Calling a chemistry student who admits to working off from second hand reports, and then guessing as to the process involved, and who doesn't have any stated expertise in binary explosives or especially the formulations or processes that may have been developed by real chemists with a background in explosives working for Al Qaeda, an expert is a bit much:
Now, for reasons that don't need exploring at this juncture, I'm back at school, studying chemistry, and I'm spending this summer in a lab doing organic synthesis work.....
A disclaimer, I'm working entirely off of news reported by people who don't know the difference between soft drinks and nail polish remover, but the information I've seen has the taste of being real. As near as I can tell, it is claimed that the terrorists planned to make organic peroxides in situ on board an airplane and use them to destroy the plane.
Given the history of peroxide based explosives used in terrorism, I wouldn't want to assume that he was right about the chemical process, the inteded use, and the practicalities of it without a lot more evidence from someone with direct knowledge of all three.
This doesn't even get into the question of his status as a neutral commentator.
What you are saying is that it is illegal to think about carrying a crime out. There should be nothing illegal about that. However, if you go about carrying those plans out, then it becomes a crime. Or at least that is how it should be.
Thinking about a crime, or maybe even making up some plans if you are writing a movie, is one thing. Actually making preparations, or working with someone who would carry it out, or otherwise demonstrating the intent to carry it out, is another thing entirely. That is criminal.
A crowbar in your garage is a crowbar. A crowbar in your hand while you are in the backyard of a house in the next town is a burglary tool. A not terribly detailed plan to blow up Parliament might be part of a novel. A detailed plan to blow up Parliament, receipts for 500 Kg of fertilizer, and a rental truck reservation is incriminating evidence.
But these are just the sorts of things the US and UK governments have been moving towards. Datamining through any available database available to them to search for incriminating evidence and calculate likelihood indices for incrimination.
They aren't moving toward searching through everyone's hard drive indiscriminately.
The product of data mining might lead to an investigation which could produce incriminating evidence, it would not be likely to be incriminating in itself.
No, the current type of War in Iraq is a war that almost no army has ever _won_.
That isn't really true. There have been many instances of countries fighting and either winning against a guerilla force, or at least keeping the problem manageable.
The UK fought successful wars in Malaysia and Yemen. Northern Ireland is pretty peaceful today whereas in 1972 there were 1,853 bombs and 10,628 shooting incidents.
The Soviet Union put down nationalist guerillas fighting in the western republics of the USSR after WW2. The Soviets in Afghanistan had pretty much killed or driven the Jihadis out of Afghanistan until the US supplied them with Stinger missiles to counter Soviet helicopters.
The Greek civil war involved guerilla warfare. That is over.
The US put down a rebellion in the Philippines, and uprisings by various Indian tribes. US and ARVN forces largely destroyed the Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive. After that, it was mainly the North Viet Namese Army infiltrating from the North that carried on the war in the south.
As for Iraq, there are promising developments: Iraqi tipping point - toward unity, security, prosperity 2007 may very well be the turning point for Iraq as its security forces are reaching full strength and adequate training levels.
Re:Rumsfeld was not the architect of the Iraq war
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 1
Anyone reading the Mearsheimer & Walt paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", should also read at least one or more critiques of it.
Mr. Cole appears to be the only prominent academic in America to have embraced "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a highly controversial paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard. Mr. Cole told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that the paper argues the "virtually axiomatic" point held by the rest of the world that a "powerful pro-Israel lobby exists." The result is that "U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed."
But the paper has been roundly attacked for sloppy generalizations. The two authors claim that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Even Noam Chomsky, a far-left critic of Israel, wrote that we "have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion." But Mr. Cole praises the two professors for seeking "to end the taboo [on discussions of the "Israel lobby"], enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism."
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration. Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Reasoned discussion is one of Slashdot's strengths..... when you can find it.
Re:I'm just glad Slashdot raised the flag on Diebo
on
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
·
· Score: 1
Digg.com isn't really a news site in the same way as CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, etc..
Digg is a user driven social content website. Ok, so what the heck does that mean? Well, everything on digg is submitted by the digg user community (that would be you). After you submit content, other digg users read your submission and digg what they like best. If your story rocks and receives enough diggs, it is promoted to the front page for the millions of digg visitors to see.
The content is posted and selected by the members, and the membership will be driven by the content. That isn't really a recipe for automatic evenhandedness.
Based on your comments, may I take it that you never saw, or were completed disinterested in, any stories about Democrat aligned groups involved in vote fraud? It will be hard to have clean, fair elections if we don't clean up fraud and abuse everywhere it occurs. Yes, that includes when Democrats do it, or profit from it, as well and any connected to Republicans. (Don't kid yourself that the story I linked to was the only one involving Democratic affiliates.)
