Hack, President Bush also said today was not the time to be discussing gun control and we should be giving aid and comfort to those families who lost loved ones.

It's a shame Mr. Bush's craven minions didn't get the message.
________________________________________________________
Why bother to BAN troublemakers if you're just going to let them RE-REGISTER?

Start your own newspaper, create a website with blogs and Ban everyone you want to!

It sounds VERY important to you.
________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

Didn't get my copy of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy talking points today, Rove is watching his e-mails I guess!

So you are speaking out against Rosie O'Donnell's anti-gun remarks bas?

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

That is the response I would hope for. I only hope it was an answer to a question and not an unsolicited statement.

Our divisions in America are deeper today than ever before in my lifetime. Sadly, the unity we felt after 9/11 was temporary and will probably require a great deal of tragedy to duplicate.

I'm not sure exactly when we became so politically polarized.

I am also not so sure that the 'salad bowl' mentality and our hyper political correctness is as effective at solidifying National Unity, National Identity and National Pride as the old 'melting pot' philosophy was for our initial 200 years.

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

After yesterday's unbelievable comment that we "Have lost the war in Iraq" by Uncle Harry, I must ask you: Now how do you like Harry Reid?
While we are on the topic, come on liberals, tell me:

Is there any war worth fighting? If so, what war?

Is there any war we could win? If so, how will you know when you ahve won?

How long are you willing to fight a war before we cut the funds and stop supporting the troops and declare we have "Lost the war"?

Will we give up this easily when we fight in our own streets and the car bombs are here?

If we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq, why does Al-Qaeda want us out of Iraq so badly?

Why haven't we been attacked since 9/11?

Answer me- come on you emotive, knee-jerk, liberals- tell me?

_______________________________

Speaking of incompetent, emotive, liberal pukes, how do you like how Alec Baldwin talks to his 11 year old daughter?

__________________________________________________

Why you can’t believe banmani

I heard this out of his mouth: If the present course is continued, then we have lost this war.
I agree.
There was, and is, a plan that could easily win that war if winning is all one wants. It amounted to approximately a 500,000 person occupying force right after capturing Baghdad, eliminating the war criminals and letting the Iraq army continue under American supervision. We were dumb and thought the occupying part wouldn't be needed. Now we don't have 500,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq, and, we would have to win the place all over again.
Covering up this horrid mistake win't make us look any better.

Like the vast majority of Americans, I believe the war against Al Qaida in Afghanistan is a war worth fighting. I believe we should return our focus to Ossama Bin Ladin. Remember him? I believe that when the majority of Iraqis say they want us out of their nation, we should oblige. I believe that even the President said a political solution is needed in Iraq. I agree with that statement. I will not throw American life on top of American life in a country with people who say they don't want us there without questioning policies that put more of us there.

I believe that if it only takes a war in Iraq to keep Al Qaida out of the US, we have wasted billions on the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Airport creening via the TSA, and Immigration Control. What say you, Enigma?

Cheers bro, and I understand your opinion. I just don't agree.

Kevin "Hack" King

I will try to keep up with your thought process. I must admit, you guys are much smarter than I am so just bare with me. I’ll start with Part 1 of 3:

Like the vast majority of Americans, I believe the war against Al Qaida in Afghanistan is a war worth fighting. I believe we should return our focus to Ossama Bin Ladin. Remember him?

I don’t think that Osama Bin Ladin’s is ‘leading’ Al-Qaeda or that his capture would have any effect on the current conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not believe that Bin-Ladin has command and control capability, nor do I believe the structure of Al-Qaeda is set up with a single leader. Bin Laden is simply a figure head who, if still alive, is spending time moving from place to place and hiding. He is a political diversion and a detractor from a wider mission. I find it interesting how many liberal news outlets, like CNN, and most Democrats say what you have said.

Let me try to back up my opinion:

The “Organization for the Foundation of the Holy Struggle in Mesopotamia (Iraq) تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين, transliteration: Tanẓīm Qā‘idah il-Jihād fī Bilād ir-Rāfidayn), more commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq by western media and others in the west, is an Iraqi Insurgency group that is believed to be a successor to a network allegedly formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Palestinian mujahid believed to have operated against United States-led coalition forces in Iraq.”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

We killed Zarqawi by the way – in Iraq. Again, we killed him in Iraq.

Surely you can see that Al-Qaeda exists, is in Iraq, and we are fighting them there- no?

I am equally sure we can agree that, by killing Zarqawi and others, we are doing grave damage to the leader(s) and the network of Al-Qaeda.

In addition, your premise that we are somehow not hunting for Bin-Laden is absolutely incorrect. Why would you think that we are not looking for Bin Laden – if only for political and moral gains?

