not, but your post and it's bogus talking points puts you squarely in the camp of Rush "the junkie" Limbaugh. Doesn't he have solid-gold faucets? Or did he have to hock them to buy more oxycontin?

Another emotional knee-jerker.

Arianna,married to rich oil men,how quaint.

Care or dare to rebut my "bogus talking points"? Of course not,you have nothing,no facts,merely hype and hyberbole in your emotionoal rant of a response. Do you understand why Democrats lose ?

I`ll wait for a reply to the Mukhabarat files from you yourself. Or the IAEA`s own words concerning tons of yellowcake uranium.But hey,uranium doesn`t count ! It only causes cancer and slow death.

http://gaypatriot.net/2006/03/23/more-from-the-saddam-files-russia-gave-iraq-us-war-plan-in-2003

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iaeaplan.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer

Rush was addicted to painkillers ! Oh my,how shocking since oxycontin is only one step below heroin in regards to pain killers.Take a course and you`re fucked.Far as i`m aware Rush made his own money and didn`t marry a big oil man for his.

Only in your most deluded world would people who wanted LESS government be accused of being evil and those wanting to control every facet of your life , as being saintly.

As a Libertarian/Conservative it`s our job to get big brother out of our hair and not into our bedrooms as you wish them to be.We do not care what you do,as long as it harms no one else,tax payers are not forced to pay for it and special privilages granted because of it.

You`ve choosen marxism,you live with it.We choose liberty.

Felicia Katt

04-02-2006, 03:53 AM

1. O`neil is a nutjob. What does a treasury secretary know about warfare.He spent his time galavantly around the globe with Bono. Bono! ( Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 HR 4655 )

A treasury secretary doesn't have to know dick about war to know when it is being discussed in a Cabinet level meeting.

2. Iraqi`s are now assuming more and more control,ergo becoming a larger target.For some reason terrorists dislike getting into firefights with Marines.
You don't address the question at all. More Iraqi's are getting killed by other Iraqis every day, that is by definition, a Civil war. Under your flip non response, can we assume that as we cede more control to the Iraqis, the death rate will climb even higher? so we can never leave? or we can't leave until the death rate is 100 per cent?

3.Allawi the FORMER PM. The death rate in Iraq is lower than in the US 5.7 per thousand vs. 8.3 per thousand according to the 2005 World Almanac.First the "quagmire,lets cut and run" didn`t work.Now the "civil war" mantra. The marxists left`s wet dream.

4.See # 3.

Again you don't address the question, Alawai knows the ground there. Bush has been to the airport for a few hours. If its not civil war, what is it? As far as death rates, do you really feel its safer in Iraq then here? The death rate is an interesting but ultimately meaningless statistic. check out this chart http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=iz&v=26
Under your logic, the Gaza strip is a really safe place, and Switzerland is dangerous, and people are damn near immortal in the Falklands.
The death rate in Iraq is artificially low because there is no infrastructure. Hard to die in a car accdent if there are no cars. Unemployment is as high as 80 per cent. Hard to the victiim of an industrial accident if there is no industry. The mass exodus of people from the country is also having an impact.

5. LOL This is too easy. Robert McNamara (D)

You had to go back to Kennedy?? McNamara may have led us into war in Vietnam,but he recognized his mistake and resigned rather than supporting the escalation of troops there. http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/mcnamara.htm
Again, what does this have to do with how bad a job Rumsfield is doing (thousands of tactical mistakes, according to Condoleeza Rice) and how blind Bush's support for him truly is?

6. The war was over in weeks.Show me where Saddam`s standing army in uniform is?

They are the insurgents. They were disbanded then politically abandoned without being disarmed.

7. An asinine juvenile emotional venoumous question .

Bush is too big for his britches and should be called on it.
Since the Whitehouse staged the whole carrier thing, making and hanging the banner, using a jet instead of a helicopter. manouevering the boat so there was no shoreline visible for the cameras, and then delaying for another day the sailor's long awaited and well deserved return home after 10 months of duty so Bush could spend the night on board, the question is spot on.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html

8.Why not.There are bases in Germany aren`t there? And it`s been what,60 years since WWII ?

Those bases were there in effect by invitation and per treaty as part of NATO to protect against the Soviet Union and we were and are welcome there for the most part. What are the bases in Iraq supposed to be protecting the Iraqis from??

9. Spend it on the poor. We`ve spent over 5 Trillion on the war on poverty.Let`s cut and run,we ain`t winning that one.

Again, you don't address the question, at all. 320 billion when it was supposed to cost no more than a few billion, at most. We are now running the largest deficits ever, constantly having to raise the ceiling on the national debt, while cutting social programs to the bone. Spend it on medical research, spend it on alternative fuels, spend it on proving Intelligent design, anything other than throwing the cash into the woodchipper, which is what we are doing in Iraq

10.Read Saddam`s mukhabarat files,now available.In their own words how they support and engage in terrorism.Poor Huffy must feel like an arse now.
11. Refer to #10

I read them from the link you provided. 3 pages about one meeting with someone unknown in Saddam's Iraq with a Bin Laden envoy in 1998. No evidence it came to anything at all. You couldn't get a conviction in traffic court with that kind of evidence.

12.Name at least 3 other companies that do what Halliburton does?

Enron come to mind.

13. Huffy is now just deranged and completey unhinged. No bid contracts are subject to limited profitt margins of about 3% Besides that, they did nothing very wrong in an extremely stressfull job: Halliburton to be reimbursed for most disputed Iraq contract costs http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/02/27/afx2557300.html

Here is a list of all the abuses discovered by official audits of Halliburton
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/audits.html
Decisions to pay them despite all these findings were contrary to Army policy and justified by the exigency of the war effort. So, they did do something wrong, but they got away with it by wrapping their abuses in the flag.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61958-2005Feb3.html

14. Ansar-Al-Islams terrorist bases in Iraq,operated by Saddam,are now gone.Name me 3 bases run by terrorists in Iraq today?

Every major city is now a terrorist base. New recruits are the one thing in Iraq in abundance. Progess.

15.Read saddam`s own spy agencies (mukhabarat) documents . Full opertaional relationships with OBL/Al-Qaeda ,Abu Sayef and more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/30/iraq/main551632.shtml
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq

see 10 and 11 above. and 16 below.