And don't forget the Democratic election day playbook that was found last election:
A portion of the manual, which Democratic officials say is authentic, states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a `pre-emptive strike,' " such as issuing a press release "quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting."
No offense, but that's what the US military wants... meat heads, and it pisses me off. This is what you get when you take a bunch of guys who are trained to hate everyone but themselves, and put them in a position of peace keeping. Either we need a separate "Peace keeping force" more akin to streamlined UN forces, or we need to start respecting our boys and not shitting on them in attempts to get them to hate everyone else... soldiers and officers alike.
What you wrote is not merely false, but offensive and libelous. I also can't help but wonder if it is calculated. The US military is better educated on average than the civilian population*. The US military isn't trained to hate, but it is trained to kill. You also seem to suffer from an irony disorder of some sort, saying that, "we need to start respecting our boys and not shitting on them", right after you imply that US service members are hate-filled meat-heads. The icing on the cake, of course, is that you take umbrage when called on it.
I think that you are proving more points than you intend, and not all of them are a credit to you.
We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated than the general public and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began.
No offense, but that's what the US military wants... meat heads, and it pisses me off. This is what you get when you take a bunch of guys who are trained to hate everyone but themselves, and put them in a position of peace keeping. Either we need a separate "Peace keeping force" more akin to streamlined UN forces, or we need to start respecting our boys and not shitting on them in attempts to get them to hate everyone else... soldiers and officers alike.
Is that the intelligent argument you were looking for? It is not merely false, but offensive and libelous.
Instead of intelligent argument, just lash out, yell and scream, tear off some heads.
In writing?
You sure are a good representative of the military mindset.
Hmmmmmmm.....
Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.
The paper requirements for the war have been met.*
The Islamist extremists who have made themselves our enemy are on a war of conquest, their goal is either convert everyone to Islam, or subdue them as Dhimmis. They understand that this is a long term project, but they have high hopes, believing that Allah is on their side. They believe that it was they who caused the Soviet Union to fall as a result of its defeat in Afghanistan. They believe that they US will also fall if they are determined, although it may take more than 100 years. They are patient, and determined, each willing to do his small part. (Sort of an open source brand of imperialism, everyone joining a project, or starting their own.) They point to Viet Nam, Somalia, Lebanon, and other places for inspiration. Bin Laden has declared Iraq as the central battlefield for Islam in our time.
If US decides to try and stop fighting, and they don't, the experience will be very painful.
The world has grown small, our borders are porous, and the world economy is very interconnected. We abandon the battle at our peril.
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. -- FISA vs the Constitution
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
--- Rebert F. Turner, co-founder, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law FISA vs. the Constitution
WASHINGTON -- A group of former Clinton administration lawyers are urging the American Bar Association to reject its panel's call for presidents to stop issuing ``signing statements" that reserve the right to bypass laws, saying the problem is with President Bush's use of such statements, not the mechanism itself.
On Thursday, for example, the Boston Globe published an opinion article defending signing statements by law professors Eric Posner of the University of Chicago and Curtis Bradley of Duke University.
Posner worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under former President George H. W. Bush from 1992 to 1993, and Bradley worked for the current Bush administration as a State Department attorney in 2004.
Posner and Bradley agreed with the Clinton-era lawyers that presidents have a right to issue signing statements, calling them ``a useful device through which the president can announce his views . . . rather than conceal them." They also argued that Bush's signing statements are no different than Clinton's -- a claim that the Clinton-era lawyers, who say Bush has abused the mechanism, dispute.
. In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties.
That should be: In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands fewer dead than if Saddam was still in power.
What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.
I would invite anyone curious about this to go to the source of the data used in the charts you link to. When you look at the data, you find, surprise, surprise, that Iraq was where most Americans who died from terrorism in 2005 actually died. Hopefully that isn't a shock. I also seem to recall that the reporting standards changed in some aspect.
Every time the US or the UK government use "the T word" in relation to Iraq, the are deliberately (and maliciously) making a connection between the events of 9/11 and their invasion of Iraq. That is absolutely discraceful and anyone who lost anyone they knew in 9/11 should be livid about it.
Iraq was a long time state sponsor of terrorism, giving aid and support to terrorists that killed Americans. No connection to 9/11 was needed to use the "T word" with them.
