Conflict in the Middle East, pt. 3

Ahmed Chalabi, a former Iraqi exile who fed the United States intelligence on Iraq's banned arms program that helped justify the U.S.-led war, today dismissed charges that he exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons.

Chalabi, 58, the leader of the Pentagon-backed Iraqi National Congress, insisted that U.S. authorities would find the former Iraqi government's hidden weapons once they locate Hussein.

That explains why the WMD haven't been found yet : they're up Saddam's arse.

9058. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2003 12:24:06 PM

Those damned elusive weapons
(Economist, subscription only, excerpts:)

Before the invasion [Mr Blair] had confidently asserted that once coalition troops showed up in Baghdad, rejoicing Iraqis would promptly lead them straight to the smoking-gun evidence he knew was there.

Until the middle of last week, this was merely a bit embarrassing for Mr Blair. Everybody understood that Iraq was bigger than France and that Saddam Hussein was very good at hiding things, not least himself.

But Mr Blair is no longer getting the benefit of the doubt. The first blow to his credibility came from Donald Rumsfeld. Unconcerned, as usual, by the damage his musings would do in London, the American defence secretary reflected that WMD could never be found after all because they might have been cunningly destroyed by Mr Hussein before the war. Quite what strategic goal such a move would have served was left unexplained—though that question also applies to Mr Hussein's failure to comply with UN resolutions, which looks bizarrely suicidal if he either had no WMD or planned to destroy them.

The second blow to Mr Blair's credibility came from closer to home. This week a nameless but apparently senior MI6 officer claimed that Downing Street had deliberately “sexed up” carefully calibrated intelligence reports. In particular, Mr Blair stood accused of misleading the House of Commons by saying that Iraqi WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. The disgruntled leaker claimed that the intelligence for this came from only one uncorroborated source—one which the Joint Intelligence Committee had been reluctant to validate.

Just how much trouble Mr Blair is really in is still not clear. The belief that Downing Street spun the intelligence material is widespread.

9059. jayackroyd - 6/11/2003 12:52:16 PM

Suicide bomber kills over 15 in Israel.

Reuters:


An Israeli helicopter missile attack killed a top Hamas militant and five other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip Wednesday shortly after a suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in Jerusalem, hospital officials said.

The militant Islamic group Hamas claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus Wednesday in which at least 16 people were killed and more than 60 wounded.

A Web site that is linked to Hamas and regularly publishes official statements from the group said in a statement that the Jerusalem bombing was carried out by Hamas' Izz-el-Deen al-Qassam military wing.




Israeli military retaliates immediately

Reuters:


Hamas identified the militant as Tito Massaoud, a leader of its Izz-el-Deen al-Qassam military wing. An Israeli security source said he was involved in the launching of Qassam rockets against southern Israel and Jewish settlements in Gaza.


"The helicopter fired missiles at a car and left it to burn," a witness said about the attack in a residential neighborhood of Gaza City, a day after an Israeli helicopter strike wounded Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior Hamas leader.


Another Hamas militant in the vehicle with Massaoud and four passersby were also killed, the hospital officials said.

9060. jayackroyd - 6/11/2003 12:54:03 PM

Let's try that again:

Suicide bomber kills over 15 in Israel.

Reuters:


The militant Islamic group Hamas claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus Wednesday in which at least 16 people were killed and more than 60 wounded.

A Web site that is linked to Hamas and regularly publishes official statements from the group said in a statement that the Jerusalem bombing was carried out by Hamas' Izz-el-Deen al-Qassam military wing.




Israeli military retaliates immediately

Reuters:

An Israeli helicopter missile attack killed a top Hamas militant and five other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip Wednesday shortly after a suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in Jerusalem, hospital officials said.


Hamas identified the militant as Tito Massaoud, a leader of its Izz-el-Deen al-Qassam military wing. An Israeli security source said he was involved in the launching of Qassam rockets against southern Israel and Jewish settlements in Gaza.


"The helicopter fired missiles at a car and left it to burn," a witness said about the attack in a residential neighborhood of Gaza City, a day after an Israeli helicopter strike wounded Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior Hamas leader.


Another Hamas militant in the vehicle with Massaoud and four passersby were also killed, the hospital officials said.

9061. wonkers2 - 6/11/2003 12:57:20 PM

It's pretty clear that Bush & Co. have lied to the American people about matters of grave importance to the country. Bush should be impeached.

9062. jayackroyd - 6/11/2003 12:59:27 PM

Given how low the republicans set the impeachment bar a few years ago, I suppose you can make that argument.

Can you find a way to get Bush to talk about the justifications for the war under oath?

9063. OhioSTOPAS - 6/11/2003 5:52:32 PM

I think the “Topics of Interest” column on the Mote “Welcome” page is overdue for a cleanup.

“Troops cleaned up after sarin exposure”? It turned out the "sarin" was most likely pesticide.

“Iraqi scientist may lead to WMD”? We haven’t heard anything since about Judith Miller’s unnamed scientist who was leading us to unnamed WMD’s at an unnamed location.

“Possible evidence of Iraq/al Qaeda link”? Oh, the mysterious papers “discovered” by the pro-war tabloid, the Telegraph? Haven’t heard about that since, either.

The “Topics of Interest” column is indicative of news coverage of the search for WMD’s. Every possible discovery is trumpeted by the media (especially FOX TV or Clear Channel radio), but there’s silence when the "discovery" peters out to nothing. No wonder so many people think we have actually already FOUND weapons of mass destruction (see next post).

9064. OhioSTOPAS - 6/11/2003 5:54:49 PM

The public thinks we HAVE found weapons of mass destruction!

"A striking finding in the new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll is that many Americans are unaware that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq. While 59% of those polled correctly said the US has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, 41% said they believed that the US has found such weapons (34%) or were unsure (7%). . ..

"Among Republicans who said they follow international affairs very closely . . . an even larger percentage -- 55% --said weapons have been found, with just 45% saying they have not.

"Another widespread misperception is that Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the war. Twenty-two percent held this misperception. . . ."


How could the public be so misinformed? As the director of PIPA speculates, "To some extent this misperception can be attributed to repeated headlines that there has been a promising lead in the effort to find evidence of such weapons, headlines that are not counterbalanced by prominent reporting that these leads have not been fruitful.”

Of course, willful misinformation from the pro-Bush network of talk show hosts and FOX television is at play too. It’s amusing that (as noted above) the most misinformed segment of the public consists of Republicans who consider themselves to be “follow[ing] international affairs closely.” Obviously, they are “following international affairs” by listening to Rush and watching FOX.

9065. OhioSTOPAS - 6/11/2003 6:06:31 PM

And on the subject of discovery of weapons of mass destruction, here's a truly idiotic and/or intellectually dishonest article by Stanley Kurtz in National Review , asserting that we HAVE discovered WMD's:

"The United States has discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know this because I read it on the front page of the very liberal New York Times. Of course, the Times was only trying to hurt the administration. In the rush to Baghdad during the war, our troops bypassed and failed to secure one of Saddam's key nuclear facilities. That facility was looted by local villagers, who ransacked vaults and warehouses looking for anything of value. Many of the villagers took home radioactive barrels, and are now suffering from radiation poisoning. According to the Times, the looted nuclear facility 'contained ample radioactive poisons that could be used to manufacture an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs.'

"So in the course of trying to embarrass the administration, the Times has inadvertently raised a very important point in the administration's defense. Saddam's nuclear-weapons program contained sufficient material to pose a serious threat to the United States. . . .";

Are you kidding me? Of course Iraq had nuclear material, non-weapons-grade, that was the byproduct of nuclear power plants. Iraq's nuclear material was not in violation of U.N. sanctions or resolutions, and was overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And although radioactive sludge is nasty stuff, it's hardly a "weapon of mass destruction" in any sense of those words.

