Redstate

because if you are saying this with a straight face...then your sanity is highly in question.

in your subject line, yes, you seem to be. However, you are not alone, just among the misguided sheep of the Left.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Did you not read the OP? Have you paid NO attention throughout the entire course of the war?
WMDs were the Biggest reason we went in, but FAR from the only reason. Did he have them? Of course he did. We flipping GAVE them to him! What did he do with all of them? Well, he sure didn't use them all, and we have yet to account for the rest.
Was he working on getting more? Probably. Does it matter? Not anymore.

That said, WMDs were Never the only reason we went in. A perfect example of the Piles of evidence of that was quoted in the OP. Open your eyes and Shut your mouth long enough to learn the truth.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Your history needs brushing up.

First, from the very beginning, the administration said that Iraq was NOT behind 9/11. They stressed that 9/11 was an object lesson that you had to deal with threats before we were attacked.

Yes, we were told about WMDs in Iraq over and over - by people like Bill Clinton, John Kerry Madeline Albright and other democrats starting in the 1990s before Bush became President. The quotes go on for pages and pages. Now, it seems, we are told nobody thought there were WMDs until Bush said so.

You say, "They used fear to sell this thing, not for the goal of improving some country..." Baloney

The President said, "Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained - by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." (President Bush, State Of The Union Address, 1/28/03)

The UN Security Council Resolution 1441 said that The "Government Of Iraq Has Failed To Comply With Its Commitments ... To End Repression Of Its Civilian Population And To Provide Access By International Humanitarian Organizations To All Those In Need Of Assistance In Iraq." (United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1441, 11/8/02)

President Bush has always emphasized the importance of spreading democracy in the Middle East, including before the war. He said, "The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. ... A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." (President Bush, Remarks, Washington, DC, 2/26/03)

President Bush gave many reasons for going into Iraq before the war, as did the resolution by congress. He has remained consistent about those reasons.

What did Powell tell the world at that UN meeting? How did we try and justify this war to the world? Don't quote random comments here and there and try to change history. When it really counted, how did Bush try to convince the world to join us in starting a war?

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Hopefully you'll join me in reality.

I give actual quotes with dates. You give nothing but narrative of your beliefs. What did Powell actually say to the UN? You give no quotes, cites or anything. There were many reasons for going into Iraq. They were spelled out in the State of the Union Address and the resolution passed by Congress.

The fact is the President did say before the war that one of his goals was to spread democracy in the Middle East and that Iraq was a big part of that. That is a fact.

The problem is that what you are dealing in is not reality, it is spin.

I wasn't challanging the accuracy of your quotes, I'm challanging their relevance. If you think the US decided to go to war to "spread democracy" you're crazy. Imagine trying to tell people that we were going to send troops to attack cuba to spread democracy. People would never go for it!

I'm not saying Bush never mentioned the idea of spreading democracy, but he told us we were going to war because Saddam had WMDs and was going to attack us. That was false. That's why people are mad.

If he had stood up in 2003 and said: " I think we should go to war in Iraq in order to give them democracy" Do you honestly believe the country would have supported that?

OF 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_publi...

count is 24 reasons given by Congress (Democrat-controlled, by the way) for removing Saddam. The most important, in my view, was that he was ignoring the UN through 17 resolutons, and ignoring the CEASE FIRE he signed to stop Gulf War I. We and Britan were the only two countries patrolling the no-fly zone to keep Saddam from killing more Kurds and Shites. The patrols were expensive and our pilots were being fired on daily. Besides, we were using Saudi Arabia to stage these flghts and SA was getting nervous about OBL's threats to them about having 'infidels' in the holy land of Mecca and Medina. The oil-for-food corruption should inform anyone of why the other UN Security Council members did not want to stop that gravy train by removing Saddam.

Thanks, gamecock for the link. The troll needs to review his history before making uninformed statements about WMD being the only reason we went to war.

Please read the quotes below. People were talking about Iraq having WMDs before GWB ever said anything. President Bush believed they had WMDs just like the administration before them. With 9/11, he saw that the country was at risk, and that as bad as that attack was, a group using WMDs could cause much more damage. He decided not to wait for such an attack.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

More quotes:

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

stop introducing ActualFacts™ into this dicussion, it confuses the libs.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

that Kerry only said that before he didn't say that.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Regurgitating BushLied™ TalkingPointMemos™ is a waste of bandwidth and our time!

