Some quotes that people are forgeting about.....

[Tom]

Does/Did Iraq have WMD?
Let's see what some well know people had to day about that....



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"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

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 .. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS AND PRESS SAY BUSH LIED? Maybe
it was a lie, or just bad advice, or a bad choice of words; but I DON'T BLAME HIM FOR THE ACTION HE TOOK! It needed to be done and was, and I hope that we stay the course.

Seems like eeryone is forgetting what they said about Iraq before the war. Maybe they will reminded during the deom debate this Thurday.

[kenwoodallpromos]

No quotes from Hussein during the war stating he will authorize his artillery to fire chemical weopons, which he did say? I hear bananas are good for the memory!!

[Lefty]

Good going, Tom. No doubt in my mind if Gore had been elected and had done exactly the same thing as Bush has done and we were in Exactly the same place, all the didssenter's on Demo side would be bragging what a great job that was being done.

What's not reported is we've been there about 6 months and have already accomplished things that took 2-3 yrs in Germany and Japan.

[bettheoverlay]

Just about every major city in Germany was levelled to the ground by the end of WW2. And don't forget we dropped two weapons of mass destruction on Japan. Don't understand that analogy at all.

[Lefty]

The point is the positive things are not being reported by the leftwing media, to hear and read these biased people everything in Iraq is a disaster. And this is exactly why rightwing radio and now, the Fox network on TV has flourished.

[Tom]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
No quotes from Hussein during the war stating he will authorize his artillery to fire chemical weopons, which he did say? I hear bananas are good for the memory!!

But be careful of those darned peels......you could slip and hurt yourself! :p

[boxcar]

Great stuff, Tom! More positive proof heaped on top of many things I have provided in the past that clearly illustrates what lying, hypocritical, slime sucking bottom feeders the Libs, generally, are!

In fact, just tonight on the Brit Hume show on FNC, he provided some cute pre-presidential hopeful quotes from Gen. Wes wherein the good General was heaping praise on the Bush Admin. for the quality of its makeup and handling of the Iraqi crisis. But of course now, he's talking out of of the other side of his yap, since he has decided to throw his hat into the presidential race.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I had hoped that, in conclusion of his speech before the UN General Assembly this week, Bush would have turned his back, dropped his pants, and mooned the whole bunch of losers and said something like "Kiss my bunker busters!"

[formula_2002]

"Seems like eeryone is forgetting what they said about Iraq before the war. Maybe they will reminded during the deom debate this Thurday."

The guy I and no one will forget it the that pushed the button, all by himself.

"bring 'em on", "smoke 'em out", Bush.

A horrific miss-use of our men, women and technology and $$$$$.

Joe M

[Tom]

Gee, that's not what all those quotes say.
That's not what congress said.
That's not what the AMerican people said.
I don't know what amzes me more aobut democrates...thier selective memories or thier imunity to facts.

You know who I never forgot?
This big mouth, bloated, bottom efeeder, Ted Kennedy, who has lived off his dead brothers laurels for years and let a girl drown befcase hhe was a snivlelling yellow coward more concerned with his image than her life. This bag of doggie doo doo belongs in jail, not the senate. that he has the gaul to criticize Bush is digusting-like finding out cockroaches can talk!

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
This bag of doggie doo doo belongs in jail, not the senate. that he has the gaul to criticize Bush is digusting-like finding out cockroaches can talk!

Amen Brother!

[hcap]

Sorry Tom

You are buying into a story that deserves some counterpoint.
WMD's are seriously in question.
Preliminary reports from the David Kay investigation show zilch.

And here's a perplexing question for you
Considering the constant prewar flights over Iraq, the constant surveilance by satelite,
and comments from the administration about knowing where they kept their WMD stash, how come we have done so poorly in finding anything.

Here's some background
from
Shifting Reasons
By Thomas Walker

"On March 30, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that "we know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." The President assured us on the 17th of that same month that there was "no doubt" the Iraqi regime at that time possessed some of the "most lethal weapons ever devised" (weapons that could have been effectively used against an invading army, but, for some bizarre reason, were not). Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark spoke to the press of a "number of sites" that contained these weapons.

