Slashdot Mirror

There are laws on the books forbidding murder in every country - yes. However, that doesn't mean they are followed (remember Iran has the fatwa against Salman Rushdie - and don't even get me started on China honoring copyright laws on the books). Furthermore, the people we are talking about are NOT concerned with national laws. They are adherents to a radical, and distorted, view of Islam which expressly sanctions murder of innocents (cf. Section V. Killing Women, Children, and the Elderly is Permitted for one example.

Saddam did not "back" Radical Islamic terrorism any more than Islamic terrorism backed him - they were fellow travelers who found each other useful upon occasion. (see Weekly Standard article or, if you feel the source is too impugned despite the footnooting, how about the UK Guardian. Even the 911 report stated "Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." Chapter 2

So, while there is no evidence that that 9/11 was directly plotted by Saddam, there is a -lot- of evidence of other cooperation on a variety of traning and supply matters. Add into that Saddam's demonstrated willingness to use WMD on his own population and against Iran in a war he started, then the case for preemption becomes stronger. Not that the case is proven, but statements like "The current administration got all their facts about Iraq plain wrong" ignores the evidence out there (much of which is contradictory, admittedly) as well as the consensus pre-war intelligence estimates of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. etc.

This is serious astroturfing. Bullshit ex pays that much; on average, for surgeons, the malpratice insurance is $86,400. And this number is from a pro-bush, anti-lawsuit organization. The fact is, Lawyers play a valuable role in product saftey; without Lawyers, we would need to rely on more government regulation and oversight. This is pro-lawyer stand (from neoconservatives even!) is expressed nicely at In Defense (sort of) of Trial Lawyers. This person's scare tactic of "7 figures" is probably counting in cents.

The trouble with blogs, is that no-one writing them has the time to follow up these stories.

You've got it backwards. The blogs follow-up on stories that the mainstream media is "disinclined" to follow until they become hot. Remeber the 60 Minutes memogate? That was a direct result of the blogosphere following up on the obvious fakery should have been almost immediately spotted by seasoned journalists or their experts. That is, it should have been spotted if they weren't on an Ahab like quest, a la Mary Mapes the 60 Minutes producer who was on a five year quest to get the goods on George Bush while at the same time disregarding their own experts warnings about the documents.

The real reason that this won't go anywhere is because there is nothing to it. The "present climate" that you speak of is one in which anyone with the goods on Bush would be considered a hero by 80% of the media and 30% of the country..

"Actually, that's been public knowledge since the late 1990s, and large amounts of detail were released, based on Iraqi oil minstry records, well before the Commission reported."

Large amounts of detail have still not been released, even from the UN, who doesn't like to look for terror ties within its own organization.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

How on earth does this qualify as an extaordinary claim?

"If anywhere, Al Qaeda got some logistical support from Iran rather than Iraq, and those two countries were hardly allies."

So, out of curiosity, why is it that ben Laden, in 1998, all-of-a-sudden decides to mention Iraq throughout his speeches, when previously he gave them little notice?

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2. html

9/11 commission never looked into oil-for-food

"One obvious "elsewhere" that no one seems to have seriously considered was Saddam's secret geyser of money, gushing from the so-called Oil-for-Food program. That possibility is not discussed in the 9/11 report, and apparently it was not included in the investigation. A 9/11 Commission spokesman confirms that the commission did not request Oil-for-Food documentation from the U.N., and none was offered."

Well, hell. Might as well not have elections at all, just phone up 15 or 20 people and see who they want.

After all, 100,000 dead Iraqis can't be wrong.... can they?

He supported (and still supports) the war in Iraq

And of course, Kerry's own words let us know that back in 2003, he agreed with you.

Strange, though, how someone like Donald Rumsfeld would just now be saying things like "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links Saddam and Al Qaeda."

Also strange how many apparent "facts" like yours - the cylinders, the yellow-cake, the NBC facilities, etc., surface from murky sources in the intelligence world only to evaporate under proper scrutiny. It's easy to find such claims using "open source intelligence". It's much much harder to substantiate them.

You'd think if there were anything solid, Rumsfeld would hardly be prevaricating so.

Michael: When you rip off posts from Drudgereport.com, The New Scientist and other well-read sites, make sure you follow the thread through to the point where they explain that the story was nothing more than a political hit piece.