9066. OhioSTOPAS - 6/11/2003 6:07:08 PM

Is there ANY pro-Bush argument that is too stupid for conservative commentators? Articles like Kurtz's make me think that having an army of stupid dittoheads who will agree with any pro-Bush statement has made conservative commentators mentally soft. After all, why strain your brain when you can throw anything you think of at the wall and it will persuade your core audience?

9067. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:27:00 PM

jay

Good to see you back. I have some pending questions. I'll re-post them.

"Now, I am speaking to jay, who has made specific allegations -i.e., that the last two administrations and Senator Rodham Clinton lied in their representation of WMD in Iraq. In making that charge, he's wrong, but at least he is intelligible.

I'll wait for his evidence of lying by Bush, Blair, Powell, Wolfowitz, Clinton, Gore, Rodham Clinton and the like much as we all wait for the planted WMD.

Note. The last time I challenged jay, I proffered specific questions, which he did not answer. This time, I've demonstrated that wift in his broad charges and the error in his importing his own sense of imminence to that of an administration that gave a deicedely clear, and very different definition of same months ago."

Perhaps you missed this. The Mote has been down.

9068. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:29:00 PM

And this --

jay

Also, you wrote Wolfowitz made it perfectly clear in the Vanity Fair article. WMD was the only justification that polled well. (He says, "everyone could agree on," but call me cynical--it was the line that would work.)

I won't call you cynical. As you have labeled the administration and Senator Rodham Clinton and President Clinton and Vice President Gore, I will call you a liar.

Unlike you, however, I'll offer proof.

Wolfowitz: The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. .. . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.

Where does Wolfowitz reference polling in the Vanity Fair article?

9069. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:31:41 PM

Also, it's time for NAME THAT LIAR.

Who uttered each statement about the existence of WMD in Iraq!

1) In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed.

2) Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

3) We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

4) Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition . . . There's no question ... he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents.

9070. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:32:19 PM

5) I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming ... he'll do everything he can to use them.

6) If he has chemical and biological agents, and I believe he does, he would have no incentive not to use them then, if he knew he was going to be killed anyway and deposed. He's got a lot of incentive not to use them now because he knows he'll be toast if he does.

7) What if, in the aftermath of a war against Iraq, we faced a situation like that, because we've washed our hands of it? What would then happen to all of those stored reserves of biological weapons all around the country.

8) Iraq poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and possesses and develops a significant chemical and biological weapons capability and is actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supports and harbors terrorist organizations.

9071. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:34:06 PM

9) Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

10) However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan - - with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

9072. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:34:37 PM

11) There are smoking guns, and that's the important point to make. Look, I think that the president has to do a better job of explaining what we mean by a smoking gun. There's a way in which people are now looking at the U.N. inspectors in Iraq as if some local prosecutor has sent people in to investigate an innocent man for a suspected crime and find the evidence. Saddam Hussein is not an innocent man. He made clear he wants to dominate the Arab world, which would be terrible for the Arab world and the rest of the world. He invaded his neighbors. He's killed hundreds of thousands of people. We know that he had weapons of mass destruction. You want to find the smoking guns? There are thousands of them in the report issued by the United Nations inspectors after they were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Thousands of tons of chemical agents, thousands of liters of biological agents, and the aim of the United Nations resolution, in my opinion, was to send those inspectors in and to force Saddam Hussein to say, "I've destroyed the smoking guns that you knew I had in 1999." He hasn't done that, and unless he does, we're going to have to take action to disarm him. Nobody wants to go to war, but sometimes you have to go to war to protect the lives of the American people. This may be one of those cases.

12) If you’re worried about terrorists getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction or components of weapons of mass destruction, you first look at Iraq as where they could get their hands on those components. I told the president on 9/12, “We got to put politics out of these terrorism issues and we got to try to work together to do what’s right, to keep the people of this country safe.” And that’s what I’ve tried to do every day since.

9073. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 9:34:59 PM

13) . . . in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power . . . There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home.

14) This resolution will show that America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

15) As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

9074. judithathome - 6/11/2003 10:39:24 PM

The Mote has been down

No, it hasn't. It was announced that the address was changing on Friday evening. For those who remembered that fact, it was up at the new address early Saturday morning and for every day since then.

9075. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:00:14 PM

Thanks, juditha. I guess jay doesn't even have The Mote has been down as an excuse for ducking my questions.

9076. judithathome - 6/11/2003 11:03:04 PM

Maybe Jay has been gone, did that ever occur to you? You haven't been here every day, either...swings both ways.

It's summer...people are on trips. Or boning up for Twenty-One. ;-)

9077. Jayackroyd - 6/11/2003 11:04:05 PM

Dan,

I'll refer to my posts beginning 9013 which were my responses to your trying to repaint the history of the justification of the intervention by the president as something other than the prevention of a threat to the US by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


That other politicians were either snowed by the administration, or chose to follow the polling numbers doesn't change the fact that the administration chose to justify the war on the basis of a threat that, so far (as you say, time will tell) has proven to be false.

And, again, call me cynical, but I do think that Rove and polling numbers played a part in the decision of how to present this. Are you saying that it did not? That the president forthrightly presented the most well documented and carefully researched case based on the intelligence in his hands?

And, in response to my saying that democrats are cynical, too, your response is to polarize this as a partisan issue?!? I already said that the Democrats also read the poll numbers, and supported a position that supported the intervention in the absence of proof that the pretext was anything other than a pretext.

I ask again, what's your point?

9078. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:05:49 PM

jay! Good to see you buddy.

One of my questions was with regard to your characterization of Wolfowitz' statement as written in Vanity Fair.

You seemed to have missed it.

Shall I repost it?

9079. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:10:00 PM

As for your recent post, you have already branded Hillary Rodham Clinton a liar. In your responsible parlance, when asked, you cheerily said Sure.

Re: all the other individuals who stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD - from Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Gore, the majority of the Senate, Gephardt, Pelosi - were I to ask you if they too were liars, would you simply say Sure?

I'm just trying to get the breadth of this great snow job.

9080. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:12:42 PM

Here. Let me repost it for you, jay. As someone who can breezily label people as liars, I'm sure you'll be in a rush to respond and clear your name.

jay

Also, you wrote Wolfowitz made it perfectly clear in the Vanity Fair article. WMD was the only justification that polled well. (He says, "everyone could agree on," but call me cynical--it was the line that would work.)

I won't call you cynical. As you have labeled the administration and Senator Rodham Clinton and President Clinton and Vice President Gore, I will call you a liar.

Unlike you, however, I'll offer proof.

Wolfowitz: The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . .. there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.

Where does Wolfowitz reference polling in the Vanity Fair article?

9081. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:14:02 PM

We need not wait for time to tell re: my question regarding your veracity, need we?

9082. Jayackroyd - 6/11/2003 11:16:28 PM

Yeah, I said "Sure." I was being somewhat sarcastic.

Whether they were lying or not obviously depends on when they reached those conclusions and whether they were given accurate intelligence as of 2003.

So I'll stand corrected, and say that they either were lying, or they were lied to. At best. At worst they were simply saying what the polls said they should say.

So, one more time, what's your point?

9083. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:20:13 PM

Did The Mote get a new feature which deletes from jay's screen pointed questions that demonstrate his own duplicity at a time when he denigrates the forthrightness of others?

Not that I'd need it, but it certainly could be handy for some.

Where does Wolfowitz reference polling in the Vanity Fair article?

9084. Jayackroyd - 6/11/2003 11:21:32 PM

Where does Wolfowitz reference polling in the Vanity Fair article?

It doesn't, obviously. That's why I said "call me cyncial, but..."

And, I ask again, you think that American public opinion didn't matter? That the president forthrightly declared a link to the safety of american citizens because it was well supported by intelligence? That theY didn't poll this?

Again I refer to the restatement of contemporaneous reality I posted some time ago.

