Chirstianity

[Bryan]

I will NEVER believe in nor understand the worship of a God who would condone the murder of innocents in his name.  Do you?

I think I understand it better than you do, but I'm reluctant to let you change the subject.

You were talking about how Iraq cannot be peaceful because of the presence of religious factions.

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

Surgical strikes on what?  Our intelligence on Iraq turned out to be largely worthless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Faulty intelligence is one thing, MANIPULATED intelligence is something else, something that seems to have been found according to a report by the Pentagon's Inspector General.

According to newspaper accounts the report will say that: "intelligence relating to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the DoD to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq"

I'm running out for some Dramamine now because I just know the spin is going to be intense.

[Bryan]

Faulty intelligence is one thing, MANIPULATED intelligence is something else, something that seems to have been found according to a report by the Pentagon's Inspector General.

You're the victim of faulty intelligence, it appears, courtesy of the Associated Press (but they're not biased or anything!).

For whatever reason, you did not see fit to cite your source.

Let's have a look at the AP version.

Inspector general: Pentagon manipulated prewar intel

POSTED: 1:04 p.m. EST, February 10, 2007

Story Highlights

• NEW: Policy office was "inappropriate" in advancing unsupported intelligence

• Report says Pentagon manipulated Iraq intelligence to create al Qaeda link

• Inspector general's report says efforts were inappropriate but not illegal

• Levin had asked for investigation of Pentagon's policy chief Douglas Feith's office

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/ira...l.ap/index.html

The rest of the story never gets around to quoting the Pentagon's inspector general regarding manipulation. "manipulate" and its cousins do not even appear after the list of story highlights.

In short, the story provides no support for the headline or the story highlight.

According to newspaper accounts the report will say that: "intelligence relating to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the DoD to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq"

Again, no citation of your source, but other sources credit that quotation to Senator Levin (D) of Michigan.

Not quite an unbiased source, I note.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._Lev...ating_0209.html

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/ar...iew/4834/1/240/

I'm running out for some Dramamine now because I just know the spin is going to be intense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were the one spinning just now. You presented Levin's words as a report from the Pentagon's inspector general.

You accepted an editorializing headline from CNN as the truth of the story.

Apparently you didn't realize you weren't getting straight reporting on the story.

Here's the Fox headline on the same AP story, BTW:

"Pentagon Defends Pre-Iraq War Intelligence"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251059,00.html

In the latter case, one can find evidence in the story that supports the headline.

[Guest Doubting Thoas]

I think I understand it better than you do, but I'm reluctant to let you change the subject.

You were talking about how Iraq cannot be peaceful because of the presence of religious factions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think you understand much.

I don't think it can be peaceful as long as the "my God is better than your God" factions exist and they have for thousands of years in that area. And even if I thought it could, I'm interested in the US, the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds can either learn to co-exist or they can keep on killing each other until they're all dead, I really don;t give a rat's ass. That woold definitely keep them from hurting us.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

I'm trying to get you to make some sense.  Saudi Arabia includes Sunnis and Shia.  Why aren't they warring against each other?  There are American troops in Saudi Arabia, after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make so many pointless argumenys I won't even attempt to keep up.

But as far as Saudi Arabia, maybe because their government is one of the most oppressive, controllng ones in the world? I guess Bush doesn't have the cojones to try and spread democracy when it might threaten family oil inyterests.

It truly amaze me people can to siupport this man, Not only did he successfully avoid Vietnam but apparently avoided learning anything from it.

Maliki's protection of al Sadr and Sadr City should have driven home two points:

1) When the rules of engagement are protecting your enemy you're in trouble.

2) Fighting for people unwilling to fight for themselves is folly in its purest form.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

If Iraq were in Africa then the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds could be reconciled into one?

And then the red herring about invasion.

If the dispute between the Shiites and Sunnis had come about without the US invasion then they could resolve the conflict no problem?

Your whole approach is incoherent, DT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well gee, I'm hurt. Wait, I know! Since you apparently consider yourself very knowledgeable I can probably make my approach coherent by using one of your answers.

It would be a waste of my time to explain it to you.

Feel free to do your own research or wallow in your ignorance.

[Bryan]

It would be a waste of my time to explain it to you.

True. It's quite apparent by now that you have no explanation.

[Bryan]

You're the victim of faulty intelligence, it appears, courtesy of the Associated Press (but they're not biased or anything!).

For whatever reason, you did not see fit to cite your source.

Let's have a look at the AP version.

Inspector general: Pentagon manipulated prewar intel

POSTED: 1:04 p.m. EST, February 10, 2007

Story Highlights

• NEW: Policy office was "inappropriate" in advancing unsupported intelligence

• Report says Pentagon manipulated Iraq intelligence to create al Qaeda link

• Inspector general's report says efforts were inappropriate but not illegal

• Levin had asked for investigation of Pentagon's policy chief Douglas Feith's office

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/ira...l.ap/index.html

The rest of the story never gets around to quoting the Pentagon's inspector general regarding manipulation.  "manipulate" and its cousins do not even appear after the list of story highlights.