The Administration was absolute in its conviction. General Tommy Franks: "There is no doubt that the regime…has WMDs, and…[they] will be identified." Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adleman: "I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." And so it goes. In summary, speaking of WMDs, we knew that "big stores" of them were located in a "number of sites" in the "area around Tikrit and Baghdad" and that they would "be identified."

Of course when the the WMD's were not forthcoming a little "revisionist history" begins to creep in.

"On May 4, the tone began to change. Rumsfeld, in an interview with FOX news, said that we never believed that "we’d just tumble over WMDs" in Iraq. Condoleeza Rice parroted the same excuse for the tardiness in finding the weapons in a Reuters interview when she said that "U.S. officials never expected that 'we were just going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction." I don't believe anyone ever expected that to happen, of course, but I did believe, as many people even among the war supporters believed, they would have found something - anything - at that point. Lt. Gen. James Conway of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force said that "it was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons…in some of the forward dispersal sites." He told the reporters, "Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying."

It would seem to me, as it would seem to most rational people, that the most technologically advanced, best trained army on the planet could have found weapons "we knew" were in “"the area around Tikrit and Baghdad," two cities roughly 125 miles apart; it would seem that we would could have found them with relative ease, especially considering we knew of a "number of sites," and that there were "big stores of WMDs" in Iraq. No, Secretary Rumsfeld, I don't expect you to just stumble over the WMDs, and no Ms. Rice, I don't expect you to just open a garage and find them, but I don't expect you to have a difficult time finding "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent," either. Like Lt. Gen. Conway, I must say, I was surprised.

And then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz started talking. He told Vanity Fair that "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." That's right: they chose a single issue to push as a reason for invading the nation of Iraq "for bureaucratic reasons."

And Tom, although you quoted people outside the Bush administration here are two within:

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."



The other main component of how we were suckered into this war, was the alledged
and implied connection of Saddam to 9/11, and the TERRORist threat Iraq WAS.

Special attention to item(2)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH


Chenny brought this up again on Meet The Press.
He tried to restore legitimacy to the invasion and occupation by resurrecting the discounted claim that top 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent five months before the attacks.

Cheney said the invasion "struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush and his administration, however have begun to "disavow" and are trying to wiggle out

ON THE ASSUMPTION that America is thoroughly brainwashed, President Bush said with no hint of shame, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September the 11th."
National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either . . . direction or control of 9/11."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say" that Saddam Hussein was tied to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


Now on a lighter note.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/09/23/rtr1089663.html


" Data from Nielsen Media Research released Tuesday showed that a one-hour interview with President Bush on Fox came dead last in the hour among the six major broadcast television networks in both total viewers and audiences aged 18 to 49.

The results showed the Bush interview, conducted by Fox News chief correspondent Brit Hume from the Oval Office of the White House, drew an average of about 4.30 million viewers in the hour, with a 1.6 rating and a 5 share in the crucial audience of adults ages 18 to 49.

In Nielsen terms, 1 ratings point equals 1 percent of homes that own television sets, while each share point represents 1 percent of the TVs actually in use to watch programming at a given time."


Bumper Sticker ideas for the GOP for 2004:

Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!
Bush/Cheney '04: Assimilate. Resistance is Futile.
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: In your heart, you know they're technically correct.
Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind
Bush/Cheney '04: Making the! world a better place, one country at a time.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The economy's stupid!
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!
Bush/Cheney '04: We're Gooder!
Don't think. Vote Bush!
George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency
George W. Bush: It takes a village idiot
George W. Bush: Leadership without a doubt
George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There
Let them eat yellowcake! Vo! te Bush!
Vote Bush in '04: It's a no-brainer!
Vote for Bush & You Get Dick!
Vote Bush in '04: "I Has Incumbentory Advantitude"

[Tom]

My post is not about whether or not WMD existed or not - it is about what people said about them. And are now conveniently changing thier stories. Which I believe is the very foundation of the DNC.

[hcap]

My post is about how we were lied to.

To use one semi failed pollitical party to support another totally failed poltical party, is missing the point.

