Hack, that's great--that's exactly what I was talking about. As a controller, I had to do a lot of headings, speeds, time-to-intercept, and the good old "wind triangle" that you had to know like the back of your hand.

I actually used some wind triangle problems in my Geometry classes.

You remembered "SOHCAHTOH" --that's GREAT!! I'm so impressed! Feel free to torture Mixer with that one.

Well, have a good night, buddy!
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Right Triangle formulas, Sin, Cos, and Tangent - kiddie stuff. But Gumpy, those are only good for RIGHT TRIANGLES DUFUS.

You remembered "SOHCAHTOH" --that's GREAT!! I'm so impressed! Feel free to torture Mixer with that one. You should be- it's from third grade.

What a joke. He even tried this simple problem but will not answer mine:

""Or, since you like nuclear physics, perhaps you could tell me how long it would take a sample of 63 grams of Strontium-90 to decay down to only 20 grams of Strontium-90. You can round it off to the nearest year.

To which I replied:

(Oh really, off the top of my head I would say about 47 years+/- a year - but that's not 'relative' here and since you refuse to address my problems- that answer is from the head - seems I recall the half life being about 28 years - regardless - answer my questions - yours are too simple)

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Right triangles are all that we need in the flying gig. Why? Because aircraft have maximum crosswind limits for landing. The limit is higher for dry runways and lower for wet or icy runways. A crosswind is ALWAYS measured 90 degrees off of the flightpath. Therefore, sohcahtoa is all that we need. PLEASE BURY THE HALF LIFE HATCHET BECAUSE MY NOSE IS BLEEDING UNCONTROLLABLY!

Kevin "Hack" King

... whenever you have a crosswind because lift depends on pressure differences between the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing (and that difference, as I will explain, is created by airflow).

A pressure difference is created by moving air faster across the top of the wing than the bottom. (Fast moving air creates low pressure- that is why a tornado causes your house to 'explode'.)Since the top and bottom move together the same DISTANCE on a fixed wing aircraft, the top of the wing has to be made 'longer' than the bottom. This then requires the wind that moves across the top to go a further DISTANCE in the same period of TIME (Distance over time is speed) which equates to a faster RATE (if you include direction it becomes a vector quantity called 'velocity' (speed with direction)).

The faster moving air across the top creates a lower pressure and when the pressure on the bottom of the wing is great enough (due to increasing the air speed across the wings) it pushes up the wings and thus lifts the plane. (I actually once wrote a paper called "Everything in nature moves from a high to a low" by the way )

Cross wind, causes the air that would be moving across the wing (front to rear) to be counteracted by the wind moving (left to right) lengthwise and disrupt the lift (or it even can increase it depending on the wind) thus making the plane unstable to say the least. This coupled with the force exerted on the fuselage creates an untenable flying hazard.

I didn't mean to be condescending or disrespectful to YOU.

If you recall, I was a Combat Controller in my previous life, so I am 'up' on the effects of crosswinds. In fact, the and as a specialist in communication and TWA, Tactical Weather Analysis, wind was a very important part of my life for a while

I was actually making light of Gump, he is soooo easy to rile and fluster. Apparently he thinks everyone is an idiot but him. Besides, he still owes me an apology and until I get it- I can't stand his guts. But- it's just him and only him. I even mis bas - but I know that Denise doesn't - he was her 'Gump'.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

What is "SOHCAHTOH"?

Hopefully, you are able to impress on your students the need for math skills, especially the thinking skills that it develops, and the room for improvement if one will apply himself. Being "not especially good at math" earlier in life probably helps you overcome students' mental roadblocks easier. If something comes naturally to you, you can find it hard to explain it to someone else.

I've seen improvement if someone practices; the problem is getting the person to want to practice.

Thanks for the info on the SAT & teaching math in your other posts.

I was SO impressed with Hack, for him to remember that from high school, and actually use it in his job. It's a mnemonic device to help student remember Trigonometry ratios. It stands for:
Sine=Opposite over Hypotenuse,
Cosine=Adjacent over Hypotenuse, and
Tangent=Opposite over Adjacent.

The Opposide is the side of a right triange that is opposite to one or the other non-right angles. The Adjacent is the side adjacent to the same non-right angle, that is NOT the Hypotenuse. (There are two sides adjacent to any angle in a triangle, but one of them is always the hypotenuse, which the the longest side of the triangle. It is also the side that is opposite to the right angle.) This sounds complicated, but a picture is worth a 1000 words:
A|
|
|
B|_________________C

In this picture, B is the right angle, so if we are talking about angle A, then AB is the adjacent side, BC the opposite side, and AC is the hypotenuse.

SOH says that Sine of angle A equals distance CB divided by CA;
CAH says Cosine A = AB/AC, TOA says the Tangent = Opposite over Adjacent, and so on. If you know those distances, you can derive all the trig functions, and visa versa, you can find the distances if you know the functions. That's it in a nutshell.

See you in the morning.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

It has been a while since I did those calculations. I thought that you were talking about some kind of aeronautics terminology.

I can't remember the mnemonic, but I can remember the terminology. It's too late for me to think about adding 2 + 2 now. I did like geometry; so I'll look up SOHCAHTOH sometime soon for the challenge. Thanks!