In short, the story provides no support for the headline or the story highlight.

Again, no citation of your source, but other sources credit that quotation to Senator Levin (D) of Michigan.

Not quite an unbiased source, I note.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._Lev...ating_0209.html

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/ar...iew/4834/1/240/

You were the one spinning just now.  You presented Levin's words as a report from the Pentagon's inspector general.

The Washington Post got around to issuing a retraction, I see.

Correction to This Article

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020802387.html

How many liberal Democrats failed to get the memo?

Apparently they're still waiting over at CNN, where the faulty original still shows on their website as of this writing.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/ira...l.ap/index.html

[Bryan]

You make so many pointless argumenys I won't even attempt to keep up.

But as far as Saudi Arabia, maybe because their government is one of the most oppressive, controllng ones in the world?

So the war in Iraq could be won, is that what you're saying?

I guess Bush doesn't have the cojones to try and spread democracy when it might threaten family oil inyterests.

Wouldn't domestic oil profits go up if the price of oil went up?

That's the way the market normally works when commodities go up in price.

See what I mean about your arguments being incoherent?

It truly amaze me people can to siupport this man,  Not only did he successfully avoid Vietnam but apparently avoided learning anything from it.

We should withdraw support from Iraq so that millions will either die or be imprisoned (concentration/reeducation camps) as happened in Vietnam?

Maliki's protection of al Sadr and Sadr City should have driven home two points:

1) When the rules of engagement are protecting your enemy you're in trouble.

2) Fighting for people unwilling to fight for themselves is folly in its purest form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) The terms of engagement have changed for purposes of the surge strategy.

2) The Iraqis are all too willing to fight for themselves. The problem is that they are fighting each other.

You see what I mean about your arguments being incoherent?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

The Washington Post got around to issuing a retraction, I see.

Correction to This Article

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020802387.html

How many liberal Democrats failed to get the memo?

Apparently they're still waiting over at CNN, where the faulty original still shows on their website as of this writing.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/ira...l.ap/index.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I suppose you get all of your intel from FOX news?

[Guest Guest]

So the war in Iraq could be won, is that what you're saying?

Wouldn't domestic oil profits go up if the price of oil went up?

That's the way the market normally works when commodities go up in price.

See what I mean about your arguments being incoherent?

We should withdraw support from Iraq so that millions will either die or be imprisoned (concentration/reeducation camps) as happened in Vietnam?

1)  The terms of engagement have changed for purposes of the surge strategy.

2)  The Iraqis are all too willing to fight for themselves.  The problem is that they are fighting each other.

You see what I mean about your arguments being incoherent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rising oil prices depresses the market, or haven't you noticed?

If you want to pay more for gas, go for it. Don't tell the rest of us to.

See how your argument is incoherent?

Are you saying millions of vietnamese did not die and were not imprisoned when the US was engaged there? See how your argument is incoherent?

Do you think the US will have any better chance brokering peace between Iraqis than it did with Israel and Palestine? See how your argument is incoherent?

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

.

2)  The Iraqis are all too willing to fight for themselves.  The problem is that they are fighting each other.

You see what I mean about your arguments being incoherent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which perfectly describes a condition of civil war which the shrub continues to deny exists.

We should have learned from Vietnam that we have no business poking our nose into other nations' civil wars.

It's your arguments that are incoherent.

[Guest Guest]

1)  The terms of engagement have changed for purposes of the surge strategy.

You see what I mean about your arguments being incoherent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irrelevant!

With his previous protection of al Sadr, an avowed enemy of the US, Maliki proved he cannot be trusted. I'm not impressed when he needs a boot in the ass to do the right thing. Your argument might read coherently but it's coherent BULLSH*T!

[Guest Guest]

The Washington Post got around to issuing a retraction, I see.

Correction to This Article

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020802387.html

How many liberal Democrats failed to get the memo?

Apparently they're still waiting over at CNN, where the faulty original still shows on their website as of this writing.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/ira...l.ap/index.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When is the Bush Administration going to retract "Mission Accomplished? WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? Cheap oil? or Last throes?"

[Guest Guest]

When is the Bush Administration going to retract "Mission Accomplished? WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? Cheap oil? or Last throes?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you know this administration is too busy fighting a war it expects to cost about $50 Billion to waste time explaining its lies, deceptions, and unfounded beliefs?

[Guest BushBacker]

When is the Bush Administration going to retract "Mission Accomplished? WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? Cheap oil? or Last throes?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right after Kerry and Hilliary retract their statements. I seem to recall both of them stating Sadam had WMD's and must be disarmed. Oh, but wait..... we don't talk about that, sorry.

[Bryan]

Rising oil prices depresses the market, or haven't you noticed?

