Bingo!

The paper thin majority of Democrats in the U. S. Senate, held together by the cement of Joe Lieberman, is not close to the 2/3s majority needed to override a Bush's veto. As Joe Biden told Wolf Blitzer this morning, Democrats need to find seventeen Republican votes. We have found a few allies, like Chuck Hagel, but not enough.

The reality of being in Iraq is hiorrid. The reality of being unable to get soldiers out is frustrating.

At this point, I believe very little.

About a week ago, reports were flying around that a second surge was being planned. Obviously, the first one is not working. Casualties are back where they always were and now more spread out. As has happened since the beginning of the invasion, casualties have only increased - they have never decreased (other than typical spikes and valleys). Statistically, the graph is still moving upwards. I believe the surge has slowed that down a little. But what did we get out of it except for more causalities and now THIS news:

We're training the insurgency. We're discovering many of the insurgents are current Iraqi army. Everything we tell them in terms of battle plans gets back to the enemy because they ARE the enemy. How in God's name can we fight a war where you can't tell the people we are protecting what is going on while they are busy trying to kill you?

I mean, do any of you war supporters patiently waiting for miracles see the absurdity in this? The lives of our troops are being used as political fodder while we hear lie after lie after lie from this administration. If Hillary were president and did this, she would have been impeached and out of office two years ago, and I wouldn't be a republican outcast. Just the fact that Bush is still pretty much unfazed and in office while he trains the enemy is proof that politics trump principle whenever Bush is involved. Ethics and morality are suspended because Bush loyalists are too cowardly to do something different if a democrat is involved. It tears me up that most of these Bush supporters argue with me in the second amendment threads that they have the right to violently overthrow their government when they are too afraid to vote for a democrat to make their votes enable change.

We're training the damn enemy and it hardly makes the news. There's a message in there somewhere.

I assume they stay because of patriotism, they know they live in a rich oil state, and they have nowhere else to go. We haven't exactly been doling out visas and Jordan can't take in more refugees. I can understand why we would not want war-torn Iraqis to enter the States, but displacement is a given in war. If you don't want to deal with a humanitarian situation...

I think the only benchmark that matters right now is the oil bill. I hope/think the unions keep pressure on parliament and the bill doesn't pass. I doubt they need much encouragement, though. I think any politicians who votes in favor of the bill is signing their death warrant.

As far as Iraqis wanting us to leave, it's a paradox. They want us out, yet while they also blame us for the chaos they don't want us to withdraw too quickly and create a second power vacuum for militias. Iraqis basically want us to trickle out of their country to keep active militias focused on our military long enough for every side to prepare themselves for Round Two after we're gone. I think there will be sectarian militias until the government asserts itself and the best thing we can do is make sure no side is too powerful. There will be civil war, but as the Iraqi blogger I linked writes:


I sincerely hope you and your men come back soon, DTOM. Happy Memorial Day.

Allow me to interrupt this debate to mention another eight American soldiers were killed in Iraq on Memorial Day. Another eight soldiers will come home in flag-draped coffins and another eight families will have lost a father, brother, husband or son. Another eight names will eventually go up on a wall or other memorial for fallen soldiers of this war.

BAGHDAD - At least eight U.S. soldiers were killed in restive Diyala province north of Baghdad on Memorial Day, two of the victims in a helicopter that went down, the military reported Tuesday.

All the dead were Task Force Lightning soldiers. The military said six soldiers died in explosions near their vehicles, but gave no further information.

It was not immediately known if the helicopter was shot down or suffered mechanical difficulties.

The latest casualties raised the U.S. military death toll to at least 112 this month, making May the deadliest month since December 2006, when the same number were killed.

It may be too soon to tell if the surge in Baghdad is working or not. What is clear is it sure is making a lot more live soldiers dead ones.

I agree that it is sad to hear that any American lost his or her life.

However, lest we never forget that history ends up telling a story often far different than popular sentiment. Actions taken today by brave men and women may (or of course may not) make a lasting if not permanent impression on foreign shores.

It's generally a toss up when considering whether their lives are worth it or not. Ponder on the notion that S. Korean war vets often (in my experience) felt like their losses were for not, but S. Korea is the richest SE Asian nation and N. Korea is a cess pool. I'm sure S Koreans are grateful. Vietnam? That's a debate in itself. The Balkans?

I think whatever we type about whether the "surge in Baghdad" is worth it or not is complete speculation.

You can take that "ends justifies the means" crap and throw it out like the garbage it is, Aevans176.

History is not going to vindicate this immoral and unjust war. History is not going to bring back the scores of lives that have been prematurely ended. History is not going to find the mythical "weapons of mass destruction" or link Saddam Hussein to September 11, 2001.

History is not going to make the 112 soldiers who died in May any less dead.

History is not going to wash the blood away that stains George W. Bush's hands.

Sugarcoat it all you want. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it anything but a pig in lipstick. The war in Iraq was and is a mistake built on a lie and the surge is only a euphemism for a last-ditch escalation that is unlikely to bring about the lasting results its supporters proclaim it will. History only puts events in a different perspective from a distance. It won't change the fundamental facts of the matter.

Lesly, I don't mean 'why don't they move', I mean why don't they embrace a means of living where they have a free press and universal suffrage? A means of not letting an invisible guy and a thousand year old book dominate their lives to the extent that everyday is a guess as to death by gunfire or explosive or being killed because you worship in a certain mosque. I would not ever expect Iraq to become the next great democracy, but the average citizen does have knowledge of a different life, if they don't want it, oh well. I've pretty well lost any compassion that I once had for Iraqi citizens anyway. Today I saw the aftermath of a Mosque that had been blown up by a suicide truck-borne IED. Nearly the entire block had been reduced to rubble. It was a Shia mosque, and intelligence reports of AQIZ committing such an act in that area had been circulating for the past few days. As a mob of people gathered at the scene, some to help clear rubble, some to gawk, or whatever..........did they blame Sunni's or Al-Qaeda? No, they blamed US forces, claiming that we had destroyed the mosque with rockets. Never mind that the Shia and Sunni conduct mosque on mosque violence like a real version of Spy vs. Spy. Never mind the fact that we have not reduced mosques to rubble.......hell even they know that we can't even enter them most of the time. No, they blamed us, and chased after our HMMWV's and threw bricks and rocks at us, sending two to the hospital. So my current attitude is to depart and let them stew in their trash strewn country, forever to play 'my mosque is better then your mosque'. That may not be realistic in the geo-political sense, but it reflects my sentiments.