One of the sources of support for my last statement

One of the sources of support for my last statement

It is certainly worth noting that Osama Bin Laden was already at war with us all throughout the world much earlier than on 9/11/2001. Indeed, THIS IS A GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR:
• 2/1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed. TARGET AMERICA
• 10/1993: Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia. TARGET AMERICA
• 1994: Investigation of the WTC bombing reveals that it was only a small part of a massive attack plan that included hijacking a plane and crashing it into CIA headquarters. TARGET AMERICA
• 6/1996: Truck bomb explodes outside Khobar Towers military complex in Saudi Arabia; 19 American servicemen killed, hundreds of others injured. TARGET AMERICA
• 8/1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa; 224 killed including 12 Americans. TARGET AMERICA
• 12/1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S. Other Algerians subsequently arrested were "Afghan alumni." TARGET AMERICA
• 12/1999: Jordanian police arrested members of a cell planning attacks against Western tourists. TARGET AMERICA
• 10/2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed. TARGET AMERICA
****Bush now in office*****
• 9/11/2001: Destruction of WTC, attack on Pentagon. TARGET AMERICA
• 4/11/2002: Explosion at ancient synogogue in Tunisia leaves 17 dead, including 11 German tourists.
• 5/2002: Car explodes outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
• 6/2002: Bomb explodes outside American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. TARGET AMERICA
• 10/2002: Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, mostly Australian citizens.
• 10/2002: Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, kills 16.
• 5/2003: Suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. TARGET AMERICA
• 5/2003: Four bombs kill 33 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
• 8/2003: Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
• 11/2003: Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound killing 17.
• 11/2003: Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The following week a British bank in Istanbul is bombed.
• 3/2004: Ten terrorists bombs explode almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400. A Moroccan affiliate of al-Qaeda claims responsibility.
• 5/29–31/2004: Terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, then take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound. After a stand-off, three of the four assailants escape, leaving 22 people dead, all but three of them foreigners.
• 6/11–19/2004: Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson, Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nearly a week after his capture, photos of his body are posted on an Islamist website. Saudi security forces find and kill four suspected terrorists, including the self-proclaimed military leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, after they are seen dumping a body. TARGET AMERICA
• 12/6/2004: Militants, believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda, drive up to the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, storm the gates, and kill 5 consulate employees, none of whom were American. Saudi security forces subdue the attackers, killing four.
• 7/7/2005: Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
• 10/1/2005: 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.
• 11/9/2005: 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan. TARGET AMERICA
One of the sources of support for my last statement

In fact, “Bin Laden also studied with radical Islamic thinkers and may have already been organizing al-Qaeda when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Bin Laden was outraged when the government allowed U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. In 1991 he was expelled from Saudi Arabia for anti-government activities.”

This segment will lead you through my next point, that Bin Laden is not the leader of Al-Qaeda:

“Although al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have become virtually synonymous, bin Laden does not run the organization single-handedly. His top advisor is Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's theological leader and bin Laden's probable successor.”

“Al-Qaeda's leadership oversees a loosely organized network of cells. It can recruit members from thousands of "Arab Afghan" veterans and radicals around the world. Its infrastructure is small, mobile, and decentralized—each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of other cells. Local operatives rarely know anyone higher up in the organization's hierarchy.”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Your next statements that“I believe that when the majority of Iraqis say they want us out of their nation, we should oblige.” and “I believe that even the President said a political solution is needed in Iraq.” are perplexing to me.

The second statement first please: “I believe that even the President said a political solution is needed in Iraq.” Do you think this political solution, that we all agree is needed, would have come about without our military intervention? Of course not. Saddam was not going to resign was he? Indeed, most of us support a two pronged approach, one that has been underway since before the first ink stained blue finger was triumphantly raised in to the air and before the first real free election in Mesopotamia had ever taken place. Regardless, since we already agree on this, I’ll move on.

Your statement that “I believe that when the majority of Iraqis say they want us out of their nation, we should oblige.” has great merit. While it is true that most polls assert that they want a “timetable for withdrawal”, all do not. Nor does that mean we “have lost the war” (Reid 2007) or that they want us to withdraw NOW.
In addition, many of those polls stated that whenever “Asked to assess the readiness of Iraqi security forces to stand on their own in six months, 53 percent say that they “will be strong enough to deal with the security challenges Iraq will face” while 46 percent say they “will still need the help of military forces from other countries. This level of confidence is up from January, when only 39 percent thought Iraqi forces would be strong enough in six months and 59 percent said they would still need foreign help.”
One of the sources of support for my last statement

The previous link is from the liberal organization World Public Opinion.Org, of which
“Some of PIPA/WPO’s best known studies include a study linking viewership of Fox News to misperceptions of facts concerning the war in Iraq; analyses of the separate realities of Bush and Kerry voters in 2004; and studies showing that the American public vastly overestimates the amount the U.S. government spends on foreign aid.”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Of course, some other, polls show that “A growing number of Iraqis think occupying U.S. troops should stay in Iraq until the security situation improves, research published this month has shown. In a survey carried out by the respected Psychological Research Centre of Baghdad University, 71.5 percent of Iraqis think the U.S. occupation is necessary at least for a while, compared to 42 percent in a survey by the centre in June.” These polls fluctuate as you know.

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Clearly, depending on which polls you view, even with American interests aside (which I disagree with as well- but I digress), we should remain for either a little longer or for ‘about another year, or in some polls, 'however long it takes' according to the desires of the Iraqi people (which I must state again- only figures in to a portion of the equation for me but alas, I am using YOUR criteria).

I will continue in my next blog------------------------ 2/3

So Bin Laden is not the leader? George Bush also isn't our leader---his people do the work just like Bin Laden's people. "The Camp" was started by Bin Laden. He delegates a lot.
Thanks for the translation. I assume it is correct.
Why don't we just stay there forever? Kinda like we do in Korea and Germany and many other places.

I appreciated your statement Hack that "I will not throw American life on top of American life in a country with people who say they don't want us there without questioning policies that put more of us there."

This brings us to my favorite part of the discussion. How did we get there (in Iraq I mean)? We can certainly, as well as we should certainly, as you put it “…question(ing) policies that put more of us there”.

I saw you have completely discounted the 17 United Nations Resolutions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html) and the related argument that Denise Conner so eloquently and accurately put forth; therefore, I will try to attempt yet another route to the common sense conclusions we share.

So - then Bush Lied- there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. No way he, and all the others were simply wrong? Maybe they weren't wrong...maybe we missed the transfer to Syria? Maybe Hack, Maybe?