The dems are certainly guilty of being spineless hacks, but BUSH DRAGGED us into this war.

Remember the imminent threat?
How about the unmanned Iraqi drones?
Turned out to be made of balsa wood.
Or what about the mobile weapons lab that Bush proclaimed was proof of Saddam's WMDS.
Turns out they produce hydrogen gas for weather ballons.

Well now we have the latest Bush anti-terrorist strategy. The grand "flypaper" doctrine which states our invasion of Iraq is pulling them in in droves. Not flies but terrorists, and it's better we hunt them down over there, then perchance they fly their balsa wood fighters over here and we have a mess of trouble.

Meanwhile where's Osama and his crew? Maybe his robe or turban will get caught in the flypaper? You think?

I guess it is always good to have a fallback position

:)

[bettheoverlay]

The President is the Commander in Chief and makes the decision to send young people into the line of fire. If Americans ultimately perceive this Iraqi occupation as a costly mistake, its the President that will bear the responsibility, whatever other people might have said. I think its becoming clear that there never was firm evidence of current WMDS, it was mostly assumptions made from anecdotal testimony. The President didn't make it sound like that in his year long campaign to get Americans to support the invasion and he will have to pay something of a cost in credibility because of that decision. I thought he often looked uncomfortable whenever he was asked a question that pursued his stance on the imminent threat that Saddam posed to the US. At the very least the Administration has been all over the map on these issues.

I was talking to my neighbor who is a conservative Republican, but something of an independent thinker, doesn't listen to the right wing talk shows, isn't therefore spouting the Rush spin, doesn't adopt the chest thumping attitude that I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, doesn't hero worship the President, actually believes that a guy he voted for might occasionally make a mistake in judgement. In other words a regular guy who is fun to talk to even if we disagree. And probably more indicative of Republicans at large than the strident posters on internet forums. And he is deeply disturbed by the Presidents performance. He will no doubt vote for him again as I don't think he has ever voted for a Democrat. But I would assume from his feelings that the President is in deep trouble with independents.

[Lefty]

This war was not totally based on Iraq having WMD's and the Dems know it. It was largely based on the fact that Iraq broke every U.N. resolution and that weak-kneed organization did nothing about it. It was based on the fact that Sadaam, if left alone would be a large threat to the U.S. and this was a pre-emptive strike as much as anything and it also served to warn N. Korea and Iran and others this was a President who would not be pushed around and who would act with the full force of military might to protect this great country. If you didn't get that then you've just been listening to Demo soundbites.

[bettheoverlay]

I listen to Dem sound bites and Rep sounds bites, but as little as possible, as I regard both as predictable spins on whatever ideological base their coming from. I am suspicious of all ideologies as I believe they imprison the mind to any hope of understanding.

[BillW]

Originally posted by bettheoverlay
I listen to Dem sound bites and Rep sounds bites, but as little as possible, as I regard both as predictable spins on whatever ideological base their coming from. I am suspicious of all ideologies as I believe they imprison the mind to any hope of understanding.

Let alone any concern for the welfare of the country!

[hcap]

Originally posted by bettheoverlay

I listen to Dem sound bites and Rep sounds bites, but as little as possible, as I regard both as predictable spins on whatever ideological base their coming from. I am suspicious of all ideologies as I believe they imprison the mind to any hope of understanding.

Right on!

Idealoques have produced more suffering throughout history than all of Bush's "evildoers" .

Whether political, or religous in nature, when one believes "God is on our side",
and takes it as dogmatic truth, the evidence to the contrary is usually ignored or scoffed at. And anyone who may honestly dissagree is marginalized.

The founders of this country brought a series of checks and balances to the forging of our government. They were aware of the mistakes of the Europeon powers and particularly England.

In order to prevent the unjust accumulation of power, no one branch of government was to to be peeminent and no one man was to acquire the rule of king.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

Sorry, but it is difficult NOT to see the Idealoques pushing their version of the truth today. The neocons have had their way recently and many of us are demanding accountability, and questioning motives and competence.

Power accumulates in groups already with power and influence. Whether it is a political group or financial such as the huge multinational corporations, we are at a disadvantage. And when there is a marriage of political and financial power, the individual loses.

