CAMPOS: A laughable assertion

Posted by Gene on March 19, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If neither McCain or Mrs. Clinton is qualified to run the country, you didn't claim Obammma was either, then NObody running is qualified to run the country. If the Bush/Irag party line crap hadn't crept in, it would have been a pretty good column. Well, relatively speaking. I really believe, if a DEMO president had done all the things Bush has done to defend the country (that is a real "laughable assertion") all the anti-war stuff and 'presidential hatred' would be absent. And the Republicans would be supporting the defense efforts. Close Campos, but no cigar.

Posted by JimmyB on March 19, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One thing you have to say about "Professor" Compost's views on most things: his assertions are laughable.

Posted by Spencer on March 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene, a dem would have never stepped into the mess. A dem would have focused on Afghanistan and Al Quaeda would be history. Bush has been a complete and unmitigated disaster. The kind of thinking that got us into Iraq is no qualification for the job as President. Jimmy B stick to Rosen and your crayons.

Posted by Gene on March 19, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why, thank you Team Spencer and Icdrjjxant.

I just now figured out VC doesn't mean Viet Cong, but Vincent Carroll.

Posted by JimmyB on March 19, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer, "a Dem would never have stepped into this mess". LOL, ROTFL. Your comments, like those of "professor" Compost are simplistic and moronic.

We all can agree, Bush is an idiot, but then, "professor" Compost hasn't room to talk, what with hiding from the real world (surounded by nabobs such as yourself) at Clown U in Boulder, who conviently forget that 2 of your "progressive" Presidents (JFK and LBL) not only stepped into it, but jumped into Vietnam with as much stupidity as Duhbya did in Iraq.

It was one of your "progressive" Presidents who signed my orders to spend my last year as a teenager in a war they had no business getting us so involved in.

So, Spencer, like "professor" Compost and other "progressives" of a like mind, take your ball and go home. I'm not playing your pathetic game.

Posted by farmboy on March 19, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer wrote, "a dem would have never stepped into the mess. A dem would have focused on Afghanistan and Al Quaeda would be history."

That is nonsense on stilts. When Bill Clinton was president, he could have "focused on Afghanistan and Al Quaeda would be history", but he didn't. Instead, back in 1998 he bombed the hell out of Baghdad and in 1995 got involved with the conflict in Bosnia. Thirteen years later, American troops are still there.

Posted by Spencer on March 19, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

check out Progress for a New American Century. The neo-conservative think tank founded by Cheney among others. The goal was to invade Iraq. Long before 9/11 and any empty rhetoric about a War on Terror. A Dem would not have started the war in Iraq.It was the plan of Bush and Co from day one. You 19%ers can deny all you want but that is the fact Jack.

Posted by rjnova on March 19, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Compost neither Hillary nor Obama is prepared to be commander in chief. Hillary and the Pastry Chief both had 8 years in the White House but that hardly rates the presidency. Obama cannot even come up to those qualifications yet is the progressive’s choice (God I find it funny how you liberals run from the L word). Obama voted “Present” 130 times in his Senate performance—a brave example of his effort to avoid controversy or have to defend his vote. Do you think he could vote present if we have to confront a nuclear armed Iran?

Insofar as Bushes foreign policy disaster, history will show it to be the right time to confront Islamic terrorism. While the intelligence going in was premature, the whole world intelligence agencies had it wrong, not just our CIA. Had Bill Clinton retaliated against Osama Ben Laden after the first World Trade Center bombing Iraq could have been avoided. His whereabouts were well known at the time. But then Bill was too busy bedding 21 yr old interns to be so bold as defend this country—a cowardly trait common to liberals. Moreover, I have yet to read anything you write to see your qualifications to command a Boy Scout Troop, let alone a war effort. Iraq will be a turning point in the Islamic world. There will be some accommodation between the 3 ethnic populations. It will not be our kind of democracy but moving the Muslims out of their 14th Century mind set into a modern world will not happen overnite. So you keep the Socialist Republic of Boulder making love not war and I will put my fate in the hands of the Republicans.

Posted by HolierThanThou on March 19, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In five years, John McCain probably won't even remember there was a war in Iraq. He's been riding his wheels on one side and looks to be going off the rails entirely any day now. Very sad...

