Let's look at the news of these arrests over the weekend:
Nine members of the Christian militia group Hutaree have been indicted on multiple charges involving an alleged plot to attack police, including seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. Attorney in Michigan announced this morning.
"Six Michigan residents, along with two residents of Ohio and a resident of Indiana, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit on charges of seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence," according to the government's press release, which you can read in full below.
From the government's own press release:
The indictment further alleges that the Hutaree planned to kill an unidentified member of local law enforcement and then attack the law enforcement officers who gather in Michigan for the funeral. According to the plan, the Hutaree would attack law enforcement vehicles during the funeral procession with Improvised Explosive Devices with Explosively Formed Projectiles, which, according to the indictment, constitute weapons of mass destruction.
Assuming these allegations are true, this is indeed a nefarious plan and it's great that these people were caught. But I must also say that it's interesting to see that Improvised Explosive Devices with Explosively Formed Projectiles, which, according to the indictment are "weapons of mass destruction." That blows a big hole in the notion that there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Posts
331 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 331 of 331Michael McNeil "It's only because so many folks today have no sense of history that they think fewer than 4,000 troops killed over seven years of battle is enormous."
Be sure to pass that on to the families of the fallen and wounded.
They need a good history lesson.
What an asshole.
So Jeremy are YOU drinking...we found 500 shells, WMD"s...we found NO PRODUCTION FACILITIES....both statements can be TRUE.
Only in Jeremy-land can the two statements be taken as contradictory.
And STILL no discussion of the UN and the Human Rights Violations....
Oh and NEVER CHARGED is NOT the same as "not guilty"...apparently you don't read too well there either.
And Ayers ADMITS to the planting of bombs in his biography and in his, unfortunately timed, newmagazine article on his biography.
Admits to it, is unrepentant, AND believes more ought to have been done. At best, Ayers is a Leftist John Brown, a violent zealot who does as much harm to his cause as aid and comfort...
Just in case the wing nuts here missed this:
"Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed last week to the replacement of the Cold War-era START pact. The deal would slash their countries' nuclear arsenals by a third, and they are due to sign it on April 8 in Prague."
*Of course the ratification depends on at least one of the Republicans voting with the President...
So Iran recently became a nuclear threat??
Iran didn't exist during the eight years Bush was in office?
Never been said, we were told we should resolve these issues thru multi-lateral talks...and so we did. The EU took the lead in them....and Iran CONTINUES to advance towards the possession of nuclear weapons.
mayhap less talking and a few more sanctions or even, *GASP* some air strikes might have been a bit more efficacious.
However, I won't blame Boooosh for adopting the process recommended by the Democrats and the Europeans.
Joe said..."we found 500 shells"
Provide an objective link to what this means.
"Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed last week to the replacement of the Cold War-era START pact. The deal would slash their countries' nuclear arsenals by a third, and they are due to sign it on April 8 in Prague."
*Of course the ratification depends on at least one of the Republicans voting with the President...
this bears on WMD's, Iraq, or crazy Trools, people living underneath the bridge, How?
Oh and who sank SALT II, why a DEMOCRATIC Senate, glad you asked...so mayhap the POTUS needs to look to his own party and not just the "Wingnutz."
Of course the way to win over Republicans is to call them "wingnutz". Mayhap Obama can hire Jeremy to lobby for the Treaty's passage.
Be sure to pass that on to the families of the fallen and wounded. They need a good history lesson.
How grieving families certainly feel doesn't change to truth of what I said. And now even Vice President Joe Biden and liberal media icons like Newsweek admit the great success and something akin to real democracy that is unfolding in Iraq. I'm quite sure, moreover, that many of those bereaved families get consolation from the knowledge that their sons' and daughters' great sacrifice is now bearing fruit.
What an asshole.
Yes, you are. Sometimes sacrifice is worth it.
I notice that Alpha Liberal, who will argue to the death with anybody about anything whether or not he has an intelligent point to make (and he rarely does) neither acknowledged nor denied Pastafarian's observation that he is clearly paid to do this.
Whatever they're paying him, it's too much.
Provide an objective link to what this means.
I did, Jeremy, that was the link...it was the Washington Post, that bastion of Rightwingnuttery...
Thats' why I included the link.
Have you been drinking? Don't you rad what's posted to you?
Joe - Could you be referring to this drivel?
"According to numerous sources but not yet on the wires, Senator Rick Santorum announced a few minutes ago that the US has found 500 chemical-weapons shells in Iraq. Hot Air has the hot link for what little data exists thus far. Apparently, some of the shells contained sarin and others mustard gas. No word has come yet on when and where the US found these munitions."
Here's what followed:
"The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
(Washington Post / Thursday, June 22, 2006)
Joe - You ONLY posted the first part of the article.
Duh.
Yes that's the "drivel". The wespons were confirmed.
Thank you it's not drivel....and it does not stand in contradiction to your Paragraph 39, which talks about PRODUCTION FACILITIES. Not the weapons.
And STILL you don't disc uss the UN resoltuions concernng the ceasefire and the Human Rights Violations of the Iraqi regime cited by the AUMF.
I understand, again, that they don't flow with the hated Boooosh-lied narrative, but let's try to look at them shall we?
But I CITED THE WHOLE THING, Jeremy...all you needed to do was bestir you fingers and read....
Michael McNeil - Anybody who dismisses the massive loss of life in Iraq over the past 7 years is indeed an asshole.
We've lost over 4,000, with another 33,000 wounded, but you apparently do not consider the 100,000 and more Iraqi civilians that have been killed, with thousands more wounded, displaced or living without the semblance of a regular life.
25% don't even have electricity.
I know everybody's talking about other stuff, but I noticed this in the article...
At one point in the indictment, Hutaree leader David Brian Stone and others are alleged to have planned to go to a militia "summit" in Kentucky for planning. But "weather conditions prevented them from reaching their destination."
How serious about this whole thing could they be, if they scrapped their plans because of weather? "whoops, its' raining, let's skip that militia thing and just stay in and drink".
Joe - You left this part out:
"The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
(Washington Post / Thursday, June 22, 2006)
*And if not...show me where it appears in your comment.
Hoosier Daddy:
Reminds me of that quote about how fascism always is descending on the US but always lands in Europe.
Unfortunately, today fascism actually is landing on the US.
Speaking of WMD...and these are the ones running the GOP:
"On Monday morning, the Daily Caller (Tucker Carlson of all people) reported that the RNC spent thousands of dollars on high-end travel arrangements, swanky hotels and, most remarkably, "meals" at a lesbian-and-bondage-themed nightclub in West Hollywood."
AlphaLiberal said...
Timothy McVeigh wore a t-shirt on the day he carried out his mass murder with the slogan favored by so many right wingers today:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Acha, you got us Alpha. Tim McVeigh had a quote from the first Democratic president Thomas Jefferson, so that makes him some kind of Repub--wait a second! That doesn't make any sense.
Dude they were WMD's...what more do you want?
You said we found "squat" which was UNTRUE, we found CHEMICAL WEAPONS....
we did NOT find PRODUCTION FACILITIES...which Bill Clinton, AlGore, John Kerry, and a host of others, in France, Germany, and Britain expected us to find.
And still you can not bestir yourself to discuss the other, EQUALLY VALID reasons given for war....
As to the 100,000 civilians slain, as most of those were "owen goal" Iraqi-Iraqi deaths as in terrorist driven deaths, how is the US responsible? When Al-Quaeda sets off a bomb in a market place that's Boooosh's fault?
And how many Iraqi's had power PRIOR to Gulf War Three? Baghdad had power, yes, but not the places Saddam didn't like...they also suffered from a want of water and medicines, too, but not from a want of the Secret Police.
Speaking of WMD...and these are the ones running the GOP:
"On Monday morning, the Daily Caller (Tucker Carlson of all people) reported that the RNC spent thousands of dollars on high-end travel arrangements, swanky hotels and, most remarkably, "meals" at a lesbian-and-bondage-themed nightclub in West Hollywood."
what that doesn't even make sense....now you're just flailing about in some attmept to say, "Squirel!"
Please try to stay reasonably on topic.
WV: "forabba" I can only assume this refers to doing somethng for a Swedish pop group.
If you had bothered to follow the discussion, it is the faux outrage of the left about these virulent- violent-right-winger-must-be-tea-partiers with which the left can smear the whole conservative movement which is the point of bringing up Ayers.
The right calls our violent fringe nuts "violent fringe nuts."