I'm waiting for a response to that, and waiting to hear you say that the president, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld all were speaking the white-lilied truth when they said that this war was about disarming Iraq and protecting America.

9085. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:27:58 PM

Jay, oh jay.

You're lying.

You wrote Wolfowitz made it perfectly clear in the Vanity Fair article. WMD was the only justification that polled well. (He says, "everyone could agree on," but call me cynical--it was the line that would work.)

That's a lie, jay. Wolfowitz did not reference polling.

Come now, jay.

Take your medicine.

Save your soul.

9086. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:31:29 PM

And yes, I believe the administration and every one of the individuals in my quiz believed that Iraq possessed WMD when they made statements regarding the same.

Then again, when Clinton wagged his finger at me, I believed him too.

I guess I'm not as cynical as you.

Certainly not so cynical that I'd lie about what Wolfowitz said.

Nor so brittle that when caught, I wouldn't fess up to it.

Come now, jay. People are reading.

At least scurry out with, "Perhaps I was hasty in my characterization of what Wolfowitz said, but that doesn't change the yada yada yada . . . "

There's a good lad.

9087. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:35:03 PM

The Boy Who Cried Wolfowitz

However, in just the last few days there have been widely disseminated misrepresentations of perfectly clear statements made by Wolfowitz concerning weapons of mass destruction and further concerning the role played by oil in the motivation of United States policy toward Iraq.

The thing is, even when caught, jay persists.

9088. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:38:09 PM

Yet this man would deign to make pronouncements on the honor of others?

This shill.

This brazen liar.

I ask this body to censure Jayackroyd.

Not the effeminate rebuke of VonKreedon as he mildly queried wonkers the racist after wonkers the racist called Condelezza Rice a lying porch monkey.

No. This requires more.

Or this body means nothing.

9089. Daniel Sickles - 6/11/2003 11:43:05 PM

I yield the floor.

9090. vonKreedon - 6/12/2003 12:10:18 AM

Dan - Your continued attempt to divert attention from the administration's intelligence and legitimacy failures is really old. Of those you cite as claiming that Iraq possessed WMD, only the Clinton and Bush administrations acted on this information through military action unsanctioned by the UN. The others, the Senators and Presidential hopefuls are all dependent on the information given them by the very same administrations, and so can be excused for expressing the certainty of what they were being told. If you are convincingly lied to you can hardly be held responsible for passing on the lies.

Unlike the Clinton administration however, only the Bush administration promulgated a policy of preemptive warfare based on this intelligence. Only the Bush administration is in a position and exhibiting the tendency to run from one intelligence failure to a war with Iran, or maybe Syria, based on similar intelligence. Only the Bush administration is in the process of creating a groundswell of opposition to the US in the rest of the world.

Only the Bush administration is carrying on a set of domestic and international policies that have no legitimacy save the power to implement them. This is hardly an intelligent long term strategy.

9091. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 4:22:23 AM

I yield the floor

No, Dan, you're on it.

Remember, speaking of pending questions, I have repeatedly ask you your opinion of the monumental intelligence failure that has set the whole world laughing at the USA.
You say :
And yes, I believe the administration and every one of the individuals in my quiz believed that Iraq possessed WMD when they made statements regarding the same.

This makes the question of the intelligence failure all the more acute, and urgent. If they were all sincerely mistaken, then the credibility of the USA may take decades to recover. If it turns out that intelligence was manipulated to pursue a policy goal, (i.e. that some of them were sincerely mistaken, and that some were manipulating the others), that surely has earth-shaking consequences within the US political system.

So, how do you think the USA will/should handle the issue, Dan?

(If you can bring yourself to accept, as a hypothetical, that there really are no WMD to find.)

9092. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 5:22:20 AM

Meanwhile... Does Sharon want peace?

Sceptics note a pattern of Israeli assassinations at crucial moments in the peace efforts. In January and July 2002, and March this year, the army's assassination of senior Hamas or Tanzim commanders broke weeks without Palestinian attacks and efforts to establish a ceasefire.

9093. jexster - 6/12/2003 6:06:42 AM

I think Bush should get his road maps from the auto club.

9094. Macnas - 6/12/2003 6:14:40 AM

re 9088

Daniel,

"after wonkers the racist called Condelezza Rice a lying porch monkey"

I thought it was "lawn jockey"??
Some here knew what it meant, I did not, and even when it was explained I still cannot decide wether it is outright racist, or racist to a degree. Perhaps it would have to be part of one's lingua franca before it could be understood properly.

Nonetheless if it is racist then it has no business here.

Do you have any strong opinions on Aceofspades racist remarks towards marjoribanks??

9095. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 6:14:57 AM

Fucking idiot.

The attack on the Hamas leader was a response to the attacks in Gaza on Sunday that killed four Israeli soldiers. Hamas not only claimed responsibility for that attack (coordinating the action along with two other groups), but said they would have nothing to do with peace negotiations being led by Abbas.

So Sharon was responding to an attack -- the first since he and Abbas shook hands in front of Bush, with all three pledging to work towards peace using the so-called road map. He initiated nothing. Sharon's counterattack also came after Abbas said he would do nothing to rein in Hamas for not negotiating.

It fucking figures you would be dishonest enough to not mention those attacks on Sunday or the failed negotiations, as if Sharon just up and ordered a missile attack on Hamas for no apparent reason.

Get this, you fucking fag. Hamas just carried out an attack on Israel. Hamas says its official policy is unchanged: they will drive all the Israelis into the sea. Hamas broke off negotiations with Abbas over peace negotiations. And now you bitch about whether Sharon really wants peace.

The U.S. ought to give New Zealand to the Jews and get it out of the hands of white trash such as yourself. What a fucking waste.

9096. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 6:15:43 AM

My last was to Alistair's Message # 9092

9097. jexster - 6/12/2003 6:16:18 AM

Danny...I don't think that they cared one way or the other about WMD's. Nor do I think that most of that crowd really believed that Iraq was any threat to this country or to the region for that matter.

But what do I know about these looney ideologues anyway? They may well have made war against a figment of their febrile imaginations and not even realized it!

I stopped believing in Bush shit a long, long time ago.


Hell if the ends don't justify the means, what does eh?

9098. jexster - 6/12/2003 6:20:07 AM

"So Sharon was responding to an attack "


THAT is the problem and has been for a couple of years now.

9099. jexster - 6/12/2003 6:21:36 AM

I thought Alistair was hetero?

I am a fucking fag.

9100. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 6:32:17 AM

Welcome back from the loony bin, Jex.

9101. Macnas - 6/12/2003 6:33:00 AM

Roadmap?? we don't need no stinking roadmap!

Israel will always respond in kind to such attacks, always have, always will. They take retribution seriously and it is part and parcel to the way the IDF operates.

While Pincher and I have different views towards some of the methodology used by the IDF, he is right in saying, in between the foul language, that Hamas are against the current peace plan is central to this spate of tit-for-tat violence.
If Abbas wants to move things forward, he will have to deal with Hamas, but how I don't know.

9102. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 7:36:03 AM

Get fucked, you fucking motherfucker.

9103. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 7:37:06 AM

My 9102 was addressed to no-one in particular, just a random psychopathic outburst because I forgot to take my medicine and pissed in my pants.

9104. jexster - 6/12/2003 7:45:39 AM

Thanks PM!

Its SO damn good to be back.

Interesting paragraph, concluding in fact, of an article in Salon by an Ha'aretz diplomatic correspondent:

The consensus in the Israeli establishment is that Bush's activist posture will disappear with the first crisis. The Israeli embassy in Washington believes that by getting involved in the region the administration is striving to head off criticism at minimum risk (pay off Blair and turn attention away from bad news from Afghanistan & Iraqi colonies) and will therefore not take any daring steps. Israeli intelligence assessments share this view, predicting that Bush will avoid confronting Israel on the eve of his reelection campaign. "If Bush faces trouble, he will stop his intervention," said an Israeli official involved in the diplomatic exchange with Washington.