Hillary Clinton might make a decent president except her one fatal flaw is failure to admit her mistake in authorizing Bush's Iraq debacle. Of course, many of us believed Bush's lies, especially when Colin Powell presented them at the UN. Let us bow our heads in a moment of silence for the tragic death of Colin Powell's once vaunted credibility.

Now that we know the truth, that Saddam Hussein was in full compliance and did not store or build WMD, we know that Bush's war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. One that was unnecessary, played only for the profit of corporate criminals and for the amusement of the bloodthirsty. But the case for it seemed convincing at the time because no one, not even myself, would have guessed that any president would be so craven as to launch a war based on a pack of lies.

Hillary Clinton is loosing and deserves to loose because she is being most Bush-like in her refusal to admit her mistake and apologize for it. She was a senator. She had access to intelligence that the rest of us did not. She was in a position to question the motives, reckon the cost, and refuse to go along.

Experience does not count when mistakes result in obfuscation and excuses instead of corrections.

Would you hire Neil Bush to run a savings and loan? Do you think Kim Jong Il would make a good representative for Amnesty International or the ACLU? Would Jesse Helms or David Duke have made a good chairman for the NAACP? Then perhaps Charles Keating would be an excellent choice to run your ethics committee. John Gotti should run for sheriff of your county. And Adolf Hitler is a dead ringer to take charge of the Anti-Defamation League.

Posted by mytwosense on March 19, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Campos: "In a healthy political culture, anyone who had anything to do with bringing about the Iraq fiasco would have had his or her presidential aspirations destroyed by that fact alone."

Well, at least Clinton's chances for winning the Democratic nomination are pretty much destroyed. She's in denial about that, too.

Posted by JimmyB on March 19, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's the matter, Spence??? Can't refute my assertions?

Just like "professor" Compost, Spencer spews "facts", yet has nothing of any intelligence to say.

Posted by jay on March 19, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" I really believe, if a DEMO president had done all the things Bush has done to defend the country (that is a real "laughable assertion") all the anti-war stuff and 'presidential hatred' would be absent"

please people...iraq had nothing to do with "defending" the country. it was no threat.

you'd think after 5 years this stuff would sink in

Posted by Gene on March 19, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jay,
You took my bait ! ! !

Posted by HolierThanThou on March 19, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The lies of Bush apologists are being repeated (see above) need repeated refutation by established facts.

Fact 1. Saddam Hussein never attacked the United States of America and was never an ally of Al Qaeda.

Fact 2. Saddam Hussein neither had stockpiles nor was he building weapons of mass destruction. He was in compliance with all mandates placed upon him after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991.

So, only a liar would assert that Bush's war in Iraq has anything to do with fighting Al Qaeda, Islamic militants, or "terrorism". If anything, Bush's war has:

1. diverted resources from fighting those who attacked us on Sept 11 2001,

2. breathed new life into Al Qaeda, a murderous organization that even most Arabs loathe,

3. cost us allies whose help we need to prosecute effective police actions to destroy Al Qaeda and other murderous religious fanatics,

4. allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to establish their own country within a country inside of Waziristan, a region of Pakistan situated adjacent to Afghanistan where

5. the Taliban insurgency is regrouping and threatens to destroy our meager gains in Afghanistan.

Posted by Gene on March 19, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I actually wanted to say defending the country as opposed to "war" generally, and you do not agree that we are defending our country. Not that you speak for all DEMOs, but they cannot in any way be trusted with defense of our country.

Posted by Civility on March 19, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

Sorry Campos, your assertion is laughable. I distinctly remember Hillary questioning Bush on how he was going to finance the war. She did vote to authorize Bush to use force in 2002, but so did John Kerry. Even Obama said in 2004 said he didn't know how he would have voted in 2002, because he wasn't privy to the intelligence information, and he didn't want to embarress his friend John Kerry.

However, we have a big mess to clean up and the Democrats have two strong candidates who can tackle it, while the Republicans have one who wants to continue in the quagmire.

