Hmmm ...

President Bush is leading the country into disaster through his demonstrable incompetence, as even his supporters now conceed.

Senator Kerry doesn't perform well on TV.

Yeah, that does make things tough.

Will and Buckley are more traditional conservatives who are realists in foreign policy orientation. Will in particular was ambivalent about going into Iraq from the beginning and has never been a particularly strong Bush supporter. He's been saying stuff like this for awhile actually, so it's no surprise. I know less about what Buckley has been writing, but would imagine it was similar. Kagan would seem to be a bigger deal.

No more ties. This country needs a landslide -- either way.

Let's see ...

Nobody's ever heard of that Village Voice dude, and he offered zero rationale for his views, nor any evidence that he was reflecting widespread sentiment.

Kaus, when not offering ill-informed paeans to welfare reform, is a self-hating nutjob who's been obsessed with hating Kerry from the beginning.

John Fund is a rightwing attack pundit and a known liar.

The NYT quoted a bunch of people who are bitter they aren't Kerry staffers.

The NYPost is a crappy rightwing tabloid paper owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Okay, now.

Why is there this obsession with having a "theme?"

I ask this as a serious question.

Governing isn't like writing a term paper. Can anybody point me to any empirical studies of whether having a "theme" benefits people's lives in some way?

I think it's just a media obsession, driven by storytellers who yearn to appreciate the stories concocted by others.

Oh, I get it. Robert Kagan knows exactly how to handle Iraq and the Bush Administration is "clueless." Does he have any evidence for this other than that he disagrees with the administration on arguable points and can name some mistakes the administration has made? And is he content to imply that Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and tens of millions of other Americans are "blindly devoted Bush supporters"? Obviously rubbish.

And Praktike is right, too.

This is hogwash. The carpers should shut their traps and keep to deliberating over what ought to be done. As for the election, elect whoever stands in the best light after those deliberations.

Iraq has been liberated and the potential for a representative government is in the offing, along with the expected bloodshed, atrocities, and goof-ups to which our nature is prone. The notion that the administration is a bunch of f***-ups is obviously false. If someone tells you, "The occupation would have gone real smooth under me, Holmes," he's a charlatan, and either he's so egotistical as to be self-delusional or he's just a liar.

Bush should be voted out of the White House? For what, for being a Republican? I'm glad you don't write about politics much, or if you did I hope you'd put more effort into it than just "I don't like him."

But while nobody who backs John Kerry can come up with any reason to vote FOR him (only reasons not to vote for the President), Bush supporters can come up with plenty of reasons to vote for him. I wonder if that isn't something that really ought to be considered.

Joe...

A landslide won't take away the fact that we're still a 50/50 nation, more polarized than we've ever been in a long long time. If it's a landslide, it'll only be for two reasons:

-One. Because people are resolutely fed up with Dubya and Kerry wins by default. The referendum.

-Or Two. Because people are scared shitless of terrorism and don't trust Kerry to keep them safe. The threshold.

In both scenarios, there is no mandate whatsoever. In both cases, a vote for the winner is merely a vote not for the other guy. We're gonna be the polarized people until something major gives and changes the fundamental political culture. It might just happen when Social Security and Medicare collapse under the weight of the Boomers. Probably not until then, though. It'll take something this major, something that drives out a whole new generation of voters in opposition to the status quo.

Hmm...the referendum. Johannes gets it.

And I can personally think of a million reasons not to vote for George W. Bush.

Only one not to vote for Kerry: I don't trust him to make the big decisions in the War on Terror. I guess that's a pretty big one though, isn't it?

If it were up to John Kerry we'd still have inspectors in Saddam's Iraq and we'd still be waiting for the U.N. to come along with us in pushing for regime change. I doubt Kerry would have bucked the United Nations.

That said, he probably would have done a better job on the reconstruction: More Troops; More Cooperation With Iraqi Power Brokers; Less of an American Face. I just doubt he would of been so bold as to go in in the first place. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I'm glad the conservatives got us in. For the sake of those very same Iraqis, however, I wish to God the liberals could of somehow taken it from there.

Tom: For the sake of the Iraqi people, I'm glad the conservatives got us in. For the sake of those very same Iraqis, however, I wish to God the liberals could of somehow taken it from there.

Maybe that's how it will be. Maybe that's how it should be. But first the liberals need to get enough of a spine to want to see this thing through. Some of them do and some of them don't and I have a problem with that.

Wow, way to piss off everybody all at once, Michael. Personally, I yearn for a reason to vote for either one of them, or anybody else for that matter. Pretty much all I hear from either side is that a vote for the other guy will be a (continuing) disaster, up to and including hysterical and humorous predictions of civil war.

How the hell did a majority of registered Democrats decide that John Kerry was the best candidate?

Christopher, the answer is simple: Bushatred. They hated him so much they completely ignored any moderate Democrats who could have taken the party into the 21st century in a progressive manner. Lieberman. Edwards even. Instead we almost got Howard Dean, a man most eminently unsuitable for the Presidency. And we did eventually get John Effing Kerry, a man who has never betrayed his principles, because he never had any.

On a more serious note Michael, I am taking a wait and see attitude for now. We are in a holding pattern/transitional mode. The real time to make up your mind is after the June 30th power transfer. Anything before then is not terribly important. The prisoner scandal is not as big in Iraq as it is here. We will know how Iraq will turn out not now, but in a few months. Making up your mind before then is simply foolish.

Note: I wasn't calling you a fool Michael, I was referring to those on both sides who reflexively decide things are going bad/good when the truth of the matter is that we can't tell at the moment.

FH,

I know. I'm not making up my mind about anything yet. The funny thing about blogging is that I'm supposed to have an opinion every day, but sometimes I don't know what I think yet. So my thoughts get written down while they're still being processed.

Rumsfeld, for example. Should he stay or should he go? I really don't know. That's not a cop-out. I still need to read and think about it some more. I'm open to persuasion.

Bush has always had his conservative critics, it's just that since they attack him from the conservative side, you don't notice unless it happens to agree with the left. Not knocking you, I tend to ignore when the left disagrees with Nuancy Boy unless it's an area where we agree.

As for the "Kerry Must Go" crowd, I think they are completely deluded. As Kerry-Hater in chief, I doubt anybody will think I'm in favor of Ol' Horseface. But it's way early in the process to be deciding that somebody's bound to lose.

Democrats and the left wing really are charged up about beating Bush. The problem is that they are so charged up that when they see their candidate barely breaking even, or down a few points, they assume he's sunk and want to take another look at the Breck Girl. He should be winning by 100%-0%! (In this sense they remind me of nothing so much as McGoverniks, who thought nobody would vote for Nixon).

"All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."

John Kerry knows what to do--go to the French on his hands and knees and ask for them to like us. I can't imagine anybody thinking that's going to work.

Michael, I really like reading you as you try to make up your mind.

If Clinton's 92 message means anything, "Economy", then Bush should win in a landslide -- AFTER a huge, terrible, dot com bubble and pop (under Clinton), Bush successfully stimulated the economy with both tax cuts & spending increases. As a small gov't libber, I do NOT like the spending increases. Being objective, his economic performance looks like it should be graded: A
Really.

On Iraq, Bush, alone, has the right vision -- bring freedom to Iraqis, stop supporting dictators. Freedom for Iraqis to solve their own problems. There's no guarantee it will happen, and no way to guarantee Iraqis WILL solve their problems -- you can force a kid to go to school, you can't make him learn.

I think he's made reconstruction mistakes, especially of omission, but I'm NOT certain that American action, instead of inaction, is the best way to make the Iraqi people decide to act for themselves.

I challenge you, and anybody, to show a better example of transforming an Arab, Islamic society into a democracy. If you can't, you can't be sure Bush's & Bremer's tactical policy is wrong. Even when I think it is (he needs more local city council elections, etc.), I can't know it for sure (maybe local elections means more radical Islamists win, now).

Bush DOES have lousy PR, and he's not so hot in oratorical ability. Which is more important, policy, or publicity management?

Rumsfeld's military is working. There was abuse. It was investigated. A General was reassigned. In January! A General. That's pretty significant. And further criminal investigations continue. That's the way it's supposed to work, when there's a problem.

Oh wait. An abuse problem. Bush's US military isn't PERFECT, thefore Bush is terrible.

The Bush-hate Perfection standard, with huge publicity at each and every possible flaw, is why you're unsure. The publicity. NOT the acts.

I don't like John Kerry. Put me in at a cocktail party where the groundrules were "don't talk about politics," and I'd go talk to Bush just to avoid ODing on pomposity. George is by far the more likable guy. (At least from what I can tell from his public persona.)

Unfortunately, picking presidents as if they were nominees in a popularity contest has helped us get in the pickle we're in today: far more troops in Iraq than anyone in the administration was predicting a year ago, far more human rights violations by Americans than anyone but the far left predicted, sovereignty plans for Iraq scaled back to the point of being vestigial, and (State's cooked numbers notwithstanding) with more terrorism than last year.