I am more of a Libertarian than Democrat, and in theory I would prefer Adam Smith's invisible "hand" guiding just men, but some just men become corrupted and accumulate the ability to unfairly sway our lives.

"To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle"
--George Orwell

[hcap]

Lefty

This war was ORIGINALLY sold as a marketing campaign. Think Madison Avenue, or the multibillion dollar PR industry.

Do you buy every tube of toothpaste or bar of soap with a catchy jingle?

Most of us give the president the benefit of the doubt. I did until things began to break before the war. However I resisted
posting more doubts just after the war started, when our kids were in harms way. Now it is time to question.

In my last few posts months ago, I brought up quagmire, well I bring it up again. The "chickenhawks" have come home to roost.

THE ORIGINAL reasons as we were told were WMDS and terrorist connections to Saddam.

Then liberating the Iraqi people.

Then how evil Saddam was.

Then, well you pick the flavor of the day.

Now, of course after the bottom has fallen out and the "cakewalk" into and liberating Bagdad has come into question, the democrats are making political hay. Just because they are politicians, and have self interests, does not necessarily mean they are wrong.

[Tom]

We did it and it was the right thing to do. The Middle East is better off becasue of what we did to Afghanastan and Iraw , and will be even better off once we do it to Iran and Syria.
I watched some of the demo debate tonight.....all i saw was 10 idiots standing on a stage, and bewteen all 10 of them they did make one George Bush, and I don't particularly like Bush. But next to the Ten Conundrums, he looks better and better. The Rev Al Sharpton? ANY part y that gives the moron any credibility at all is just a total joke. I've seen cub scout packs with more promise that that bunch of losers.

[Lefty]

hcap, blve it's you buying the hype of your lib dems. They all said as Tom has proved that sadaam had WMD's. But the point is we did not go into this war based solely on that. Sadaam kept breaking his word to us by not abiding by the resolutions and he broke, how many? Geo W. held him accountable and damn glad someone did. Keep buying the hapless candidates spin, it's up to you, but the deed's done and Iraq and the world
is better off. Even if he didn't have WMD's and he prob did, but let's assume he didn't; did you really want to wait for him to get hold of a deklivery system to launch his germs at us?
Now it's been revealed they have found empty factories that were constructed for the purpose of fooling the inspectors. Why, if he had nothing to hide?

[JustRalph]

Some Dems are reporting back from a trip to Iraq that the press is wrong on what it is reporting. See the article from yesterday on "thehill.com" which is a paper that covers politics in Washington. It appears that we may be being mislead by a press that doesn't have a story if everything is going well, all things considered. They are damn liars and some Dems are even talking about it. See below:

After reading this article, ask yourself why you haven't heard about this groups report on any of the major networks? We are being deceived by the press and Dem Congressmen are shouting it from the roof tops. Think about that before you make any substantial judgements.

Press slants Iraq news: Members
By Hans Nichols

Journalists are giving a slanted and unduly negative account of events in Iraq, a bipartisan congressional group that has just returned from a three-day House Armed Services Committee visit to assess stabilization efforts and the condition of U.S. troops said.

Lawmakers charged that reporters rarely stray from Baghdad and have a “police-blotter” mindset that results in terror attacks, deaths and injuries displacing accounts of progress in other areas.

Comparisons with Vietnam were farfetched, members said.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the committee’s ranking member, said, “The media stresses the wounds, the injuries, and the deaths, as they should, but for instance in Northern Iraq, Gen. [Dave] Petraeus has 3,100 projects — from soccer fields to schools to refineries — all good stuff and that isn’t being reported.”

Skelton and other Democrats on the trip said they plan to reach out to all members of their caucus and explain what they observed.

The seven member congressional delegation (Codel) was briefed by U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer; Maj. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, overall commander of military forces in Iraq; and Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division.

The lawmakers said they worry that the overall negative tone of American press outlets’ reports did not do justice to the progress being made by an occupying force reconstructing a country after years of neglect and in the face of remaining hostile elements that profited under the old regime.

