Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Another leftist myth is imploding"

While I agree with the above statement, since when has anything as inconsequential as "facts" mattered to left wingers in general, the Democratic Party in particular and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media?

The myth will live on because the MSM will ignore (or downplay), for the most part, anything that doesn’t support their agenda and the majority of the US sheepeople will fill up on the propaganda that MSM feeds them.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 08:08 AM

Come, now.

Secular governments simply can't work with Jihadist muslim extremists.

Just like Communists could never ally with Fascists, even temporarily, in order to partition Europe between them and eventually fight out their differences.

Who're you trying to fool?

Posted by Sigivald at April 18, 2006 10:04 AM

Cecil, I think you bring up an interesting point - most of the arguments one hears from Democrats seem to be fuzzy and emotional. Very few concrete, let's do X and here's why and what it will do type of things. Republicans normally seem to argue facts and logic, perhaps to the extent of seeming to be cold-hearted. (And, of course, either party can be wrong in their facts!)

Does anyone else see this, or is it just my personal bias?

Posted by David Summers at April 18, 2006 10:58 AM

to me it seems like pretty sketchy evidence upon which to base the death of 2500 soldiers and the expenditure of a brazillion dollars...but hey that's just me. of course there are much stronger connections to countries we haven't invaded and occupied. but again...don't let logic interfere with your dogma. and don'ty worry...your grandkids won't mind paying for this f***-up anyway.

Posted by jay at April 18, 2006 11:03 AM

Hey Jay, just how much is a "brazillion" dollars? And thanks for proving my point; facts mean nothing to people like you.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 11:52 AM

ha ha ha ha ha

My god, man, you've solved it!
Take some sketchy documents, a sketchy researcher, a sketchy interview with a sketchy magazine, and voila! proof positive.
And I've got some land in Florida to sell you.

Since this evidence is so incredibly strong and persuasive, why the heck isn't Bush going on and on about this?

Please explain.

Posted by shingles at April 18, 2006 11:59 AM

If after reading this interview along with other articles pertaining to Iraqi documents uncovered thus far you still don't understand there is no amount of explaining that would help. Simply put Saddam had close and pervasive ties with AQ; a fact that you will never hear a Democrat (or the MSM, as if there were a difference between the two) utter, quite the contrary they will continue to spread the lie that Saddam had no ties at all with AQ and that GW Bush “made it all up” in order to justify invading Iraq.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 12:11 PM

cecil,
a "brazillion" is a reference to a joke making the rounds a while back. do a google search...it's funny.
and i didn't question the "facts"...i granted that the "facts" may be true, and tried to make the point that even if they are, the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work out no matter how you try to spin it...unless you are a kool-aid drinking member of the bush cult...in which case you are seemingly unable to think critically about the facts. any facts.

Posted by jay at April 18, 2006 12:15 PM

One can just imagine good Lefties making the same sorts of arguments in April-May 1941.

Sketchy evidence, sketchy claims. Charges from the capitalists. Who in the world would believe these claims that Germany was about to invade the USSR?

Fortunately, Uncle Joe saw through these claims, ensuring that the USSR did not aggravate the situation and fall prey to the claims of the capitalists!

Or, perhaps our Left friends are resurrecting the views of 1973? After all, the Egyptians hadn't recently attacked Israel. Why mobilize, why send troops to the Bar Lev line, why believe that this is any different than all the times before?

Posted by Lurking Observer at April 18, 2006 12:15 PM

Cecil, at this point, "brazillion" equals about $350 Billion. Does that help? It's kind of pathetic that the koolaid-drinking cultists who support Bush would tak about "facts." Facts are not your friend, Bush supporters. Here are some facts: no WMD's, no threat to our country, no democracy in the middle east, no operational ties to al Queda, no ties to the 9-11 attack, worst job creation performance since Hoover, 5 years of rising poverty rates, 5 years of rising abortion rates, top administration procurement official indicted for fraud, an energy policy which has led to $70 a barrel, unprecidented corporate profits in addition to unprecidented corporate welfare, an average approval rating in the low to mid 30's...