Michael, if you can't find a reason to vote Kerry in, try this little thought experiment:

Let's say Kerry was elected president in 2000. Let's say that in March 2003, he also has us in Iraq. The Red Cross, just as in Spring 2003 of our current reality, go all the way to the top to report that there are abuses "tantamount to torture" going on under American command in Iraq.

What does Kerry do? What's your sense of the man in this situation?

If you can say, "he'd go public with it and get it cleaned up ASAP," that's a reason to vote Kerry in.

Now, admittedly, there's a variable here: Kerry served in Vietnam, then came out against it quite vocally. Bush avoided going, but never vocally opposed it. A Kerry looking at the possibility that something like Abu Ghraib might fester and come to light would understand that such a scenario poses far higher political risks to the presidency. It would seem extremely hypocritical, under the purview of a Vietnam veteran turned Vietnam war resister. People wouldn't be calling for his SecDef's head - they'd be calling for his head. And they'd probably get it.

Bush can seem merely dumb, uninformed, hopelessly optimistic, too gentle a judge of character. Kerry, with experience of genuine evil on the ground in a foreign land, could not. And he knows it.

What's your sense of these two men, on this question?

If we assume that Bush did not hear from ICRC directly in March 2003, nor indirectly, it was because he surrounds himself with people who filter out this kind of bad news.

Do you think Kerry would do that?

If you can answer "no", that's another reason to vote for him, isn't it?

Wait, Kerry was in Vietnam? News to me. Well that's all I need to hear. Actually I hear he walks on water and if he wins the rivers will flow with wine and the streets will be paved with gold. More reasons to vote for him.

Michael Turner:

It's curious that anyone would invoke Abu Ghraib as in any way a rationale to vote for Kerry. After all, in Viet Nam Kerry was involved daily in baby killing, war crimes, crimes against humanity, gunning down villages just for the hell of it etc. etc., or he wasn't, or maybe he was. I don't know. The story changes a lot. I know, that was years ago. However, Kerry himself has chosen to make Viet Nam the centerpiece of his campaign. And, if he really did do the things he (sometimes) says he did, which are far worse than the anything being reported from Abu Ghraib, he's got to be an extremely psychologially damaged individual who can't be trusted to deal with these kinds of issues, much like Seymour Hersh with his pictures of atrocities he committed stashed in his sock drawer, or whatever exactly it was that he was implying in that interview.

This is rich.

Bush is the most bipartisan Republican chief executive since Nixon.

Out of the gate, he compromised on keystone liberal agenda items - education, the prescription benefit, and pushed the tax cuts that while contradictory to liberal dogma did begin to beneficially effect the economy by 2002 (during wartime). The Dems who actually supported those cuts were incapable of using their participation as a reelection tool since the national party was busy seeking ANY traction against Bush by then.

The driving rage behind what passes for electoral strategy on the Dem side isn't really about how much they hate Bush - it's how much they hate being a minority. Period. Bush made good faith efforts to lead the federal government back from school yard bickering and into a model of principled compromise toward common goals.

That's why he's loathed, because from the extremes of both parties all - or - nothing as measured by poll numbers has become the preferred method of politics.

With the advent of 9/11 the wiggle room for compromise constricted to just about nothing. It's one thing to flounder around in public policy when the price tag is measured in dollars. We're so stinking rich we've been able to afford grossly inefficient government for generations. In a time of war that option is no longer available.

John Kerry's senatorial record should have disqualified him from consideration as a president even in peacetime; the focus of the Left on electing a bonafide credentialed liberal anti-Bush is a crystalization of their party's disconnect from the mainstream of America. What is important to Democrats is seeing their philosophy and agenda advanced. What is important to most Americans is seeing problems solved and threats addressed.

Thus far, Bush has accomplished most of what he said he intended to accomplish. He's managed to effectively prosecute the war effectively without the support of the Left...and in spite of the best efforts of media to support the Left line by focussing on moment by moment challenges than looking at honest progress and accomplishments.

The 9/11 commission has been just about discredited as a witch hunt and rightfully so. The prisoner abuse story is running out of steam here, even though the dribble of pictures has been carefully timed for the most detrimental emotional impact. The Arab 'street' seems more effected by the concept of a leader apologizing publicly for bad behaviour than the abuses themselves. The daily drumbeat of revelations fails to accentuate the fact that the abuses have been under investigation since January, which to people like me begs the question "what's the objective here?".

The best I can say about George Bush is that he has worked hard and with great positive effect to do his job regardless of popularity or political risk. If the Democrats had any contributions to make to solutions for the challenges facing us, I might have something favorable to say about them.

Serious times here; until the minority party focuses on the issues instead of their own political vendetta they don't rate to participate in positions of power.

I don't buy the fifty-fifty nation, and I think that talking point may well be retired for a bit after November. We actually have stark choices this election, with candidates representing clearly defined and divergent philosophies. It will be interesting to see how the results will be spun.

Jim said:
"The notion that the administration is a bunch of f***-ups is obviously false. If someone tells you, "The occupation would have gone real smooth under me, Holmes," he's a charlatan, and either he's so egotistical as to be self-delusional or he's just a liar."

Tom added:

"I challenge you, and anybody, to show a better example of transforming an Arab, Islamic society into a democracy."

I don't think anyone with half a brain would truly believe that we were going to sweep in take out the 'evildoers' and have the Iraqi people lapping cream from a saucer on our laps within 6 months. I don't think anyone who reviews the historical record of Western ideas vs. Muslim dogma would believe that the Iraqi people were going to drop their weapons and run to hug Mommy America.

Yet, if I recall correctly, the current administration set that expectation. Bush could have began the war with: "This is gonna suck, this is gonna take a long time and many of our soliders may die. We may be fighting in Iraq for years before any sort of peace emerges."

But thats not the message they sent out. Now that harsh reality has disproven the 'red carpet' theory, people think Bush handled things poorly. They see the administration pushing through millions of dollars in additional costs for this war that was touted to be a 'gimme'.

Will we win? Can we win? What the hell constitutes victory? If we beat the populace into submission, did we win?

The administration seems to run the press just like big businesses. Spin here, spin there, twist these numbers, twist those numbers, wave the right hand and say "AbaraCadabra", while the left hand is off elsewhere. Why are some people who supported the war on Iraq (not the War on Terror which is different) now unhappy? Their expectations were set and not met.

At least thats the way I'm interperting the signals I'm recieveing currently. I could be wrong... or the signals could be getting into my head from an alien beam. I don't know.

Ratatosk

All of the Kerry in trouble stories are really silly. They are a function of the fact that political commentators feel the need to do political commentary. Even when there is not much to comment on.
We are in a down time for the active campaign. Always happens this way. After wrapping up the nomination, there is no fundamentally new news coming from the challangers side till the convention. And the main reason for this is that the American people, in general, are not paying attention to the race. And they wont, till well after Labor Day, except for a brief flurry around the conventions.
Kerry would have to dance naked with Micheal Jackson on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in order to get any free media coverage. That would be true of ANY challanger, in any election year. It is even more true this year, becuase we have a war going on.
The American people are not weighing Bush-Kerry, with every new day's headline. That is why this bad month for Bush is not moving the polling at all. The American people will start thinking about the race in the fall, and thats when we will see how things start to break. For now it rests with republicans supporting Bush, Dems supporting Kerry, and those in the middle waiting to see what happens.

But it is hard to make a good living as a political commentator if that is all you can say, day in and day out for three or four months. So they need to find some "themes"...

Ex writes: "Wait, Kerry was in Vietnam? News to me. Well that's all I need to hear. Actually I hear he walks on water and if he wins the rivers will flow with wine and the streets will be paved with gold. More reasons to vote for him."

Um ... were you going to say something substantive, addressing the point? I sure don't mind a little sarcasm when someone is actually using it to make a point. I do that myself. However, someone who is reduced to responding with nothing but non-sequitur sarcasm is just being a braying ass. (Oops, I called someone a name. Far, far worse transgression.)

Ex - do you have a fact to offer? A citation? A link to some useful information? A question? A genuine rebuttal? Would you like to point out an error in someone's reasoning? An error in someone's sources? A possibility they missed?

In short: would you like to contribute the discussion? Or are you content to just be a braying ass?

Stop trying to =alk yourself into one of these stiffs. Take Nancy Reagan's advice. Just say no.

Write in McCain Lieberman 2004. A bipartisan unity ticket. A vote for them is a rejection of politics as usual and a demand that politicians start telling us what we need to hear instead of what they think we want to hear. An extraordinary measure for extraordinary times.

And a thunderous shot across the bow of BOTH parties. I'd pay a dollar to see that!

Why you hating on a fellow Kerry supporter, Mike? I support our Savior.