“The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability.”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

“Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of such weapons were found, leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have also been found,S_LINK90 and most weapons inspectors do not now believe that the WMD program proceeded after 2002,[1] though various theories continue to be put forward.”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Bare with me here so you will understand why so many Democrats thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction:

“The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army. This included information that was used by the Iraqis in targeting chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and U.N. expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[19] Most of these occurred during the Iran-Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings of 1991. Chemical weapons were used extensively, with more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[20] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan.”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Here are a few times that Iraq DID use WMDs:

Location /WMD used /Date /Casualties

Haij Umran/ Mustard /August 1983/ fewer than 100
Iranian/Kurdish Panjwin /Mustard October-November 1983 /3,001
Iranian/Kurdish Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500
Iranians al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100
Iranians Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000
Iranians al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000
Iranians Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s
Iranians al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000
Iranians Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000
Iranians Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s
Kurdish/Iranian al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s
Iranians Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s
Iranians Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s
Iranians South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s
Iranians an-Najaf -Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Further Evidence:
Some former UNSCOM inspectors disagree about whether the United States could know for certain whether or not Iraq had renewed production of weapons of mass destruction. Robert Gallucci said, "If Iraq had [uranium or plutonium], a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had." Similarly, former inspector Jonathan Tucker said, "Nobody really knows what Iraq has. You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on inside a factory." However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm."[44] He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.[45][46] In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.[47]

Those include:
• 50 deployed Al Samoud 2 missiles
• Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
• 2 large propellant casting chambers
• 14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
• Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
• Some 122 mm chemical warheads
• Some chemical equipment
• 224.6 kg of expired growth media

One of the sources of support for my last statement

And, “Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."”

One of the sources of support for my last statement

The British think Saddam has WMDs-

One of the sources of support for my last statement

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Please read:
STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) BEFORE THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
October 2, 2003

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Please go here: One of the sources of support for my last statement

Napoleon shot off the nose of the Phoenix in Egypt. Did you know that? I think we should go ahead and invade France for that cruel effort, don't you?

1: I do not give Osama Bin Laden a "get away free and clear" card. I won't minimize the iimportance of a man with so much American blood on his hands.

2: Colin Powell has called his WMD in Iraq "slam dunk" briefing to the US his, and I am quoting him, "darkest day." The most decorated military man in the administration chose to leave at the half way point. That speaks volumes and volumes to me about the intel that all of the politicians you mentioned as well as the American people were fed.

Good night, bro,

Kevin "Hack" King

Section 3 – Democrats on WMDs: “How we got there”.

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
And:

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

Source: One of the sources of support for my last statement

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 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. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

One of many sources: One of the sources of support for my last statement

But lest I get caught up in redundancy, allow me to move to the next statement you made that “I believe that if it only takes a war in Iraq to keep Al Qaida out of the US, we have wasted billions on the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Airport creening via the TSA, and Immigration Control.” I love that statement!

“This year's budget request includes several key initiatives that will allow DHS to integrate and consolidate existing security functions. Two divisions of the department received significant increases in the budget. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was given a 13.5 percent increase and the U.S. Coast Guard will receive increase of more than 9 percent if Congress approves the budget.”

Old News, Here- this is from NPR – it covers all the budget info

One of the sources of support for my last statement

Coast Guard Spending- The U.S. Coast Guard will receive increase of more than 9 percent if Congress approves the budget.

Homeland Security-Created by Bush with Executive Order 13228
Homeland Security Act of 2002 - HR 5005

More recently, President George W. Bush's FY 2006 budget request includes $41.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, an increase of 7 percent over the enacted FY 2005 funding, excluding Project BioShield. (Democrats blast Bush's Homeland security spending increase in 2004 – find it here: One of the sources of support for my last statement

Airport Screening/ TSA - On November 16, TSA will mark its fifth anniversary. That means it was also created under the Bush Administration. Having been created in the aftermath of September 11, TSA has made great strides in securing all modes of transportation.

Immigration Control – Immigration and Customs Enforcement was given a 13.5 percent increase under the current budget.

Defense Spending – I’ll let NPR say it for me: One of the sources of support for my last statement

I appreciate and understand that we differ on our views. Regardless, I appreciate and support you and your time in the cockpit on behalf of the USAF.

Aim High brother!

But, as you may have suspected, it did not change my mind. Your statement, “We killed Zarqawi by the way – in Iraq” seems to prove my point because Zarqawi was not in Iraq before the overthrow of Saddam but is a manifestation of al Qaeda's exponential growth as a result of the invasion and recruiting due to US troop presence there.

You wrote that “you have completely discounted the 17 United Nations Resolutions..” Well I for one disagree. Because of the defiance of the UN Resolutions, the US established no-fly zones, sanctions against Iraq and had complete air superiority over the country. A policy that we now know was almost totally effective in containing Saddam. Further, because Saddam did accede to some Resolutions, weapons inspectors were allowed into the country who searched every site including Saddam’s palaces. When Colin Powell gave his speech and claimed in one famous instance that tents were covering a suspected site, he correctly said that our satellites could not see under the tents but omitted the fact that UN weapons inspectors were also under the tents and were watching first-hand what was going on there.

I am also well familiar with the list of times Iraq used WMDs including the poison gas attacks. At the time, I and many others were complaining that Reagan and Bush should stop supporting him and should support the UN Resolutions condemning him, which the US did not do. Instead, they lifted sanctions and sent Rumsfeld there to assure Saddam that the US would not support sanctions for his attacks against the Kurds and Iranians. I have a list of Commerce Department export licenses for 53 deadly toxins and biological agents approved for export to Iraq by both administrations during this period.

However, you make several good points discussing the history and I have followed the whole affair closely. Please allow me to make a couple of points. The Baker Commission has called for a regional discussion of the Iraq situation involving all of the surrounding countries as I am sure you are well aware. This followed calls by every US Commander involved in the war for similar full scale diplomatic intervention. The administration has steadfastly refused to do this. I understand their position of not talking to adversaries and I strenuously disagree with it. In my opinion, which I believe has wide-spread support, involving regional countries, the EU and the UN is the only way to achieve some semblance of stability in the region. If the US, recognizing that there is no military only solution, continues to not pursue a diplomatic solution on this scale, I do not wish to see our troops continue to be placed in a position of fighting a war which cannot be won.

