posted July 20, 2004 08:57 AM              

It was wrong when it was being planned!

It was wrong when it started!

And it's wrong now!

EVERY day our young people are dying over there???? The casualty number goes up daily!

posted July 20, 2004 01:39 PM            

I didn't see outcry from the left during the Bosnian war - which is one reason I find it difficult to take the extreme left's outcry re: Iraq seriously. It appears to be more of an extension of hatred for Bush than a valid concern. My logic is that, if one is against war so vehemently as some are claiming, they should hate any war, not just wars started by someone they dislike...

posted July 20, 2004 02:20 PM            

I also pointed out to the liberal pack that Clinton didn't even bother to ask the UN for permission to wage war in the area. Makes no difference to liberals. They're capable of internally rationalizing any amount of hypocrisy ...even if there's nothing rational about their position at all.

I've also asked liberals exactly what direct threat the former Yugoslavia presented to the US. That was a long time ago and I'm still waiting for my answer.

posted July 20, 2004 11:45 PM            

Sure Clinton's tryst is a private matter -- just like war is
By John Kass
Chicago Tribune
September 15, 1998

President Clinton's defenders keep making their case that his private life has no bearing on how he does his job.

They prattle on about his job approval ratings, which actually track how fat our wallets have become, not whether he can lead this country in a serious crisis.

Maybe you think that Independent Counsel Ken Starr's report is about Clinton, the lothario.

But, if you want to learn something about Clinton as a leader, I refer you to the part about the pizza date with Monica Lewinsky at the White House.

That was also the night that Clinton was on the phone with a powerful Alabama Republican congressman, H.L. "Sonny" Callahan. What we didn't know is what they were talking about.

Now it's emerging that they were discussing sending American troops into harm's way in Bosnia--putting our sons and daughters into a dangerous place that is full of death.

The president needed a vote from Callahan--chairman of an appropriations subcommittee that controls billions of dollars in foreign aid--for the peacekeeping mission, which would augment an international accord being developed in Dayton, Ohio.

But while he was on the phone, Clinton was simultaneously occupied.

White House intern Monica Lewinsky was performing oral sex in the Oval Office.

Imagine someone receiving those favors while they're talking to you on the phone.

Now imagine that the subject you're talking about is literally about life and death.

At issue was the fate of American troops. And also the fate of the Balkans, one of the bloodiest killing grounds in the world. What's going on there threatens to spill over into Greece and Turkey, while Russia continues to crumble.

I called the White House on Monday on the chance they would dispute the facts as presented by Starr and Callahan on that night, Nov. 17, 1995. And as they have done in the past few days, officials declined.

Callahan, meanwhile, is issuing this statement: "I do recall talking to the president during which time he was seeking my assistance for the American mission in Bosnia. But I do not have any recollection of any inappropriate behavior or comments from the president during my conversation. . . .

"I had no knowledge that I was sharing the president's time or attention with anyone else."

That night, Callahan and a handful of other Republicans voted with the president's side in opposing a move to prevent funds from being spent to send those troops overseas. They lost.

Eventually, the Dayton Peace Accords were signed. The president sent thousands and thousands of soldiers to Bosnia. He promised he'd bring them back by the end of 1996.
They're still there.
Note, those troops are still there and it's definitely not 1996 any more

I called Callahan's office on Monday and talked with his chief of staff, Jo Bonner

"Sonny has very mixed emotions about this," said Bonner, who added that Callahan was considering a critical public address about Clinton on the House floor. "He could be voting on this (impeachment) issue, and he's not trying to grandstand.

"But the president says it's a personal matter. It became a public matter when he lobbied the congressman, talking about sending men and women overseas, even as he was being entertained by Miss Lewinsky. . . . You could say it is an insult. And worse."

A White House official said on background that the president has great respect for those who serve their country overseas.

Yeah. Sure. He proved it.

According to her grand jury testimony, Lewinsky said that Clinton suggested she bring him some slices of pizza. When she arrived, she was immediately welcomed and ushered inside.

But during their loving caress, Clinton had a telephone call. She recalled that the caller was a member of Congress with a nickname.

While Clinton was on the telephone with the congressman, she testified that Clinton unzipped himself and she did her duty. She was at the White House that evening from 9:38 to 10:39 p.m.

White House phone records confirm, according to the Starr report, that Clinton had only one telephone conversation with a member of Congress. From 9:53 to 10:14 p.m., he spoke with "Sonny" Callahan.