For instance, check out an earlier NY Times piece that actually reinforces the administration's position. Or you could review that this hit piece was to be joined by CBS News in another attempted effort to push fraudulant information and sucker all the sheep out there.

Or should we expect a post from you about "critical national guard documents damage Bush" and experience a deja vu Slashdot experience?

Slashdot readers - you too can read it before Michael (or some alleged anonymous reader, just like the CBS anonymous sources) reads it and makes up a libelous headline damaging Slashdot credibility and objectivity:

Drudge Report
The New Scientist

and other excellent critical reads include:

Power Line
Weekly Standard
Little Green Footballs

Oh... I should warn you - if you're determined to vote for Kerry in spite of everything, do NOT go to the any of the above sites. It'll destroy any opportunity for ignorance you might have.

green = Rebels
red = Imperials

Clearly you were attacked by one of the good guys.

well that is only true if you are nieve enough to think the Imperials are the bad guys.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp

stendec@gmail.com

So you'd vote for Sadaam, someone who wants to destroy America, over Bush.

That's a position. Not one I'd take, but it is a position. I could accept a Kerry presidency. I think he's a feckless crapweasel, based on events like his role in 1986 in the Phillipines, but he wouldn't be the first feckless crapweasel we've had as president. I think Clinton proved, in terms of the use of the military, that he was feckless, and that people died for it again and again. I hate to say it, but Reagan's reactions against terrorist acts (the bombed disco and the Lebanon car bomb, to pick two) lacked feck also. (That is explainable by the fact that he was fighting WWIII as the Cold War and didn't want to dive headlong into WWIV also. This is the core reason why I'm against Kerry. But I don't think that a Kerry presidency would be the worst thing since Stalin, and I fail to understand those who want Bush dead or find electing the mentally ill or foreign-born sponsors of terrorism preferable to reelecting Bush.

No one has discredited Moore's statements, or even argued coherently with them.

This turns out not to be the case. See here,here, here,here, and here.

Then, do a google search for "Michael Moore liar".

-jcr

Last year, the president talked about how Saddam helped Zarqawi in Iraq. see this reference.

Here's another article, that's really worth reading, and I encourage everyone to do so...here's a clip from it:

THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRITICS, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, have alluded to new "evidence" they say confirms Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship before the war. They have not shared that evidence.

Even as the critics withhold the basis for their allegations, evidence on the other side is piling up. Ansar al-Islam--the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, notably attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam--has stepped up its activities elsewhere in the country. In some cases, say national security officials, Ansar is joining with remnants of Saddam's regime to attack Americans and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq. There is some reporting, unconfirmed at this point, that the recent bombing of the U.N. headquarters was the result of a joint operation between Baathists and Ansar al-Islam.

And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.

For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later.

Earlier that year, at another point of increased tension between the United States and Iraq, Hussein sought to step up contacts with al Qaeda. On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an or

What, those mustard gas and sarin canisters that the Polish troops recently aren't WMD? read it here.

Iraq and Al-Qaeda cooperative ties not the case?

You haven't really read that report have you? Or listened to all the senators that had to get on TV to say that while there was no evidence that there was a direct tie to 9/11, there certainly was that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were in bed together. Check this for one of the stories about that.

Or try reading this.

Who's to say that the NYTs last mistake was the yellow cake thing? It's certainly is not. I heard a report within the last couple of days that Libya is going to say in September (don't know why they're waiting) that Iraq was working with them on nuclear stuff. No news reports on that yet (not that I expected it them yet), but it sure would be pretty damning if it ended up being true.

Don't think that could happen? Well, everyone was SO SURE about the yellow cake, just a few months ago....

as I posted here:

A good deal of the administration's actions are related to compromise to push through essential strategies for the war.

The war resolution, the money to support it, measures like the PATRIOT act, etc., all required compromised for other agendas.

Also, with measures like the perscription drug benefit, there was a tiny point of medical savings accounts. Go here to learn why MSA are the best choice.

With NCLB, there was supposed to be a voucher scheme introduced, which was later taken out. Now that a majority of minorities are in favor of vouchers, I don't understand why they aren't being adopted more rapidly.

That said, I am optimistic that Bush will do better in his second term, where he doesn't have much to lose. Given that Cheney won't be on the ticket in 2008, he can take measures which are normally anathema, such as social security reform, complete welfare reform (if that is even possible), and the measures removed from the health and education bills.