Skelton also trained his sights on the administration for its postwar policy. Joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at a Democratic press conference, Skelton said, “Failure is not an option.”

He warned that should the reconstruction effort fail, Iraq would become “a snake pit, a haven for terrorists.”

Skelton also demanded that the administration’s supplemental spending request receive hearings in his authorizing committee as well as in the Appropriations Committee.

But Skelton tempered his dire warnings with anecdotal evidence that progress is being made on the ground. He said he was impressed with the flexibility and innovative spirit of the American forces, as they shift their strategy from defeating the Ba’athist regime to earning the trust of the population.

It is precisely that innovative spirit, Skelton said, that gives him hope that Iraq will be stabilized. “Foreign troops would not have that kind of improvisation,” Skelton said.

Another member of the delegation, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), agreed that the stabilization effort is making headway. “In fairness, the war is neither going as well as the administration says it’s going or as badly as the media says it is going,” Taylor said.

Republicans were left out of the press conference, but they stressed that they shared their Democratic counterparts’ assessments about the bravery of the troops and the innovative programs, especially in the northern part of the country.

Democrats concurred that the delegation of Armed Services Committee members was a model of harmony and bipartisan consensus. “We agreed on 99 percent of what we saw,” Skelton told The Hill.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said: “We were all like-minded in our conversations, not robotic at all, but we saw the real progress that is being made, that we are not at all mired.”

Wilson, once a print reporter, strongly criticized the balance of his former profession’s story selection. “Sure, show the bloody side, but get away from this police-blotter mindset. There’s much more going on, ” he said.

“Just on Friday, I heard a CBS radio report on the three deaths and then they had this analysis that just bordered on the hysterical,” Wilson said.

Adding, “CBS got it exactly wrong, the media portrayed it as an act of sophistication and a regrouping of Saddam’s forces, when in fact, it’s an indication of disorganization and desperation.”

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) explained that the longer he was in Iraq, the more skeptical he became of his previous assumptions.

Some of the media reports led him to believe that “it was Vietnam revisited,” he said. But he said there was “a disconnect between the reporting and the reality.”

Marshall also claimed that there now are only 27 reporters in Iraq, down from 779 at the height of the war. “The reporters that are there are all huddled in a hotel. They are not getting out and reporting,” he told The Hill.

He added, “The good news is not being reported in the conventional press.”

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), noting that the reconstruction effort includes over 6,000 projects, said, “The positive nature of that is just not being reported back here.

“We came away with the realization that a lot of the debate back here is really irrelevant.”

Reps. John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) also were on the trip.

[hcap]

Tom

I have to congratulate you.
You have without a doubt finally posted the TRUTH of the decade.

"10 idiots standing on a stage, and bewteen all 10 of them they did make one George Bush"

I was wondering how many idiots it DID take.

[hcap]

Ralph

I appreciate your premise that the news might be slanted, and that you did NOT use FOX as a source.
I totally agree. But different groups slant different ways. The hunt is for NO slant, and the problem of finding the truth is really one of the most importants issue facing us. Garbage in, garbage out.

Generally the groups with the strongest connections to the current defacto rulers have the most direct and indirect sway over public opinion. And the boys with the most bucks and most Public Relation toys-win the tug of war for the "group mind"

You know I could find a dozen legitimate sources taking a VERY opposite view then thehill.com, but instead I want to open the discussion to include a broader view of how the mainstream media shirks its responsibilities.

As I mentioned after months and months of alledging and implyng the connection of Saddam to 9/11, - All is "disavowed".

How did the press handle this?
I mean after 70% of America had bought this line, you would think this a major admission by the administration .

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/columnists/ny-livit253468124sep25,0,2654930.column?coll=ny-li-columnists

For Bush, Truth Is Buried
September 25, 2003

The Washington Post ran the story on page 18, The New York Times on page 22, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post not at all last Friday, according to Editor & Publisher, the weekly magazine of the newspaper industry.

It was a story contradicting what almost 70 percent of Americans are said to believe about the metaphysics of Sept. 11 - namely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved.

Yet USA Today ran it on page 16.