It's not that the nuts should get off like Ayers and Dohrn did, it's that Ayers and Dohrn are honored and respected by many on the left. They were never punished for their violent activity and sedition.
Oh yeah, and our present POTUS had no qualms about being good friends with them -- until someone mentioned it unfavorably. Then it was a temporary "under the bus with you." {Has anyone ever found the supposed William Ayers who isn't William Ayers who visited the White House in 2009?}
It's clear the bomb which took out the brownstone in Greenwich Village and blew Ayers' friends (one his "fiancee") up wasn't a fire cracker. That and the large amounts of other explosives found in the rubble were clues they weren't planning a social. Silence from the left -- and cushy jons, besides.
So the New Black Panthers can stand outside a polling place in uniform with night sticks, and get a pass, and Bill Ayers gets a pass, because his targets weren't "random" 40 years ago, and A.L. & Co. are wetting their pants over the "violent" tea party and less than a dozen nuts who claim they follow the Bible and Jesus using the directions in John 3:16 for building pipe bombs.
Do y'all understand why we laugh at you?
mariner "Unfortunately, today fascism actually is landing on the US."
You don't even know what the word means.
Some of you are so far over the top and out of touch with reality, it's hard to believe you own computers, much less know how to type out such crap.
fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator (Obama is now a dictator?)...having complete power (no more Congress?)...forcibly suppressing opposition (arresting the GOP, putting them into camps?)...and criticism (no more newspapers or TV or radio?)...regimenting all industry (no more capitalism, no publicly traded stocks, the government now owns everything?)...and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism (A president who is half black and half white is a racist? which kid of racist...black or white?)
DUH.
JAL - And back to Ayers we go.
Coma?
Jeremy's right it's not Fascism...it's just Corporate Crony Capitalism,
Anybody who dismisses the massive loss of life in Iraq over the past 7 years is indeed an asshole.
Well, I certainly think that you are an asshole, and have for a very long time, so your returning the compliment doesn't faze me in the slightest.
We've lost over 4,000, with another 33,000 wounded, but you apparently do not consider the 100,000 and more Iraqi civilians that have been killed, with thousands more wounded, displaced or living without the semblance of a regular life.
Life is quickly coming back to Iraq, and its losses in this war — due, one might note, principally to wholesale massacres of civilians by the insurgents — while regretable, have saved the Iraqi people from the terroristic tyranny of the megalomaniac Saddam and his Nazi-like Baathists.
As Iraqi blogger Alaa in his vehicle The Mesopotamian (whose writings I've followed for many years) put it earlier this year:
“You asked me what do I think about the return of the Saddamist Baathists. Perhaps I did not answer you with sufficient clarity. The vast majority of the Iraqi people would rather die and go through hell, and would fight to the death even if that meant total destruction of everthing; rather than see the return of Ssddamists. The Americans and the whole world should not have any doubt about that. The support for the American operatin freedom was entirely for having deposed these Saddamists.”
Huzzah I believe it is possible to break the 300 posting barrier with this thread...
"Have you seen the chart?
It's a hell of a start,
It could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team."
So let's all pull together as a team, and get some good posting numbers for Althouse!
We can do it!
Someone find Ritmo, and someone rout out Loafing Oaf, bring on Beth and Vivki from Pasadena. If we work this we can do it...where's Seven Machos and Traditional Guy?
Possibly even Titus might come in, pardon the pun, and regale with his latest husband story and a discussion of his gastro-intestinal prowesss.
Oh, come now, Cedarford: surely you are well aware that the plural of "firearm" is "arsenal"! It says so right here in my New Left Media Dictionary, Fifth (Column) Edition...
wv: Peraphol. "Ask your doctor if Peraphol is right for you!"
Jeremy: OK, I will be the first conservative to admit it. There never were any WMD. George Bush, the stupidest person ever born, thought up the scheme and then convinced France, Germany and Great Britain to go along with the plan. Actually he tricked them. Why? Blood for oil, J-man, blood for oil. Plus Halliburton. And, Bush has a friend, a puppet maker by trade, whose business was failing. So Bushitler did what he had to do to get some oil. He started a war and killed millions of Iraqis in the process. Halliburton and Blackwater, of course, were in on the plot, but you knew that part already. J-man you have the whole story down cold. Absolutely cold. And Bush's puppet maker friend? Why he made hundreds of puppets of George himself and they got paraded around at lots of "protests" against the war in Iraq. And that is that.
Michael McNeil - "Life is quickly coming back to Iraq, and its losses in this war — due, one might note, principally to wholesale massacres of civilians by the insurgents — while regretable, have saved the Iraqi people from the terroristic tyranny of the megalomaniac Saddam and his Nazi-like Baathists."
Not any of the ones who are already dead, asshole.
Trying to justify the Iraqi invasion, aftermath and massive tragedy it's created for the entire population, on G.W. Bush just wanting to do the right thing by their people is disingenuous and bullshit.
We were attacked on 9/11 and instead of tracking down the people responsible, Bush took the easy way out by invading a country that had no way of defending itself.
By continuing to blather on about what a wonderful thing this has all been and how wonderful and happy the citizens of Iraq will be someday is just the standard right wing mantra that no one but the wing nuts continue to believe.
You and many of the other wing nuts here just regurgitate the usual lies and distortions Beck, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter and other liars spew forth.
Michael - Bush didn't think anything up.
Cheney, Rummy and the other neocons had been conjuring up the plan for decades. (YOU REALLY need to start reading books.)
They saw all of that black gold for the taking, used 9/11 as their pretext for invasion, skewed, distorted and flat out lied about what they said they knew (Curveball...ever hear of him?)..to get the support they needed.
All you and others here are doing is trying to justify what you all know to be based on half-truths, lies and the taking advantage of a country immediately following an attack.
And if George and his people were so fucking smart...why did they ignore the warnings right up to 9/11?
And why didn't they go after the people who planned it?
Trying to make light of the facts, and defending Bush at this stage makes you look like an idiot.
Jeremy
> A.W. - Provide objective links to
It was all over the news. Rick Santorum was talking about it. Are you an idiot?
> So Iran recently became a nuclear threat??
> Iran didn't exist during the eight years Bush was in office?
Yeah, which party made sure Bush couldn’t address iran?
> Oh, and when will you and others be posting congratulatory comments relating to the pact signed with the Russians last week?
Wow, congratulations. Obama has saved us from a problem we had 30 years ago. I mean, I guess its something, but color me unimpressed.
By the way, can we give those nukes to isreal?
Jeremy: You said: "We were attacked on 9/11 and instead of tracking down the people responsible, Bush took the easy way out by invading a country that had no way of defending itself." But I do believe that subpoenas were issued. And who is to say who the "people responsible" were. Louts who insulted Muslims and caused the attack? Meanies who pushed in front of Muslims at the movies? People who made lewd movies that inflamed the sensitivities of the attackers? Those beastly crusaders? Who is to judge, J-man, who?
And as to attacking a country that couldn't defend itself, Bush could have attacked Little Cayman Island as the "easy way out."
And if George and his people were so fucking smart...why did they ignore the warnings right up to 9/11?
That Al-Quaeda intended to attack America...wow that's actionable! And I'd say it for Obama, were the US to be threatened like that today.
And why didn't they go after the people who planned it?
We did, that's why they don't run Afghanistan any more, or haven;t you been keeping up with current events, in the immortal words of Private Hudson.
By continuing to blather on about what a wonderful thing this has all been and how wonderful and happy the citizens of Iraq will be someday is just the standard right wing mantra that no one but the wing nuts continue to believe.
and the Rightwing nutz in the Obama Administration who have heralded as one of the great achievements of the Administration....Really Jeremy you need to read the NYT a bit more closely. Otherwise you make this too easy.
I realize most here don't want to know what really took place, but do yourself a favor and read these books:
Fiasco
The Gamble
Cobra II
Behind the Invasion of Iraq
War Without End
Hubris
Bush At War
Sure Jeremy let's read those books, but mayahp you might want to read the NYT...Iraq had NATIONAL ELECTIONS, they replaced their government, all without a coup....
I know that makes the whole Boooosh thing kinda of well hard to swallow, and since Obama now proclaims Iraq qa great success you're a little behind in your talking points.
@ Jeremy fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator
{Let's see... I believe Sibelius said today that Obama can just change the recent coverage glitch in the Obamacare law by signing an executive order ...}
having complete power (no more Congress?)
