Naw, honey, all ya' gotta do is wish it.
=======================

Freedon isn't free, here or anywhere. Thousands of members of the military have died to provide it. Then we have people like Dusty Harry Reid, a supposed leader of the Senate, that provides aid to the enemy and get hundreds of American soldiers killed to satisfy his 'wounded' ego. Has anyone in the democrat party challenged him on his idiot statement?

Remember VT. Another left winger has became dangerous. Listen to the rants of Alex Baldwin to his '12' year old daughter. As Rivera stated, 'the child should get a protection order from the court' and after listening to Baldwin he should be committed to a mental facility before he injures or kills someone. (Rants available at FOX news). The first thing you hear from the democrat party is that the mad man rants should not have been broadcast.
These two mentally challanged anti-Americans are hero's to the democrat party. Do you have to wonder why America is in trouble?

What is the difference in the rants of Cho, Reid and Baldwin? To a child watching TV, there is no difference, so who do you protect your children from and how?

Don't send letters and email to Reid, send them to someone with a brain and ask them to demand that Reid resign from the senate. Turn off the TV everytime Baldwin comes on, and definetly don't buy a ticket to any movie he's in.

The balance between freedom and security is often so paper thin...but the consquences may be enormous:
"Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a pyschiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead."
By a whisker, we just missed getting the balance right in this case.

Speaking of idiot statements, Scrappy, maybe you could enlighten us as to the connection between Sen. Reid and "hundreds of American soldiers killed".

Remember, voices in your head don't count.

Lorie, I'd respectfully argue that the price paid at Va Tech is not the price of freedom, but rather the price of perceived security.

Focusing on Cho's psych evaluation is really navel contemplation at this point, as someone like that would likely have found a way to acquire a gun; more significant is that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms is not to be withdrawn without due process.

By that yardstick, Cho (an alien, not a citizen) had no right to purchase a firearm, regardless of his mental condition; but that would require that gun control laws be actually based upon the 2nd amendment, and we can't have that, can we? To borrow an idea from a commenter on another blog, we obviously prefer massacres to shootouts.

groucho, Watch the news. Everytime one of the so called leaders on the left provide aid and comfort to the enemy the enemy hears the call and kill hundreds in Iraq, including American soldiers. 90% of the soldiers killed in Iraq have been due to support of the enemy by America's 'leaders'. Telling them to keep up the violence and you'll win in not the way for America to win a war. It will be interesting when the democrats complete their surrender. How many will die right here in the U.S. An embolden enemy will definetly follow us home. They will know there is nothing to fear from the cowardly Americans. Didn't Osama say that about a previous surrender and start planning 9-11 which was carried out flawlessly? Ignore the lessons of history and you're doomed to repeat it.

Normally I would not have agreed that the dimmers speaking out to give up had an effect on violence, but last month the news in the US has been saying that the surge is working and hope was building. The enemy ramped up their attacks to disuade opinion. Reid is just confirming that the terrorists mission has been accomplished. ww

I think Reid was being overly blunt with his assessment and not very helpful ..We can all see what is going in Iraq..He should have stuck to saying something like the US should encourage more Iraqi groups to enter the political process and eschew violence...But Reid speaking out in frustration, as to what he thinks the majority of Americans feel, that is the price of freedomand democracy too.

No, what's getting our soldiers killed is their presence in a foreign country that did NOTHING to US, in the middle of a civil war that our sort-sighted incompetent leaders bungled us into. It's the words and actions of Bush, Cheney, etc, that are getting our brave soldiers killed.

And a majority of democratic senators approved of the use of troops in Iraq. Seems the dimmers conveniently forget to mention that. Also, the WMD's that were there according to the entire Clinton administration, U.N., France, England, etc. The dimmers have selective memory on that subject also. How can the democrats expect to win the white house when they are afraid to appear on Fox News? No wonder they are surrender addicts. They are afraid of terrorists also. ww

I think Reid was being overly blunt with his assessment and not very helpful

Not helpful? Gee, ya think???

Liberals. Ruining the country one day at a time.

WW, it was Bush's decision and his alone. Clinton had the same intelligence and did Clinton invade Iraq?

Now the great 'chicken-plucker' wants to build walls between the Sunni and the Shiite. BRILLIANT. That idea worked real well in Northern Ireland.

"Clinton had the same intelligence and did Clinton invade Iraq?"

No, Clinton just bombed them. He opted for the quick fix to buy some time so he could pass the problem on to posterity.