Which brings us back to the present.

Given the situation as it stands today, regardless of how we got there, whose side are you now on and do you wish to win? Do you envision an outcome that is other than the Sunnis supported by al Qaeda existing in armed enclaves against the Shia majority or total domination of the country by the Shias controlled in large part by al Sadr? Neither of those outcomes comes close to being worth American soldiers for me. Furthermore, given the situation, I have strong doubts that we can change the outcome.

I respect your opinions. At some point, I will write up a list of predictions here based on my assumptions, which we can refer back to, to see it I have analyzed the situation correctly.

I feel certain I have just seen the best example of blogging I have ever read on the Internet.

Congratulations to all of you for elevating blogging to the level we all have desired to obtain.

Staying on topic, not getting 'personal', backing up opinions with facts and sources, wow, amazing.

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

Why you can’t believe banmani

Almost everything you quote here was said or happened before Saddam was forced to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The UN found NOTHING: WE FOUND NOTHING WHEN WE GOT THERE!

I am not sure why I even bother to try to talk to you, but, try actually reading the blog next time before you make a comment about it- would you please.

Why you can’t believe banmani

Bush convinced most of those people you quote, using FALSE intelligence, even Colin Powell, that we must go to war or be nuked or poisoned.
They all know better now and don't trust him and his cohorts.

Please allow me to moderate here:
The following statements were made prior to Bush becoming the President:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Bush was elected in 2000. Therefore, you may wish to re-evaluate your statement that "Bush convinced most of those people you quote, using FALSE intelligence, even Colin Powell, that we must go to war or be nuked or poisoned."

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

Many democrats (and all republicans) said much about Saddam before we bombed them. I'm not going to check your quotes because it doesn't make any difference.
The "no fly zones" and the U.N. inspectors had forced Saddam to destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction he had prior to the bombing.
The congressional vote to give Bush authority to do what was necessary about Iraq came after the FALSE intelligence was given long after those quotes you presented. Poor Colin Powell was even taken in and ruined.
Wolfowitz, eager Generals, Rumsfeld, and others in the White house colluded with Bush to do what they had decided to do under any circumstances. I am convinced of that. Would have gotten away with it too if they had sent in enough to occupy and stay 10-15 years. They didn't because we didn't have the army to do that and congress would not have bought that.
I'll never forgive weak military types who didn't speak up. They had to know better, I hope. I'm concerned still about the other senior officers we now have left.

Texas Governor Bush made up a bunch of stuff and tricked a few democrats, including President Clinton. That’s why Clinton said that:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
and
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
Yep, Bush two years before being the President talked Clinton in to that.

Iraq never had WMDs. You knew that - and Bush- well, he knew that too.

The no fly zone, which was violated over 400 times by the way, and the UN inspectors, (including those whose quotes you obviously did not read), made Iraq destroy the weapons that never really existed anyway.

You will never forgive the weak military types (as opposed to you – the strong dollaraday).

You do NOT believe or support the Generals – or the President.

I got it now. Goodbye.

P.S. 9/11 was an inside job. Bush is Satan and banmani is a moderate.

I think Bush is a light-weight who has spent way too much money and grown the Federal Government to astronomical proportions. I also think he is way off base on immigration.

But the Democrats like you make him look like a cross between a warden, a miser and Attila the Hun.

__________________________________________________

Why you can’t believe banmani

Surely you know that someone who votes Republican more times than Democrat is just a mindless (one lacking intelligence or good sense; foolish) automaton.

We're just "shiny-eyed Christianist zealot[s]," don't you know?

"But the Democrats like you make him look like a cross between a warden, a miser and Attila the Hun."

Don't forget the comparison to Adolph Hitler!

The Washington Times

NPR

It is shocking that a mainstream political group like MoveOn.org not only allowed this vile and outrageous comparison of the American President to Adolf Hitler to be entered into its "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest in the first place, but that they even went so far as to make it available to the public on the Internet . . . . Why did they think that images of Hitler, the Nazi whose evil regime was responsible for the slaughter of millions of people during the Holocaust, was a fitting and credible expression of criticism of President Bush and his policies? Their lack of discretion cheapens the level of political discourse in America, and their comments explaining it were hardly comforting. - Abraham H. Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director

To view the ads

Did you see my book, err, blog yet? I had to make in to three sections.

I just sort of wondered in to a mindless trance and it just appeared!

Son-of-a-gun!

___________________________________________
Why you can’t believe banmani

Let's just ask Colin Powell what he thinks.
I saw a poster of all the sites in the US of A w/ WMD's and I guess it's another case of, "Who's Bull is Being GORED."

You know, back when he was just General Colin Powell, I didn't particularly like him but I thought he was deserving of a modicum of respect. He had "earned his props," as they say.

Well, recently, someone at my job forwarded me an e-mail about Powell speaking at some leadership conference for $250 per attendee. I didn't know the sender of the e-mail. I didn't solicit e-mail from this person and I don't know how this person determined to send the e-mail to me, of all people. Now that Powell has crossed into the political arena, he has relinquished any right to respect and I would no more pay $250 to listen to him than I would pay to hear Al Sharpton speak. Different ends of the spectrum but, for me, neither has a corner on credibility.

I called the sender of the e-mail directly and told them that the e-mail was political in nature and, therefore, a violation of our employer's e-mail usage policy. Guess I won't be getting any more political spam.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Yep, Colin Powell was right - last year.

Although whenever he was asked if Iraq had WMDs, on multiple occasions - he was wrong too.

"On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam: “The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

Amazing how that hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

Maybe you CAN help me with something, in all of the 8 years of intelligence gathering preceding 9/11- whose administration did that occur under? Who was in charge of that? I seem to forget.