{see above ...oh and the abortion thing with Stupak...}
forcibly suppressing opposition ...
{you're kidding here, right? Haven't you followed how Obama got elected by throwing out the opposition's petition, getting judges to open sealed records to eliminate competition, etc.?}
and criticism
{Did you miss when he cut FOX news out last year because they were critical of him? Or the move to de-legitimize FOX as a news agency? Heard Ed Schulz foaming at the mouth recently [today?]about shutting down Rush? The "Fairness" Doctrine? Setting up the national federally funded news service?}
regimenting all industry
{GMC anyone? Chrysler? Insurance Industry -- [give it a couple years]? Telling private entities how much they can pay their management? FIRING the head of a private company? Telling bondholders that the unions get dibs on what was private holdings? We don't even know a tiny bit of how the health care regulations will control businesses and individuals. [YOU must buy health care to pay for others.] The government will monitor every single tax return. The governrment will have real time access to your bank account?}
(... the government now owns everything?)
{See above. They are working on it. VERY HARD.}
...and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism (A president who is half black and half white is a racist? which kid of racist...black or white?)
{The "nationalism" is anti-American exceptionalism and pro world citizenship. The racism is the bigotry against [angry] white males. Or whites in general. Using race as an excuse and a weapon -- THAT is racist. There is the supposed racism that this administration and its hacks bring up just about Every.Single.Day they get a whiff of bad coverage for The One. [Remember Gates and the cop?] Using race and class to divide America is evil. This is a very very racially charged administration [not the citizens / people]. So yes it is racism.}
I've seen excuses thrown around here that attempt--but fail--to justify our criminal invasion of Iraq, such as "civil rights violations" and noncompliance by Saddam with this UN resolution or that, or "other things" spelled out in th AUMF, and the old chestnut "WMD were only one reason we went to war against Hussein." (No, they were THE reason: yes, a list of other, lesser offenses was cobbled together to provide an appearance of a bill of indictment, but the one thing Bush and Cheney and other administration stooges and their allies in the media kept hammering home was their insistence on their "bullet proof certainty" that Saddam had WMD and was mere months away from obtaining nukes, which he could fling at the west with only 45 minutes' delivery time before wreaking havoc in Christendom.)
They kept hammering this home to terrify the shit out of the public and Congress, to compel a panicked acquiescence, even enthusiastic demand, for American invasion of Iraq. Without that overriding reason, they would have had NO chance of convincing anyone there was a cause for war. They may have thought Hussein had WMD or convinced themselves that he did--although I tend to doubt it--but they claimed certainty and iron-clad proof; the subsequent failure to find any WMD or active programs refutes their supposed "certainty" and "iron-clad proof." Simply put, they lied to have a war they wanted to have.
As a member nation of the United Nations, we are bound by its charter, which, per the Constitution, is the law of the land. The charter forbids not just waging aggressive war against another country, but threatening war against another country. The only legal bases for war under the charter are in self-defense against an active or imminent attack, or as authorized by the UN Security Council.
Neither condition held; Iraq was no threat to us, had never been a threat to us, had been our ally until we betrayed them, (shows the kind of nation we are, that we ally ourselves with such murderous scum as Hussein), and could not, in the words of Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the months before 9/11, even mount a credible threat against their neighbors in the region. When presented to the UN Security Council to vote for or against war, the motion was quickly withdrawn, as it became obvious there would not be a majority vote in favor. There was no UN approval of or authorization for our war. We invaded Iraq anyway, and thus commenced on our long campaign of war crimes and mass murder, crimes Obama continues today.
Joe, it's really impossible to discuss this with you because you evidently haven't read a fucking thing related to Iraq or Afghanistan.
As an example, you act as you don't know anything about the briefings presented to Bush right before 9/11. Is that possible?
You also talk about how the Taliban "don't run Afghanistan any more"...because of George W. Bush's efforts? You're kidding, right?
The Hill (9/27/09):
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Sunday said that the United States has faced difficulties in the Afghanistan conflict because the Bush administration did not have the same kind of "comprehensive strategy" that President Barack Obama does for the nation.
(Gates' comments are eye-opening considering he served as Defense Secretary in the Bush administration and because American forces first arrived in Afghanistan in 2001.)
"I will tell you, I think that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s," he told CNN. "And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan."
Read more...talk less.
Tahnk G*d Cookie is here...he's wrong but consistent....
The UNSC had already passed resolution promising serious consequences for the failure to comply.
it is true serious consequences was never defined, but neither was force excluded....
and yes the UN forund the Hussein regime in violation of the UN Resolutions.
WV: sisguess....I reckon my sister guessed right.
@J They saw all of that black gold for the taking, used 9/11 as their pretext for invasion,
Giggle.
I saw Petraeaus interviewed on BBC or Europeran CNN, forget which, a copuple weeks ago.
Has it ever occurred to any of you singing this song that we could have bought every single drop of oil from now til kingdom come for what we have spent on the war?
And had change for McDonald's besides?
As an example, you act as you don't know anything about the briefings presented to Bush right before 9/11. Is that possible?
would those be the briefings that said AQ intended to attaack the US?
Wow that's certainly actionable...I mean AQ is going to attack America? So what should he have done first, outlawed Islam, arrested and deported all the Muslims, attacked Afghanistan, then? What?
You also talk about how the Taliban "don't run Afghanistan any more"...because of George W. Bush's efforts? You're kidding, right?
So Mullah Omar's in Kabul...oh that's right a guy named Karzai is in Kabul. Gee you have trouble witht he obvious yourself.
You know Jeremy, you really should shut up about Iraq.
I have a son there right this very minute as we speak. He is with the one of the Transition and Stabilization Teams.
You really need to shut up DBQ , Florida and New Ham style.
Oh yeah. And he volunteered for this deployment.
Robert Cook - "Iraq was no threat to us, had never been a threat to us, had been our ally until we betrayed them,.."
Between the end of the Persian Gulf War, waged by Bush, Sr. and the invasion orchestrated by G.W. we didn't lose a single American life and spent approximately 5 billion to completely contain Saddam.
Sure, he was a disgusting and violent dictator, but we've spent decades supporting people just as disgusting and just as violent as Saddam...and we helped him out plenty during the Iraqi/Iranian conflict.
And of course, anybody who reads knows that the Reagan administration didn't just tolerate having Saddam in charge of Iraq, they funded and armed his regime. (Don't remember Rummy sidling up to that nasty dictator?)
Over the years, we provided military assistance, aircraft, and of course, plenty of money, too.
Defending Bush's invasion is a total crock.
We were attacked on 9/11 and instead of tracking down the people responsible,
You ignore the fact that the U.S. military kicked the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan more than a year before the Iraq war got started. Afterwards the Taliban returned from its sanctuaries in Pakistan, but that was much later.
Bush took the easy way out by invading a country that had no way of defending itself.
LOL! If one is to go to war, attacking a country that has “no way of defending itself” is exactly the way to do it. War isn't some sporting event where the sides (like some boxing match) should be evenly matched up. (You're really asking for huge casualties in that case.) As it was, it cost less than 200 American servicemen's lives to initially topple Saddam and his Baathists — and considering all the shit not to speak of physical attacks that we endured from that megalomaniac over the dozen years following Gulf War I, it's ridiculous that we pussyfooted around not eliminating him for so long.
By continuing to blather on about what a wonderful thing this has all been and how wonderful and happy the citizens of Iraq will be someday is just the standard right wing mantra that no one but the wing nuts continue to believe.
Hardly. As I mentioned the (Democratic) Vice President of the United States recently exclaimed over the great success and progress in Iraq ('course he attributed it all to the Obama Administration, which is ludicrous, but still…). Then there's a recent Newsweek article noting that something very like real democracy is now taking off in that country.
Beyond that, in December of last year, that far-right bastion MSNBC reported on a poll which revealed that the American people by a proportion of 57% now believe that the Iraq war has been a success. Since the recent elections in Iraq, no doubt that percentage is now even higher.
So, “just wing nuts” believe that, huh? You're an idiot.
Right wingers jump to defense of terrorist cop killers!
Really, this is amazing stuff!! They're defending a bunch of home grown terrorists!
Truly, the party of that great government-hater Timothy McVeigh!
what a bunch of haters!
Michael McNeil misses the point:
You ignore the fact that the U.S. military kicked the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan more than a year before the Iraq war got started. .