16.No one claimed a direct link.The opertaional link is glaringly self-evident.

First, virtually everyone in the administration either claimed or inferred a direct link. I just saw Bob Dole try the 3000 dead on 9-11 ploy in CNN before Wolf Blitzer shot him down. Secondly, there wasn't even an operational link
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2828
The bipartisan 9-11 commision found "no credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

17.No WMD`s ? LOL Heard that canard too many times. Even the IAEA admit to 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at Al-Tuwaitha,south of Bagdahd.1.5 tons of it highly refined.Yeah,no wmd`s at all.

As of 2002 the only positively confirmed nuclear material left in Iraq is 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium. The material is in a locked storage site at the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility near Baghdad. Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this stock of material is checked once a year by an IAEA team. The most recent check was in January 2002, and none of the material had been tampered with at that time.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm
There were no WMD's and the raw materials were under International Control and had been since 1991. By the way, the raw materials that might be developed into weapons are not weapons. Otherwise, the ATF should be raiding every machine shop with a lathe and some iron. The Administration made repeated reference to a mushroom cloud, but it was really for a mushroomed public. Kept in the dark and fed nothing but bullshit.

18.Oh boy,Katrina again.Show me which article of the Constitution that says," And there shall be a FEMA." There is none, and the USA is a Republic.The Feds are not and never have been the primary first responders.They cannot under law enter a State without permission.Go ask Kathleen Blanco why she waited over 24 hours to allow the Feds into Louisiana.

You're doing a heckuva job avoiding the questions. Does it matter how long someone delays asking for help if there are not enough people to respond??

19.The ol` chickenhawk routine,"why don`t you go and serve!" Well,first off,there`s a little thing called division of labor.Read about it Arrianna,then get back to me.Secondly,why don`t YOU go serve in an abortion clinic and perform abortions,being a pro-baby killer yourself.
See how that argument easily whipsaws.

Division of labor? Did I miss something, or are Lyndie England and Jessica Lynch males?? If Arianna were an Ob Gyn and refused to do abortions, you could accuse her of hypocricy, but I am not aware of any requirement for military service that the Bush twins can't meet. Except heredity.

20.More than 300,000 civilians were killed by Saddam. Can you predict how many more hundreds of thousands of lives would be lost by doing nothing.

Saddam was in power for 30 years, we have been there 3. Conservative estimates are that between 33,000 and nearly 38,000 civilians have been killed in the ongoing conflict. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ and this is only reported deaths, so the actual numbers could be much higher.
I'm sure your question was a rhetorical one, but to answer it anyhow, fewer lives would have been lost if we had not started this war.

20 questions. and not one real answer. But that is probably about the same ratio we would get if Bush himself were responding.

FK

White_Male_Canada

04-02-2006, 10:39 AM

The neo-marxist left continue to cling to Paul O`neill even though he stated long ago, "People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.”

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

You are making assumptions that Iraqis are killing Iraqis without any knowledgable proof.I didn`t know Zarqawi was an Iraqi citizen !?No doubt like minded control freaks of all stripes are participating.Hardly a civil war when foreign fighters are filling the ranks.Hardly a civil war when Al Qaeda blows up the Shia Golden Dome mosque in Samara.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/

But then the fly paper effect is always lost on civis.The neo-marxists lefts` wet dream of a civil war is just that,a wet dream.We`ve heard this babble before.A sandstorm hits and it`s a "quagrmire". Too hot in summer? "quagmire". Camel squats on the highway? "quagmire"

Allawi is a bitter defeated politician who doesn`t know the meaning of civil war,being war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.See Yugoslavia.

As for military bases.Sorry to inform you that US bases were in Germany well beofre NATO was created on 04/04/1949. Perhpas Bahrain and Diego Garcia are members of NATO also,being that the US has major military bases stationed there.

Al-Tuwaitha was not tampered with ? Sorry but it was. I see the definition of a WMD continually mutates with the neo-marxist left.Now a potential truck full of uranium with conventional explosives buried on the bottom would not constitute a wmd in that it would poison thousands.
"...There they found guards had abandoned their posts and looters were roaming the giant facility. At one storage building, which later was found to hold radioactive samples used in research, the radiation levels were too high to enter safely, although the entrance door stood wide open. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32195-2004Jul6.html
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd73/73op03.htm

Human Rights Watch: "Saddam Hussein and others, including, but not limited to, members of Hussein's inner circle, members of the Revolutionary Command Council, and senior and upper-middle level members of the Iraqi military, security, and intelligence forces are responsible for a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been “disappeared” since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed. "
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm

Enron does what Haliburton does? Are you certain?

McNamara used a mathematical formula on a chalkboard and was a cut and run democrat. Bay of pigs Cuba? More cut `n run. In case you`ve been living in a cave with OBL,troop levels will decrease,not increase.

Mistakes? Yes, isn`t it wonderful how the most flawed (socialists/marxists) demand perfection from everyone else.

Major combat operations were over when the POTUS landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln. How many hundreds of sorties are flown every day,today? The Abe was responsible for 16,500 before it`s return after 10 months. POTUS did not say the war on terror was over,merely major combat opertions,which is an accurate statement of military fact.FYI:GW is a pilot (F-102).

Iraqi insurgents all come from the ranks of conscripts? If you say so.Conscripts dropped their weapons and went home to their families,didn`t bother to stick around and fight for a guy who murdered 300,000 of their own.

Katrina again? I`m waiting for the qoute from the Constitution that reads,"... and there shall be a FEMA."
Spending is either up or down,please choose one. Non-defense discretionary outlays(spending) is up by 34 percent between 1999 and 2005. That is the largest six-year expansion since the 1970s. Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton. Defense is up from 3.0 % in 2000 to 4.1% today.And of course, Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually.Happy now? Of course you`re not.Still not enough,too much? Tax cuts spur the economy,tax receipts are up 15%.

Bush is a liberal on social programs.I am not.

Division of labor,Laffer curve.If I had to explain these terms to you or anyone else it would require I send you text books. Then an explanation of the context of which the term is being used.

Bob Dole was a member of the Bush adminisration?
I know Clinton was POTUS, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

I know who algore is," Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

No Saddam OBL Talaban link in his Mubakarat files? The Talaban invited Al-Qaeda into Afghanistan,we attacked both.

http://70.169.163.24/

" We already believe that there are no points of disagreement between us and the Taliban because we are both in one trench facing the world’s oppression..."