Drink, cultists, drink. Taste the koolaid of death and destruction. More war! More death! That's your platform, right?

Posted by Bluedog49 at April 18, 2006 12:18 PM

lurking...um, maybe because in those cases there was a real threat?
every time i see this comparison between iraq and ww2 i have to laugh. you can't really be serious can you? i mean really deep down you don't buy that comparison do you?

Posted by jay at April 18, 2006 12:20 PM

Are those by any chance the captured documents which even the administration admits are rife with forgeries? But then I guess a desperate person will clutch at any shred.

Posted by zenmore at April 18, 2006 12:29 PM

Are those by any chance the captured documents which even the administration admits are rife with forgeries?

Where do you nutcases come up with this stuff?

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 18, 2006 12:40 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_Defense_of_Legitimate_Rights
its not part of al qaeda, though it is extremist. muhammad al-massari isnt part of al qaeda either.

Posted by ujedujik at April 18, 2006 12:46 PM

We are not at war with (only) Al Qaeda. We are at war with the Jihadis of all organizations.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 18, 2006 12:49 PM

Sorry Bluedog but your list of facts is full of lies. That's the problem; you *Kerry kool-aide drinking liberals don't know a fact when it hits you square between the eyes.

* I'm referring to the post 2003 Kerry who said Saddam didn't have WMD, not the pre 2003 Kerry who said he did. With Kerry one has to point out the time line of his varying with the wind position on issues.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 12:54 PM

Here is something that the right wingers on here refuse to answer:

If these documents are as damning as you claim, then why isn't Scott McClellan touting them daily during the morning press briefing? I mean, he makes up crap about how Scooter and Rove weren't involved with the leak, so why not trot out some "facts?" Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and the rest would be on every Sunday news program holding up those documents saying "AHA! We were justified! If Colin Powell can hold up a fake ass vial and give a fake ass presentation to the U.N., why won't the Bush Administration give the public something real?

I know it's something that probably puzzles you too, so you choose to ignore the question. But I have an answer: they're FALSE! And the Bushies know they're false, which is why they don't want another round of eggs dripping off of their face.

And please remember, your "they're not saying it because no one would believe them" is not an argument. As I stated above, this administration will say ANYTHING to try to put them in a better light, yet they won't use this. Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

Posted by Will at April 18, 2006 12:55 PM

Rand: "Where do you nutcases come up with this stuff?"

Come on Rand, you did see that response coming didn't you? I could have predicted that response 2 years ago, if/when anything is found to dispute the liberal line it will be declared a forgery and most likely a forgery planed by agents of George W. Bush, if not Bush himself.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 12:57 PM

Will: "But I have an answer: they're FALSE!"

Yawn.....

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 12:59 PM

If these documents are as damning as you claim, then why isn't Scott McClellan touting them daily during the morning press briefing?

Not that I'm a "right winger," but hey, you guys are the ones who are always claiming that the administration is "incompetent," right? And when it comes to combatting the Big Lie, they do indeed seem to be.

Or more likely, they're waiting for the documents to be translated officially and vetted.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 18, 2006 01:03 PM

cecil,
you claim bluedog's facts are full of lies, but you make no effort to impeach them. just saying they are lies does not make it so. there were no wmd's, but then there were trailers that were proof of wmd's, but then it turned out that they weren't actually, and the administration knew that they weren't even when they were saying that they were.
c'mon...be honest...how does it really feel to be part of the last 30% of this country still being duped by these guys?

Posted by jay at April 18, 2006 01:14 PM

rand, i know we are at war with more than al qaeda, but that is a point that needs clarifying when you cite an article that is factually incorrect. especially when it gives the impression that al-massari would be in a particularly good position to know about any relationship between saddam and al qaeda. and according to that wikipedia page, the committee for defense of legitimate rights isnt considered a terror organization by the US (though if you follow a couple links you will find they have extremist beliefs).