Mixer, I'm listening to a radio re-broadcast. I'll try the math later. I won't even think about the half-life of anything but my own right now. Maybe I'll read one of your LONG posts about Iraq. You put up so many that I can't keep up.

Here Denise, try this one -
{{{Third Grade}}}

Sine, Cos, Tangent = Oscar Had A Heap Of Apples

Look, I'm a teacher!
_________________________________________________________________
{{{5th Grade}}}

Law of sines and cosines= c2 = a2 + b2 – 2ab cos C (Where '2' is 'squared) ('c' is the hypotenuse)

Look, I'm a teacher!
_________________________________________________________________
{{{12th Grade}}}

"Gump" - tell Denise what "The Power Rule" is...you do know The Calculus don't you Gump???

I bet you can't explain it to Denise, "Gump" - want to try? I would love to read your explanation 'mr. teacher'. Do you think you can teach her? You are a teacher at WHS aren't you? You can't handle my Physics questions, let's see if you can 'teach'.

Wow, Gump, you are like The Calculus, you give knee-jerk 'instantaneous values' as my 'limits approach zero'.
__________________________________________________________________
Now, when will you answer my question Gump? I answered yours:

You said:

""Or, since you like nuclear physics, perhaps you could tell me how long it would take a sample of 63 grams of Strontium-90 to decay down to only 20 grams of Strontium-90. You can round it off to the nearest year.

To which I replied:

(Oh really, off the top of my head I would say about 47 years+/- a year - but that's not 'relative' here and since you refuse to address my problems- that answer is from the head - seems I recall the half life being about 28 years - regardless - answer my questions - yours are too simple)

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Since Gump is busy googling 'The Calculus' to learn the Power Rule, I thought I would give you a couple more mnemonic devices for you to learn/recall and/or solve.

Maybe Gumpy can help you with one - but I doubt he has ever used either of these:

Roy G. Biv

That one is really handy and is a really common one and easy too!

Try this one:

Bad
Boys
Ravage
Our
Young
Girls
But
Violette
Gives
Willingly

This one is a little harder.

See if you can figure out what that one was. Feel free to ask Gumpy. If you can't figure it out - try googling it (cheater) and maybe it will show up.

Have a great day - pappa brought home the bacon today. What a country!

When and if you need the answers - just ask.

And don't give up on Hack - at least he's mentally stable. Gump on the other hand has probably boiled more than a few rabbits on the stove - if you catch my drift

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

is that a thousand years without a crusade is way too long!

I tend to agree.

Maximus

Right. (Dripping with sarcasm)

But you make a good point. Nothing like holding a grudge, huh?

Face it - you and I will never understand liberal logic...wait, that's an oxymoron.

Okay, you and I will never understand the liberal mindset, well, 'set' implies more than one.

Okay, I have it:

You and I will never understand the emotive rationalizing of the liberal excuse makers.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

But a quick question... If a person deemed "liberal" states an opinion, is that suddenly "the" liberal opinion and mindset? If the answer is "yes", then please, please, please tell me the "conservative" opinion on immigration. Is it McCains, Bush's, Wastemoreland's? And, perchance, you might give me the conservative logic...um, mindset on stem cell research. And once we've neatly bagged those corpses, we'll get into the "excuse makers" part. Hint, Hint: "It was my opinion that the punishment was too harsh." Or try this one: "I wasn't the president of the United States when I had my affair." Or we could use, "My wife has long since forgiven me (for visiting prostitutes)" Nothing like good ole, consistent, conservative principles for us illogical liberals to esteem to attain.

Kevin "Hack" King

If you were asking seriously here's the Truth on the mindset of the stem cell discussions.

Protection of innocent human life at 9 months or 90 years is a non partisan concept. That's why I can hang out with Repubs,Dems and even these guys even though we might disagree on a few things.

How about helping with this question? Why does the issue of protecting innocent life seem to be split on party lines?

I'm never been able to figure that out.

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I'm not sure, because I'm with Nancy Reagan on that one; and possibly Giuliani, depending on what he is saying today. Politics is a slimy, dirty business isn't it Paul. I wish there was a way to truly weed through the "constituent" factor and find out what people really believe. What I love about these boards is that we aren't politicians. We have nothing to gain by not speaking our hearts, so I tend to believe my fellow posters are truer to their words than the politicians on either side are.

Kevin "Hack" King

Glad to see you back on a regular basis. I'm beginning to understand how the site gets a little addictive.

Sometime after you finish at the gym on Kelly Drive, we should get some coffee at the Avenue.

Politics is a slimy, dirty business isn't it Paul. I wish there was a way to truly weed through the "constituent" factor and find out what people really believe.

So True.

I'm with Nancy Reagan on that one; and possibly Giuliani, depending on what he is saying today.

“Rudy-Rudy somewhat fruity” is not my favorite politician either. You know what I’d ask given a chance to interview him?

Mr. Giuliani, you keep saying abortion is a terrible thing. Exactly why is it terrible?”

After a certain amount of political sputtering, we’d get to the point that’s it’s terrible because it kills human life. And then comes the question he can’t answer.

Rudy, how do you figure that killing innocent life is a “Constitutional Right”?

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Company" blog. Hopefully a few of us can actually set time aside to grab a cup of joe and chat for a bit. I'm on the road all this week, but hopefully next week will bring the opportunity. Thanks for the offer!!