See The World In HinzSight!

You can come here and quote Wikipedia as a credible reference and do it with a straight face? Well, compared to the NYT I suppose it is.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

I quoted wiki because it was convenient, and provided a decent summary. You can attack wiki all you want, but it's actually fairly reliable. Here's a site your kind can trust: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

Oh, i forgot...reality has a liberal bias....sorry.

Just what is "my kind"?

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

The kind that thinks Fox News gives a more accurate depiction of reality than the NYT.

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

that may leave a mark :-)

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

nt

where in anything I posted I: a) referred to Fox News; b) conferred credibility on them.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Downing Street Memo was shot down a couple of years ago. Give it up. Do more reading. Fox's motto is "we report, you decide" I'll bet if you search more, you'll find Fox 'reporting' on the demise of the memo, unlike the NYT, who never report when something proves false.

Everytime something put out by the Republicans turns out to be false or wrong, they report it...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Bush wanted regime change all along. If he didn't, he wouldn't have gone into Baghdad.

I think the Administration thought the most compelling argument was that there were weapons of mass destruction. They also did try to tie Iraq with Al Qaeda -- though I think they were generally careful not to say that Saddam had anything to do with 911 (but it was implied).

But the British couldn't come along if the purpose was regime change. British law prohibited that as a basis. So Bush couldn't call it that and get the Brits to join in. Since we needed the Brits, the regime change aspect was generally not one of the first reasons noted.

to prevent another one with wmd added.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

real response to this post is that you are simply an idiot. That is all. Thank you.

That was a 'Blam!'. That guy made my eyes bleed......

The alledged attempt by Saddam to acquire yellowcake from Niger was actually never proven false...even Joe Wilson's report after visiting Niger gave support to the earlier claim. (read the SSCOI report from the summer of 2004)

No one claimed that Saddam "conspired" with Al Queda...but they did have connections, and Saddam did offer OBL safe haven in Iraq (Read the 9/11 Report, and Lawerance Wright's "The Looming Tower")

I have read the DSM....nice memo of someones impressions of a meeting...maybe in your world that equals "reality"...but it does not in the real world.

That became pretty clear way back in 2003. Besides those documents there is no evidence that he sought to buy uranium from Niger.

Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

CNN - March 14, 2003

The FBI is investigating the origin of forged documents indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, and one candidate for the forgeries is an Iraqi opposition group, U.S. officials said.
The documents, obtained first by Italy's intelligence service, ended up fooling the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies into believing Baghdad was trying to buy uranium ore from the African nation, U.S. officials say.
The documents ended up "tainting" other reliable intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs and undermining the credibility of U.S. intelligence reports, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Washington Times July 19, 2003

"Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."

That is from Joe Wilson's conclusion based on his trip to Niger. That doesn't seem to me to give any support to the earlier claims.

I would say if there was any attempt at this point by Saddam to buy yellowcake from Niger it was extremely limited if not non-existant.

It most certainly was not cause for war at any rate.

Yes, there were forged documents. But they were not the source of claims about Saddam and African yellowcake; British intelligence was the source for the SOTU statement (read it, Bush says "British intelligence has..."). The Brits were not influenced by the forged documents and stand by their report to this day.

I really wish you guys would stop buying your crib sheets from the John Kerry History As I Claim It Was factory or the Joe Wilson Read My Op-Ed not My Testimony PseudoHistory Book Club.

The Democrats must be so proud to have so many people serving in the Senate and the House who vote for war without understanding what they are doing or saying. How much pride can there be in a man whose defense is "I read the intel but I didn't understand it so I voted for the war."

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Powell didn't say what you are saying he said.

1. They said that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Afria. The British still stand by their intelligence. And that attempt to purchase uranium was even backed up by Joe Wilson when he reported back to the CIA. See the Senate Committee report. (Not what he said later when he was working for Kerry.)

2. Saddam did have WMDs. We know that. He used them on Iran and on his own people. Everyone believed he had them including Bill Clinton, Madeline Albrite and other big democrats. They were saying so in the 1990s - before Bush was President.

