This is a very good read. It really does well to explain just how
gullible or blinded the republicans are in this country:


Like you even needed more proof.

Like you even need to read about the incredible and ever-increasing
list of lies and misinfo and deeply, colon-clenchingly humiliating
wrongness shot forth from the mouth of the GOP machine, a truly
jaw-dropping assortment of falsehoods and fabrications about war, and
war, and war. Oh, and the economy. And the environment. And war.

Look. There is no doubt left. Zero. None. Even many high-ranking
Republicans are deeply worried over the increasingly embittered
national timbre regarding BushCo's lies, as reflected in his
ever-slipping ratings and declining reelectability quotient and his
smug little smirky emptiness.

Do you need to be reminded? Do you need to see it again?

Very good, then. Let us recap: No WMDs. Biggest joke on the American
public in the past 50 years. Saddam doesn't have 'em, and probably
never did. Over 1,400 of BushCo's own investigators and specialists
and scientists -- affectionately known as the Iraq Survey Group --
canvassing postwar Iraq for six months, not to mention the teams of
original U.N. investigators, and finding not a trace of anything
resembling huge stockpiles of massive scary weaponry.

Which is to say, no nukes. No biotoxins. No big cannons full of scary
Korans and rusty bullets and old gum. Nothing at all resembling what
Condi Rice and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfowitz, et al., said were
absolutely positively no question going to be found any day now
because after all that's why we went to war. Except that it wasn't.
And they knew it.

To paraphrase The Washington Post: Among the judgments of the
above-mentioned Iraq Survey Group, as overseen by David Kay, who
reports directly to CIA Director George Tenet, are these: Iraq's
nuclear-weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after
1991. Also, all those facilities with suspicious new construction
(remember Colin "Emasculated" Powell's bogus satellite photos?) proved
benign, and of no military use whatsoever.

This is not speculation. This is not liberal wishful thinking. These
are facts. And BushCo knew them. And more.


Translation: Bush's urgent call back in March to bomb the living crap
out of ****ant Iraq because Saddam had irrefutably cranked up his nuke
arsenal and might possibly bomb weak depressed New York at any minute
and wipe out all the Starbucks and ruin Monday Night Football was not
only completely bogus and impossible, it was shockingly dangerous, and
unprecedented, and even borderline treasonous.

Remember how Saddam ostensibly loved al Qaeda? Remember how Uncle Dick
helped drill that terrorism connection into the cultural
consciousness, repeatedly, across all media for months on end just
before the war, thus inducing upward of 50 percent of the disturbingly
gullible U.S. population to believe that Saddam actually had a hand in
9/11? When he didn't? When there was no connection whatsoever?
Remember that?

Ah, yes. It turns out that all intelligence and every piece of
evidence points exactly the opposite way. As BushCo was well informed,
Saddam might only make contact with al Qaeda -- his sworn enemies --
if his back was against the wall, and probably not even then.

More? Sure. How about Afghanistan? Remember that? Osama at large.
Never captured. Taliban resurfacing. No aid for the country and no
rebuilding (except for a shiny new oil pipeline) and complete
devastation and neglect.

And even Rummy, in his private and damning memo, said as much, just
last week, writing that there is absolutely no way to tell whether we
are making any progress in the war on terror, and that "victory" would
be "a long, hard slog," and that it was impossible to say whether we
are killing known terrorists any faster than the increasingly furious
and inspired madrassas, or Islamic fundamentalist schools, can
manufacture them.

"This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is
a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward
army." -- President Bush, Oct. 14, 2002

"Yes, there is a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 26, 2002

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members
of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National
Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002

Isn't that cute? Not a single one of those statements was true. And
not a single one of those people is being accused of treason or
malfeasance or of being a soulless anti-American warmongering drone,
despite how their words were dripping with lies when they exited their
mouths.

Look. Bush told Americans we were going to enter into this savage and
bloody war no one really wanted because Iraq posed an immediate and
imminent threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. He
gutted the economy for it. He destroyed long-standing relationships
with countless international allies for it. He made America into this
rogue superpower brat, disrespected and untrustable and appalling, for
it. And it was never true.

How about this? More soldiers have died since BushCo declared the war
essentially over six months ago than during the war itself. And
guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces have more than doubled over recent
months to more than 25 per day, with fresh American causalities coming
in nonstop.

No matter, says the GOP. All part of the clumsy "rebuilding" process,
they say. By the way, that $87 billion BushCo just begged for to keep
the Iraq war machine clunking along? That's more than the fiscal debt
of all the gutted U.S. states combined. Iraq is, by every account, a
devastating U.S. money pit.