Kevin "Hack" King

Everyone knows all dems are poor trash and uneducated.

All retar...er repubs are rich and smart as the cave man on GEICO says!

I'm just trying to win friends and influence people.

Somehow the America haters, or 'liberal excuse makers' as you more eloquently say, justify the indiscriminate murder on a daily basis of completely innocent men, women and children going about their business. They do this by linking it to the Crusades and other events that no living human being had any part of.

Maximus

The "hate America" crowd calls murdered Americans, eg Daniel Pearl, "socialism lovers" who got killed for being where they were told not to go. Don't those "hate America" types get on your nerves. I put them right up there with the "compromise CIA members" crowd and the "kill habeus corpus" gang.

Kevin "Hack" King

. .here's one living human being who experienced an 'event'. Are you that young? A factual 'reason' is not an 'excuse'. The ‘radical’ Islamists compare our actions - and the actions of our western allies to the actions of the Crusaders. The posted facts of participants in this discussion support this statement. To understand your enemy is important in dealing with him. To deny your enemy's motivation is 'suicide'. (Foolish in not taking into consideration his motivation when planning for his capture/defeat.)

I suggest you get some holy water and Ann Coulter's latest book in paperback. These seem to be the only elements known to have affect on the neocon psyche.

Kevin "Hack" King

If a person deemed "neocon" states an opinion, is that suddenly "the" neocon opinion and mindset? If the answer is "yes", then please, please, please tell me the "liberal" opinion on immigration. Is it Kennedy's, Lieberman's, David scott's? And, perchance, you might give me the conservative logic...um, mindset on gun control. And once we've neatly bagged those corpses, we'll get into the "excuse makers" part. Hint, Hint: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Or try this one: "I was just keeping the money cold in my freezer." Or we could explain: How Harry Reid (Or Hillary) became a millionaire on a senator’s salary, his/her questionable land deals, and his connections to disgraced lobbyists and billionaire casino owners; Barack Obama’s cozy relationship with the indicted fundraiser next door, tax violations by former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros (and his affair too), or maybe Ernest Newton, a former state Democrat Connecticut senator worked with a reputed mobster and his associate to try to stop police raids on businesses and advance their business interests, maybe Clarence Norman Jr., the longtime powerbroker of Brooklyn NY Democrats was found guilty of intentionally soliciting illegal campaign contributions, or West Virginia Logan County Clerk Glen Dale "Hound Dog" Adkins admitted to selling his vote for $500 in the 1996 Democratic Party primary, while Perry French Harvey Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe voters in last year's Democratic contest, In your dad's back yard you can explain Frank Ballance - a former Democrat Rep. from North Carolina was sentenced to four years in federal prison for conspiring to divert taxpayer money to his law firm and family through a charitable organization he helped start. Ballance, was a state senator before being elected to Congress in 2002, also agreed to repay $61,917 and to forfeit $203,000 in a bank escrow account in the name of the John A. Hyman Memorial Foundation, perhaps you can explain the Five Democratic activists in Wisconsin accused of slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans on Election Day 2004 are currently on trial, and there is always Raymond Reggie, a New Orleans political Democratic consultant and fund-raiser who is Senator Kennedy's brother-in-law was sentenced to a year in prison after pleading guilty to bank fraud charges, Or my favorite:

New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey announced his resignation after revealing that he is gay and that he had an adulterous affair with a man .... with his wife standing by his side.

((James McGreevey resigned while being prosecuted for sexual harassment of his male subordinate which he hired for 30,000 and was currently paying over $100,000 annually.))

Yep, nothing like good ole, consistent, liberal principles for us necons to esteem to attain.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

There are differing opinions on BOTH sides. There are morally challenged, ethically challenged, truth-challenged types on BOTH sides. There are pro war, anti-war, indeferent to war types on BOTH sides. So to start casting stones about "illogical" types on EITHER side might be a bit disingenuous. I think we've made progress this session.

Kevin "Hack" King

I have a scientific basis for my assertion that MOST liberals are emotive thinkers!

Didn't you read any of the blogs between muddle and me?

Geez - I am so hurt! The whole blog is great - get in on the topic(s)!

This 'muddle' guy is smarter than a 5th grader!

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Are you still made that Hutch called you on a racist comment and I agreed with him?

You have jumped from the terrorist attacks on America being the fault of Christians, to talking about the Democratic Senator Robert Byrd's days of the KKK grand wizard?

Why do we need to know who we are running from? You said - leave now - "no more dead soldiers in the middle of a civil war"!

If you run, hide, capitulate, and appease, why do you need to know your enemy? Knowing your enemy is for warriors.

Read this:What I propose for the Islamic Terrorists: Click Here.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

I’d love to stay and hear your opinion about how the KKK has given rise to Islamic terrorist scum, but some of us have to get up very early to work and pay for all of the idiotic, socialist programs that you liberals keep coming up with.

Maximus,
Signing off for the night

We could ship them fresh water, towels, brushes, and flea powder.

Did I really just say that?

After that one my wife will not let us hang out together ... just in case you were wondering.

{{{{Lord, forgive me for makin' fun of the camel ridin' people and bless the starving hippies in Santa Monica, California. Amen.}}}}

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Mrs. Maximus is the same way. How can they fail to see the humor in some of the funniest things?