3. Powell did not say that Saddam conspired with Al Queda. He said that Al Queda people had found safe haven in Iraq and that there had been contacts. That is also backed up by the 9/11 commission report. Now, the venerable Richard Clarke did say in the 1990s that Iraq and Al Queda were working together. That was when Clinton bombed the aspirin factory.

4. We were going to spread democracy. The President said so before the war. The first place we did so was in Afganistan, and he is also pushing democracy in Lebanon and for the Palastinians. He has been pushing democracy hard in the Middle East.

I do deal with reality, not with the spinning done by the left.

1. That's just plain false.

2. Saddam launched a nuclear weapon on his own country? And another on Iran? That's news to me...

3. Are you serious? Bush and Cheney have linked 9/11 and Iraq constantly. Every time they talk about Iraq they always mention "we were attacked". They've tried to convince everyone that Iraq = war on terror. Well, now that you've invaded and encouraged terrorists to come and blow up our soldiers they have a point.

4. Afganistan? You mean the place Bill Frist said "that the war against Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan could never be won militarily, and he urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" into the government." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-afghan3oct03,1,2...
You mean the country that is producing massive amounts of opium now? Great job spreading democracy there...

are not just nucs...he used over 250K chemical warheads against Iran, and gassed the Kurds...in '88 if I remember correctly.

1. Plain truth. Look at the committee report.

2. Nuclear weapons are not the only WMDs. He used chemical weapons on Iran and on his own people. That is not even in dispute. Also take a look at when Clinton attacked Iraq with cruise missiles in 1998. He talked about Iraq having a nuclear weapons program three times in his speech.

3. You are wrong again. From the very first weekend after 9/11 with his appearence on MTP, Cheney said that there was no evidence of Iraq being behind 911. Again, when they talk about 9/11 in relation to Iraq, is that 9/11 changed the way they looked at threats from abroad. 9/11 was a lesson. It showed that the country could suffer severe damage to life, property and the economy by small groups. They made it clear that 9/11 showed them they had to deal with threats before we were attacked. But Cheney and Bush have specifically said many times since 9/11 that Iraq was not behind the attack.

4. This is off the point. First Frist was misquoted and he refuted what you refer to. Here is what he actually said:

http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=487

But you are changing the subject. What we were talking about was whether the spreading of democracy in the Middle East was one of Bush's goals before the war. Demonstrably it was. What Frist said recently has nothing to do with that.

selected, agenda-driven "news" articles from partisan sources to support Known Facts™?

The jury is still out on the disposition of Iraq's WMD's. Every credible intelligence service on the planet knew that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's an undeniable fact.

My question to you is: Where are they now?

Had the ISG been able to complete it's mission in Iraq, we would probably know the answer to that question. A credible scenario indicating the pre-war movement of WMD material out of Iraq can be found in the Addendums to the Comprehensive Report, March 2005.

Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq

ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials, examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.

The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.

***

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

And most certainly did use chemical weapons on his own people during insurgencies against his government.

Were you for Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998 after Saddam kicked UNSCUM out and Clinton said intel showed Iraq had wmd?

Were you for the invasion based on intel that Saddam had wmd hidden?

Do you think we should invade Iran before they develop nukes or after?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

That someone got you before I did. I take special pleasure in offing the DSM aliens.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

A more accurate description of the AP is "Agenda Journalism."

***

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

thanks for playing.

Links above amply disprove your statement concerning the Administration's rationale for war. Your refusal to acknowledge them speaks more to your dishonesty than to anything else.

You agree with the AP? Big surprise there.

The Lancet study? Why is it that you, apparently alone, think the study was well done when it has been eviscerated by statisticians across the political spectrum. Any ideas why they didn't publish there non-response rate? Any idea why they announced the purpose of their survey in advance? Any idea why they did not use random selection of households to replace those refusing to participate? Any idea why they did no statistical adjustments to reflect the non-response rate?

But let's take the easy part first. What do you think the death rate in the US was "pre-invasion"? 8.5 per 1000 If you want to go through life believing that pre-war Iraq had a mortality rate only 60% that of the US I really can't help you but I can insure you aren't peddling this idiocy on our bandwidth.

Regardless of the "oh, read the fine print" justifications now being thrown around, most people - myself included - supported the invasion because the Bush administration said that not only did Hussein have WMDs, a very widely-held belief, but also - and this is what made the Bush administration different from Clinton's - that he was an imminent threat and that we could not afford to hesitate in removing him.