Not for the oil companies that somebody said were waiting to reap the benefits. Or didn't you notice when oil spiked in the latter half of 2006?

If you want to pay more for gas, go for it.  Don't tell the rest of us to.

See how your argument is incoherent?

No, I see an incoherent argument from you in the attempt to cover for an earlier inept argument ("it might threaten family oil inyterests.").

Democrats will have you paying more for gas. They're probably raise the taxes on it, allow Middle East chaos by pulling out of Iraq too soon, keep oil companies from drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico (can't afford to risk the environment here--that's for other countries to do).

And probably oppose new refineries and nuclear power plants, also, on the same set of objections.

Are you saying millions of vietnamese did not die and were not imprisoned when the US was engaged there?  See how your argument is incoherent?

No, and you certainly haven't shown it. You do appear to be dodging the actual outcome in South Vietnam after the Congress voted cut off the support the US had promised. If the US had broken North Vietnam then maybe both nations would have turned to market economies twenty years ago, without the re-education camps.

Do you think the US will have any better chance brokering peace between Iraqis than it did with Israel and Palestine?

The US doesn't need to broker peace. All it has to do is support the unity government until that government can broker the peace. Once the country is stable overall, what fighting does take place isn't likely to affect the world economy.

See how your argument is incoherent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you fooling yourself into thinking my argument is incoherent.

But what choice do you have? It's either fool yourself or admit I'm right. It's not like you can do the latter.

[Strife767]

Don't you know this administration is too busy fighting a war it expects to cost about $50 Billion to waste time explaining its lies, deceptions, and unfounded beliefs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, don't we all wish it was costing us only $50 billion? It's closer to $500 billion...

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?op...pper&Itemid=182

[Strife767]

Don't you know this administration is too busy fighting a war it expects to cost about $50 Billion to waste time explaining its lies, deceptions, and unfounded beliefs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, don't we all wish it was costing us only $50 billion? It's closer to $500 billion...

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?op...pper&Itemid=182

[Strife767]

Right after Kerry and Hilliary retract their statements. I seem to recall both of them stating Sadam had WMD's  and  must be disarmed.

I seem to recall Bush actually spending our money to actually go after those non-existant WMDs. It's no big deal if someone makes a simple mistake, but let me tell you something...$300 BILLION PLUS is not a simple mistake. And yet it was not Kerry nor "Hilliary" who cost us all that money...it was Bush.

[Guest Patriot]

I seem to recall Bush actually spending our money to actually go after those non-existant WMDs. It's no big deal if someone makes a simple mistake, but let me tell you something...$300 BILLION PLUS is not a simple mistake. And yet it was not Kerry nor "Hilliary" who cost us all that money...it was Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cost "us" all that money ?? At your menial job you pay almost nothing in taxes, so don't fret over what the war is costing.

[Bryan]

I seem to recall Bush actually spending our money to actually go after those non-existant WMDs. It's no big deal if someone makes a simple mistake, but let me tell you something...$300 BILLION PLUS is not a simple mistake. And yet it was not Kerry nor "Hilliary" who cost us all that money...it was Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congress controls the purse-strings.

Right now, for example, the Democrats are faced with a dilemma over how much to oppose spending on Iraq, John Murtha presented a plan whereby the Democrats would cap troop levels and potentially limit funding to force redeployment (out of Iraq).

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeenne...al/16720911.htm

So, it's silly to suppose that Bush just "spent" money without the OK of Congress, and you'll very probably find Clinton's and Kerry's votes in favor of military spending bills that include the expense of Iraq.

[Strife767]

Cost "us" all that money ??

Did I stutter?

At your menial job you pay almost nothing in taxes, so don't fret over what the war is costing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ignoring your continuing childish remarks, I will say that apparently I am not as selfish as you. It's not all about me--it's about everyone. The majority of Americans have had more than enough of this war nonsense, and are tired of paying out the nose for it when it's not even accomplishing anything, not to mention that it's already been admitted by the administration that it was misguided from the start.

Now British troops are being pulled out. Good--Bush needs to be sent the message through as many avenues as possible. We're sick of it. This mockery of a "war" needs to end, now.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Cost "us" all that money ??  At your menial job you pay almost nothing in taxes, so don't fret over what the war is costing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You flaming idiot!

Don't you realise that it's the people on the lower end of the socio- economic spectrum who are going to suffer the most from this, as money is diverted from public health and welfare to fuel the war effort.

[Guest Guest]

I see you fooling yourself into thinking my argument is incoherent.

But what choice do you have?  It's either fool yourself or admit I'm right.  It's not like you can do the latter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't even read the posts you mention. I just wanted to see if you still posted.

- I am but a humble grasshopper...

"Let's review a significant comment I ended with, first: I'd love to see you post other than anonymously and defend your misleading and (frankly) idiotic use of the data. I'm sure I'll be kept waiting." -Bryan

- You must be *DYING* to know who "Curveball" is then. Idiotic data indeed.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

"Curveball was the designation for a claimed 'Iraqi chemical engineer' who the United States claimed had served as an informant. Curveball would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq."