Might it be worth mentioning here that comprehensive new nonpartisan
investigation that reveals how at least 15,000 Iraqis, including a
minimum of 4,000 civilians, were slaughtered by U.S. forces in the
first days of the invasion? Or that some estimates of total Iraqi
civilian deaths go as high as nearly 10,000? Do those people matter?
All those women and children and poor families? Nah. Screw 'em.

And you know why they don't matter, according to the GOP? Because we
got rid of a pesky evil pip-squeak tyrant, that's why. One who was
zero threat to the U.S., and not much of a threat to neighboring
countries, and had no 9/11 connection, but who we know killed lots of
his own people 20 years ago, with America's full and complicit
assistance, including the biotoxins we sold to him.

And how he's gone. Yay! Mission accomplished! Except, of course, he's
not. Still alive, apparently. But he's hiding somewhere! And he's
probably really furious that he had to shave his mustache, too! Ha!
That oughta show him! That's $300 billion and hundreds of dead U.S.
soldiers well spent, baby! God bless America.

This needs to be said. This needs to be repeated, over and over again,
because apparently it is still not clear and apparently Republican
apologists love to trot it out as some sort of justification, some
sort of hollow and childish accusation, signifying nothing.

Yes, Bill Clinton lied, too. He lied about stupid adulterous sex. And
the GOP savaged him like rabid feral swine attacking a rutabaga. Had
him impeached over it. Loathe him still, and his wife, too, with
unprecedented level of hatred and bile and vicious litigious action
never before seen in this nation.

No such fate for BushCo. Shockingly, the GOP isn't the slightest bit
upset about this pro-corporate, oil-drunk administration's deadly
string of lies. Shall we wonder why? Or is it just too poisonous and
sad to consider for very long, lest the intellect curdle and the soul
recoil?

OK, I'll spell it out: George W. Bush and his entire senior
administration lied, and continue to lie, flagrantly, openly,
knowingly, with full intent, about the need to drive this nation into
a brutal and unwinnable and fiscally debilitating war, one that
protects no one and inhibits no terrorism and defends nothing but
BushCo's own petrochemical cronies and political stratagems.

This much is obvious. This much is painfully, crushingly sad. And this
much we must purge like so much clotted gunk from the collective
social artery one year from now. Otherwise, we should just turn in our
stained and bloody Superpower badge, and resign ourselves to our fate.

On 31 Oct 2003 07:31:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

This is a very good read. It really does well to explain just how
gullible or blinded the republicans are in this country:


Like you even needed more proof.

Like you even need to read about the incredible and ever-increasing
list of lies and misinfo and deeply, colon-clenchingly humiliating
wrongness shot forth from the mouth of the GOP machine, a truly
jaw-dropping assortment of falsehoods and fabrications about war, and
war, and war. Oh, and the economy. And the environment. And war.

Look. There is no doubt left. Zero. None. Even many high-ranking
Republicans are deeply worried over the increasingly embittered
national timbre regarding BushCo's lies, as reflected in his
ever-slipping ratings and declining reelectability quotient and his
smug little smirky emptiness.

Do you need to be reminded? Do you need to see it again?

Very good, then. Let us recap: No WMDs. Biggest joke on the American
public in the past 50 years. Saddam doesn't have 'em, and probably
never did. Over 1,400 of BushCo's own investigators and specialists
and scientists -- affectionately known as the Iraq Survey Group --
canvassing postwar Iraq for six months, not to mention the teams of
original U.N. investigators, and finding not a trace of anything
resembling huge stockpiles of massive scary weaponry.

Which is to say, no nukes. No biotoxins. No big cannons full of scary
Korans and rusty bullets and old gum. Nothing at all resembling what
Condi Rice and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfowitz, et al., said were
absolutely positively no question going to be found any day now
because after all that's why we went to war. Except that it wasn't.
And they knew it.

To paraphrase The Washington Post: Among the judgments of the
above-mentioned Iraq Survey Group, as overseen by David Kay, who
reports directly to CIA Director George Tenet, are these: Iraq's
nuclear-weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after
1991. Also, all those facilities with suspicious new construction
(remember Colin "Emasculated" Powell's bogus satellite photos?) proved
benign, and of no military use whatsoever.

[Most of tirade snipped]

Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!

It's a good thing Saddam is gone.

But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will
become a rogue nation.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...


It's a good thing Saddam is gone.


Is he gone?