Making fun of the starving hippies is especially funny. Until you start to realize that you and I are going to be feeding, clothing, and housing them, paying for their medical care... Now who's laughing?

Maximus

She will think it's funny, she just won't want me to be hanging out with someone that brings out the 'wild man' in me

Yea, I thought it was funny too....I thought the flea powder or towels would be the home run but I guess the hippies were funny too....until you reminded me who feeds them that is.

PartyPooper

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Have you seen the "Brain of a Republican Class Enemy (Capitalist)"?

"Republicanism Caused By Brain Disorder, Mutation"

This is "what happens to a brain that is allowed to grow without the caring guidance of the progressive establishment."

I especially like the "overgrown, inflexible" spinal cord and the large "REASON Lobe" & "Sense of Irony."

_______________________

In a deformed Republican (capitalist) brain, areas that normally control life-sustaining processes (the Guilt Gland, the Envy Center, or the Everything for Free Lobe, etc.) are miniaturized -- while other regions become bloated out of proportions (the Personal Responsibility Lobe, the Self-Interest Cluster, or the overdeveloped and inflexible Spinal Cord that is connected to the Absolute Morality Lobe).

Symptoms of a Republican brain mutation include delusional ideas [picture Rosie's "delusional" rant here]

*that democracy is the best known form of government,
*that capitalism creates wealth,
*that American culture stems from Judeo-Christian tradition,
*that people all over the world desire liberty and prosperity,
*that Third World countries should be self-reliant,
*that moral standards are absolute and objective,
*that the individual supersedes the collective,
*that parents should teach children values and have a wide choice of schools,

and similar incoherent ramblings that mimic the speech of the insane. Everyone knows ["feels"] that the complete opposite is true.

As of yet, there is no cure for this disorder, which transforms the entire brain into a regressive biological structure. Fearing that this ailment can be contagious, doctors recommend quarantine and a warning for the public.

Karl Marx Treatment Center researchers are optimistic about finding a vaccine that will prevent this degenerative anomaly among children and the marginally afflicted, allowing their brains to be equal in structure, size, and content with those of healthy progressive individuals. A Center spokesperson indicated that the following therapies have proven effective in clinical trials, and will benefit those in need of treatment:

• A class in Social Studies at Columbia University.

• Regular intake of unbiased NPR programming (e.g., Fresh Air or News Hour)

• Exposure to a healthy and nourishing culture, including heavy doses of the Vagina Monologues, or any of the award-winning movies and documentaries (Brokeback Mountain, Transamerica, Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, etc.) produced by progressive Hollywood filmmakers.

• "Tough love" employment practices that will deny patients career advancement and higher-education opportunities while their brains self-heal to a normal progressive state.

If the above doesn't work, the researchers recommend that the afflicted receive a free trial subscription to The New York Times. If they renew, they will be considered cured.

Click Here.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

My "Sense of Irony" is too huge!

"When Liberals demand change, tell them you don't have any."

"A wise man's heart directs him towards the right, but a foolish man's heart directs him towards the left." (Ecclesiastes 10:2)

I do believe there is a global push to impose radical Islam wherever possible, so that the terror threat is far greater than is normally allowed. Given the expressed views of top Al Qaeda leaders and heads of radical Islamic states, it is absurd to think that terror attacks are merely a reaction to imperialist U.S. policy. Free nations must find the resolve to fight using all available resources if they wish to remain free.

I fear that our nation has lost such resolve. The kind of commitment that was demonstrated by the Greatest Generation appears quaint to the present, Queasiest Generation. "Where there is no vision the people perish," says Proverbs. We as a nation have lost our vision, whereas that of our enemies is very clear and focused, albeit evil.

Your highly developed insight is refreshing (particularly among our college elite).

I hope that at whatever college you teach, the administration is aware of how fortunate they are to have you. I also hope my kids are able to have the same type of brilliance teaching them in their college endeavors.

You sir, are exactly correct.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Git, I'm guessing you're old enough to remember Vietnam through the eyes of an adult. I was a teenager at that time, but I remember the "Domino theory" that if we let Vietnam fall, then Korea would be next, then the Philippines, then Japan, etc. That's the same logic that you and Mixer are using now. You're saying that if we let Iraq fall, the same people we are fighting in Iraq will follow us here. Well, Vietnam eventually fell, and it did not result in any domino effect. Instead, Communism eventually collapsed for mostly economic reasons, without a shot being fired.

Radical Islam is not communism, it's worse, but there is a similar situation in Iraq. It's just one battle in a war between two conflicting ideologies. The war will NOT be decided in Iraq, regardless of the outcome in Iraq. We are fighting at least three groups in Iraq: the Shiites, the Sunnis, and Al Queda. The Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq will continue to fight each other for control of Iraq, and they will not follow us here. Al Queda is already trying to attack us here, and they will continue to do so. Our withdrawal from Iraq will make little or no difference to that plan. They are guerrillas, not regular troops, so our absence from Iraq will not suddenly free up a battalion of theirs to redeploy to the US. Besides, their leadership seems to be based in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, so why not take the fight to them, in that region?