Given Kerry would be worse, without a doubt (even with the lies he is telling to paint himself as a centrist), I see no reason to reject this optimism.

Either way, I agree with the comment above: Bush understands the war, Kerry doesn't. Go here to hear more about that point.

[note this comment was made on a libertarian website. If you want the jackboot of a Kerry welfare/technocratic state crushing your dreams, then he might not be worse for you]

Locus , the professional news and reviews monthly of written science fiction.

Asimov's Science Fiction , the science fiction's premiere fiction magazine (also where I've sold most of my stories). F&SF would be the runner-up.

I used to read The Weekly Standard as well as National Review, but let my subscription lapse when I found myself falling rurther and further behind. Reason is also worth looking at.

Then can you explain why this article is wrong?

In a nutshell, someone in Saddam's Fedayeen was attending al Qaeda meetings prior to 9/11. Um, can't get more connected than this. Or is this just more psy-ops? If it is psy-ops, then how are we going to be able to discern the truth when we see/read it?

Although Saddam and al Qaeda are polar opposites when it comes to philosophy, I don't think it's totally out of the question that Saddam could have "looked the other way" towards al Qaeda as they shared a "common enemy". I do agree, though, that the al Qaeda connection should have been the thrust of the invasion argument instead of WMDs.

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

If Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, we would know where the WMDs are. He didn't comply. That alone is a violation of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War and justification for military action. I know I am in a minority, but I still firmly believe that the WMDs will be found.

President Bush never said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US- on the contrary he was very clear that we must act before Iraq becomes an imminent threat.

The executive branch has claimed that Saddam had ties with terrorism, not just al Qaeda. This is not a new claim- Iraq has been on the State Department's list of terrorism supporting states for 15 years.

That said, there is some strong evidence that Saddam did work with al Qaeda

Let's be honest though, this action in Iraq has weakened the US's ability to deal with terrorists

How? Allow me to quote from the President's (excellent) speech last night:

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology and give momentum to reformers across the region.

This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

I guess that doesn't count though because it doesn't fit what you are trying to say.

The more posts of yours that I read the more it appears that you don't have any direct experience or significant knowlege of the American political system. It almost looks like you are using a multiparty parlimentary democracy such as is found in the UK, Germnay, Italy, or India, as a template for your understanding of the American political system. Unfortunately for you, the American political system is quite different in certain aspects such as the role and composition of the parties and the mechanics for national elections.

For example, your statement that, "The Democratic Party has had VERY FEW conservatives over the years" shows that you really don't have a clue about American political history. The Democratic party is not a traditional labour or liberal party. The Democratic party has not only had many conservatives over the years, but they have also been very influential. In fact, there was a significant portion of the Democratic party which was actually quite reactionary well into the '60s and early '70s.

In any case, the VAST majority of Democratic Party politicans are liberal, while the vast majority of Republican Party has conservative politicians.

The Democratic party has been moving to the left for some time now. It is alienating what few conservatives it has remaining. That is why you see Senator Zell Miler endorsing President Bush, and forming an organization to rally Democrats for him. That is also why so many Democrats voted for President Reagan.

On the other hand there are still plenty of liberal Rebpublicans. Governor Schwartenegger in California is a liberal Republican. He is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. There are many other liberal Republicans as well, including a number of senators.

What's happening is good.

In the short run it is good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats. The Democrats leading the party have moved so far to the left that they are flirting with "looney left" territory. If they want to go there and stay it is unlikely that they will win many elections in the US. As it is they have given control of the House, Senate, and Presidency to the Republicans for the first time in about 50 years. Republicans actually picked up seats in the Senate in the midterm elections. That is almost unheard of in American political history.

In the long run it probably isn't good for anyone at all. I think that the American political system is stronger when both parties are vigorous.

Why would you want conservatives, who don't agree at all with liberalism or any other left wing ideologies, on your party? Similarly, why would the Republican Party want leftists in their party?

Once again you are showing your lack of understanding of the American political parties. You are treating them as traditional parties you would find in a parlimentary system which tend to be much more ideologically homogenous than in the US. American parties tend to be "big tent" parties which welcome people with a range of views.

