ArmyMaj, I know you think your service is "unique" around here, but many of us also are retired military and most out rank you! So how about you stop trying to garnish "legitimacy" by flaunting your rank and status. That said, I would like to address your "witch hunt" comment. I strongly suspect you had no problem with the 8 year $80 million investigation of sitting President William Clinton. One must ask why that would be? Do you not support your president while he is in office? Before answering, I am not interested in why you hated Clinton. He has been out of office for over 5 years and is not the reason we are in this silly war. But I do find it a bit hipocritical that throughout all these blogs you demand we, the American public, unwaiveringly support President Bush, all the while you constantly attack exPres. Clinton and Carter. Do you not see the ironic hipocracy in your stance? But could you address your "witch hunt" comment then please defend the unbelievable "witch hunt" conducted against Clinton? I am curious, after 8 years and $80 million, all they found was the "Monica thing." Was it worth the money? Oh, by the way, how much has the country spent investigating the Bush administration and their conduct? Oh...yeah...ZERO!!!

One other comment. You need to get over the "bad mouth our soldiers accomplishments" crap you and your neocon brothers and sisters constantly put out. As a retired officer with a son serving I love and support our military beyond any imagination. That is why I am so unwilling to ask them to sacrifice their lives for a misbegotton cause. I am shocked that you, a retired Army Major, can sit in such support for such a folly. Surely,with your vast knowledge tactics and warfare, you must see what so many Generals have seen in the conduct of this war by the administration.

I forgot, did I put you on ignore or not? Wow for someone that is against my pride in my service you seem to feel obligated to toot your own horn. I think thou doth protest too much.

Until free speech is abolished, like the democratic party wants to do with "The Path to 9/11" you have no right to tell anyone what to "get over". The reason we are in this silly war is because for eight years, Clinton did NOTHING to stop our enemies!

No one has ever said Saddam was involved in 9/11, That is your sides way to delegitimize this war. He failed to comply with inspections, fired at our aircraft, had rockets with greater range than allowed, unmanned drones and supported terrorists. He was a threat as noted by most of the now anti-Bush, I mean anti-war democrats.

I for one do not want America to suffer another defeat the scale of Vietnam, another war that was won on the battlefield, yet lost on the homefront.

Let's agree to diagree, oh and for the record, I din't have to attck you did I? Live and let live, turn the other cheek, etc., etc, etc.

You missed my point. You constantly refer to your service as though it gives you some sort of "legitimacy." What I am trying to point out is that in this community there are a significant number of career military with children currently serving. You seem to indicate that we, who disagree with the direction of our country, are aiding and abetting the enemy. That we couldn't possibly know what you, a retired Army Major, could know. I simply want you to be aware of the fact that many of us have served full careers either all active or a combination of active and resereve. Indeed Tim Parker is a retired LtCol. This is by no means a small feat. Yet you dismiss him because he fails to agree with your position. You come across as though you must know so much more than he because you are an "ArmyMAJretired." I simply was pointing out that he, and many of us, have equal or greater service, rank, or experience than you.

As for your constant Clinton bashing, I think that if you are going to command unrelenting respect for Bush because he is President, then why don't you afford the same respect for Clinton, also a two term President? As for your comments about Saddam and 9/11 I wish to remind you of the three reasons that we went to war. Feel free to read the State of the Union address by President Bush. The three reasons cited for the war were:
1.Attempt to get weapons grade uranium from Niger
2.Large amounts of WMD's
3.A close connection to Al Qeda

NO WHERE (other than a reference to "illegal arms")were any of the "reasons" for the war you outlined given!
As for Bush and his administration never saying Saddam was involved in 9/11...Simply go read so many of the administrations inuendo, accusations, etc. Bush to this day still always refers to 9/11 when defending the war in Iraq. But research it yourself. Simply google the subject and you will be inundated with references to imply the connection. Here is one simple quote from an article dated March 14,2003 from the Christian Science Monitor:

"WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks."

Here is from USA Today of 9/06/03:

"President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however."

And this from CNN.com June 15, 2004:

""Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

One last quote from the 2003 State of the Union:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."

Check it out. Then tell us "No one has ever said Saddam was involved in 9/11." By the way, if you read the newest Senate Intelligence report according to todays AJC Saddam ordered his Secret Service to arrest Al Zarqawi and refused any assistance to Al Qeda.

Go ahead, Check it out. And while your at it be sure to review the State of the Union

Flip flopping for political gain BOTHERS me.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print

I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

I'll look up your points if you look up mine:

In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

Seems like the Intelligence community let the country down, not the President.