Posted by Gene on March 19, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re; Defense
I remember right after Pres. Bush had committed troops to Iraq, there was a TV interview with Gary Hart. He was respected at the time as an expert on terrorism, and had warned us many times. His take, in this interview, was to the effect, 'Bush was staking his whole presidency on results in the middle east, and it was a bold move. If it was effective it would be a dramatic realignment of the whole area.' He couldn't believe that a president would take such a bold move. Hart, in no way said it was unjustified in defense of our country. This was of course, before the campaign by DEMO's to turn against the war. I go back to Bush 'staking everything' on the war. He did it and intends to live with it. It is not a poll question, it is a matter of a defensive strategy with vision.

Posted by Froward69 on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rjnova,
"busy bedding 21 yr old interns —a cowardly trait" so Men propositioning men in airport bathrooms is somehow more masculine?

at least Democratic men chase WOMEN! as well as the Ignorance and refusal to accept truth in regards to republican ideology, GREED, stupidity and distraction is truly laughable.

Posted by peterpi on March 19, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lcdrjjxant @ 8:28am pondered why Germany and not Japan to drop the bomb on?
Perhaps because the bomb wasn't ready yet by the time Germany surrendered?
Read any history of the development of the atomic bomb, and every person involved was afraid of Germany. The impetus was that the Nazis would develop it first. The bomb was developed to attack Germany. But by the time the U.S. had enough fissionable materials and created the right electronics to detonate the bomb, Germany was done.
Would conventional forces have also defeated Japan? Yes, but a heck of a lot of historians believe the dropping of the bomb ended the war sooner, with fewer caualties, BOTH Japanese and American, than a conventional invasion would have cost.
Was there a racial element to WWII? Probably, but race is tied up in most of U.S. history. Did we firebomb only Japanese cities? No. The U.S. and England firebombed German cities as well, with tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
So, no, the U.S. didn't single out Japan. In fact, numerous scientists who deveoped the bomb, before the bomb was dropped, wrote a letter requesting that the bomb not be dropped on Japan, at least not before a demonstration witnessed by Japanese of the bomb's power.
WWII was hell, but it had to be fought, and the U.S. did not single out the Japanese for the bomb.

Posted by spencerr on March 19, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Campos, your argument is based upon your opinion that Iraq is a disaster. Every point in your argument is dependant on that single opinionated assertion...complete opinion. You throw in a few offhanded statistics to back up your point, and they can be read either way. Not only is your argument completely opinion, it does not even make concessions about what might be good about the conflict in Iraq.

Let's instead say this; Bill Clinton was in office for eight years directly before 9/11. Bush was in office for eight months. Bill Clinton had at least one opportunity to snub out Bin Laden's power. 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault. Hillary was Bill's wife and co-president, so she shares part of the blame, and since Obama wasn't a player in any capacity in the 9/11 tragedy, he is the better candidate.

...this argument fails for the same reason Campos's does; it is based on opinion backed up by a few facts that can be bent to the purposes of the writer. For a lawyer, it is not much of an argument.

So...assuming that Campos's argument stands up, then so does mine.

It doesn't give anyone anything to think about. It is meant simply to inflame two sides and pat the followers of the third on the back. It does nothing more than cause would-be Hillary and McCain supporters to lift the proverbial finger to Campos, nothing more.

Posted by Spencer on March 19, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I re-read your post and don't know what assertions your are expecting me to refute JimmyB. Bush IS an idiot and Vietnam was started by JFK. What does that have to do with Iraq? I was very young during Vietnam War but did not support it at the end. My brother was over there and I just wanted him to come home.

Posted by spencerr on March 19, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer, sounds like JimmyB is likening Iraq to Vietnam and Bush to Kennedy. He's trying to razz you by beating up on a liberal president the same way your are beating up on a conservative one. His point is that a Democrat stepped into a similar mess sixty-five years ago.

I would argue that while there have been tragic deaths in Iraq, it is not completely wrong that we are there, nor is it a complete debacle. I concede that we found no WMD and thousands of Americans have died, but we retaliated against a PERCEIVED threat in Suddam Hussein. The UN gave him plenty of chances, and he kept blowing off the WMD inspectors. The UN wasn't willing to back up its threats, so the U.S. did. To me, Hussein was acting suspiciously, and since the UN wasn't willing to step in, the U.S. did. Furthermore, a tyranical mass-murderer is out of power and dead, and now there is no chance of an active WMD program in Iraq. Bush has at the very least stopped a genocidal wacko.

While I also believe that communism in its U.S.S.R. incarnation is pure evil and that it is a worthy caused to fight against, I would argue that our presence in Iraq has had a greater effect.

Posted by spencerr on March 19, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Snap...caught talking to myself again.

Posted by Spencer on March 19, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How was he "blowing off" WMD inspectors? They left only because we were going to start dropping bombs. This was an unnecessary war that Bush/Cheney planned long before 9/11. We were duped plain and simple. I honestly don't believe that Gore would have started the War.

Posted by GWM on March 19, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wannabe spencer(r), I am listening. Well said.

No one wants to admit there *were* WMDs. He used them against the Kurds. Where are they? in Syria? the desert? Who knows. They existed at one time. Let's finish this Vietnam and move on. (but not .org)

Posted by GWM on March 19, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer, I saw a bumper sticker the other day "Re-elect Gore". How funny. Your car?

Posted by spencerr on March 19, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry. I needed to clarify. You are right about the reasons the inspectors left, but there were several instances toward the end of the period when Blix and his coworkers were inspecting that Hussein became uncooperative. He did not allow inspectors into his palace on a few occasions, and there was other evidence of deceipt. If he had been fully cooperative, I believe he would have avoided invasion.

Posted by Spencer on March 19, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No GWM I don't put any bumper stickers on my cars. (I had one that said "I'd rather be driving a Titleist" once) It is just not worth the hassle no matter what your political persuasion. I used to have normal political discussions with people but things have really turned ugly. I don't want my cars to get keyed so I avoid any bumper stickers. (that is a funny one though)

Posted by mytwosense on March 19, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr: "Let's instead say this; Bill Clinton was in office for eight years directly before 9/11. Bush was in office for eight months. Bill Clinton had at least one opportunity to snub out Bin Laden's power. 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault."

"Eight months" is hardly a nanosecond, although it may seem to fly by if you spend almost half that time vacationing on your Texas ranch.

Bill Clinton issued strikes against bin Laden's training camp, and when he did, the Republicans criticized him for it.

At any rate, it's almost eight years since bin Laden orchestrated 9/11. Bush hasn't caught him, and what's more, says he "doesn't think about him that much." Guess he thought about bin Laden long enough to disband the CIA unit that was formed to catch bin Laden, though.

Aren't you people even the slightest bit embarrassed that bin Laden STILL hasn't been caught?

Posted by farmboy on March 19, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer,
If Cheney et al wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning, they wouldn't have waited for more than two years after their inauguration and a year and a half after 9/11 to carry it out.

I offer this quote, "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume it will continue for as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." That was Al Gore in September of 2002, six months before the invasion. So, I believe Gore would have done the same thing that Bush did.

Posted by GWM on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer wannabe(spencerr), I avoid bumper stickers as well. You can never tell what someone means when they honk at you. "Honk if you are horny". I never know what to do. I am afraid it might me Dalmer.

These blogs often turn ugly. I don't agree with with your politics, but your are generally civil.

With that being said, what an idiot your are! There *were* WMDs. You just did not get to see them. Have a great day.

Posted by jay on March 19, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I honestly still can't believe that we have apologists for the republicans and iraq.

Let's recap people:

iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

iraq had nothing to do with AQ

iraq had no wmds

iraq WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE US

the wh had information supporting all of these facts but refused to share this type of info with congress because it shed doubt on their case for war

iraq has made the country less safe

iraq has contributed to a further destabilization of the middle east

iraq has allowed AQ to restrengthen to 9/10 levels

iraq has allowed the taliban to retake huge portions of afghanistan and grow record opium harvest to further fund terrorism worldwide

global terrorism has gone up, not down because of republican policies

iraq will cost this country AT LEAST 3 trillion dollars that we don't have

iraq has decimated our military and reduced our ability to fight real threats

Considering these facts...I once again find that it staggers the imagination that there are still those on the far right that would try to rationalize this clusterf*ck

Posted by jay on March 19, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Say it with me kids

THREE TRILLION DOLLARS WE DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEND

Posted by GWM on March 19, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, here goes:

THREE TRILLION DOLLARS WE DIDN'T NEED TO SPEND UNLESS WE WANT COW TOW TO TERRORISTS AROUND THE WORLD.

Let's pull all our troops out of every country in the world. Then the Bush bashers will be happy and Armageddon will start much sooner.

Posted by jay on March 19, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"THREE TRILLION DOLLARS WE DIDN'T NEED TO SPEND UNLESS WE WANT COW TOW TO TERRORISTS AROUND THE WORLD."

again GWM...iraq posed no threat to the US, had no connection to AQ, no connection to 9/11 and no wmds.

those facts completely invalidate your comment

your strawmen arguments, however, are very entertaining

Posted by Spencer on March 19, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess I just don't count a bottle of Clorox as a WMD. LOL There was no imminent threat. We should only go to war as a last resort. None of the conditions that I believe are necessary existed. I don't know what the goal is anymore.

Posted by GWM on March 19, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Was it Clorox that killed the Kurds?

Posted by jay on March 19, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course not...it was the mustard gas the US sold them twenty five years ago.

Come on kids...we've been over this stuff.

Stop reaching.

Posted by rjnova on March 20, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Froward69--is there significance to 69 in your name? So if Dems chase ladies what happened with Gov. McGreasy or Barney Frank, Garry Studs, etc, etc. Their tastes ran to teenage boy Congressional Pages.

Queers do not sort out by political persuasion, altho to generalize they tend to be liberals.

But if the balloon goes up I want a Republican President because I know the effort will be made to strike back and not send Madeline Halfbright off to deliver a stern warning not to do it again.

Posted by Michael on March 20, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Let's review here. This week marks the fifth anniversary of the Bush administration launching one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the nation's history - the invasion and occupation of Iraq." - Campos
This statement is an OPINION. Nothing more. Nothing less. To draw conslusions and make assertions based on it is ludicrous. Any thinking and educated human being knows that the final verdict on the boutcome of our invasion of Iraq has not been written yet and may not be for some time. How can a lawyer (even a left-wing one like Campos) be such a moron?

Posted by Michael on March 20, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact 2. Saddam Hussein neither had stockpiles nor was he building weapons of mass destruction. He was in compliance with all mandates placed upon him after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991. -Holier Than Thou
The second assertion in this statement is the biggest and boldest LIE told in here. Saddam was far from being in compliance with the terms of the ceasefire he signed at the conclusion of the Gulf War. We had justification to invade on that alone - WMDs or no WMDs.

Posted by bropous on March 20, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Campos loves to list all the mistakes, but if he had to tell the truth, that the lives of Iraqis were made better by the removal of Sadam, his head would implode. Sadam's Ba'athists were murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis a year, and engaging in REAL torture, but we can't confuse the anti-Freedom liberal fascists with the truth, can we? Here are another couple of truths:

Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague;
Sadam Husayn was harboring terrorists such as Abu Nidal for years;
Sadam Husayn was paying the surviving family members of Palescum suicide bombers $25,000;
Sadam Husayn most certainly DID have chemical weapons prior to the US invasion, and Iraqi Air Force General Sala stated quite clearly that the Russian trucked the inventory into Syria and thence into the Bekkaa Valley in Lebanon;
Sadam Husayn was in violation of the 1991 ceasefire accords;
Sadam Husayn was fingered as part of a plot to assassinate former President George HW Bush;
Sadam Husayn committed a chemical weapons attack against his own people;
Sadam Husayn's agents were shopping for uranium in Nigeria (and Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are despicable, treasonous liars);
BJ Clinton also identified Sadam Husayn as a threat to US security (but lacked the spine to do anything about it);
Mohammed el Baredei (UN "nuclear watchdog") covered up evidence of Sadam's early nuclear weapons program;
CNN covered up Sadam Husayn's criminal acts on his own people to retain the ability to broadcast from Baghdad;
Sadam Husayn's sons were brutal thugs who murdered and raped children in front of their parents;
In Abu Ghraib, under Sadam Husayn, eight-year-old children were fed, feet first, into chipper shredders, again in front of their parents;
Sadam Husayn had terrorist training facilities in Iraq that were used by terror organizations to prepare attacks;
President George W Bush in no way lied about the reasons that justified an invasion of Iraq; and
After invading Iraq the second time, the US did not throw up its hands and walk away, leaving Iraqis to their fates, we stayed to do the heavy lifting, and now the Iraqi people live in a representative republic.