Posted by ujedujik at April 18, 2006 01:21 PM

Jay, why should I post facts to refute Bluedogs lies when he has posted no facts to support them? If you think anything on his list is factual YOU are the one who is duped.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 01:22 PM

OK Cecil...let's review...
no WMD's - FACT, no threat to our country - FACT, no democracy in the middle east - OPEN TO DEBATE, HAMAS WON A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION AND THEN WE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THEM SO DEMOCRACY IS ONLY GOOD WHEN WE LIKE THE WINNER, no operational ties to al Queda - FACT, no ties to the 9-11 attack - FACT, worst job creation performance since Hoover - OPEN TO DEBATE BUT IT'S PRETTY F'ING BAD, 5 years of rising poverty rates - SEEMS RIGHT, 5 years of rising abortion rates - SEEMS RIGHT, top administration procurement official indicted for fraud - FACT, an energy policy which has led to $70 a barrel - FACT, unprecidented corporate profits in addition to unprecidented corporate welfare - FACT, an average approval rating in the low to mid 30's - OK MID TO HIGH 30'S...
SO WHICH ONES AREN'T FACTUAL?

Posted by at April 18, 2006 01:47 PM

There is one aspect of the WMD discussion that the rocket community is reasonably well situated to answer. Those 'mobile hydrogen production facilities'.

In the Duelfer Report there are schematics of the plumbing, and a couple of low res pictures. V3,SectionC, pages 43-44 discuss the trailers. V3D, pages 77-100 has more detail. Page 95 has the schematic.

I'm a chemical engineer, and I've actually produced hydrogen several ways - none of which seemed as complex as the method involved here.

I haven't read any independent evaluation of how well this sucker would make hydrogen, and I have several feelings of 'WTF' when looking at the pictures.

1) The KBottles they have lined up to receive the hydrogen are attached with _copper_tubing_. WTF? They hooked the "Compressed air" bottles up with high-pressure piping, but the _outlet_ is hooked up with tubing? If I'm making hydrogen in the field, and I do have access to several compressors, wouldn't the plan be to go straight to high pressure? At least higher than tubing can handle? Then even a lecture bottle could launch a balloon or two. Much more mobile than a full-sized k-bottle at 100psi or so.

2) Ok, maybe they're launching the balloons directly then? This seems an ungainly arrangement for that. If you have a balloon that needs launching you just want to tap the tank and let the balloon fill - like a kid's helium balloon. Or (for an extended flight balloon) you want a small 'lecture bottle' of extremely high pressure helium for the reserves. Not a 50lb tank holding 100psi hydrogen.

Surely someone here has access to either a plant or designs for hydrogen production. What would _you_ do if ordered to make something to fit on a trailer? Because _I_ would rather have a single full-sized high-pressure K Bottle if the goal is launching balloons directly. Or I'd rather have a truck mounted diesel generator + fuel/water/electrodes + compressor if the goal is actual flexible/mobile production.

Does anyone here have any thoughts on the 'hydrogen production facilities'?

Posted by Al at April 18, 2006 01:53 PM

SO WHICH ONES AREN'T FACTUAL?

Iraq was indeed a threat. Saddam Hussein started two wars against his neighbors, aggressive pursued WMD for decades, and controlled one of the largest reserves of oil in the world. Now, he sits in jail.

Second, Bush took over when as the tech bubble popped. That plus the fact that US labor is several times more expensive than foreign labor, means a big drop in employment. Even if Clinton had a third term, I think we'd still see a drop in employment (and economically, Clinton was more effective than GW Bush). Further, Bush did a decent job of dealing with September 11. I think he spent way too much money and the war in Iraq should have been handled better, but I don't see Gore or Clinton doing any better.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 18, 2006 03:06 PM

and how did these people in Iraq, if they actually existed, become part of the 911 attacks?

hmmm... got not answer?

didn't think so

Still don't want to address the Pakistanis that sold nuclear technology to anyone and his harbouring Osama? Still don't want to address the Saudi and Dubai money to Al Qaeda?.

Instead of twisting logic to support bush boy's failed Iraqi oil war, why not look towards the obvious instead.