Eric Deamer writes: "It's curious that anyone would invoke Abu Ghraib as in any way a rationale to vote for Kerry. After all, in Viet Nam Kerry was involved daily in baby killing, war crimes, crimes against humanity, gunning down villages just for the hell of it etc. etc., or he wasn't, or maybe he was. I don't know. The story changes a lot."

Does it? Can you point me to two or more substantial variations on "the story" since he began running for President?

"I know, that was years ago. However, Kerry himself has chosen to make Viet Nam the centerpiece of his campaign."

Reallly? Gee. Last I looked his campaign was all about the economy.

"And, if he really did do the things he (sometimes) says he did, which are far worse than the anything being reported from Abu Ghraib,"

Far worse in what sense? Kerry was being shot at, or feared being shot at. He was in combat. He wasn't setting attack dogs upon bound, naked, defenseless prisoners - considerably more twisted behavior if you ask me.

"... he's got to be an extremely psychologially damaged individual ..."

Individual responses to combat stress, even when it involves killing noncombatants, vary widely from individual to individual. He has managed to hold public office. He has managed to accomplish quite a bit more than 99% of American citizens from what I can see. Does that qualify him for the Oval Office? I don't know. Does his combat experience disqualify him for the Oval Office? You make the case. You seem to be quick with the psychiatric diagnoses. You're not a mental health professional by any chance, are you?

" ... who can't be trusted to deal with these kinds of issues, much like Seymour Hersh with his pictures of atrocities he committed stashed in his sock drawer, or whatever exactly it was that he was implying in that interview."

I'm sorry, you've gone a bit incoherent here. What interview? Whose sock drawer, Seymour Hersh's or John Kerry's? Whose atrocities, Hersh's or Kerry's?

Are you sure you can be trusted to discuss these kinds of issues, with sentence construction like that?

Michael Turner, your original thought experiment was quite moving, but Kerry couldn't admit to owning an SUV. So he's going to bow his head to some Red Cross dude?

Yet, if I recall correctly, the current administration set that expectation. Bush could have began the war with: "This is gonna suck, this is gonna take a long time and many of our soliders may die. We may be fighting in Iraq for years before any sort of peace emerges." But thats not the message they sent out.

Well, Presidents don't usually use words like "suck". They tend to say things more like the following:

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.

The President told us all about an easy war, low casualties, imminent threat! Well, maybe he didn't say them... Actually if you go back and read some transcripts, he said the opposite... But never mind about that...that's what was implied!

Michael Turner:

I was referring to an interview that Hersh did with Bill O'Reilly (Hey, No one made him go on that show). The transcript is on the blog "The Mudville Gazette". Hersh was talking about how nowadays these pictures can be e-mailed around, put on websites etc. but how, you know how it is, back in our day, if you had something like this you maybe kept it in your sock drawer hidden and pulled it out to look at from time to time. It was all very strange, and a total non sequitur to the question he'd been asked. Google the transcript. What I've paraphrased is there. I don't quite know what to make of it, or, frankly, how important it is. It just thought it was curious reference coming from the guy who's breaking and promoting this prison abuse story.

On the rest of it. I am far, far from an expert on Kerry's anti-war activities/statements in the past, but I'm friendly with many who are. See the blog "Useful Fools" by John Moore. The broad outline of the story is that Kerry aligned himself with the most radical, left-wing of the anti-Vietnam War faction and, in testimony to Congress, on Talk Shows, at rallies, and in many speeches which are all a matter of public record, claimed that war crimes and horrible atoricities, again, things far worse than anything at Abu Ghraib: intentional and arbitrary targetting of women and children for no reason for example, were being committed systematically by our soldiers in Viet Nam, whom he repeatedly called "murderers". Since he was among their number, obviously he must have been doing some of this himself.

When confronted with his past statments recently on Meet the Press, he made a tortured statement about it, which I could barely understand. Again, see the transcript.

Great point Zymurqist.

Whenever President Bush says anything there are those determined to only hear the opposite.

Dowdists are rewriting the President's speeches for the purpose of controlling the masses.

Progressive Liberalism is moving towards Totalitarianism while the masses are totally unaware they are being lead down that path.

Actually if you go back and read some transcripts, he said the opposite... But never mind about that...that's what was implied!

Well I think Bush was just following one of the first rules of politics: set low expectations and exceed them.

However, to suggest that this administration was accutely aware of what the afterwar situation would be like...

Here is one article before the war. Sorry I cannot give a link as I can only access this through a paid subsription site I use. But I have sited the source and date.

Imagining the day after
Michael Hirsh, Melinda Liu. Newsweek. New York: Feb 17, 2003. Vol. 141, Iss. 7; pg. 44

...Back in Washington, U.S. officials who are quietly-and gingerly-making plans for postwar Iraq dismiss comparisons to the imperial MacArthur. The last thing they want to emulate in Iraq is the seven-year occupation of Japan. In fact, some officials at the Pentagon and State Department tell NEWSWEEK they hope to be able to withdraw U.S. troops in as little as 30 days after President Saddam Hussein's ouster-- if Iraq's military can be swiftly purged of his henchmen and turned into a pro-Western security force. That, they admit, is optimistic; more "realistically," says a Pentagon official, the talk is of a maximum five- to six-month occupation. "The plan is to get it done as quickly as possible and get out," says Lt. Col. Michael Humm, a spokesman for the Pentagon's chief planner, Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith.

Administration officials who are part of the Future of Iraq Project, underway since April, caution that no plans are definite. That's in part because they don't know yet which countries will be in the invading coalition, nor what Iraq's political landscape will look like after Saddam. But they are keenly wary of a long-term occupation in the heart of the Arab world, where anxieties about Western invaders date back to the Crusades. "Every day you get past three months, you've got to expect peacekeepers to have a bull's-eye on their head," said one State Department official. So eager are the Bushies to avoid being seen as occupiers that General Garner, who commanded a task force in the Kurdish north in 1991, is tentatively being dubbed "senior civilian administrator" rather than "military governor," NEWSWEEK has learned.

At the White House, where the National Security Council chairs weekly meetings on postwar Iraq, officials say that as coalition support for war has grown, so has their confidence that the occupation's duration can be kept to a minimum. That's in line with the pared-down view of nation-building, shared by President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which emphasizes self-reliance. Central Command is even now identifying Iraqi officers who could be relied on to lead "large portions of the Iraqi military that will be intact and serve," says one official involved in the planning. "Suppose you get in there and then you realize the oilfields and buildings are still intact. Hey, there's a functioning infrastructure here, unlike Afghanistan. And you have people saying, 'I'd like to be part of a [democratic government) to chart the fiture for Iraq.' There's no reason why you can't do that in 30 to 60 days."

Or does this suggest a long, hard slog?

“The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.” MICHAEL R. GORDON with ERIC SCHMITT. New York Times May 3, 2003

Andrew Sullivan nails it perfectly when he says:

The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong.

Yeah, ignore what the President explicitly stated over and over in every public address on the issue of Iraq. An "unnamed official" implied "there was a possibility" things would go smoothly.

Liberals are restive because they think Kerry can't win. If Saddamn could beat Bush, I am sure the ABB crowd would line up behind Saddam. I don't think that's a fair comparison with conservative's unease with Bush's policy decisions.

Sorry Michael, why exactly Bush deserves to be voted out? Last month you had a different opinion.

Zymurgist,

Yeah, ignore what the President explicitly stated over and over in every public address on the issue of Iraq.

It seems to me that there's a pretty good reason to ignore what the President has said about Iraq, or at least take it with a boulder of salt. To wit:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction."
George W. Bush
Speech to UN
September 23, 2003

Looks to me like not enough people ignore what he says. And I believe what Ratatosk actually said was that the administration had implied that it would be relatively cheap, easy, and quick, not the president himself. Do you really want to dispute that?

All one had to do before the offical invasion of Iraq started was read the careful rebuttals of Bush/Blair's propaganda to know the WMD scares were the best hoax since the Gulf of Tonkin scare

Vietnam reference #2. You dirty hippies need to realize that your wasted youth is ancient history.

Hey ex, why don't you tell us a tall tale about being spat on by hippies...make it good...

Sorry, before my time. Just glad you all shower now.

so what, just make up a story about being 'spat on'...since the 'liberal media' report the myth of the vietnam vet spat on as the truth

Sorry to weigh in so late, but I had to comment on this line from Jim:

If someone tells you, "The occupation would have gone real smooth under me, Holmes," he's a charlatan, and either he's so egotistical as to be self-delusional or he's just a liar.

You mean the folks who planned to be greeted with flowers, spend $1.7 billion on rebuilding, and have the troops down to 30,000 by now?

Yeah, Smokey, I do. Show me a quote by any NAMED source within the administration that told us this would be a quick victory with an early exit.

I can show you example after example where The President has explicitly warned about the unkowns and difficulties of our endeavor. That you (with the help of the media) cling to any possible soundbite that would indicate otherwise is far more and indication of your own credibility than the President's.