Of course, in years to come, no Iraqi will ever have to thank a liberal for their freedom, because liberals don't CARE about people living under repression, hence their alliance with the North Vietnamese, the Soviets, Terrorist Organizations, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans, ad nauseum. Face it: If a government is anti-US, the liberals will defend that country with greater vigor and verve than they would defend their own.

Iraqis are better off today than they were five years and six months ago, thanks to President of the United States of America, George W Bush, who in five years has caused to be freed more human souls than Stalin and Mao slaughtered.

Truth hurts? As Bill Clinton said after he raped Juanita Brodderick: "You might want to put some ice on that."

Posted by rickg19611 on March 20, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All the whining and wailing from the low IQ crowd must be the result of the latest poll results showing Democrats crashing and burning.

McCain is easily beating Hillary and Osama bin Obama in several polls.

Let the whining continue... all it does is drag Barak O Clinton down further as their catfight over which will surrender to terrorists first continues to alienate voters.

Posted by bropous on March 20, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, the US Military really screwed the Dems when we went ahead and WON the war in Iraq. What we have now is supporting a duly-elected government that is attempting to stabilize their nation.

jay, repeat your damned lies all you want, but you have no FACTS to back up your pro-Husayn assertions. You are bleating the Code Oinque/Soros lines, but they have no reality behind them. The US NEVER sold mustard gas to Iraq, and in fact, the only military equipment we sold them were a couple of old Huey helicopters. Sadam Husayn most certainly WAS tied to terror groups, and Al Qaeda received medical support and materiel support from Iraq. And put down the crack pipe, son, Al-Qaeda is now at 9/10 levels? Ever heard of a FORMER organization called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that is now so decimated it cannot conduct offensive operations? And as for Pakistan, you somehow think that Blauchistan and Waziristan were areas of governmental stability prior to the invasion of Iraq?

jay, you are simply a stupid, stupid kid.

lcdjjrxant, you are simply a bitter, offensive racist.

Dhimmis hate the fact that the situation in Iraq is stabilizing. It makes them look bad when the US military has a success; when was the last time a Dhimmi president presided over a significant military victory? Hmmmm? Can you say 1945???

When George W Bush stood in front of the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln that said "Mission Accomplished", those sailors were telling the TRUTH. We WON the War in Iraq. And perhaps, perhaps, had the Dhimmis been less concerned with protecting the rights of terrorists, stabbing the US military in the backs as they were deployed in the field, sucking up to every anti-American politician on the international stage, and basically betraying the people of the USA, we could be farther along in Iraq earlier.

Democrats. NEVER ask one for your Freedom.

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lol

wow

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

campos is right...you guys are laughable

Posted by jvb on March 20, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am now entering an imprecatory prayer that god do to Gene what he did to 50,000 who looked at the Covenant of the Ark (containing his commandments): Kill him and his ilk. Thank you god.

Posted by bropous on March 20, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me get this straight, jvb: You are advocating for the death of another poster. Hmmmm. I guess this makes you one of the kumbayah tree hugging compassionate liberals, huh?

And you jerks call US intolerant...Dhimmis. We look to your political defeat, not your deaths.

jvb, you are yet another spolied brat and a poor excuse for a human being.

But then again, Iraq is FREE today, and no amount of stabbing the troops and their commanders in the back can change that.

And as for you, Campos, you show yourself to be as unconcerned with the suffering of people living under true oppression as is the Pig in a Pantsuit and The Magic You-Know-What.

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol...Iraq is free to continue the civil war we helped start...in a country without a viable gov't...isn't that what you meant bropous?

Posted by Charles_B on March 20, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr ruins his credibility in one swift maneuver:

"If he had been fully cooperative, I believe he would have avoided invasion."

Proof that there are no limits to gullibility in this "post 9-11" world.