But by your logic, Barney, it was Sadam's fault and Sadam's alone as he could have very simply prevented the war by leaving the county with his sons.

Do you mean in the company of his sons or in the charge of his sons?
=============================

Yeah, good ole Billy Clinton. Passing the big problems on down the road. Wouldn't want anything too "pressing" to mess up that legacy. (or his many midnight "dates" in the Oval Office...

What a guy.

What's to blame for a fire ? The tender ? The spark ? The oxygen ? The absence of moisture ?

In order for a fire to occur, there must be a number of conditions present. In order for that fire to spread unchecked, there must be additional conditions present (no one paying attention, the lack of a means to fight the fire, etc).

The tragedy that occurred at VA Tech required a number of condition to reach its final state. If the freak had been caught by the psychological safe guards that are already in place, this might not have happened. If the freak didn't have a gun, this might not have happened. If the campus hadn't disarmed everyone (ironically, everyone but the one person who needed to be disarmed), this might not have happened.

Note that a key condition for this was the campus 'gun free' zone. The people who passed the law/rule were well-meaning but lack understand of what the actual effect of their actions were. The net effect of their actions is that it provide fertile ground for someone who would disregard any law to rampage unchecked.

Sorry, I don't understand your question Kim. I was referring to this: "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

The speech that does not exist in the fabricated reality of the left. Also in the paragraph after the one I quoted from is the promise America made to the Iraqi people on which the leftists want America turn their backs.

"well-meaning but lack understand of what the actual effect of their actions were."

In that statement you have the defintion of a leftist democrat.

Again the dimmers revise history. The senate, including a huge majority of democrats approved the funding to send troops to Iraq. No troops would have been sent without the approval. Get it? No, I don't think so. ww

Hey bunyan, I missed that condition in UN Resolution 1440. I seem to recall that he met all UN conditions at the time of the invasion. You know, no WMD.

BarneyG2000:
I seem to recall that he met all UN conditions at the time of the invasion.

Wow.. such blatant revisionism of history.

"no WMD"

Members of the fabricated reality based community can be indenified by their inability to separate unsubstanciated opinion from fact.

Barney, lying again.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sc7545.doc.htm

Beyond that asininity, the actual text of resolution 1441 is here:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm

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

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

And the big one:
"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,..."

Barney goes off the deep end, lying about the war and its justification. Not anything new.

Barney proven a liar once again.

Barney, I take it you were a Revisionist History major in college, right?

Brainy, too bad that most of those resolutions were superseded by resolution 1447 which gave Saddam 180- days to comply with the conditions. The resolution went into effect on 12/5/02. You can do the math.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/723/72/PDF/N0272372.pdf?OpenElement

Thanks, PB. I did not know of that lovely ultimatum issued by Bush. My comment was a silly joke on the meaning of 'leaving with'.

BG2, how do you expect to be taken seriously?
=====================================

Why can't we all just get along?

Here's another example of the price we pay for living in a free society; toxins in the airwaves, hammering wedges at every opportunity, demagogue-ing intolerance and fostering willful ignoranceand distrust.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704190008

The dr. of democracy spews, I mean speaks!

Oh, and don't forget resolution 1457.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/759/41/IMG/N0275941.pdf?OpenElement

Bush invaded in defiance of UN Security Resolutions that gave Saddam 180-days to comply with the previous resolutions.

C'mon, MediaMatters is the drivel of Soros's Apprentices.
=================================

So, BG2, should Saddam still be in charge? If not, how was he to be deposed? Also, what would you do now about Iraq?
=================================

Bush invaded in defiance of UN Security Resolutions that gave Saddam 180-days to comply with the previous resolutions.

The horror. Not enough time for the UN to cover their tracks on the oil for food scandal.

Being in defiance of a UN resolution is nothing new (or serious given the lack of consequence)...after all, Sadaam had been in breach of several (14?) before we invaded.

Let's see....Media Matters....headed by ADMITTED LIAR David Brock. Funded by convicted for FRAUD George Soros.

Bwhahahahahahahahahah......you gotta be kidding me.

Barney, you lying asshat. Do you even bother to read your source material? (Of course I couldn't get the links you posted to work, so you probably didn't)

1447 pertains only to humanitarian aid.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1447e.pdf

And resolution 1457 is about the Congo you goddamn retard.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/55e10f3e9697d1b0c1256cbf005ae2b4?Opendocument

This is an unconscionable assult on the truth. Even for you.