***

"Typical Fever Swamp tactic is to keep changing the subject." -Bryan

- Very much agreed.

"Guest avoids the truth of the matter, that the 9-11 attacks were mostly planned under Clinton's watch (as well as the Cole attack), focuses entirely on Bush's supposed inaction leading up to 9-11. Bush was planning a more comprehensive answer to terrorism on the part of the government." -Bryan

- I'm just asking you to list what Bush in his infinite wisdom put into action against terrorism between Jan 2001 and Sep 2001. As a good American I should just take on faith whatever he was "planning" whilst taking August 2001 off?

"It's very easy now to take a warning and say that it is significant, but the intelligence services intercept huge amounts of such information, then work to separate what means something from that which means nothing." -Bryan

- Fever Swamp tactic?

- I'm curious, what other intel contributed to the "noise" such that "Bin Laden determined to strike US" seemed so innocuous? I know you're not just making empty excuses, so please enlighten us.

"The quotation above might seem significant if it were a prominent noise in the overall (even though it doesn't say anything like 'Bin Laden determined to strike US in September')." -Bryan

- Right, the August 6, 2001 brief says nothing like "Bin Laden determined to strike US *in September*." Surely wasn't anything more important than clearing brush in August 2001.

- http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

***

"It's unlikely that any president would have changed the outcome leading to 9-11 in the wake of the 2000 elections. Perhaps if Clinton had taken custody of bin Laden from the Sudanese it would have been different--but we'll never know. Persons blinded by Bush hatred think they know, however." -Bryan

- What was so special about the 2000 elections such that you know that no president could have prevented 9/11?

- Perhaps if Clinton had said, "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]," like Bush did, it would be all OK.

***

"The build-up of Saddam in the 1980s helped keep the Iran created by Carter's ineptitude in check (the USSR and France were the chief military suppliers, however)." -Bryan

- Sure. Rumsfeld's glorious un-ineptitude gave Daddy Bush something to do with Saddam *and* won him the SecDef position under the current Bush. Now that Iraq is so unstable, Iran is now seemingly no longer in check and requires much needed attention. That's a hat trick.

***

"And likewise it is apparently Bush's fault that Clinton did nothing in response to the Cole attack." -Bryan

- So what *did* Bush do in response to the Oct 2000 USS Cole attack? Since Clinton's inaction was such egregious folly, surely our Esteemed Leader made the proper corrections. Please enlighten us.

"Funny how you whine when your own tactics are used against you." -Bryan

- Yes, I am rolling on the floor with tears, or "ROTFt" for the cool people.

***

"Significant amounts of plutonium were never accounted for with Carter's genius plan. Estimated sufficient for at least two warheads. North Korea admitted that they had been cheating on the Agreed Framework for years. Clinton apparently had no idea. Now Korea has the plutonium and uranium enrichment thanks to the reactors provided by Carter's plan." -Bryan

- Significant amounts of Saddam's African uranium, aluminum tube rockets, "mushroom cloud" WMD and biolabs were never accounted for either, but please detail for us why Carter and Clinton are not fit to kiss the boots of the man who brought such honor to 3000+ of our fallen and who will certainly extract the Plutonium that they could not.

"They were stupid to trust North Korea. But you can't admit that because you need to focus on your Bush hatred." -Bryan

- Since Clinton and Carter were such goobers, please tell us what Bush did in his five years of infinite awesomeness to prevent Kim Jong Il from going nuclear and how the recent deal prevents N Korean cheating by bypassing "stupid" trust.

***

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Khan_Chronology.pdf

"See page six. Clinton was president, but since Bush was governor of Texas it was probably Bush's fault. Or am I wrong?" -Bryan

- Did Clinton know about Khan? Bush certainly knew about Khan's pardon. Oh wait, he doesn't read the papers.

***

"Pardon me for using 'testing' as a synonym for 'researching.' Obviously you took it to refer to detonations, which is not what I was referring to. I'm talking about a continuation of the work started shortly after the Agreed Framework went into effect. It is now estimated that the N. Koreans started their illegal research in 1996 or so. I'll let you check to see who was president (since it's so important to you who's in office when things happen)." -Bryan

- And what did our glorious Bush do in reaction to N Korea's nuclear ka-boom? Did we not invade Iraq for less? Surely Bush chose to shove it up Carter and Clinton's poop chutes to show how a truly competent leader reacts to such signs of aggression. How is Bush going to remove the N Korean plutonium Clinton and Carter missed?

***

"Use your own reading skills and figure out where it was suggested that you named the one who pardoned Khan. I asked you who pardoned him, and you still haven't answered. I know who pardoned him. After you figure it out, you can try to explain to me how it's an indictment of Bush's presidency." -Bryan

- I believe the President Musharraf of Pakistan would be the only one with the power to pardon nuke-peddler AQ Khan. Then that sneaky Musharraf got through Bush's tight security to make an appearance on the Daily Show. Curses!