"If an evangelical voter is forced to choose between Bush and the rapture, the rapture will win every time." A Prominent Preacherman & leader of the "Base"


salon.com

9105. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 7:55:53 AM

Macnas, you are right in that Abbas has to deal with Hamas.
You are also right that Hamas are opposed to peace with Israel. It is also correct that Hamas are a bunch of psychopathic terrorist scum.

These things are so breathtakingly obvious that I don't find it necessary to preface every post with them. Apparently some people can't cope with the idea that any criticism of Israeli politicians or government is not necessarily motivated by support for terrorists.

9106. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 7:56:30 AM

Welcome back to the loony bin, Jex.

9107. Macnas - 6/12/2003 8:07:58 AM

Alistair

You great big fat liar, I hate you. I slap your francophile face (bit of illiteration, always good) with a glove and demand that you duel with me to restore honour, for what I'm not sure but I demand it anyway.

Furthermore everything you say reveals more and more of a racist antisemetic mindset which we all know is rampant in that shithole you call France. You should be ashamed of yourself sir.

Now I would like another mint julip, which I will take on the verandah.

9108. jexster - 6/12/2003 8:10:38 AM

Amram Mitzna had the only real solution, one which the Israeli public agreed with in the abstract (betw. bombs)

"We will immediately pull out of the West Bank and Gaza without condition. We will then negotiate with the Palestinians. If a suicide bomber attacks on the second day of the talks, we will negotiate on the third day."


Retaliatory attacks & reprisals make people feel good but I can't for the life of me see any other point or purpose. They haven't increased Israeli or PAL security. They've had quite the opposite effect.

Achieving indiscriminate reprisal is exactly the military tactical objective of the PAL militants. Where Western military doctrine calls for overwhelming force against the enemy at his weakest point, Hamas attacks the enemy at his strongest point. Where Western doctrine aims to destroy the enemy force in detail, fourth generation strategies if anything aim for defeat of their armed units. A western force is confounded by such tactics because their training and their equipment are designed to give their opponents exactly what they want, what they expect - mass destruction and violence.

Mitzna realized this.

9109. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 8:14:18 AM

Jailed Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti and head of
the Hamas diplomatic wing, Khaled Mashal, reached
an agreement in principle on a temporary
cease-fire a few days before the summit in Aqaba,
according to a report in the Palestinian daily
Al-Ayyam, Israel Radio reported Thursday.

The agreement between Barghouti
and Mashal, who currently
resides in Damascus, called for
an end to attacks on Israeli
civilians, including in the
territories, but only if Israel
refrained from harming
Palestinians there, the report
said.

Sharon demands a total halt to terror before any concessions from Israel. This is reasonable enough in itself; but impossible to deliver.

Evidently, Abbas (from a very weak power base) was attempting to negotiate a truce with the terrorists. That's the only option he's got. He probably has less men under arms than Hamas has; any civil war will quickly turn to his disadvantage. With Israeli helicopters firing rockets into crowded streets, there is unlikely to be much popular support for Abbas if it comes to a showdown.

Reflex revenge killings by Israel, in response to terrorist attacks aimed at destroying any chance of peace, play perfectly into the terrorists' hands.

9110. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 8:22:56 AM

Sorry, the above quote was from Haaretz.

9111. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 8:31:52 AM

I see two fundamental problems with the Israeli approach :

* it's based on the Old Testament principle of a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. Muslims do that real well too. There is technically no end to this : it precludes peace.
* Israel holds all the cards : a functioning democracy, legal system, and human rights; a developed economy (though in crisis just now); one of the world's best armies; and so on. When it comes to negotiating, they are in a strong position. They insist on driving a hard bargain every time, they are very tough negotiators, and the problem is : the Palestinians have nothing they can concede; they simply have nothing.

Israel and the Palestinians are not symmetrical negotiating partners. Without unilateral concessions (renouncing revenge, withdrawing from the occupied territories) there is simply no solution.

9112. Macnas - 6/12/2003 8:34:54 AM

US helicopter shot down in Western Iraq. Crew survived and rescued.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the situation is getting worse?

9113. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 8:45:04 AM

Another quote from Haaretz:

The court issued temporary injunctions against
the evacuations of the three outposts, while
the army has mobilized many soldiers for the
operation and is keeping them on hold until the
court decision is issued.
[...]
State attorney Shai Nitzan argued for hours
Wednesday before the court, that the proposal
to allow the settlers hearings before the
evacuations "makes a mockery" of the law, and
will encourage lawbreakers. He said all three
outposts were given demolition orders "many
months ago" but the settlers did nothing to
obey the orders.

He rejected claims the outposts were on private
property acquired by the settlers, and noted
that all three are on private property owned by
Palestinians. To get to the Yitzhar settlement,
he noted, the settlers crossed farmland owned
by Palestinians.
[...]
But Barak insisted on granting the hearings "to
clear the table" of the settlers' claims that
the IDF denied them the right to object to the
evacuations through legal means. "My position
is that a person should be allowed a hearing,
even if he has nothing to say," said Barak.

9114. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:00:04 AM

Von Kreedon

Dan - Your continued attempt to divert attention from the administration's intelligence and legitimacy failures is really old. Of those you cite as claiming that Iraq possessed WMD, only the Clinton and Bush administrations acted on this information through military action unsanctioned by the UN. The others, the Senators and Presidential hopefuls are all dependent on the information given them by the very same administrations, and so can be excused for expressing the certainty of what they were being told. If you are convincingly lied to you can hardly be held responsible for passing on the lies.

Ha ha ha ha. Who did you expect me to finger? The Eisnehower Administration? Moreover, of those I quote, almost every one of them (who was not Clinton or Gore) authorized the administration to act with carte blanche by Senate and House vote because they had no doubt as to the existence of WMD.

And the information upon which they acted was the same information pretty much made available to the last two administrations.

But if you are settling for Bush, Cheney, Powell, Blair, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Cohen as the gaggle of conspiratorial liars, fine.

9115. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:00:51 AM

Von Kreedon

Unlike the Clinton administration however, only the Bush administration promulgated a policy of preemptive warfare based on this intelligence. Only the Bush administration is in a position and exhibiting the tendency to run from one intelligence failure to a war with Iran, or maybe Syria, based on similar intelligence. Only the Bush administration is in the process of creating a groundswell of opposition to the US in the rest of the world.

Are you ignorant? Desert Fox was a strike on Iraq - not after it attacked anyone, but after inspectors left. read some history. Then chirp up.

Only the Bush administration is carrying on a set of domestic and international policies that have no legitimacy save the power to implement them. This is hardly an intelligent long term strategy.

Ah. So this is about Kyoto and tax cuts.

9116. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:02:06 AM

alistair

Remember, speaking of pending questions, I have repeatedly ask you your opinion of the monumental intelligence failure that has set the whole world laughing at the USA.

The only laughing I heard was after you screamed "Stalingrad!" and "The pottery! The pottery!"

As for the intelligence failure, as I said, let us wait something longer than a cable news minute to determine if there was an intelligence failure.

Right now, I'm addressing the accusation of deception.

I think the credibility issue is overblown, and that the United States is handling matters just fine. The world should realize it has bigger fish to fry in Plymouth Iraq, but if it intends to carp about being deceived, let it.

Get fucked, you fucking motherfucker.

That's the most intelligible thing you've said in weeks.

9117. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:02:22 AM

200,000 troops for 3-5 years...Rummy fired COS Shinseki for saying what we now all know is true and some of us knew all along.

Though some predict guerilla war, I can't see it. The Shiites especailly are playing a very sophisticated game, one that does not involve armed confrontation with the US. Seems they've concluded that Bush will tire of his great adventure sooner rather than later and they'll be around long after the Imperium is gone....Their mullahs seem to be doing their best to make the Occupation an unpleasant experience as possible short of violence probably content to let the Sunni Baathists carry that load.