BG2, do you take yourself seriously, or do you just take it?
=====================================

Sorry, that was resolution 1454 and 1457.

www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

It still gives Saddam 180-days. That would be early May, and Bush Invaded in March.

According to Bush we invaded because Saddam was a growing threat and was trying to obtain Nukes. Both were false.

If you want to insinuate that we invaded because Saddam was mean to his people or didn't pay back Kuwait fast enough, then you are delusional.

Now the great 'chicken-plucker' wants to build walls between the Sunni and the Shiite. BRILLIANT. That idea worked real well in Northern Ireland.

And your alternative is what, exactly?

Right, all MMFA does is quote people. Most of those people don't like having their words printed and displayed; it kind of disrupts the 30 second attention span of the majority of listeners.

And not funded by Soros, BTW. Of course that would be an illusion-shattering fact, so just keep on believin'.

Of course that would be an illusion-shattering fact, so just keep on believin'.

Yeah!

;)

Alternative? Why keep marching into the Big Muddy. Soon, we'll float.
==============================

I didn't know Melanie Sloan could sing.
=======================

Barney,
1454 is also about humanitarian goods and, even though you listed it again, 1457 is still about the freakin' Congo.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/759/41/IMG/N0275941.pdf?OpenElement

"If you want to insinuate that we invaded because Saddam was mean to his people or didn't pay back Kuwait fast enough, then you are delusional."

So...you're trying to insist that Bush violated UN resolutions by lying your ass off AND insinuating that UN resolutions are delusional and we shouldn't pay attention to them? Just like a lib, talking out both sides of your ass. This should use up any credibility you may have still possesed.

"According to Bush we invaded because Saddam was a growing threat and was trying to obtain Nukes. Both were false."

Again you present unsubstanciated opinion and not fact. Just because you want to believe something does not suddenly make that thing true.

The final report of the Iraq Survey Group (a.k.a. the Dulfur Report) shows that the preponderence of evidence does not suport your unsubstanciated opinion in this matter.

I know that doesn't fit into your fabricated reality Barney, but those of us not on the far left have to live in the real reality.

Alternatives? Well, we were expected to referee the match-up between the Israelis and the Palestinians, er I mean the whole Muslim world, and now we're faced with officiating the schism between the two major players of one of those factions. One of those little schismers has 'Da Bum', and one just wants it badly.
==============================

brainy, you sited violations of resolutions 687 and 1284 (several times) by Saddam, but resolution 1454 recalled both of those and several others. Resolution 1441 recalled a whole bunch more, so we invaded while Saddam was either complying to or still had time to comply with the UN resolutions.

My corrections should have been "Sorry, that was resolution 1454 and 'NOT' 1457.

Bunyan, you are so full of crap. You can cherry-pick a few quotes from the ISG about what Saddam may have done if the sanctions were lifted, or finding pre Gulf war ammunitions, but show me the details of the WMD stock piles, or the Nuke programs, or mobile weapons labs, or the 9/11 connections.

No, Clinton just bombed them. He opted for the quick fix to buy some time so he could pass the problem on to posterity.

Since the invasion of Iraq we have learned from documentary evidence that Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1996 paralyzed the Hussein regime and very nearly brought about its collapse. This was not known to US leaders at the time who assumed that the bombing had little effect.

For those who don't believe that aerial bombing campaigns can accomplish anything I would refer you to a study of the NATO air campaign against Serbia in 1999 that forced their withdrawal from Kosovo. With this campaign, Bill Clinton proved that aerial assaults could in fact accomplish significant strategic objectives on the ground with minimal loss of life to our own forces.

We've also seen reports that the Russians, with their extensive network of spies and collaborators in Iraq, had offered to organize the Iraqi military into conducting a coup to overthrow the Hussein regime, but that Bush rejected this course of action.

The bottom line is that there were a dozen possible alternative courses of action in dealing with the Hussein regime that did not involve US troops on the ground and a lengthy and costly occupation. Bush is the one who chose this course and history will hold him accountable for the results.

I didn't cite violations of anything other than 1441. 1441 cites violations of the other resolutions.

I don't know if you just CAN'T read or refuse to, but 1454 didn't recall 687, thought it DID recall 1284.

"Brainy, too bad that most of those resolutions were superseded by resolution 1447 which gave Saddam 180- days to comply with the conditions. The resolution went into effect on 12/5/02. You can do the math"

1454 also recalled "in particular 1447 (2002) of 4 December 2002."