You and $ need to have a study group and go over my 3 part blog together. Between you, you might get a 'clue'.

Why you can’t believe banmani

You might want to read Lee Iacocca's new book, "Where Have All the Leaders Gone".. He was on CBS Sunday Morning & he seems to have some harsh words & regrets for having supported Scrub Bush.

My favorite quote was, "Stay the course? America is a ship of State...not the Titanic!"

Chew on that.

Yes, that would be the Clinton administration. They briefed the Bush people coming in and told them Osama bin Laden was the worst terrorist threat they would have to deal with and had the full sopport of Colin Powell until he was trashed by the noecons and admitted that he "had leaned to far forward in his skis." Then the Bush administration got an intellegence briefing entitled "bin Laden determined to strike in the United States" which they totally ignored.

Clinton's administration didn't falsify the intelligence, did they?

Okay dollar- Let's try this once more. Here is what JeffC says:

Clinton Administration
JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 04/21/2007 - 10:53am.

" .... They briefed the Bush people coming in and told them Osama bin Laden was the worst terrorist threat they would have to deal with..."

You saw the quotes, I assume. You read the blog I wrote, I assume. You checked the sources and lnks, I assume. You see JeffCs statement, I assume. You are blind with hate, I assume.

I don't know whether you are disagreeing with my statements or not but I would like to append this interview by Keith Olbermen of Richard Clark. I have more references if you wish but I like this one, although apologies for its length.

And before you read it, I would like to assure you that I do not hate anyone. I am motivated by policy issues only and enjoy the discussion. I believe reasonable people can disagree and I sincerely believe that we all wish that our soldiers were not in harms way regardless of the circumstances.

Special investigation: Leading up to 9/11
Did Bush try to stop bin Laden in his first eight months in office?
Countdown
Updated: 5:05 p.m. ET Sept 28, 2006
"Countdown" rises to Bill Clinton's challenge and assess President's Bush efforts to stop al Qaida in his first eight months in office.
You can find the transcript below.
OLBERMANN: In a sense, we are all still detainees in the wake of 9/11, but there is some unrest among the inmates. Being asked what steps he took to stop al Qaeda, President Clinton freeing many to ask what steps, if any, his successor took in the most critical time before the plot.

Yesterday, President Bush declined to address Mr. Clinton‘s remarks, saying, “We‘ve already had the look back this and look back that.” But if we are to look forward with any clarity, it is important to know the facts about where we have been and how we got where we are.
Thus, tonight a special investigation. Mr. Clinton is not in office, Mr. Bush is. His policies determine how the U.S. fights al Qaeda, so it is important that we understand how he has done so in the past. Comparing the two presidents is valid, necessary, to illuminate the capacities of the office. Mr. Clinton said it plainly, he failed to get bin Laden. Mr. Bush has acknowledged no such failure.

But while it has become conventional wisdom, although debunked by the 9/11 report, that Mr. Clinton dropped an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden, it is rare to hear anyone discuss whether similar but real feelers were ever extended to Mr. Bush. And it is, we suspect, even more rare to see this tape of the Bush White House addressing reports of such feelers in February 2001, after the government knew al Qaeda had attacked the U.S.S. Cole.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and the—they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments (INAUDIBLE)?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, of course, responded to President Clinton by defending the Bush record. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” she said.
Our goal in this report is to rise to Mr. Clinton’s challenge and assess the record of Mr. Bush‘s efforts against al Qaeda in his first eight months in office.

We begin with Rice’s claim that Clinton left no strategy to fight al Qaeda.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 20, 2001)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So help me God.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN (voice-over): On January 25, 2001, five days after Mr. Bush took office, counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke sent Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda.” It was, Clarke, wrote, “developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools.”

Clarke’s memo requested a follow-up cabinet-level meeting to address time-sensitive questions about al Qaeda. But President Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries.

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies’ committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.

OLBERMANN: Why the delay? Rice later tried to explain.

RICE: America’s al Qaeda policy wasn’t working because our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working, and our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working because our Pakistan policy wasn’t working. We recognized that America’s counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies, and to our overall foreign policy.

OLBERMANN: That, although Clarke’s January 25 memo specifically warned, “Al Qaeda is not some narrow little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy. By proceeding with separate policy reviews on Central Asia, etc., we would deal inadequately with the need for a comprehensive multiregional policy on al Qaeda.”

Clarke’s deputies’ meeting came in April, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda, but Iraq.

By July 16, the deputies had a proposal for dealing with al Qaeda, a proposal, Clarke says, was essentially the same plan he gave Rice five months earlier, and it still had to go to the principals, the cabinet secretaries.

CLARKE: But the principals’ calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn’t meet in August. And therefore the principals met in September.

OLBERMANN: Although the principals had already met on other issues, their first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

But what were Mr. Bush and his top advisers doing during this time? Mr. Bush was personally briefed about al Qaeda even before the election, in November 2000. During the transition, President Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, say they told Bush and his team of the urgency of getting al Qaeda.

Three days before President Bush took office Berger spoke at a passing-the-baton event, which Rice attended.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

OLBERMANN: Eight days later, Clarke sent Rice the strategy Clinton had developed for retaliating in the event that al Qaeda was found to have been behind the previous October’s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The next day, the FBI conclusively pinned the Cole attack on al Qaeda.
Mr. Bush ordered no military strike, no escalation of existing Clinton measures. Instead, he repeated Clinton’s previous diplomatic efforts, writing a letter to Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf in February and another on August 4.

Until September 11, even when Mr. Bush was asked about the Cole, an attack carried out on water by men in a boat, he offered a consistent prescription for keeping America safe, one he reiterated upon taking office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Democrats, who controlled the Senate, warned that his focus was misplaced.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D): I’m also concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center.