- But here is my point: Either they knew or did not know, and what matters is that they were there. What is worse? That the government knew or that the government did not know? (h.t. W)

***

"That's not the way emptyheaded liberals work however. They prefer to just blurt out something that they think sounds significant. They excel at failing to back up their arguments. " - Bryan

- Sure. Asking basic, obvious questions can be a sign of emptyheadedness. Obviously, you know better.

***

"By all means, fight it. Run over to Pakistan with some protest signs and give 'em a piece of your mind." -Bryan

- I believe our Fearless Leader speaks for all of us, and I'm sure Khan's house arrest makes Gitmo look like, um... house arrest?

- But to be fair, I'll book a flight to Pakistan once you protest in any of the Axis of Evil countries. Let me know the best airfare, will you?

"The depth of your ignorance is staggering." -Bryan

- People misunderestimate me. Won't get fooled again.

***

"Iraq was breaking a ceasefire agreement, repeatedly. There's no remote parallel to Pakistan, where our nation counts on cooperation from the Pakistanis in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. They're not the greatest allies, but they're better than they would be if we attacked them for pardoning Khan." -Bryan

- Remind us how many were killed by that broken ceasefire. Personally, I think 3000+ of our fallen is a bit excessive, but tell me how many deaths is too high a price to pay to prevent Saddam from downing [how many] of our planes in pre-invasion Iraq? Obviously for an uber-American like you, there could not be too many deaths, so I feel silly even asking.

- And how's Afghanistan doing? Must be well worth pardoning an international nuke-peddler.

"Feel free to say what you think we should have done to Pakistan. I won't wait up, because those rare instances when liberals get foreign policy ideas tend to correspond to instances where liberals have stupid ideas." -Bryan

- You have mentioned several times that pardoning AQ Khan is decidedly not a stupid idea. I guess demanding that we be allowed to keep absolute tabs on him at least as well as we demand on any N Korean/Iranian nuclear facility is too much to ask? How about detaining him like we would any suspected American shoe bomber? We've got Gitmo right? Or letting us monitor his communications like we can fellow Americans? We don't want Bush to be duped like Carter and Clinton were when it comes to national security right?

- But please tell me how these are stupid liberal ideas.

***

"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

-WJ Clinton

"For almost a decade nations have stood together to keep the Iraqi regime from threatening its people and the world with such weapons. Despite all the obstacles Saddam Hussein has placed in our path, we must continue to ease the suffering of the people of Iraq. At the same time, we cannot allow the government of Iraq to flout 40 -- and I say 40 -- successive U.N. Security Council resolutions, and to rebuild his arsenal. Just as important is the challenge of keeping deadly weapons away from terrorist groups."

-WJ Clinton

- So you think Bush is "wagging the dog?"

- I never voted for Clinton. I couldn't stand all of that MTV/Arsenio Hall crap.

- My very first vote was for Daddy Bush.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." - Papa Bush

***

"So Guest dodges the issue again. Khan never gets caught, period. With the pardon, at least there's some presumption that his activities are arrested and curtained. In the other case, that's unlikely." -Bryan

- I see... We just really have to threaten Kim Jong Il to pardon himself (by "declaring" whatever nuclear programs weren't made obvious by his detonation) and "presume" his activities are arrested and curtailed!

***

"But those Bush-hating glasses are great for helping you ignore the positive in favor of dwelling on a negative that Bush had no realistic chance to alter." -Bryan

- Reminder to self: Need to trade in Bush-hating glasses for, for, ... Bush *heart* glasses!

"Unless you're in favor of the all-out attack? Or maybe threatening Pakistan with a nuclear strike? I suppose that could have prevented the Khan pardon ..." -Bryan

- As Bush says, the military option is never off the table. I mean, we went into Iraq for less, right?

***

"I'm consistent in not placing blame on somebody just because they happen to be in office. Placing blame like that is stupid." -Bryan

- What did Bush do in the five+ years in office to prevent N Korea from going ka-boom? Oh wait, Bush was in office during the time. He obviously can't be held accountable. By your logic, we have to wait until 2009.

***

"North Korea obtained its weapons because of stupid diplomacy, though, in particular Carter's Agreed Framework (which Clinton apparently wasn't all that happy about)." -Bryan

- North Korea should just have bought them through Rumsfeld like Saddam did. The gall!

"I don't forget about the role of Congress, either. You've already shown an ability to forget about Congress, with your blaming Bush for Saudi Arabia's rumblings about supporting Sunnis in Iraq." -Bryan

- I don't need to forget about Congress. Bush already does with his 800+ signing statements and secret programs.

***

"[saudi Arabia's threat to support Sunni violence is] Contingent on the 'phased withdrawal' ideas now being successfully advanced by the left (and a few from the right)." - Bryan

- I see. By your logic, as a good American I should be listening to Saudi Arabia and not the majority of Americans (all of the left and a few from the right).