As far as the tired "WMD lies" meme: I needn't remind you of Clinton's conclusions on this subject. Do you need the quote? Not "an unnamed source within The Clinton Administration" but the man himself? He GUARANTEED Saddam would use WMD against us if left unchecked. GUARANTEED.

Your quotes, all of which were the consensus of every intelligence source on the planet, are yet another indication of your partisanship.

As far as the tired "WMD lies" meme: I needn't remind you of Clinton's conclusions on this subject. Do you need the quote? Not "an unnamed source within The Clinton Administration" but the man himself? He GUARANTEED Saddam would use WMD against us if left unchecked. GUARANTEED.

--duh! Clinton lied through his teeth as much as Bush about the 'threat' from Iraq's so-called 'WMDs'. Wow, that's hard to figure out, the Dems and Republicans worked together to lie about the 'threat' from Iraq.

Well I personally know vets who were spat on. But if Tom Paine says it didn't happen, it must not have happened. The vet I know must be a liar.

calibur. It's all lies. You live in the Matrix. Fight your way out Neo!

Yeah, calibar, it's a conspiracy. The whole world wanted us to believe Saddam had WMD. Heck, even Saddam tricked us by using them in the past. This thing goes deep. Calling Oliver Stone...

I have a simple principle that I have had to invoke depressingly often in my lifetime: when faced with a choice between probable incompetence and proven incompetence, go for probable and hope to be wrong. As George Will says this morining, "When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate."

Well I personally know vets who were spat on. But if Tom Paine says it didn't happen, it must not have happened. The vet I know must be a liar.

--not one report from the 1960's or 1970's can be found of vets being spat on by protestors, not even in the conservative newspapers like WSJ. Why wouldn't Hearst newspapers report something like that if it were happening at the time?

94% of vets polled by Harris Associates in August 1971 said that 'reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly'. only 3% called it 'not at all friendly.

your friend is in a pretty small minority there. btw, did your friend fight back? in the tall tales the media tell the vets never fought back against the 'hippies'.

The whole world wanted us to believe Saddam had WMD. Heck, even Saddam tricked us by using them in the past. This thing goes deep.

--
conspiracy? nope, the information was out there in the public, pretty well known actually, just ignored

Perhaps it wasn't newsworthy. Perhaps it was only 3% spitting on people. My only evidence that it happened at least once is only his word. But I wouldn't want to rain on your parade that hippies were all groovy people who farted sunshine.

Perhaps it wasn't newsworthy. Perhaps it was only 3% spitting on people. My only evidence that it happened at least once is only his word. But I wouldn't want to rain on your parade that hippies were all groovy people who farted sunshine.

--actually the myth was also popular in germany after the germans lost WW 1. Far right wing parties and the emergent Nazis were claiming that soldiers returning to Germany in defeat were 'spat on' by women and pacifists.
so tell me, did your buddy fight back or play the jesus mode?

the myth of the soldiers being spat on also got circulated before the Iraq invasion, with the usual unverified

sad tall tale

It is all a fascist myth. Nobody called vets babykillers or spit on them. It is all a right-wing conspiracy. My friend must be a liar. And a fascist too. Like George Bush. Yawn.

Back in the real world:

Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq beheaded an American civilian and vowed more killings in revenge for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, an Islamist Web site said Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5108202

It is all a fascist myth. Nobody called vets babykillers or spit on them. It is all a right-wing conspiracy. My friend must be a liar.

--uhm, oh no, your friend is telling the truth, of course he is. just no reports of anything like that in the 1960's or 1970's, no sign of it from the right wing media outlets or from police reports at the time, but surely your friend is telling the truth about being 'spat on'. ask your buddy why he turned the cheek, that should be an interesting story.
as for conspiracies, i leave that to Thomas Moorer and the Birchers, people who are good patriots like yourself.

From the article calibar submitted:

CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow angrily denied the Newsweek report. "It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue," Harlow told Reuters (2/24/03) the day the report appeared.

So, the president should have taken the word of a single defected Iraqi, and disregarded the opinions of the CIA, as well as other intelligence agencies throughout the world?

All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished.

Need I remind you that Saddam was to have proved the destruction of his WMD programs in order to avoid the "serious consequences" forwarned in 1441?

We did the right thing. You just can't get over who was calling the shots.

So, the president should have taken the word of a single defected Iraqi, and disregarded the opinions of the CIA, as well as other intelligence agencies throughout the world?

--uhm, this was not any ol' defector, he was the star witness cited by clinton and bush time and again. we're not talking about some chalabi who hadn't been to the country in 35 years, we're talking about someone who the US relied on for major intelligence.
----------------------------
All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished.

--hold on here ,you tell us we shouldn't believe the guy, then you tell us we should believe the guy. wow, score one for the mussolini lobby.

Zymurgist,

Ah, the old standby of the right: "Clinton did it!" I kinda thought we were talking about the administration that was in office, and which actually invaded Iraq. But it you want to rant about Clinton, go ahead. Now who's the partisan here?

Show me a quote by any NAMED source within the administration that told us this would be a quick victory with an early exit.

Your wish is my command. How about this one:

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

That's Dick Cheney on MTP. I seem to recall that he's a high-ranking administration official. Vice-president or something. What do I win?

I notice that you claim to be able to provide quotes to support your statements, but don't bother to actually do so. If you can show me "example after example" why not do so? And while you're at it, sure, bring on the Clinton quote. Nothing like a little Clinton-bashing to make me nostalgic for the good old days.

"The whole world wanted us to believe Saddam had WMD. Heck, even Saddam tricked us by using them in the past. This thing goes deep."

So what's the latest on the VX found being transported in Jordan? Seems like there is a conspiracy between the media and GWB to keep this low key. Maybe it will spring up as confirmed Iraqi WMD later this fall before the election.

Smokey Says:

Ah, the old standby of the right: "Clinton did it!" I kinda thought we were talking about the administration that was in office, and which actually invaded Iraq. But it you want to rant about Clinton, go ahead. Now who's the partisan here?

You are. Who’s ranting about Clinton? I’m merely pointing out that he AGREED with me, the CIA, and the current president on this issue. You’re the one questioning his conclusions, not I.

Your wish is my command. How about this one: "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
That's Dick Cheney on MTP. I seem to recall that he's a high-ranking administration official. Vice-president or something.

Nice use of ellipses. Too bad it’s a compilation of several cherry picked statements. Here’s the actual one, upon which much of your cite is based:

I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. - (VICE PRES. CHENEY Videotape, March 16, 2003)

Notice the difference? Smokey omits the words “my belief is.” The reason Cheney used those words is because he is responding to Russert’s question as to whether Cheney thought we would be greeted as liberators or conquerors. Cheney merely tells him what he believed would happen. He didn’t make the guarantee insinuated in Smokey’s deceitful Dowdified quote.

What do I win?

I notice that you claim to be able to provide quotes to support your statements, but don't bother to actually do so. If you can show me "example after example" why not do so?

And while you're at it, sure, bring on the Clinton quote. Nothing like a little Clinton-bashing to make me nostalgic for the good old days.

Again, happy to oblige:

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

calibar, didn't mean to overlook you...

I'm not telling you what to beleive. I'm merely pointing out that the CIA's councel to the president was that Saddam currently had prohibited weapons in his arsenal. The best you can do to refute that position is with a defector who says the WMDs had been destroyed, but the programs had been hidden.

Not only does this fail to indict the president on the question of lying, it doesn't even pursuade me that we made the wrong decision in retrospect.

The best you can do to refute that position is with a defector who says the WMDs had been destroyed, but the programs had been hidden.

--again, not just any defector, the most authoritative defector the US ever found from Iraq over the last decade. And of course what he said has now been shown to be true, not even one little so-called WMD to show for this little adventure. Clinton and Bush just made up stuff in the aftermath of such evidence and pressured the CIA to 'find' new 'evidence'. None of this is hard to find, a little basic research is all ya need.

Well, after all the lashing and gnashing, I'd like to ask a question of our lovely Bush Apologists.

When Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, said that it would require 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq, Mr. Wolfowitz called it "wildly off the mark". Gen. Shinseki was dismissed by Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz.

Now, were Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz conspiring against the President, keeping this information from him? Or, did they (and one would assume the Administration) disagree with Gen. Shinseki and dismissed him because of his views?

Of course, I'm probably partisan and I'm sure Bill Clinton said that Gen. Shinseki was an idiot. I wouldn't be surprised if "wildly off the mark" was taken out of context, and was actually uttered by Mr. Wolfowitz during an Archery shoot at his local SCA branch.

I've always thought the Democrats were funny, but some of you guys are a riot!

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord and Misquoting His Holiness (Insert Powerful Republican here)

Draft McCain.

calibar, just to clarify our exchange:

You stated that both Clinton and Bush lied about WMD.