(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: He was not alone. The executive director of the Hart-Rudmann Commission’s request to brief Bush and Cheney on the terror threats they had studied was denied.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, quote, “What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?”

According to the 9/11 Commission report, even bin Laden expected Bush to respond militarily to the Cole bombing. Quote, “In February 2001, according to a source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not, he would launch something bigger.”

The most famous warning came in the August 6 presidential daily briefing, reporting “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
According to the 9/11 report, “Bush did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the attorney general, or whether Rice had done so. We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. Tenet does not recall any discussions with the president of the domestic threat during this period. Domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction. The borders were not hardened, transportation systems were not fortified, electronic surveillance was not targeted against the domestic threat, state and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI‘s efforts. The public was not warned.”

Explanations after the fact suggested a lack of familiarity with the recent history of terrorism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

RICE: I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There wasn’t any way then we could have anticipated what was about to happen, of course, in—on 9/11.

(Subtitle: 1995, Philippines uncovers plot to fly planes into Pentagon and World Trade Center.)

(Subtitle: September 1999, U.S. study: Al Qaeda might crash planes into Pentagon.)

(Subtitle: Spring 2001, New York City trial testimony: Bin Laden sending agents to acquire planes.)

BUSH: These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck in a way that was unimaginable.

(Subtitle: July 2001, FBI told of Zacarias Moussaoui‘s interest in flying jumbo jets.)

(Subtitle: September 2001, FBI memo: Moussaoui could fly something into the World Trade Center.)

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

OLBERMANN: On September 10, 2001, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California requested a meeting with Vice President Cheney to press the case for aggressive counterterrorism measures. She is told Mr. Cheney will need some time to prepare first, six months.

That same day, the NSA intercepted a communique from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia, stating, “Tomorrow is zero hour.” That communique was only translated into English on September 12.

(END VIDEOTAPE)
OLBERMANN: It appears now that the operative word in the phrase “We could not have anticipated” was the word “we.”

“Countdown’s” look at what the Bush White House did to take the threat of terrorism seriously on its watch, and what it did not do, from Rice’s claim this week they were handed no al Qaeda strategy from the Clinton administration, to President Bush’s reaction to the confirmation that al Qaeda indeed was behind the attack on the U.S.S. “Cole.”

Hi Jeff. I apologize for the confusion. I don’t think I have actually responded to any of your blogs yet (Seriously)The last response was in hopes of bringing dollaraday back to earth. I think you responded to that thinking it was to you. I apologize.

It's not that I am avoiding you- it's just Hack and I had been blogging back and forth for a while so I answered him first. That's who I quoted in the book, err, I mean, blog I wrote in three part dis-harmony.

In a nut shell, (no pun intended)I have only responded to Hack, and the infamous 'dollaradayandfound'.

I included your name in my response to Hack hoping you would read through it since I know you and I are not in the same camp politically any more and a couple of you blogs were on the topic. You did and I appreciate that.

All of that said, I will respond to your initial three questions just as soon as I have time. You deserve a response and I will not duck your questions. I think they were:

Whose side are you on in the civil war in Iraq and based on what?

How would you define victory in Iraq?

Are you prepared for our troops to stay in Iraq forever? And if not, then for how long?

I will take a shot at them as soon as time permits. Until then- take care Jeff.

_______________________________________________________________

Why you can’t believe banmani

Oxes are gored by bulls. Bulls aren't gored by oxes, or oxen!

I don’t particularly like Reid and never have been particularly fond of him. I don’t think he is the right leader for our party. Having said that, I believe that what he said is true. Every commander and general we have had in Iraq has called for diplomacy in addition to the military strategy and the administration either has not tried it or, in its typically inept way, has fumbled it. And I am not a bit pleased about it.

The strategy has been flawed from the beginning. For instance, even though we supposedly went into Iraq looking for WMDs, there were no provisions for securing the hundreds of sites where we knew conventional weapons were stored. These bombs and munitions were stolen and recycled into the IEDs now being used against US forces. This is a direct result of Rumsfeld’s mismanagement. There are way too many instances of mismanagement to list and they have been discussed in-depth so I will not reiterate them. But, it is the administrations fault, through sheer incompetence, that Iraq has been lost and has now descended into a civil war.

I believe you are incorrect in your assumption that al Qaeda wants us out of Iraq. It has been their best recruiting grounds in the world. Because of the mismanagement of the war, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. I believe that when we leave, the Shia majority there will exterminate them.

I also believe you are wrong that they will follow us here? Although with this type of management, you can never tell. How about this though? Instead of leaving Iraq and coming home, why don’t we send more troops into Afghanistan and Somalia where al Qaeda is and fight them there?

I would also not be so complacent about not being attacked since 9/11. It was eight years between their last attacks.

Since we are on the subject, I would like to pose some questions back to you:

Whose side are you on in the civil war in Iraq and based on what?

How would you define victory in Iraq?

Are you prepared for our troops to stay in Iraq forever? And if not, then for how long?

I supported Harry Reid when I thought what he said was correct and appropriate.

That does not mean that I support his statement that "we have lost the war in Iraq", or any and all other subsequent statements.

One does not have to accept and defend "all or nothing" from a political party, a candidate, or any other person. I see people here attempt to make that argument all the time- "You support so and so because so and so is a Democrat/Republican and he does". Nope- sorry- badly flawed and poorly constructed logic.

I could not disagree more than I currently do with the lack of forethought that I see in both the Democratic Party and in a large part of the Republican Party today. Despite this, there are some good things I see in both.

In my opinion, telling the terrorists they have won, and telling the soldiers in the field they have lost, is reprehensible. I condemn Harry Reid's statement yesterday.