Have you heard of this Osama bin Laden fellow? Bush pulled resrources away from that battle when they had OBL pinned down in Tora Bora. And they let the mass murderer get away.
But you would rather make excuses for the man who let this mass murderer get away. Party over country to a sickening degree.
And of course, anybody who reads knows that the Reagan administration didn't just tolerate having Saddam in charge of Iraq, they funded and armed his regime. (Don't remember Rummy sidling up to that nasty dictator?)
No anyhone who spouts Leftist TALKING POINTS says this....
1) France and Russia, and to a lesser extent Brasil armed Saddam's regime. Or didn't you notice the T-55's, the T-62's, the T-72's and the Soviet APCs in the armory, the MiGs and Mirages in the Air Force, or the Brazilian APCS, recce vehicles or Bombardment rockets in the arsenal? Funny, in none of that do I see US weaponry?
2) The Weapons of Mass Destruction came from France (Osirak) and Italy (Plutonium hot cells) or West Germany or Holland (chemical precursors or chemical manufacturing plants)
3) The US no more "funded" Iraq than it funded Saudi Arabia or Iran...all of whom exported oil and profited from the same.
4) US oil tends to come from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada...but as oil and money are fungible, yes to an extent we "funded" Iraq. To a lerger extent France, Russia, and Japan, and the rest of Europe did.
But you keep pluggin' away ther dood/doodette.
JAL - I'm really sorry you have a son serving in this fiasco, but I am an American citizen and, as your tea bagger friends like to say: it's all part of that freedom of speech thing.
I also have no idea what your son serving in Iraq has to do with the primary point of discussion: whether we should even be there in the first place.
Personally, if I lost a loved on in this mess, I would have a tough time understanding why any American has lost someone because of the decisions made by the Bush administration.
Just look at the elections last week if you really want to know how out of control things still are in Iraq.
Joe - I never said we were the ONLY people to support Saddam.
You need to read before commenting.
Michael McNeil - You're a fucking dolt.
Defending the reasoning behind the Iraqi invasion at this point is a waste of time.
Have you heard of this Osama bin Laden fellow? Bush pulled resrources away from that battle when they had OBL pinned down in Tora Bora. And they let the mass murderer get away.
Have YOU heard of logistics and terrain?
The US could not support large numbers of troops in Afghanistan...Iraq diverted NO troops or resources. And I understand it's rather difficult to spot a fellow on a donkey in the Hindu-Kush...
But your guy's had a whole year. So let's ask, "Where's Osama's head" Alpha? Why hasn't Obama found him?
What sinister purpose does Obama have in his "failure" to capture Osama, is he saving him for an "October Surprise?" Surely, with all the rsources NOW available, not in Iraq, being wasted Obama can catch Osama?
At a recent CATO event, Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) said that most Republicans in Congress believe the Iraq War was a mistake.
Congressman Tom McClintock:“I think everyone (in Congress) would agree that Iraq was a mistake.”
Hear it for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky-ts5bYBdo&feature=player_embedded
You could the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, many thousands of dead US troops. Except they bear a silent witness.
Keep spinning.
Joe - I never said we were the ONLY people to support Saddam.
You need to read before commenting.
I DID read Jeremy, i even quoted you...what you don't like is yougot BUSTED in a lie.
Now show me the US weapons and the US money that went to Saddam....
You could the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, many thousands of dead US troops. Except they bear a silent witness.
Just like all those dead GI's and dead French civilians from 1944....So how about those elections in Iraq, Alpaha or are they just fictions of our fevered rightwing imaginations?
The Sunday Herald
June 14, 2004
(This must have been BEFORE Saddam became such bad, bad man):
Under the successive presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the USA sold nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology to Saddam Hussein.
In the early 1990s, UN inspectors told the US Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs —which oversees American export policy —that they had "identified many US-manufactured items exported pursuant of licenses issued by the US department of commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs".
In 1992, the committee began investigating "US chemical and biological warfare-related dual-use exports to Iraq". It found that 17 individual shipments totaling some 80 batches of biomaterial were sent to Iraq during the Reagan years.
These included two batches of anthrax and two batches of botulism being sent to the Iraqi ministry of higher education on May 2, 1986; one batch each of salmonella and E.Coli sent to the Iraqi state company for drug industries on August 31, 1987.
Other shipments from the US went to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the department of biology at the University of Basra in November 1989; the department of microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the ministry of health in April 1985 and Officers' City military complex in Baghdad in March and April 1986.
by Andrew Buncombe,
The Independent
Dec. 24, 2003
Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons.
The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.
The criticism in no way changed Washington's wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and "to improve bi-lateral relations ... at a pace of Iraq's choosing".
Earlier this year, Mr Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration regularly cited Saddam's willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world.
Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds — particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 — as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.
But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.
aAnd a CATO meeting, OF COURSE CATO thinks Iraq was a mistake...they're a Libertarian think tank.
They're solution to Afghanistan was to bomb the place...with weapons they opposed from carriers they felt were unnecessary by forces they flet should be cut by 60%.
So all-in-all the CATO Institute really isn't a great source of "conservative republican" thought, but thatnk yhou tfor trying.
Washington D.C., 18 December 2003
Newly declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive show the British Embassy in Baghdad recommending Saddam Hussein to London in 1969 as a "presentable young man" with an "engaging smile," "with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business."
U.S. documents published in today's Saddam Hussein Sourcebook quote Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1975 telling the Iraqi foreign minister "we do not think there is a basic clash of national interests between Iraq and the United States" (the Iraqi disagreed), and that Israeli influence on U.S. policy would diminish given "our new electoral law" which means "the influence of some who financed the elections before isn't so great."
The newly declassified briefing notes for special envoy Donald Rumsfeld's second trip to Baghdad in March 1984 reveal Rumsfeld's instructions to reinforce the message of U.S. interest in improved relations "at a pace of Iraq's own choosing," and to emphasize that U.S. criticism of Saddam's chemical weapons use versus Iran was not meant as a pro-Iranian or anti-Iraq gesture. Saturday, December 20, marks the 20th anniversary of Rumsfeld's famous handshake meeting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
When the U.S. Senate passed economic sanctions on Iraq in 1988 for using poison gas against the Kurds, U.S. ambassador April Glaspie reported that the U.S. construction company Bechtel planned to employ "non-U.S. suppliers of technology and continue to do business in Iraq," according to a CONFIDENTIAL State Department cable. In April 2003, Bechtel landed the largest U.S. Agency for International Development contract to date for infrastructure repair work in Iraq, with an initial payment of $34.6 million and long-term value of up to $680 million.
Have you heard of this Osama bin Laden fellow? Bush pulled resrources away from that battle when they had OBL pinned down in Tora Bora. And they let the mass murderer get away.
So? It was a mistake (always presuming Bin Laden was even there to be captured, which is uncertain). But mistakes are always made in war, usually in abundance, and after it happened and he escaped to Pakistan, there wasn't much that could be done.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan was (for the time being) free of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the Bush Administration turned its attention to another thorn in our side, Saddam. There, after our kicking out Saddam and his Baathists, Al Qaeda declared Iraq to be the “principal front” in their jihad against the West, and jihadist fighters following Al Qaeda's banner flocked in — whereupon the Iraqi people turned against them and the U.S. military and Iraqi forces slaughtered thousands and thousands of them, giving Al Qaeda a black eye in the eyes of the Arab world from which they have never recovered.
Oh dear, that's just awful. ;-)
Under the successive presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the USA sold nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology to Saddam Hussein.
and EXACTLY what went to Iraq...you might profitably read Cordesman's Volume on Iraq....Holland provided cehmical precursors, and Germany the industrial plant...not the US. I ahve never read of any large-scale nuclear, chemical or biological weapons suppport for Iraq.
Ames Iowa Anthrax was widely exported thru the 1950's and later, as an AGRICULTURAL EXPORT....Anthrax, never used by Iraq, was also a major vetinary problem in the first and developing worlds.
And E. Coli????? You're going to talk aobut E. Coli??? SO now bad hamburger is a WMD? This thread has come full circle.
Ann Althouse said...
Ha ha.
Indeed. Throw some tasty bait in the water and watch the fish create Althousian Vortexes in the water as they fight over it.
================
To the argument that the Iraq War was not costly because "only" 4,000 "heroes" died --well, that is the wrong measure to judge the immense damage it did to America and the bumbling Bush's legacy.
If we had a chance to re-do that vote for the Iraq War, just how many votes would that have gotten?