I pointed out that they were merely acting on the assessment of the CIA, as well as other intelligence agencies.

To this, you quote a former Iraqi defector (admittedly, a high level defector) who says the programs had been destroyed.

I then pointed out that this doesn't indict the Presidents in question. It is not their job to assess the truthfulness of this defector's claim. That is the job of the CIA. From the article you cited, the CIA clearly stated that the claim wasn't true.

Conclusion: The president(s) weren't lying. If anyone lied (miscalculated, more likely) it was the intelligence services, including our own CIA.

Zymurgist,

Notice the difference? Smokey omits the words “my belief is.” The reason Cheney used those words is because he is responding to Russert’s question as to whether Cheney thought we would be greeted as liberators or conquerors. Cheney merely tells him what he believed would happen. He didn’t make the guarantee insinuated in Smokey’s deceitful Dowdified quote.

Bwahaha! Oh, well, if that was just Cheney's personal opinion, then that's completely different. It's not like he's the Vice President of the United states or anything. Oh, wait, he is. So the administration can assert whatever they want, regardless of the factual basis, as long as they preface the statement with "I think..."? Provided they don't say "I guarantee that..." they can't be held to their words? Give me a break. Nice to see that they're bringing responsibility back to the white house. And did I "make up" the quote? I think not, he said every word of that. If you don't like my use of ellipses, take it up with USAToday, who used the exact same quote with the same ellipses. Maybe you should contact their ombudsman about such a flagrant lapse of journalistic ethics.

Frankly, because you are not worth the time. Hey, at least I’m not making them up, like you! Do your own legwork.

Ummm, so how does this work? You claim to have evidence of something, but anyone who asks for said evidence has to find it themselves? Nice racket. A little unorthodox, but much easier than the conventional method of backing up your statements.

Again, happy to oblige:

Again? How is telling me to look it up myself the same as being happy to oblige? Am I missing something here? As for the Clinton quote, it is obviously a hypothetical, which is not quite the same thing as a guarantee. Actually, it's not even close. You can tell it's a hypothetical if you look closely at the beginning of the quote: "What if..." Regardless, Clinton isn't currently in office, and he didn't decide on a disatrous invasion and occupation of Iraq on the basis of that hypothetical. George W. Bush did.

I then pointed out that this doesn't indict the Presidents in question. It is not their job to assess the truthfulness of this defector's claim. That is the job of the CIA. From the article you cited, the CIA clearly stated that the claim wasn't true.

--no, one person from the CIA denied it, that's called 'spin'. the media then ignored the story and it died, until after the invasion a few months later when it was safer to start doubting the Bush/Clinton claims on so-called WMDs.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: The president(s) weren't lying. If anyone lied (miscalculated, more likely) it was the intelligence services, including our own CIA.

--actually they pretty much did as they were expected to do. the idea that the presidents were looking for the truth is laughable at this point.

Smokey, You've been discredited, and yet you're back for more. I'm going to reiterate what is obvious to everyone.

You misquoted Cheney as follows:

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

In fact, his comments were:

Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators

Here is a page with the full text of that interview

When quoting, ellipses are commonly used to join parts of a long statement, but they shouldn't change the meaning of that statement. The words "weeks rather than months" and "I think it will go relatively quickly" aren't even contained in the same interview to which the liberators vs conquerors comment was made.

Furthermore, if your quote omits the start of the sentence, you should begin it as follows: "...we will, in fact..." Unless, of course, your purpose is to deceive. Which it obviously is. The omitted "I believe" (to an intelligent listener) clearly conveys that what follows is not a certainty, but merely opinion. Yes, even VPs get to have those. They are especially useful for times when an interviewer uses the words "What do you think will happen?"

As for USAToday: If they misquoted Cheney, then they are partially responsible for making you appear stupid herein, and you should take it up with them, not me. Maybe if you weren't so hell-bent on finding only those answers which confirm your misguided beleifs, you wouldn't be so easily misled.

There hasn't been an address to this nation regarding Iraq in which Bush hasn't warned of unfinished business and unkown dangers. You're just not listening. It's not my job to rub your nose in the obvious. I've already shown you where they are: www.whitehouse.gov. Simply go there and read any speech on Iraq. I'm not copying and pasting just because you're too lazy.

And finally Clinton. You're really flailing now. Yeah, there's a "What if". Actually there were 2 of them:

1. What if Saddam doesn't comply.
2. What if we fail to act.

If those two what ifs were met, then He GUARANTEED Saddam would use WMD. #1 was a done deal. Those of us not blinded by partisan rage were making sure #2 didn't come to pass. No thanks to you.

Overall I have to say I am extremely disappointed in the blogosphere's reaction to and commentary on the prison scandal. The whining and pissiness is irritating in the extreme. Michael, this could very well be an extremely long war (I expect it outlive me and I'm 49). Do we fire the SecDef and generals (or vote out the pres) every time something like this happens? We're 2-1/2 yrs. into the WOT; what will be left of us 10 years from now? Every single person with principles, courage and vision to fight this (there's probably less than 5 in the entire country) will be fired or voted out. Then what? Furthermore, you don't really think the next SecDef, if he's a Dem, would be held to the same standard, do you? Get real. The Dems didn't cause this, but they sure are trying their hardest to profit from it. I say this as a former lifelong Dem.

In cold blood, the enemy beheads their prisoners. We, on the other hand, tear one another other apart over a few soldiers who had humiliated prisoners in the form of Mapplethorpe-like poses.

A leadership quality I admire about Bush is that he does not operate on the premise that we have been victimized, he operates on the premise that we were attacked.

The enemy operates on the premise that they are ruthless, cold-blooded killers.

I want a leader who recognizes how the enemy operates.

This is war, we cannot let them win.

Something odd about the soldiers eagerly posing for the photos. Are they allowed to have digital cameras on active duty?

I wasn't calling you a fool Michael, I was referring to those on both sides who reflexively decide things are going bad/good when the truth of the matter is that we can't tell at the moment.

How many more people have to be brutally murdered/raped/tortured before you're able to tell?

If JK were president instead of Bush, we'd be in a lot better shape. Here's Kerry's speech explaining his vote for giving Bush authority to pursue the war:

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

Of course, the pre-war inspections were in the process of proving what we now know -- at the cost of 5000 plus US casualties and 200 billion dollars (so far) -- that the Iraq weapons programs ended in 1994.

And going it alone has inflamed the Arab war and created a strong, decentralized al qeada.

And we've got leaders who have no clue what to do because they never bothered to come up with a plan B.

But Kerry sucks -- because he had the foresight to recognize the mess Bush was creating, he is uniquely unqualified to be president.

If those two what ifs were met, then He GUARANTEED Saddam would use WMD. #1 was a done deal. Those of us not blinded by partisan rage were making sure #2 didn't come to pass. No thanks to you

--actually you were busy turning a blind eye to real problems. but your wmds in the gulf of tonkin claims were at least a good try to make it look like there was a reason for a war instead of a blatant case of adventurism.

In cold blood, the enemy beheads their prisoners. We, on the other hand, tear one another other apart over a few soldiers who had humiliated prisoners in the form of Mapplethorpe-like poses.

--I guess you missed the pictures of the guy who was packed in ice, the numerous accounts of civilians shot at and killed, injured by 'coaltion' forces, etc. etc. This is called a cycle of violence, your wishful thinking that the military can resolve the problem only puts the troops you claim to support in greater jeopardy.

Draft McCain.

Amen.

Pictures of a beheading.
Anger, rage, determination, sadness.

Is it the act, or the pictures?
My mind wants it to be the act.
My reactions are to the pictures.

The pictures intensify the emotions; which direct the mind to rationalize "as if" reason ruled.

What will the media say about real torture?

What will the media say about real torture?

--now there's an interesting perspective from the mussolini lobby, when they torture it's 'real', when we torture it's not!

Bush will win in November, I am very sure of that, the Jacksonian element in the USA will ensure his re-election. However by what margin Bush will win by I am not sure.

When even the father of a kid who goes to iraq to help iraqis and ends up beheaded criticises Bush on national TV, I think you might wanna be careful about that prediction.

Hillary Clinton admits that the Clinton administration lied about Iraqi WMD's, but the dumb cowboy Bush believed the intelligence:

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/index.html

it's a good thing we're getting all those evil enemy terrorists into jail in iraq

Tokyo Michael Turner,

Individual responses to combat stress, even when it involves killing noncombatants, vary widely from individual to individual.

That's right. Let's compare the response of the confessed war criminal John Kerry against a more contemporary example.

Kerry opposed the Vietnam war, but then went and served anyway. On the surface, a rather admirable act. However, when he got there, he claims to have witnessed atrocities. And what did he do about these atrocities he claims to have witnessed? He joined in on the action!

In contrast, a soldier in Iraq witnessed alleged atrocities at Abu Ghraib. And what does this soldier do? He reports it so his superiors.