Barney,

This broken record* of an argument has been going on for years. I'm sure all that evidence has been presented to you hundreds of times. It is you who refuse to see it and instead pretend it doesn't exist. It is not within my abilities to help you here as I am not a MD or psychiatrist and therefore cannot prescribe whatever medicine you might need to help you.

You should talk to Paul Hoosen. I don't think he could prescribe anything either, but at least he might be able to name some drugs that could help someone in your condition. (Of course if there was such a drug, we should start adding to the water supply in every large city in the country- and make sure Rosie, Alec, Michael, and Martin get mega-doses.)

*If there are any youngsters here who don't get this archaic reference, in the old days we listened to music on vinyl albums. Sometimes the albums would get a scratch on their surface that would cause them to play the same thing over and over and over again. Just like the comment threads that have anything to do with Iraq.

"Since the invasion of Iraq we have learned from documentary evidence that Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1996 paralyzed the Hussein regime and very nearly brought about its collapse. This was not known to US leaders at the time who assumed that the bombing had little effect"

No shit. The intelligence community didn't have a clue about what was going on inside Iraq before we invaded? Bush must have lied to them.

"Bush is the one who chose this course and history will hold him accountable for the results."

And those of you on the left will do everything in your power to help the terrorists achieve this outcome that you so strongly desire.

Damn it, now I'm confused.

Someone who has read the UN resolutions... in your opinion, do they mean recall as in rescind, or recall as in bring to mind?

I think it may mean the latter, as it contines to referr to sections of resolutions it has recalled. Why would you do that if you rescinded them?

I made the fatal error of believing that Barney had the correct meaning.

Hey Larkin, maybe Bush looked into Putin's soul and decided he didn't want him in charge of Iraq.
=========================

i haven't been a fan of the way the Bush administration ran the post-invasion operations. however, i have never doubted for a minute that the invasion was necessary. all one has to do is look to history for what happens when one leaves a wanna be tyrant to grow.

oh...and i found this article very enlightening...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29092/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml

oh, and BG. i could give a rat's ass what the UN has to say about anything. they're more worried about their own place in the world and checking US interests than doing the right thing.

"No shit. The intelligence community didn't have a clue about what was going on inside Iraq before we invaded? Bush must have lied to them_brainy435"

Russia had many contacts inside Iraq prior to the invasion. In fact, Russia said it could arrange a coup d'etat against Saddaam. Bush said no.

Perhaps because at that time American firms were rehabilitating Iraq's oil industry and didn't wish to risk losing control of the source.

2 months before the invasion, these firms were sold to other American companies. The seller was Halliburton.

So Cheney was enabling Saddaam the means to present himself a worthy foe (with WMDs and EVERYTHING). Imagine Cheney's jaw drop when he discovered that Saddaam spent all that dough on kitsch and DVDs! A real knee-slapper.

But seriously: There's a reason this administration avoids the Iraq sanctions/Oil for Food scandals: Halliburton had been operating through French front companies the whole time.

kef, great article. I especial like the part how Bush let WND fall in the lap of the terrorists:

"And the reason you don't know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, 'lost' his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam's WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war."

And you have a problem with the UN?

Correction: WMD

ke_future,

That article says this:

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria.

This is actually support for the contention that invading Iraq WAS NOT the right course of action. If this is true, it proves that invading and occupying a country is not a good way to eliminate its WMD but is rather an effective method for scattering it.

It would have been far better, in retrospect, to have striven for a regime change that removed Hussein from power but kept Iraq's military and security infrastructure in tact. A new Iraqi regime might have agreed (as Libya did) to eliminate their WMD programs in cooperation with the US and the UN. We could have prevented the country from becoming a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and prevented the Iranians from expanding their sphere of influence as they have.

ke_future,

Good article. Kinda puts the MSM in a bind. They'd like to publish it as it does show incompetence on the part of the Bush admin., but on the other hand it refutes the "No WMD" which is a central tenet in leftist dogma.

It's not a surprise that only right-biased press would cover it.

We'll stand down when they.. Oh never mind:

"Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces."

bryanD, I'd like to see a source on that.

It's telling that, again, you do not trust the US government where oil deals are concerned, but have all the faith in the world in the Russian "government" in the face of the same oil deals.

Da, very interesting, comrade.

Barney, now that you're done lying your way through the UN resolutions you're going to lie your way through the Spectator article?