DR, you are spot on in a sense, except that it's the Iraqi and National Police that are heavily infiltrated. Some of my friends train IP/NP units in different tasks as part of their job here, and in our morbid sense of humor, we joke that they run Jihadi U., showing the insurgents the best ways to kill us. In my experience, the Iraqi Army is fairly competent and not terribly corrupt...the Kurdish units are even more reliable.

The trouble with grading the surge, is as I said before, any results won’t be realized until the clearing operations have been completed. As it stands right now, we are still incurring a high number of casualties. But that was expected, as we force many insurgents to stand and fight, and we set up shop on places where they once had free reign. We’re finding and clearing more IED’s than are being detonated against us. We are capturing more High Value Targets during this time than in any other. Shops and markets are opening and power and water treatment plants are opening or being revitalized at a pretty good rate.
Are we having a positive influence or just playing whack-a-mole? I’m over here and I can’t tell yet, how can a media pundit who sits in the comfort of a DC area Starbucks?

By any statistical measure, the surge is not working. May 2007 was one of the deadliest months for American troops (and Iraqi civilians), the Green Zone no longer affords any sort of buffer as it is now subjected to mortar and rocket attacks, sectarian violence shows no sign of abating, and Iraqis are fleeing the country to the tune of 50,000 a month.

When I read this, I had one of those "they can't be serious" moments. I don’t know quite what to say about this new "strategy" for Iraq. It seems a poorly thought out desperation ploy doomed to failure…or worse.

I can’t for the life of me understand the lack of interest in this thread.

The surge has FAILED, and failed badly. Of course, some of us believed it was doomed to failure from the start; nothing has changed but the body count.

How much more is the American public willing to take before admitting that Iraq is FUBAR, and nothing anyone can do is going to stop the slide into civil war? When even the newly-appointed "war czar" is pessimistic about the outcome, you'd think someone somewhere might get a clue.




I believe arming Sunni insurgents in Iraq is an insane idea, and a horrifying waste of American taxpayers’ monies, and is a last-ditch, desperate act of an administration that doesn’t know what else to do (since it has never understood or accepted failure or learned how to deal with it). I believe they are desperately trying to nurse this "war" along until another administration can deal with the mess left behind.

The lack of interest may have to do with the positions take here. Regardless of how many times people say that increased casualties was expected you and others point to it as “failure” – so why respond. And no sectarian violence was down but no may go up as AQ has found a way to attack a Shea shrine.


If the Iraqi’s are smart enough to figure out that this was part of the AQ plan to foment violence we may not see a violent outbreak. The surge troops are finally there and it will now take several months before we can claim victory OR defeat.


I either case to think that we are just going to be able to pull up stakes and “go home” from this region is silly. I cannot happen – until we no longer need their oil – which will not happen soon.




I disagree. IMO the major mistake we made in Iraq was disbanding and disarming the military because they were predominantly Sunni. It was all down hill from there. We are looking for a political solution and to have one you cannot have a faction (any faction other than AQ) far stronger that another.

Latest update:

U.S.: 60 pct of Baghdad not controlled

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

I think the "surge" is neither a real plan or a political stunt. From the people who brought us "they will greet us as liberators" we get "more of the same with a snappy name".

Escalating troop levels in Iraq has happened several times and it has happened in higher numbers than this time. Meanwhile the problems faced by the troops in Iraq have increased and no real plan for victory seems to be in place or in the works.

What we don't have is the political will to break the inertia one way or another. We plod forward, troops die and our leadership fails us.

It still baffles me that the idea of increasing the troop levels by twenty thousand was considered a plan by anyone, anywhere.

How desperate are we now? We are arming the Sunni insurgency which openly opposes the American presence and the US supported government in Iraq because they have begun fighting against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which didn't exist before the war.

So, you discount the evaluations by the Secty of Defense, the generals, the war czar and the tribal leaders in Iraq? Please provide some substantiation that your opinion is more accurate than their observations.



What do you mean, they’re “finally there”? All but one brigade has BEEN there for months. And made not a whit of difference. Oh, wait, I’m wrong about that; casualty counts are rising much faster than they were before the escalation.


I'm equally baffled.

.



I posted it from Petraeus himself. We are talking apples and oranges and that is the problem. Sectarian violence down but all other casualties up as predicted by Petraeus.



Again you need to read the news:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/posto...ullu.htm?page=0


U.S. Commander: Troop Surge Working in Baghdad

Morning Edition, June 7, 2007 • Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, says since the increase of troops in Iraq nearly four months ago, U.S. forces have gotten control of one-third of Baghdad.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...mp;ft=1&f=3


Results cost lives:
“The American KIA total in Iraq for May was 127, which made it the 3rd worst month for American casualties since the war began in March 2003. Even worse is the Iraqi death count is even worse; it easily exceeds 2,000 men, women, and children killed monthly.
At the same time, the Sunnis in Anbar are regaining control of their own cities and towns. Sheik Sattar and his Anbar Salvation Council have worked hand-in-glove with the Marines of II MEF, and the citizens and tribes have contributed their sons to the cause.

Last week in northwest Baghdad, a Sunni-dominated sect who had tired of the Al-Qaeda and Shia brutality, took up arms in their own defense, and asked the American for assistance.

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,138497,00.html

We've been fighting and defeating them in the province for three years and we're now at the point that the Iraqi's see what a destructive force -- particularly to civilians -- al-Qaida is. They bring nothing but sharia law and misery wherever they go and the Iraqi's have had more than enough:

"There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me-confirming reports from several other sources-that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters.

Aside from the "believe it or not" comment (this is the left-wing Time I'm quoting), this is a pretty straight-forward story in which the media is forced to recognize that some good has come from the "surge". We will win hearts and minds and, thanks to Osama's butchers, the rest of Iraq may well fall into line. They've had enough and want to rebuild a once-great nation into the most-educated country in the gulf region. The local leaders know that an insurgency will lead nowhere except to the deaths of thousands."
http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/05/23...ng-in-al-anbar/

Well, according to this article, exactly NONE of the benchmarks expected has been met.