The war is judged a bad mistake. The 4,000 lost are peripheral to the real reasons we call it a disaster. They become important only in they are seen as wasted lives while casualties in other wars, even Vietnam, are thought of as necessary, unavoidable, or even "for a good cause".
1. We lost a trillion dollars we could have used elsewhere.
2. We substantially undermined US power and diplomatic status globally - allowing players like Iran a much freer hand to do as they pleased while the US was "ensnarled and unable to counter events elsewhere"/
3. Bush's obsession with the "noble Iraqis" led him to abdicate other crucial Presidential responsibilities - to the economy, to our jobs competiveness, to our looming healthcare disaster, and the fiscal wreck. The fiscal wreck that his advisors warned him could be transformed into a total crisis if "just a few of the stacked cards went away", as early as 2002. Bush thought all the duties he abdicated were peripheral to his being a Churchillian sort of War Leader...fighting the Evildoers and "bringing democracy and freedom to noble Muslims all over the planet". And as long as his benefactors got big tax cuts, the poor guy figured everything would be OK.
4. Credibility was lost over WMD and the lack of ability or concern by the Bushies to defend both their actions and America.
5. Bush decided that he would put 90% of his effort into "how Everything changed after 9/11". But that meant he went 6 years just rubberstamping whatever spending Congress wanted him to do, adding his own vast new spending to get votes..
6. Oblivious to his Open Borders, or China eating our lunch. Or Russia justly getting revanchist over US meddling in Georgia, the Ukraine, Central Asia, our recognizing Kosovo, and meddling in Chechnya.
The Iraq War was a very bad call, in 20-20 hindsight. The postwar was incompetently waged, and the damage to America was far more severe than just the light (as wars go) casualties we took/
Joe, Joe, Joe. Yes, I have heard of logistics and terrain. Your argument is basically "but it was hard!"
And we now know that bush withdrew resources from the conflict. They relied on mercenaries to go and get OBL and his people.
"Iraq was a fundamental wrong turn," John Brennan, a former deputy executive director of the CIA and a former chief of the National Counter-terrorism Centre, told American media.
"The collective effort in the government required to go after an individual like Bin Laden - the Iraq campaign consumed that."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1054349/We-havent-seen-Bin-Laden-Tora-Bora--distracted-Iraq--U-S-admits.html#ixzz0jbgCPKUN
More here:
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-battle-tora-bora
I'm in a humorous mood but this is not at all funny.
Althouse's mentor Glenn Reynolds thinks there's something wrong with this militia being busted.
"THE TIMING APPEARS CONVENIENT: FBI stages domestic raids."
Joe - Are you doing drugs?
I posted this comment: "And of course, anybody who reads knows that the Reagan administration didn't just tolerate having Saddam in charge of Iraq, they funded and armed his regime. (Don't remember Rummy sidling up to that nasty dictator?)"
An"d you respond with a litany of other countries that did the same.
Then I respond with
"Joe - I never said we were the ONLY people to support Saddam. You need to read before commenting."
And you come back with this?
"I DID read Jeremy, i even quoted you...what you don't like is yougot BUSTED in a lie."
What lie? Where are you quoting me?
That makes absolutely no sense.
I'm beginning to think you're even dumber than first thought.
Alpha, Alpha, Alpha...what's Obama's EXCUSE then...come on Alpha how come Booooooosh is a failure for not finding one guy in a mountainous area the size of California, but now Obama can't and it's OK?
Of course under the hated, evilllllll, tricksy, lying Boooosh, AQ and the Taliban lost Afghanistan, lost their financial backers, lost 2/3 of their leadership, lost tens of thousands in Iraq, but I guess you're right Boooosh failed in Afghanistan.
Only 28 or so to go....can't someone get Traditonal or Ritmo in here?
J -- I bring it up becasue you seem to think you are the authority on Iraq because you read some books.
I have a son working with the Iraqi Army. And he values the people and the place enough to go back (he was there in 2005) and help them instead of whining.
He asked one of the translators what he thought about the war. He was told it was a sad time and a happy time for Iraq. Sad because people died. Happy because Saddam and the regime was gone. The picture he sent a couple weeks ago of some of the guys he works with shows them standing, showing their purple index fingers. They did not smile for the picture even though he was ribbing them because they told him this was a very serious thing that they could vote as they did.
And you can staunch the sympathy. He does not want or need anyone's sympathy. He would -- and could -- kick your butt from here to Baghdad.
How about we get over the crap over whether Iraq was right or wrong.
What's the deal these days? "It is what it is."
Sure Alpha it's not a giant conspiracy....just like Waco, the FBi is looking for some publicity. So this is a way to get it.....
I never thought this site could become more right wing crazy, but between Joe and this McNeil character, I'm afraid I was wrong.
After all we've see and read, these two are still on the George W. Bush bandwagon regarding the rationale behind invading Iraq.
These two really need to visit a library.
Jeremy:
As an example, you act as you don't know anything about the briefings presented to Bush right before 9/11. Is that possible?.
Jeremy, are you referring the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that Bush got?
The one where he took no action whatsoever?
The one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
Isn't it weird how Republicans have the ability to ignore that dereliction of duty, even as they use 9/11 as a political cudgel?
Shameless, really.
Jeremy, it's not just them. there's a lot of partisan revisionism from the Republicans regarding 9/11 and the Iraq War.
After all, the Republican Party is still the Party of Bush and they have not parted with his policies.
These two really need to visit a library.
A simple assertion of failure does NOT PROVE THE FAILURE, Jeremy...I think you have failed to make a sustained case for your side.
To turn it around the person with the problem is YOU. Your own POTUS provclaims Iraq a success, why can't you?
Calling someone is rightwing nut is not an argument, not really, it's merely slinging an insult. Now mayhap at HuffPo or kos it's sufficient, but you neveraddressed:
1) the other issues in the AUMF;
2) the question of exactly HOW the US "funded and armed" Saddam.
You have leveled charges and those charges have been refuted, with evidence...I'd say the problem isn't with me or McNeil but with Jeremy.
No, there's no justifying the massive loss of life that had been the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Especially coming from the same crowd that parades around calling themselves "pro-Life."
And I have relatives there and a friend going soon. Doesn't make it right.
No, there's no justifying the massive loss of life that had been the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
What would justify it then, Alpah? When would it not ahve been a failure...when Obama invaded, when Hillary invaded, when Kerry invaded...when Iraq elects Barney Frank PM?
How many sets of elections does the place need to have before it's not a failure?
Here's the latest on the diots some here are defending by throwing Ayers into the mix:
(CNN) -- "Captain Hutaree," his wife and two sons planned with other militia members to kill a law enforcement official to draw the officer's colleagues to the funeral, authorities say. Then, according to an indictment unsealed Monday, the militia planned to attack the funeral procession to kick off its war against the U.S. government.
Members of the Hutaree militia, whose Web site says it is preparing for end times to "keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive," have been indicted on five counts, including seditious conspiracy and attempting to use weapons of mass destruction.
Christians intent upon plans to "kill a law enforcement official to draw the officer's colleagues to the funeral."
So they could "kick off its war against the U.S. government."
This is what the tea bagger movement is bringing about.
Before the war they justified the invasion of another country because they said Iraq was a clear and present danger to the USA due to WMD, and that Saddam worked with al Qaeda on 9/11/.
We now know both reasons were FALSE. (we knew it then, actually)
Now they say all the tens or hundreds of dead and maimed Americans and Iraqs were worth it, the millions of Iraqi's in exile worth it, the hundreds of billions in lost treasure was worth it, the enhanced presence of Iran in Iraq worth it, the stain on our nation's name worth it.
Who are you to say those people needed to die for your vain game? Why does anyone think it's the American way to conquer another nation and dictate to them their government?
It's sick.
Jeremy, were they "pro-Life," too?
Here's the latest on the diots some here are defending by throwing Ayers into the mix:
_________---------------_____
This is what the tea bagger movement is bringing about.
Stop lying Jeremy no one is defending them....
Ayers is brought in because it's ironic isn't it....actually BLOWINGS THINGS UP AND KILLING PEOPLE...you get tenure.
Just talk about it...you are a terrorist.
But mayhap it is what "Tea Baggers" are bringing about...I'm not gay. Are you accusing Tea Baggers of inciting Christian violence. Now if i were Titus I'd call you out.