"I'll look up your points if you look up mine:"

They're not your points.

They are the Wall Street Journal's editorial page points.

Specifically, you've cut and pasted copyrighted sections from the Thursday, November 3rd 2005 Wall Street Journal and passed them off as your own.

LINK to editorial in question

That's called "plagiarism" where I come from.

I concur with all of the comments and quotes you made! I never defended the other politicians who said whatever they felt the country wanted to hear. That's politics in it's worst form. Ironically Crazy Howie Dean was maybe the only consistant voice in the group (look where it got him). I also agree that there was a terrible breakdown in intelligence. But there was also considerable evidence that refuted what Bush used as justification to go to war. Problem was that Bush didn't want long in depth briefs, only bottom lines. So... bottom line on WMD's was George Tenet's single sentence "Slam Dunk Mr. President." As punishment for his horrible misjudgement he was awarded the Freedom Medal, civilian equivelant to the CMH. As for the Niger letter even Condoleeza Rice admitted on Meet the Press that they knew that was false well before the State of the Union and had "no idea how it got in" the State of the Union! Come on... even a diehard Repub like you has to admit that SOMEONE in power SURELY proof read the State of the Union. You mean they "simply missed" one of the 3 major reasons for going to war? OOPS! As for WMD's, the Delfur Report stated that the WMD program was ended by a cruise missle that your most vilified president sent over in 1998. Go figure. Clinton destroyed the WMD program that we went to war over. Oh, by the way, the major source of much of our intelligence was an Iraqi in Germany who, according to the German govt., was a "chronic liar" who would say anything to get his family out of Iraq. He was the single source justifying our war. And you may remember that the U.N. Arms inspection teams were asking for more time and trying to tell Bush that there was no evidence of WMD's. But Bush chose to believe a "chronic liar" rather than his own rep on the ground in Iraq (David Kay).
But all the "goofs" in history, honest or intentional, can't justify the "reasons" that come out of their mouths now. The constant "shift" in reasoning (one may call it a flip flop) will not atone for the 2700 deaths of American soldiers and sailors. To tacitlly accept it as "gee we simply need to shut up and support our Pres." is to do them a grave disservice. We need to hold accounable those responisible for these grave misjudgments. Surely you would have held Clinton responsible...right? You can't tell me that if Clinton had invaded Iraq in 2000 after the Cole you would have not only stopped your vocal (I suspect you were vocally opposed to him) opposition of him and offered your full fledged support and silence (especially if the quagmire was the same).
So my confusion lies with those who actually were in favor of this war (I never was because it seemed obviously flawed from the start). Why have you not demanded accountability? Why have you not objected to the failure to stabilize Afganistan? Why have you not questioned Bush's failure on his promise to get Bin Laden? But above all, why haven't you demanded better for our troops? Better equipment. Better VA benefits. Better strategy. Even a defined goal and mission. Why have you accepted (and demand we all quietly accept) Bush using our military to build a nation. A leading issue and promise in his 2000 election. But really, I ask again, WHY HAVE YOU NOT DEMANDED ACCOUNATBILITY? You should be yelling from the top of your lungs for better accountability and leadership for our troops. Instead you simply demand silence from those who do.

As for Iraq, they weren't in any way involved in 9/11 (even Bush admitted that on 8/21/06). Egypt and Saudi Arabia supplied hijackers and funding. Afganistan provided a training ground, and Iran has certainly provided haven (if not more). So how do we handle it, we attack the only country that, according to the newest info, DIDN'T support Al Queda but actually feared them and refused them aid in any form!

Was Iraq a threat to us? Certainly not "direct and immediate." Would they become a threat? Maybe. But as a former military man, you certainly must agree that we should have dealt with the "immediate" threat (Al Queda) and finished the "job at hand" (Afganistan) before diverting our troops and funds.

Pres. Bush (the elder) stated that the reason he didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 was because we would find ourselves as "an occupying force in an incredibly hostile environment with no exit strategy." Maybe junior should have asked Dad.

One last thought... do you really believe that a country of three seperate religious groups who hate each other will really achieve democracy? At least Saddam hated and feared Bin Laden. Where do we go now? There is no single strong voice in Iraq who can bring that country together and run it. In short, there is no solution on the table.

Go ahead, tell me that even Dems supported the war. True, but they were given the intelligent reports the administration wanted to give. Not all the evidence. Go ahead, tell me the Dems have no exit strategy. True. How do we, short of complete withdrawl, get out? Since we created the chaos, we simply can't walk away and say "too bad, enjoy your years of civil war and mass deaths." But if we hadn't gone in we wouldn't be in this situation. The world wouldn't hate us, and we could have stabalized Afganistan and probably broken up Al Queda instead of making them a world leader in terrorism. By the way, how about those poppy fields in Afganistan. Here comes the Taliban again.