The strategy we have been using in Iraq is clearly not working. I'm advocating a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, and a corresponding increase in our military activities in Afghanistan, but if you are right and we really need to hang on to Iraq, then we still need to change our strategy. Yesterday, I used a football analogy. Maybe you didn't care for the analogy, but the point is valid. If we don't change what we are doing, we won't change the results. Right now, the results are unsatisfactory. We need to make a change.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

I hope you're right.

But I am not sure that this sort of analogy between Iraq and Viet Nam holds up. For one thing, the almost certain collapse of the fledgling democracy would result in a strategic region that would become a haven for terrorists. You are, of course, correct that it is not as though troop ships full of Islamic fundamentalists would soon land on Hatteras and Miami beaches. But I believe the global terror threat would thereby escalate.

And Iran has an obvious interest in the future of Iraq as they attempt to influence events from the sidelines. How might their role be stepped up after we skedaddle?

The establishment of a robust and flourishing democracy in the heart of that region is, I think, strategic in frustrating the designs that the terrorists have on the region. Here is an excerpt from Ayman al-Zawahiri's letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, intercepted a couple of years ago.

If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly-according to how it appears to us-in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices-God permitting-are a large step directly towards that goal.

My raising this idea-I don't claim that it's infallible-is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

Note the anticipation of the "void stemming from the departure of the Americans."

Note, too, that "Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." How so? Their very existence as a non-Islamic and democratic state.

I'll be the first to say that I don't know for sure what would happen after we withdraw. The thing I was hoping for is the same thing that al-Zawahiri is worried about--namely that the Iraqis would settle down after we leave.

We on this website are in agreement (I think) that the best of all possible outcomes would be to turn the situation around in Iraq SOON, and establish a secular, democratic government akin to the one in Afghanistan, then reduce our presence there. With that in mind, I'm willing to give our forces a little more time to turn it around. But like I said, we can't just keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. I know there have been some trials of giving local militia the weapons and authority to police their own turf. I hope that works, but yesterday, we had a shootout between American troops and local police, so I'm still pretty skeptical about that situation.

Maybe we can find a different strategy that will work in Iraq. I hope so. Really!! But at some point, we have to admit we are stalemated, cut our losses in Iraq and move our forces to a different battlefield where they can win, not just stalemate indefinitely. Bleeding ourselves to death in a stalemate is not an option, either.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

The important areas of agreement are in the philosophical realm. Many or most of the disagreements that one finds on a board like this are really of an empirical nature.

Example: Suppose you and I agree on the moral and philosophical premise that we ought to do everything reasonable to protect the environment. Suppose you think that one effective means to this end is to install the new water-saving toilets in all homes--1.5 gallons per flush. I, on the other hand, note that these things typically take two or three flushes to get the job done right, so I'm opposed to them. Our disagreement is not at all philosophical, nor does it reflect any fundamental difference between us when it comes to values or character. We can probably disagree over coffee or beer and still be friends.

The most fundamental premise regarding such things as the war on terror and our involvement in Iraq is whether we have a moral imperative to defeat the terrorists. If we agree on that--and I think we do--then the empirical question is "What is the most effective way of carrying out that imperative?" If you think our involvement in Iraq is a distraction but I think it is crucial, we really shouold listen to one another and agree or disagree respectfully.

I wish more people in forums such as this would see this point.

1) Should we have gone in to Iraq? (I think you will find that despite the near unanimous approval and encouragement of democrats, they are now 'hindsight' wise and politically disingenuous.)

2) The left has called for withdrawal now for YEARS. If those like 'Gump' and JeffC are "willing to give it more time", why haven't they spoken out against the call for withdrawal?

3) Which political 'party' has politicized what was a near unanimously granted invasion of Iraq and more importantly, which party stands to gain politically and under what circumstances?
_____________________________________________________________

On a somewhat related note: I would like to know what 'do something different' means. Is there a perception that we are somehow doing 'the same old' thing day in and day out?

Is this the same mentality that doesn't think we are perusing political negotiation and pressure simultaneously?

Why does the left think we are incapable of multi-tasking?

As always- What say you?
__________________________________________________________________
Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Glad to see I haven’t been forgotten. I’ve been traveling in South Asia with a nice layover in Bali. Got home, washed the clothes, packed up and heading out again this afternoon. But I had time to check the blog and saw my name.

To answer you questions, I haven’t spoken out against withdrawal mainly because my opinion doesn’t make any difference! Also, I’m following the first rule of politics, when the other side is self-destructing, don’t interfere.

As to which party politicized the thing, it was your party Mixer. That whole, you’re with us or against us thing and portraying poor people like me who were against it from the beginning as just short of being traitors.

In fact, I’m holding you personally responsible for most of the ills of the world!

Seriously, I’ll write up some proposals for you to viciously attack when I get back!

Peace
Jeff

Mixer asked:
“The left has called for withdrawal now for YEARS. If those like 'Gump' and JeffC are "willing to give it more time", why haven't they spoken out against the call for withdrawal?”

Jeffc answers:
“To answer you questions, I haven’t spoken out against withdrawal mainly because my opinion doesn’t make any difference! Also, I’m following the first rule of politics, when the other side is self-destructing, don’t interfere.”

Perfect answer Jeffc -If you care more about the dems making gains than about the future of the country, so like I said – perfect answer, for you.

That is all that the leftist democrats care about right now. They don’t give a crap about how many more Americans die either in Iraq or here as long as they can make some political hay out of it. Hillary, Edwards, Algore, Kerry – all the same.