Debunking this misperception was President George W. Bush himself, one of the people most responsible for planting it in Americans' heads in the first place: On that day, Bush said unequivocally - for the first time - that there was "no evidence" linking Hussein to the attacks.

He said this in answer to questions about a statement made by Vice President Dick Cheney the previous Sunday on a TV news show. Cheney had said it was "not surprising" that almost 70 percent of the American people still believed Hussein had a role in Sept. 11.

"If we're successful in Iraq," he said, keeping the 70 percent perception afloat for at least another day, "then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

A few days later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld clarified matters a little - at least speaking for himself - saying, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

And the next day, Bush made his admission: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," he said, though ever loath to give up a good thing, he added "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Newsday ran a story on Bush's remarks on page 41. The New York Daily News had it on page 14. Of the top-circulation newspapers in the country, only the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Dallas Morning News ran reports on their front pages, according to E&P magazine, whose story on this phenomenon was headlined "Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play."

As one who hears regularly from people on both sides of this confusing issue - those who claim the media are apologists for Bush and those who claim the media are Bush-bashers - I would hereby like to admit that I see opportunities for Bush-bashing about 1,225 times more often than I see actual Bush-bashing in the media.

Another case in point: The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said recently he thought Iraq probably destroyed its weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War in 1991, just as Hussein had said all along.

Iraq's alleged weapons possession was the ostensible reason Bush gave for launching the war in Iraq. Since the end of the war, no weapons have been found, though we have teams of people searching for them still.

But here was an eye-opening statement by Blix, a man with some expertise on the question. Not only was he inclined to believe there were no weapons, he said this: "What worries me is the questionable honesty of a government that publicly presents certain arguments but privately has different thoughts." He said the U.S. government "has the tendency to reach hasty conclusions."

These remarks were reported, though sparingly. Newspapers, including this one, carried accounts in their back pages. None of these accounts was headlined "Reason for War Debunked."

"Wag the Dog," was a movie about how easy it is to whip up patriotric frenzy, but this isn't "Wag the Dog" anymore. This is putting the dog, which is us, to sleep.


Ralph I think we have to look other places to find out what's happening-problem is much of it is junk and can't be accepted without a careful examination.

[Lefty]

Yeah, hcap, you libs don't like Fox do you? Because it's the only network that presents both sides. Allen Combs is a lib but I have more respect for his demeanor and style than any lib masking himself as a reporter on the big 3 networks and CNN.

[hcap]

Lefty

I really doubt you read anything I post other than certain trigger words that immediately cause you to respond with a few general remarks.

Anything anti-FOX(faux), Rush, Bush, or Republican sets you off and you respond with a few tired jabs.

What would Polti think of your incoherent style? Oh wait, I get it your last crack was one of his 63 plots.

By the way does he write for FOX?
Maybe he does O'Reilys witty comebacks to Al Franken? Or maybe Fauxs' press release when they tried to sue?
:)

[Tom]

Sadaam is out of power, his murdering bastard sons are dead, most of his cohorts are in custody and the peopl eof Iraq are free and have a chance that they would never have had under a murdering tyrant. The ends justified the means. Whatever it takes. Time to move on. We have many, many more tyrants to kill.
"You are either with us or against us."
There is no ambiguity in that statement.
Eventually, they will get the message.
Or we will kill them.
Whatever......

[Lefty]

hcap, yes you are hard to read and everything you write is a criticism of the most honest and best pres since Reagan. You like most libs have a selective memory and like to spin spin spin. As I and others have written over and over EVERYBODY was in agreement that Saadam had to be deposed. EVERYBODY said he had WMD's. But you libs only remember GW saying it. That's so selective it's scary. Now the latest puppet on the Dem's campaign trail is giving Bush hell about the war and the tax cuts. Yet this same guy, Wesley Clark, praised Bush and his entire administration in 2001 AFTER the tax cuts had been announced. Now that he's decided he's a Dem he's conviently forgotten all that.
You keep posting the hate against this pres and he will still tirelessly work to make sure this country stays great and free. He will not be stayed from his course.
BTW, Polti only had 36 plots.
There ya go.