While the House vote took place, diplomats anguished about whether the peace process would collapse. Muslims, Serbs and Croats, along with diplomats from America and other countries huddled in Dayton.

The people of the former Yugoslavia were desperate for relief from terror. American soldiers drilled. Their commanders planned, and most likely worried about their troops, as good officers always do.

Across this country, the mothers and fathers of soldiers worried and prayed. Some surely lit candles. U.S. representatives with opposing views fought it out with each other.

And the commander in chief, the president of the United States, his mouth full of pizza, entertained himself with a groupie in the Oval Office.

posted July 21, 2004 12:41 AM            

Connections between Saddam and al-Qaida have been positively established and there was a chemical weapons plant in Northern Iraq under the control of an al-Qaida associated group that was bombed the first day of the war...that too has been definitely established.

For those waiting to find signs that say "this way to Saddams chemical and biological weapons", forget it. Forget also a nice warehouse with all of Saddams chemical and biological weapons labeled...Saddams VX Mortars, Saddam's Sarin agent 155mm artillery shells, Saddams Antrax Scuds.

In case you don't know, most chemical weapons are stored as components which are mixed when needed and we've found tons of chemicals that could be mixed to make chemical weapons. We've also found artillery shells filled with Sarin and Mustard gas, enough to kill an estimated 500,000 people.....already loaded. One was used as a roadside bomb. We've also hauled off a ton of 3% enriched uranium...enough for one nuclear device and there's also about 500 tons of uranium yellow cake stored in drums in Iraq.

Now TINK, there are no nuclear power plants in Iraq. Iraq had no nuclear powered ships and absolutely no use whatsoever for uranium....except to make nuclear weapons. Saddam was a direct threat to the US, he had chemical weapons at least, radioactive materials and was harboring al-Qaida members.

As it turns out, the President was right to say Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Africa. Here are the stories.

The Press Won't Tell the Rest of the Joe Wilson Story
By Dave Kopel
The Rocky Mountain News | July 19, 2004

Remember U.S. diplomat Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame? In 2003, Wilson made himself a national celebrity by announcing that the CIA had sent him to Niger to see if Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium there.

According to Wilson, he conclusively reported that there was no such attempt, but the White House ignored him, and lied to the American people in order to justify the Iraq War. In retaliation, the White House "outed" Wilson's wife, exposing her as a CIA agent by telling columnist Robert Novak.

It used to be a very big story. The News ran 19 articles on it, most recently on June 25. The Post had nine articles including a glowing review of Wilson's book, A Defense of Truth, on May 16, and an excerpt from Wilson's book on May 23.

So given all this attention to Wilson and his claims, it would seem responsible for the Denver papers to let readers know that the U.S. Senate has determined that Wilson is not exactly a guy who always acts "in defense of truth," as detailed recently by The Washington Post.

Wilson told the public that Niger had denied the uranium connection. But the Senate found that Wilson's report said that the Niger government had confirmed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium.

Wilson told the public that his report proved that certain documents showing that Saddam had approached Niger were unreliable, and were probably forged. According to the Senate, Wilson never even saw the documents, which did not come into CIA custody until months after Wilson's report.

Wilson had very publicly complained that the White House had ignored his report. But the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA never sent the Wilson report to the White House.

Wilson told several journalists the same thing he said in his book: that his wife had nothing to do with him going on the trip to Niger. But actually, the Senate found a memo in which she recommended to the CIA that he be selected for the mission.

The Washington Post story has traveled all over the Internet, but has been ignored by much of the establishment media. From the Denver dailies, we have not a word now that a major anti-Bush scandal - which the papers considered newsworthy just a few weeks ago - has turned out to be a con.

In the U.K., an official independent investigative committee on WMD intelligence, the Butler Report (www.butlerreview.org.uk, section 6.4 of the report) has found that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger as late as 2002. The report declared that Bush's statement in the 2003 State of the Union, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," was "well-founded."

The Financial Times began reporting the story a week ago, but the Denver dailies remain oblivious - refusing to let their readers know that all the partisans like Wilson and various newspaper columnists who proclaimed "Bush lied!!!!" about the African uranium are completely wrong.

The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction and The Aspen Times, though, take the booby-prize for being fooled by Wilson. In articles about Wilson's recent speech in Aspen, The Times and Daily Sentinel went beyond summarizing Wilson's remarks; the papers restated many of Wilson's claims as if they were facts - even though readers of The Washington Post had learned two days beforehand that Wilson was not telling the truth. (Hat tip to ombudsgod.blogspot.com for noticing the Sentinel and Times stories first.)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14264

Sixteen Truthful Words
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: July 19, 2004

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."— George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003WASHINGTON —

Those were "the 16 words" in a momentous message to a joint session of Congress that were pounced on by the wrong-war left to become the simple centerpiece of its angry accusation that "Bush lied to us" — or, as John Kerry more delicately puts it — "misled" us into thinking that Saddam's Iraq posed a danger to the U.S.