I know, I know. It might undermine bush boy's presidency. But, tough luck. He failed... he's getting impeached. Democratic majority in November.

LOL!!!

AND TO....
One can just imagine good Lefties making the same sorts of arguments in April-May 1941.
Posted by Lurking Observer at April 18, 2006 12:15 PM

You aren't much of a student of history are you? The Dems had bring the Repubs kicking and screaming into WW11. They didn't want to do anything to Roosevelt wanted. They were good little obstructionists.

bok bok chicken hawks

Posted by Lars Gruber at April 18, 2006 03:21 PM

Cecil,

In 20 years some ties between AQ and Saddam might come out.
Then Bush supporters can say "I told you so", even though they supported a war (as a last resort , of course) 20 years before they had the evidence.
Sounds like a brilliant concept to not hold someone responsible for their actions at the time of their actions.
Maybe we shouldn't kill Massouai because some facts may be coming in 20 years that exonerate him.

Karl Howell,
Saddam started the war against Iran at America's urging.

Posted by Robert at April 18, 2006 03:22 PM

You're quoting someone who says Saddam and Al-Qaida "joined forces"? You are an idiot.

Posted by Rich at April 18, 2006 03:23 PM

Yeah - Saddam started two wars against his neighbors - one of those wars against Iran. In a way his secular government helped balance Iran's religious one. I bet there are policy makers running around now that sort of wish he was back in power.

But by the time we had invaded Iraq he had been emasculated by the sanctions and the miltiary contaiment and no fly zones. He was certainly no immediate threat to anybody ( perhaps unfortunately in regards to Iran).

I would agree that we couldn't keep him bottled up forever, but it was certainly no emergency to invade him, especially while we hadn't finished in Afganistan. It would have been much better to take our time and eventually do it right, rather than the slap-dash incompetent way it seems to have been done. And maybe talked to some other nations who know what is actually involved in "nation building". Perhaps we could even of convinced some more allies to get involved to get some more countries to bear the costs and loss of life.

Posted by peteathome at April 18, 2006 03:24 PM

Are those by any chance the captured documents which even the administration admits are rife with forgeries?

Where do you nutcases come up with this stuff?

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 18, 2006 12:40 PM

From some Italian friends of the administration... with the help of your hero, Curveball.

LOL!!!

The reason why you don't see any of your tinfoil hat stuff on the corporate news... is... is...

it's crap

where the hell is Osama theses days??? Oh.. yeah!!! Enjoying his freedom.

Posted by Lars Gruber at April 18, 2006 03:25 PM

It isn't like the Bush Administration has ever knowingly used forged documents to make a case for war before, right?

Posted by John Gillnitz at April 18, 2006 03:29 PM

You're quoting someone who says Saddam and Al-Qaida "joined forces"? You are an idiot.

Posted by Rich at April 18, 2006 03:23 PM

And the chicken hawks still won't answer why it was ok to let Osama walk. They want to blame it on Saddam.

Why not blame the culprit... Osama? And get some justice a mere 5 years after the fact.

on that note, why is it that bush refuses to try to capture Osama? It's as though bush boy thinks Osama is innocent. Odd....

Posted by Lars Gruber at April 18, 2006 03:29 PM

how did these people in Iraq, if they actually existed, become part of the 911 attacks?

No one ever claimed they did.

Boy, the moonbats are flying in formation tonight, with strawman payloads.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 18, 2006 03:54 PM

This would be comedy if it wasn't so sad that people actually believe that wikipedia is authoritative.

Posted by Leland at April 18, 2006 04:04 PM

claims of iraqi ties to 911- http://mediamatters.org/items/200604050007

Posted by ujedujik at April 18, 2006 04:08 PM

how did these people in Iraq, if they actually existed, become part of the 911 attacks?

No one ever claimed they did.

Then what's the point of this post? To see how many times the FBI will tap your phone when you string the words "blow up the CIA" together?

So our myths are "imploding" because someone was trying to set up a meeting with Saddam? If your son died in this war of choice, would that satisfy you?

Also, with the carte blanche given the Bush Administation leading up to this war by the MSM, you can hardly complain when it finds something between its legs (4 years later!) and pushes back a bit. The Rathergate papers had more credibility than this tripe.

Lastly, (and almost humorously) speaking of Intelligence agencies: We'd be done translating all of your "captured" documents if Bush hadn't fired half the Arabic translators because they were gay. Ooooh... Irony!

Posted by JT at April 18, 2006 04:27 PM

So Saddam gave AQ money to leave him alone. Sounds like a real partnership to me, not anything like our own relationship to them.

Center for Research on Globalization, "Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders...With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad."

Yep, fact is Saddam was up to his neck in it, we were justified in wrecking Iraq, now what do we do to ourselves?

Posted by lindata at April 18, 2006 05:07 PM

Are you conservatives STILL going on about this crap?

Dear god, just when you hallucinatory sheep can't seem to get any more intellectually challenged or morally bankrupt, you lower the bar.

Again.

Conservatism is dead.

All your "ideas" have been shown to be fantasies.

At best.

Time and time again your opinion has shown to be worthless and dangerously divorced from reality.

If anyone wants to know your opinion, we'll slap Karl Rove's dick out of your mouth.

Posted by Alan at April 18, 2006 05:21 PM

How do the DU Treason Wing Cockroaches manage to find these threads of your so fast? It's like they have some little fascist Paul Revere network of their own set up.

See them recoiling in horror as their world view is put to lie as Dracula from a Silver Cross.

Posted by The Shadow at April 18, 2006 06:28 PM

"All your "ideas" have been shown to be fantasies."

All of yours have been shown to be criminal frauds and genocidal lies. You Cockroaches need to shut up and learn your place under foot.

Posted by The Shadow at April 18, 2006 06:31 PM

How come BushCo is not holding press conferences, and is not all over the airwaves and the television networks with that fabulous piece of information that you just dug up? Do you think for a nanosecond that BushCo would not gloat and parade?

Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. You guys are really grasping at straws.

Posted by Devil's Advocate at April 18, 2006 07:38 PM

You guys caught Bin Laden dead or alive yet?

Posted by Devil's Advocate at April 18, 2006 07:41 PM

What a bunch of Kerry Kool-Aid guzzling idiots, I've not seen so many in one place since the Democrat convention.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 07:45 PM

First off, it's "yours", with an 's'.

Secondly the term "fascist Paul Revere" is mutually exclusive since Paul Revere was a liberal, and fascists are, by definition, conservatives.

Who's definition, you might ask? Mussolini's, the guy who invented the term.

"All of yours [ideas] have been shown to be criminal frauds and genocidal lies. You Cockroaches need to shut up and learn your place under foot."

Ahhhh, spoken like the true conservative patriot.

Did you forget this wonderful liberal idea, or were you home schooled?:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

--Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

Or does the founding concepts of this once great country mean as little to you as they do to the Cheney administration?

Posted by Alan at April 18, 2006 08:26 PM

What a bunch of Bush Kool-Aid guzzling idiots, I've not seen so many in one place since the Republican convention. As a New Yorker, I can attest that the town had to be thoroughly fumigated and aseptized after the Republican convention. The litter and the diseases left behind were a real threat to public health. Never mind that violent crime rose throughout those few days, particularly pedophilia and rape.

Bush's approval ratings: stuck in the mid-30s.
GOP-controlled Congress's approval ratings: stuck in the mid-20s.

You, rightwingers, are now in the minority. And it is a minority that is widely regarded as mentally unhinged and intellectually deficient.

Posted by Devil's Advocate at April 18, 2006 08:26 PM

Rad.

We are still holding our collective breath.... Please tell us!!! When are you taking this incredible news to Fox News and spreding it to the world!!!.
Bush needs you, like DESPERATELY....
Can you come up with some other of this "facts"?, I mean they are really
good and solid!!
I can sell you one from Mohamed Al Bullshiter you want to buy it? .