Why all they need is the democracy that Bush promised!

OOPS

9118. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:02:41 AM

Macnas

Do you have any strong opinions on Aceofspades racist remarks towards marjoribanks??

Not really. They give as good as they get. I believe marj calls Ace a frothing ape and Ace hits back with a few Sahibs. I actually have quite a high tolerance for all manner of insults, but given that wonkers is such a good, grey liberal, I like to see him extricate himself from behavior he would surely condemn in another. And you ruined it - I was actually hoping wonkers would set the record straight by insisting that he said "lawn jockey" as opposed to "porch monkey." The spectacle would have been fantastic.

9119. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:03:17 AM

Pincher

For some, all Hamas aggression is revolution; all Israeli response is barbarism.

Jexster

Good to see you back. I hope Nurse Ratchet wasn't too hard on you.

9120. Jayackroyd - 6/12/2003 9:11:57 AM

But if you are settling for Bush, Cheney, Powell, Blair, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Cohen as the gaggle of conspiratorial liars, fine

And so what's your point? You keep reiterating this statement, but what is it in support of? I can guess at some ideas, but they're all so lame that I can't post them. What is this statement supposed to prove?

9121. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 9:15:23 AM

For some, all Hamas aggression is revolution; all Israeli response is barbarism

Names, coward?

9122. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 9:23:01 AM

As for the intelligence failure, as I said, let us wait something longer than a cable news minute to determine if there was an intelligence failure.

Actually, once Alzheimer's sets in, there's very little hope of intelligence improving, no matter how long you wait.

9123. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:23:46 AM

alistair

Apparently you, who asks if Sharon wants peace after he responds to the murders of soldiers.

jay

You wrote Wolfowitz made it perfectly clear in the Vanity Fair article. WMD was the only justification that polled well. (He says, "everyone could agree on," but call me cynical--it was the line that would work.)

That's a lie, jay. Wolfowitz did not reference polling.

Please acknowledge it and you will have the benefit of my discourse on other matters. But as it stands now, if you cannot retract your calumny against Mr. Wolfowitz, I cannot trust you to be responsible in future debate.

9124. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:26:38 AM

DECEPTION - Bush lied. He made statements that he either knew or should have known were not true.

Small wonder they've such a hardon for The Noble Swede Hans Blix!

He was on to them and they knew it.

The CIA has been leaking for a year. Some of their analysts and some at DIA have moved into a position of radical (for the gov't) rebellion. The problem is Bush cooked intelligence to fit his war propaganda. He misrepresented the intelligence information available to him. That's clear now. It was clear months ago. The CIA isn't going to lie down and let Bush fuck them this time like he did with 9/11.


Rummy set up a special intelligence cookery school in the Pentagon precisely because Bush needed to make his case for invasion. WMD, nukes, UAV's Scuds, Al Qaeda, grave and imminent risks, IRAQI FREEDOM(!)etc etc that was flim flam, a con job. The neocon's could never have sold their Imperial Hallucinations so they made up shit "for bureaucratic reasons". Poltically, Bush and Rove needed a real wag the dog war post 9-11. The WOT was plainly insufficient to statisfy American blood lusts. It wasn't even a war. No embedded journalists, no "shock and awe", no Jessica Lynch - the Movie....

Its really not all that hard. They lied because they didn't care whether they told the truth. They lied because the lies sounded better.

9125. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:28:11 AM

"I never had sexual intercourse with that woman"

The fat bitch just gave me hummers.


And it didn't cost little boy's two arms and didn't cost the American taxpayer an arm and a leg

9126. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:28:14 AM

VK

Good evening,

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Note how Mr. Clinton did not say Saddam Hussein has just used nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

9127. Jayackroyd - 6/12/2003 9:28:43 AM

But as it stands now, if you cannot retract your calumny against Mr. Wolfowitz, I cannot trust you to be responsible in future debate.

That's fine by me.

9128. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:29:19 AM

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

No wait a minute. Clinton's entire national security team helped him in this deception

9129. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:31:29 AM

. . . As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

Huh? A clear and present danger? Even when the inspectors had just been in country?

9130. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:33:03 AM

They wanted Blix pickin blueberries and wild mushrooms for good reason!

9131. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:34:26 AM

Jay

I bet it's fine by you. If I were as slippery and limited as you, I wouldn't want to talk to me either. It's a shame, though, to see you lose your soul rather than simply admit that you had neither read the Vanity Fair, article, nor had you seen anything about Wolfowitz and polling. And that you host . . . ay yi yi.

Take note, however, while I won't engage you, I will continue to show when you lie and how you lie.

9132. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:35:40 AM

Continuing on my history lesson for VonKreedon

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

Okay kids. Can you spell P-R-E-E-M-P-T-I-O-N?

9133. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:36:35 AM

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
.




Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.


The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving

9134. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:36:42 AM

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Weapons? He don't have no stinkin' weapons!

9135. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:39:51 AM

Clinton - 1998

. . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Clinton - 2002

Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition . . . There's no question ... he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents ... I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming ... he'll do everything he can to use them ... If he has chemical and biological agents, and I believe he does, he would have no incentive not to use them then, if he knew he was going to be killed anyway and deposed. He's got a lot of incentive not to use them now because he knows he'll be toast if he does.

What the hell is this man talking about?

What weapons?

9136. Jayackroyd - 6/12/2003 9:40:24 AM

Take note, however, while I won't engage you, I will continue to show when you lie and how you lie.

Which one of those two contradictory statements are going to be true in the future?

9137. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 9:41:47 AM

I used to host.

How you have disgraced this office.

9138. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:52:27 AM

Rich indeed!

An embarrassment of riches...Bush said Saddam lied, DS runs to Bill Clinton for help!


I don't think you want to get into a quote war.....better you say either "Americans don't care if its not embedded video phone feed" or what a GOP friend of mine volunteered

"Mendacity is a time honored tool of statecraft"

See Danny I got me plenny o quotes....in Texan "a mess of quotes"

9139. judithathome - 6/12/2003 9:57:15 AM

As for the intelligence failure, as I said, let us wait something longer than a cable news minute to determine if there was an intelligence failure.

Oh, so NOW is the time for waiting...where was this cool headedness advising "wait longer than a cable news minute" before we became a first strike nation? Ah, that's right...we had to rush into war because we were in immediate danger of being attacked by a WMD program.

Have you noticed how Bush has started slipping in that innocuous little clarifier in every remark he makes about the run-up to war?

9140. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:58:41 AM

The Tasting Menu!

History Of Lies: WMD, Who Said What and When



Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons

George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George "aWol" Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002



If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

9141. jexster - 6/12/2003 9:58:55 AM

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George "aWol" Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003



We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003



We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.


Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003



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

George "aWol" Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

9142. judithathome - 6/12/2003 10:01:24 AM

Not one quote contains the word "program".

9143. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 10:02:14 AM

Jexster

You forgot (courtesy of jay) -

"Eh, it's all about OIL and EMPIRE, but we took a poll, and decided WMD was the way to go."

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

Juditha

I was similarly patient when all you ninnies were screaming "Stalingrad!" and I'll be similarly patient with regard to Plymouth Iraq when all you fools are moaning "Men are dying!"

9144. judithathome - 6/12/2003 10:03:48 AM

Time will tell, Danny.

9145. jexster - 6/12/2003 10:04:34 AM

"He is deceiving"

That is rich!

Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan - Josh Marshall

9146. judithathome - 6/12/2003 10:05:28 AM

And were I you, I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate the deaths of the soldiers who are dying every day over there. I know you were making fun of us fools who care about them but still....

9147. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 10:07:07 AM

It is you and your ilk who denigrate the when you suggest they are mere fodder and they have achieved nothing but the ends of lies and deceptions.