The he-lied-to-us charge was led by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat sent in early 2002 by the C.I.A. to Niger to check out reports by several European intelligence services that Iraq had secretly tried to buy that African nation's only major export, "yellowcake" uranium ore.

Wilson testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had assured U.S. officials back in 2002 that "there was nothing to the story." When columnist Robert Novak raised the question of nepotism by reporting that he got the assignment at the urging of his C.I.A. wife, Wilson denied that heatedly and denounced her "outing," triggering an investigation.

The skilled self-promoter was then embraced as an antiwar martyr, sold a book with "truth" in its title, appeared on the cover of Time and every TV talk show denouncing Bush.

Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth. Contrary to his indignant claim that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip, the Senate published testimony that his C.I.A. wife had "offered up his name" and printed her memo to her boss that "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts."

Further destroying his credibility, Wilson now insists this strong pitch did not constitute a recommendation.More important, it now turns out that senators believe his report to the C.I.A. after visiting Niger actually bolstered the case that Saddam sought — Bush's truthful verb was "sought" — yellowcake, the stuff of nuclear bombs. The C.I.A. gave Wilson's report a "good" grade because "the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium" — confirming what the British and Italian intelligence services had told us from their own sources.

But a C.I.A. analyst opined "the Brits have exaggerated this issue" because "the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory." State Department intelligence also was dubious, reports the Senate, more so in October when an Italian journalist brought in a bunch of phony documents somebody was trying to sell him about a Niger uranium transaction. This outweighed the report of a top security official in the French Foreign Ministry, who told U.S. diplomats in November 2002 that "France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger." Two months later, with no objection from C.I.A., the famous 16 words went into Bush's 2003 State of the Union. But when word leaked about the fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries.

The Senate reports that in his misleading anonymous leak to The Washington Post, "He said he may have misspoken . . . he said he may have become confused about his own recollection. . . ." The subsequent firestorm caused the White House to retreat prematurely with: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."That apology was a mistake;

posted July 21, 2004 04:00 PM            

I've never noticed the President making any distinction between any of the groups in Iraq unless he makes clear he's talking about the Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds and mentions the group by name. As in:

Saddam gassed citizens of Iraq, the Kurds.
The main resistance is coming from the Sunni Baathists
The Shiites are the largest group in Iraq.

If you have different information, I'd like to see it.

You should be aware the Policy towards Iraq is that a division of the country along ethnic lines and geographical areas is not part of the President's policy and in fact has been resisted vigorously when the subject came up.

posted July 21, 2004 11:17 PM              

there were estimated 500,000 to 1 million killed in the whole iran iraq war,
how did you calculate that figure of how 500,000 "could have been killed" by those sarin rockets?
did you just make that up?
or are you misquoting Rush Limbaugh who announced that "those rockets could have killed 5,000 each" ?

i wouldnt want the factchecker to be accused of pulling a "micheal moore" on account of "faulty intelligence"

posted July 22, 2004 12:56 AM            

The bombing of the Sudanese aspirin factory was on August 20, 1998. It was not simply an intelligence mishap, but rather a cold and callous targeting of a civilian factory that happened to coincide with Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury in Clinton's impeachment trial.
http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2003/09/29/Commentary/Nottage.Made.M istake.With.Bomb.Location-507133.shtml

Sources in U.S. Intelligence apparently claimed that there was only one "window" through which to strike at bin Laden, and that the only time they could hope to hit his Afghan fastness by this remote means was on the night of Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury. Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/coulter8.htm

When pressed on the issue of bin Laden back in September, Bill Clinton’s response was that he had “missed getting him by about 30 minutes.” Clinton was referring to his bombing of an aspirin factory in the Sudan, the timing of which coincided with Monica Lewinsky’s appearance before a grand jury.
http://www.geocities.com/gregoryjrummo/letgo.htm

When "that woman", Ms. Lewinsky, was due to testify before a grand jury, our President decided he knew where to find the notorious terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. He was operating out of an aspirin factory in Sudan, of course. This particular news cycle…err, I mean day, was the only time we could be able to bomb it. How could he help it that it just happened to coincide with Monica's testimony. Purely coincidental, I am sure.
http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/cynic/cynic_034.htm

posted July 22, 2004 05:50 AM              

therein lies the genius of the man.

posted July 22, 2004 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

I am not particularly interested in the Clinton/Bush debate, but there was one man who was there thoughout the entire crime. our own dear presidential con-man, Tony Blair.