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

This says it best:
========
I wrote this months ago, Harry Reid just said it today. Either way, it's what the overwhelming majority of Americans already know in their hearts - George Bush lost the war in Iraq a long time ago. And it does no one any favors - neither our troops, their families, nor any other American who cares about the future of our country - to pretend otherwise. The far-right extremists currently in control of the Republican party don't care about doing the right thing, and certainly don't care about our troops - as we witnessed with the body armor debacle when the war started, and now the Walter Reed catastrophe. They care about saving their own behinds. This is their war, George Bush's war. And they lost this war through their utter mismanagement. Rather than admit that truth, and accept the blame and responsibility for their own mistakes, and bring our troops home, they'd rather continue lying to the American people and lying to our troops as they send tens of thousands more of them into an out of control civil war. The extremists running the Republican party would rather risk the lives of American soldiers for a cause they already know is lost, than accept responsibility for a gross mistake of their own making. Their ego is more important than the life of an American service member.

Now who hates the troops?

========
I didn't write the above, I found it Here and I concur 100%

________________________________________________________
Why bother to BAN troublemakers if you're just going to let them RE-REGISTER?

If we lose, who wins banmani? WHO?

Why you can’t believe banmani

Dear banmani,
Aside from the fact the "timing is everything" (we ARE in the middle of the build-up suggested by the unanimously approved Lieutenant Gen. David Petraeus, the guy is one of the army's top intellectuals. He has a doctorate in international relations from Princeton University and is a prolific writer on military issues. Of course, he is also an experienced field commander, having led the famed 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) and that there are huge differences between the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and some obscure self-described journalist tooting his own horn (or a parroting blogger like yourself), it appears to me that it is the Democratic Party that is micromanaging this war from Washington D.C. by playing games with funding and calling it “lost”. (Lose, losing LOST- it’s the past tense that makes it reprehensible and demoralizing.)

Indeed, your Democratic Majority Leader managed to make the front page of Al-Jazerra and at least two other large muslim papers (and as a bonus Iranian television) with his statement that “We have lost this war”.

Too bad they don’t know you, you could be their poster child.

Seems some of your friends in the senate just haven’t learned that war is for Generals not for lawyers turned Politicians like Harry Reid.

There are a few things people should know about war that, apparently, some don’t.

War is bad. People die. Things get broken. Feelings get hurt. Polls change. The winner gets the spoils. The loser becomes tattered, torn, and becomes prey to an aggressor. Sometimes, the loser is swallowed whole by the winner. It’s always better to win. It’s always very bad to lose.

All of this being said, most people believe there are some things worth fighting for. Freedom for example is worth fighting for. I’m not sure why the women’s rights groups aren’t challenging the Muslims for their subjugation of women in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq but hey, I guess they have their hands full here with Rosie O’Donnell’s causes.

Speaking of freedom, I for one would rather have this fight now, over there, then have my children and grandchildren have this fight here at home.

Would you like proof that Al-Qaeda is active in Iraq too? You can read my past blog or I can give you new information out today from Europe - where everything is better than America- right?

But I guess your close at the end of the cut and paste blog is what really made me want to write you.

Try as I might, I just can’t understand, so I guess I will just ask. Why is troop-hating even a part of this discussion? Do you really believe that Republicans hate troops? Then I suppose 57% of the military is self-loathing since they define themselves as Republican.

This is a synopsis of direct quotes from this hate filled and inaccurate diatribe you say you agree with and support:

"Bush lost, far right wing, extremists, don't care about doing the right thing, don't care about our troops, Walter Reed, their war, Bush's war, they lost this war, their own mistakes, continue lying, lying to our troops, extremists, risk the lives, know is lost, gross mistake, their ego, hates."

That's some paragraph, wouldn't you say? It may be the most unstable diatribe I have seen repeated on this site.

In conclusion, your extremely liberal views are only overshadowed by your disdain for veterans and all things ‘conservative’.

Feel free to start with the extremely long blog I sent to Kevin King in response to his last blog to me. Debate with us.

You and Paul have a great debate goingon abortion. You have the ability to advance an argument.

Remove some of the emotion and utilize intellectual reasoning to help us understand how you have become so far left of center.

There is no shame in an opinion – just keep the personal attacks on Army Major and his family out of it.

Enigma

Is A-Qaeda in Iraq? Click Here and Read

Do you believe we are winning in Iraq?

________________________________________________________
Why bother to BAN troublemakers if you're just going to let them RE-REGISTER?

Once again you want to answer my blog and my questions with a question. Therefore, I will return the favor. I have a better question for you bas:

Do you believe if the United States of America threw 100% of it's resources and 100% of it's troops and actually threw 100% of it's support behind the military and did whatever the Military said we needed to do to win that we could lose?

I'll admit that we are missing what Clinton cut. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. 286,000 troops were eliminated. I could go on and on - but why?

Harry Reid made one thing perfectly clear to Al-Jazeera, Al-Qaeda and all of the terrorists in the world. We are losing the war of will.

We are only winning the war of freedom to the extent that we can keep Harry Reid and his ilk away from running the military and the war and putting a knife in the back of the American Soldier

Now, you answer the questions I asked you.

Couldn't bring yourself to say, could you Enigma. We... are... not... winning... in.... Iraq. Spin it all you want, blame the media, blame the liberals, but the simple fact of the matter is, the best trained and equipped fighting force in the history of the world, the United States military, is not "winning" a civil war against two religious factions.

Now, to answer your little hypothetical: Do you believe if the United States of America threw 100% of it's resources and 100% of it's troops and actually threw 100% of it's support behind the military and did whatever the Military said we needed to do to win that we could lose?

My answer: NO. The simple fact of the matter is, we as a country had a window of opportunity in 2003 to prevent the current situation. The leadership failed to plan for the occupation, we now reap the results. The military said we'd need 300K troops to occupy Iraq, we sent 130K and prayed they'd be enough. They weren't.