You care about them so much that you disgrace their mission.

9148. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 10:07:37 AM

Sickles: For some, all Hamas aggression is revolution; all Israeli response is barbarism

Connor:
Names, coward?

Sickles :
alistair

Apparently you, who asks if Sharon wants peace after he responds to the murders of soldiers.

You have already retracted and apologised once for accusing me of supporting terrorism. Do it again, you lying scumbag.

9149. jexster - 6/12/2003 10:10:00 AM

Read practice to deceive...read Haliburton's fat contract...


It is about oil or do you think Third Infantry will head for the Congo ???


Damn, I don't like these folks but geez, psychotic? I HOPE it was about oil don't you?

They want to build a new American Empire starting in Afgh and Iraq..gonna take the Saud out of Arabia, send GOP political campaign consultants to teach the Arab street how democracy can work for them and save Sharon's ass!


Get behind the bullshit....always a good idea in politics even better now

9150. jexster - 6/12/2003 10:12:24 AM

I think its a crime that Americans are dying for a lie. In fact its a war crime. All those grieving moms...


But damn I am sure proud we have liberated Iraq and struck a mighty blow against terror!

Why I'm so fuckin proud, I think I'll do a mess of brisket for lunch and a double order of freedom fries..

9151. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 10:20:39 AM

Sorry, alistair. The first charge was unsupported and too sweeping. But the second sticks firmly after your post re: Sharon.

Jexster

You've been gone too long. The war crime was the loss of "THE POTTERY!"

9154. robertjayb - 6/12/2003 10:39:53 AM

I forget, is this tit or tat?

GAZA (Reuters) - An Israeli missile strike killed a senior Hamas militant and five other Palestinians, including a toddler, on Thursday amid a surge of bloodletting that has plunged U.S.-led peace efforts into turmoil.

The helicopter attack was launched a day after a Palestinian suicide bombing killed 16 people on a Jerusalem bus and Israeli air raids killed 11 people in the Gaza Strip in one of the bloodiest days in months of conflict.

9155. jexster - 6/12/2003 10:39:55 AM

Well it was!


One of them anyway...Don't tell me that you fall for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" "inbedded Journalism" AND Rummy one liners too?

Fercrissakes you are a lecturer and graduate of one of America's foremost law schools, a distinguished member of the bar, a man of the world, you can't be that gullible?

Please don't tell me that you wept with pride for Jessica Lynch!

Yes. Its a crime that GWB not only mangles his native tonguebut managed to destroy man's first recorded words for what again?

9156. Macnas - 6/12/2003 10:40:23 AM

The IDF fire some more rockets at Hamas.

9157. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 10:42:51 AM

For some, all Hamas aggression is revolution; all Israeli response is barbarism

Since you have stated that this is directed at me, kindly quote where I have given signs of approval of Hamas terrorism. Or retract, you worthless sack of shit.

9158. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 10:47:29 AM

Ha ha ha ha.

You're so emotional, alistair.

I stand by it.

If you retract your criticism of Sharon for responding to attacks on the murder of Israeli soldiers by Hamas, I may well reconsider your case.

9159. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 10:48:30 AM

jexster

for what again?

Why, for OIL and EMPIRE!

Of course.

9160. Macnas - 6/12/2003 10:50:25 AM

re 9147

It annoys me that any soldier is put in such a position when he has neither the skill/training or experience to fulfil his mission. While I am not a supporter of the war, what is done is done and I do want to see the best outcome for the Iraqi people and also the welfare of the troops who remain.

At this time US troops are little more than target opportunities, and will be so until they set about actively disarming the populace and coming to terms with patrolling in a built up hostile area.

9167. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 11:08:56 AM

alistair

So, you believe it is copasetic for Hamas to murder IDF soldiers as a rebuttal to the Palestinian Authority and Israel moving toward peace via a renunciation of terrorism and an address of the settlement policy?

No. You're not predisposed to terrorists in the slightest, are you?

9168. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 11:10:08 AM

I do respect how alistair can talk about Hamas as a terrorist organization, yet in the same breath, label Sharon as the man who wants no peace. Hmmmmmm.

9169. Macnas - 6/12/2003 11:29:22 AM

Dan, I do not agree with what you are alluding to.
Alistair, more than most here, is outspoken in his loathing for terror organisations.

Some people tend to make subtle distinctions between Arab and European terrorists, tending to look a bit more favourably on the IRA or ETA. Since the days of the Fray, alistair has expressed his hatred of both groupings with equal conviction.

9170. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 11:32:42 AM

Daniel, why do you insist on equating the Israeli government with Hamas, a terrorist organisation?

I find this hard to comprehend. You seem to be putting them on the same moral level. This is a mistake.

I criticise the Prime Minister of a democratic nation for escalating conflict with Hamas, while pretending to negotiate with the Palestinian authority.

It's obvious that the current situation requires Israel to negotiate, by proxy, with terrorists, if there is to be progress towards peace. By attacking Hamas during this period (with considerable collateral casualties), the Israeli government is precluding all possibility of negotiations between the PA and Hamas.

Gee, I guess that's too difficult for your Alzheimer-impaired intelligence. Never mind.

9172. jexster - 6/12/2003 11:40:47 AM

I think that Hamas gets a bad rap.

Give em some JDAMS, an F-16 wing, a couple M1-A1 armored brigades, a few Warthog squadrons and an AWACS, throw in a nuke, it would be a fair fight!

They are fighting for their homeland just like your brave Virginny forebares fought the War of Nothern Aggression. Suicide bombing and 4th generation low rent war is all that they can manage that the massive charitable work they do in Lebanon.

And suicide bombing isn't psycho apparently. According to Israel's foremost psychiatric expert on this, based on his 30 years of case study, beginning with the first bomber and every one since, these folks are quite sane. They aren't brainwashed. They aren't psychotic. He says their decisions are rational products of their belief systems and their situation. Think of it like Saving Private Ryan, the Marines at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the people of Stalingrad, Leningrad etc.

Sacrificing their lives for their nation...jewish partisans in Poland...in the Warsaw ghetto...Omaha Beach, Pickett's charge

9173. alistairConnor - 6/12/2003 11:57:05 AM

Here's some more stuff that's too complicated for Shitbag to bother with.

From Haaretz, that well-known pro-Hamas paper.

Ostensibly, it was a matter of miserable timing.
When Abu Mazen is making every effort to
achieve dialogue with the Hamas and the other
refusal organizations, when Egypt is striving
to achieve a truce and was intending to send
intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to twist a few
arms in the Hamas yesterday, when the
Palestinian Authority is fending off attacks
from the Palestinian public for being "an
Israeli-American project," Israel could not
have played better into the hands of the
opponents to the road map.

From the Palestinian perspective, in which the
assassination attempt was aimed at the
diplomatic process, there's an appendix that
buttresses their view: This was not an
operation that required hard-to-get,
up-to-the-minute, intelligence information or a
one-time opportunity. Rantisi's home address is
not a secret, he appears in TV studios and on
the street - anyone who wanted an opportunity
could have seen Rantisi and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin
on the main street in Gaza City on Monday
having a long conversation.

9177. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2003 12:21:33 PM

Right. One has to doubt either Sharon's willingness to follow the road map or his ability to control the hawks in the IDF.

9178. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 12:24:17 PM

I swear to God, if the U.S. were to attack New Zealand with its military for the express purpose of using the two main islands there as destination points for shipping Jews and Pals from the Middle East, I would be happier than the day Saddam fell. We could give the North Island to the Jews and the South Island to the Pals, thereby separating the two. We could also send the Appalachian mountain folk whites who live down there on the cusp of the developed world and their Maori cohabitants to the Middle East, where with their lack of development they fit better anyway.

9179. Daniel Sickles - 6/12/2003 12:27:01 PM

Alistair

So you support the IDF in its retaliatory strikes against Hamas?