Your statement is just as telling and almost as repulsive as that Rosie wannabe 'Yo' who thinks that Christians are just as evil as the Islamic terrorist scum that we’re fighting all over the world now.
That’s probably the official position of the Carter Center as well. Re-writing history and diluting conservatism is more important than making America safer and stronger.

Maximus

Do I know you?

Ha! - Forget you? How? Geez - I try - boy do I. Be careful out there and we'll fight, err, chat when you get back.

Just remember- if you don't let me win some, I'll take my....well, I'll go....well, I won't blog back to you! Yea. That's it.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Ughhhh.

Can it work in the middle east?

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined the constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Thanks Cyclist. It's the slogan from one of my favorite movies: V for Vendetta. Don't know if it'll work in the Middle East but I will say I'm afraid of all of their governments.

It is in the movie, but Thomas Jefferson said this:

"When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Have a good trip. Don't stay away too long as there is much to discuss.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Check out this discussion between Charlie Rose and Wm F Buckley, Jr. from 2004.

At 27 or 28 minutes into the interview, Rose asks Buckley what he thinks about GWB's decision to invade Iraq.

What do you think of his answer?

I couldn't agree more with his response.

If you go back and follow my previous posts you will see that I think doing anything else would have been a complete dereliction of duty. Bush had no choice.

As Buckley points out - even if Bush had asked for verification of the intelligence he would have gotten the same reports over and over because it was the same intelligence the entire rest of the world had on Iraq.

I don't ask that question to see if we should have gone, I ask that the questions to expose the blatant hypocrisy of those who claim (in hindsight) that we should not have gone in to Iraq (when you consider the huge number of supporters worldwide during the pre-invasion build-up and dialog.

'Should we have gone in to Iraq?' is a rhetorical question that exposes yet again what hypocrites these 'but the majority' bandwagon politicians are and acts as a poignant reminder that there are narcissistic people who will put party politics above what is in America's best interest.

Buckley is too sharp for Rose. Did you catch the end where Rose tried to frame the question to subordinate Buckley's opinion? Classic Buckley. What a brilliant man.

Thanks muddle.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

for the terrible mess we have. You deserve it!

Bush had no other choice other than going to war in Iraq. The bottom line is that there was not another choice.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

He makes (at least) three noteworthy points, I think:

(1) Given the best information that was available to Bush regarding WMDs, "it would have been irresponsible of him not to go to war."

(2) Had the insurgency evaporated before U.S. forces so that Saddam would have been deposed and a democracy was well on its way to being established, people would be singing Bush's praises for his decision.
What this implies, I think, is that the insurgency has succeeded or is succeeding in swaying American opinion on Iraq. This, of course, is precisely what they are about.

(3) The confrontation between the free world and radical Islam is the pressing issue of our time.

Yesterday, I told you that I knew Bush made his decision well before the official decision was announced. Well, I found the support I needed for that claim. Please read my separate blog: "When did Bush decide to go to war". The Brookings Institute article does a really good analysis of the philosophical changes that led to that decision.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Congress let him go in to Itaq.
He then did it wrong, hard headedly wrong.
Can not be excused by Buckley, who given enough time will come up with the long words to explain away the failure of the Caesars.

Another dollar classic.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

But what did he say?

M

Your asking me? Ask Locke

How freaking obvious is bas? He pulled Locke out weeks ago. Good thing, huh? Duh!

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

All three are exactly right.

On the first point - Can you imagine the outcry from the left if Bush had not invaded Iraq and then Saddam put anthrax in to the hands of terrorists to use against us?

And on the flip side, can anyone imagine the outcry from the leftist pantywaists if we had invaded Afghanistan in July, 2001 and had taken out osama’s camp and the Taliban government?

The official Carter Center and DNC position would have been that 'the peace loving talibanis and their frail old friend osama were no threat to us. The evil Israelis persuaded the dim-witted Bush to attack these harmless goat herders.'

Maximus

Muddle I agree completely with your second and third point. On your first point, I can't prove it now, but I didn't see anything that indicated "urgency" to go to war. As I told Denise, we all figured that he had at least some chemical weapons, and probably was trying to get more, but it did not appear to be a robust program like he had before the Gulf war, and it did not appear to be any imminent threat to us. I believe that the Bush administration cherry-picked the data that supported their desire to go to war.

Actually, that was Buckley's first point that I was disagreeing with. I agree with you that those were the 3 points he was making, but he was basing that assessment on what the Bush administration publicized. I'm saying that that intelligence information was cherry-picked.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Your observation: "If you think our involvement in Iraq is a distraction but I think it is crucial, we really should listen to one another and agree or disagree respectfully."

That is the heart of this discussion. Thank you for expressing it so succinctly. I DO think it is a distraction. In hindsight, we would have been better off to have left Saddam in power, at least for now. But that's just my opinion. I fully respect your reasons for believing that the war in Iraq is crucial, and you might indeed be right.

Have a nice day!
.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Mixer, as I have said previously, I volunteered eagerly and pulled strings to get myself on a deployment for the war in Afghanistan. While we were still fighting in Afghanistan, we got the word from our leadership that we could expect an war on Iraq in the next few months, sooner rather than later. This was several months before it actually occurred. I made the decision to go ahead and retire at that point, because I wanted no part of an unnecessary war. It WAS an unnecessary war, at least at that point. Sooner or later, it probably would have become necessary. In that case, I would have supported it fully.