Anyway, some food for thought as five years after 9/11 approaches.

Your lenghty comments serve to warn us not to believe any politician or elected official, be he demo or neocon, as they will say what is advantageius at that moment. If a mistake has been made in this war, then we need to punish those who went along with it, or reward them greatly. What people said as we went along means squat! I have my opinion and I don't care what Hillary or Cheney said for the last five years.

Just one small comment regarding your commentary: You say "the last time I checked Tim, you still have ALL the freedoms that you had the day Clinton left office," You're right. We do still have all the freedoms AND we also have the largest deficit this country has every had and it's still growing!!! We unfortunately still have another year and a half of the Bush era!!

Thanks to his involvement in this war, our deficit is going to be so high by the time he leaves office, it'll be our children's faces on those letters we all receive that say "only $1.00 a day can feed and cloth this child"!!

Oh, and by the way, I believe the deficit was at it's lowest when Clinton left office.

Bush has just taken Ray-gun-nomics 1 step further. I am sure Hillary can straighten this all out for us...w/ Bill's help.

Quick question Armydude: Were the "16 little words" that the CIA asked not be included in the State of the Union about Iraq attempting to purchase Uranium TRUE WORDS? Or were they FALSE words? Does that means that even Republican administrations can be WRONG sometimes? Is truth NOW UNAMERICAN? IS someone paying you to say this NONSENSE??????

I am embarrased to say I spent 25 years in the Air Force and this Warthog Jockey isn't smart enough to know what the final report is on his own rhetorical question:

One of several translated captured Documents

(I can't believe you are showing an Army Major is smarter than you like this.) Do the rest of your research on your own

Don't tell me you actually believe that forged document that Chalabi's goons just happened to leave lying around for NY Times reporter (and Bush apologist) Judith Miller to find? Chalabi's buddies took tons of documents aways from Saddam's ministries yet left the one itsy bitsy piece of corroborating evidence to the WMD scam behind.

riiiiiiiiight.

You're going to have to do better than that, my slack-jawed mouthbreathing Constitution-hating ditto-monkey friend.

Valerie Plame became a covert CIA case officer in 1989 serving in Greece and then Athens. In the early 1990’s she became one of the CIA’s most clandestine employees, a nonofficial covert officer (NOC), with the mission of recruiting covert CIA agents. She joined the CIA’s Counter Proliferation Division in 1997 specializing in Iraq. The CPD was greatly expanded after 9/11 and was renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Plame was in charge of its operations group vetting intelligence from Iraqi defectors and searching for WMDs. When Cheney, Rove and Libby outed her to Robert Novak, she was still an active NOC and was engaged in some of the most secret and sensitive work being done by the CIA. Your contention that she was a non-covert agent is belied by these facts and most importantly by the fact that the original charges (that her covert cover was blown by the leaks) being investigated by the Justice Department were based on an official complaint from the CIA.

Joseph Wilson was a career US diplomat from 1976 until 1998 with extensive experience in Africa through service in several diplomatic posts including Ambassador to Gabon. He was also the acting Ambassador to Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. President George H.W. Bush dubbed Wilson "a true American hero" for his efforts in helping to free more than 100 American hostages in Iraq after the Kuwait invasion. Wilson also served from 1997 to 1998 as Special Assistant to President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council where he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. It would have been hard to find a more qualified person to investigate the allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

It is clear from the facts that Plame’s covert status was blown and Ambassador Wilson’s has been demonized by the administration for purely political reasons.

Can you post a link to back up your claims? Looks alot like Winipedia.

Gee maybe if she were so concerned with her "status" she would have not recommended her "husband" "investigate" then write an OP Ed piece in the New York Times about his "classified" mission for political reasons.

That said there is no proof that anyone other than Armitage leaked any info. Nice conviction of Cheney, Rove and lLbby by the way. The last time I checked in this country, one is assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The next hurdle would be if Armitage or anyone else KNOWINGLY exposed a covert agent. I sure would like to know the truth.

Maybe the Wilson/Plame lawsuit will shine some light on the incident.

For Valerie Plame, my source was David Corn's new book: "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and Selling of the Iraq War." Plame is now writing her own book. I can't wait. For Joseph Wilson my source was his State Department bio. That's part of the United States government. Thanks for the Wikipedia reference. I'll check it out.

this new board we're getting has an eyeroll icon.