9180. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 12:42:29 PM

Right. One has to doubt either Sharon's willingness to follow the road map or his ability to control the hawks in the IDF.

Pelle, what are you talking about? The peace process was going along fine until Hamas attacked that Israeli outpost. I have no idea whether Sharon believes in peace or not, and I really don't care. What matters is that he was starting to do what he was suppose to do.

The Israeli government is completely correct in its view that they are under no obligation to sit around take casualties while the Pals work out their problems. For one thing, those problems between Pal hawks and semi-hawks may never be solved. For another, Hamas position was clear: there was to be no ceasefire, period. It's not like the attack was by some rogue element of one terrorist group, allowing the Israelis to think it might be a one-time event.

9181. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 12:43:17 PM

...sit around and take casualties...

9182. PincherMartin - 6/12/2003 12:52:07 PM

U.S. Blasts Hamas as Main Obstacle in Middle East

Good for the United States. At least somebody is getting this right. I was worried about Bush's initial comments on Israel's first missile attack, but it looks like he's reconsidered now.

Hamas started this shit. They drew first blood. If Abbas or the Pals can't control them, then the U.S. should ratchet up the pressure in any way it can.

The United States accused the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Thursday of being the major obstacle to Middle East peace amid a wave of bloodshed that has thrown a U.S.-backed peace plan into turmoil.

"The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) told reporters traveling with President Bush (news - web sites) to Connecticut.

His comments marked a change in tone from U.S. criticism of Israel for its attempt to kill a Hamas leader on Tuesday. Hamas has rejected Bush's Middle East peace "road map" as too generous to Israel.

test

9255. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 9:16:44 AM

Pickles, who made some hay out of similarly pompous statements on a day when the Israelis and Pals actually did take some strong rhetorical steps forward, is now blowing smoke.

One of the distasteful elements of the US engagement with the ME in recent months is that we're forced to see, read and hear pipsqueaks like Pickles (and Concerned, and so on) rabbit on about a region they only have the haziest idea about. Thus, Pickles is going all self-righteous about the portent of a completely unremarkable Hamas rote press release.

Memo to Pickles: Such statements and counter-statements and even more meaningful acts one way or the other are a daily occurence in Israel-Pal and should not be a reason to call a decorous moment of silence every time they occur. Further Memo: read a regional paper, perhaps Haaretz every day and stop being a twit.

For example, today, haaretz has an article saying - "
The Yesha council of West Bank rabbis issued a
statement Friday, in which is called on Arab
countries to grant Palestinians in the territories
"the right of return to Arab lands," and urged
Israel to implement a biblical injunction against
allowing non-Jews to settle in the Land of
Israel........The rabbis' call echoes statements made recently by several government minister from the right
of the spectrum, who have also expressed the
opinion that there should be "no place for our
enemies inside Israel."

How can anyone listen to your opinion on the Pals/Israel, Pickles, when everyday statements like the one above and the one by Hamas, reduce you to tears and protestations.

9256. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 9:20:55 AM

Marj

You can save words by simply responding "I'm smart . . . I'm smaaaaaartttt!"

Moreover, I was agreeing with you. Clearly, the real concern on the Roadmap to Peace is the Christian Coalition.

What else could it be?

9257. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 9:27:50 AM

Applied reading comprehension is a desirable thing in discussion, Pickles. Plus, assumed pomposity and attemped sarcasm like yours would perhaps be mildly amusing if you could demonstrate the ability to understand simple prose.

--

I'm assigning you reading, Pickles.

Here is Living outside of history . Read it, comprehend it, digest it, then return to me for a brief quiz and further assignments.

9258. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 9:29:06 AM

When answers are simple (i.e., the Authority and Israel pledge a start to peace, and Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade say "No, thank. We'd prefer to continue killing everything we see," it is truly the great, wise mind that finds fault in Billy Graham.

9259. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 9:30:29 AM

I can't read it, Haji. No pictures.

9260. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 9:41:46 AM

70% of Israelis want to get out of all the settlements including those in Jerusalem. Of Americans who give half a shit, the numbers are likely to be even higher.

The settlements and the occupation are the glaring illegalities in the Israel/Pal situation, even hyper-rational Sharon agrees with that openly.

Given the assymetry between the two parties, why does Israel simply not just retreat from the settlements and then wreak terrible havoc on any element which persists in violence against it within the '67 borders? Even the most fervent international critic would be neutralized by this tack, why not take it?

Because the wackoes in the US and Israeli regious right aren't having any of it. They rely on interpreted ancient texts for the belief that God gave the land to Israel and that it must be held cause Jesus is coming that way. Unfortunately, these wackoes are electorally significant in both countries and in both countries have managed to hijack the inevitable peace process for periods of time.

Bush, for all his born-again-ness, is not one of the wackoes, even if he panders to them all the time. It may just be that he has it in him to stiff the religious right in this country (and Sharon clearly has enough gravitas to beat off his own parallel fringe if he wants).....thus things may in fact be looking up for the rest of us who are not hostages to disputed, cobbled-together, alleged words from God.

9261. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 9:48:47 AM

Haji

why does Israel simply not just retreat from the settlements and then wreak terrible havoc on any element which persists in violence against it within the '67 borders?

Because it will find it self in the exact same situation it finds itself today - but with its enemies emboldened by their concessions and strategically enhanced.

And when havoc is wrought, the Arab psychoses will reassert itself and the international condemnation - charged largely by a European anti-Israeli sentiment and - will gear up yet again.

Regardless, your belief in the neutralization of the fervent internationalist is charmingly wrong, if irrelevant.

The psychotics are the issue and your prescription of unilateral concession in the face of psychoses is simply stupid.

You've essentially come up with a diplomatic maneuver that might make you feel better about IDF actions.

But you are not threatened by Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.

9262. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 9:50:05 AM

Again, all of this is irrelevant, in that you've pinpointed the real sticking point -- Ralph Reed.

9263. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 9:58:31 AM

Because it will find it self in the exact same situation it finds itself today - but with its enemies emboldened by their concessions and strategically enhanced.

This oft-repeated mantra has become the most popular canard of the religious right and their running mates in this battle - the fringe of the neocons.

In short, it is utter bullshit, ahistorical meaningless claptrap dredged up precisely to obscure the very real and very obvious path ahead for the two parties and for the region.

Akiva Eldar (go look him up, Pickles, you simpleton) elaborated on this quite neatly yesterday. It is his sober belief that Sharon is not playing a waiting game -the waiting is his game, he feels that he can herd the Pals into "bantustans" and that by erecting bogeyman after bogeyman, by overstating the real security threats, and by counting on ventriloquist's dummies like Pickles to mouth grotesquely meaningless niceties like the line highlighted above, he can indefinitely hold off the inevitable.

He may be right in the short term (and has the dummies aplenty to assist), but he cannot and will not be right in the medium to long term unless the wackoes are correct and Jesus himself is coming back to mete out judgement as per that old book.

9264. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 10:01:17 AM

Pickles has now got two reading assignments.

When I return, I shall look to see if he has digested and learned from them and perhaps even taken them back to the little right-wing circle jerk.

Morning, all.

9265. Wombat - 6/13/2003 10:07:43 AM

Recent polls indicate that over 50% of Israelis oppose the latest round of assassinations, and almost 70% are willing to abandon settlements as part of the road map.

It is very noble for Sickles to don the mantle of partisan and antiterrorist enthusiast on behalf of Israel, however, it appears to be at variance with what most Israelis may want.

9266. jexster - 6/13/2003 10:13:17 AM

poll in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily found 67 percent of Israelis wanted what the survey termed the "assassination policy" to stop

9267. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 10:37:39 AM

Well, more Americans voted for Gore, and that cleary wasn't in their best interests either.

9268. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 10:48:07 AM

You don't get it, Jew-hating Wombat, that 70% of Israelis are clearly Jew-haters.