---

Maklhouf, what crime are you referring to?

quote:

---

I've amended my post above to reflect the "between wars" situation as it was in Iraq. Whoever Bush is meaning when he refers to the "Iraqi people", it is certainly not the Iraqi Christians, who did quite well under President Saddam Hussein, but have very little to look forward to under a Shi-ite regime.

---

I have no intention of giving anyone both sides of any issue, so for purposes of debate, the President is either a right wing fundamentalist Christian nut who is attempting to cram Christianity down the throat of America or he's carrying out the sworn duties of the Presidency without regard to religion. Your post seems to suggest he's paying no attention to the Iraqi Christians whatsoever which would be inconsistent with a right wing fundamentalist Christian nut. I never knew there was a significant contingent of Iraqi Christians in the first place.

Please, those on the left, try to get on one side of the fence or the other because you're not going to get it both ways.

quote:

---

therein lies the genius of the man.

---

Let me write that down for future reference since the mantra of the left seems to be that Bush is an idiot.

Now maklhouf, if I've slandered you by implication you're on the political left, let me apologize here and now.

posted July 22, 2004 11:16 AM            

quote:

---

wow jwhopthere were estimated 500,000 to 1 million killed in the whole iran iraq war, how did you calculate that figure of how 500,000 "could have been killed" by those sarin rockets?
did you just make that up?
or are you misquoting Rush Limbaugh who announced that "those rockets could have killed 5,000 each" ?i wouldnt want the factchecker to be accused of pulling a "micheal moore" on account of "faulty intelligence"

---

Here's an opinion that it could be as high as 300,000. I heard the 500,000 number somewhere and can't remember who said it but it doesn't seem to have been Limbaugh....to the best of my recollection.

But wait Petron, hasn't the left been chanting in unison that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever? All destroyed?

July 02, 2004

WMD Found in Iraq

posted July 22, 2004 10:00 PM              

well that article was very informative.....although it is dated july 1 2004 and is published by the mideast or washington afp? what is that organization? i dont know which papers are major media outlets or which'r liberal or whatever but heres some article dated july 2 2004, the day after that 1..... are they 1 of them lefty papers i s'pose?
http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M07/D02/200407021348DOWJONESDJONLINE000457.html

but they did say they were quoting the u.s. military about "traces" of sarin

BAGHDAD (AP)--Trace amounts of a deadly nerve agent found in a cache of rockets dating back to the Iran-Iraq war were so deteriorated they would have had "little to no impact if used by insurgents," the U.S. military said Friday.

then heres this 1 from july 3,the day after that,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html

posted July 22, 2004 11:43 PM            

Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent.
Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a little more than a gallon.
"A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret. Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell.
The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably dilated pupils and nausea, officials said. The symptoms ran their course fairly quickly, however, and as of Tuesday the two had returned to duty.
The munition found was a binary chemical shell, meaning it featured two chambers, each containing separate chemical compounds. Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and dispersed. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

Warheads containing nerve agent found in Iraq
By The Associated Press
Friday, July 2, 2004

WARSAW, Poland -- Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent, but it is not clear what period the weapons came from, the Defense Ministry said Thursday. The two warheads, found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," said defense minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. In May, an artillery shell apparently filled with the sarin nerve agent was discovered at the side of the road in Baghdad by U.S. forces.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_201526.html

Scripps Howard News Service May 17, 2004

posted July 22, 2004 11:58 PM            

It seems Berger has been trying to cut a deal with the Justice Department for months but so far, no dice. The US Attorney said violations of Federal Law carry a sentence of jail time and that they take matters concerning National Security very seriously.

There's a lot of speculation as to why a former National Security Advisor, a person who surely knows the rules concerning secret documents would risk his reputation and liberty to steal documents. Must have been something red hot in there and it seems there was an after incident report that was rewritten lots of times before they got it the way they wanted it. It's thought the many revisions and the original report with the notes is what Berger was after because they contain lots of suggestions as to what should be done to improve security in the US and Clinton didn't do any of it.

It's also been noted that Kerry has just come out with a new plan to beef up internal security in the US and Berger was on Kerry's staff. It's thought Berger may have handed off the reports to Kerry and that's where his ideas came from.