Now the military is stuck in a bone-grinding war of attrition. The Shiites are ethnic cleansing the Sunnis, and the mighty United States is helpless to stop it.

Like Vietnam, we've won all the battles but ultimately lost the war.

The military itself doesn't think we should have gone to war either

It's interesting that you used the phrase "Stabbed in the back!" in your post. Here's an interesting article on losers invoking "stabbed in the back"
________________________________________________________
Why bother to BAN troublemakers if you're just going to let them RE-REGISTER?

Losers always must make excuses. They were given six years from 9/11, to do this thing.
They misplanned and failed. There are no excuses.
Good thing in my opinion. If we had conquered and occupied and quelled rebellion, we still would have had to fight all of the other idiots.

Hussein

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

Are you implying he was named after the Sadman? It is a somewhat common name. Kinda like Mary, Jesus, Joseph, Mark, John, Timothy, Luke......

There is no god but Alláh, Muhammad is the Messenger of Alláh, Alí is the Friend of Alláh. The Successor of the Messenger of Alláh And his first Caliph."

If you are already familiar with standard Sunni beliefs, you will immediately notice the addition to the shahadah regarding Imam Ali (ra), cousin of the Prophet (pbuh), husband of his daughter Fatima, father of Hassan and Hussein and the second person ever to embrace Islam. The term Shia or Shi'ite derives from a shortening of Shiat Ali or partisans of Ali.

I actually followed the link backwards from the radio station report. I see that it goes to a party partisan web page. I apologize.

Meanwhile, I guess Barry will have to share funds with his brother if he wants to make a serious run!

Regardless, I really do hate to see a tragedy used by any politician as a partisan attack. It cuts both ways - both parties are guilty of this strategy.

I really feel they should just introduce legislation, and if need be, shed light on legislation that needs to be changed.

Most Americans who actually vote and communicate with their representatives are smart enough to know who sponsored and who supports what legislation.

__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__*__

Please help stop the genocide in Darfur

on all counts, true. No time for healing I guess. Sometimes saying nothing is better than saying something.

Kevin "Hack" King

People say all kinds of things in the face of a tragedy; mostly they look for solutions to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

Haven't you ever been to a funeral home & listened to those who come to offer sympathy to the family? The conversation is about a wide range of topics, not just about the deceased.

The Honorable Major & Penta are not elected officials, at least here in cyberspace, & were not "further[ing] their own political agenda" any more than you do when you open your mouth. They have a right to express their thoughts as a way of making sense of tragedy and responding to those who plan to use this tragedy to change laws, such as the Violence Policy Center that you referenced in your post, A Lott of links. (Clever title, BTW.)

"Mass shootings have come to define our nation. Today's shooting at Virginia Tech--the largest mass shooting in U.S. history--is only the latest in a continuing series over the past two decades. These tragedies are the inevitable result of the ease with which the firepower necessary to slaughter dozens of innocents can be obtained. We allow virtually anyone the means to turn almost any venue into a battlefield. In the wake of these shootings, too many routinely search for any reason for the tragedy except for the most obvious--the easy access to increasingly lethal firearms that make mass killings possible."

VPC Backgrounder on Pistols Used in Virginia Tech Shooting

___________________________________

** Aren't your posts on Mixer's blog, "32 dead - numbers expected to rise. VT and the nation morns"? **

"Legal Scholar John Lott"?

Nothing like a tragedy...

Yep nothing like a tragedy..

Thank you Denise

President Bush is speaking at VT right now

"Unlike the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina, the CTN (Caucasian To Negro) ratio is sufficient to permit Bush to make an appearance on the ground.

Still no word on when, if ever, our President will appear at a memorial service for our fallen soldiers and Marines in Iraq."

___________________________________

"Don't these opportunists remind you of the guy who pickets dead soldiers' funerals."

Conversation is nowhere near this deplorable act. You never lose an opportunity to smear, do you Bas?

Wahhhh!
___________________________________

There is a time and a place for everything, Denise.

That is why I actually stand shoulder-to-shoulder in agreement with President Bush on this one (a first?) and agree with him that your crass attempts (and PentaPenguin and the Man Without Honor as well) to inject political discussion into a national tragedy are entirely inappropriate.

Shame on you.
________________________________________________________
Why bother to BAN troublemakers if you're just going to let them RE-REGISTER?

Somehow I don't think your side got your message.

More Bad Guys For Basmati

Picture of Basmati's Bad Guys

Perhaps you can straighten them out too so everyone's on the same page. We know that you always like to hold your side to the same standards you hold my side.

BTW....I appreciate your black VT ribbon. Perhaps we should all be wearing it.

_______

You may not be at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with you!

"your crass attempts" -- "So crude and unrefined as to be lacking in discrimination and sensibility"

"Entirely inappropriate" comment about me, don't you think?

Am I to beg to you, O BlogMaster, for forgiveness?

_____________________________________

Your post Hack, President Bush also said is definitely "giving aid and comfort to those families who lost loved ones," as well as to your fellow citizens here at this site.

"It's a shame Mr. Bush's craven minions didn't get the message."

Trying to use a tragedy and every other event to express your contumelious remarks is "entirely inappropriate."

basmati,
The Citizen's own PentagramPenguin
For those who didn't realize, a pentagram is a five-pointed star. Wow! I'm a star here on The Citizen! I never knew that! Thank you very much for the nice compliment!

I didn't start the debate guns vs. anti guns though I'm not sorry for expressing my views on it. You certainly take every "opportunity" for making personal attacks. For the record, the guy you are referring to is a sick, evil man. You can't just lump everybody that disagrees with you in the "nutjob" category.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

Bush is not the president. Cheney is.

But Clinton was better, and so was our nation under his administration.

It really is that simple.

Gee, that was simple.

Why you can’t believe banmani