October 31, 2003
U.S. Officials See Hussein's Hand in Attacks on Americans in Iraq
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Saddam Hussein may be playing a significant role in
coordinating and directing attacks by his loyalists against American forces
in Iraq, senior American officials said Thursday.

The officials cited recent intelligence reports indicating that Mr. Hussein
is acting as a catalyst or even a leader in the armed opposition, probably
from a base of operations near Tikrit, his hometown and stronghold. A
leadership role by Mr. Hussein would go far beyond anything previously
acknowledged by the Bush administration, which has sought in its public
remarks to portray the former Iraqi leader as being on the run and
irrelevant.

Officials acknowledged that the reports of a significant role by Mr. Hussein
could not be corroborated, and one senior official cautioned that recent
intelligence reports contained conflicting assessments.

Nonetheless, three senior officials described reports of a larger role by
Mr. Hussein as credible, and a Defense Department official said the
information had given a fresh sense of urgency to the American-led manhunt
for the former Iraqi leader.

"There are some accounts that say he is somehow instigating or fomenting
some of the resistance," a second American official said of the intelligence
reports.

Baghdad, meanwhile, was unnerved Thursday by more explosions and a terrorist
threat against schoolchildren.

Mr. Hussein is believed to have met with Izzat Ibrahim, an Iraqi general who
was officially the second highest ranking member of the Iraqi government at
the time of the invasion, and who is described by American officials as
playing a significant role in the insurgency.

General Ibrahim, who is No. 6 on the American most-wanted list, has been
described by some Defense Department officials as having recently been in
contact with members of Ansar al-Islam, a militant group that had been based
in northern Iraq before the American-led invasion and which is linked to Al
Qaeda.

Such contacts would be the clearest evidence to date of coordination between
forces loyal to Mr. Hussein and members of the extremist group in the
campaign against American forces in Iraq. But one senior American official
said Thursday that while General Ibrahim was clearly playing a role in
coordinating attacks by those loyal to Mr. Hussein, it was much less clear
whether he had been in contact with Ansar al-Islam.

For more than six months, Bush administration officials have been saying
they believe Mr. Hussein is spending nearly all of his time trying to evade
detection by the American-led forces. During his time in hiding, Mr. Hussein
has issued at least five audio recordings that have served as calls to arms.
But American officials have sought to discount the idea that he is playing
anything more than a symbolic role in inspiring opposition to the American
occupation.

But over the last month or two, the senior American officials said, there
have been increasing signs that his role may well be more significant. Two
officials said there were indications that, in addition to meeting with
subordinates to discuss the armed opposition, Mr. Hussein may be playing a
role in bringing together different factions of loyalists involved in the
attacks.

Some of the meetings may have been conducted in moving cars to avoid
detection by United States forces, one American official said.

"Everyone has always recognized that it's important to get Saddam," the
Defense Department official said. "But with these continued reports that
Saddam may be behind some of the attacks, or coordinating them or leading
them, there's now a military reason as well."

Sunni Muslim Iraqis loyal to Mr. Hussein are thought to make up the
overwhelming majority of the forces arrayed against the American occupation.
In recent weeks the insurgents have attacked United States forces two dozen
or more times times a day. More American soldiers have been killed in
attacks in Iraq since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major
combat, than during the six weeks of fighting that followed the invasion.

Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, asked Thursday night on
"The Charlie Rose Show" whether Mr. Hussein was coordinating attacks in
Iraq, said, "It's a little hard to tell. Once in a while there are rumors
that he is somehow involved in coordinating attacks." Ms. Rice said she
wondered how much of a role Mr. Hussein could play, given that he was
"saving his own skin."

A senior Congressional official said that the growing Iraqi resentment
against the American occupation may be becoming a more important factor than
any role played by Mr. Hussein, because "people are not fighting for Saddam;
they are fighting against the Americans, and against the occupation."

Several hundred American commandos and intelligence officers have been
involved in the search for Mr. Hussein and his confederates, mostly focusing
on the region near Tikrit. Mr. Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were tracked
down and killed this summer in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. From a list
of 55 Iraqis most wanted by the United States in the immediate aftermath of
the invasion, Mr. Hussein and 11 others remain at large.

It was not until June, more than two months after Mr. Hussein was toppled,
that Bush administration officials began to acknowledge that he had almost
certainly survived the invasion and two American attempts to kill him during
that conflict. In early summer, the Central Intelligence Agency confirmed
that an audiotape broadcast on Arabic-language television stations almost
certainly included the voice of Mr. Hussein, and since then American
officials have acknowledged that he is still alive and in Iraq.