[JustRalph]

Don't ignore the statements of the Dem Congressmen in the article and the report they delivered. That was the most important point of the article. We can argue about who has an agenda and who doesn't until the cows come home. But don't miss the above. It is important.

I am pretty well pissed at just about all news nowadays and just don't have the stomach for it right now.

I have one more day of work left, two days in Vegas and then I pack up and move back to Ohio. A glorious week of driving 2300 miles with the family pets and my brother in law in an RV. He is coming along to help drive. The nice part is a brand new house, well it's a year old, and my wife await at the end of the line. The fact that I will be seeing California in my rear view mirror sometime next Thursday night will be nice. I mean the "state" of the state is why I am glad to be moving. I paid 2.17 a gallon for
gas today and the wife paid 1.37 in Columbus yesterday.

California has to be the most beautiful state in the nation (and I have seen most of them) But it sure is screwed up. I am not even going to fill out an absentee ballot for the crazy election. Arnold and the rest won't have much affect on me in about a weeks time.

I will be going offline probably tomorrow night, or maybe Monday. Won't be back online until around October 23rd or so. I have a cable modem coming that day. Right after the cruise to Mexico.... it is going to be some kind of month. Be good guys...... Oh yeah.....I found time to play a couple races tonight and cashed a little baby superfecta at Turfway for 4 hundred and some. There, I actually talked about racing for the first time in a few weeks.

Have fun guys..........

[freeneasy]

no, the only ones that had to be dragged unwillingly into this war were those that had second thoughts or were second guessing the direct and unmistakeable intention of 9/11. and if you or anybody else didnt get the message of 9/11, then my friend you have caught the slow boat to china

[hcap]

Tom
Sadaam is out of power, his murdering bastard sons are dead, most of his cohorts are in custody and the peopl eof Iraq are free and have a chance that they would never have had under a murdering tyrant. The ends justified the means. Whatever it takes. Time to move on. We have many, many more tyrants to kill.
Tom
This has got to be the looniest thing I have seen you post
Forgetting about the ethical argument about "the ends justifies
the means" for now, mostly because we were NOT in desperate enough situation
to possibly consider it-let's just look at the ENDS here.

The ENDS or the benefits of this war WERE supposed to be:

1) Removal of WMDS and the prevention of proliferatian of same
a-If there were WMDS, where are they now? Syria, Al Queda?, Pakistan?
therefore this "benefit" failed misserably.
b-If there were no WMDS, this whole argument is as Gilda Ratner used to say "NEVER MIND"

2) Remove the terrorists from the region, and particularly from Iraq.
a-If there were Al Queda and other terrorists groups in Iraq before the
war, there are a hell of a lot more after the war,therefore this "benefit"
failed misserably.
b-If there were no Al Queda and other terrorists groups in Iraq before the
war, see 1b.
3) Regime change.
Well, I'll give you this one Tom, no doubt Saddan is out,except this justification
did not become a justification untill 1) amd 2) were not enough to hoodwink the
American people.

[Tom]

I am an American people and I do not consider myself to have been hoodwinked.

As far as Afghanisan and Iraq are concerned.....
NEXT!

[hcap]

What about 1 and 2?

Or should we just assume everything were told is just hunky-dory? I'm suprised that a cynic such as yourself would not at least begin to wonder.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not get pissed when It became evident the EPA bullshitted New Yorkers back to work, getting the wall street workers, fireman and police to believe all was well. The fact that the white house pulled the strings should tell you something about the character of this administration.

You know fear is a powerfull means of control.

[Tom]

I think the WMD are hidden somewhere within Iraq and will be found. If not, they either never existed and MANY people were wrong about them (I don't think so) otr they were indeed moved to another enemy nation (Which is why I say...NEXT!).

Yeah, I was/am disgusted that the EPA was forced to lie. It tells me nothing about the administration I didn't already know. All of our government is corrupt and beholding to lobbyists - fact of life.
The difference here is that Bush is out there destroying our enemies while other administrations were content to get hemmers and occasionally "shoot" off a missle or two.
If Clinton had invaded Iraq, Iran, Afghanastan, whatever, I would have supported him even though I disliked him.