Cecil

Funny you mention FACTS. Let's see if you can accept the following facts:

1) There were no WMD's in Iraq. Therefore Bush, bad intel or not simply made a mistake.
2) You are now accepting as "facts" what Mr. Al Massari said while ignoring that Bush himself has several times DENIED that there was a connection between Sadam and Osama.
3) The Democracy that we were suposed to create in Iraq is nowere to be found. There were elections, and NO GOVERNMENT has been formed (Maibe we can call it the Democracy of the disingenous).
4)All you Right wingers are reduced to do now is to ask for more time, more money, and more sacrifices from our soldiers.... That is a hell of a far cry from "Mission Accomplished", "Old Europe", "You are either with us or against us", "This terrorists are a bunch of dead enders".... The problem with right wingers is that they are a bunch of intelectual cowards that simply are to arrogant to accept they made a mistake, instead they keep on asking from sacrifices from others until they are some how proven right.

Posted by gil at April 18, 2006 09:00 PM

Rad.

Cecil

Funny you mention FACTS. Let's see if you can accept the following facts:

Posted by gil at April 18, 2006 09:00 PM

Quote from anonymous: "OK Cecil...let's review...
no WMD's - FACT, no threat to our country - FACT, no democracy in the middle east..... blah blah blah"

This anonymous poster knows where his caps lock key is at.....FACT

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 18, 2006 09:39 PM

So Scott McClellan has to wait until this tranlation is 'vetted'? That's why we're waiting for the White House to talk about this? Don't you realize how flimsy your arguement sounds?

Make some serious posts. By the way if you didn't already know, this post showed up in the Daou Report. That's why you suddenly have people writing who get their news from different places than you do.

Posted by patriot at April 19, 2006 01:42 AM

Quote from Gil: "1) There were no WMD's in Iraq. Therefore Bush, bad intel or not simply made a mistake.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Ask those Kurds that were gased and they will confirm that indeed there WERE WMD's in Iraq at some point in the past. It was difficult for anyone to determine what amount of material existed because of all the barriers Saddam's regime posed to inspections. It is well understood that once sanctions ended that Saddam sought to engage in WMD production almost immediately. We bloodied his nose and he was looking for revenge. I'd say Saddam's Iraq posed a significant threat.

2) You are now accepting as "facts" what Mr. Al Massari said while ignoring that Bush himself has several times DENIED that there was a connection between Sadam and Osama.

Its more then just this one individual that provides these details. Alsom, we are not talking about a single document but millions of papers that are having to be deciphered from a language that runs through several dialects. For the President to make that type of assertion the first thing people are going to want is evidence. Till then I would expect anyone pressed in his position to deny such allegations.

3) The Democracy that we were suposed to create in Iraq is nowere to be found. There were elections, and NO GOVERNMENT has been formed (Maibe we can call it the Democracy of the disingenous).

I'm sorry I guess we must have misplaced our 'Instant Democracy Powder'. Just add the blood of the infidel and your Democratic Nation will magically appear within days. Warning: May induce explosive insurrection, fervent one-liner rhetoric, and knee-jerk opposition to HalliBusheny.

4)All you Right wingers are reduced to do now is to ask for more time, more money, and more sacrifices from our soldiers.... That is a hell of a far cry from "Mission Accomplished", "Old Europe", "You are either with us or against us", "This terrorists are a bunch of dead enders".... The problem with right wingers is that they are a bunch of intelectual cowards that simply are to arrogant to accept they made a mistake, instead they keep on asking from sacrifices from others until they are some how proven right."

I don't think any of us were so short sided as to think that this was going to be a cake walk that would have wrapped itself up the moment we paraded down Baghdad Blvd. In fact, George Bush admitted several times that this would be a test of wills and that it would require a significant length of time to accomplish.

mis·sion (mshn) n. 1.The business with which such a body of persons is charged.2.A special assignment given to a person or group.3.A combat operation assigned to a person or military unit.

Specifically Operation Iraqi Freedom entailed the dethroning of Saddam. I would say once you've pulled the rug out from under an Army, forced the leader to crawl into a rabbit hole, and freely toppled the ensign of your advesary -- well you've accomplished your mission.