Now the TEA PARTY, I don't see that doing anyhing to inspire violence, but hey Jeremy you need to keep your terms precise and/or straight
Joe:
What would justify it then, Alpah? .
Maybe you missed my point.
I'm not the one trying to justify. It was not justified.
You also ignored the Aug 6 PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
Before the war they justified the invasion of another country because they said Iraq was a clear and present danger to the USA due to WMD, and that Saddam worked with al Qaeda on 9/11/.
You just can't help the lies can you?
Just bring out one quote from the Administration saying Saddam was involved in 9/11?
It's a manufactured Leftist Talking Point.
Nice try.
Joe - "What would justify it then, Alpah? When would it not ahve been a failure...when Obama invaded..."
Obama voted against the invasion.
You guys have not even bothered to read my Memos entitled, "Obama Determined To Strike At Us". It is a must read in Israel these days.
Uh geeez, Alpha that's the same article...I did read it, and quoted it back to you and fisked it...you just don't like my rsponse.
Any REASONABLE peson reading that would figure that NO ONE, Bush or OBama is going to see 9/11 in that report.
Not justifiable, I guess we shuold have left the Al-Tikriti clan in charge. Go read Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. The chapter on humanitarian interventions. Though Walzer opposed this war, I'd say this was a JUST war...it was just waged by the wrong politician....had OBAMA waged it it'd be fine.
He already counts it as one of the signal successes of his Administration.
Obama voted against the invasion.
Oh RLY?
Even before he was a US Senator, man he was powerful....
He may have opposed it, but he sure embraces it now...I believe it's listed as one of his Administrations Greatest Accomplishments.
Joe -
2004 - Dick Cheney
"We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com
"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com
Dick Cheney
2002
"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
Yes Jeremy, so now you agree Saddam had contact with Terrorists....so we have a reason to attack him, right.
But NONE OF THOSE, say's Saddam had anyhting to do with 9/11....the Administration NEVER claimed it and you're simply lying, to try to justify your baseless claim.
I never thought this site could become more right wing crazy, but between Joe and this McNeil character, I'm afraid I was wrong.
After all we've see and read, these two are still on the George W. Bush bandwagon regarding the rationale behind invading Iraq.
These two really need to visit a library.
High praise, coming from Jeremy! (Since my principle is to do the opposite of what he thinks is reasonable.) And, oh, I've visited libraries and the Internet. I've read all of Michael Yon's on-the-scene postings and his book about the Iraq war, for instance — I'll bet Jeremy has not. I've read the Iraqi bloggers — I'll bet he has not. Thank Ghod, I only follow his advice in inversion. And I'm as much a far right-wing Republican as Christopher Hitchens is.
Oh man Jeremy and I are going to carry this over three hundred on our backs!
I tell you Alpha, Ritmo, Traditional, Meade...SLACKERS!
I say "Here's to you Mr. Crazy Leftwing Kookman" you can carry a thread.
Come on people....so close...I will NOT move this thread over on a merely frivolous posting....come on Jeremy....you can do it
As an attorney I believe that the statute Of Limitations has run on the 2003 Iraq War by now. Let's talk current events instead. We wingnuts are very lonely now that El Rushbo is on vacation in an undisclosed location. And where is The Smiling Marxist President these days anyway? Is he off searching for the elusive missing link between beneficial CO2 trace gasses and colder than ever winters?
Especially coming from the same crowd that parades around calling themselves “pro-Life.”
Really? I've argued abortion on this list a number of times in the past; you've never heard me call myself “pro-life,” and I'm not, except insofar as I oppose abortion of third-trimester babies (“partial-birth” abortion), which — since the fetus at that point has an advanced developed human brain — really is infanticide.
I keep checking the concordance in my Bible. I'll have to dig out Strong's before too long.
I simply can not find that pipe bomb recipe in here. I thought there was something fishy about that guy who used to show up at the sporting events with the John 3:16 sign. But it wasn't that verse.
Mmmmm....
"Love your enemies...." Nope, That's not it.
"Cut off the heads of infidels...." Nope. Wrong book.
What I want to know is why they made WMD when the Bible says buy a sword. Maybe some of the experts on Christianity on the list can fill me in.
Jeremy?
Did any of you comment warriors see The Pacific last night on HBO? It was another fine example of true stories being so much more interesting than people arguing over news stories they have heard. Robert Leckie was a fine writer, and I have many of his histories. Last night he shared how a an Australian family took him in and then dumped him because he was going back into harm's way. People do not like to stay friends with the colleagues they hear are getting laid off soon either.I am always glad that God has more guts and values his faithful servants more than most men do. Semper Fi was God's motto first.
Jeremy said...
uneducated - yes, with two degrees - BA in Poli Sci , BS in Computer Sci and I don't need Kos or Puffington or The Zero to tell me what to think: "I hate to tell you, but, as far as the indictment is concerned, Mrs. Meade was being droll. She was criticizing it."
Oh, bullshit, that wasn't all she was saying.
She said that the notion that there weren't WMD found in Iraq was basically incorrect, if one is to define "Explosively Formed Projectiles" as being WMD.
There's nothing "droll" about that.
It's just right wing drivel.
Now ask her for your cookie, suck-ass.
I notice, when you can't say anything else, which is most of the time, you go straight to the four letter words - about all you can master when foaming at the mouth.
What she said, and I'll try to keep the words to as few syllables as possible for you, is that, if a prosecutor thinks homemade IEDs are weapons of mass destruction, then there were thousands in Iraq.
That is droll. It is also reductio ad absurdum.
You may not be the most ignorant human being with whom I have ever had the misfortune to communicate, but you are obviously in the top two. Take your foul mouth back to Moulitsas' gutter where it belongs, it's his idea of eloquence.
PS The Duelfer report said it was probably the best thing we went in since the potential to make those weapons was clearly and readily available.
It's funny how folks like to trot out "Pro-Life" as if somehow then any support for "death" is Hypocrisy.
Now it might score points at Huff Po or Kos, but to anyone with more than a few brain cells firing it simply means...NOT IN FAVOUR OF ABORTION.
You can be Pro-Life and Pro-Capital Punishment...I'm not, but you can be.
It doesn't follow that Little Ted Bundy is inviolable in the womb and therefore inviolable outside the womb.
One can be Pro-Life and Pro-Just War…..
One can simultaneously support the Assassination of Adolf Hitler, who was Pro-Life, and still support the Pro-life position.
Pro-Life means support for the life of the innocent, not the guilty.
Just my little contribution to the education of Jeremy and Alpha.
Did any of you comment warriors see The Pacific last night on HBO? It was another fine example of true stories being so much more interesting than people arguing over news stories they have heard. Robert Leckie was a fine writer, and I have many of his histories.
No I don't get HBO....so how TRUE is "Pacific"...this comment warrior wants to know. I've read "With the Old Breed", but this really isn't that is it?
It's a compilation of several tales isn't it?
I'd recommend "Marine"-out of print for the young reader and "Goodbye Darkness" as well.
But I'm only a comment warrior.
Asterisk or not, huzzah, three cheers and an’a Tiger we’ve broken he 300 mark.
The cops charged a student here in Charlotte with possession of a weapon of mass destruction last year.
He had a sawed-off shotgun.
No, I am not joking.
jeremy: on another thread you averred that you studied business. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Traditonal i apologize for the testy comment warrior response...
No I don't get HBO, and I'm trying to limit my intake of USMC Recruiting Films.
My friend, the Sgt. in Uncle Sam's Misguided Children is no doubt watching, Tivo'ing, and pre-ordering the DVD's as we speak.
AlphaLiberal said...
No, there's no justifying the massive loss of life that had been the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Sure there is. 95% of the massive loss of lives was just one batch of Arab Islamoids killing a different batch of Arab Islamoids.
It's what they do. Not America.
Note that 400,000 Arab Muslims got slaughtered by Islamoids or the Army in the 2nd Algerian War from 1995-2000 and it barely registered on Western radar screens as something we should care in the least about.
Ditto the 2 million semi-Arab Sudanese who whacked one another in the North..the same sort, even the "noble Darfurans" - who were the butchers of 2 million Christian and animist "black Africans" in the 90s.
It's just a talking point of the Left that Evil America is of course responsible for 100% of bad events globally
-------------------
Joes books. The William Manchester book, "Lie Down in Darkness" was a soaring and quite horrific read on what a young Marine found war was like. It starts with remembering the 1st man he killed - a Jap sniper who he shot in the leg while aiming for his head. The Jap was in a stabilizing harness so he couldn't bring his rifle to bear on Manchester, and snipers weren't taken prisoner.