When John Kerry faced the kind of moral choice that this solder faced at Abu Ghraib, Kerry's choice was to become a war criminal.

In contrast, a soldier in Iraq witnessed alleged atrocities at Abu Ghraib. And what does this soldier do? He reports it so his superiors.

--hang on here, now you say that reporting atrocities committed by the US military in Vietnam was a good thing, to be encouraged? wow, that's a new take for the mussolini lobby now isn't it?

A letter to the editor sure to anger the war lobby:

To the Editor:

Once again, David Brooks steadfastly approves of a demonstrably failed foreign policy ("Crisis of Confidence," column, May 8). "We've got to reboot," he writes.

Although an amusing metaphor, rebooting foreign policy implies that the policy is essentially sound, with only an operational glitch.

This administration's foreign policy is not computer software; it is dead and wounded American soldiers and civilians, uncounted Iraqi casualties, collapsed international credibility and now, with Abu Ghraib, destruction of American moral values that will not be recovered in the lifetimes of my great-grandchildren.

My father and oldest brother were graduates of West Point. Dad served in World War II. My oldest brother served three tours in Vietnam. Another brother served in the Navy for six years. I served in the Army Reserve. My sons served in Desert Storm. My youngest son is in Afghanistan as I write.

There is no excuse for what just happened.

WILLIAM A. FERRY
Lafayette, La., May 8, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opinion/L11IRAQ.html

Michael Turner:

"I was referring to an interview that Hersh did with Bill O'Reilly (Hey, No one made him go on that show). The transcript is on the blog "The Mudville Gazette."

By which I assume you mean this.
[Search on sock.]
"... It was all very strange, and a total non sequitur to the question he'd been asked."

I don't see the problem. Consider both his age and the times (always advisable if you hope to have any respect for the aged.) His journalism career predates the use of computers in the newsroom. I'm a former software engineer who first learned to program computers ca. 1971, and if I think about it too much, all this file swapping of digital photos astonishes me.

Then consider his era. At one time, believe it or not, Vietnam was considered pretty shameful. Of course people kept photos of their war atrocities in a sock in a drawer. Who would flash them around back then? It wasn't until after the first Gulf War that I heard about GIs passing photos around gleefully. Pretty sick, but they are another generation, and weren't made to feel guilty about much of anything. No, they were heroes. As much as Guantanamo, that set the stage for today's debacle.

"I don't quite know what to make of it, or, frankly, how important it is." He's an old guy, they digress, bemused by the world has progressed, regressed, or stayed the same when they thought it would change. Get a clue.

"On the rest of it. I am far, far from an expert on Kerry's anti-war activities/statements in the past, but I'm friendly with many who are. See the blog "Useful Fools" by John Moore. The broad outline of the story is that Kerry aligned himself with the most radical, left-wing of the anti-Vietnam War faction ..."

LOL! "Far from an expert" indeed.

I grew up in Berkeley, California, in the 60s. "Most radical, left-wing faction" were the people who throw rocks at cops from rooftops, who built bombs at home and plant them in ROTC centers and science labs. FBI investigations of Kerry concluded that he parted ways with the far left, and was never ideologically or practically involved in anything on the extremem left.

" ... in testimony to Congress, on Talk Shows, at rallies, and in many speeches which are all a matter of public record, claimed that war crimes and horrible atoricities, again, things far worse than anything at Abu Ghraib: intentional and arbitrary targetting of women and children for no reason for example, were being committed systematically by our soldiers in Viet Nam, whom he repeatedly called "murderers". Since he was among their number, obviously he must have been doing some of this himself."

Quite likely, and killing civilians in wartime, intentionally, is murder. The problem is, however, with that "wartime" part. Just as I believe some of those involved in Abu Ghraib should be sentenced to psychological counseling for being put in such a position, I also believe that those who are exposed to war stress have to work out what's happened to them. Kerry came back and started working against a very bad, sick, no-win war, and at the time, that was a very psychologically healthy reaction. A lot better than sticking your atrocity photos in a sock and pretending you never did anything more violent than type falsified enemy casualty reports.

"When confronted with his past statments recently on Meet the Press, he made a tortured statement about it, which I could barely understand. Again, see the transcript."

This one?

I have seen the transcript. "A tortured statement" - heh, that's about right. (Pardon my digression - at 48, I'm kind of an old guy myself.) Notice earlier where Russert tries no fewer than five times to get Kerry to say there is no military role in fighting terrorism. What Kerry said, and stood by, is "not primarily military." And Kerry stuck to his guns - his original wording. What a waste of interview time - unless getting him all pissed off was actually the point. The Vietnam speech excerpt is treated after that pointless harrassment.

And what does Kerry say? Basically, that the words in that 1971 speech were unpleasant but the statement was accurate. And it was. U.S. military officers ordered enlisted men to commit violations of international law. That's criminal.

So much for your "different stories at different times" slam. He expresses regret at harsh wording, but says he told the truth then, and doesn't deny that he told the truth. Why should he?

HA writes to "Tokyo Michael Turner"

Ah, nice resonance there with "Tokyo Rose." Why not just go back to "Treasonous Fucking Bastard", HA? Or just call me "shit" again. As I mentioned earlier, I need the covering fire. Michael Totten is a little itchy on the trigger finger about my ad hominem attacks, so I need yours, about which you still go unwarned, to highlight his hypocrisy. Do I need to repeat the reasoning?

I wrote "Individual responses to combat stress, even when it involves killing noncombatants, vary widely from individual to individual."

HA, attempting reason: "That's right. Let's compare the response of the confessed war criminal John Kerry against a more contemporary example."

John Kerry has "confessed" to no war crimes. He did say that those who gave the orders to commit atrocities and Geneva convention violations are culpable, at least as I understand an abbreviated comment on "Meet the Press" (see earlier link.)

"Kerry opposed the Vietnam war, but then went and served anyway."

"Opposed"? A bit of an overstatement. I googled long and hard for anything about his opposition prior to service, and so far, I've found only an MSNBC/Newsweek page saying he "had doubts about the wisdom" of that war. Otherwise, he seemed to have gone and served with as much enthusiasm and integrity as circumstances allowed. Not the greatest circumstances, it seems.

"On the surface, a rather admirable act. However, when he got there, he claims to have witnessed atrocities. And what did he do about these atrocities he claims to have witnessed? He joined in on the action!"

Substantiation for this? What did he witness personally? Did he order anyone to do it? Did he do any of it himself? He may have, he may not. I don't know. Turn something up, and you've got a national-scale story, and you will have ended his campaign. Give it a shot. You're a hardhitting investigative journalist, right? (No? Oh, well then: forget it.)

"In contrast, a soldier in Iraq witnessed alleged atrocities at Abu Ghraib. And what does this soldier do? He reports it so his superiors."

At this point in the investigation, we don't know how many times it was reported or by how many people. There are photographs coming out in which many pairs of feet can be seen near the upper margin of the photo. Actual reports from those working on the inside seem to have been scarce. Action seems to have been negligible. The ICRC was visiting POW camps and prisons starting in March 2003, they probably visited Abu Ghraib more often than Gen. Karpinski, they kept trying to get action on what they were seeing from the beginning, and things just got worse.

"When John Kerry faced the kind of moral choice that this solder faced at Abu Ghraib, Kerry's choice was to become a war criminal."

Like I said, HA, if you've got evidence, you can bring down the man's whole campaign. Cite a source, why don't you? Kerry's published letters from Vietnam so far show a young man deeply disturbed and disgusted by what he's hearing from other people in the military, the dehumanization of "the gooks." They also show how easy it is to unintentionally kill a civilian in a country with a deeply-rooted insurgency. The Viet Cong ran their war in the South along Maoist lines: "The revolutionary swims in the sea of the people." You're bound to hit other fish in a situation like that.

I had a friend who served in the IDF in Israel, and she recounts being given an examination question: "You're patrolling a city, and up an alley, you see what looks like a boy, holding what looks like a gun. What do you do?"

"Shoot" was the wrong answer. "Don't shoot" was also the wrong answer. The correct answer is: "I don't know." Think about that for a long time, and you'll see the wisdom of IDF's choice of right answer.

Here's an examination question for you: "You see clear violations of prisoner rights, Geneva convention rules, military rules, in the treatment of prisoners, after the invasion of a country on the pretext of liberation and democracy (well, after the fact, anyway.) You report these. Nothing changes. You witness several visits by the ICRC, but in the end, it's obvious that they weren't given permission to use the information they collected on prison visits. So do you (a) give up and say nothing; (b) continue making your evidently useless reports; © after some number of months, join in on the action because maybe it's OK after all, all the kids are doing it; or (d) take it to the press."

I happen to think (d) is the right answer. As the investigation widens, we'll find out how many chose the other answers. But this shit has been going down since March of last year, and getting worse, and nobody leaks until early this year? That's very bad. And if you want to tell me that's not systemic, my guess is that you've been doing too much of your own proctology recently. Leave that to professionals.