Leave it to Pincher "I'm the best friend of the Jews" Martin and Mr. Pickles the ventriloquist's dummy, Jew-hating Wombat. They're the voice of reason.

9269. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 10:57:51 AM

Relax, Haji. At least you're on the Sharon-Pat Robertson case.

9270. jexster - 6/13/2003 11:03:02 AM

Meetin Jaysus in the air!

9271. jexster - 6/13/2003 11:03:46 AM

We interrupt this colloquy for procedural bulletin:

Covert Army Unit Hunted For Banned Iraqi Arms
Elite Task Force 20 has failed to find weapons of mass destruction.

9272. jexster - 6/13/2003 11:04:34 AM

Is PM a Heeb-o-phile?

Me too!

Mazeltov!

9273. PincherMartin - 6/13/2003 11:11:23 AM

And it is as entertaining as ever. Current high amusement is generated by the sight of the blustering Pincher "I'm the best friend of the Jews" Martin beating his chest about the Middle East in the manner now in vogue with the nitwit neocon contingent.

Somehow I doubt that the great Hebrew nation is particularly cheered by the fervent, tearful, avowals of solidarity coming from the likes of these characters.

Watch your back, is my advice.

Hahahaha!

Yes, Marj, who once slipped a very large poisoned dagger into his Jewish business partner's back, solely because the man was Jewish, warns the Israelis of the perfidious neo-cons, who are the best friends Israel has ever had.

9274. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:15:20 AM

BUSH LIED!!!


Short conflict, less ammo kept war cost down

>By Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY

>WASHINGTON — A short conflict that used fewer missiles, sparked fewer oil field fires and created fewer refugees than anticipated produced a lower-than-expected financial cost for the major combat in Iraq.

9275. PincherMartin - 6/13/2003 11:18:47 AM

Wombat --

Recent polls indicate that over 50% of Israelis oppose the latest round of assassinations, and almost 70% are willing to abandon settlements as part of the road map.

It is very noble for Sickles to don the mantle of partisan and antiterrorist enthusiast on behalf of Israel, however, it appears to be at variance with what most Israelis may want.

One poll taken by one newspaper with some questionable language (Do you favor "assassinations" of Hamas leaders) taken over a period of days no one has identified. There has, after all, been another bus bombing since Sharon's first missile attack. Was the poll taken before or after or over a period of days overlapping that event?

The Sharon government is the elected government of Israel and as such is the caretaker of Israeli security, even as much as you may want to hand that responsibility to a newspaper poll of dubious reliability because it was hyped up by Reuters.

As for the settlements, Sharon had taken the first steps towards removing a few before the recent return to violence.

9276. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 11:18:56 AM

"What did the president know, and when did he know it?"

Howard Dean

"Oh please, oh please, oh please."

Daniel Sickles

9277. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 11:20:04 AM

Another thing about that poll.

It is my understanding that none of the recent Israeli casualties of the Hamas campaign were sampled.

9278. concerned - 6/13/2003 11:20:28 AM

Yes, Marj, who once slipped a very large poisoned dagger into his Jewish business partner's back, solely because the man was Jewish....

Some detail on this? IAC, it's more than a bit strange that Marjoribanks reserves no pejoratives for Hamas or their actions.

9279. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:21:36 AM

Unbelievable.

Alisatair O'Faggit called Sickles "Shitbag" fifty times.

In a single post, I asked,

"Wait, I'm confused. Is the Shitbag now in charge of The Madmen, or does the Shitbag act as a sort of executive officer on The Madman's behalf?"

Apparently Cock in the Mouth Jay deleted it.

9280. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 11:29:30 AM

Actually, it's entirely believable.

Jay took a drubbing. He had to strike back in the only way he could.

9281. PincherMartin - 6/13/2003 11:30:23 AM

Some detail on this? IAC, it's more than a bit strange that Marjoribanks reserves no pejoratives for Hamas or their actions.

To tell you the honest truth, I was so embarrassed for Marj after he told that story that I merely skimmed the details and quickly purged it from my memory except for the basic outline of it. Andonly, I believe, knows the story better, since she quizzed Marj on it at the time.

It's one thing to go after an anti-Semite when they try to hide, but what are you suppose to do when they themselves volunteer a story that shows they lack such basic moral intregity on the issue? Frankly, I was speechless and embarrassed for the man, and I say this as someone who almost never foregoes any opportunity to razz him.

9282. PincherMartin - 6/13/2003 11:33:37 AM

I lost five or six of my posts to Jay, some of which had substantive points, such as my proof that Alistair's a sheepfucker.

9283. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:34:14 AM

Dan,

It's considered "needless abuse" when you point out that the thread moderator is incorrectly quoting someone, and has not even bothered to read the original article, and refuses to read the posted retractions/corrections connected to the misquote, etc.

The left has this cute little idea that they never quite admit but it's apparent nevertheless. The idea is that, because they are ultimately on the side of Truth and Justice and Holiness, pretty much all tactics are acceptable. They continue peddling lies which are PROVEN to be lies simply because they refuse to give up on the rhetorical usefulness of the lie.

9284. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:35:11 AM

"IAC, it's more than a bit strange that Marjoribanks reserves no pejoratives for Hamas or their actions. "

They're "Freedom Fighters." Our own State Department said so, according to Sahib Softass.

9285. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:38:12 AM

This was cute too:

After Daniel pointed out that Clinton, Hillary, Gore, Albright, Pollack, Talbot, Daschle, Kerry, etc. -- the sum and entirety of the Democratic Party and the Clinton Administration in particular --all claimed the same thing about Saddam's WMD's over the course of the past eight years (that is, that they exist and posed a grave threat requiring military action-- Mssrs. Daschle and Kerry were particularly eloquent on this point during Clinton's famous Monica Bombing of Iraq), Jay says,

"I don't know why you keep saying that. I don't know what that's supposed to mean."

A ha ha ha ha ha hah. Right, Jay. You can't figure out the subtle point Danny's driving out. It's just too convoluted and complex a thesis for you to grasp.

9286. jexster - 6/13/2003 11:40:46 AM

Oh puppy love!

Oh procedural details:

At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.
Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.

Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings.

Researchers from several groups have visited hospitals and mortuaries in Iraq and interviewed relatives of the dead; some are conducting surveys in the main cities.

Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone

9287. marjoribanks - 6/13/2003 11:40:56 AM

Oooh.

Pincher Martin, the self-described "best friend of the Jews" is calling me an anti-Semite.

How frightening, I quail in my chappals.

9288. AceofSpades - 6/13/2003 11:41:35 AM

Seriously, Dan-o. What do you mean by that? It's baffling. I see the words but they're all mixed up and cross-combobulated like cyrillic alphabet soup.

What is the mysterious, numinous, eldritch point you're driving at? It's all so taxing on my little brain.

9289. PincherMartin - 6/13/2003 11:42:17 AM

Pincher Martin, the self-described "best friend of the Jews" is calling me an anti-Semite.

How frightening, I quail in my chappals.

Marj, is that dagger in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

9290. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 11:42:38 AM

Somebody, quick.

Take Haji's thesaurus.

9291. jexster - 6/13/2003 11:44:37 AM

Did I tell you about the moronic (little m) Indian Econ Stats prof I had this semester?

9292. Daniel Sickles - 6/13/2003 11:46:16 AM

Ace

I think I was overly convoluted. I could have meant:

So, either the entire British and United States governments, their intelligence arms, the GOP and the Democrats, and the executive team of the past two administrations, along with UNSCOM and the U.N., conspired to concoct the lie of WMD in Iraq AND Saddam dovetailed into the aim of this conspiracy by refusing to comply with 1441, which could not have uncovered these mythical WMD, and inviting an invasion.

or

um . . .

you know.

Jay's right.

I'm really don't know what I was driving at.

9293. jexster - 6/13/2003 11:46:55 AM

On dying in vain...