Posted by Charles_B on March 20, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

farmboy offers a demonstration in the construction of a logical fallacy:

"I offer this quote, "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume it will continue for as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." That was Al Gore in September of 2002, six months before the invasion. So, I believe Gore would have done the same thing that Bush did."

Gore was presenting the problem, not advocating any particular solution. You draw your conclusion from thin air.

Posted by theQ on March 20, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all miss the greatest danger and that being all those idiots that support her and can't see thru her.

Posted by bropous on March 20, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iraqi people are FREE, jay, but again, you don't give two craps about the Iraqi people, you never did. Just like the rest of the Dhimmis, you love your own Freedom, but if someone else needs help freeing themselves from a brutal dictator and they ask a Dhimmi for help, they might as well ask the wind.

Iraq is NOT in a civil war, jay, but again, facts hinder you not in your Iraq-hating screeds. Facts are only inconvenient to those whose arguments are based upon lies.

And you're right, ChasB: Gore TALKED about Sadam Husayn, but lacked the spine (cojones?) to do anything about him. Glad to see you're on our side of the argument, ha ha ha! Moron.

Posted by Charles_B on March 20, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bropous:

In a nutshell you are saying that lies are the new truth. What can someone possibly say in response to your seemingly categorical avoidance of reality?

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

we invade and now occupy iraq to "free" the iraqi people, brop? that's not what the republicans told the nation before we went in...exactly how many bogus reasons for invasion do you have in that quiver of yours?

"Iraq is NOT in a civil war"

wow

Posted by OhBrother on March 20, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so Iraq is not in the mist of a civil war? We just wanted them to be free, that's why we invaded there country? Republicans just want to help other people be as free as Americans...guess i'm not up to speed on anything going on today

Posted by Michael on March 20, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Gore was presenting the problem, not advocating any particular solution." - Charles_B
This is a true statement and applies to what most liberal Democrats ascribe to - as well as UN diplomats and particularly the French. They will all talk something to death while they wish and hope that it will all go away before they actually have to take any action. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had been talked to death for 12 years while 5000 Iraq kids died each month from being denied food and medicine under the sanctions - 720,000 dead by many left wing based human rights figures. There was death, dying, suffering, rape rooms, torture, and worse in Iraq long before the USA showed up in 2003. But that all had no end in sight and no possible outcome but MORE OF THE SAME. It ain't no paradise over there now but there is a light - albeit a small one - at the end of all this that the Iraqis can look to.

Posted by OhBrother on March 20, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I ask in response, no other countries fit into that category? I was under the imppresion Africa has quite a few issues with genocide and all of the evil things in which you have noted, why not have focus there? These types of things are hapening all over the world but we don't put nearly the ammount of attention or emphasis on "fixing" those countries, any ideas why?

Posted by Charles_B on March 20, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael:

My statement pertained to that particular quotation and wasn't meant to imply that Gore didn't have a particular policy towards Iraq.

Have you ever tried making an honest argument?

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

besides...michael's argument is still ridiculous...because by that logic, we should have invaded darfur instead of iraq.

just another in a long line of invalid excuses for this war.

Posted by arby on March 20, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lcdjjxant. What does that stand for anyway?
Since you are such an expert on Viet Nam, the UCMJ and history. Why don't you know that it was Ike that got us involved in Viet Nam because he wanted to support our French allies? Why don't you know that Viet Nam was caused by the French reniging on a promise to Ho Chi Min that if he helped them during WWII they would turn control of the country over to the people that lived there? Why don't you understand that Bush is doing the same thing today? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Michael on March 21, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"My statement pertained to that particular quotation and wasn't meant to imply that Gore didn't have a particular policy towards Iraq." - Charles

WHAT WAS GORE"S POLICY??? Simple question. I am sure you will have a simple response. Diplomacy and talk. That was his solution. MORE OF THE SAME.

Posted by jay on March 21, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Considering that Iraq was no threat to the US and was completely contained, mike...why was diplomacy such a bad idea?