If Iraq had not been characterized as a WMD threat that demanded immediate attention, I would not have supported invasion, regardless of the other rationales that were being added in at that time. That's what Paul means when he talks about how this war was "sold" - for most of the public, the WMD threat was the tipping point or the ultimate factor that swayed them. Okay, so intelligence mistakes were made. Fine. But the fact that the Administration now claims (as Cheney did a few weeks ago on the Sunday shows) that it would have gone to war anyway, even if it knew back then that the WMD threat didn't exist, is what has me and so many other people now feeling so betrayed.

I think you will find that it was not Bush that claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat". In fact in the SOTU he said

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
Source: Text of the State of the Union

True the word "imminent" in in there but not the way you seem to think. Every time the term "imminent threat" is attributed to Bush is is always someone saying that he said it without ever being able to quote exactly when and where he said it.

In fact you will find the term "imminent threat" was being used, but by people such as:

you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.
John Edwards on CNN

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
Jay Rockefeller on the floor of the Senate

The last time I looked both of these "gentlemen" were members of the Democratic Party and the United States Senate.

The list goes on and I hesitate to leave it to you continue the research, but I have to rearrange my sock drawer.

It's not the things you don't know that fool you. It's the things you do know that ain't so.
Artemus Ward

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

My point was not that President Bush used the word "imminent," but that he asserted that the United States could not afford to sit around and wait.

I don't dispute for a second that a lot of Democrats said the same thing about the nature of the threat. I'm not a Democrat, and unlike some, I'm not interested in making this a partisan issue. I will say that it's quite likely that people like Edwards and Rockefeller were just as persuaded (or fooled) as I was by what Bush and Powell had to say in the months before the war - especially when Senators get much of their information from the Administration.

So they were all wrong. If President Bush really leveled with the public about the mistake, took responsibility as our Commander in Chief, and if he had some kind of coherent plan to get us out of Iraq, then I think all but his most rabid enemies would support him.

Instead, Dick Cheney went on Meet The Press and says that he would have invaded anyway - a point that I notice you didn't bother to address.

wonder any more. The burden was on Saddam. The only way to prove there was no wmd was to search every inch of the country. He was openly defying us after 911. To have left him in power with him on TV paying suicide bombes and allowing the Abu Nidal's and Yasim's to vacation there and with his past, he had to go. No one was fooled. We all lived thru the 90s. Including Clinton who gave an oval office speech in 1998 saying that one day we would have to take out Saddam before he gave wmd to terrorists.

Do you favor waiting until they get wmd? Do you imagine our intel is good enough to wait until they are waiting on the last screw to arrive from ACME before we strike?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

According to Cheney on Meet The Press, what Hussein might have had or might have not had was irrelevant anyway. He would have invaded even knowing what we know today. Does that not trouble you?

it doesn't trouble me. Why should it? It was the right thing to do for the Iraqis; it was the right thing to do for that part of the world; and most important it was the right thing for us. Unlike the left, I don't lose any sleep over the demise of the Saddam regime.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Well, I'll give you points for consistency. How it was the "right thing for us" is unclear, though. I still have yet to see how it was the "right thing" for the Iraqis or for that part of the world - right now it appears to be a complete disaster with no hope of resolution.

I'm not "the left," and I don't miss Saddam Hussein. I spoke out in support of the invasion, and even got shit for it. I'd at least appreciate a little bit of candor from the man who has been in charge of it.

you don't like it or agree with it does not mean he hasn't told you or that he doesn't have a plan. The fact that you think he should go on TV and, biting a trembling lower lip, explain that he feels our pain and he was a very bad person for "misleading" us means nothing.

You remind me of the woman in NY who on being told that Nixon had won the election said "that can't be, no one I know voted for him."

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

what we know now, is that we invaded and stopped the hansblixiancousteau cat and mouse game. And we still don't know what you seem to think we know. There was no way to prove a negative. The BURDEN was on Saddam under the ceasefire.

'k?

You seem to think that we know what was in Iraq the day before and the weeks and months (18) we played at the UN before we invaded based on what we did not find after the invasion.

But we don't know that.