Document CMPC-2003-001488:(Saddam Intelligence apparatus (Al Mukabarat) on 9/15/2001 (shortly after 9/11/2001) addressed to senior official and wrote about a conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani Consul. In the conversation the Afghani Consul spoke of a relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11/2001, and that the United States was aware of such a relationship) :

" In the Name of God the Merciful

Presidency of the Republic

Intelligence Apparatus

To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

Subject: Information

Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.

Please view… Yours… With regards

Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001

Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission "

" 9-11 commision found "no credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. "

The exact qoute is," Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Now the Saddam files change everything. Former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

I enjoyed your rebuttal,unfortunately your facts are found wanting.

No wonder the democrats are the permanent minority party.

chefmike

04-03-2006, 02:27 AM

Another ridiculous White Male and his war...

chefmike

04-03-2006, 02:36 AM

:claps

White_Male_Canada

04-03-2006, 04:35 AM

Another ridiculous White Male and his war...

How tolerant of you.

Odd how the marxist left preaches tolerance on everything,except things they disagree with.Even reality itself.

Clinton wimped out.Now the men are in charge.Get used to it.

Clinton,"Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan...He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, although it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible. "

http://www.newsmax.com/Clinton.mp3

"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3

Arrest him !? Conspiracy to committ mass murder is a crime! LOL What a fucking fag! :lol: For fucks sake,even Sylvia Boots has more balls than Cinton. :lol:

Given the now proven operational contacts between saddam ,OBL,abu sayyaf,al qud,ansar al-islam,liberating Iraq was the correct procedure.

Enjoy your permanent minority status in DC .

johnb

04-03-2006, 05:48 AM

can't digest all this stuff, all I know is that we're in there, and ain't getting out soon. Cheney and the Halliburton boys got it set up for a financial gravy train. Pity the next President who says this is a rat fuck, and we're pulling out. He or She (hopefully) will be branded unpatriotic and an atheist. Please, let's keep borrowing money and sending our poor to fight this war...God Bless America!!!

johnb

04-03-2006, 05:55 AM

Felicia Katt

04-03-2006, 10:42 AM

sorry this is so long. but point for poiint on twent points takes a few lines.

Oneil
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

O'neil is far from the only source of proof for the Administration's predisposition to deal with Iraq militarily. This was not the case under Clinton.
From your source:
U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force.

According to Richard Clarke after Bush took office, , "The buzz in national security staff administration wanted to go after Iraq." When asked, do you think [the Bush administration] came into office with that [invading Iraq] as a plan? Clarke responded, "If you look at the so-called Vulcans group talked about publicly in seminars in Washington. They clearly wanted to go after Iraq and they clearly wanted to do this reshaping of the middle east and they used the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to test their theories
http://www.themoderntribune.com/casualties_of_war_truth_-_the_2004_presidential_election.htm
The Vulcan Group included Perle, Wolfowitz and Cheney. Back in 1997 Wolfowitz pushed hard to arm the Iraqi National Congress, and advocated the use of US ground troops to carve out pieces of Iraqi territory, telling The New Republic in December: "It will take American forces to create a protected area in which opposition forces can organize and to which units from Saddam's army can defect." Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, called such plans "a Bay of Goats" scenario
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/216_urbina.html
In 1998, Perle, urged President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Hussein from power.
"We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf," they wrote. "In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. . . . We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk
http://www.aaiusa.org/news/aainews031405.htm
In September 2000 Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, as Project for the New American Century (PNAC) iissued "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources For A New Century," calling for the US to take military control of the Persian Gulf .
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance2.html
Given that they pressed Clinton -- a president with whom they had no formal relationship-to do the same thing a few years earlier, its clear that the neocons pressed for an attack of Iraq once they were in power. Their conduct after 9-11 shows this.
According to Clarke "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," "And we all said ... no, no. al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. Clarke said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it." Clarke also indicts the Bush White House as indifferent to the al-Qaeda threat before 9/11, then obsessed with punishing Iraq, regardless of what the evidence showed about Saddam's al- Qaeda ties, or lack of them. Bush met with him on September 12th, and asked him to find a link between Iraq and 9/11. He informed the President that Iraq had not been involved in any terrorism against the US in eight years. Six days later he submitted a report to that affect. It was apparently rejected with a notation "update."
Bob Woodward also supports that the Bush administration was too focused on Iraq and the prepared to shape or disregard evidence in order to. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz thought that Iraq should be included in the first round of the war. As early as Sept. 12 Rumsfeld argued that the United States should take advantage of the terrorist attacks to go after Iraq's Saddam Hussein immediately.
http://www.themoderntribune.com/casualties_of_war_truth_-_the_2004_presidential_election.htm
They wanted to before 9-11, and they wanted to after 9-11, no matter what the evidence showed.

Iraqis are killing Iraqis
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/

Your source is out of date. That may have been true before the US imposed Parlimentary Democracy politically neutered the Sunni's and emboldened the Shiities. The Mosque was destroyed by rival Muslims and the 30 or more decapitated corpses who surface each day are being killed by their fellow Iraqis.

"Camel squats on the highway? "quagmire"

quag·mire
n.
Land with a soft muddy surface.
A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament
Approaching 3000 dead American soliders, countless 1000s maimed, tens of 1000s of dead Iraqis, with no sign of it relenting or ending. We are stuck in the bloody mud there in a very precarious position.

there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations..

Civil war exists when two or more opposing parties within a country resort to arms to settle a conflict or when a substantial portion of the population takes up arms against the legitimate government of a country. Within international law distinctions are drawn between minor conflicts like riots, where order is restored promptly, and full-scale insurrections finding opposing parties in political as well as military control over different areas.
The definition you offered is for whether combatants gain the protection afforded soldiers under international rules of law pertaining to war. Our present Administration has shown they are not too concerned with the Geneva Convention

As for military bases.Sorry to inform you that US bases were in Germany well beofre NATO was created on 04/04/1949.

We were there for 4 years after the war. We were welcome there, and actually greeted as liberators. We have been there 37 years, per treaty. Do you really think we are welcome in Iraq now? Or still will be in 2043? And again, who are we there to protect? Who is protecting them from us? Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Al-Tuwaitha was not tampered with ? ....Sorry but it was. I see the definition of a WMD continually mutates with the neo-marxist left.Now a potential truck full of uranium with conventional explosives buried on the bottom would not constitute a wmd in that it would poison thousands.