When Americans face a vote, we don't generally vote for the party, but the canidate. We tend to make finer distinctions among social, fiscal, and foreign policy stands, as well as other issues. That is one of the reasons our parties both have and can accept a range of views. That helps to make the parties stronger since they represent a wider segment of American society.

I think that is misleading. The reason military personnel seem to be apolitical, when in fact they are not, is because the military cannot officially support any party. Therefore, it is very hard to get any opinion. Furthermore, the military is very authoratarian with punishments easily handed out to the lower levels. Talking with the media, reporting on events (non-classified), etc is not welcome.

That's not right. As an institution the military must be apolitical. Indi

Saddam certainly had ties with Ansar al-Islam, which is associated with Al-Qaeda. Raids on Ansar facilities and arrests of Ansar militants have revealed Al-Qaeda documents and even video tapes of Osama Bin Laden. Bill Clinton has even claimed that there is an Iraq/Al-Qaeda tie.

However, even if there were no Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, Iraq was still on the top 5 list of countries that sponsor terrorism for over a decade prior to the US invasion.

A marriage provides a contract that both sides sign and enter into, leaving a great paper trail easy and convenient for states to record and file.

Most of the details of this contract are only discovered much later on, when/if things go sour. In my plan, people will be welcome to sign whatever contracts they want -- explicitly. The simplest "cookie cutter" ones to be available in bridal shops and in Staples.

Well I can tell you aren't taking this seriously any more. At least I can't see someone saying that and expecting to be taken seriously. Lets segway to cartoon for a bit since you've lightened up the mood. What you said reminds me of what Bart did in this scenario...

BART: What's everyone's problem? I'm glad we're stranded! It'll be just like the Swiss Family Robinson, only with more cursing! We're gonna live like kings! Damn, hell, as kings!

As "Under the Sea" plays, a fantasy sequence is imagined with the kids living in a wonderful tree settlement. Martin takes a shower. Wendell uses a water slide. Sherri and Terri drive a bamboo and grass car. Ralph pigs out on food and a monkey butler brings Nelson a drink. Back to reality.

BART: And every night the monkey butlers will regale us with jungle stories.

NELSON: How many monkey butlers will there be?

BART: One at first. But he'll train others.

All the kids marvel at such a great future. Bart climbs down from the rock.

Allowing people to write whatever they want as a contract, and selling them at Staples does not address anything but story line. You say they are raising kids, just like in Bart's fantasy there are monkey butlers. But you say nothing more about how it comes into being than "The simplest 'cookie cutter' ones to be available in bridal shops and in Staples," much like Bart says, "One at first. But he'll train others."

So how do people become child rearers? You say a contract, but how? Really its insulting that you wish to tear down marriage chasing after a fantasy, its even more insulting that you expect me to buy into this fantasy. Just how does "anything they want it to be" establish a precondition here?

And you don't even address its striking simularity to foster-parenting, a system already in use today and far inferior to marriage. I imagine your little frolic here is becuase you are looking for an easy out of a position once thought "insightful" but is now just fantasy. Take the jester's escape, thats at least entertaining.

Marriage is not as important as it used to be for the survival of the partners nor of their children. This is the objective reasons of the diminished importance of it. That's my hypothesis, and the rising divorce rate supports it.

Hmmm, allow me to defer this time to Lisa Simpson for a response...

Lisa: By your reasoning, I could say that this rock keeps away tigers.

Homer: How does the rock work?
Lisa: Well, you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, Daddy would like to buy your rock.

For a much more interesting and insightful commentary on the rising divorce rate (and why homosexual marriage is a solution like putting a bullet through a starving man's head cures his hunger) I offer this. You don't neccissarily disagree with this author mind you, but at least he is grounded in reality.

The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was incr

Throw this back at you: "
Does it feel good pretending you know lots about me? :)"

It's just a word, get over it. The only people who take that seriously are the activists on both sides. You don't have much room to talk considering Sweden had a state churhc as late as 1999. I keep telling you, you haven't been here and you don't know what Americans are actually like. According to you, America is nothing but right wing religious fanatics bent on killing each other and everybody else and we're all racist, right? The actual truth about crime in Europe and America might surprise you Would you like a link or two about the rising hate crimes in Europe?

But NASA has always cut across party lines in ways that belie the stereotypes we have about our parties.