Posted by Michael on March 21, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Considering that Iraq was no threat to the US and was completely contained, mike...why was diplomacy such a bad idea?" - jay
1. That Iraq was NO threat is a subjective opinion. There were no armies, navies, or air forces within Iraq that could have struck the US. However, SH was financing and giving safe harbor to all manner of Islamic terrorists (important things to consider in a post 9.11 world) - AND, most importantly he was in violation of multiple articles of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. And BTW, it was HIS job to prove he had no WMDs, it was NOT our job to prove he did. He failed to comply.
2. Contained in whose opinion? Contained in an untenable situation that could not go on indefinitely. How long was the US and UK supposed to patrol the no-fly zones and have our pilots shot at regularly? How long were we supposed to allow the continued breaches of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement? How long should we have allowed the 5000 Iraqi kids to die EVERY MONTH while nothing changed? How long should we have allowed the UN and SH to manipulate the Oil-For-Food scam and skim 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to build palaces, support terrorism, and prevent food and medicine from reaching the Iraqi people?
HOW LONG jay???? Wasn't 12 years long enough?

Posted by jay on March 21, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"That Iraq was NO threat is a subjective opinion"

WRONG.

That is the conclusion of our own military and intelligence communities...not an "opinion" of mine.

"Contained in whose opinion?"

Again...this isn't an "opinion" this a conclusion.

No threat

No wmds

No link to 9/11

No connection to AQ

Why is it so hard for some of you guys on the far right to come to terms with these politically inconvenient facts?

Posted by Michael on March 21, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay - You did not even attempt to answer one of my very valid questions. Simply stating I am wrong does not make you right. You are an ass and a simpleton.

Posted by jay on March 21, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

we've debunked these far right wing myths over and over and over during the last 6 years, mike....sorry...but i'm just not wasting anymore time on the stragglers and the late adopters.

besides...there's very little you can do about willful ignorance.

Posted by Brain on March 21, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jay has a warped idea of what a fact is!

Posted by Civility on March 22, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay presented the facts like them or not. What I'm looking at are the bottom line results. 4,000 American Deaths. 80,000 - 90,000 IRAQI citizens killed including women and children. Three Trillion Dollars that could solved all of our domestic issues or taxes that we didn't have to pay.

Jay, you'll never convince the blind followers of Bush that what he did was wrong. My concern is, who will protect us from them.

Posted by gary on March 22, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay, you'll never convince the blind followers of Bush that what he did was wrong. My concern is, who will protect us from them.

Most certainly....not the Muslin Obama or the dove Clinton!!

Nuff Said!

Posted by Civility on March 22, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The biggest threat to humanity are the imperialist Republicans.

Posted by bropous on March 24, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.nysun.com/article/72906

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

"Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Just a few facts for you, Paul.

Posted by Eli on March 24, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Attention all!!
Crazy Jay's Famous FactsLite now includes 10% more made-up statements for your enjoyment! We now feature the sale of mustard gas from the U.S. to Iraq! Not in the history books? It doesn't matter when you have Crazy Jay's Famous FactsLite! We make up whatever we want to support our own leftist ideas, and if you buy into our crap you can too!
So get your Crazy Jay's Famous FactsLite today! Remember, only Crazy Jay's Famous FactsLite will supply you with statements that we have virtually no support for! Accept no substitute!

Posted by spencerr on March 24, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The biggest threat to our economy is the Democrats, AKA socialists.

The biggest threat to our national defense is the pipe dream pacifist Democrats.

Posted by Civility on March 24, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because we still have the receipt.

Posted by Civility on March 24, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"All wars are lies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. In my opinion, there was never a good war or a bad peace. When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration?" - Benjamin Franklin

Posted by Spencer on March 25, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr (ridiculous) have you been paying any attention the last 7 years? The GOP controlled everything and they have put all but the extrememly wealthy into the toilet.

Posted by davis_x_machina on March 28, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder what the wingnuts believe rumdumsfeld was doing shaking hands with Saddam in that famous picture you can find virtually anywhere I suppose that was just the common courtesy of politics.I 'm also wondering how anyone is "FREE" with 100,000+ foreign troops on your soil,and uncounted numbers of mercenaries none of whom seem to be accountable to anyone much less the civic authorities of Iraq whoever they may be.Please spare me from that definition of freedom.