From your source:
The U.N. inspectors removed highly enriched uranium that could be used for weapons and shipped it for storage in Russia. The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA. It remained there until the bedlam and chaos after Saddam was deposed. The mutation is there but its neocon genetics. It went from WMD, to WMD programs to WMD program related activities and now apparently to just radioactive materials. Bush talked about missiles and mushroom clouds. If he had tried to make the case for war on Saddam driving a U-haul here from Iraq, he would have been laughed out of office.

[b]290,000 persons who have been “disappeared” since the late 1970s, http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm

Saddam was a bad guy. But to his people, not to us. More people on average have died each year since the invasion than did before it, and under Saddam, they had jobs, and electricty and water and health care, and intact mosques and the streets were not running with blood.

Enron does what Haliburton does? Are you certain?

They both used political connections and took advantage of crises to enrich their principals and shareholders, unethically and at taxpayer expense. so, yup, they are alike.

McNamara used a mathematical formula on a chalkboard and was a cut and run democrat. Bay of pigs Cuba? More cut `n run. In case you`ve been living in a cave with OBL,troop levels will decrease,not increase.

Cut and run is a catch phrase, not a real point for discussion. McNamara recognized his mistake and resigned rather than compounding it. Rumsfield could learn from that.

Mistakes? Yes, isn`t it wonderful how the most flawed (socialists/marxists) demand perfection from everyone else.

I'm not a marxist or a socialist and i certainly don't demand perfection. But the Bush adminstration feigns it. If they would admit to a mistake, it would be different, but they won't. Ask your boss if you can make thousands of mistakes and still get a good performance review.

Major combat operations were over when the POTUS landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln. POTUS did not say the war on terror was over,merely major combat opertions,which is an accurate statement of military fact.FYI:GW is a pilot (F-102).

The Mission was to get Bush re-elected. It was a campaign stop/photo op. The stated mission, which was to restore liberty and democracy to the Iraqis was barely begun. Many more soliders have been killed since Rove and Co bought and flew that huge banner. Bush thought there would be NO casualties. Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators. They were wrong to say so, and wrong to claim victory. You don't pop the champagne corks while our soldiers are still dying.
I know Bush was a pilot. But if he wanted to fly a jet in a combat setting, he should have gone to Vietnam, not awol to Alabama.

Iraqi insurgents all come from the ranks of conscripts? If you say so.Conscripts dropped their weapons and went home to their families,didn`t bother to stick around and fight for a guy who murdered 300,000 of their own.

The Shiites maybe. but the Sunnis went from being privileged under Saddam to politcal impotence and subject to reprisals And the Shiites kept their weapons perpetuate them and to guard against Sunni retribution

Katrina again?
.
Its a simple question/equation. Were there enough National Guardmen to respond when Americans were in great and imminent peril? The answer is no, because too many were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan because there was no planning for the "peace" after the war. What nation are they supposed to be guarding if not their own?

Division of labor,Laffer curve.If I had to explain these terms to you or anyone else it would require I send you text books. Then an explanation of the context of which the term is being used.

Division of labor is generally speaking the specialization of cooperative labor in specific, circumscribed tasks and roles, intended to increase efficiency of output. I didn't need the text books, thank you though.
Other than the privilege of being precious to a powerful parent, what special skills, exactly, do the Bush twins have that prevents them from serving their country? Did you want to try to explain your reasoning in that regard to Pat Tillman's father?
The Laffer Curve has nothing to do with the situation, unless Bush is worried about losing a tax deduction? No one in the administration served in the military and none of their children are in harms way.

Bob Dole Clinton and Gore?

They trot Dole out as a senior Republican spokesperson to try to defend their positions on the war. Gore was speaking against a rush to war against Saddam, and in favor of going directly after Osama and Al Quaeda and not abandoning Afghanistan
To quote from your sources

Clinton laid out a modest goal: diminish the Iraqi threat. . "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.
He relied on the UN and on enforcing the no-fly zone, and two-thirds of the nation approved of his handling of the crisis, according to the polls done then. Even the Bush Administration agreed with that.

...the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq February 24, 2001

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. July 29, 2001

Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned. September 16, 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
as far as the The Mubakarat files go:
All your "memo" shows is that someone expressed concern that the US would attack because of some past tenuous connection to the Taliban and Osama. I hope Saddam read that memo more carefully than Bush read his Daily threat briefing about the possible use of airplanes to attack American targets.
Again, quoting from your source
new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.
This is the operational relationship? What is it, "faith based" There is still no real evidence of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [/quote]

Hopefully you will find this fact filled rebuttal even more enjoyable.

FK

White_Male_Canada

04-03-2006, 08:44 PM

No one in the administration served in the military and none of their children are in harms way.

Those who believe in abortion up to the ninth month are not forced to serve in abortion clinics,punch scissors in the back of the head of the child and suck it`s brains out with a wet dry vac. Division of labor,added to that fact is that the armed forces is all voluntary.

Our present Administration has shown they are not too concerned with the Geneva Convention

What year did the Taliban sign the Geneva Conventions and also,when did Al-Qaeda sign them. They and anyone else not in uniform are regarded as illegal enemy combatants.Not subject to the GC.

We were there for 4 years after the war. We were welcome there, and actually greeted as liberators. We have been there 37 years, per treaty. Do you really think we are welcome in Iraq now

I`m not a fan of polls.They are merely snap shots of a day.That said, IRAQ HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: 63% YES OUSTING SADDAM HUSSEIN WORTH IT : 77% WHEN SHOULD COALITION FORCED LEAVE IRAQ: WHEN SECURITY IS RESOTED 31% NOW 26% AFTER A NEW GOVERNMENT IS IN PLACE 19% WHEN IRAQI SECURITY FORCESA ARE IN PLACE 16%
(WORLDPUBLICOPINIO.ORG/01/06)

The Us were not greeted as liberators of Japan,yet military bases there still stand.