For example, Walter Mondale bitterly opposed the space shuttle program in the Senate -- back when Richard Nixon was engaged in OSP-style deceptions about the cost estimates per shuttle flight in order to "sell" the shuttle. Here's an article with some text from a letter he wrote outlining the reasons for his opposition. Key bits:

• "...another example of perverse priorities and colossal waste in government spending. There is expert evidence that we can achieve the same scientific and utilitarian goals in space at only a fraction of the billions to be spent on the shuttle."
• "...there are certainly more sensible ways to create new jobs than by an enormous federal boondoggle."

The author of that linked article, Joseph Rodota, wrote it as an indictment of "a long line of liberals opposed to space exploration."

Hmm. Does anything seem backward about this situation to you? Rodota's talking about "the importance of big ideas" over fiscal responsibilities? Mondale's decrying the senseless cost?

Basically the critic here is saying "Before we put the ax to programs like Hubble, we want to be sure we've made the right choice, and the public will want to see that decision-making process. Sean O'Keefe shouldn't make this one himself without us having access to the process."

These are the same people who would remove qualified scientists from an advisory panel because their findings do not support a particular ideology or business model.
Exactly. Some people define "respected scientists" as only those who believe in their ideology (like global warming). All scientists who doesn't agree are labeled "industry stooges".

Some people would like to Outsource our military and subvert our "interests" to a corrupt organization of dictators and mostly corrupt elected officials (the U.N.). They would like to suppress any connection they don't want to find and repeat the same lie repeatedly until they think people will believe them. They also suppressed discovery of proliferation activity for political gain (China-gate).

Which way do you thing the activist hackers who would alter evoting dquipment would go?

OK. I'm not trying to belittle you; I'm trying to help you. Keep that in mind as you read this.

They interfered with and then outright stopped inspections when they learned the US was planting CIA agents as American inspection team members.

No, they began interfering with inspections from day one. Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm," contains a good, readable chronology of all of Saddam's many, many, many efforts to delay, confuse and/or obstruct the inspection process. You really ought to read it.

... like most Americans you missed the news cast the rest of the world got where half the administration is busy saying (CYA) they have no evidence that Iraq was linked to terrorist groups.

Let's ignore your stupidly patronizing "like most Americans" comment for a moment. I notice that somehow, despite the fact that half the administration was saying something, you somehow managed to avoid including a *single example*. This is because the belief you are clinging to is, quite simply, wrong. Whether you belief Iraq had any connections with Al Qaeda or not (see here and here, for example) Saddam had a long and rich history of working with a wide variety of other terrorist outfits. Remember where Abu Abbas turned up? How about Abu Nidal? Why would *any* member of the administration (much less *half* of them) say this when Saddam himself announced he was going to pay money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine?

We really did give him all that stuff he gassed the kurds with back in the 80's.

Another reply to this post already debunked this, so I won't go into it, except to point out that Saddam didn't NEED the U.S. to obtain chemical weapons. Any state with even a small amount of resources can easily synthesize those. It's just that most states DON'T.

if you care so much about the kurds, you should see what all that depleted uranium we dumped over there in ammunition is doing to them.

See here for a comprehensive overview of the "threat" surrounding depleted uranium. The scientific consensus: It's bunk. As for the claims you make in another post, about the increased cancer rate, you can't find any authoritative source for that, since there are none. Those numbers were invented out of whole cloth as pure Iraqi propaganda, meant to convince gullible suckers who will believe anything that casts the U.S. in a bad light.

Sound familiar?

- Alaska Jack

OK. I'm not trying to belittle you; I'm trying to help you. Keep that in mind as you read this.

They interfered with and then outright stopped inspections when they learned the US was planting CIA agents as American inspection team members.

No, they began interfering with inspections from day one. Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm," contains a good, readable chronology of all of Saddam's many, many, many efforts to delay, confuse and/or obstruct the inspection process. You really ought to read it.

... like most Americans you missed the news cast the rest of the world got where half the administration is busy saying (CYA) they have no evidence that Iraq was linked to terrorist groups.

Let's ignore your stupidly patronizing "like most Americans" comment for a moment. I notice that somehow, despite the fact that half the administration was saying something, you somehow managed to avoid including a *single example*. This is because the belief you are clinging to is, quite simply, wrong. Whether you belief Iraq had any connections with Al Qaeda or not (see here and here, for example) Saddam had a long and rich history of working with a wide variety of other terrorist outfits. Remember where Abu Abbas turned up? How about Abu Nidal? Why would *any* member of the administration (much less *half* of them) say this when Saddam himself announced he was going to pay money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine?

We really did give him all that stuff he gassed the kurds with back in the 80's.

Another reply to this post already debunked this, so I won't go into it, except to point out that Saddam didn't NEED the U.S. to obtain chemical weapons. Any state with even a small amount of resources can easily synthesize those. It's just that most states DON'T.

if you care so much about the kurds, you should see what all that depleted uranium we dumped over there in ammunition is doing to them.

See here for a comprehensive overview of the "threat" surrounding depleted uranium. The scientific consensus: It's bunk. As for the claims you make in another post, about the increased cancer rate, you can't find any authoritative source for that, since there are none. Those numbers were invented out of whole cloth as pure Iraqi propaganda, meant to convince gullible suckers who will believe anything that casts the U.S. in a bad light.

Sound familiar?

- Alaska Jack

There's no great love for Richmond

The Civil War is over, buddy. Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee, and good ol' Stonewall are all dead and buried. It's time to let Virginia back into our hearts.

Even the Great Emancipator has stopped by to say hello.

Most of the Democratic candidates have spoken out vocally against extending the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. To contrast, George W. Bush recently advocated not only extending, but expanding the damn thing-- in his State of the Union speech, no less. (The applause you heard when he said "the PATRIOT act is due to expire soon" was not coming from the pro-Bush side of the room.)

If you believe there is no significant difference between the candidates on this issue, you're just plain nuts. I'm sorry your favorite candidate isn't in the race anymore, but if you keep equivocating and misrepresenting the situation, you're only going to be rewarded with PATRIOT Acts II, III, IV and V.

We became his sworn enemy only when he invaded Kuwait and we realized that oil would be far cheaper in the hands of people we saved from invasion.

Ok- he tried to illegally expand his borders, and we kicked is ass back out. Even if we did just do it for oil, it was the right thing to do. And do you realize that we only get about 2% of our oil imports from Kuwait, right? If the was was just about oil, we would have probably gone after Canada or Mexico or Saudi Arabia instead.

Before or after we invaded Iraq? Nobody had any proof to this speculation before we invaded

President Clinton knew about Iraq's terrorist links. According to this recently leaked memo, the CIA has been tracking an al qaeda/Iraq link for over 10 years.

Where exactly are these again?

If Saddam had complied with the UN, we would know now, wouldn't we...

A capitalistic Iraq will allow those who participated in the invasion to profit immensely from transforming the middle east into a "western" country.

The Iraqis themselves are very optimistic about their future after Saddam. Why aren't you?

African nations in which we can lord impossible debts over their heads and force them into low wage labor.

Yeah- lets blame the US for everything. Many African nations are struggling with poverty- must be our fault. Theres no other explanation.

North Korea did react by announcing their intentions to blow up South Korea and Japan

North Korea's actions have just confirmed why we have regarded them as a terrorist supporting rouge nation for years now.

BUT, you had the possibility of owning one. So, I had to shoot you.

If you had seen me shoot people in the past with a gun, and you had no evidence that I had got rid of my gun, then yes, you should shoot me if I threaten to kill you. That is the smart thing to do. We are not suicidal, after all.

Don't bring Israel into the discussion here - there is nothing wrong with supporting the families of those in need - It is the lack of support and viability that creates the situation where the suicide-bomber mindset is developed.

Whaatt?????? Are you saying you really believe Saddam's guaranteed gift of $10,000 to the family of all Palestinian suicide bombers (only *after* their bombings) was really good will effort by Saddam "supporting the families of those in need"????? You sir are one of those irrational, Bush-hating wackos who wouldn't believe anything that links Saddam and terrorists simply because it would help Bush.

There was a 50 point list of confirmed Saddam-terrorist (and several al Qaeda) links leaked a few months ago and published by the Weekly Standard. I don't want to hunt that down, but I'm sure you can find it.

Even Bill Clinton's administration stated and detailed ties and support by Iraq of al Qaeda. I did find that link for you, here it is:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=2
But it won't surprise me if you discount those as well, given the far left's rejection of Clintonian centrism (see Dean's recent statements denouncing the centrist Democratic Leadership Council).