Not a few short, not a few made. ZERO.

And we still have posts like above spouting success when there is direct evidence to the contrary? Apparently, the new strategy is re-defining the word "success".

The game's over folks. The democrats haven't acted on withdrawing the troops because they would have taken the loss (the ploy). Instead, they are waiting for direct evidence Bush has already lost it. I think that time is here. The surge is not only not working, but it's a miserable failure. The enemy has simply started blowing people up outside of Baghdad because like anybody with an ounce of sense said before the surge started, there are not enough troops to make any kind of difference. That still makes Bush 100% wrong about every facet of the situation in Iraq. Our troops are following a leader that has never been right about this situation. If you support our troops, get them out of Iraq to protect them from Bush.

The defection of loyalists such as Senators Richard Lugar and Pete Dominici indicates how large the comfort zone has become for Republicans looking to distance themselves from The President. It does not mean Harry Reid can expect widespread GOP support of Democratic plans to end the war, but it does indicate Republicans are going to have to come up with exit strategies of their own they can live with.

Bush's plunge in the polls and his disconnected from reality happy talk about the war in Iraq has made him the lamest of lame ducks with 18 months still to go in his presidency.

So now the president has 18 months left in office, and they won't be quiet ones. Absent the committed backing of his party, he will be forced to exercise power based not on his political clout but rather on the authority the Constitution gives the office of the president: He is commander in chief. He can veto bills. He can issue pardons. And that's about it.

The deterioration of the base will be particularly critical when it comes to the Iraq war. September will bring the most important moment of the president's second term, when Gen. David H. Petraeus is set to report to Congress on progress in Iraq, thereby starting an intense and protracted debate over funding and withdrawal timetables. If Bush cannot convince conservatives who are already unhappy with him about domestic issues that his Iraq plan is working, he'll see Republicans in Congress -- and on the presidential campaign trail -- peel away. That would put him in danger of losing control of the war.

But the danger is even greater than that. In a June 25 speech that was widely interpreted as a warning shot at the White House, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, one of the most respected Republican voices on foreign affairs, did more than urge the president to adopt a new policy toward Iraq. He also outlined a dire scenario in which a lame-duck president, a failing Iraq policy and an intensely political atmosphere might come together to mean that nobody will control the war. "A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq," he said. "Little nuance or bipartisanship will be possible if the Iraq debate plays out during a contentious national election that will determine control of the White House and Congress." And the president's position wasn't helped when Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, another old-guard Republican, expressed a similar view last week.

On the domestic front, the president almost certainly won't be able to get much of anything done. But he will be able to stop Democratic initiatives. And all signs indicate that he will use his veto pen to become, from the GOP base's perspective, a better-late-than-never convert to the cause of fiscal responsibility after six years of reckless deficit spending. "That's probably where he'll have the most impact," says Winston, the GOP pollster. "Appropriations bills are coming through, and he'll have his shots at them."

If Bush is energetic with his vetoes, he might see a bit more enthusiasm from the base. It's always good to have an enemy, after all. "These days, the only time he gets support is when Democrats attack him," says one Washington-based GOP strategist. But that will take him only so far. George W. Bush's time to get big things done has passed. Even his most ardent fans, the ones who wish him the best, are looking forward to Jan. 20, 2009. link

The politicians in Washington recognize a reality Bush refuses to: the war cannot be won by the Americans and the Iraqis still show little ability or interest in trying to pick up the slack. Bush and Cheney don't have to face the wrath of the voters again, so they can deny the fact that the war is over and we lost. The rest of the Repubicans don't have that luxury. And they're scared green over it. They're looking for the lifeboats.

What Bush and the rest of the nation are undergoing is a big blast of "cognitive dissonance" as explained by two psychologists in a Washington Post article:

The different perceptions of victims and perpetrators in Baumeister's experiment are a result of a phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance, Tavris and Aronson argue in a new book titled, "Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)." When we do something that hurts others, there is a part of us that recognizes our action as despicable. But that comes into conflict -- into dissonance -- with our belief that we are good people. The solution? We reinterpret our hurtful actions to minimize our responsibility and downplay the pain we have caused.

The important thing to remember, and the reason this has bearing on Bush's actions in the Libby case, Tavris and Aronson say, is that the process happens at an entirely subconscious level. People don't consciously tell themselves to minimize the consequences of their hurtful actions or to maximize the culpability of those who have done them wrong -- that, in fact, would defeat the point of the mental juggling act. The people in Baumeister's experiment did not realize they were acting in contrary ways depending on whether they were victims or perpetrators.

Bush's handling of the Libby case, and the way the nation as a whole has dealt with the Iraq war, reeks of cognitive dissonance, Tavris and Aronson say.

"Republicans and Democrats have both been very busy reducing dissonance over the Iraq decision," said Tavris, an independent researcher who works in Los Angeles. "The Republicans who were most in support of the war continue to believe that weapons of mass destruction have been found and al-Qaeda was in Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots. They reduce their dissonance by rejecting evidence they were wrong."

"Half of all Democrats supported the war," she added. "They have reduced dissonance by conveniently forgetting they once supported the war. . . . That is the way memory works and the way the brain works. We ignore, forget or dismiss information that suggests we might be wrong. We rewrite our memories to confirm what we believe." link 2

Whew. Glad I was never part of that group of Dems that supported the war. I might be as deluded as Dubya is.

As I recall, the war was opposed by 30% of Americans in the first place, even before hostilities began. It was quite vociferously opposed in my town, where lots of ordinary neighborhood folks showed up at some key intersections every Saturday, to hold up signs against the coming war. I was proud to be there myself.

Most of what is known now was believed by war opponents then; that the case for WMD was grossly exaggerated; that a connection between the Ba'ath regime and Al Qaeda was nonexistent; that war is terrible and unpredictable. What was not known then by most people, though it was forseen by some military experts such as Jim Webb (now a Senator) was that an insurgency would take root that would keep us bogged down basically forever. The first time I realized that that was likely to happen was when Jessica Lynch's convoy was wiped out by Iraqi irregulars in Najibullah.