"Fallacy of the false dilemma (in conjunction with another straw man version of my logic). -Bryan

- I see... The fallacy of the false dilemma of Saddam's WMD could only be paired with the fallacy of the false expectations that the American military could bring about peace in Baghdad (let alone Iraq or the Middle East) within four years.

"You simply have to realize the consequences of the strategies you support." -Bryan

- I am only asking why Bush and his supporters did not consider what you state above before invading WMD-less Iraq, for all the reasons you list below. Papa Bush had a similar pre-invasion outlook.

"Pull out of Iraq without a stable government and you leave a Turkey nervous about the Kurds and willing to encroach on Iraqi territory to protect its interests and deny the existence of a Kurdistan, and aggressive Iran to the east, and a minority Sunni regme to the south that isn't going to like a new Shia-dominated (Iran-aligned) neighbor to the north. The stated policies of the Democrats (Lieberman and one or two others excepted) lead to a very high probability of a destabilized Middle East with the most likely prospect of stabilization under radical Iranian control." -Bryan

- You're very smart. Just slow? Maybe you just find being stuck between a rock and a hard place comfortable...

"The Dems have no answer. But they'll be happy to accept the votes of those who find no answer an acceptable political platform." -Bryan

- No one has the answer to Bush's mess, which I would propose is slightly worse than the dire post-2000 election situation you state above. But the GOP will gladly accept the votes of those who want more of the same.

Re: Saudi Arabia's threat to support Sunni violence...

- I must apologize. Since we're going after Iran for supplying the Shia side of the conflict, I thought we should also be critical to whoever is supplying the Sunni. Obviously you find criticizing the Saudis less appealing than criticizing fellow Americans.

***

"You didn't buy those UN reports of hundreds of thousands of dying children, then? http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm But maybe starving children don't count as violence in your book." -Bryan

- I see. Death by MOAB/car bomb/suicide bomber is far better than starvation. At least that *does* count as violence. Good point.

***

- Please tell us why it's far better for the US to be caught in the middle of Iraq's increasing sectarian violence?

"Because radical Iranians are far less likely to be able to extort the world with nuclear weapons and economic ruin (potentially creating a new great depression worldwide), and because running away to allow a genocide to proceed would be morally wrong." -Bryan

- Ah, that's why Ahmadinejad has been so cooperative and demure these past few years. Giving him a sympathetic Shia majority in Iraq must have been part of Bush's genious Master Plan right?

***

"[The closure of the CIA/FBI team focussed on Osama bin Laden] Makes sense to me. What's your objection? You find it politically comforting to think of a 'Bin Laden Team'?" - Bryan

- Um... Yes?

"Fine, then. I'll start up a 'Bin Laden Team' and we'll concentrate on Bin Laden so you can feel better. Cool?" - Bryan

- Ooh, I love quotation marks.

- Is this kind of like the "Iraq Stabilization Group" of October 2003?

- Or one of Bush's dozens of "turning points" and "milestones".

- Or the "Iraq Study Group" which fostered the President's "new plan" and "new way forward"?

- Or the President's current "surge"?

- I feel so much better... "Thanks."

***

"Again, you seem to have trouble understanding the news. Bin Laden has been neutralized in his role as al Qaida's leader. He spends his time trying to stay alive instead of planning attacks and hobnobbing with other terrorist leaders. Intelligence resources are better spend on those involved in planning and carrying out attacks. Bin Laden's hiding place is apparently on the border of Pakistan--a sensitive area for US operations. It makes the most sense to keep working in Afghanistan with special ops while trying to get sufficient cooperation from Pakistan to finally grab bin Laden. The reward money alone keeps tremendous pressure on him." -Bryan

- Yes. It sends out a huge message to terrorists worldwide that if you attack the US, we will invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and prevent you from "hobnobbing" by creating a terrorist haven. And to those who espouse the tactic of suicide bombing, we will force you to "spend time trying to stay alive."

- Obviously, since bin Laden has to resort to sending videotapes to Al Jazeria, we've got him really contained.

- Hopefully the tactic we wrought on Fidel Castro will work on bin Laden, AQ Khan and Kim Jong Il. Eliminating enemies of the state with our secret weapon, old age, never fails. Focussing on Saddam was so worth it.

"Do you know what Halliburton does?" - Bryan

- Make money off no-bid contracts?

"That's pretty close to being a 'no.' Halliburton does jobs for which it has little or no competition. Exactly the type of thing where a no-bid contract is a great idea since there's no sense in accepting bids when there's only one bidder." -Bryan

- You're right, few other companies can compete with Halliburton. I can only think of Bechtel, Dyncorp, Raytheon, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, Louis Berger Corp...

***

- So you think we *should* be doing business with a state sponsor of terrorism like Halliburton does with Iran. Ah...