Life is defined through a series of sacrifices one makes. In effect the sacrifices we choose to make are based upon our heritage, beliefs, values, mores, and perceived/latent fears. Indeed we have asked a lot of our youth to sacrifice their bodies, their minds, their souls to this endeavor. Yet, they have displayed incredible bravery to step up to this challenge and work as best they can regardless of right or wrong. What we do know is that these individuals have reenlisted in record numbers for 2nd, 3rd, 4 th, 5th tours of duty. I would think that when someone reenlists they are displaying a devotion that goes beyond simply fulfilling their obligation. This type of devotion escalates to a hardline belief that what they are doing is making a real difference for the better.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 19, 2006 02:47 AM

Good post Josh, full of reason and intellect that is so lacking in the liberal loonies postings farther up. But on them it is wasted, as they are obviously lacking the ability to comprehend.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 19, 2006 05:10 AM

"Secondly the term "fascist Paul Revere" is mutually exclusive since Paul Revere was a liberal, and fascists are, by definition, conservatives."

Didn't say Paul Revere was a Fascist, said you were Phucktard!

"You, rightwingers, are now in the minority. And it is a minority that is widely regarded as mentally unhinged and intellectually deficient."

And witness the delusional rantings of a crack smoking cockroach! I suppose since your girl couldn't secure but 44% of the vote in the Randy Duke Cunningham special election, it must have been Diebold's fault! Here is a hint, you need at least 50+ percent for a majority. If you can't take RC's disctrict, you ain't gonnal win jack!

Posted by The Shadow at April 19, 2006 05:27 AM

josh reiter-
-"We bloodied his nose and he was looking for revenge. I'd say Saddam's Iraq posed a significant threat."

saddam was looking to stay in power. that was his number one priority. he felt more threatened by iran than the us. i highly doubt he wouldve attacked us. every country on earth poses a threat to us, we dont have the resources to topple regimes at whim. especially when there are actual emergency humanitarian situations going on. and really, you only need a little bit of foresight to see that since 911, war has become more likely, youve got all kinds of threatening regimes that could in the future require major military action. thats why you dont waste resources (military, as well as allies) as the bush administration has done.

-"I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Ask those Kurds that were gased and they will confirm that indeed there WERE WMD's in Iraq at some point in the past."

why dont you ask cheney why he didnt want to topple saddam after the first gulf war (when he was secretary of defense)? that was right after his worst humanitarian offenses, his imperialistic war, and there was a local resistance, that actually mightve greeted us as liberators (our inaction instead indirectly caused their massacre). i have made this point on this site before, but why was it necessary to starve the iraqi people for ten years before invading?

from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/192828_joel29.html

Here is what Cheney said in '92:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Posted by ujedujik at April 19, 2006 07:39 AM

Ask those Kurds that were gased and they will confirm that indeed there WERE WMD's in Iraq at some point in the past.

Oh come on!

Whether or not there were *ever* WMD's at some time in the past, was not the question. It's not even the point! The point is, what WMD's were there when we invaded, that were worth invading for??

This is supposed to be an example of reason and logic??

Besides the fact that that was with weapons systems that the US *sold* Saddam; and besides the fact that the Bush I administration continued to support Saddam before, during and after these murders, even going to the point to have the US veto a UN resolution against Saddam (!!)...

It was difficult for anyone to determine what amount of material existed because of all the barriers Saddam's regime posed to inspections.

The UN inspectors, who are career professionals and experts in this very field, went up and down that country, eventually receiving all the access they asked for.

They found no WMD's, up until the point they had to leave because Bush invaded.

Since then, no WMD's have been found. This would indicate very strongly that the WMD inspectors were right.

Look: we're in a mess right now. And your boy Bush got us into it. He fooled a lot of people, ok? up to 80% of the US at one point. He's had the best PR in history behind him.

But facts are facts. There are no WMD's; the occupation will not pay for itself; Bush let Bin Laden go and has publicly stated he's not pursuing him; the Taliban has come back to Afghanistan; the administration lied about Pat Tillman; the administration lied about Jessica Lynch; Halliburton has $9 BILLION in taxpayer money 'unaccounted for' and yet our soldiers don't have the armor they need to live.