[Lefty]

Hey libs, tell you what... I'm going to hide a bowling ball in Las Vegas and you guys come and see how long it takes to find it.
Now it comes out today that Sadaam's people were lying to him about having the nuke prgm ready to go. If even Sadaaam was hoodwinked no wonder the intelligence was.
And why don't you libs count chemical and bilological weapons wmd's? We sure as hell know Sadaam had them.
BTW, i'm sicjk as hell abouthearing about WMD's. The main reason for the war was Sadaam's refusal to adhere to the resolutions he had agreed to. But you libs conveniently overlook that little factoid.
As Tom and Goldburg say, "NEXT"
And as GWB says, "Bring 'em on."

[hcap]

Lefty

It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

"Hey libs, tell you what... I'm going to hide a bowling ball in Las Vegas and you guys come and see how long it takes to find it."

Tell you what, hide it in the white house and see how long it takes GWB to find it.

" Now it comes out today that Sadaam's people were lying to him about having the nuke prgm ready to go. If even Sadaaam was hoodwinked no wonder the intelligence was."

If Saddams' people lied to him, and you think that explains how we made our intelligence mistakes Bush should fire Saddams intel people instead of ours.

[bettheoverlay]

I was sick of hearing about the WMDs before the war began, as that was the continual justification every member of the Bush administration gave for going to war. Whenever a difficult question was asked about the imminent threat that Saddam posed to the US, the rote response was WMDs. It seemed highly exaggerated and disingenous to me. And now that reason doesn't seem to matter. Lets just forget about it.

I think that it is a reasonable point of view to consider the whole war as 200 billion dollars of welfare given to the Iraqi people from hard working American taxpayers. The war was undeniably in the Iraqi people's interest. The question is whether it was actually in American interests.

And will the Iraqis ultimately appreciate our welfare? When given the freedom to vote for a government, will they choose secular leaders, or leaders who wish to set up an Islamic state that will probably end up anti-American?

[Lefty]

hcap, and the rest of you libs, it's time to put some music to the same old lyrics you keep repeating.
I'll start: "hmmmm, hmmmm, ok, "Bush is liar and Clinton was great.
Meanie old Bush kills terrorists and Clinton got ate."

[netherworld]

Originally posted by Tom
I am an American people and I do not consider myself to have been hoodwinked.


Now I know that photo is you!

[ljb]

I have been out of these debates for some time now. But with hcap, netherworld and others joining amazin, there appears to be some form of intelligent life here after all. If i find the time, i may just get back in the fray.
ljb ;)

[Lefty]

welcome back. Your clone's already here resurrecting some of your old liberal crap. There's always been intelligent life, i.e. Tom, Just Ralph, Boxcar, SO. Cal Fanand many many others.
As Al Bundy used to say, "Let's Rock."

[ljb]

Lefty,
I see nothings changed, you still don't get it.;)

[hcap]

Lefty

Al Bundy also used to stick his hand down his pants and work in a shoe store for minimum wage.

Or when you quoted him did you confuse Bundy with Bush?

Ya know, "Bring 'em on'?:)

[hcap]

Lefty? Righty?

Your ode
hcap, and the rest of you libs, it's time to put some music to the same old lyrics you keep repeating.
I'll start: "hmmmm, hmmmm, ok, "Bush is liar and Clinton was great.
Meanie old Bush kills terrorists and Clinton got ate."
Mine

There once was a preznit named Bush
Whose head was stuck in his tush
The adviser named Rove, who sure ain't a dove, is about to be same as above.

:p

[Tom]

Toga II - we all sit at the same table.
Woo hoo! :eek:

[Lefty]

Hey boys, I get it, but you certainly do not. But i'm tired of repeating myself. No sense going into a battle of wits when you guys are only half armed.
I just guess you guys don't like a Pres that will fight for this country and chase the bad guys to the ends of the earth while at the same time trying to see the american taxpayers get to keep a fair share of their own money. But why do I bother? You're too busy hating Bush to give a rats ass to what happens to the country or anyone.

[doophus]

Originally posted by Tom
Toga II - we all sit at the same table.
Woo hoo! :eek:
I'll bring the Maalox.