It went from WMD, to WMD programs to WMD program related activities and now apparently to just radioactive materials. Bush talked about missiles and mushroom clouds. If he had tried to make the case for war on Saddam driving a U-haul here from Iraq, he would have been laughed out of office

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: "What Was Said Before Does Matter. The President's Words Matter. The Vice President's Words Matter. So Do Those Of The Secretary Of State And The Secretary Of Defense And Other High Officials In The Administration." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 11/10/05)

democrats circa 1998:

-- President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
-- Vice President Al Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
-- Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright: "[W]e are concerned ... about [Saddam's] ability in the long run ... to threaten all of us with weapons of mass destruction."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "[Saddam] will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again."
-- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Democrats, Circa 2002

-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON

President Bill Clinton Called Iraq "A Rogue State With Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Ready To Use Them Or Provide Them To Terrorists..." CLINTON: "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Clinton, On Saddam's WMD: "Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too." CLINTON: "[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."
(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Clinton, On Saddam: "[M]ark My Words, He Will Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction. He Will Deploy Them, And He Will Use Them."
(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)

In November 1997, Clinton Directed Then-Secretary Of Defense William Cohen To "Raise The Profile Of The Biological And Chemical Threat." "Cohen, meanwhile, was arguing that a true U.S. vital interest -- and one that could easily be explained in public -- was Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, often referred to in abbreviated terms as WMD. Clinton directed him on Nov. 13 to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat. The following day, the former senator from Maine held a five-pound bag of sugar on ABC's This Week Sunday program and said the same quantity of anthrax could kill half the population of Washington." (Barton Gellman, Dana Priest and Bradley Graham, "Diplomacy And Doubts On The Road To War," The Washington Post, 3/1/98)

Cohen, Following Clinton's Orders On ABC's This Week: "What Is On The Horizon Is Anthrax, VX, Sarin, And Other Types Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." COHEN: "All of his neighbors in the region, I think, are fearful of what Saddam Hussein has done in the past and apprehensive of what he might do in the future. We intend to intensify that apprehension on their part by showing it's not invasion of Kuwait, it's not invasion of Saudi Arabia that's on the horizon. What is on the horizon is anthrax, VX, sarin, and other types of weapons of mass destruction." (ABC's This Week, 11/16/97)

Clinton: "I Have No Doubt Today, That Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Use These Terrible Weapons Again." CLINTON: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)

Clinton Insisted Saddam Sat Atop The List Of "Predators Of The 21st Century." CLINTON: "[T]his is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century, ... [T]hey will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Gore was speaking against a rush to war against Saddam, and in favor of going directly after Osama and Al Quaeda
Really? Doesn`t sound like it to any rational person.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE

Vice President Al Gore Claimed "Saddam's Ability To Produce And Deliver Weapons Of Mass Destruction Poses A Grave Threat ... To The Security Of The World." GORE: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. ." (Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Gore: "If You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Killâ€¦?" GORE: "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)

When Discussing Saddam's Iraq, Gore Invoked The Specter Of "Ballistic Missiles, Nuclear Weapons, Chemical And Biological Weapons." "Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." (ABC News' "Special Report," 12/16/98)

Gore, In 2002: "We Know That [Saddam] Has Stored Away Secret Supplies Of Biological Weapons And Chemical Weapons Throughout His Country." (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, 9/23/02)

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT

Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright Said Saddam "Had The Capability With The VX Agents To Destroy Every Man, Woman And Child On Earth." ALBRIGHT: "Weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. It's hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to â€“ you know, Saddam Hussein had the capability with the VX agents to destroy every man, woman and child on earth. So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat." (PBS' The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, 12/17/98)

Albright: "[W]e Are Concerned, As The President Said, About [Saddam's] Ability In The Long Run To Threaten His Neighbors, And Frankly, To Threaten All Of Us With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Albright Accused Saddam Of Pursuing Dual Threats To International Peace: Terrorism And Weapons Of Mass Destruction. ALBRIGHT: "Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges, while posing yet a third. .. As we look ahead, we will decide how and when to respond to Iraq's actions based on the threat they pose to Iraq's neighbors, to regional security and to U.S. vital interests. Our assessment will include Saddam's capacity to reconstitute, use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks At The American Legion Convention, New Orleans, LA, 9/9/98)

Albright: "[Saddam] Has Chosen To Spend His Money On Building Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Palaces For His Cronies." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks To The Chicago Council On Foreign Relations, Chicago, IL, 11/12/99)

Albright Justified A December 1998 Attack On Iraq As A Way To Increase America's Security And "Deal With The Threat" Of Saddam's Weapons. ALBRIGHT: "President Clinton felt very strongly that it was in our national security interest to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, their capability, their future capability of threatening us, the neighbors, the regional stability with them, and that we had a responsibility as the United States to deal with a threat of this kind." (CNN's "Early Edition," 12/18/98)

Albright Argued Saddam's Pursuit Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Insistence On Lifting Economic Sanctions Was An "Incompatible Position." ALBRIGHT: "The purpose of it ... is to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. And the targets are related to that. They're going after weapons of mass destruction facilities, after military facilities, command and control security. ... [T]his is because Saddam Hussein has insisted that he wants to keep his weapons of mass destruction and have sanctions lifted, a clearly incompatible position." (NBC's Today, 12/18/98)

Albright Said The Risk That Rogue State Leaders Like Saddam "Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face." ALBRIGHT: "Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SANDY BERGER

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Said Saddam "Will Rebuild His Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Someday, Some Way, I Am Certain, He Will Use That Arsenal Again." BERGER: "Some have suggested that we should basically turn away. We should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

Berger: "In The 21st Century, The Community Of Nations May See More And More Of This Very Kind Of Threat That Iraq Poses Now, A Rogue State With Biological And Chemical Weapons." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

Berger Claimed It Was "Up To Saddam To Decide Whether He Wants Sanctions Relief By Giving Up His Weapons Of Mass Destruction." BERGER: "[I]n December, Saddam Hussein once again broke his commitment to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors, ignoring our warnings. The United States, together with our British allies, responded with military force. We attacked Iraq's program to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his capacity to threaten his neighbors, but we have not eliminated the danger and our resolve to curb the threat Saddam poses will not diminish. â€¦ It is up to Saddam to decide whether he wants sanctions relief by giving up his weapons of mass destruction." (Sandy Berger, Remarks To Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Conference, Washington, DC, 1/12/99)

Berger: "I Think The Question Is Whether, Ultimately, Iraq Will Get Rid Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CBS' This Morning, 11/16/98)