Clinton's remarks, as I recall, were in favor of aggressively enforcing the UN resolutions as were were doing at that time. (1998) He was right. We could not afford to allow Saddam to ignore the UN resolutions, and on December 16-19, 1998, we bombed multiple Iraqi targets in the vicinity of Baghdad to make that point. That was Operation Desert Fox. We also struck individual targets in Iraq on numerous occasions over the years whenever they violated the rules, such as when they fired on our aircraft. We could have kept this up indefinitely, and it was keeping a lid on Saddam.

You could say that this too was a stalemate, but it was a stalemate in which we held all the high cards. It was slowly bleeding Iraq to death, not our forces. I say we were better off then.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

I didn't know that military people were told a war was coming up and that they were given a chance to resign if they didn't like the war.
Can all those guys in Itaq resign?

Dollar, I was due to retire in 2001, but I extended my time on active duty to serve in Afghanistan. I could have extended it even further, but chose not to. People on active duty can't just quit whenever they feel like it.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

A true war hero. Thanks for retiring before the Iraqi conflict.

Yep, just lob a couple of cruise missiles every few years at an aspirin factory - that'll take care of the problem!

You say: Clinton's remarks, as I recall, were in favor of aggressively enforcing the UN resolutions as were were doing at that time. (1998) He was right. We could not afford to allow Saddam to ignore the UN resolutions, and on December 16-19, 1998, we bombed multiple Iraqi targets in the vicinity of Baghdad to make that point. That was Operation Desert Fox. We also struck individual targets in Iraq on numerous occasions over the years whenever they violated the rules, such as when they fired on our aircraft. We could have kept this up indefinitely, and it was keeping a lid on Saddam.

Interesting defense of a non-defense. So, if Clinton (Bill) was in favor of just keeping 'Saddam in check', can you explain this one:

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

Or this one:

AND

"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Who do you support Gump?

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Wrong enemy. I've already said that I consider my career to be just average--no war hero. Your personal attacks are misguided. Your real enemy wants us both dead, and that is where you and I are in total agreement.

Instead of attacking my character, why don't you tell us what YOU propose? Do you propose "staying the course" in Iraq? Or do you propose a change of strategy, but still hold on to Iraq at all cost? Or what DO you propose?
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

You really don't read much do you? You didn't know who "outed" Valarie Plame (No one actually, but hey- I'll play along, Richard Armitage) and you don't know Ward Churchill and yet you have more in common with him than you and I ever could.

Nice to know our teachers are so well informed. I trust you are not representative of the 'average' teacher.

And now you ask: What do I think? What do I propose?

As for you finally coming to where Davids mom (sic) is with the "Here is where we are - now what" epiphany, congratulations; however, if we are on your timetable of awareness and intellectual growth, you had better learn Farsi.

Does this mean you are going to stop clambering to 'get out now',espousing that 'Bush lied - troops died', and all of those liberal mantras you like to parrot?

By the way, since you have read the other blogs on Valesco/Pena, are you prepared to admit that everything I said was correct when you accused me of 'Character assassination'? Can you admit that Gump?

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Muddle had the right idea. Discuss issues. I made some good points, and I asked you a direct, respectful question about your point of view, and you chose to get personal, again.

See ya.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Newsflash for 'Gump':

I'm not hear for your entertainment. I'm here for mine. Thanks for your contribution. You and dollar are proof that we are indeed a wealthy and generous country. You also keep the argument for evolution alive but simultaneously defy natural selection. Hum. Interesting.

I know it's hard for you to admit when you are wrong, and are being a hypocrite, but it is your first step to recovery. You must 'Gump'.

You know you will just have to apologize or live with the consequences of your attacks, lies and false statements "Gump".

Maybe the next time you challenge someone's service record (like you did me and Maximus to name but two) and attack a statement clearly defined as 'rumor' (which has ALL been substantiated much to your chagrin), you will stop to consider that you maybe you don't have any idea who you are criticizing and you may not (probably don't) have any idea what you are talking about.

Is party girl administrator worth the defense Gump?

Tell us again what a good administrator she is and how she doesn't drink, encourage partying to her kids, or allow her own 15 year old to drink. Tell us the rumor of adultery was unfounded and that her former students at McIntosh (emmyjune and eggbeater) are liars.

Defend her again 'Gump'.

Blast all who hold her accountable with accusations and unfounded name calling in the defense of her transgressions and poor example. Tell us how 3 glasses of wine over a four hour period can equate to a .135 blood/Alc level.

Go to the ex wife of her current husband (who she stabbed in the back by dating him while his wife was at home with a newborn) and tell her what a good person she is and what a great example she is setting.

Be consistent and call emmyjune a liar for saying it was so. Tell us how a teacher should allow her 15 year old to drink at home or call 'eggbeater' a liar and slanderer and accuse them of 'character assassination'. Personally, I think her character was already dead - but you, you admire her don't you 'Gump'?

The mere proof that you cannot apologize and admit being wrong is enough to tell me you are not sincere about learning the truth about politics or anything else. You are a phony. Heck, you aren't even a good liberal, you don't know enough to know what you are do you 'Gump'?