On July 2, Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Hussein was "no longer a threat to the
United States, because we removed him." In more recent remarks, including
those at a fund-raising event on Oct. 8, Mr. Bush has been proclaiming that
Mr. Hussein is "no more," because he is no longer in power.

In Baghdad on Oct. 8, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top American
commander in Iraq, said of Mr. Hussein "that he's hiding and running away
constantly from the relentless hunt that we are on to find him, capture him,
kill him." But in comments little-noticed at the time, General Sanchez went
on to say: "Could he be a part of the attacks? He could."

Is he gone?


My theory?

He's in storage, along with OBL. I'm sure we know where he is, within a 3 meter
radius, at all times.

It would be silly to eliminate either one of them at this point. There's an
election coming up next year. If GWB isn't doing very well about mid-October
next year, watch for one of these guys to be taken out. If that doesn't do the
trick, the other could follow close behind. Remember how Bush's approval rating
shot up to 80-some percent just after we invaded Iraq? About 35 or 40 points
higher than current ratings.
We can be sure the Bush Ad hasn't forgotten, either.

If Bush seems to maintain a comfortable lead in the polls, SH and OBL may be
safe for a while. They serve a purpose by living:
"The threat is still out there! We can't start all over with a new
administration!"

Sorry if that sounds cynical. It is. I don't put any sort of skullduggery or
dirty tricks past politicians in general. Anybody who lived through the 60's
knows that politicians can be willing and able to accept American military
casualties as part of the price of politics.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Anybody who lived through the 60's
knows that politicians can be willing and able to accept American military
casualties as part of the price of politics.

Sometimes, they even accept non-military casualties. I don't recall Nixon
saying much of anything in the way of comforting words for the families of
those kids at Kent State.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...

Sorry if that sounds cynical. It is. I don't put any sort of skullduggery or
dirty tricks past politicians in general.

Well said and, an interesting "theory" you have there. Nothing these
dirty rotten scumbags, Rep or Dem, do surprises me.

I figured they (GB11) would have had the CIA plant some WMD's to be
"found" by now. If for no other reason than to make the chief LW
puppeteers dream up another "song & dance" for their legions of
mindless marionettes to endlessly "share" with us here on rec.boats.

Anybody who lived through the 60's knows that politicians
can be willing and able to accept American military casualties
as part of the price of politics.

"I will not send American boys to fight what is a Vietnamese
boys fight"(or words to that effect)-Lyndon Baines Johnson

+58,000 dead
+304,000 wounded

If I ever have the extreme misfortune of winding up in Johnson City,
TX I'm going to make it a point to take a **** on his grave.
--
SJM

Gould 0738 wrote:
Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!


It's a good thing Saddam is gone.

But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will
become a rogue nation.



Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper
inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (&
little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to
protect our citizens from terrorist attacks.


I can't believe you would want to risk another 911??? Bali?? & maybe
countries will now react differently when you express concerns, they
surely won't just thumb their noses at you Saddam style after this. "If"
they really are not a threat to our citizens then they'll have no
objections to allowing confirmation. UN or other who cares just so long
as there's no risk or perceived risk to us.

Truth is you just want a change of Govt, that's good stuff & fair
enough, but don't loose sight of the realities that the dems would have
done probably the exact same thing; as they should to protect you
against danger.


K

K Smith wrote:

Gould 0738 wrote:
Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!


It's a good thing Saddam is gone.

But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will
become a rogue nation.



Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper
inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (&
little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to
protect our citizens from terrorist attacks.


Unlikely. After all, you're still running free and loose in Australia,
Karen Elizabeth Smith.

K Smith wrote in message ...
Gould 0738 wrote:
Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!


It's a good thing Saddam is gone.

But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will
become a rogue nation.



Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper
inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (&
little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to
protect our citizens from terrorist attacks.

What "terrorist attacks" was Saddam planning? What "terrorist attacks"
against us did he try?


I can't believe you would want to risk another 911???

What evidence do you have that Saddam was even considering something
like that? You are getting Iraq and Afghanistan confused. Afghanistan
is the one we blew to hell, and after telling everyone that we would
clean up the mess, never did.


Truth is you just want a change of Govt, that's good stuff & fair
enough, but don't loose sight of the realities that the dems would have
done probably the exact same thing; as they should to protect you
against danger.

I would hope that if someone else were in the White House, dem or
repub that they would have handled things differently. I'm ashamed
that my country made such idiotic statements such as "either you are
with us, or against us".