OTHER HIGH OFFICIALS IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

Former Secretary Of State Warren Christopher Said Saddam Developed And Used WMD And Sponsored "Countless Acts Of Terrorism." "The record is, unfortunately, all too clear. Saddam has threatened and invaded his neighbors, developed and used weapons of mass destruction, sponsored countless acts of terrorism, and for the last two decades, he has relentlessly persecuted the Kurds and the Shiites. When Saddam tests the will and resolve of the international community, our response must be and will be forceful and immediate." (Warren Christopher, Remarks In Washington, DC, 9/3/96)

U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson Linked Saddam To Anthrax, VX And Botulism, Warning Those Weapons Might "Get In The Hands Of Terrorists That Saddam Is Supporting." RICHARDSON: "We're [sic] what the American people want: contain Saddam Hussein from going after his neighbors, but also, go after these deadly weapons of anthrax, VX, botulisms, some that are very, very big threats to future generations of children, not just in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but around the world, if they get in the hands of terrorists that Saddam is supporting." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 2/18/98)

Richardson: "Facts Are Facts. Iraq Has Been Deceiving The International Community With The Weaponization Of Nerve Gas. It's That Simple." (Michel Leclercq, "UN Inspector Says Iraq Equipped Weapons With Lethal Gas," Agence France Presse, 6/24/98)

State Department Spokesman Jamie Rubin: Saddam Had "Relentlessly Deceived And Obstructed Efforts ... To Identify And Destroy Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "[W]e have a lot of experience dealing with Saddam Hussein. For over seven years, their leadership has relentlessly deceived and obstructed efforts by the international community to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has misled fellow Arab leaders about his intention to invade Kuwait. He lied to UNSCOM when he said that he did not weaponize VX ... Iraq's leadership has never expressed regret or remorse for his past actions, which include gassing his own people and invading Kuwait. We do not believe he has renounced his aggression or using the most ruthless and barbaric means to achieve it." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)

Rubin: "If We Fail To Act, He Will Feel Emboldened To Threaten The Region Further, Armed With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "Saddam Hussein is not an abstract threat. He has fired Scuds at his neighbors, attacked Kuwait, used chemical weapons on Iran and his own people. UNSCOM has shown, through its work, that he developed massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and weaponized those weapons for delivery by Scud missiles. He has still not accounted for all these dangerous weapons. ... [I]f he continues to block UNSCOM and we do not respond, he will be able to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction in a matter of months, not years. And if we fail to act, he will feel emboldened to threaten the region further, armed with weapons of mass destruction." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)

Former Clinton Adviser Rahm Emanuel Called It "Insulting" That Anyone Would Question Clinton's '98 Airstrikes "Given Everything Saddam Has Done." EMANUEL: "And I think that if you really look at this, Larry, that it is wrong, and I think it's insulting to the American people's intelligence, insulting to the men and women and professional professors [sic?] in our country, and I think it's detrimental to our foreign policy to really kind of question why we would go, given everything that Saddam Hussein has done over the years. We gave him one last chance." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)

DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, LEADING DEMOCRAT SENATORS CAUTIONED AMERICANS ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

In 1998, Sen. Carl Levin And Twenty-Six Other Senators Urged President Clinton "To Take Necessary Actions" In Response To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs. LEVIN: "Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President 'after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'" (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 10/9/98)

Fourteen Democrats, Including Then-Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle And 2004 Presidential Nominee John Kerry, Signed The Letter To President Clinton: ("Letter To President Clinton," as Entered Into The Congressional Record By Sen. Carl Levin, 10/9/98)

Carl Levin (D-Mich.) Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.)
John Breaux (D-La.) Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Wendell Ford (D-Ky.) John Kerry (D-Mass.)

Former Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) Warned Of The Danger Of Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction. DASCHLE: "Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address.... Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

After The 1998 Bombing Of Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Warned Against "Partisan Finger-Pointing" And Said Saddam Was "Too Dangerous ... To Be Given Carte Blanche With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "We had to attack. [President Clinton] had to do what his military advisors told him he should do,' said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. ... [A]dded Reid, 'Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first.' Saddam Hussein â€˜is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction,' he added." (Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," The Associated Press, 12/26/98)

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Argued That Saddam "Obviously" Was Working, "Secretly And Otherwise," On Weapons Of Mass Destruction. KERRY: "Mr. President, over the years, a consensus has developed within the international community that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction has to be halted. We and others worked hard to develop arms control regimes toward that end, but obviously Saddam Hussein's goal is to do otherwise. Iraq and North Korea and others have made it clear that they are still trying, secretly and otherwise, to develop those weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98)

Kerry Said Saddam Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Past And Wanted "To Try ... To Continue To Do So." "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. ... It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Following A Briefing By Clinton Administration Officials, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) Said Saddam's "Chemical And Biological Weapons Capabilities" Were "Frightening." "At a Capitol Hill briefing Tuesday night, administration officials showed that â€˜Saddam Hussein continues to be clear threat to the security of the region and to many of our allies,' Durbin said. â€˜His chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening. We have to take his refusal to allow inspections very seriously.'" (Dori Meinert, "Durbin To Support Limited Approval For Military Force Against Iraq," Copley News Service, 2/4/98)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) Believed The Peace Of "Much Of The World" Was At Risk If Iraq Was Allowed To Protect Its "Biological, Chemical And Nuclear Weapons." "'Time and time again Iraq has flouted the efforts of our nation and the international community to bring peace to the Persian Gulf,' said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. â€˜With the peace of the region and, and in fact, much of the world at risk, we cannot allow Iraq to continue its maneuvers designed to protect such a dangerous buildup of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.'" (John Raby, "Congressmen Support U.S. Bombing Of Iraq," The Associated Press, 12/16/98)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.): "Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs And The Means To Deliver Them Are A Menace To International Peace And Security." LEVIN: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council." (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