I remember having a brief debate, in hindsight a very revealing one, with a few war proponents who showed up to counter-demonstrate one Saturday. I said, "Do you believe this crap about Iraqi WMD, about Iraq and Al Qaeda?" They answered, "Yes we do, and we think that the president has a whole lot more knowledge of it than you do; we trust him, not you." Considering everything that has happened since, I take very scant satisfaction in seeing that these people have been shown to have been dupes. Two thirds of the country was duped, including most of the Democrats in the Senate. The worst thing was the complicity of the national media, but that is for another thread.

In any case, 30% of the electorate firmly opposed during a time of extraordinary pro-war, super-patriotic hype testifies to the good sense of the American people, and the administration probably realized then that they had to deliver a very quick victory or suffer eventual political defeat and disgrace. And of course, a rapid military victory and a political fait accompli in Iraq is just what Bush and Blair were counting on. It didn't happen, of course, and now we all have to live with the consequences. Except those who have died, of course.

I see in today's (July 9) New York Times that now even the White House is giving strong consideration to aborting the "surge" and redeploying U.S. troops into safer positions. They have to, what with the Republican defections in the Senate. Well, all this was foretold on the day our tanks first rolled across the Kuwaiti frontier. I am sad for it, but at least we can look forward to 2008 in relative confidence that the Republicans will take a sound drubbing. I just regret that some Democratic warmongers like Hilary Clinton and Joe Lieberman won't go down with them.

No the case for WMD was not exaggerated. This common line of crap has Bush “making up” the reasons for the war yet the documented history including thousands of pages of documents from Iraq and the testimony of the inspectors who were THERE says Iraq had tons of WMD. The man had the facilities, the materials and thousands of people working on WMD.

20/20 hindsight is wonderful but lets refrain from revising history – at least for now.

The war was initiated for good reasons at the time. The surge is not a complete success but it is also not a complete failure.

What we have isn't so much revised history as denial of history. If "the man" had the facilities, materials and thousands of people working on WMD, then where is the evidence, Ted? Where's the beef? If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the usual band of idiots had the proof of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, why haven't they presented it? Why hasn't anyone come forth to confirm the existence of these terrible weapons?

While I'm waiting for your answer, let me give you mine: There are no weapons of mass destruction. Dig in the desert for the next thousand years and there still won't be any to be found.

As I quoted in my previous post: The Republicans who were most in support of the war continue to believe that weapons of mass destruction have been found and al-Qaeda was in Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots. They reduce their dissonance by rejecting evidence they were wrong."

Then along comes Ted to demonstrate how this disconnect works. Thanks a bunch.



The war was initiated for reasons that have demonstrated to have zero to do with national security, the war on terror or any of that stuff. We went to war with Iraq because Bush always intended to go to war with Iraq. That was always the plan. September 11, 2001 became the pretext needed to sell the plan. Mission accomplished, but now the American people are having a bit of buyer's remorse.

If the surge is 50 percent a "success" and 50 percent a "failure" does that make it more of a partial success than a complete failure?

I'll abstain from future comments on the surge until the July interim report is issued.

I hope at this point there are enough people in the right places who now realize that attacking a country with nothing more than allegations is the height of folly. I'm hoping this will cool ambitions enough so that a dialog can be set up with Iran and possibly Sudan. I also feel a price should extracted from the executive and I am thinking something more formal than impeachment which severely places restraint upon military commanders to engage in in pre-emptive war in the future.

I'm less inclined to damn of Bush than many on here at this point, he was after all voted in twice, albeit it somewhat dubiously. I'm more concerned with all the anti-constitutional legislation he has slipped under the door which will undermine the country by providing future presidents an apparatus to expedite force both domestically and abroad.


Perhaps the clearest way to say it is that we now have problems bigger than either Bush or Cheney. Their removal will not be enough for the western world to recover from.

The idiots we had in CIA and their boss (Bush) obviously did not know where the WMD was hidden – despite the “slam dunk” assertion by Tenant.

Bush should never have attacked without knowing exactly where they were and indeed if they were still in the country.

Best guess is they were moved to Syria in a couple of months prior to the attack.

But the fact remains “the man” had the people, knowledge, factories, and materials to have produced all we (and the UN) suspected he had. The “man” even admitted he had it for god sake. Did you ever bother to READ the statements of the UN inspectors? Try it sometime.

So if you want to re write history pick another set of events.



There were Arabs in Iraq and IMO they were AQ. Was Saddam actively supporting them is not completely clear buy anyone who believes a man who hated the US above all else would not work with a committed enemy of ours in imo naive.


The issue is what we do next. Can we bring about a political accommodation that save the country from dissolving into chaos or not. Since we are tied body and soul to the damn oil in the region lets hope we can.

The American people showed excellent judgment in rejecting Bush the first time. It was the provisions of the Constitution (or perhaps, the will of five justices) that he ascended to the presidency and proceeded to govern as if he'd been elected by a wide margin. To the everlasting discredit of the Democrats in Congress at the time, they let him.

But you're right in a way. The American people as a whole, not only Bush, deserve the blame for this war. Such was their ignorance, and arrogance, that 70% of them readily swallowed the administrations phony line. You have to love Americans, you know? They think that war means U.S. bombs falling on other people. Remember how so many of them cheered the smart bomb videos in 1991? God!

Vladimir, you have to be very careful about phrasing your words in these instances. You could be perceived by the more convervative among us as anti-american. There is a peculiar sensitivity within American culture which is deeply fearful of fault. Be wary of this. This nation has no problem exporting their views of society and government upon other nations, but takes great exception to those who point out the marks of corrosion upon their own democracy, err republic. Remember the old adage: "Do as I say and not as I do".

Perhaps the best words of all are to "tread carefully".

I'm not going to be as harsh in this instance since voting democrat is not a true solution to the problem. The state of politics in general has degraded to a level where you essentially have the same candidate on both sides of the isle. Giuliani and Hilliary are two good examples of likeness. What we are essentially doing is dumping criticism on a people who have been given poor electoral choices, something professor Noam Chomski has written about for years. When faced with the choices of dumb and dumber, is it really fair of us to say they made a dumb choice?

To stay on track we can mostly agree the surge wasn't the best idea, for America or for Iraq. Unfortunately the mechanism for selecting a better candidate is broken. This is why I was not enthusiatic about impeachment. This is my central thesis that America has been locked out of effective policy making through the rise of corporate lobbying. The surge is a result of a cumulation of bad choices. History is said not be repeat, but to rhyme. Some of us were quick to point out the problems the British faced in 1917 would be duplicated for the Americans. They were ignored.

The one area I will not be kind to is on the use air power. I would even go so far to say it is considered the crown jewel of modern warfare. I do not agree with this view. One cannot wage a war for the hearts and minds to sell an idea and then engage in a bombing run which wipes out as many people or more than deliberate insurgent attacks. To do so is a contradiction of goals. Welcome to the 21st century.

I think a good start in assessing surge dynamics is a candid discussion on the use of air power. I've often felt it is more of a way to navigate around negotiation than it is about eliminating the enemy. Air power is about submitting an adversary to one's will through carnage, and subsequent demoralization - not unlike that of terrorism. Personally I think air power is overused and misunderstood. It cannot be substituted as a political tool, but routinely is. I've seen reports suggesting a doubling of strikes this year when compared to last year. I can guarrantee if the methods of stopping rebellion are not improved upon along with the a narrowing of the term "terrorist", America will have no hope of repeating this exercise of forced democratic reform with any success.

You mean, according to the unnamed sources cited in that article. On the other hand, the White House's interim report to Congress cites satisfactory progress on 8 of the 18 benchmarks. Who's right? I don't know. What I do know, however, is that the transformation in Anbar province has been quite remarkable. Last year, it was given up for lost, but recently the situation is turning around pretty dramatically, as al-Qa'ida is wearing out its welcome among the locals. Yes, there are those who will harp on the bad news like no tomorrow, but they'll only expose themselves as those who are eager for defeat for whatever reason.

Well, thats mostly true. certainly the recent months have seen a slight ebb in violence in Anbar, US casualty rates there are down and sectarian killings, while they certainly still happen, are less frequent. However a quick history of Anbar province will show that this is certainly not the first time that violence has waned in Anbar. In the past instances, it resurfaced with a vengence. Suffice to say Anbar seems to be making good progress: 'remarkable transformation' is perhaps overstating the case for the province. After all in the Last week of June 2007 40 tortured bodies were found and four bombs went off killing civilians, while in the first week of July 7 US troops were killed or seriously injured there. Now I am not trying to understate the progress there, it is absolutely true that violence is down from January/ Febuary, the high water mark. But let's not over-state it either, shall we?




You were doing so well until that last sentence. It seems there still exist hawk who insist that dissent = treason, even to this day. It is not (and never has been) a matter of 'only harping on the bad news', it is the reality that there just is so much more bad news than good news going on. Or would you refer to the situation in baghdad as 'good news', the high US casualty rates as 'good news', the interim report citing the failure of the Iraqi government to govern as 'good news'? People discussing or speaking or drawing attention to these facts are not eager for defeat, and it is counter-productive to dialogue, not to mention insulting, so pretend they are.

I can vouch for this, I heard the same thing about WMD being shipped to Syria just prior to our invasion in Iraq. The CIA believes this, and even the testimony of General Georges Sada, who was one of Saddam's top military advisor's says the same thing. I find it amusing when many suggest hey there were no WMD in Iraq, so this war is a joke. Every time I hear that I think to myself hmm correction, we found no WMD in Iraq but also had strong reason to believe that they were there, not to mention that this war has much more to do than with WMD alone. Many war critics love headlines but are not too hot on details, if they can say look everyone no WMD in Iraq, George Bush is a liar! It fits there agenda more than to have to admit there was in fact reason to try and find this out.

I only wish they were more open about the scale of the operation. They fixated on publicizing the whole WMD suspicion too much, when this war was more than about this alone. Now anti war Guru's try and convince us that we are now making up reasons to stay in Iraq but anyone who has paid attention here in the last few years knows better.

Firstly, no the CIA does not believe that the WMD were shipped to Syria. In fact the CIA weapons inspection teams tasked with finding the WMD in post invasion Iraq concluded that there was NO evidence that this supposed transshipment had occurred. They could not prove it had not occurred of course, but had no reason to believe it did. The CIA deemed such a tranfer was 'extremely unlikely'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5042501554.html

Secondly, you say 'even General sada says this', which is a bit of an extrapolation. In fact ONLY general Sada says this, and it is from his assertion that this fantastic tale of WMD shipped tpo Syria comes from. He asserted this is his wildly self-aggrandising book "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein". which was largely an attempt to distance himself from Hussein and make some quick money. he claimed quite a few things in this book, and MANY of them have been disproven as outright lies. Given his well understood reputation as a self-promoter and liar, he is hardly a very good source for tales of lost WMD. Oh, and by the way, as if that was not enough, Sada never claims in his book that he knew WMD were being shipped to Syria, he claims in his book that an unnamed logistics officer told him some trucks were heading for the border, acting suspisiously, and THAT unnamed fellow suspected they were WMD. Compelling proof.


Then of course, there are the practical problems with this theory. Why exactly would this Iraqi dictator and Madman bent on developing WMD for use, suddenly refuse to use them when his country was under attack? And even worse, not only did he not use them, instead he decided to ship these supposed weapons off to one of his worst and most hated enemies? Lest you forget, Syria and Iraq HATED each other: Syria backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war AND participated in the 1991 Iraq War against the Iraqis. The two nations had no official ndiplomatic contacts and there were tales of semi-frequent border skirmishes. And this loathed enemy is the nation Hussein decided to give his precious WMD to, rather then actually use them as they were intended?


Nobody in power, nobody in the Pentagon, the CIA or even the White house has voiced or endorsed this outlandish theory, only a few wild far-right-wing bloggers keep it alive in cyberspace along with tales of who REALLY killed JFK.



Really, I cannot recommend stongly enough that anyone tempted to believe this half-baked theory read the Duelfer report, composed by the Iraq survey group and the CIA on why there were NO WMD in Iraq prior to the war, why they were all destroyed and when, and how. It still astonishes me that even following this conclusive report, there are still people who insist on trying to pretend this debate is not long over.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

I didn't even have to look to see who wrote the passage you quoted. As soon as I saw Ted's signature use of the word "idiot" I knew, but here's the link to Ted's "jewel" anyway.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=220635

C'mon net2007, how can you vouch for this? "I heard the same thing" isn't good enough. Where did you hear this? Do you have a link? Were you on-the-scene in Iraq? If you want to be taken seriously on this board, hearsay isn't good enough. In short, all you’ve done is second Ted's uncorroborated opinion. As my grandmother used to say, "birds of a feather flock together." She must have seen this one coming.

BTW: Some extraneous characters got placed in the quotation you took frm Ted. I've highlighted them in yellow. Would you please consider editing them out? All you have to do is remove the characters that shouldn't be there and then click modify post. It's easy enough and makes people more inclined to read your post.

Here's a bit of unsolicited advice net2007. Your posts, like anything else, sell better if packaged attractively.

Would that be the same Al Qaeda that has regrouped and is once again positioned to strike again against the United States and other targets? Yeah, if they're wearing out their welcome with the locals I guess that means they will just have to follow us back home.

Is the progress you're so giddy and giggly about include the attack on U.S. troops by Iraq police forces, the same police forces we're supposed to be counting on to provide security in this hellhole?

As regards your scurrilous attack Blackstone on "those who will harp on the bad news like no tomorrow," it's takes some elephant sized gonads to suggest those of us whom have a firm grasp of both the facts and the reality of the war are "eager for defeat." Quite the contrary, it's the dead-enders whom still hope a mindless twit like George W. Bush can pull victory out of this cesspool he's dragged the nation into that living in a fantasy world. As each day passes that number of zombies dwindles more and more as the realization sinks in that Bush is going to leave this mess up to his successor to solve.



Is there any chance that we might get a quote, a link or something more substantial than "I can vouch for this" and "I heard the same thing," net2007? It helps your contention if you have something that actually corroborates an unsubstianted claim like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction being shipped to Syria just prior to the invasion.

Allow me to paraphrase a quote from Russ Kick who runs the disinformation.com website: "The US has the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigtion, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Secret Service, and a host of other intelligence and security agencies. These agencies employ Echelon, which monitor the majority of electronic communication in the world; Carnivore, which intercepts email; Tempest, a technology that can read a computer monitor's display from over a block away; Keyhole satellites that have a resolution of four inches, and other spy technologies , probably most of which we don't know about. In 2001, the US spent $30 billion on intelligence gathering and an additional $12 billion on counterrorism. With all of thse resources, and more, we're supposed to belive that the government didn't have the slightest inkling that Saddam Hussein had removed, mounted and moved his weapons of mass destruction on a caravan of trucks trundling across the desert over to Syria? Are we supposed to be so stupid to believe that prior to the invasion the U.S. had no spies, no satellites, no informants, and no clue that this was happening? Are we supposed to believe not one driver, general, politician, bureaucrat or civilian has yet to come forth to tell the U.S. how this slight of hand was accomplished?"

Please. You're going to have to do a LOT better than that net2007. You probably thought Dubya was telling you the truth when he stood on that aircraft carrier and said, "mission accomplished." We saw how THAT turned out.

BoF


Lol, I love this guy, he never fails to tell you how someone with an opposing view to his should fix their post, last time I heard about three question marks being improper among other things, now you want some links, well you know what? I think thats something I can manage. As for Vermillons post, he said something or another similar, I got about 1/5th of the way through his post to figure its pretty much the same thing you said, so since I do value my time and I know know both of your posting methods well enough by now, I'm going to kill two birds with one stone here and reply to both of you. No offense there Vermillion Just short on time and If I didn't have my glasses on id be mistaking post of yours for post of his anyway.

Ok, so back up my argument right? That being me saying the CIA as well as General Georges Sada from Iraq, have talked about WMD being shipped to Syria. You guys say no way hosay? Didn't happen, and no reason to suspect WMD? Hmm, well thankfully this is not WW2, Ive posted on this a great deal already on other sites and would be happy to share some links. Lets start with the CIA and go beyond that with the ISG, ready?

Here is an interesting conversation with John Loftus, who is president of The Intelligence Summit

what The Intelligence summit is, is explained a bit here.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligence_Summit


The link to the relevant discussion is here.......

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38371

From this discussion this was particularly interesting......



Read more at the link above

Lets show more than just that, this link describes it in detail WMD being shipped to Syria and pretty much blows the idea that the CIA did not find reasons to believe Saddam had WMD well after desert storm, right out of the water.

http://www.kentimmerman.com/2004_04_25syria.htm

at that link this paragraph was particularly interesting and please take note of the part in bold..........



Well what do you have to say for this? Look I'm going to put this bluntly, this forum is not about WMD in particular, being my reason for not elaborating before because some moderators here do not like off topic post, I was just confirming what was a well made point by another member, but since a couple people here prefer to humble themselves as being fact oriented where others who disagree probably don't know what they are talking about
I figure that kind of thing has gone just about far enough and I'm tired of it, and if someone says they heard something was true, if I were you id assume they have. Now that doesn't mean one shouldn't use supporting evidence, when I make a forum myself I always have links but its up to the poster when a link should or should not be used. Just like its up to the poster the number of question marks one uses, grow up.

Lets go on, its obvious enough the CIA and ISG had some evidence there were WMD in Iraq shipped to Syria just before the war, and I said Id give you links confirming George Sada's testimony as well, nothing better than an outsiders testimony as creditable as this, First I'll explain who he is in greater detail. He was one of Saddam Hussein's top military advisers as well as having been the number 2 ranked man in the Iraqi air force. More interestingly however he was also the man responsible for talking down Saddam's own son from executing many American POW's during Desert Storm, explaining to him it was against the Geneva Convention. In fact, Sada on several occasions risked his life to talk Saddam Hussein himself out of acting rash and hasty like when he talked him out of sending his bombers into Israel.


This compelling audio interview will bring credit to his name and tell quite a story about who Sada is and how he knows Saddam Hussein had WMD, the audio interview is segmented into 3 parts and they can all be heard from this link.

http://exposetheleft.com/2006/03/15/sada-interview-2/

Additionally here is a short video clip of him on the news talking about WMD....

http://www.kxmc.com/video.asp?ArticleId=73...mp;VideoId=3449

and here he is on The Daily Show, with john steward of all places......

http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/sada-tds.wmv

Now I think I backed that enough, and whats so interesting here is that what the CIA suspects matches the testimony of someone who was on the inside in Iraq but otherwise totally unaffiliated with our government. In conclusion at this point perhaps I'm not the one who should be doing the fact checking and research backing as you and Vermillion like to claim. You read reports like the Charles Derfler report and the other one by the Washington Post and I'm guessing you pretty much see and hear what you want. If you didn't know about this then I guess I have to wonder. There are varied opinions on this, the truth is we dont know for sure either way, but aparently there is evidence to back this, and General Sada is far from being the only one who says this.

Pity you couldn't be bothered to actually read more than 1/5th of my post (not that I am surprised) as if you had you would have seen evidence of me dealing with the exact opinions of the CIA, and the report on Iraqi WMD THEY made in exhaustive detail. But no, it was apparently easier for you to just ignore most of it, thus preventing you from needing to respond with any relevance.


But lets take a careful look at what you DID say, shall we? First you promised to prove that the CIA DID think weapons had been shipped to Syria, despite my posting links to the CIA report in which they clearly state this would have been 'highly unlikely', and that they had found NO evidence to support this assertion.



Were you going to get to the CIA point anytime soon? You cited a private Intel company, and the discussion of its founder stating that the CIA found several material breaches of sanctions. That has firstly, Nothing to do with the CIA's opinions on transshipment to Syria whatsoever. Secondly, it is wonderfully unexplained referenciung unnamed 'breaches' taken from the study I linked to, the CIA's Duelfer report. Sadly if you would be bothered to read the report itself, you would have discovered that yes there were numerous individual finds, and what were these finds exactly? Decades-old individual shells here and there, inert chemical weapons that had deteriorated to uselesness due to age, chemical capable shells that were empty or had disintigrated from age. To quote directly from the report:

"No viable CW munitions or weapons have been found though a number of chemical capable rounds are still being analysed."

Thirdly, the quote from Loftus implies there were WMD PROGRAMS discovered, which is absolutely false. There were no active programs discovered for SW, BW or NRW weapons in Iraq at all. None. If you can find any reference to such a find in the CIA inspections report WHATSOEVER, then I challenge you to produce it here, or drop the point. You won't because such evidence does not exist. Sorry.

Fourthly, you casually ignore the Duelfer report, which is the exhaustive and central document on this issue, to say nothing of the most recent, and yet you cite people referring to the Delefer report, though not actually in any way that supports your claims...




Firstly, can I point out: you have a bad habit as posting as 'evidence' the words of third party people (often far right ideologues) putting their spin on the words of other people. Aparty from being thirdhand evidence and not particularily worthwhile, it also begs the question, why not post the evidence itself, why not post the actual words or comments, instead of opinions that have been run through the far-right interpretation mill?

Case in point, the words of David Kay and his pre-war inspections. He found NO stockpiles of WMD in his inspections, and in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee to this effect, that the Intel was wrong and the WMD's did not exist.

From Kay's testimony: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong (regarding WMD), and I certainly include myself here. He also states openly that his survey and opinions were part of pre-war surveys, and for the actual truth people will have to consult the Duelfer report!

But I do think the survey group -- and I think Charlie Duelfer is a great leader. I have the utmost confidence in Charles. I think you will get as full an answer as you can possibly get.


Interestingly in his Senate testimony he makes NO mnetion whatsoever of WMD moved to Syria, not once. he doesn't talk about it until afterwards, when he mentioned at a interview with the Daily Telegraph that he had some evidence that there were goods being shipped back and forth from Syria, possibly including some components of WMD programs. He never discusses this 'evidence' nor apparently was it compelling enough to put into his Senate report... Pity you don't just follow his advice and read the Duelfer report on the issue, which deals with this whole assertion pretty conclusively. In fact the 'evidence' is third uncoorborated hand-hearsay (not even his own personal knowledge!) from one self-exculpating and self-aggrandising Iraqi General, whose position in the Air forces, by the way, had NOTHING to do with WMD in an extremely compartmentalised Iraqi military structure.





Rather aggressive words from someone who admitted (and has previously proven) you don't even read people's posts before responding (thus allowing you to ignore the evience they provided) and who has completely failed to prove his contention. Perhaps you should keep the nastiness to a minimum, especially in a case like this where it will just come back and embarass you (again).




Are you serious? I suddenly realised from you writing this, you don't even kow what the Duelfer report IS, do you? Otherwise you would not have made such a bizarre comment. That is too bad, for someone who has been posturing about how others apparently 'don't know what they are talking about'. The fact you don't know, and of course have not read THE difinitive CIA post war analysis by the teams who were sent in BY the White House to determine exactly what WMD's existed and what happened to them... well, that doesn't exactly speak highly of your unfortunate position.


Oh and weren't you going to show us how the CIA believed the weapons had been moved to Syria? (when, as I evidenced, the exact opposite is true) You kept asserting this last post, and saying you were going to 'prove it' this post, but seem to have forgotten to try...


Lastly, if you actually read this far, as opposed to just quitting after 1/5th of my post as you did last time, perhaps you could explain to us why, if this 'evidence' of WMD moved to Syria exists, why NO MEMBER of the White House or Pentagon has even endorsed or expressed this opinion? Not even Bush or Rumsfeld who would have had the MOST to gain by this assertion exhonerating their decisions? Perhaps you can explain that for us?

Why haven't US pressed Syria, another rogue state, for its possession of all these Iraq WMD?

Maybe it because, unlike some, they actually know what the Duelfer report is.

And how exactly would WMD programs and weapons development sites have been moved, pray tell? How does one move a Chemical laboratory on a few hypothetical trucks nobody (even General Sada) can attest with firat hand knowledge ever existed?

Those are above and beyond the practical questions I posted in my LAST post, which must have been in the 4/5ths of the post you admitted never bothering to read.

Unbelievable. You have to suspend logic a long, long way to believe this. net, for your statement to be true, here's what you have to believe:

1. Saddam developed WMD at the risk of an invasion, but didn't use them. So, what was the point for having them if you are not going to use them? This is counter to the argument used to justify this war.
2. Chemical weapons have a shelf life of 5 years. Bio weapons have a shelf life of 3 years. With this short shelf life, you'd need major production facilities to keep a stockpile that is constantly being replenished. So, using mass spectrometers and very, very sophisticated equipment, no trace of WMD could be found even though they were in production and carted halfway through the country - all without a trace.
3. Bush would not use evidence of WMD to get some of his political capital back. He would rather be labeled a fraud and a liar rather than show evidence of WMD.
4. Syria would allow somebody with weaponry capable of taking out half of Syria into their borders. The 'ol "trustworthy terrorist" premise again, huh? (Iraqi: "Syria, please let us bring our WMD into Syria. We pinky promise not to take out any of your major cicties!")
5. Moving the WMD to Syria to hide it when in only a few short years, it will be useless as a weapon. Why not just destroy it?

net, no offense buddy, but you're credibility just took a huge hit. We thought one of our members who we call "Mr. Talking Point" had the patent on this absurd behavior.