"So do you. You just won't admit it right now because you think you made some kind of clever point. Should Iraq have been cut off completely from trade until it complied completely with UN sanctions (as a state sponsor of terrorism)? The US and other nations sent food to Iraq (for oil). Big mistake? Let the children starve, you think?" -Bryan

- Sending food for oil caused children to starve? Please explain this genious. Obviously, if we had lifted sanctions, Saddam would have fed the non-Sunnis. Tyranny over starving people just isn't as satisfying.

***

Re: - Senate majority leader Frist suggests alliance with Taliban under Bush's watch.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html

"Do we point out all the dumb ideas that Democrats have had under Bush's watch, too? I don't see the point of this one." -Bryan

- uh... good point?

"Oh, now I see the point. You misreported the facts. Frist suggested that the Taliban should be courted to participate in Afghanistan's government. If they're willing to do that, it presents the possibility of ending violence in Afghanistan now and helping to moderate the radicals. The same thing is being tried in Iraq with al-Sadr's militia--and I'm pretty sure that Democrats have been behind the idea. Under Bush's watch, of course, so naturally it's his fault. *snicker*" - Bryan

- So, Frist sees increasing violence in Bush's Iraq and suggests negotiating with terrorists in Afghanistan. Who's side are you on? Bush or Frist?

"There's no point in responding to you if you can't read. It's not an alliance with the Taliban, and it's nothing to do with violence in Iraq." -Bryan

- You're right. Frist saying "You need to bring [the Taliban] into a more transparent type of government" is *nothing* like making any kind of alliance with them, and it has nothing to do with Iraq, because Frist does not want to repeat what happened when Bush took the Ba'ath Party out of Iraq. Look how that turned out. Thanks for setting me straight.

***

"[bush] didn't put the 9/11 Commission together (Bush opposed the formation of the Commission, relenting after a time with some reluctance), and you're misrepresenting the facts again." -Bryan

- Enlighten me on why Bush would be opposed to investigating the largest terrorist attack on the US.

"He thought it would turn into a blame game (he was right). And he wasn't opposed to an investigation. He was opposed to setting up a special commission to do the investigation." -Bryan

- Ah. Obviously we would not want to have a special commission find someone to blame for 9/11. That's Bush and Cheney's job. Iraq, right?

"You have an impressive gift for continually ignoring important details." -Bryan

- Right. Like the detail of putting together a commission to investigate 9/11.

"Who put the commission together if he had nothing to do with it? The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002. http://www.9-11commission.gov/" -Bryan

- Well Bush signed it into law and chose the commission's co-Chairman and the Executive Director Zelikow. I guess 2 out of 11 is close to nothing.

"Congress put the commission together. Bush approved it. And we should all be asking why anyone pays attention to the commission's recommendations since such recommendations were not part of the commission's mandate. http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.htm" -Bryan

- Right. Why listen to the 9/11 commission? On one hand, their investigation of what happened and by whom is by definition a "blame game" and the gall that they would suggest anything to help safeguard America is obviously repugnant to you.

Thomas Kean: "I was talking about the government as a whole including the United States Congress. Because there are a number of things they can be doing that they're not doing as well. And you can go into any number of areas, from the fact that we're still five years after 9/11, we're still not distributing funds to the areas that need it the most."

***

Re: Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14282

"It's certain that some would have preferred Hussein. The vast majority of those would be the Sunnis who had a pretty good deal under Hussein." - Bryan

- That's like saying white people had a better deal in South Africa under white rule despite a black majority. Um, Good one!

"Thanks. But you act as though you don't understand it, nonetheless." -Bryan

- I understand this: "Eight out of ten Shias in Baghdad (80%) say they want foreign forces to leave within a year."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...nt=275&lb=hmpg1

- "Seven out of ten Iraqis overall - including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%) - say they want the United States to leave within a year."

- If Bush's plan is not popular even with the Shia majority, how well is Bush's genius plan working?

***

"[From a Sep 1999 report] In northern Iraq, the government is continuing its campaign of forcibly deporting Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern governorates. As a result of these forced deportations, approximately 900,000 citizens are internally displaced throughout Iraq. Local officials in the south have ordered the arrest of any official or citizen who provides employment, food or shelter to newly arriving Kurds." -Bryan

"http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm" -Bryan

- I see. Through Bush's actions leading to Baghdad, Najaf and Anbar being the most violent places in Iraq, the Kurds who were forced out of there don't feel so bad. Genius!

***

"http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf"

"The belief that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships entailed is down sharply, but very large majorities of Shia and Kurds continue to believe that it was worth it."

"Seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year."

"Support for attacks on US-forces has grown to a majority position - now six in ten."

- So they're saying it was kind of worth it, now get the "F" out!

- It's big of you to want to commit US forces to such attitudes. I should be as understanding as you.