Hey, if you were to search my house now, you would not find the gal that was here last...

too much info

come on man
you can grasp this
I can tell that you are smart enough
think
its logical
thing 2 + 2 = 4
I'm pulling for you man

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

you have got to lay off the Jack Daniels. Its making you far too amenable :-)

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

(got to lay off myself :-)

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Well, anyone who likes Jack Daniels is okay in my book : )

if I can't find a first rate single malt. And never in any case near ice.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Don't tell nobody, but I'm a Southern Comfort whiskey sour man at the pub. Jack's always been rough on me. I blame it on my hard livin' ancestors...

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

never could warm up to Southern Comfort or mixed drinks --- I'm a Scotch or Irish, neat, kinda guy

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

See The World In HinzSight!

...and this is what made the Bush administration different from Clinton's - that he was an imminent threat and that we could not afford to hesitate in removing him.
Emphasis added: JRS

Your statement not mine.

You accept that Edwards, Rockefeller et al "were just as persuaded (or fooled)" but you choose to believe that they were misled by Bush as opposed to persuaded by the same defective intelligence as the administration. Hardly impartial judgement.

So they were all wrong. If President Bush really leveled with the public about the mistake, took responsibility...

So if you accept they (actaully the intelligence) were wrong then what is there to level with the public about --- the intelligence was wrong? They've already done that. But that's not what you really want, you really want them to admit they lied or at least exaggerated. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.

...and if he had some kind of coherent plan to get us out of Iraq,...

He has a coherent plan; win and create a stable Iraq government. The fact that you don't agree with, or like, the plan does not make it "not coherent."

... then I think all but his most rabid enemies would support him.

And you still believe in the tooth fairy I suppose.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

So if you accept they (actaully the intelligence) were wrong then what is there to level with the public about

I want the administration to say that if they knew back then what they know today, that they wouldn't have invaded. Instead, what I hear from Cheney was "oh, we were going to do it anyway."

He has a coherent plan; win and create a stable Iraq government.

Talking points do not amount to military strategy. Please, if you're going to argue, be serious. I could say I'm going to win the World Series and make a billion dollars this fall, but that doesn't amount to a strategy.

Talking points do not amount to military strategy. Please, if you're going to argue, be serious. I could say I'm going to win the World Series and make a billion dollars this fall, but that doesn't amount to a strategy.

If you say that you are dreaming. If Bush says that its national policy. The strategy to execute that policy is set in DOD/JCS, State, etc.

The president does not set strategy, he sets policy. Win and create a stable government in Iraq is not a talking point; its national policy. Why do you folks have such a hard time understanding that? You don't like it, that's fine. You don't think it can succeed, that's also fine. But it is US policy and likely will be for at least the next two years. Grow up and get used to it. But at the very least stop saying there is no policy/strategy; that's just silly and clearly establishes those who keep repeating it as the ones who are not "serious."

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Who is "you folks"?

So Bush sets policy, notwithstanding documents that come from the White House with names like "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Which, I might add, are made up entirely of talking points. Do you want the link?

Okay . . . now, can you direct me to the actual strategy for winning?

are those of you on the left, right, up, down, top, bottom, charmed and strange, who keep reciting the litany "Bush has no plan for Iraq" as if it were some Papal encyclical.

Drat, you broke the code, the entire war was, and is, fought with PowerPoint bullet points. I told Karl we couldn't fool some of "you folks."

PS. Your request is denied --- the details that might, just might, actually satisify you are classified. You'll have to get them from the New York Times or one of the other terrorist-enabling publications.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

I don't need the classified details, just the logic. Unfortunately, I can't get that from bullet points.

Charles Krauthammer had the most intelligent argument for "staying the course" that I've ever read, in the Washington Post about a month ago. I know this will shock you, but if the Administration started talking as intelligently and as honestly as him, I might believe that it actually knows what it's doing. You might want to pass it along to Karl.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR200609...

either (a) you are absolutely correct; or (b) I am tired of arguing in circles.

I chose (b)

TTFN

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

We know what we have found and what we haven't found. We don't know what, if anything was removed or hidden or destroyed prior to and our invasion, and because we were credibly prepared to and imminently about to invade with 150,000+ troops poised on the borders. One thing Powell presented to the UN was a tape of two Iraqi soldiers talking about hiding wmd from the UN. Saddam's general of the AF says wmd was taken to Syria. We have reams of documents and miles of tapes to review. The Dulfer Report that Liberals masturbate about concerning the opinion about flawed intel on stockpiles also documents Saddam's preparations and plans in abeyance ready to produce wmd as soon as the Un sanctions were lifted.