But we're supposed to get worked up because someone maybe met with someone several years ago, because it just might mean this all *isn't* a mistake.

How about we go with the facts as they currently stand? Because that's reality. And right now the facts, as only partially listed above, lean towards this Iraq invasion and occupation as being a knot of horrendous mistakes.

Then when something actually surfaces that means something, then we can look at the facts and reconsider. And in the meantime we can all be living in reality.

Posted by jim at April 19, 2006 07:39 AM

why are y'all wasting your time with all this speculating...i hear voices and i'm the decider and i decide what's best. now...has anyone seen my copy of that goat book?

Posted by george at April 19, 2006 08:01 AM

Josh & Cecil.

Again, maibe you can get it the second time around.... THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONA HAS DENIED any Osama- Saddam connection. You and your nut compadres can believe werever you like.

Sadam HAD WMD's when he gased the Kurds. Problem was that it was in the early 90's. I don't remember or do you?, two separate Presidential Commissions being sent to Iraq in 2003 to investigate the validity of the claim for WMD's in 1992. The Bush administration came with the official finding that THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN 2002-2003. Official MEANS OVER Josh and Cecil, there is no one but a few lunatics still questioning the issue and looking for Elvis.

With respect to your "millions of papers" offering proof of WMD's , and other people offering proof, please tell them to call Bush, because as I already pointed out, the poor idiot sent two investigatory commissions at a cost of tens of millions of dollars only to come EMPTY HANDED..... If ony he had contacted you!!!.

In regard to your "Democracy Powder". No one ask for a miracle, in fact we were "informed" by Rummy and others that this war was going to last only six months and be paid with Iraq's oil. How dare we now question these imbeciles !!! When do people loose credibility in your eyes Josh?. I gave you a long list of B.S. remarks to point out their complete lack of credibility and you still don't seem to get it. Like I said, all you are reduced to do now is ask for more time and sacrifices from others..... I forgot the part of IGNORING THE EVIDENCE in my list. This evidence by the way is not in some obscure papers somwhere, but in the public remarks of our president and others in his administration.

The evidence, of the remarks made by the Bush administration CONTRADICT what you said, I quote " I don't think any of us were so short sided as to think this was going to be a cake walk". I guess then you forgot the VP and his "we will be greeted with roses" remark, or "Mission Accomplished" by our "warrior" president in the Aircraft Carrier, or the "war will last for 3 weeks" by Rummy, or "We will be for the most part out of Iraq in six months" by Bush.

In practical terms Josh... You know, like in REAL LIFE. It works this way.... You are given the power to make descisions, you decide, and YOU PRODUCE.
Try and selling your " We don't have a Democracy Powder" to a banker that has lended you money for a risk venture... Sorry Sir! I know that by now I was supposed to have the business up and running, but Hey, "I don't have a magical business powder" just give me a few more years... And by the way I need more money.

Posted by gil at April 19, 2006 08:09 AM

no...really...i'm the decider.

Posted by george at April 19, 2006 08:14 AM

gil, i dont remember those investigations. can you be more specific or provide a link or something?

Posted by ujedujik at April 19, 2006 08:14 AM

Thanks Rand! It's like a visit to the zoo.

Posted by Leland at April 19, 2006 11:51 AM

Nice post about sacrafices Josh.

Now, maybe you can preach that creed to the richest 1% of Americans who want to reduce their sacrafices for the good of all Americans.

You've got my support to do so.

Posted by Robert at April 19, 2006 03:51 PM

Ujedujick.

Shure. go to Google. Look up a) david Kay commission. B) National Archives. Ask for Charles Rubb commission. C) The Iraq survey group commission at Google. D) Yahoo or google ask for hans blix.... It goes on and on.

Posted by gil at April 19, 2006 05:22 PM

An awful lot of bandwidth over documents that allegedly don't mean anything...

Posted by McGehee at April 20, 2006 08:30 AM

Post a comment