"I seem to recall that he met all UN conditions at the time of the invasion. You know, no WMD."
Barney

"kef, great article. I especial like the part how Bush let WND fall in the lap of the terrorists:..."
uh..that's Barney, too

So Bush lied about there being WMD's in Iraq AND stupidly gave the WMD's in Iraq to terrorists. What the hell are you smoking?

As for you Larkin, Libya didn't give up anything until we smashed Saddam in 2003. So your insistence that we shouldn't have done the one thing that made everyone painfully aware that we were serious is kinda dumb.

It's also asinine for all you libs to insist that intelligence agencies "knew" Iraq didn't have WMD programs, since they were saying the same thing about Libya... and look how that turned out.

brainy(SIC!),

You really don't know about Halliburton-in-Iraq-since-Gulf War 1? (Maybe, probably, before?)
Are are you a kid or did history and politics just find you this week? What are you doing here? Typing practice?

"We'll stand down when they.. Oh never mind:_BG2000"

You can hear a pin drop in the neocon blogosphere :o~

I GOTTA watch FOX News Sunday for this one!

Here's a "reputable" source for Halliburton background.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

I'll have to look for a coup link. I remember the story contemporaneously.

"It's also asinine for all you libs to insist that intelligence agencies "knew" Iraq didn't have WMD programs.." By Brainy

What that is lie. Everyone knew before the invasion that Saddam DID NOT have a Nuke weapons program (el Baradie UN speech 3/03):

At this stage, the following can be stated:
One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question.

Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.
As I stated above, the IAEA will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.

www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

braynD, Our stategyis no longer a "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" for as some wag said "In our initial efforts to hand security missions over to Iraqi forces, we took the training wheels off too early - and the bike fell over." .. Our strategy now (a more realistic one) is "to basically hold on, and wait for the Iraqis to do something," a State Department official said recently.

Saddam needed to go and the Iraqis are creating their own nation(s). I wish we'd stuck around to help the Southeast Asians create theirs.
====================================

BarneyG2000, I see you already quoted from the article I sent a link to. Incidentially, in case you or other posters here, don't quite know how to make a hyperlink, it is quite easy, perhaps too easy, once you get the hang of it?

Steve Crickmore: Sepoy Rebellion? Make Room For Sistani?

Could be the beginning of an accellerated End. If FOBs are contracted we'll know. Not enough troops for multiple stands. Look for a box patterns to develop on maps.

Kim==,

You'll like this documentary. You're welcome.

http://www.vpro.nl/programma/plaatsdesoordeels/afleveringen/33882177/media/33964115/?bw=bb&player=wmp&media=33964115&refernr=&hostname=www&portalid=programmasites&x=40&y=10#

Thanks bryanD, I'm listening to your documentary. The sound and content, (not for attribution ) is of high quality, but is their a corresponding video?
Sepoy rebellion?..I don't think that is the controversial historical Indian incident that the administration would like to see take place in Iraq.

bryanD, I'd like to how how you came to the idiotic conclusion that I said Halliburton was never in Iraq.
I said that given the both us and Russia were in Iraq, you chose to believe that Russia's intentions were noble while our were sinister. Retard.

Barney, jesus man, you need remedial reading comprehension. The actual context of the quote of mine you used was that our intelligence agencies were completely broadsided by Libya's program. They had thought Libya was without a program, when in fact they had everything they needed to make a bomb in a few years. So to insist that the intelligence agencies KNEW... not suspected... what our enemies capabilities is provably false. You're lying again.

It's also fun that you extensively quoted a man speaking derisively solely due to the actions we took in removing Saddam. On programs where he didn't have hindsight, he sounds more like this:
"ElBaradei said he already has gathered good information about where Libya bought supplies for its nuclear program.

He said most countries from which materials came did not know about the black market sales, which he called "a big loophole" in export controls.

"It's an eye opener to see how much material has been going from one country to the other, the extent of the black market network," he said. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/29/libya.nuclear/

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by some bastard in a suit calmly explaining how he's been an unmitigated disaster in so sensitive a position. Especially since he then derides the very efforts that gave him all the information that opened his eyes, as it were.

Aaaa brainy, open your eyes and discover the facts. The el Baradie transcript was about Iraq pre invasion and not about Libya. You stated over numerous comments that our intelligence did not know the facts about Saddam's WMD programs. I provided the facts that we did know and Bush invaded anyways.