But no matter, his leg shot with a .45 ripped open the Japs femoral artery and the Jap sniper was down for the count in a split second.
AL,
You are rewriting history again. Ayers and his crew DID target police. In fact they set off a bomb on a window sill at a police station and did kill cops. They also did kill Brinks guards. They actually celebrated the killings.
The ones who were just arrested did none of these things. Teaching the use of expolosive materials. How is that different from the teaching of civil disobedience that Zero and the Annenberg Group were pushing in Chicago - and they had access to millions of dollars to do that. And for that matter almost any chemistry class teaches the use of explosive materials. So does almost any chemistry set for kids. In addition, while on the subject of the Annenberg Project, what are these people doing that is even half what the Annenberg Project was involved in. And the Ayers Dohrn groups was even worse in what it was pushing - and they actually were involved in planning and had they not screwed up would have killed a whole bunches of NCO's at Fort Dix.
Orwell had it right bout the rewriting of history. And he also had it right as to what kind of political group would be doing the rewriting - the leftists.
Joe...No offense taken. Leckie was the author and the subject of the story in last night's episode 3. He is a very talented writer who was writing about his actual experiences. Incidentally, Manchester's fine book was written from a distance because he was not with the First Marines at Guadalcanal, although he was in several later campaigns ending at Okinawa, but he wrote from other's experiences about the Canal.
There is something here that does not seem right. These types of groups are more supportive of their local cops than the average individual.
This is Barack Obama attempting to recreate what Janet Reno did in Waco, and for precisely the same reasons.
Oh, great. Hutaree truthers. Did you know that Eric Holder was seen in Indiana within the past six months?
C-4...William Manchester's 1979 memoir was called "Goodbye Darkness". I gave my retired Senior Partner a copy in 1979 because he had served in the Pacific during the War. He really liked it. I remember him telling me that the Admirals and Generals serving in the War would "Just as soon kill you as look at you". He was a politically active man that was Herman Talmadge's main man in the area. He understood men and power and he meant what he told me. Times were deadly serious in the dark 1942-43 days.
Maybe somebody's already addressed this, I don't know.
Why is it that when a bunch of "Christians" supposedly plan a terrorist attack their religion is featured prominently in all news accounts, but when the religion in question is Islam you have to go to page eight paragraph thirty to see that information, if it's mentioned at all?
AL: The one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
Isn't it weird how Republicans have the ability to ignore that dereliction of duty, even as they use 9/11 as a political cudgel?
Nice of you to drop down to the level of Trutherism. It's not a shock you've gone here.
But, let's look at that alert. There was ONE specific --- that they were scouting federal buildings in NYC. Ironically, none were attacked on 9/11.
Feel free to provide a plan of action for the attacks to stop them. You know, since Bush was negligent and all...
To give you a heads up, "inside the US" consists of 3.79M sq miles. That is, you know, A LOT of territory to cover. And you can't simply target Muslims as that'd lead to lawsuits. And that they hadn't really committed too many crimes before 9/11 makes it a bit difficult to notice them.
So, a plan of action that is remotely possible. Go ahead. Wow us.
This is what the tea bagger movement is bringing about.
Our President was friends with people lower than this. Note, you don't see high-ranking people who are friends with these clowns...we DO have the President who is friends with admitted terrorists who aren't apologetic for what they did.
Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds — particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 — as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.
But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.
Yes, in 1983, how dare Reagan and Rumsfeld know what Hussein would do in 1988! You're condemning Rumsfeld and Reagan for not being able to SEE THE FUTURE.
You're aware the article is dealing with documents FIVE YEARS BEFORE Saddam used gas against Kurds...right? I'm betting either Kos or Media Matters didn't make it clear, but you should read what you post.
Really, you can't be this much of an idiot and actually be capable of breathing.
Why is it that when a bunch of "Christians" supposedly plan a terrorist attack their religion is featured prominently in all news accounts, but when the religion in question is Islam you have to go to page eight paragraph thirty to see that information, if it's mentioned at all?
Because Jesus was a warrior and Mohammad was a carpenter or something like that...
I love your site. Perhaps you would like to learn many things.... 雞巴/鷄巴,屄, 逼, 比, 爛屄)
AL,
You are losing it again. Bush gets a briefing that some city in the US is going to get bombed sometime in the next couple of weeks by airplane starting from some city to some other city at some hour of some day. From that Bush is supposed to infer that on 9/11 at shortly before 8AM a plane from Boston will attack the WTC. Of course the fact that 4000 planes per day leave or arrive at the NYC airports (I live between 2 of them and I would say at last 4000 planes are arriving or leaving). That briefing really gives the specifics that Bush would need to know to act. And if he should act, then all AQ has to do is delay the attack for a day or so and Bush would lose any support he got from the left, assuming that the left would give any support at all under the circumstances.
Your rewriting of history continues. Is there anything that the left will not stoop to that would cover what they try to charge the Republicans with? From what i have seen, certainly not. In fact what I see is that the left seems to think that the Republicans would do all the illegal things they do so they make the charge with no backing and think it will stick if they keep repeating it.
Jeremy,
Ayers, contrary to whatever drivel was published, was not prosecuted due to the political influence of his father. That kind of influence buys a lot of people. Just like the influence of your Fuhrer, Andy Stern, buys a whole lot of President.
For the moron who claims Ayers, Dohrn, and others never planned mass murder, you are wrong. Mass murder is defined as the killing of four or more people in one incident or by the same person in a short time frame.
Any explosive can kill four or more people. Which, of course, brings us to the progressive terrorist Luis Guiterrez. Who was running around Chicago with the FALN planting bombs. Now he is a US Congressman. He still advocates for the FALN.
Not one of you purple shirts will condemn him. Nor will you condemn Bobby Rush, a Black Panther who yelled at protests- Kill the Pigs(cops).
You never condemn the violence at the economic summits either.
But you spend hours and hours over a few lone nuts- who only conspired, plotted, and dreamed. They were caught beforethey could do harm.
But remember your own lone nut, who actually killed and maimed people over the years? Ted Kacinsky(sp), the Unibomber?
Crazies are on all sides. They have no politics or ideology. Just the squirrels juggling knives in their brains. Sometimes they find each other. Sometimes they even mate.
Jeremy,
Obama could not have voted against the invasion. He was not in the Senate or the House when the vote was taken. That is a bald faced lie.
dick,
You must realize how their minds work. Obama did vote against it. You see, if he had been in the Senate, he would have voted against it. So, he actually did. That is how these Purple Shirt crazies think. Reality is what could have been, not what actually is.
That is the whole mindset.
Not that anyone cares at this point but it appears this plot predates the Obama presidency
from on or about August 16,2008...acting as a militia group know as the Hutaree, did knowingly conspire
And the nomination of Sarah Palin soon thereafter did not dissuade them from their plot. Hmmmm.....
Don't tell Jeremy, but a few well place rumors could hook up Todd Palin's snowmachine racing group with this "Christian Militia" group. They both wanted to do wild and crazy things outdoors.
Jeremy
> I realize most here don't want to know what really took place
So says the guy who didn’t know what was actually on the news. Anyway, could care less about your lefty bookshelf.
I lived it. I don’t need to read about some fiction whereby somehow the whole world says Saddam had wmds, even before the war, but somehow bush was expected to know different and did know different, and thus lied to us.
> As an example, you act as you don't know anything about the briefings presented to Bush right before 9/11.
The briefings said Osama bin Laden hates us and wants to kill us. As if we didn’t know that for since the first WTC bombing.
> The Hill (9/27/09):
That would be the same “the hill” that believed the tea party spitting fairy tale told by politicians with slack jawed belief. Next I suppose you will cite some memos dan rather found.
> Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Sunday said that the United States has faced difficulties in the Afghanistan conflict because the Bush administration did not have the same kind of "comprehensive strategy" that President Barack Obama does for the nation.
Or shorter: Secretary Gates is doing his best to make his boss look good.
> Bush took the easy way out by invading a country that had no way of defending itself.
So you want more dead soldiers. Funny definition of patriotism the liberals got.
> Personally, if I lost a loved on in this mess, I would have a tough time understanding why any American has lost someone because of the decisions made by the Bush administration.
Right, because you don’t believe in freedom, right? Or just not for them?
Alpha
> Really, this is amazing stuff!! They're defending a bunch of home grown terrorists!