It's no wonder you guys believe in this sham of a war. You have the capacity to believe anything no matter how implausible it is.

Vermillion




If by everyone you mean you then guilty as charged I don't read much of what you say at this point, your well educated I'll give you that, but you more than anyone Ive meet here has stated your opinion as if it were fact and shown to have little tolerance for right wing opinions, similarly Ive debunked you stating the following in another forum when I was talking about taliban forces in Iraq........

YOU........

(Before I begin: I think you will find the Taliban exist in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq. Please check your facts before posting)

Comments like that make me wonder about your credibility to be frank
Following that I gave you three solid links showing otherwise yet you always brush any opposing evidence off as if it holds no value so what that tells me about you is that yes you do have some knowledge but its extremely selective, you pretty much hear what you want. The links I gave before about WMD suspicion were from those in a much better position than you to make that judgment, trust me, one who also had CIA affiliation to boot. Now the problem here is anything I show you from anyone will be uncreditable in your eyes and its this kind of pardisonship on your part that makes it difficult to have a conversation with you, but you can flatter yourself and leave the I don't read anyones post out, because your the only one who got me to that point and I'm extremely tolerant. So that in combination with you being the master of twisting the words of others around is what lost my degree of mutual respect for you.
No martyr bologna either because others have noticed this as well, so Ive learned. So I think the best thing here is that you and I keep it short, I'm not in the mood to turn this forum into a two way free for all between me and you. Ive backed my claims, you naturally say they aren't creditable, go figure nothing new there, but one little thing what about Georges Sada? You make the claim that my sources favor right wingers so what Is he a right wing bias Iraqi? Lol Or just crazy? Highly decorated to be crazy wouldn't ya say? In other words what would be his agenda in lying about something like this ?

Ill read your post alright, but lets try and keep it short on this because it is a tad of topic, still war discussion but I don't want to derail the forum.




Ohh, pretty harsh but ok
The Duelfer report was written by Charles Duelfer, the guy that took the place of David Kay as the head of the Iraq Survey Group back in 04 or 05.
It was basically a follow up to the ISG findings concerning WMD and no I haven't read all of it, I've scanned it but primarily Ive read a lot of second hand quotes of it and some comments by those like Charles Duelfer. By the way David Kay who was actively the head of the ISG during the beginning of the war says the same thing about suspicions of WMD being shipped to Syria just prior to the start of the war, is he also what you would consider a third party right wing source?

Want a quote of him saying this and link, or have I debunked your assumption that nobody in the CIA believed that there was some reason to believe WMD existed in Iraq well after Desert Storm yet? From what I understand and have read they came to the conclusion there was no evidence of production of WMD in recent years and no stockpiles found, but if the former head of the ISG says he suspects WMD were still in their possession from the supply they had during and before Desert Storm, which by the way makes perfect sense, and that these weapons were probably shipped to Syria just before the 2nd Gulf war then I'm going to take him at his word before you. Duelfer says there was no definitive evidence for this but then again if we had hard evidence for anything concerning WMD we would know for sure. Truth is no body in this country knows for sure, but Ironically here you have impartial General Sada of Iraq saying the same darn thing.
Anyway to keep this discussion short I'll do like O' Riley and give you the last word on this, because this could go on for days no doubt and we are supposed to be discussing the surge in Bagdad.

Oh geez...here we go again....

Here is David Kay telling you what we are telling you:



Or, how about this from the U.S. News and World Report:


And here is Condoleezza Rice talking about this entire moving WMD to Syria:


Given Bush's need for any kind of vindication, you would think the many, many people who helped move this stuff would come out and point to exactly where they are/went. So, add a perfect conspiracy to the list of implausibilities you would have to beleive for this premise to be true.

Thanks for your honesty net2007. I've seen a lot of what I consider "right wing" opinions on this board. You, however - as best memory serves me - are the first to admit that such opinions are right wing.

Saddam didn't obtain WMD in preparation of our invasion, he wanted to have them for the same reason Kim Jong-il wanted them, it was the intimidation factor of it. Difference is he actually used weapons like Musterd gas, Tabun, and nerve agents against the Iranians and Kurds from 1983 - 1991 killing 10's of thousands of people. Most are suspected to have in fact been destroyed, but we know he had these weapons throughout the 90's. His plan to take an unpiloted L-29 jet fitted with under wing weapon storage bays that could carry 300 liters of anthrax nicked named "the drones of death" was a real concern in the mid 90's, if released over a populated city it could have killed millions in kuwait for example. This was one of the primary reasons for operation Desert Fox in 1998 under the Clinton Administration, so why its so hard for people to buy he held on to many of his weapons as long as he could is a mystery to me. As for why he didn't use them against us in Desert Storm its because he was accurately told by his advisers that our soldiers would be wearing protective gear and it would do little but cause problems for his forces.

Read about the drones of death here, many have simply forgotten this........

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...311-drone01.htm
http://www.insultsunpunished.com/2002/09/2...dam-has-drones/



No problem, I have no concern in admitting my opinions are what are typical of many conservatives, but everyone varies. Some liberals support this war for example while some conservatives don't, Conservepat for instance seems to have a far different view than me on the war but he is a conservative, we are all unique as far as that goes but my opinions are what many would expect from a conservative. However issues like Global Warming are where I take a more liberal view. The truth is I just believe what I think is right based of of what I see, hear, or read, and if that has me leaning to the right more often than not, than I guess I am conservative

C'mon, net2007. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Saddam spiriting away WMD to Syria. But, the burden of proof is on you. Please demonstrate that there were in fact WMD (or even WMD programs) trucked to Syria just before the invasion. Surely, 4 1/2 years after the fact there would be some physical evidence of this. BTW, quoting sources from before the war referencing intelligence that we know to be incorrect is just...well...unconvincing.

Drones of death? Hello, 2003 is calling, it wants its rhetoric back.