There are many things we don't know today. But there are many things that you assume today. And that;s the problem with Libs, especially post 911. We aren't gonna take chances like we did before 911.

Ya see, we don't want no mo 911s!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

before a joint session of Congress. You might have missed that address, or forgotten it. But this like alone from that speech says all that needs to be said;

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

You see, Saddam Hussein made his choice, and paid the price for it!

Other nations looked at what we did to the Taliban in Afghanistan...and folded their cards. Kadafi in Libya, comes to mind.

Saddam had his opportunity to fold, but instead he raised, and lost the pot!

See The World In HinzSight!

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

can be found here!

See The World In HinzSight!

Streiff writes "But let's take the easy part first. What do you think the death rate in the US was "pre-invasion"? 8.5 per 1000 If you want to go through life believing that pre-war Iraq had a mortality rate only 60% that of the US I really can't help you but I can insure you aren't peddling this idiocy on our bandwidth."

Streiff may be unaware but the demographics of a population have a huge impact on the crude death rate. A young population will tend to have a lower death rate than an old population. The Middle East in general has a very young population compared to the United States and so has a correspndingly low death rate. See for example in the CIA Worldfact book:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

Jordan's death rate is 2.63 per 1000
Libya's is 3.48 per 1000
Syria's is 4.81 per 1000
while the US is currently listed at 8.26 per 1000.

Streiff, do you still believe it is idiocy that Iraq could have a pre-war death rate below the US?

Tom

that the numbers you quote are anywhere near the truth. The countries you cite are hardly paragons of a) record keeping; b) openness; and c) truthfulness; and the numbers in the CIA "fact book" are not necessarily independently verified.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

You throw out a hypothesis but I am not sure what you believe. In some sense, you can always say "well the numbers could be wrong."

Do you believe it is "idiocy" to think that Iraq could have a lower crude death rate than the United States?

If you follow the link I provided, you will see that there are many poor countries with lower death rates that the United States - I hope one of them will meet your standards on record-keeping. If you then check that country's profile, you will probably see that is has a younger median age than the United States.

Is the concept not clear here? Countries experiencing rapid population growth will have lots of young people who die less often in any given year than old people. So it should not be surprising that some countires like that, even poor ones with lots of problems, will have a lower crude death rate than a older rich country.

Do you have a data source you prefer to the CIA World "Factbook"?
Tom

it was your citation, not mine, and I question the validity of the original data. That is not a personal attack on you. It is my opinion however, that if we all took information coming out the third world with a pound of salt we'd all know much more than we know now.

Do you also accept that these governments have accurate weather and rainfall data for their entire counties? I ask not because such data are meaningful in the this conversation, but because it takes the same mentality and infrastructure to collect these kind of data as it takes to collect births and deaths data. If you aren't doing one you probably aren't doing the other --- and many other basic statistical functions. This by the way is not a criticism of these nations; they have more pressing issues on which to expend limited resources. The accurate collection of data, the tending of national parks, concern about pollution, etc., are "luxuries" mostly available only to wealthy societies.

I said, or at least implied, that I had serious questions about the value of data reported by countries with minimal governmental infrastructure and minimal, and mostly ineffectual, control or "official" presence in many parts of their country. I can't prove it but I have serious doubts that the "government" of Syria, et al, have any real idea about how many people are born or die beyond 20 miles outside of the capital.

"Countries experiencing rapid population growth will have lots of young people who die less often in any given year than old people." It is equally true that these same countries have third world preventative health, restorative healthcare and sanitation capabilites. The equation you propose is far too simplistic --- in my opinion.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

I did not take your comment as personal and I hope you do not take mine as such either.

But I don't think a "well the numbers could be wrong" defense makes much sense. Streiff's argument is that it is absurd to believe data showing that the Iraqi deathrate could be lower than the United States.

I have presented data showing that many poor countries have lower crude death rates. You have expressed doubts on the quality of that data. Fair enough, but the data I provided is for many countries - are they all wrong in the same direction by huge ammounts (factors of 2 or 3)? Or is it possible that a country with a young population could have have a crude death rate lower than the United States?