I question the validity of the data set and analysis of the article you link to. Why start from Trumans 2nd term, and not his first? He included Ford even though Ford only server part of a term. That does have the effect of trimming several years of flat growth, based on S&P500 data, which helps boost Democratic averages. I also question the assertion that the market reacts to policies that aren't enacted yet, and which may never be enacted, which is what he is doing by stating that the markets change on the election results. That may be true for some things, but I doubt it is for others. That timing of the analytical window for each administration also has the "happy" effect of insulating the Clinton administration from some of the internet bubble meltdown, pushing more of it onto the Bush administration, once again raising the Democratic Clinton administration average. On the other end, it may also steal some of the good economic numbers from the 1st Bush (Sr.) administration. I would certainly want to run those numbers a couple of different ways before I trusted them. For some reason I think he has run them more than once too.
This election is more of an intervention than an election. In order to begin repairing the damage, you have to first stop the abuse. Saying "NO!" to the current administration... or more accurately, "NO MORE!", is a VERY GOOD reason to vote for the opposition.
That's kind of funny,.... that is how the Republicans gained the majority in Congress and the White House from the Democrats.
As Tom Friedman wrote recently.... If America elects to keep the GOP in control of every branch of government tommorow, then we are no more than a banana republic.
Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.
The bet you attribute to Rove and Bush is wrong, it should read:
Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are are too smart to fall for Friedman's stupid troll. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.
Human rights groups are predicting thousands, but Saddam was put on trial for 148. He has been found guilty of killing 148 people, not thousands. Even if you dismiss the possibility that this court was set up as a political stunt, it puts a whole new light on the number of deaths in Iraq in the name of preventing genocide and terrorism.
Since you are having some difficulty picking the key points, let me assist:
Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves.
Saddam is due to appear for a routine hearing on Tuesday of his second trial, for genocide against ethnic Kurds in 1988. In the meantime, he is held by the U.S. military at Camp Cropper, part of the U.S. base at Baghdad airport. The five judges in the Dujail case are expected also to publish the detailed, unanimous ruling, running to some 200 to 300 pages. It is eagerly awaited by international jurists keen to judge how the court performed.
There is another trial going on now, and no doubt more to follow.
The man is going to be hanged probably in a public square. What is this? 1885?
Public executions are still pretty common in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Would you prefer it was done in a small room inside a prison, like in the US? He is just as dead either way.
Yes that will be a spectacle for the world won't it? A public hanging in the newly democratized iraq.
That in fact might be entirely appropriate, especially if they can keep their democracy. Not shot like a soldier, as he requested, but hung like the criminal he is. Sic semper tyrannis.
Anyway what I saw of the trial it was a farce. A complete railroad.
Do you think the verdict wrong? Did the "railroad" go to the wrong place? Is there any real possibility that he wasn't guilty? Is there some theoretical defense that he could have offered that would have gotten him off from his well known and documented crimes? Saddam had as many as 1,500 lawyers helping his case, but all of that legal help was impotent in the face of overwhelming evidence. The only thing you could possibly offer would be some sort of procedural argument as there isn't any real argument that he didn't do it, is there? I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that justice was done.
If you still think it a travesty, maybe you could pay homage by posting with the handle: killsaddam? Or should that be: dontkillsaddam?
Wait, there is a stunning development in paragraph 2:
Now Bechtel is leaving.
The San Francisco engineering company's last government contract to rebuild power, water and sewage plants across Iraq expired on Tuesday. Some employees remain to finish the paperwork, but essentially, the company's job is done.
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful
or did he tell Congress where they need to rubberstamp his decisions? Bill Clinton... impeached... Junior.... hot seat over his foreign policy which he's so proud. America doesn't care about who died elsewhere since war is nothing more than a video game responsibility of being the last global superpower... most irresponsible president in generations. Impreachment for wasting $200 billion USD of military equipment and weakening the military... That's why George W. Bush should be impeached and I say this as a Republican.
But back to Saddam: death by hanging? That's idiotic. I say we kill him with all of those WMDs he had!
Why not? Although they aren't really the weapons the coalition forces were looking for, coalition forces and/or UN inspectors have recovered intact or largely intact weapons containing anthrax, sarin, and mustard gas. Do you have a preference? If not those, maybe something from the banned research that was going on in Iraq? Maybe C. botulinum Okra B?
Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
According to Santorum, "That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country."
Reading from the document, Santorum added, "Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles. And I underscore filled."
Santorum said the "purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions."
While acknowledging that the agents "degrade over time," the document said that the chemicals "remain hazardous and potentially lethal."
Slashdot Mirror
Calling a chemistry student who admits to working off from second hand reports, and then guessing as to the process involved, and who doesn't have any stated expertise in binary explosives or especially the formulations or processes that may have been developed by real chemists with a background in explosives working for Al Qaeda, an expert is a bit much:
Given the history of peroxide based explosives used in terrorism, I wouldn't want to assume that he was right about the chemical process, the inteded use, and the practicalities of it without a lot more evidence from someone with direct knowledge of all three.