Also, on December 15, the London Telegraph had to pull their original front page lead from something like "Saddam & 9/11 Linked!" to "Saddam Captured!" The memo I mentioned has been widely reported on and I'm sure even you can find it. Also, your statement about terrorist camps in northern Iraq is misleading since there were more camps than those and I wasn't referring to those specific camps.

Why support a company based in a country that back-stabs its supposed friends to get oil from a murderous monster...Saddam..

Scum sucking Frogs!

Enjoy... Hell Frenchie. Good riddance..

You mean like when it's OK to attack Iraq when Clinton says it, but not when Bush says it? Face it, everywhere you go, people are self-serving.

Gee, when you put it like that why would I take offense?

You know, if somebody questioning an uncorroborated story (that both the United Nations and the US State Department dispute) that was told on a semi-anonymous forum is so offensive to you, all I can say is TOUGHEN UP.

Those crayons were taken away at a checkpoint because they were deemed to be in violation of UN sanctions.

If your story is true, and the crayons were actually confiscated, then it wasn't because of the sanctions because the sanctions didn't ban them.

The current administration attempted to justify this war with Iraq as an extension of the "War on Terrorism".

s/attempted/succeeded

Iraq had massive WMD stockpiles they said.

They did (and in all likelyhood, probably still do somewhere). Nobody, including France, Germany, and Hans Blix, really disputed that.

These could be readied for use within 45 minutes they said.

The threat was never a direct attack from Iraq.

Iraq had definite links with Al Qaeda they said.

According to this memo sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee a few weeks ago, the links are pretty definite.

There have been no WMDs found,

Like I said, the question was never if he actually had weapons. Iraq admitted to a nuclear and biological weapons program after a series of defections in the mid 1990's, and we have seen them publically use chemical weapons. What we don't know, however, is what happened to those weapons. Saddam was required to point to the weapons and have the UN watch him destroy them. He never did.

The thing that people like you seem to leave out is the fact that if President Bush had been lying about the WMD's in Iraq, we probably wouldn't know about it because they would have magically found weapons after the invasion. It doesn't make any sense that Bush would lie about Iraq's weapons capabilities to justify an invasion when an invasion is the only thing that will bring the truth out. We marched into Baghdad fully expecting to find weapons there. It think the fact that no major weapons have been found yet is pretty solid proof that Bush wasn't lying. To put it another way- if we had found huge stockpiles of chemical weapons shortly after the invasion began, I bet people like you would be claiming that they were planted by the CIA or something, and you would still be claiming that we were lied to.

no evidence of any links with Al Qaeda has been presented

There is plenty of evidence, from Ansar Al Islam to the fact that Al Qaeda fighters were caught fighting US troops in Iraq in the first days of the invasion.

Want a country with links to Al Qaeda? Try the US. Just ask the CIA

I assume you are referring to our support of the Mujahideen in the 1980's in Afghanistan, but the Mujahideen is NOT Al Qaeda, and our support of them was justified.

The US public and the world community were lied to deliberately.

I don't believe we have been lied to.

Maybe you should read more about the connection between Saddam and Osama before blowing news organizations off.

1) So? Come on, get serious.

2) Why we went to war. You've heard the saying that no one is so blind as he who will not see?

3) I assume you're talking about the recession, which started when Clinton was in office, according to official government figures. Well gosh, where to begin.

Service Sector Hiring Hits 3.5-Year High

NASDAQ, Dow Soar on Productivity Gains

For Home Loans, a Steady Market

Two Reports Indicate Recovery Is Taking Hold

Productivity Makes Best Gains in 20 Years

Auto Sales Rise with Economy

Shares Reach 18-Month Highs on Manufacturing News

Holiday Spending Shows Strength

Reports Indicate the Economy is Continuing its Expansion

Economy's Growth Is Revised Upward to 8.2%

U.S. Economic Growth Hits New Records

Number of New Jobless Claims Fell Last Week

Housing Starts In October Near 18-Year High

Economists Expect An Increase of 135,000 Jobs

Consumer Prices Steady After Four-Month Climb

Durable Goods Jump, Jobless Claims Drop

4) Sure. We're going to the moon so Bush can distract us from a bad e-mail bill passed by Congress.

5) Sure. We're going to the moon so Bush can distract us from the RIAA and MPAA.