Tokyo Michael Turner,

John Kerry has "confessed" to no war crimes.

Wrong answer, Mikey. John Kerry confessed to being a war criminal back in 1971. Now he cops a plea on the genocide charge and throws himself on the mercy of the court by claiming he was just following orders and everybody else was doing it:

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam . You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

Tell me something, Mikey. You are a well-informed man. You MUST have been aware Kerry's statements confessing to war crimes. From a tactical standpoint, it doesn't make sense for you to state outright that Kerry made no confession. Yet you did. Why is that? Usually you are smart enough to give yourself a rhetorical bridge to retreat over. Perhaps I over-estimate you.

I have a couple questions for John Kerry. Are the war crimes he confessed he committed in Vietnam more or less heinous than those alleged to have been committed at Abu Ghraib? Is John Kerry personally responsible for a lesser or greater number of deaths than ALL of those being charged with crimes at Abu Ghraib?

If John Kerry's resume is any indicator, around thirty years from now we can expect the alleged criminals from Abu Ghraib to win the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

Tokyo Michael Turner,

I need the covering fire. Michael Totten is a little itchy on the trigger finger about my ad hominem attacks

MJT doesn't need to ban you, nor should he. After a while the Abu Ghraib controversy will fade away and you will slither back under your rock like you did last time.

I don't expect any of hypocritical Democrats on this thread to call for Kerry to withdraw from the nomination due to his record as a confessed war criminal. That would be too much to ask from morally and intellectualy corrupt Democrats with so much at stake. But let's consider a question with no contemporary political consequences.

Janet Reno as Attorney General was responsible for the attack against the Branch Davidian compound in Waco that led to the incineration of scores of men, women and children. Should Reno have resigned or been fired as Attorney General?

If you can't answer "yes" to this question, you should shut the fuck up about Rumsfeld.

HA, when you write "morally and intellectualy corrupt Democrats", do you mean that Democrats are morally and intellectually corrupt, or that there is small subset of Democrats who are morally and intellectually corrupt?

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne. I have a brother and sister, David and Sara. I live in Philadelphia."

After Berg made that speech, radical Islamic fascists hacked his head off for all the world to see. In cold blood.

Calibar, did that make you cream your pants?

syn:

When you saw the video, was your first
response "I'm outraged at the people that killed Berg" or was it "I'm outraged at Calibar?"

I bet it was the latter.

My first response was how vile and disgusting our enemies are.

It wasn't until I looked at the media and saw almost dead silence on this issue (compared with the abuse scandle) until I knew once again the truth about how many allies our Enemies really have.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne. I have a brother and sister, David and Sara. I live in Philadelphia."

--you left out the quotes from his father, how convenient. as i remember, the war lobby was calling his father a 'traitor' before his son was killed.

An innocent man had his head cut off and all calibur can do is whine about "sins of omission" from the evil war lobby.

You are a sad, pathetic caricature of the vile left.

An innocent American has his head cut off by terrorists and all Ex can do is whine about the media.

You are pathetic and vile.

I know Ex, I was watching CNN this morning and Rafferty was going on and on about how this guy's death was the best thing possible for the fight against America. And Soledad Obrien was just nodding her head in agreement saying "Berg deserved it!". And did you hear what Lou Dobbs was doing? He was LAUGHING about the video yesterday, can you believe it? That left wing media strikes again!

I am hardly whining. Just expanding my awareness of how deep the rot goes into the West.

We have found the ENEMY

I am hardly whining. Just expanding my awareness of how deep the rot goes into the West.

--I know, I couldn't get over Aaron Brown last night singing some silly song about how joyful he was to hear about the beheading. That damn left wing media. Hear about Brokaw? He actually was pointing fingers at the camera and saying, "America, we had this coming, I wish it happened more often". I mean can you believe that LEFT WING MEDIA??

it is funny to watch the wingnuts like rush or hanity go nuts over this dead merc. another dead corporate rapist. bo-hoo!

they whine about the corporate "liberal" media, which ignores war crimes (until the left makes them cover it) then whine about a dead guy who was probably CIA or a private-military mercenary. why was he there then? yeah they invade a country for no reason, rape innocent prisoners and then they cry about when the resistance does something about it.

The real ENEMY 2

caliber – you seem to have done some research concerning the Berg family. Why haven’t you mentioned the fact that, like Daniel Pearl, Berg was a Jew?

There are an lot of similarities between the murders. The Islamists claimed that Daniel Pearl’s murder was ‘revenge’ for the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.

Islamists have a habit of targeting Jews and videotaping their deaths. When Palestinians shot and killed three little girls and their eight-months pregnant mother, they videotaped the children as they bled to death:

"IDF officials continue to investigate yesterday’s terror attack on the Kissufim Road leading into Gush Katif that claimed the lives of Tali Hatual and her four children. They were gunned down in cold blood as they drove in their family vehicle."

"Preliminary reports indicate that an army patrol vehicle passed the scene ahead of the Hatuals, and was even hit with gunfire. The two soldiers in the non-armored vehicle sustained light shrapnel injuries from the gunfire. The question being asked is why they did not stop and return fire, and engage the terrorists in a shootout as is the standard response. Instead, they continued traveling to the Kissufim Checkpoint. The preliminary response appears to be they were injured in their hands and therefore, were unable to return fire. It was also learned that the terrorists not only murdered the 34-year-old mother of four who was eight months pregnant along with her children, but then ran up to the vehicle and took a video of the results of their actions, filming the young victims as they bled to death."

So, who is responsible for Berg’s death - the Freepers?

calibar, I’m glad you’re not a writer for Law and Order. The ending would always be the same. The Freepers did it! Bush is to blame! Fire Rumsfeld!

HA: "Tell me something, Mikey."

Ooh, Ann, it makes me tingle all over, for you to call me Mikey.

"You are a well-informed man. You MUST have been aware Kerry's statements confessing to war crimes."

John Kerry, saying recently that he was very angry at the time (1971), didn't "confess to war crimes," but says he was following orders to commit what he then characterized as "atrocities." And goes on to say that those giving the orders were war criminals. Tell you what, HA. Why don't you go look up what the actual laws are, and tell me what he confessed to that in that statement would be considered a war crime today. Then tell me who would also be culpable in the chain of command, and how much more culpable they would be considered than a John Kerry following orders. It will take you all the way up to General Westmoreland (never charged with war crimes, to my knowledge), to Henry Kissinger, to Richard Nixon.

John Kerry came back to America and said what he did was wrong. But the fact remains: he was ordered to do it by people who should have known it was wrong.

"From a tactical standpoint, it doesn't make sense for you to state outright that Kerry made no confession. Yet you did. Why is that? Usually you are smart enough to give yourself a rhetorical bridge to retreat over."

Because I suspect that from a technical standpoint, I'm right. If doing what Kerry "confessed" to do (so far as I've seen) is committing war crimes, we'd would have had to put thousands of Vietnam veterans through the international court system. For that matter you'd have to do it for veterans of almost any war. Did that happen? I guess I wasn't watching TV that week.

"Perhaps I over-estimate you."

Since you call me "shit," and since at any given time I only have a certain small amount of shit in me, I'd say you've overestimated me in certain respects at least.

But never estimate the erotic thrill I get when an Ann Coulter lookalike calls me "Mikey". Ooh, do it again, Ann.

you seem to have done some research concerning the Berg family. Why haven’t you mentioned the fact that, like Daniel Pearl, Berg was a Jew?

--oh, boy, i sense another 'kill all muslims' war cry coming...
-----------------------------
Islamists have a habit of targeting Jews and videotaping their deaths. When Palestinians shot and killed three little girls and their eight-months pregnant mother, they videotaped the children as they bled to death:

--it's a good thing we don't do anything like that.
--------------------------------
So, who is responsible for Berg’s death - the Freepers?

--from the comments about Berg's father, you'd think his father was responsible. nope, the freepers aren't responsible. they're really not responsible for much, poor guys can't even get out more than a few dozen for their 'counter protests'. But looking at the freeper site, you'd think the guy's father did it.
-------------------------------

calibar - When Palestinians shot and killed three little girls and their eight-months pregnant mother, they videotaped the children as they bled to death:

You say - "it's a good thing we don't do anything like that."

Palestinians directly targeted that mother and her children, then videotaped them as they bled to death.

They also fired off a few shots at the funeral.

This was all authorized by the Palestinian 'government'

Hamas, Yasser Arafat's Fatah and the Islamic Jihad claimed joint responsibility for the murderous attack. According to Voice of Israel's Avi Yissakharov, the Hamas is boasting that just as they are successfully driving the Jews from Gaza, so will they drive the Jews from other regions in Israel. In what has become a common scenario following terror attacks, Arab civilians in several locales under Arafat's control celebrated in the streets the murder of the Jewish mother and her children.