This doesn't even get into the question of his status as a neutral commentator.
What you are saying is that it is illegal to think about carrying a crime out. There should be nothing illegal about that. However, if you go about carrying those plans out, then it becomes a crime. Or at least that is how it should be.
Thinking about a crime, or maybe even making up some plans if you are writing a movie, is one thing. Actually making preparations, or working with someone who would carry it out, or otherwise demonstrating the intent to carry it out, is another thing entirely. That is criminal.
A crowbar in your garage is a crowbar. A crowbar in your hand while you are in the backyard of a house in the next town is a burglary tool. A not terribly detailed plan to blow up Parliament might be part of a novel. A detailed plan to blow up Parliament, receipts for 500 Kg of fertilizer, and a rental truck reservation is incriminating evidence.
But these are just the sorts of things the US and UK governments have been moving towards. Datamining through any available database available to them to search for incriminating evidence and calculate likelihood indices for incrimination.
They aren't moving toward searching through everyone's hard drive indiscriminately.
The product of data mining might lead to an investigation which could produce incriminating evidence, it would not be likely to be incriminating in itself.
MI5 tracking '30 UK terror plots'
No, the current type of War in Iraq is a war that almost no army has ever _won_.
That isn't really true. There have been many instances of countries fighting and either winning against a guerilla force, or at least keeping the problem manageable.
The UK fought successful wars in Malaysia and Yemen. Northern Ireland is pretty peaceful today whereas in 1972 there were 1,853 bombs and 10,628 shooting incidents.
The Soviet Union put down nationalist guerillas fighting in the western republics of the USSR after WW2. The Soviets in Afghanistan had pretty much killed or driven the Jihadis out of Afghanistan until the US supplied them with Stinger missiles to counter Soviet helicopters.
The Greek civil war involved guerilla warfare. That is over.
The US put down a rebellion in the Philippines, and uprisings by various Indian tribes. US and ARVN forces largely destroyed the Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive. After that, it was mainly the North Viet Namese Army infiltrating from the North that carried on the war in the south.
As for Iraq, there are promising developments: Iraqi tipping point - toward unity, security, prosperity
2007 may very well be the turning point for Iraq as its security forces are reaching full strength and adequate training levels.
Here is one: Harvard's New Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote about it:
Cole Fire
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Reasoned discussion is one of Slashdot's strengths..... when you can find it.
The content is posted and selected by the members, and the membership will be driven by the content. That isn't really a recipe for automatic evenhandedness.
Based on your comments, may I take it that you never saw, or were completed disinterested in, any stories about Democrat aligned groups involved in vote fraud? It will be hard to have clean, fair elections if we don't clean up fraud and abuse everywhere it occurs. Yes, that includes when Democrats do it, or profit from it, as well and any connected to Republicans. (Don't kid yourself that the story I linked to was the only one involving Democratic affiliates.)
And don't forget the Democratic election day playbook that was found last election:
Democrat's lawsuit alleging election fraud dismissed
What you wrote is not merely false, but offensive and libelous. I also can't help but wonder if it is calculated. The US military is better educated on average than the civilian population*. The US military isn't trained to hate, but it is trained to kill. You also seem to suffer from an irony disorder of some sort, saying that, "we need to start respecting our boys and not shitting on them", right after you imply that US service members are hate-filled meat-heads. The icing on the cake, of course, is that you take umbrage when called on it.
I think that you are proving more points than you intend, and not all of them are a credit to you.
* Who Bears the Burden?
Is that the intelligent argument you were looking for? It is not merely false, but offensive and libelous.
Instead of intelligent argument, just lash out, yell and scream, tear off some heads.
In writing?
You sure are a good representative of the military mindset.
Hmmmmmmm.....
Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.
Is that sarcasm?
Intelligent argument. Respectful.
The Islamist extremists who have made themselves our enemy are on a war of conquest, their goal is either convert everyone to Islam, or subdue them as Dhimmis. They understand that this is a long term project, but they have high hopes, believing that Allah is on their side. They believe that it was they who caused the Soviet Union to fall as a result of its defeat in Afghanistan. They believe that they US will also fall if they are determined, although it may take more than 100 years. They are patient, and determined, each willing to do his small part. (Sort of an open source brand of imperialism, everyone joining a project, or starting their own.) They point to Viet Nam, Somalia, Lebanon, and other places for inspiration. Bin Laden has declared Iraq as the central battlefield for Islam in our time.
If US decides to try and stop fighting, and they don't, the experience will be very painful.