Levin Spoke Of Gallons Of Anthrax And Tons Of VX, Noting Iraq Had Denied Possessing Such Weapons. LEVIN: "[I]t was only after there was a defector, Saddam Hussein's own son- in-law defected and said, look here, here, here, and here that then Iraq said oh, yes, we have 2100 gallons of anthrax. By the way, one spore, less than a drop of anthrax kills within days. 2100 gallons and then the U.N. went in and destroyed that. Same thing with the chemical VX; 3.9 million tons of this chemical. One drop kills instantaneously -- was denied by Iraq. The U.N. ... believes that he has 20 tons plus more of VX and six thousand gallons more of anthrax." (CNN's Larry King Live, 2/16/98)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Issued Grave Warnings About Iraq's WMD, Citing Chemical And Biological Weapons As Well As Anthrax-Tipped Missiles. "First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The current regime in Iraq has ... displayed a callous willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims. Recently, we have heard chilling reports of possible biological weapons experiments on humans. An UNSCOM Inspector has spoken of information that points to a secret biological weapons production facility. And Ambassador Richard Butler has told us that Iraq could well have missile warheads filled with anthrax capable of striking Tel Aviv. An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail." (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

Due To Saddam's Efforts To Assemble Biological, Nuclear And Chemical Weapons, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Argued In 1999 That Clinton "Ended The Bombings Too Soon." "Senator Schumer is taking issue with several recent decisions of the Clinton administration on Middle Eastern affairs, despite his close association with the president and first lady. ... Schumer said America should renew its bombing campaign against Iraq ... A renewed bombing campaign against Iraq would show Saddam Hussein the price he must pay for his lack of cooperation and would inhibit Iraq's ability to assemble biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, Mr. Schumer said. 'The president ended the bombings too soon.'" (Uriel Heilman, "Schumer Says Clinton Should Resume Bombing Targets In Iraq," Forward, 1/29/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Warned That Military Action Against Saddam's Regime "Must Deal A Major Setback" To Iraq's "Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program." "Feinstein also said that for the attack against Iraq to be successful, the air strikes must â€˜destroy the weapons of mass-destruction facilities and supplies that the thwarted inspections were designed to find...' â€˜At the very least,' she added, â€˜Operation Desert Fox must deal a major setback to the weapons of mass destruction program that has been in development by Saddam Hussein.'" (Stephen Green, "Feinstein Initially Questioned Attack's Timing," Copley News Service, 12/17/98)

DRAWING UPON INTELLIGENCE PROVIDED BY TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, DEMOCRAT SENATORS CONTINUED TO OPENLY DISCUSS THE DANGER POSED BY IRAQ'S WEAPONS

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Acknowledged Iraq Breached The 1991 Armistice Agreement By Refusing To Destroy Its Stockpiles Of Weapons. REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, 10/27/02)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's Existing Biological And Chemical Weapons Capabilities Pose Real Threats To America Today, Tomorrow." ROCKEFELLER: "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. â€¦ [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Believed Saddam's "Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Represented "An Unacceptable Threat." KERRY: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Warned That -- If Left Unchecked -- Saddam Would Continue To Increase His Unconventional Weaponry And Even Develop Nuclear Weapons. CLINTON: "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Said Saddam Was A "Terrible Danger" To America Because Of His "Vigorous Pursuit" Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. SCHUMER: "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Claimed To "Understand The Grave Danger Posed To America ... By Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Hands Of A Reckless Dictator Like Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. ... I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Announced In 2002 That Within Five Years Saddam Would Possess "Tactical Or Theater Nuclear Weapons." BIDEN: "My view is if five years from now Saddam Hussein is in power, left unfettered with $5 billion to $7 billion a year to pursue his weapons, he will be a grave danger to us, in the sense that he will intimidate the area and we will be unwilling to go after him because he'll have tactical or theater nuclear weapons." (CNN's Larry King Live, 10/9/02)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Simply Stated: "There Is No Question That Iraq Possesses Biological And Chemical Weapons." DODD: "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressional Record, 10/8/02)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Felt Saddam's Chemical And Biological Weapons Posed "A Considerable Threat To Us." NELSON: "Well, I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons. And the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us." (CNBC's "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Listed The Weapons At Saddam's Disposal: "Ballistic Missiles, Anthrax, Sarin Gas, VX And Smallpox." BAYH: "Today, Hussein already has ballistic missiles, anthrax, sarin gas, VX and smallpox, and he could someday soon have nuclear weapons at his disposal. As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that we cannot." (Sen. Evan Bayh, Op-Ed, "Bayh Justifies The Need For Using Force Against Iraq," The Indianapolis Star, 10

Duelfer Report:

"Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation...

...Some uncertainties remain and some information will continue to emerge about the WMD programs or the former Regime. Reports cited in the Comprehensive Report concerning the possible movement of WMD or WMD materials from Iraq prior to the war remain unresolved...

...When circumstances are more conducive, further work may be done and an investigative plan has been developed...

..ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war."

under Saddam, they had jobs, and electricty and water and health care, and intact mosques and the streets were not running with blood

Average mean income in Iraq is up,not down.As is the demand for electricity.More is being produced.Demand outstrips production because market prices are not being charged to customers.Baghdahd sees less electricity because more is flowing to the north and south.The reverse of when Saddam was in power.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/2831

Ask your boss if you can make thousands of mistakes and still get a good performance review.

Performance review to date: Bush,re-elected in 2004. Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception -- Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al Qaeda-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed

But if he wanted to fly a jet in a combat setting, he should have gone to Vietnam, not awol to Alabama.

Haven`t you heard about Dan Rather and his forged National Guard documents? Where`s Dan today?

I can`t believe you still believe the left wing propaganda of Bush being AWOL in Alabama when Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard,you know the guy who was there at the time said, "They)left wing press) don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush.So when I say, 'There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"

but the Sunnis went from being privileged under Saddam to politcal impotence

Yeah, damn that one man one vote thing.Always fucks things up,don`t it.

Were there enough National Guardmen to respond when Americans were in great and imminent peril? The answer is no, because too many were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Bullshit. As of August 31 2005 there were 3,748 Louisiana Army National Guardsmen and Army Reservists and 193 Air Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty throughout the world. The lion’s share of them, about 3,500, are with the 256th Infantry Brigade in Iraq. This leaves some 8,000 Guardsmen and an unknown number of Army Reservists available for disaster relief. The skill sets in those units, with the exception of the single combat engineer battalion, have no particular utility in disaster relief. So the argument that the absence of the 450 men of the 1088th Engineer Battalion were somehow critical to response to this disaster, or that the 3,500 troops missing could not be more than adequately replaced by other troops from neighboring states is just not true. So did the equipment the 256th Infantry Brigade take with it to Iraq, equipment provide some unique immediate response capability that could have mitigated the damage from Katrina?