...

can you point out when the American government has authorized the deliberate targeting and the videotaping of the deaths of small children.

Can you point out when the American people have poured out into the streets to celebrate the deliberate targeting and deaths of small children?

In fact, there is no culture on earth that does celebrates the way the Palestinians do. They are unique.

can you point out when the American government has authorized the deliberate targeting and the videotaping of the deaths of small children

--why would they ever officially authorise it? that'd be crazy. we do know that military intelligence encouraged these mp's to do what they were doing, unless you believe they just came up with the idea on their own.
----------------------------
Can you point out when the American people have poured out into the streets to celebrate the deliberate targeting and deaths of small children?

--nope, we celebrate good honest clean military victories, unlike the untermenschen who are not like us.
---------------------------
In fact, there is no culture on earth that does celebrates the way the Palestinians do. They are unique.

--hmmm...that sounds pretty dubious. i recall the germans being into such stuff, the italians...rwandans, south african whites,...not that unusual i'm afraid. you only notice it when it's extremist members of a particular ethnic group you hate engages in that kind of behavior.
meanwhile, i'll be sure to get my guns ready before i kill any muslims living near me. i think there are some muslims on our police force, do you recommend i kill them too?

This was all authorized by the Palestinian 'government'

--no it wasn't, not from what i read in haaretz. what are you reading, some extreme right wing source for information?

Yassar Arafat's Fatah was one of the groups that claimed responsibility. One of their many atrocities.

i'll be sure to get my guns ready before i kill any muslims living near me. i think there are some muslims on our police force, do you recommend i kill them too?

calibar, exactly who are you arguing with here? Since when is pointing out Palestinian atrocities an incitement to kill random innocent people? In your imagination?

Your imagination is sounding kind of fevered lately.

Yassar Arafat's Fatah was one of the groups that claimed responsibility. One of their many atrocities.

--oh, so that makes it 'government approved', lol.

------------------
calibar, exactly who are you arguing with here? Since when is pointing out Palestinian atrocities an incitement to kill random innocent people? In your imagination?

--i'm just waiting for your marching orders cappy. doulas, taxi cab drivers, cops, teachers, pharmacy workers, just tell me when and i'm off to neutralize the enemies. long live the mussolini lobby.

calibar - what should we discuss next, the faked moon landing? The effects of gamma rays on man-in-the moon marigolds?

trippy..

May they tie in November and cancel each other out.

Michael,

Look at what the (statistical) tie did last time - I don't think the country needs to be divided any further (as the dialogue on this thread seems to suggest).

Personally, I distrust Kerry deeply on the WoT, but as a crafty/spineless politician, I'm pretty sure that he'd be bound by historicopolitical factors to not screw up in Iraq too terribly, though I find the idea of returning to business as usual at the UN - ie., turning a blind eye to the sex for food and the real (UNSCOM) blood for oil scandals, and the profound corruption that puts democidal dictatorships like Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, as some of Kerry's soundbites seem to suggest he'd like to do, deeply revolting.

Bush's administration on the other hand, has no political pressure towards moderation, or clasical conservatism for that matter (with a Republican dominated House, Senate and Supreme Court), either in spending or policy, aside from a deeply divided public. Further, as an Evil Geneticist ™, I really dislike what the administration's policies on science and visas are doing with regards to our country's long term competitiveness/innovation . At least Kerry would have a strong loyal opposition, so that's who I'm holding my nose and voting for at this point. I guess I'm not Kerry's most vocal supporter, but a vote against Ashcroft and Kass will sure feel nice. Of course, the election season isn't over yet...

what should we discuss next, the faked moon landing?

--why would i want to discuss such right wing conspiracy theories?

UN - ie., turning a blind eye to the sex for food and the real (UNSCOM) blood for oil scandals

--another chalabi allegation filled with hysteria and little substance, kinda like his WMD tall tales

another chalabi allegation filled with hysteria and little substance, kinda like his WMD tall tales

Calibar,

I'm not sure whether you're particularly interested in reason or facts when advancing your arguments, but this site is something of a a forum, so let's dialogue. The UN sex for food scandals are based primarily in Bosnia and East Africa (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3686173.stm & www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/9777.htm). While I'm sure Chalabi's tentacles are extensive in your worldview, blaming the well documented UN officer's sexual exploitation of children (documented by evil right wingers like Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/trafficking-testim-april.pdf) in West Africa and East Europe on him may be a bit of an overreach.

Similarly, the UNSCOM scandals have primarily come to light after the Gulf II war, as official Iraqi bribery records have become available and implicated UN officials - here's a pretty good summary, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52438-2004Apr29.html (via Roger Simon). That these documents seem to predate Chalabi's return to Iraq strongly suggests, IMO, that his influence over this is probably fairly minimal, but I could be wrong. The data seems pretty solid, but it's certainly possible that this data was fabricated by people to serve their own malicious/self interests. Hell, it's possible that all information you disagree with is untrue. But I assure you that that line of reasoning leads to solipsism and madness. Enjoy the trip!

tommy d,

HA, when you write "morally and intellectualy corrupt Democrats", do you mean that Democrats are morally and intellectually corrupt, or that there is small subset of Democrats who are morally and intellectually corrupt?

I mean that the leadership of the Democratic party is systematically morally and intellectually corrupt. The small subset of Democrats are those with integrity like Joe Lieberman who have been marginalized within the party. The rank and file of the party is roughly evenly split between those who are corrupt like the leadership and those decent people who are ignorant of the corrupton.

Today's Democratic leadership combines the intellectual corruption of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Edward Said with the moral corruption of Ted "drunken killer" Kennedy, John "confessed war criminal" Kerry, Jim "wahabbi lobby" McDermott, Bill "depends what is is" Clinton, Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore, Terry "global crossing" McAuliffe, Robert "KKK" Byrd, Al "incited murder, Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and Jesse "shakedown" Jackson.

The only unifying force in the party is hatred. Each faction within the party is driven by hatred of something. They hate America, capitalism, corporations, males, whites, Christians, and increasingly Jews. The different factions tolerate each other's hatred in order to advance their own.

The party is a complete disgrace which is why I am leaving it.

Tokyo Mikey Turner,

But never estimate the erotic thrill I get when an Ann Coulter lookalike calls me "Mikey". Ooh, do it again, Ann.

OK. You got it.

Because I suspect that from a technical standpoint, I'm right. If doing what Kerry "confessed" to do (so far as I've seen) is committing war crimes, we'd would have had to put thousands of Vietnam veterans through the international court system.

Your "technical standpoint" seems to be that although it cannot be refuted that Kerry explicitly confessed to being a war criminal, he may not actually BE a war criminal. I agree with that.

No claim that Kerry makes can be taken as truthful because he has a thirty year track record of mendacity. That is why I refer to him as a "confessed" war criminal. Like all of Kerry's statements, the truthfulnes of HIS claim that he IS a war criminal is open to debate.

Mikey, if you wish to impale yourself on that pin you are dancing on, be my guest.

Tokyo Mikey Turner,

I almost forgot, where is that Afghan pipeline?

Gene Thug (no, I'm not insulting him! He's a reasonable-sounding guy who seems to prefer that surname in this forum) writes:

"... the UNSCOM scandals have primarily come to light after the Gulf II war, as official Iraqi bribery records have become available and implicated UN officials - here's a pretty good summary, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52438-2004Apr29.html (via Roger Simon). That these documents seem to predate Chalabi's return to Iraq strongly suggests, IMO, that his influence over this is probably fairly minimal, but I could be wrong. The data seems pretty solid, but it's certainly possible that this data was fabricated by people to serve their own malicious/self interests. "

Yes, it's certainly possible. In fact, it's pretty damn near certain. Try this on for size: '"On the recommendation of several forensic experts, the '[Christian Science] Monitor' turned to Valery Aginsky, an ink chemist with Riley & Welch Associates, Forensic Document Examinations, Inc., in East Lansing, Mich. Dr. Aginsky first tested ink from the two alleged Galloway documents with the oldest dates -- 1992 and 1993. He found that the ink components had not yet finished aging, a process that typically takes no more than two years. The documents tested simply could not have been prepared when their dates said they were, according to Aginsky.'

What weird-ass far-left traitorous-bastard U.N. black-helicopter source did I get this from? It's a Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Analytical Report. RFE/RL is (after some years as CIA-infested propaganda mill) now a private non-profit that nevertheless still gets much of its budget from federal monies - Dubya has probably personally signed off on the bulk of their financing, every year he's been in office. With their spook reputation to live down, RFE/RL seems to have settled on some bizarre strategy for media management, like objectivity or something.

That said: there seems to have been a disastrous lack of transparency in the U.N. oil-for-food voucher program. Given the amounts of money involved, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that some U.N. officials were corrupted by it. Rigorous investigations are under way. They should be under way. But I don't think any of them will be using the al Mada sources, no matter how much people like William Safire talk of coverups, coverups of