The world has grown small, our borders are porous, and the world economy is very interconnected. We abandon the battle at our peril.
I don't recall any declarations of war...
Maybe this will help:
They dug up stupid. He wasn't much halp.
If 1 in 100 knows about them, then 1 in 1,000 have a reasonable understanding of them.
Group opposes loss of signing statements
Group opposes loss of signing statements
Signing Off
Could Supreme Court Settle Presidential Signing Scrap?
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that some people get this wrong given the shocking number of people buying into 9/11 myths or hoaxes.
. In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties.
That should be: In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands fewer dead than if Saddam was still in power.
What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.
I would invite anyone curious about this to go to the source of the data used in the charts you link to. When you look at the data, you find, surprise, surprise, that Iraq was where most Americans who died from terrorism in 2005 actually died. Hopefully that isn't a shock. I also seem to recall that the reporting standards changed in some aspect.
We wouldn't want to see anyone mislead, would we?
Every time the US or the UK government use "the T word" in relation to Iraq, the are deliberately (and maliciously) making a connection between the events of 9/11 and their invasion of Iraq. That is absolutely discraceful and anyone who lost anyone they knew in 9/11 should be livid about it.
Iraq was a long time state sponsor of terrorism, giving aid and support to terrorists that killed Americans. No connection to 9/11 was needed to use the "T word" with them.
I question the validity of the data set and analysis of the article you link to. Why start from Trumans 2nd term, and not his first? He included Ford even though Ford only server part of a term. That does have the effect of trimming several years of flat growth, based on S&P500 data, which helps boost Democratic averages. I also question the assertion that the market reacts to policies that aren't enacted yet, and which may never be enacted, which is what he is doing by stating that the markets change on the election results. That may be true for some things, but I doubt it is for others. That timing of the analytical window for each administration also has the "happy" effect of insulating the Clinton administration from some of the internet bubble meltdown, pushing more of it onto the Bush administration, once again raising the Democratic Clinton administration average. On the other end, it may also steal some of the good economic numbers from the 1st Bush (Sr.) administration. I would certainly want to run those numbers a couple of different ways before I trusted them. For some reason I think he has run them more than once too.
That's kind of funny,.... that is how the Republicans gained the majority in Congress and the White House from the Democrats.
As Tom Friedman wrote recently.... If America elects to keep the GOP in control of every branch of government tommorow, then we are no more than a banana republic.
Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.
The bet you attribute to Rove and Bush is wrong, it should read:
Since you are having some difficulty picking the key points, let me assist:
Saddam to face genocide charges
Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities
FACTBOX-What happens next in Saddam trial
There is another trial going on now, and no doubt more to follow.
What is this "much larger monster" that you speak of?
Saddam was responsible for the death of millions of people, that other monster must be a whopper. Where is it?
The man is going to be hanged probably in a public square. What is this? 1885?
Public executions are still pretty common in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Would you prefer it was done in a small room inside a prison, like in the US? He is just as dead either way.
Yes that will be a spectacle for the world won't it? A public hanging in the newly democratized iraq.
That in fact might be entirely appropriate, especially if they can keep their democracy. Not shot like a soldier, as he requested, but hung like the criminal he is. Sic semper tyrannis.
Anyway what I saw of the trial it was a farce. A complete railroad.
Do you think the verdict wrong? Did the "railroad" go to the wrong place? Is there any real possibility that he wasn't guilty? Is there some theoretical defense that he could have offered that would have gotten him off from his well known and documented crimes? Saddam had as many as 1,500 lawyers helping his case, but all of that legal help was impotent in the face of overwhelming evidence. The only thing you could possibly offer would be some sort of procedural argument as there isn't any real argument that he didn't do it, is there? I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that justice was done.
If you still think it a travesty, maybe you could pay homage by posting with the handle: killsaddam? Or should that be: dontkillsaddam?
Wait, there is a stunning development in paragraph 2:
We are at war
or did he tell Congress where they need to rubberstamp his decisions?
Bill Clinton
America doesn't care about who died elsewhere since war is nothing more than a video game
responsibility of being the last global superpower
Impreachment for wasting $200 billion USD of military equipment and weakening the military
That's why George W. Bush should be impeached and I say this as a Republican.
Republican? As in Spain?
Why not? Although they aren't really the weapons the coalition forces were looking for, coalition forces and/or UN inspectors have recovered intact or largely intact weapons containing anthrax, sarin, and mustard gas. Do you have a preference? If not those, maybe something from the banned research that was going on in Iraq? Maybe C. botulinum Okra B?
Document Details WMD Recovered In Iraq
The HALP photo was fabulous.
There is another one too, from the Army-Air Force game.