Arguably someone could make the case that the M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley, and M109 Paladin howitzers belonging to the infantry, armor, and artillery battalions could have been filled with QUIKRETE and pushed into the break in the levee.

I hope Saddam read that memo more carefully than Bush read his Daily threat briefing about the possible use of airplanes to attack American targets

Six years before the Sept. 11 attacks, Philippine police took down an al Qaeda cell in Manila that, among other things, had been plotting to fly explosives-laden planes into the Pentagon -- and possibly some skyscrapers. The CIA knew about the plot, known as Operation Bojinka. So did the FBI. "We told the Americans about the plans to turn planes into flying bombs as far back as 1995," a Philippine inspector says. "Why didn't they pay attention?" http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/01/magazine_brzezinski010202.htm

Slick Willy was too busy running around the oral office with his pants around his ankles and his pyrones deseased cock hanging out. “No time to read Monica,suck my cock”

ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.
This is the operational relationship? What is it, "faith based" There is still no real evidence of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda

And that editor`s note also read: “It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.) “

According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation."

Now to Richard Clark,the Clintonista hack book peddler.

Why did the Clinton administration cite an "understanding" between bin Laden and Iraq in its indictment of bin Laden for the 1998 embassy bombing? Did Iraq support al Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in Sudan? Clinton administration officials, including Clarke's former boss Sandy Berger, stand by their decision to target al Shifa. Does Clarke?What did the Clinton administration do to get the Iraqis to turn over Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi harbored by the regime after mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attacks?

Still no contacts between OBL,Saddam and terrorism?

Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans.
Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.

Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.

Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.
In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.

Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.

Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.
In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.
After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq.

The mid-term elections are going to be wonderful to behold.Like little calves butting their heads on gaint oaks,the radical left will achieve nothing.

In closing, a few strokes of Occam`s razor has left the left in taters.

White_Male_Canada

04-03-2006, 09:37 PM

oh by the way, white male canada...with all you white males, which i am one, blaming Clinton for all your problems,you remind me of the joke...the Russian Premier gets overthrown, he tell his successor, "When you get in trouble, there are two letters in my desk. Open then one at a time". So the first time the premier gets in trouble, he opens up the first letter, and it says, "Blame me". The new premier goes along, gets into trouble and opens up the second letter, and it says, "Prepare two letters".

I don`t have any problems.

Clinton skated and did nothing,even when aware of Project Bojinka.

That said the war of civilization actually began on Carter`s watch in 1979 when he fucked the Shah of Iran and allowed radical Islam a base and foothold.

GW is an OG. You fuck with us,were gonna fuck you over good.You won`t be able to shit str8 when were done.Any pussies best sit this one out.

To qoute Parker/Stone, " There are 3 kinds of people Dicks,Pussies and Assholes.Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit! "

chefmike

04-03-2006, 11:33 PM

I don`t have any problems.

LMAO...no problems? Here's but one of the problems that you have, a problem that you obviously need to work on... :lol:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/chefmike_/head_in_ass_130.jpg

Felicia Katt

04-04-2006, 05:28 AM

Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

the plain version: the simplest explanation is usally the best one.

Question
How does adding so much irrelevant crap to this thread and ignoring so many plain facts meet the test of Occam's razor?
Answer
It doesn't

Question"What do late term abortion, Monica Lewinsky, The Achille Lauro, Dan Rather, the Phillipines, Japan and the 1980's have to do with this thread?
Answer
Nothing

Question:
What more will I have to do with this particular discsusion?
Answer
Nothing

To endeavor to work upon the vulgar with fine sense is like attempting to hew blocks with a razor
Alexander Pope.

Peace and out

FK

White_Male_Canada

04-04-2006, 06:09 PM

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence always sends them scurrying away. (quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est)

chefmike

04-04-2006, 08:59 PM

White_Male_Canada

04-04-2006, 09:11 PM

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence always sends them scurrying away. (quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est) and you better hurry after them, or they might leave you behind...

Socialists / neo-marxist such as yourself have lost in the arena of ideas long ago.Now you wanna get owned with silly lil`p ics too. A glutton for punishment.

chefmike

04-04-2006, 09:55 PM

trish

04-04-2006, 10:08 PM

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence always sends them scurrying away. (quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est)

I believe it was the overwhelmig preponderance of irrelevent crap that drove your opponent on to better things.

chefmike

04-06-2006, 12:24 AM

Where is Ronnie when you need him? Oh, thats right...if stem-cell research ever does help AZ, it will be in spite of him and his ilk...

10 Commandments They Never Got From Reagan

Davis Sweet 04/05/06

It looks like the Republican Revolutionaries are making their last gasp in power as painful-to-watch as that liquefied-brain chick's balloon-torture video. And I have to blame Reagan. Not just because I like to blame Reagan for things, and whoo-MAMA do I like that, but because he never showed these petty criminals how to move up to the Boss's chair.

They've become unmoored from the Gyper's big-crime strategy, and we're seeing how much the Ronnie theology lacks, not having any commandments.

Here, then, are an idealogue's decalogue of lessons the Republicans might have learned had they been raised in Reagan values-based families.

1. Thou shalt not steal from Target; Thou shalt steal from taxpayers.

2. Thou shalt not shoot an old guy; Thou shalt shoot nuns.

3. Thou shalt not try to diddle kiddies; Thou shalt screw them out of their college loans.

4. Thou shalt not drown the blacks; Thou shalt imprison them.

5. Thou shalt not invade an unarmed country; Thou shalt invade three or four unarmed countries.

6. Thou shalt not leave an angry war mother alone; Thou shalt give her plenty of company.

7. Thou shalt not foul the skies with poison; If anybody's watching.

8. Thou shalt not threaten Iran on one hand while making their dreams come true with the other; Oh, wait. Thou shalt do exactly that.

9. Thou shalt not sell legislation in exchange for campaign contributions; Thou shalt... Damn! That one's OK too.

10. Thou shalt not appoint utterly sociopathic Attorneys General; OK, this one's not set in stone or anything. In fact, it's kind of fun to find out, without giving it away, how explicit we can make our secret motto: "You have no more rights than a dog, rube."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davis-sweet/10-commandments-they-neve_b_18508.html