"It's not that simple. There are factions in play, so the results need to be broken down according to faction. For example, the Sunnis can't stand the US, but many have come to realize they'll get a fairer shake with the US than with the Kurds or the Shiites that they oppressed for years." -Bryan

- I guess that's why the Sunni are helping the US by being responsible for most of the violence in Iraq. Since Saddam's out of power, someone's got to keep those Shia in check, eh?

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq

***

"Oh, and you're a weasel for conveniently forgetting about your false claim and misleading poll citation. You should at least admit that the study I cited contradicted the claim that you rested on a poll that could not support what you said. As predicted, you decided to change the topic instead." -Bryan

- I quoted the Angus Reid report that said "Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein."

- http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14282

- Sorry. At least I didn't send 3000+ of our troops to die. Surely that is worth something?

- "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - Fearless Leader W

- "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them." - Fearless Leader W

- "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - Fearless Leader W

"Your humanitarian impulse is apparently to let them kill each other regardless of the potentially disastrous effects on the world economy." -Bryan

- So Bush has stopped them from killing each other? Do tell.

***

Re: "Mission Accomplished? WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? Cheap oil? Last throes?"

"Some mistakes have clearly been made, but invading Iraq was not one of them. Hussein was actively working to get sanctions lifted (see Oil-for-Food scandal, among other things), and he cheated on the sanctions in order to position Iraq to return to the WMD business promptly after that (one of the primary conclusions of the Duelfer Report)" - Byran

- Perhaps it is just a difference in taste, but I would rather have sent 130,000 troops and a few hundred billion dollars in pursuit of bin Laden. Remember that 9/11 thing? Enlighten me on why we went after Saddam and not bin Laden?

"We did go after bin Laden. Cast your mind back. Remember Afghanistan? Now bin Laden has been neutralized as a threat, but he hasn't been brought to justice. The fallacy of the false dichotomy seems to come to you very naturally. How do you do it?" -Bryan

- Bin Laden has the freedom to send tapes to Al Jazeria, so who knows what else he has the freedom to do via courier? Maybe I'm just crazy, but I would like to see him brought to justice so that terrorists around the world know we're not going to let their leaders go after devising something like 9/11. The fallacy of success in Afghanistan (bin Laden not caught, the Taliban courted by the Republican Senate leader to join the government, dependence on NATO troops because we're tied up in Iraq) seems to give you great comfort. How do you do it?

***

- Re: "Mission Accomplished?" WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? Cheap oil? Last throes? What won't you Bush supporters believe?

"Your lunatic ravings." -Bryan

- Don't let a lunatic like me hit you with the reality that:

- 1. 9/11 happens and North Korea tests its first nuke under Bush's watch.

- 2. Pakistan's AQ Khan gets pardoned after admitting to selling nukes to terrorist countries under Bush's watch.

- 3. Bush's ally Saudi Arabia threatens to support violence in Iraq

- 4. CIA closes team that focussed on Osama bin Laden under Bush's watch.

- 5. Cheney's Halliburton continues to do business with Iran under Bush's watch.

- 6. Senate majority leader Frist suggests alliance with Taliban under Bush's watch.

- 7. Bush fails to heed advice given by the 9/11 commission

- 8. History's mightiest military force gets bogged down in a WMD-less, third-world country for three years running with no end in sight under Bush's watch. Even Iraqis say they were better off under Hussein.

- Obviously in your world, none of the above is true.

"You appear to possess an appalling lack of knowledge concerning Iraq and the War on terror, and you combine it with an inability to reason minus the commission of obvious logical fallacies." -Bryan

- That's why I continually ask why people like you give Bush, his corporate/Saudi allies and Saddam-sympathetic Sunnis more thoughtful consideration than fellow Americans who have the gall to be critical of Bush.

- Here are some insanely radical, loopy left-wing questions I hope you will have the guts to answer in a simple, straight-forward manner without resorting to the "blame game" or using "Fever Swamp" tactics of changing the subject.

- 1. What did Bush specifically do in his time in office to safeguard the US against something like 9/11 or to prevent N Korea from detonating a nuclear device?

- 2. Does Bush think that AQ Khan's pardon is safer and longer-lasting than Clinton/Carter's N Korean nuclear framework?

- 3. What was Bush's reaction to Saudi Arabia when they hinted they would arm the Sunni if the US pulled out, and how should the US react if Iran said the same thing about the Shia?

- 4. What is Bush doing to bring in the 9/11 mastermind besides close Alec Station?

- 5. How do we know that Halliburton business with Iran does not provide revenue to state sponsored terrorism through their oil business?

- 6. Does Bush support the appeasing of the Taliban in Afghanistan as Frist did?

- 7. Why does Bush fear a "blame game" through a bi-partisan 9/11 commission over investigating the largest terrorist attack on the US?

- 8. How did Bush get history's mightiest military force bogged down in a WMD-less, third-world country for four years running with no end in sight?

"In short, you're smart to post anonymously." -Bryan

- Just like "Curveball?"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

- Are you interested in this anonymous source at least as much as a random forum poster?