I could go on ...

I'm sure you could. But I'd rather you didn't. - Alaska Jack

This block of text inserted to overcome Slashdot's stupid average-characters per line rule: WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, i

Maybe, just maybe, you should read and learn a little before opening that shithole you call a mouth.
READ THIS

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship

It's what we've been telling you fucking morons all along and not a damn one of you was smart enough to understand it.

I think you might find this article interesting (you might have to try back later- that link was just posted on the drudgereport, and thats just about the same as the /. effect).

The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last has written a scathing review, The Matrix: Exposed of the 'The Matrix: Revolutions'. Typical quotation: '"Revolutions" reveals that underneath the philosophy, allegory, and intellectual pretension of "The Matrix" is a great big wad of nothing.'

His article points to the site Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics which Last claims will have a field day with the latest Matrix installment. ISMP rated Matrix: Reloaded RP = Retch.

Two exceptions -- George W. is 5'11" and Gore was 6'1" -- but then W. only got the electoral college and the supreme court. Also Jimmy Carter is only 5'9", and Ford was six two. But those are the only times it's gone the other way.

The Daily Standard has a throwaway article on the subject. Very informative about the height of Kerry's hair, if you ask me.

The Jedi are kind of on the clueless side, after all. Their tactical decisions suck.

• The Jedi are guarding a room in a tower. This is in a culture where every vehicle has antigravity. Do they have guards looking outward? Surveillance cameras? Air defenses? Nah. A couple of guys outside the door and they think they have it covered.
• In Episode 2, the Jedi find out that someone has ordered a clone army. But the people who built the clone army think the Jedi ordered it. The obvious move would have been to just take delivery - have the army shipped over to some Republic base. Or call HQ (which they demonstrably can do) and have final payment and transport sent over. But no, they have to do something stupid and heroic.
• When they have a ground battle, the tactics are out of Napoleon's era. That only worked when rates of fire were really low. Yet everybody is blasting away on full auto all the time.

Sounds like you've been reading The Case for the Empire.

Gave me a chuckle :)

http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2071033
http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2067837
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/2002_09_29 _corner-archive.asp#85505821
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/001/435tebxi.asp

(You may have to search for "welfare" on the pages above to find the section addressing the link.)

That's horseshit. Just because a lot of people make the same mistake doesn't mean that somehow it ceases to be a mistake.

Yeah George Bush is a big leftist commie. *rolling eyes*

Ironically, the "neo-conservative" tradition he and his cabinet (except Colin Powel) espouse, was, in fact, founded by a former Trotskyite and Communist. See the History of Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol. So, we are in fact led by those who espouse an ideology closely crafted and derived by former Communists and Communist ideology. Former Communists running the GOP - go figure! --M

For the language-impaired, "wherefore" has the same relationship to "therefore" as "where" has to "there". Let's keep things somewhat orderly here -- unless you argue that Juliet, spying Romeo, would say "Ah, therefore's Romeo!"

For all those who accept illiteracy in the name of evolving language, here's a worthwhile article to read.

Dean is a serious threat The Weekly Standard

Read, the conservaties view Dean as a threat, I dont know where you get the un-electable crap.

You also make the unwarranted assumption that everyone will want, and will buy, a new hybrid or hydro-car, in a relatively short period of time. 10 years is by far too short a changeover period: I'd think 30 years is more reasonable. After all, people are still driving 1960's-vintage cars out there as classics, and I still see plenty of 1970's-vintage cars on the roads.

We were attacked by TERRORISTS because we use ridiculous forms of energy which supported them. Why cant Bush blame this on the terrorists? He can make up these masterful speeches about Bin Laden and Saddam being on the same team and having nuclear weapons, let him have his same speech writers write some new lines to get people to stop using gas in their cars.
And, recall that quite a few people cannot afford a new vehicle: a quick transition such as you propose would severely impact the lower end of the economic spectrum. By the standards that you appear to espouse as a general case, this is a rather large-turnabout. Somebody convert to to Pat Buchanan last night ???? (g)


I'm a college student, there are millions of me who dont even have their first car. Another excuse.

Pat Buchanan ? No I didnt convert to Republican, I'm independent and always will be. Both parties are evil in my opinion, I vote for the person who benefits me at the time. If I were a religious millionaire I'd vote for Bush.

Scary stuff.