As opposed to Holder et. al. who defended international terrorists.
Oh, but that was okay, because... look! A squirrel!
> Have you heard of this Osama bin Laden fellow? Bush pulled resrources away from that battle when they had OBL pinned down in Tora Bora.
First, that is a complete myth.
Second, you aren’t fooling us anymore. For years liberals pretended to support the war in Afghanistan as their way of being butch. “Hey we are against Iraq because we want to fight the real war.” Well, Iraq is winding down and suddenly we hear from the left, “hey, let’s cut and run from Afghanistan.” So, you aren’t fooling anyone who is paying attention these days.
> You could the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis,
First, it is not tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. I mean unless you count the terrorists.
And don’t cite Iraq body count, or especially not the lancet studies. Hide the decline, I suppose.
Second, what liberals never want to ask is how many Iraqis would have been dead if they do nothing.
> many thousands of dead US troops
Our casualty count in that war actually has been miraculously low and liberals pissing and moaning about it is just the latest evidence that we have become a nation of wussies.
> The one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
Again, what part of that wasn’t obvious after the first attack on the WTC?
> Before the war they justified the invasion of another country because they said Iraq was a clear and present danger to the USA due to WMD, and that Saddam worked with al Qaeda on 9/11/.
> We now know both reasons were FALSE. (we knew it then, actually)
Actually, I never heard Bush say clear and present danger or that Saddam was involved in 911. But, speaking of, you know where the bomber behind the first WTC went? Baghdad. And you know who was at the meeting where 9-11 and the cole bombing was planned? An Iraqi agent.
Also, you left out that bush invaded to liberate the country. Which you are trying to stop, of course.
> the stain on our nation's name worth it.
You consider it a stain to liberate 23 million people? Seriously, do you liberals believe in freedom at all?
Traditional guy
> You guys have not even bothered to read my Memos entitled, "Obama Determined To Strike At Us". It is a must read in Israel these days.
I think that is a typo. In Hebrew its not “U.S.” but “us.”
I find it hilarious that these guys have already been convicted of a crime in the public thanks to the media.
Know this: Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, we will never hear the end of the liberpukes cry's of "Remember how violent the the hutaree were? Rightwing extremists yadayada....Take a look at these clowns, 17 boys and girls in camo and carrying rifles....Oooohh scary....
Then ask yourself HOW MANY FOLKS THEY HURT? NONE. They were guilty of a plan if anything. IF that's what they did and were actively trying to start a war with the government, not only were they morons, but the mind cant comprehend the idiocy of 17 people taking on the US Government...
Someone explain to me the problem with people name Janet and their obsession with militia's?
And tell me, why is it these guys warrant this kind of attention yet illegals killing homeowners and their dogs, gangbangers all over our nation shooting and robbing people and muslim extremists on our shores actively trying to impose sharia law get a pass? Odd huh, freakin pathetic.
Liberpukes and their content for the land they live in is just mind boggling...
"These people were making plans to commit mass murder. Ayers did not make plans to commit mass murder"
AlphaLiberal
AlphaLiberal is off by 25 million.
"I asked, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious"
(Larry Grathwohl and Frank Reagan, ed., Bringing Down America (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1976).
please ann....don't listen to your husband so much.
this pokes no hole whatsoever and you know it.
Opus One Media: This thread was based on an ironic post mocking the use of the term WMD. It proves that merely writing the phrase is enough to send the lefties stuck in the Bush era to go more stupid than usual.
Improvised Explosive Devices with Explosively Formed Projectiles, which, according to the indictment are "weapons of mass destruction." That blows a big hole in the notion that there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I should be a little surprised that this is the primary lesson the professor draws from a right-wing, self-professed Christian plot to assassinate law enforcement officers. The critical thinking she applies to all things to the left of Colin Powell is conspicuously on Spring Break, today.
But the lesson leaves out a key point: there weren't such weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until we invaded. The use of IEDs was part of the resistance, not Hussein's government.
Guys, don't waste your breath.
According to the NYT oped I mentioned last week, the more that conservatives are presented with facts that contradict their cherished beliefs, the harder they cling to them.
Thus rusty shells discarded after the first Gulf War become secret stashes of WMD. Invading Iraq to make up for our impotence regarding al-Qaeda becomes a noble cause once the first American is killed, rather than a pathetic and wretched game of Squirrel! Spending a trillion dollars to provide Iraqis with democracy is noble; spending a trillion dollars to provide Americans with health care is tyranny.
You consider it a stain to liberate 23 million people? Seriously, do you liberals believe in freedom at all?
Let's see: 23 million people living under a brutal dictatorship developing weapons of mass destruction, menacing their peaceful neighbors -- on every count North Korea was Iraq's equal or worse. Yet we did not lift a finger to help their people.
Seriously, do you conservatives believe in freedom at all?
Yet we did not lift a finger to help their people.
Seriously, do you conservatives believe in freedom at all?
Well, we did DO something, the very thing the US is SUPPOSED to do...we've entered into Six Party Talks...
Let's turn it around FLS, do you LIBERALS ever believe in war?
After all it's your ilk, in part, that have urged "diplomacy" over force....
Beyond the fact that South Korea, isn't very keen on using force against the North and the PRC and Russia don't like the idea much either.
It's a bit late to deal with North Korea. It's a nuclear power under the aegis of a competitive superpower, i.e. China. As much as I, and fellow freedom lovers would like to liberate the people of that benighted country, the cost, global war, is too high.
By contrast, the cost to liberate Iraq, was relatively speaking, much lower. As Bush stated time and again, if we wait until the threat is imminent, then it's too late.
It seems remarkably simplistic to equate one situation with the other based on superficial similarities. And conservatives are accused of seeing the world in binary colors?
Former law student
> According to the NYT oped I mentioned last week, the more that conservatives are presented with facts that contradict their cherished beliefs, the harder they cling to them.
Hahahaha, so that means that you don’t believe in global warming anymore?
> Spending a trillion dollars to provide Iraqis with democracy is noble; spending a trillion dollars to provide Americans with health care is tyranny.
Yes, socialism is tyranny. Glad you get it.
> 23 million people living under a brutal dictatorship developing weapons of mass destruction, menacing their peaceful neighbors -- on every count North Korea was Iraq's equal or worse. Yet we did not lift a finger to help their people.
Ah, liberal canard #237. If you don’t free everyone, you can’t free anyone.
Michael said..."Opus One Media: This thread was based on an ironic post mocking the use of the term WMD. It proves that merely writing the phrase is enough to send the lefties stuck in the Bush era to go more stupid than usual."
I hate to tell you this, but we're all "stuck in the Bush era."
Unless of course, you think the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars are over. Or if you think the economy has completely recovered.
You think the day Bush waltzed out the door, his legacy wasn't left behind?
Many here are still talking about Jimmy Carter's legacy and he walked 30 years ago.
so should we call this another bush/halliburton war
get real if you operate by gangster politics then you must be open to
attract that who disagree with American bully boy bull shit
its time to get real i am not prejudice what so every so i feel free to say this
did any one say that jews defending
themselves against nazi oppretion in warsaw etc were terrorists
no freedom fighters
so they do the classic then bully the nest country after they are given land by Rothschild etc
Palestine israel the country with more influence around the worlds than any other nation is it because of the amount of jewish people in American government and that are the owners of the federal reserve that have sold software around the world were all the info goes through a trap door to the mosad the country that had the worls worst human rights record how come after they experienced such crap themselves the abused becoming the abuser with to much world influence a oppressor of mammoth disproportion have i said anything untrue no i have not
get real look what's coming has america repaid the billions ney say trillion`s it owns its allies but meanwhile bush senior and gangster greenspan attempt to embezzle from that citi bank account
i will put up $500 to anyone that can prove otherwise
with love and respect for other
normality is a perceived perception
and thats why the media is owned by so few to influence so many for so few benefit and i used to think that communism was the biggest form of capitalism no ultra capitalism
is performed by bankers whose greed knows no boundaries thats why tony blair gets so much for his pointless lectures pay back for helping what a embarrassed British public knows is fraud and he should stand trial at the Hague
he would not even vaccinate his kids when he wanted to poison the British tony dont call your self british blair if yo uhave nothing to hide then stand trial but you wont will you but yo usend our men to die for a false good money
get a life or should i say give life back to families that lost loved one for your lies and support for none existent weapons of mass destruction shame on you shame on you all
Post a Comment