Remember: Gump - defined in the dictionary is a 'dolt', an 'idiot'. Free yourself Gump. Apologize and admit you were W-R-O-N-G.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

I wonder, though.

Should we have stayed on the same course, continuing the sanctions against Iraq? Many of the same people who oppose the war argued back then that we were guilty of "genocide"--with the resultant death of some "7000 Iraqis each month--5,000 of them children under five."

Remember the dip...um...shiite Ward Churchill and his comment about "chickens coming home to roost"? He ejaculated that 911 was the appropriate Islamic reaction to those sanctions, among other things. (He had strong words for Albright's comment that the progress was "worth" the Iraqi deaths.)

I had a similar discussion with Denise Conner a couple of weeks ago, and as I said then, my conjecture is that sooner or later, Saddam would have stepped over the line, and then we would have had to whack him. But it's like a game of chess, and timing your moves is very important. We jumped the gun, in my opinion. At least, we could have waited until the situation in Afghanistan was more stable, and we had the use of those extra troops.

I'm not familiar with Ward Churchill, but there was absolutely NO justification for 9/11, period. I just googled him so I would know what you are talking about, and he can go to well, you know. His comments are ironic, considering that we were trying to protect Iraq's neighbors from attack, as well as the Kurds within Iraq.

Speaking of the Kurds, one option that could be considered is to partition Iraq to separate the ethnic groups from each other. Probably too late now. The Kurds would love to have their own sovereign nation, but the Turks would fight that idea tooth and nail, as they have major issues with their Kurdish minorities already. And the Turks have been good allies, allowing us to operate from bases in Turkey, notably Incirlik AB.

As for our previous sanctions causing the deaths of many Iraqis (7000/month??) I have to sound a little cold-hearted and say that we should do what is in the interest of America, not what some bleeding-heart wants us to do. Keeping Saddam pinned down was in our interest. If removing Saddam was in our national interest, then that's what should have been done, but I'm just saying that it was done poorly, and it was not necessary at that time.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

When you discuss one point - he will interject and change to another.

Your question: Should we have stayed on the same course, continuing the sanctions against Iraq?

Is a good one. I added a blog to revisit the statements made by the left prior to the Iraq invasion. Please review, cut and paste, and remind people like "Gump" of those statements.

Here are but a few:

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

AND

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record

AND

"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/

AND

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"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

AND

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

AND

"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."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

AND

Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:

And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:

I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER:

Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT:

I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml

AND

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

AND

"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

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

AND

"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,/strong>
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
AND

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/

AND

"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

AND

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

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html

AND

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

AND

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
AND
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix
AND

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

WMDs found : http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

AND

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

The "Change the Course Mantra" of the left is ironic isn't it?

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

These are bona fide, documented remarks that clearly show that these people believed, with everyone else, that Iraq was stockpiling WMDs and that we had a mandate to disarm him.

I have long been amazed at how they are so easily dismissed by those who wish to say that the warmonger Bush forced this war upon us.

Perhaps it is because the quotes are a little too well-known. They have circulated among conservative websites and are thus branded as mere "republican talking points." "Oh, that," says today's anti-war democrat, as though the point may be brushed aside to make room for more pertinent data.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the war, history will show that Bush went to war with the full backing of congress. The main difference between Bush and those quoted above is that, in the wake of 911, he acted on the information rather than merely posturing himself with tough-sounding rhetoric.

Bush acted decisively immediately after 9/11, and that is the high point of his presidency. Attacking Afghanistan was exactly the right response, and it was well-executed.

I'm sure the quotes are valid. But I'm telling the truth as I knew it back then. And I'm telling you I didn't think it was necessary, based on what I was seeing. But that's just one man's opinion.

Meanwhile, the real question is what do we do now? My key point on that is to recognize Iraq as just one battle in a larger war. We need to win the war, not harpoon ourselves on this one battlefield.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

And unlike those in congress - after explaining to all of us that this would be a long tough war fought in many ways and in many places - he understood it to be the truth.

'Davids mom' said last week that it took us over two-hundred years to get where we are today - Ironic that the liberals expect Iraq to be there in five or less isn't it?

What happened to the we are in the middle of a "Full Blown Civil War" mantra?

Abe Lincoln's Civil War:
360,000 dead,
275,200 wounded,
93,000 killed in action (in four years).

51,112 dead in three days at Gettysberg.
_________________________________________
In 1994 in a period of 100 days, 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu civilians were slaughtered by machete-wielding Hutu militias, also composed primarily of civilians. The genocide in Rwanda has become one of the most notorious conflicts of the 20th century.
_________________________________________

The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo claimed over 4 million lives, the majority by disease or famine, making it the deadliest conflict since World War II.
________________________________________

The conflict in the Darfur region of Western Sudan between the Janjaweed, a government-supported Arab militia, and non-Arabs has, by some estimates, claimed 200,000 lives and displaced nearly 2 million people.

_________________________________________

Perhaps some of us need a history lesson. Imagine with the modern weapons available in Iraq what a REAL civil war would look like.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

I thought we brought back an old, half dead, ancient King or something to help run Afghanistan. One who doesn't have anything against poppies!

Your comments elevate and enlighten.

Sincerely,

The Man in the Moon

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

I figured you didn't know they had a KING! Carzi is a fligerhead!