And in violation of UN resolution 1441 and 1454. You do 'recall'?

I think Saddam's three billion dollars went to Libya to buy Niger's yellowcake and finance Khaddafy and Saddam's version of Khan's bomb. I think that's why Libya caved on its program right after Saddam was deposed. I imagine this will be a centerpiece of the campaign of the coming Republican Presidential candidate.
===================================

Dude, seriously, now you have to be tweaking me. Even you can't be THAT dumb, can you?

"What that is lie. Everyone knew before the invasion that Saddam DID NOT have a Nuke weapons program (el Baradie UN speech 3/03):"

I meant to address this before. His speech is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

Minus the quote you made up. No wonder you never link to anything useful.

So you made up a quote that refers to the invasion of Iraq in the past tense, even though you claim "the el Baradie transcript was about Iraq pre invasion" Which the speech was, only it didn't contain the quote you are lying about. Why do even bother wasting the effort to type this crap?

Barney, you dope. You're saying that we went into Iraq "..in violation of UN resolution 1441...." which is the EXACT resolution that gave us authority to conduct the war.

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

And after rereading resolution 1454, after discovering the extent of your learning disability, it DOES extend the inspections 180 days but NEVER REVERSES THE AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE in 1441.

Brainy, why are you being a dick? My quote that you claim is a lie is the same one you link to that proves I am lying?

el Baradei presented his results on 2/14 and then again on 3/7. Both dates are before the invasion. Read his finding:
-No Nukes
-No Yellow Cake
-No Programs
-No Aluminum Tubes
-No Magnets.

Over 200 inspections and nothing. Saddam was in complete compliance with resolution 1441.

"but is their a corresponding video?_steve075@hotmail.com"

Press the arrow on the player, or is their sarcasm shooting over my head :) Of course, w/o high speed, streaming vids are a "B". Been there. No practical youtube :(

"Sepoy rebellion?..I don't think that is the controversial historical Indian incident that the administration would like to see take place in Iraq."

Agreed. But the Sepoys. Native auxilliaries. Occupying force too small...

"bryanD, I'd like to how how you came to the idiotic conclusion that I said Halliburton was never in Iraq.
I said that given the both us and Russia were in Iraq, you chose to believe that Russia's intentions were noble while our were sinister. Retard."

I can't remember what we were talking about (Friday!). So, my bad. Here's a pro-Russian backgrounder of current events. Read with open mind. As for the source: save it. I consider antiwar.com to be in the top 3 non-p0rn :o) sites on the web!
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10834

Saddam needed to be gone and no one was getting it done. Be grateful for Bush. It's a dirty, thankless, job cleaning up the gutters of scum like Saddam, but someone has to do it. I'm happy he's cheerful about the role he's been stuck with.
=====================================

kim==:

Saddaam was counter-balance to Iran. Not that I think Iran is/was an imperialistically-minded country anyway, but a regionally blustery Iraq DEFINITELY had a useful purpose in keeping Iran FOCUSED. LOCALLY. At Iraqi risk (not ours).

Now if Iran WAS an existential threat, how would the USA benefit from a militant Iraq (Iran's enemy, our dependent) being turned into an Open City of spies, assasins, slackers and fanatics?

As for your Bush elegy: I'll give you this: the guy probably MEANT well, but he fell in with the wrong crowd. I WOULD enjoy a beer with the guy, but right now, he's in pain.

"Cheerful"??? I'll grant him more humanity than you do; agenda during the day, then sleepless nights.

Barney, you ignorant slut.

""What that is lie. Everyone knew before the invasion that Saddam DID NOT have a Nuke weapons program (el Baradie UN speech 3/03):"" is the quote you gave. IT APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE LINKED ARTICLE. So you lied.

Hey! I found Jayson Blair! It's Barney!

As stated before, resolution 1441 had many conditions, including violations of the cease fire of 1991. We found repeated violations: drones outside the allowed range, old munitions that Saddam was supposed to have accounted for and destroyed, and repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire. So you lied again.

Jayson Blair is on the editorial board of Drudge Retort, note the 't'. I don't know if it is a joke or not.

I understand he is talented.
================================

bD, history will be good to Bush whether al Qaeda goes away or not.
===============================

I love your latest rationalization for the horror of Saddam. He was a 'counterbalance' to Iran. You need a little counterbalancing. Really, what has gone wrong with all you leftists?
=====================================

These Americans are crazy...