For the record, if I was unclear, population ages are only one factor effecting crude death rate. But they are a very important factor that can outweigh quality of health care.

I am still curious - do you believe it is "idiocy" to think Iraq could have had a lower crude death rate than the United States? Is also idiocy to believe that of Turkey, Costa Rica, South Korea ...?

Tom

Are here.

Post war rates are here.

Current death rates are half what they used to be, down from 10.4/1000 to 5.3/1000.

it wasn't me that said it was idiocy so I have not way to respond.

As to third world data (and second world data for that matter) yes, I do think it is entirely possible that they are all wrong and all the same way; all for the same reason, the reason(s) I pointed out in my earlier response. The collection of detailed nationwide statistical data, be it births/deaths or even rainfall, is one of those luxuries that are easily afforded in wealthy societies but are cannot be high on the list in poor nations. And frankly I think that the largely totalitarian third world has a "tendency to massage" this kind of data to deflect criticism.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

"it wasn't me that said it was idiocy so I have not way to respond."

I am not sure why you are unable to have an opinion on what someone else said. Do you feel that you do not know the full context?

I am not sure exactly what we are arguing about at this point, so I will try to clarify my position:
I think we can agree that a younger population would tend to reduce the death rate. I think we can agree that poor health care would tend to increase the death rate. We can even agree that the data quality is limited (although I would guess the South Korea is fully capable of counting its births and deaths).

I have tried to understand the relative impact of those two factors by looking for the best data I can find. That data has led me to conclude that poor counties can have lower crude death rates than rich ones. Do you disagree with that? And if so, how did you come to that conclusion?

Tom

What is the point about tega cay's death rate mantra?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

pre-war to the post-war al qaida and baathists killed by US and free iraqi army death rate

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

On prewar death rates.

I have read estimates from 200,000-350,000. Haven't calculated the pre-war rate of Saddam political murders. Its zero post-war. I think the pre-war rate of killings of al qaida in Iraq was zero and baathists in Iraq was near zero (Saddam liked to off a pal every now and then). Post-war, don't have the rate, but even the al qaida enemy admits 4000 dead and we killed Uday and Qasay and a bunch of pop's regime.

Praise God!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Pre-invasion. 10.4/1000

Post-invasion. 5.3/1000

Any more questions?

I just hope they resign themselves to honorable spinsterhood instead of going the "other" way. But with a pre-invasion date rate of less than 11 per thousand, I guess most folks were just meeting in groups at the Bijou anyway to save $$.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Indeed.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

The "pre-invasion" number is for 1990-95.

The Economist Intelligence Unit has a 2000 death rate of 6.3.

http://store.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=show_sample&product_id=890000289&c...

by moving to Libya? Yep, that will be a full plane.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

but crude death rate is a not a measure of life expectancy.

The same source, unsurprisingly, has Libya having a lower life expectancy than the United States. Japan with one of the highest life expectancies, has a death rate roughly equivalent to Cambodia with one of the lower life expectancies.

As I said, in the original post, countries with young populations will have lower crude death rates than countries with older populations.

Tom

I have a bridge for sale that you might be interested in. Conveniently located over the East River, one owner, great historical value, needs some work but overall excellent.

From 875 deaths reported by family members in interviews in Baghdad they managed to extrapolate to the entire country. This, just like its 2004 predecessor, was a political hatchet job timed to get the attention of moonbats.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

"From 875 deaths reported by family members in interviews in Baghdad they managed to extrapolate to the entire country."

Where did you get the idea that all the interviews were in Baghdad? Only 12 of the 47 clusters were in Baghdad which is porportional to Baghdad's share of the population.

Tom

then the study is fatally flawed. How can you proportionalize an urban sample with the country in general? Take the same approach with Wasington DC, N. O. and Detroit and then tell me what the death rate is in Iowa. Baloney

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

If Baghdad represents ~25% of the population, then 25% of your survey should be in Baghdad.

Why do you assume that doing a sample in Baghdad means not doing any in non-urban areas?

Tom

going to be higher in urban areas. They skew the national average if they a represented proportionally in a sampling.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

So you think national averages should underrepresent urban areas?

I tend to think national averages should be the average for the nation.

Tom

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan