Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 27, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PROVOKING A WAR....David Manning's memo summarizing a meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq has been reported before, but the New York Times has additional details today:

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons.

....The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation

...."The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein.

Yes, that's the president of the United States talking about deliberately faking a UN overflight in order to provoke a phony confrontation with Saddam or if that didn't work, trotting out a defector to lie about Iraqi WMD. Honor and dignity, baby, honor and dignity.

Kevin Drum 1:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (180)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Censure, anyone?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 27, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Once again we see just how much liberals are committed to winning the war on terror: doing what it takes to win is considered "bad form".

Try fighting for the good guys sometime.

Posted by: Al on March 27, 2006 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

End justifies the means, Al? I don't think so. You do that, you throw out the entire bill of rights. Oh, yeah, forgot, that's already been done, by your hero.

Posted by: moe99 on March 27, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

moe,
Al is conflating the war on terror with Saddam. Bush said recently that he never stated Saddam had anything to do with al-queda. Guess Al didn't get the memo. Not that consistency matters.

Posted by: gq on March 27, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Can we impeach that motherfucker yet?

Posted by: Space Shuttle Challenger on March 27, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't Kevin post about this a while ago and comment "10 bucks says the UN flight was Cheney's idea?" How long has this memo been kicking about, because none of these details seem new to this blog.

Posted by: bgdaniels on March 27, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

Provoking a war with an uninvolved party is "what it takes to win" the war on terror? What a unique perspective. Al is the kind of guy who goes home and kicks his dog after he gets intimidated by tough-looking kids at the 7-11.

Posted by: Singularity on March 27, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

Singularity,
Only if it's a little dog that won't fight back.

Posted by: gq on March 27, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

There are two kinds of Americans

Those who want to find the most effective way to protect this country from those who would do us harm

And those for whom the primary goal is defending George W. Bush no matter how much harm he is doing to our nation

AI belongs to the latter group

Posted by: hopeless pedant on March 27, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0 >"Censure, anyone?"

Yea, get out the wet noodles and prepare to whip POTUS

Absurd

Impeach them all & let the Gods sort it all out

Censure my a**

Whimps !

"...This is not a game." - Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)

Posted by: daCascadian on March 27, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

New England's impeachment belt.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq...

Posted by: JS on March 27, 2006 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know whether to be horrified, sad, ashamed for the US or... simply exhausted.

Further evidence that George Bush is a lying, incompetent piece of s*** idiot and will it make any difference?

So time to cue the conservative chorus..."The liberals don't want to win this war."

And cue the liberal leadership chorus...."We don't want to censure Bush. We don't want to seem unpatriotic. We don't want to offend anyone. We just want to win gosh-darn elections, pretty please, why don't you like us?"

With a special Pat Roberts solo: "My eyes are shut, I won't open them. George Bush can do no wrong."

Posted by: PTate in MN on March 27, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

It's interesting to think what would've happened if the fake flight had taken place. I mean, once we all found out about it, as we inevitably would have.

Posted by: Tim on March 27, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

I mean, once we all found out about it, as we inevitably would have.

The Wurlitzer would have loudly accused anyone bringing it up of being objectively pro-terrorist. The Al's of the world would be leaping to the defense of the administration with the same bullshit we get from trolls here.

Posted by: jimBOB on March 27, 2006 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

nothing would be any different ... we'd still have the same cowardly pussies telling us that instigating illegal wars of aggression and creating more terrorists is somehow more productive than actually catching the existing ones.

Posted by: Nads on March 27, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK

Why do liberals hate America so much? Bush is only defending America from our enemies.

Posted by: Donkey_Courage on March 27, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

Why didn't he just assassinate SH? Would have been much cheaper.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on March 27, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

Monkey:

You'd be against assassinating Saddam Insane too, hyprocrite. You mofo.

Posted by: Donkey_Courage on March 27, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

I often wonder if the als, donkey courages, and McAs of this world were already cowardly pussies prior to 9/11, or if that day just unmanned them so.

Posted by: Nads on March 27, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

ITMFA !

Posted by: ch2 on March 27, 2006 at 3:17 AM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure this is old (by Internet standards) news. The bit about getting a "UN" plane shot down was in the original stories when the memo first was revealed.

Posted by: Hellsgate on March 27, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure I get the significance of the UN-painted plane plan. Bush and Blair had been bombing Iraq for years, claiming they were doing it under UN authority. Iraq routinely fired missiles at planes enforcing the UN-mandated "no fly" zones. Why would Bush feel he needed a UN-painted plane? If Iraq's shooting at US and British UN-sanctioned planes was casus belli, then the US had that already many times over.

If Bush suddenly felt UN colors were needed on planes flying over Iraq, then that would constitute addmission that the US/British bombing of radars had been illegal.

Posted by: JS on March 27, 2006 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but after you read that how sure can you be that 9/11 wasn't a CIA/NSA/Mossad/whatever scheme?

Posted by: Anon on March 27, 2006 at 3:31 AM | PERMALINK

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

-- George W. Bush (August 5, 2004)

Posted by: lellis on March 27, 2006 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

Yawn.

You're still late to the party, Drum.

Posted by: lettuce on March 27, 2006 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

The article also said Saddam refused to disarm. He said he had no WMDs.

Turns out that was correct.

And he was slicing up missiles.

Were they expecting him to slice off his own arms? What arms did they ask him to surrender that he didn't?

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on March 27, 2006 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK

Worst.President.Ever.

And a liar deluxe to boot!

Did the R's anticipate this asshole and burn the impeachment card over a blowjob on purpose? One wonders...If one is slightly paranoid...

Posted by: Global Citizen on March 27, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

Ummm... What's your point? There's nothing wrong with any of that.

Posted by: aaron on March 27, 2006 at 5:13 AM | PERMALINK

No lying was involved.

Posted by: aaron on March 27, 2006 at 5:22 AM | PERMALINK

"No lying":

"This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause..."
- President Bush's State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.... 'The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,' the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. 'If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.'"
- NY Times story on memo of meeting between Blair and Bush on Jan. 31, 2003

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 27, 2006 at 5:39 AM | PERMALINK

I would say that saying you "seek peace", that war would only be a last resort if Saddam Hussein failed to provide conclusive proof of having disarmed, while simultaneously seeking ways to trick Saddam Hussein into attacking you, seeking a provocation for the war you tell your allies, in secret, you intend to carry out - I would say that constitutes "lying". It's the kind of lying that goes on routinely in the worlds of politics and business, but it's still lying.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 27, 2006 at 5:43 AM | PERMALINK

Wait. Who said the defector was a liar. Just Kevin.

Plus wasn't there a no-fly zone under UN sanction.
That means the airforce could be painted in UN sanctions and it'd be legal.

Another great hack-job on the facts by Kevin Drum.

Posted by: McA on March 27, 2006 at 6:00 AM | PERMALINK

Fighting terrorism is not the opposite of the rule of law; in fact, the two go together.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on March 27, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

would say that saying you "seek peace", that war would only be a last resort if Saddam Hussein

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 27, 2006 at 5:43 AM | PERMALINK

By then he had already failed to provide conclusive proof, just looking for a clearer excuse for PR points. If Turkey participated it would have been a faster invasion.

Posted by: McA on March 27, 2006 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

The Iraq no-fly zone was a creation of the British and American governments, operated since the Coalition pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991. The no-fly zone had nothing to do with the UN which neither authorised it or tried to prevent the two governments from operating it.

The provocation flight was a looney-tunes idea anyway. If the "UN" plane was shot at, what happens when the UN asks who authorised the flight? When it turns out that no-one in the UN did so, the spotlight would turn on the only country with U-2s, i.e. the US.

Posted by: Robert Sneddon on March 27, 2006 at 6:30 AM | PERMALINK

I wish Al and the other right-wing loonies would get it through their head that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before there was any war on terror. And second (and a couple posters have already made this point) the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from what should have been our goal of eliminating al-Qaeda, and most importantly, Osama bin Laden, after 9-11. Hes still alive, Al, and he is making audiotapes mocking your hero on a regular basis. Yeah, Bush is real tough on terror. NOT!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 27, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

I guess that whatever our political views can be, we can acknowledge that American credibility has been shattered due to the presidents policy, which was unfortunately based on false premises. If there were WMD why they were not used by Saddam?! If there were WMD, why American forces have been unable to find any of them despite the fact that they have been in Iraq for more than three years now?! Looks like the toppling of Saddam is the only gain that has been achieved so far. Toppling of American credibility, its authority and rising military Islamist Anti-Americanism are other more negative and very serious consequences of current crisis.

Posted by: Anthony on March 27, 2006 at 6:46 AM | PERMALINK

Well, gee. According the translations of Iraqi internal documents.

1) There weren't any
2) They knew they could rebuild them all quickly anyway and were planning to

However, at the end of the day - enforcing WMD non-proliferation will involve invading a few bluffers.

Losing soldier's lives to WMD in use is stupid.
The time to invade is before they have 'em.

Yes, true. Americans are hated. Like you were when they 9-11'd you. And when you invaded Afghanistan. Like that's changed.

At least now you have a kick ass rep.

The world will never love a hyper-power. Just hope to be feared/respected enough not to bullied.

Why can't you get over Vietnam? Vietnam has and is making Nike's.

Posted by: McA on March 27, 2006 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

Fuck Cnesure. We've been well into high crimes and treason for quite some time now.

Posted by: patience on March 27, 2006 at 7:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Good Guys" = War profiteers and Oil Cabals

Same old story.

Posted by: Ben Merc on March 27, 2006 at 7:46 AM | PERMALINK

Yet, Kevin doubts that Bush lied about WMD. Go figure.

Posted by: The Fool on March 27, 2006 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

All Hail the Liar-in-Chief!

Posted by: Doofus on March 27, 2006 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINK

even with info like this he's still going to drag the us of a down the drain, what a piece of shit he is

Posted by: denali on March 27, 2006 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

If this is true, it certainly re-frames all of Bush's recent assertions that he never wanted to go to war. Not only is he a pathological liar, but the whole folksy gosh-I'm-just-trying-to-protect-the-American-people schtick is just a put-on. There have been times when I thought at least he believes his own bullshit.

Posted by: Paul on March 27, 2006 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

I've been wondering about Blair's motives in all this. Calling him "Bush's poodle," though fair enough, doesn't really seem to explain his absolutely unblinking support for a war whose rationale had turned to shit months before it started. Bush is stupid, so stupid he has no conception of how far he is from understanding anything at all about Iraq or the Middle East or anything else to do with foreign affairs. Blair is not stupid. I'm starting to wonder if, beyond his well-publicized piety, he is not secretly an outright religious fanatic of the Apocalypse/Rapture stripe.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on March 27, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: Yes, true. Americans are hated. Like you were when they 9-11'd you. And when you invaded Afghanistan. Like that's changed. ...At least now you have a kick ass rep.

Yeah, Dubya isthe kickass rep for incompetents, idiots, and liars. Maybe that's why you have such an affinity for him.

NYTimes [with emphasis]: Mr. Bush predicted that it was unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups. Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh Dubya followed faithfully by his poodle. You know, given Dubya above prediction, I'm beginning to think that Pat Robertson's no casualties remark was true!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Why can't you get over Vietnam? Vietnam has and is making Nike's."~McA

Just as they would have been doing if we had stayed home.
By the same token, Iraq will be a place of sectarian conflict, Islamic fundamentalism, and strong-man rule within a few years of our leaving.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 27, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

No lying was involved.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq...
George W. Bush, March 19, 2003

Posted by: R.Porrofatto on March 27, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Squeaky Rat: Blair is not stupid. I'm starting to wonder if, beyond his well-publicized piety, he is not secretly an outright religious fanatic of the Apocalypse/Rapture stripe.

Hmmm...Good point. Repub strategist Kevin Phillips might agree.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Well Squeaky rat, if Blair is not stupid and there is any truth to your statement, then he is merely imbalanced and suffers from some acute mental disorder as many do in this American/Anglo Cabal. Stupid or insane, not much recourse either way. What I do think is we have the last gasp of the old Anglo-Empire realizing they truly no longer control the world in the grand fashion that they once were able. And that alone may cause fits of well deserved paranoia. If we get through this crisis time and the dick heads do not blow up the place, we may move beyond the old world order and establish some progressive economic paradigms. I am certain there is the global will , and mission effort of many highly intelligent institutions and individuals to do so. Whether they get by the old King makers will be the 64 million dollar question.

Posted by: Ben Merc on March 27, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

Additional details? Sounds pretty much like the bullshit tripe thats been paraded on this blog for four years now. Stuck on stupid.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

"The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

Off in Wingnutistan, they've been doing just this lately, with a former Iraqi officer saying that Saddam gave all his weapons to his mortal enemy the Syria Baathists to hold for him. They've been pushing this heavily for the last 2-3 months. Especially Rep Welden.

Posted by: jim p on March 27, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

All the little weak panty waist liberals are still fretting over a meeting between Blair and Bush that they have contrived in their wooden little heads and that happened four years ago. And then they blame the conservatives for brining up Clintons lies and fallacies. These fucktwits don't have the common sense to get out of their own way. No wonder they represent just 6% of the minority party and are positioned to lose yet another election.

BTW, don't you find it hysterical that they have been telling us that GW is losing ground with the voters since '00, and yet in '04 he won by a larger margin than he did in '00. They have a tepid grasp on reality. Of course when your head is firmly planted in your ass it begins to smell like Howard Dean.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Bush and Blair conspire.
We don't need no steenking facts.
"Fuck Saddam." Invade!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton, penis, Clinton, Koresh, duuuuuhhhhhhrrrr...

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals seem to think it's the Christian theocracy in America they have to worry about so they don't actually have to worry about the REAL problem, the Islamic theocracy. Again that tepid grip on reality.

You can't win this hugs and understanding losers. But if you tried to hug a christian, that might work, but careful, you might get all of that heterosexual moral stuff on you. Yikes!

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo, your debating skills are above average for a liberal loser, well done!

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

George W. Bush has a 36% approval rating, he's the greatest and most popular president ever and all you liberals are just JEALOUS!

duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrr...DUUUUUHHHHRRRRR...

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

This little US adventure seems only to be going from bad to worse.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - "A suicide bomber attacked an Iraqi army recruiting center Monday in northern Iraq, killing at least 30 people and wounding 30 others, the Iraqi military said. A top Iraqi official denounced the United States over a raid that Shiites said killed worshippers in a mosque. Although the United States said no mosque was attacked, Shiites blamed the military for killing 22 people Sunday and cut off political talks in protest. Jawad al-Maliki, a lawmaker from the United Iraqi Alliance, said the Shiite bloc had canceled Monday's session of negotiations to form a new government because of the raid."

Posted by: Botecelli on March 27, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

You know who was another great American hero and pillar of morality? David Koresh.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Stop it, Apollo! Over the weekend, I made a resolution to spend less time on blogs. You know what haikus do to me!

Posted by: shortstop on March 27, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Shut up Botecelli, you're just focusing on the negative, while ignoring the fact that Iraq is becoming a bastion of Jeffersonian Democracy in the Middle East. You can't see it because you're an America-hating liberal who want us to lose.

But I know better, because the real patriots at LGF told me so!

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Yes you are right "jay" I will switch the dial over to Laura Ingraham's show ... Ah that's much better.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 27, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

What a shock, another bomb goes off and the liberals declare defeat, yet the Iraqi's continue to line up and volunteer for the military/security forces.

Can we trade all of the loser liberals for the good people of Iraq? That's the perfect solution. The good people of Iraq will get to enjoy freedom, what they have been working so hard for and risked their lives for when they went to the polls. And the liberals will get to be bitch slapped and beheaded nearly everyday for taking freedom for granted and for not realizing the Islamic Theocrats want to kill you. The libs will get to finally fulfill their ultimate dream of being a self loathing submissive victims.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, shortstop. : )

Bullshit tripe! Fuckwits!
Jay is just here to divert.
Insults aren't debate.

NYTimes: [President Bush] spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

And yet Dubya lacked plans for a post-war Iraq ! He had a timetable to meet for invasion. Ah, but no timetable on withdrawal or an exit strategy. Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

I haven't a brain, therefore I am liberal.

It isn't important to have a plan, what is important is to continue to tell people that they need the government and the liberal intellectually elite to survive. There is no way people can actually think for themselves without the liberal left telling them what's important and what the polls tell us to do.

All hail the mighty polls.

Posted by: Apollo on March 27, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

> At lease now America has a kick-ass rep!
> Do what it takes to win!
> Mom made Frito pie!

Kevin, how do they find, you?

Please, please, please send better trolls to this site.

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 27, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Careful Boticelli, the liberals wouldn't like you straying from the reservation and actually finding out something else about Iraq other than IED explosions.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

How about a "Brokeback" haiku shorty. That would get us both hot.

Posted by: Apollo on March 27, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

The insurgents can tell which people are conservative and liberal, and which ones to kidnap and behead. Laura Ingraham told me this after she visited Iraq and travelled around with a heavy military guard.

That's just another sign of success, not being able to travel anywhere in the country without a military escort. Although I don't have firsthand knowledge, since I'm too much of a fat pussy to actually fight over there. But my LGF and Pajamaline sources tell me I'm right.

A bunch of people voted for a government that isn't doing anything, and they're volunteering to be in the military and police and get blown up by IEDs. Success! At least they've got balls, unlike me.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I'm still a self-hating homosexual. You lieberals will never drag me out of the closet.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

During a private two-hour meeting...

Just how "private" was this meeting?

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 27, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

The real question is why the fuck you losers aren't over there. I am 58 years old and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services. What have you fucktwits done? Won't get off your ass to help others free themselves from oppression and better their lives, but then want everyone here to help pay their medical bills. Is that it? Really impressive.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

I am 58 years old

No, really, I don't believe that. Subtract 40 years from the total, maybe I'd buy it. But the thought of such lame juvenile spewings emanating from someone almost 60 years old makes me weep for my country.

Posted by: Gregory on March 27, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: I am 58 years old and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services.

"Enlisted in the draft"? "Offered my services"?

Fucking cowardly scumbag. Too think that some other brave American died in Vietnam so this hate-filled, spittle-flecked physical coward could stay at home.

Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

I was 4F so I couldn't even get VA benefits to put me in a better psych ward than this one. Motherfuckers!

Posted by: Jay Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

That Bush and Blair lied about WMD is a given. That they intended to invade Iraq no matter what is a given. Arguing this is a waste of air and bandwidth. The real question is: why? There is remarkably little energy given to this. Anyone but a drooling idiot knows, at this point, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. B&B knew this, too. Given all that they knew - why did they decide to invade Iraq? What were the main reasons? All other questions regarding Iraq are missing the point.

Posted by: ExBrit on March 27, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

What's astonishing to me is the lengths to which the wingnuts will go in their defense of Bush's clearly disastrous policies.

Yes, the "UN plane" story is old news; its only value these days might be if it serves to pry open the dank vaults of wingnut thinking, perhaps bringing a little light to where none has shone before.

It's more than clear to anyone who bothers to pay attention that the war in Iraq was based on phenomenal incompetence at best, and outright lying at worst. It's blatantly obvious to all thinking people that the war has all along been a major distraction from the real tasks of minimising terror attacks globally and bringing the actual perpetrators of 9/11 to justice (or death).

Yet the radical fascists who masquerade as "conservatives", represented intellectually by the trolls who pollute this thread, continue to swagger along, believing that everything is hunky-dory. Boggles the mind.

Posted by: Wonderin on March 27, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Just how "private" was this meeting?

As stated in the NYT article:

David Manning...wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
And as reported by The Guardian in early February (here):
The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides...

Posted by: has407 on March 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I weep for the country every time you post Greggy, so right back at you fucktwit.

Shit-for-brains Stefan:
Vietnam was a war inspired by the democrats. The country lost over 150,000 brave men and women, while you sat on your ass, and accomplished shit.

In Iraq we have only lost 2200 brave men and women and have established a freely elected government, trained and 200,000+ military and security force and have put Saddam on trial.

How does it feel to be a loser every single fucking of your pathetic life?

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Yep. Faulty intelligence! Thanks to the non-stop Psyops that is the Bush administration, Congress and the US citizenry didn't know that Bush was lying about everything.

Lots of us fully suspected it was a crock, but there was no proof. Scott Ritter had the WMD angle nailed, but he was painted as a crazy man.

Freedom is on the march! Tell that to the kids in Iraq whose teacher was beheaded in their classroom last week.

Posted by: RickG on March 27, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

ExBrit (or ExBrains), there is a little thing called a cease-fire agreement that was signed by Saddam in which he agreed to 17 UN resolutions. The allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards the Iraqi regime if any one of those resolutions were violated. EVERY single resolution was violated.

Now the question for the "drooling idiots" is: should UN resoltuions matter?

Or have you conveniently forgotten that "other" little reason for war?

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

NYTimes: During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003...

Hmmm, I wonder if they also discussed the ongoing bombing of Iraq that had begun in 2002. Courtesy Shakespeare Sister from the UK's, The Sunday Times:

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war to put pressure on the regime was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began spikes of activity designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.
The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was not consistent with UN law, despite American claims that it was.
[]
Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.
General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraqs defences as weak as possible.
The allied commander specifically used the term spikes of activity in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority, he said.
Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.
The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

I have it on good authority from Stefan's girlfriend that during "every single fucking," he's far from a loser. Carry on, sentient beings.

Posted by: shortstop on March 27, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Is violating UN resolutions illegal?

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Vietnam was a war inspired by the democrats.

The first US forces in Vietnam were put there by the Republican Eisenhower Administration. While the war was also fought by the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson, I don't recall the Republicans opposing it -- quite the opposite, in fact.

The country lost over 150,000 brave men and women,

50,000, not 150,000.

while you sat on your ass, and accomplished shit.

Since I was a baby at the time, that's actually quite true.

Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

This meeting was apparently the one after Blair told Bush that 1) James Bond does in fact not exist and British agents are not willing to sneak into Iraq with a russian scud and fire it at Tel Aviv, and 2) He (Bush) clearly did not understand the dominant motif of Ian Fleming's novels as iniating wars through deception was clearly the role of deranged media moguls and not James Bond.

Posted by: toast on March 27, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Is violating UN resolutions illegal?

Whether nor not Iraq violated UN resolutions does not give the US any authority to invade Iraq to enforce them.

The first Gulf War ended when Iraq formally accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 686, which resolution required Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Resolution 687 was adopted by the Security Council a month later and said that "a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait."

Even though this second resolution required Iraq to disarm it did not give a blank check to the U.S. or any other nation to resume war against Iraq. The resolution authorized only the Security Council, and not individual states, to take any necessary action, as when it stated the Security Council resolved "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." The United States, acting on its own, has no authority, either explicit or inherent, to enforce Security Council resolutions under the cease-fire.


Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

The memo must be a fraud. President Bush has made it very clear that he did not want war.


HELEN THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist, is that, you know, I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Posted by: david1234 on March 27, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Is violating UN resolutions illegal?

Stefan,
What Jay is trying to say is that the U.S. and the UK acted illegally like Saddam did. Quite an admission even for a Bushtard.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Over 58,000 deaths in Vietnam, my bad. But still a completely ineffective effort.

Eisenhower died in April 1945. Truman was the first to establish troop presence in Vietnam later that year. And Kennedy bolstered that presence and initiated hostilities.

The cease fire agreement clearly stated that the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards the Iraqi regime if any of the resolutions were violated. Resolution 1441 went further and stated that Saddam become completely transparent or face serious consequnces.

Again, does the UN and their mandates matter?

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Apollo, the UK and the US had every right to continue hostilities towards a hostile regime.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Eisenhower died in April 1945.

Which might explain his somewhat low-key demeanor as President from 1953 through 1961.

Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Downing Street memos.
Intel fixed to fit war plans.
Bush wanted Saddam.

He tried to kill Dad!
Dubya plotted. Get even!
Bush grudge. People die.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, "Again, does the UN and their mandates matter?"


I suppose not, as you can see from below (sorry for the length)

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Morocco
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Conventionto all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

807 (1993) Croatia
Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas.

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

815 (1993) Croatia
Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

896 (1994) Russia
"Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia."

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.


Posted by: Botecelli on March 27, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

How are these memos playing across the Atlantic? As an American I've gotten used to Bush lies and our congress' inaction in regards to those lies, but my question is; how are the UK people and parliament reacting to the fact that there prime minister actually conspired with the US President to create a war. Is there a UK equivalent of impeachment or at least censure?

Along with destroying our integrity, Bush has also destroyed his legacy, I wonder if he hasn't done the same for Tony Blair and the United Kingdom.

Posted by: F on March 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Me and Delay enlisted to go to Vietnam, but they wouldn't send us because of all the blacks in affirmative action who got priority.

And yeah, I'm 58 years old and I talk like a brain-damaged 12 year old. So what, wanna fight about it?
And yeah, Eisenhower died in 1945, seven years before he became president, making him the first zombie to serve two terms. Cleveland only served one as a zombie.

Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM

LMAO! ROTF...

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Eisenhower died in April 1945. Truman was the first to establish troop presence in Vietnam later that year. And Kennedy bolstered that presence and initiated hostilities.

From Wikipedia:

Soon after the Korean War, with the intention of preventing South Vietnam from becoming a communist state, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the first of hundreds of American armed servicemen (along with CIA agents) to Vietnam as military advisers on Feb. 12, 1955.

At a news conference in 1954, Eisenhower stated, "You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly. Asia has alreay lost some 450 millions of its peoples to communist dictatorship. We simply cannot afford greater losses" Eisenhower and his staff subsequently started a plan for military support of South Vietnam.

On July 8, 1959 Dale Buis and Charles Ovnand became the first Americans killed in action in Vietnam.

Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

NOW JEEBUS, you KNOW that can't be true...just last week our prez said right out loud that "no president wants to go to war!"...what are you going to believe...this fine, upstanding CHRISTIAN man or some old liberal, elitist report that MUST be contrived? All recent evidence supports the honor and integrity and ethics of this administration, non?

Posted by: Dancer on March 27, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

I am 58 years old and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services

Jay,

I am SO gald I am old enough to call you on your bullshit.

You make it sound so noble. You enlisted in the draft. Too bad there was no voluntary enlisting in the draft at the time - everyone was enlisted.

Or wait, do you mean you suppressed your gayness so you wouldn't get the 4F deferrment? I suppose that would be noble, but only if you did it to get a chance to kill some gooks.

If you lied about your homosexuality just so you could spend close quarters with young, healthy, masculine studs then you are a naughty, naughty boy.

So why weren't you selected? In 1966 or so they were taking every warm blooded piece of meat they could find.

What gave you the 4F? Was it an ingrown butthair like Rush Limbaugh had?

Posted by: Tripp on March 27, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

How does it feel to be a loser every single fucking [day?] of your pathetic life?

Ask W.

Posted by: ckelly on March 27, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Unlike those who are ceaselessly praying for the victory of our enemies, I would rather believe our Commander-in-Chief during the time of war than New York Times' descriptio of illegally obtained documents.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 27, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Is anyone really surprised by this? The notion that the ends justify the means is the absolute bedrock of conservative ideology. And, as we all know, since 9/11 "changed everything", morality is now strictly for losers (like us liberals).

Posted by: DH Walker on March 27, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

I see that poor, dim-witted Kevin is still touting the "Bush Lied" meme.

What's especially delicious about this is the current and pending release of those 48,000 boxes of captured Iraqi documents. Moonbats like Kevin have bet all of their credibility (such as it is/was) on their absurd contention that the Iraq war was unnecessary and that GWB lied to us all (for some unexplained reasons having to do with oil or whatever).

Not only have the newly release documents demonstrated extensive ties between Bin Laden and Saddam, Laurie Mylorie discovered this:

Two documents relate to Iraq's proscribed WMD programs. One is a table, providing details of a Sept. 6, 2000, contract for the production of "the malignant pustule" -- the Pentagon official who leaked these documents believed it referred to anthrax -- along with earlier contracts for sterilization and decontamination equipment. Another table describes an Aug. 21, 2000, contract for the production of mustard gas and earlier contracts for protective equipment. Small amounts of material are mentioned: three ampules of "the malignant pustule" (an ampule is a small, sealed glass vial) and five kilograms of mustard gas. These contracts could have represented test runs, or, as a former U.N. weapons inspector suggested to me, the material could have been intended for terrorism. - Today's WSJ, for Subscribers only.

Just what do you idiots think will be the reaction of the American electorate to the inevitable conclusions that Saddam was the source of the Anthrax released on our shores in September of 2001?

But Saddam was SECULAR!! (you wail)

What a bunch of idiots you are.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 27, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

The cease fire agreement clearly stated that the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards the Iraqi regime if any of the resolutions were violated.

No, the cease-fire agreement Resolution 687 clearly stated that the UN Security Council -- and not any individual member country of the UN -- reserved the right. If Bush had wanted to use the UN as a pretext he should have gone to the SC and obtained a resolution -- but, even though he'd said he was going to do this he flip-flopped and didn't.

Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to the warmongers on the day I heard the President blatantly lie sometime before the start of the Iraq war to say that Saddam did not allow inspectors to come into Iraq.

All of these kind of things that have been coming out since then have only served to confirm my conviction that these guys were lying. It is really despicable that they have been trying so desperately to cover up their deliberate falsehoods as so many americans and non-americans continue to die for their lies.

Posted by: lib on March 27, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

...he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons.

Operation Just Because.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on March 27, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

"Well, gee. According the translations of Iraqi internal documents.

1) There weren't any
2) They knew they could rebuild them all quickly anyway and were planning to"

Cite please.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on March 27, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

It's really, really getting hard to tell whether Jay is real or a parody.

Vietnam was a war inspired by the democrats.

The US' first commitments to South Vietnam were made under Eisenhower -- if he was a Democrat, that's certainly news to me and to the history books -- and the war continued from Nixon's election in 1968 (hence, no doubt, Jay's tepid "inspired by" qualifier) into the administration of Gerald Ford, no Democrat he.

The country lost over 150,000 brave men and women

I'd like to see your source for that figure, as it appears to be above most accepted counts by a factor of nearly three.

Posted by: Gregory on March 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Just what do you idiots think will be the reaction of the American electorate to the inevitable conclusions that Saddam was the source of the Anthrax released on our shores in September of 2001?

You forgot to mention hurricane Katrina and the asian Tsunami. Only an America-hating terrorist would deny Saddam's role in those disasters.

(for some unexplained reasons having to do with oil or whatever).

Ok, so you can't read, either. The idea that Bush wanted to be a "wartime president" to boost his domestic support in the interests of pushing a pro-business legislative agenda at home is hardly some big secret. You may not agree with this, but to never have heard this notion before, you really must have been living under a rock for the past three years. Or, you know, the "being totally full of shit" explanation. Either one.

Posted by: DH Walker on March 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

...he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons.

One doesn't have to be Rev. Bayes to conclude on the basis of the available evidence that there is a very high probability that he was determined to invade Iraq even before the first resolution.

The President has lied profusely about his motivation for the Iraq war ever since the misadventure began.

Posted by: lib on March 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, Norman, I too think Sadaam was behind the Anthrax attacks. I just remember all of those fiery speeches of his, demonizing CBS, the New York Post, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop, a modified haiku in using, um, poetic license...LOL!

Flippity doo dah!
Shooting him birds. My, oh, my!
A prez who serves turds.

Plenty of sunshine
Exposes the BushLiar.
Flippity doo dah!
His pants are on fire.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

...production of "the malignant pustule"

I thought that was you, Norman.

Posted by: ckelly on March 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Just what do you idiots think will be the reaction of the American electorate to the inevitable conclusions that Saddam was the source of the Anthrax released on our shores in September of 2001?

The usual -- that Regnery will publish any old wingnut propaganda.

Posted by: Gregory on March 27, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Nuts'n Run Jay on March 27, 2006 at 10:02 AM:

...and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services.

You could have volunteered, chickenhawk...and being in a draft lottery doesn't qualify as 'offering service', chickenhawk...

That's it! New nickname: 'Cluck'n Run Jay'...

Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 10:45 AM:

Even though this second resolution required Iraq to disarm it did not give a blank check to the U.S...

Hey, thanks, Stefan...Condoleeza Rice parroted the '17 resolutions' talking point on Meet the Press...I thought that it was about the only thing she wasn't lying about...Typical Republican weasel-talk; 'Tho resolutions may have been violated, the US was not the sole responsible party for enforcing the resolutions.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 27, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK


That Bush and Blair lied about WMD is a given. That they intended to invade Iraq no matter what is a given. Arguing this is a waste of air and bandwidth. The real question is: why? There is remarkably little energy given to this. Anyone but a drooling idiot knows, at this point, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. B&B knew this, too. Given all that they knew - why did they decide to invade Iraq? What were the main reasons? All other questions regarding Iraq are missing the point.
Posted by: ExBrit

I don't claim to know the real reason(s), but if one looks at the profits being made by the Bush/Cheney Oil Cartel since Iraq's oil was made inaccessible as a result of the invasion, I suspect you'd find the increase has been astronomical.

Follow the $$$

Posted by: G.Kerby on March 27, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

G. Kerby

I don't think it's the $$$.

It's GWB's perception that he outline even prior to 2000 that being a Commander-in-Chief during the time of a war produces a lot of political capital, enough to get re-elected.

Posted by: lib on March 27, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

In case anyone needs a history refresher on the Vietnam era draft:

1964 - While the draft had already been in place, the need for US soldiers greatly increased in 1964, so this is the first year when a substantial number of young men were drafted.

Unfortunately, as we know from Bush's TANG assignment, there was great corruption in local draft boards, who could hand out deferments at their own discretion. Probably the most common deferment was 2S - college student. The second most common was 3A - married with child. This is how Cheney avoided the draft.

Because of widespread protests at the unfairness of the draft/deferment system Congress created the 'birthday lottery' system in 1969. At that time young men would receive a lottery number based on their birth date to determine their draft order.

So our 58 year old Jay was draft eligible smack in the middle of the corruption/deferment time period.

I ask again, Jay, what deferment did you get?

For the record by the time I became eligible, 1974, the draft had officially ended but they continued to hold the birthday lotteries. I received a high lottery number but it didn't matter because no one with my birth year was drafted.

Posted by: Tripp on March 27, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry. I mean to say...

It's GWB's perception that he outlined...

Posted by: lib on March 27, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

grape_crush,

Yes, but Jay became 18 even before the birthday lottery, so I'd like to know how he managed to 'volunteer' and yet still got a deferment?

It doesn't add up. It's easy for Jay to claim, 40 years later what a hero he was, but the fact is he's just an old man lieing about his past.

Posted by: Tripp on March 27, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory: It's really, really getting hard to tell whether Jay is real or a parody.

Ah, just Norman spoofing us as "Jay," methinks. The original "Cut 'N' Run" Jay didn't use foul language as you can see here and here, and his appearance where he advocated time to bring the troops home from Iraq, here at 10:15 AM.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Tripp on March 27, 2006 at 11:40 AM:

Yes, but Jay became 18 even before the birthday lottery

Yeah, I just read your post and did the math...

so I'd like to know how he managed to 'volunteer' and yet still got a deferment?

He never said he volunteered, just that was 'enlisted in the draft' but 'was never selected', which he apparently considers the same as 'offering his services.'...Which I took to mean that if his number came up, he would have shot himself in the foot to avoid being drafted...

As for deferments, there's a few more possible...Maybe he got a young girl pregnant and pleaded hardship?

It doesn't add up.

It's Cluck'n Run Jay; what else did you expect?

the fact is he's just an old man lieing about his past.

I doubt that he's an older man. I don't doubt that he's lying...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 27, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

What I think is funny is that Jay is trying to say that "being eligible for the draft" is the same thing as "having volunteered".

And we shouldn't conclude that a lot of Bush supporters are morons ... why, again? Because it hurts their feelings, and they cry about it?

Posted by: DH Walker on March 27, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

quit being a FUCKING republican, democrat , or any
label type person .when the voters elect these num-nuts to office they want respect and want to be called the HONORABLE what ever shit head is being referred to . let go of your teenage years and demand respect from those bastards no matter what political label they wear. your vote is giving them the job .demand that they respect you as a citizen that voted for them or a citizen that voted aganist them !!! it is your government
and they work for the people that voted. the other sonsofabitches that did not vote or does not have the right to vote , go fuck yourself


Posted by: HOWLER MONKEY on March 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

In a blaze of light amidst the factually-challenged droppings comes...

Not only have the newly release documents demonstrated extensive ties between Bin Laden and Saddam, Laurie Mylorie discovered this:

Holy shit! Norman's back and under his own name! And he still can't even spell the names of his favorite debunked ber-whackjobs!

Plus a change, eh?


Posted by: R.Porrofatto on March 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist, is that, you know, I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

anyone else wonder if Helen Thomas will follow this up at the next available opportunity? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: Edo on March 27, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 11:43 AM:

The original "Cut 'N' Run" Jay...

I see that I'm not the only one who has tagged him with that nickname...just the latest, as usual...

...Just don't want anybody thinking that I pulled a Domenech on Pale Rider or anyone else...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 27, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, Norman, same moronic dipshit. Well, they might be different people sharing the same damaged brain.

Posted by: whatever on March 27, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

and was enlisted in the draft for Vietnam but was never selected, so at the very least I offered my services

Here's a blast-from-the-troll-past...does this pathetic whine remind anyone of Joe Schmoe, who defended his own not joining the military to fight the encroaching Islamist threat on the grounds that he "volunteered" -- that is, sent resumes to several military contractors -- but was not selected? Hi-ho!

Posted by: Gregory on March 27, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Grape_crush: Just don't want anybody thinking that I pulled a Domenech on Pale Rider or anyone else...

Nah, don't worry. It's not like we're getting paid to write here unlike some of the Mellon-Scaife "Trolletariat" (Scotian authored that term). Unless I post a copyright notice or someone else does, it's fair use with attribution, IMO. I usually provide a link to show who originated the term like at 11:43 AM. Hard to keep up with all the terms and who authored them originally as Kevin demonstrated on his recent post about "mouth breathers." I've used the term, Idiot King, many times though I've linked to Digby who used it originally, IIRC. However, yeah, the Pale Rider started the "Cut 'N' Run" nickname, God bless him. Wonder where he is? Hope he's OK.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bush fantasy:

Invading Afghanistan and Iraq and bringing Western-style democracy to the Middle East will negate the root causes of terrorism and violence in that region.

Reality:

Hundreds of people protested in a northern Afghan city following reports that a man who faced a possible death penalty for converting to Christianity would be released, officials said.

About 700 Muslim clerics and others chanted "Death to Bush" and other anti-Western slogans in Mazar-e-Sharif on Monday, officials told The Associated Press.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 27, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of Norman and Pale Rider (though no one else was putting the two together), the real Norman's posts are a pale shadow of PR's Norman parodies. My god, those were funny.

thethirdpaul is in touch with PR and can prolly fill us in.

Posted by: shortstop on March 27, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

I shouldn't have said I planned to quit, admits Blair

TONY BLAIR accepts today that his announcement that he will quit Downing Street before the next election has backfired because it has failed to quell speculation over his future.
The Prime Minister admits that the move may have destabilised him and left him open to calls for him to go. His remarkably frank admission in a radio interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation comes as Mr Blair faces increasing attack over the cash-for-loans affair and the crisis in the National Health Service caused by deficits within trusts leading to layoffs and bed closures.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 12:53 PM:

Wonder where he is? Hope he's OK.

Ditto for Scotian and LWPhil...Clever use of Japanese poetic style, BTW...'Tho technically more senryu than haiku.

Senryu/haiku error messages from Salon.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 27, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

"No lying":

'(Expletive) Saddam, we're taking him out.'

- G.W.Bush, March 2002 as reported in Time March 2003....A quote that has not been disputed by the White House.

Posted by: thispaceavailable on March 27, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Hundreds of people protested...

About 700 Muslim clerics and others chanted "Death to Bush"...

Well golly! A full scale uprising! About .00001 percent of the population hits the streets in protest!

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 27, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

jay: trained and 200,000+ military and security force


The Pentagon says that "the -only- Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded." February 25, 2006

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created." - Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism. 3/2/06

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 27, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Well golly! A full scale uprising! About .00001 percent of the population hits the streets in protest!

Yeah, funny how it only took 19 hijackers to perpetrate 9/11 along with Osama and his lieutenants in the AQ network.

Time Magazine writes, Mar. 24, 2006:

But for many Afghans, the favorable resolution would be Rahmans execution. Its not only the countrys conservative clergy that is calling for his death. "He has brought shame on the name of Afghanistan and deserves to die," said Daud Massoud, 37, a taxi driver in Kabul. That sentiment resonates strongest in the countrys deeply conservative south and east, over which Kabul exercises little control. These are also the areas where the Taliban is making a comeback and top Al-Qaeda commanders are believed to be hiding. [Cite]

What's your point, Mike? Surely, you aren't advocating turning a blind eye to the situation, um, like the August 2001 PDB, Osama Determined To Strike In U.S., are you?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Sadly enough, though ... Norman Rogers doesn't appear to be Norman, the absurdly preppy sybarite "on his third liver" who comes across like a cross between Thurston Howell III and Commander McBragg.

TMP

Posted by: The Malignant Pustule on March 27, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

About .00001 percent of the population hits the streets in protest!

Sorry for not making it. We're too busy dying.

Posted by: The Rest of Iraq on March 27, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz writes: I would rather believe our Commander-in-Chief during the time of war...

It's not a matter of whether people would rather believe him. It's a matter of whether it is possible to believe him, given the extensive evidence of his reckless disregard for the truth.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on March 27, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

The situation in Afghanistan is exceedingly embarrassing for Bush's base.

Despite all the carnage, wars often find the fate of individuals as pivot points for public sentiment -- like that naked Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack in the Time photo. This guy -- not bright enough to help the embarassed Afghani moderates paint him as mentally incompetent: "I'm fine. You can prosecute met. I'll answer your questions," is the perfect dumb-but-sincere poster boy for Christian martyrdom. The symbolic import is already huge.

If he's executed, it will further alienate the base from support for the military mission. Why build democracy when Islamic democracy in that part of the world entails the legally sanctioned execution of Christian converts? Robertson's going to be bloviating on about this like this guy was Terry Schiavo.

If they don't manage to stop this guy from being executed -- expect further erosion of Bush's red-state support.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

The US' first commitments to South Vietnam were made under Eisenhower -- if he was a Democrat, that's certainly news to me and to the history books -- and the war continued from Nixon's election in 1968 (hence, no doubt, Jay's tepid "inspired by" qualifier) into the administration of Gerald Ford, no Democrat he.

If you really want to be pedantic, the first US involvement in the Vietnam war was ordered by Truman, not Ike. By the time Truman left office, the US was footing something like 50% of the bill for France's war against the Communist insurgency. But, not being a pedant, I'd be willing to let Truman, Ike AND Kennedy off the hook, and lay the blame for America's war in Vietnam at the feet of the administration it truly belongs to, that of Lyndon Johnson. Prior to the spring of '65, American involvement in Vietnam arguably didn't constitute warmaking at all. But after this point, we definitely were at war.

Posted by: Page on March 27, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

What's your point, Mike?

My point is that radical elements from Afghanistan protesting the non-killing of a Christian convert is a "dog bites man" story.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 27, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't think it's the $$$.

It's GWB's perception that he outline even prior to 2000 that being a Commander-in-Chief during the time of a war produces a lot of political capital, enough to get re-elected."

I think both of those are part of the reason we want to war. The only proffered reasons that I believe were never part of the rationale were those having to do with Saddam being a threat to the US or his having WMD's.

In other words, the only false reasons were the reasons the administration repeatedly used to rush us into this "slow-motion train wreck"* of a war.

*courtesy of Michael Ware, Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief, on Real time w/Bill Maher, (since we're all a little extra-conscious of proper attribution right now - thanks again, lying conseratives).

Posted by: brewmn on March 27, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 2:10 PM:

Norman Rogers doesn't appear to be Norman, the absurdly preppy sybarite "on his third liver" who comes across like a cross between Thurston Howell III and Commander McBragg.

Original Norman.

...versus...

Parody Norman.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 27, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

They weren't "radical elements," Mike. This isn't the cartoonifada; they weren't toting Kalishnikovs.

The're ordinary citizens. They live under conservative Islamic law, and in their terms, their protest is entirely sensible.

Far from being a "man bites dog" story, this has galvanized Christians worldwide.

Did George Bush bring freedom and democray to Afganistan to empower the state to kill apostates?

The import is huge. It's another Terry Schiavo in the making.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: david1234 on March 27, 2006 at 10:47 AM

To add to David1234's post on the Helen Thomas-Bush news conference interaction, the David Manning memo reveals further contradictions about how much Dubya didn't want to "go to war." First, more from a transcript on the Thomas-Bush exchange:

BUSH: I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed, and the world said, disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.
THOMAS: Did they say go to war?
BUSH: And therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world, and when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Ahem, the U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq when they have to quickly exit once it was clear the U.S. was about to invade. Jeso Pete! These are recent Bush statements just about a week ago. WTF! Does Dubya really think he can continue to buffalo us with his doublespeak?

If Dubya hoped to solve the Saddam threat in Iraq "diplomatically," why was he plotting with Blair on how to provoke Saddam to war prior to the war? Why then, according to the Manning memo via the NYTimes:

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."
Oh, yeah. Added insurance. Enter what Colin Powell's aide, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, says was the "lowest point in my life" when Powell presented the U.S. case for Saddam's WMDs to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, just a few days after the "private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003."

And why were UK and USAF jets flying bombing raids in Iraq in 2002? That couldn't have helped diplomatic efforts.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK
If you really want to be pedantic, the first US involvement in the Vietnam war was ordered by Truman, not Ike. By the time Truman left office, the US was footing something like 50% of the bill for France's war against the Communist insurgency.

Well, in that case, if you want to be really pedantic, the US involvement began under Roosevelt during WWII, when the US was funding the Vietminh who, as the saying goes, we were for before we were against.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 27, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

grapey:

Regular Norman seems like a garden-variety Freeper Drone. I remember that thread in particular and I always thought that Parody Norman was the real deal ...

Of course, it's kind of impossible to believe that someone has only "cut down" on drinking cuz he's on his third liver ...

Okay okay, so call me an idiot then :(

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Well, in that case, if you want to be really pedantic, the US involvement began under Roosevelt during WWII, when the US was funding the Vietminh who, as the saying goes, we were for before we were against.

Well, I'm also willing to overlook actions taken by the US during World War Freakin' 2, when we were fighing the Japanese in that part of the world. But have it your way, let's blame FDR.

Posted by: Page on March 27, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

If you really want to be pedantic, the first US involvement in the Vietnam war was ordered by Truman, not Ike. By the time Truman left office, the US was footing something like 50% of the bill for France's war against the Communist insurgency.

That wasn't the Vietnam War, though. That was the Indo-China War, fought by France against the Vietminh. The Vietnam War was fought by the US and the Republic of South Vietnam against the Vietcong and North Vietnam.

And we'd been funding the Vietminh against the Japanese invaders before that, during the Japanese occupation of Vietnam from 1941-1954.

Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Page: Well, I'm also willing to overlook actions taken by the US during World War Freakin' 2, when we were fighing the Japanese in that part of the world. But have it your way, let's blame FDR.

I don't why exactly, Page, but your post made me LOL! Good snark. I guess we all can get really, really, really pedantic sometimes. I can laugh at myself on that one, too. Thanks.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK
Well, I'm also willing to overlook actions taken by the US during World War Freakin' 2, when we were fighing the Japanese in that part of the world. But have it your way, let's blame FDR.

Why would I blame FDR? If we'd stayed with his policy of backing the Vietminh, and working with them to establish a free and democratic, if socialist, Vietnam, we'd have avoided the later Vietnam war and advanced the cause of democratization in the developing world by not conflating the choice of economic systems for decolonializing nations so tightly wound up in the choice between democracy and authoritarianism by alliance with the US or Soviet bloc and, in my estimation, won the Cold War that much more quickly and decisively. So, no, I'll blame Truman a little and Eisenhower and the refusal to accept the consequences of the French defeat even more.
Without stopping blaming every President for the remainder of the war for their role, particularly Johnson.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 27, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

I don't [know] why... sheesh. And Page, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just thought your comment was apropos. : )

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

grape_crush: Clever use of Japanese poetic style, BTW...

Thanks, grape. Also for the Salon link. Senryu/haiku, hmmm, yep.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Far from being a "man bites dog" story, this has galvanized Christians worldwide.

Killing of Christian for his faith galvanizes Christians? Man bites dog. And by the way, doesn't it piss you off too? I mean, do you have to be a Christian to be pissed off about it?

Did George Bush bring freedom and democray to Afganistan to empower the state to kill apostates?

They didn't need George Bush to go killing apostates. In the Taliban days this happened all the time.

And you don't have to go to Afghanistan to find Muslims that want to go killing apostates. A poll in England found 40% of their muslims want Sharia Law, which calls for knocking off apostates.

This clash of ideas was going to come at some point. Like the sun rising in the east. It had to. To be surprised that they wanted to knock off an apostate is to have been ignorant of islam prior. The real question is, where do we (the world) go from here?

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 27, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 3:04 PM

Of course, it's kind of impossible to believe that someone has only "cut down" on drinking cuz he's on his third liver ...

Heh. grape_gramma continued to chain-smoke cigs after her second bypass. I think she avoided a third by not moving around too much.

Okay okay, so call me an idiot then

Oh geez, never; especially after that recent Don't Marry an Atheist thread that Kev finally closed the comment form on...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 27, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

this comment s slightly off point, but it relates to the administration and the Iraq war, and a point Drum made back in December that is even more relevant today than it was back then. but the comments were disabled, so it couldn't post. around the web, (and in the news today) issues come up, then comment logs are disabled (on the web), and we move on to the next "topic of the moment." why?

here's the post, responding to an interesting business analogy Drum made with respect to managment of the Iraq war, and the issue of what should be do about Iraq:


Drum is right about our necessary committment [which he had suggested at least initially existed, since we made the decision to go in], although I would not term it an "invasion" (even as much of the world sees it that way).

The real question is this; can our staying increase the chances that our vision of a less despotic, more democratic, less represssive iraq become realized? If yes, which it probably is, is this chance offset by a larger chance, if we stay, that Iraq will fall into a lenghty quagmire of unending civil war amongst the three main divisions? Thus, the question becomes, "can our staying decrase the chances that the current insurgency gain momentum?

Where is the focus on this particularly critical question? If the answer is, in fact, "yes," where is the focus on how to achieve it, after three years, from a managerial aspect (as opposed to the field aspect, where it seems our forces are doing everything asked of them and more, often with insufficiently protective equipment?)

I think drum's point is well taken, that the current administration lacked the requisite awareness of the situation and its ramifications, to go in with any reasonable understanding of what to expect, let alone how to manage it and adapt to evolving conditions -- and we see the ramifications of that now. Perhaps that is one of his arguments for leaving.

But it also, cynical as it sounds, and even if the action was a good idea in principle, might have been a good reason for not going in, in the first place -- or at least not exactly how and when we did (didn't somebody else make a similar point a few years ago, and got chastized by the media for a full even calender year over it?? hint; somebody who also said to the full Senate; "let me be clear. the reason i give this authority to the President is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of WMD, if we can not accomplish this through new, tough, weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies." The same weapons inspections, then, that after a four year hiatus where renewed under this new threat of forec, and which, by march, 2003, when we engaged, led the inspectors to tell us, told us to "wait, we haven't found anything yet, we need more time."

Oh yeah, I forgot, the media largely never bothered to cover those few irrelevant little details).

Carter

http://www.pressthenews.com

Posted by: Ivan Carter on March 27, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

> "Far from being a "man bites dog" story, this
> has galvanized Christians worldwide."

> Killing of Christian for his faith galvanizes Christians?

Absolutely. Galvanize as in spurs to outrage. This is a huge
topic now on Christian radio and TV. As I said: Terry Schiavo II.

> Man bites dog.

Brainfart. Noticed that after I posted. Same dif, tho ...

> And by the way, doesn't it piss you off too? I mean, do
> you have to be a Christian to be pissed off about it?

Not so much pissed off as yet further demoralized. The difference with
non-Christians is that put in the context of both wars, this is a drop
in the bucket compared to, say, the detainee deaths by "abuse" we've
caused. Or nothing at all like reaping the whirlwind of having cozied
up to the Shiites who are now torturing (with drills and acid) and
mass-murdering Sunnis with no connection to the insurgency, and who
are one snit from Sadr away from turning against the US occupation ...

> "Did George Bush bring freedom and democray to
> Afganistan to empower the state to kill apostates?"

> They didn't need George Bush to go killing apostates.
> In the Taliban days this happened all the time.

Yeah, but Mike -- we didn't have our fucking *fingerprints* all
over it. This is a government we produced. Our hand-picked boy, the
ineffectual Hamid Karzai, says that he can't get involved because it
would violate the *cough* separation of mosque (judiciary) and state.

> And you don't have to go to Afghanistan to find Muslims that want
> to go killing apostates. A poll in England found 40% of their
> muslims want Sharia Law, which calls for knocking off apostates.

Well, to be fair to Islam, this is nowhere in the Koran, which says
that religion must not be compelled. It's in one of the hadiths -- a
body of traditions and commentary -- which is open to interpretation.
Executing apostates isn't common in either Saudi Arabia or Iran. It's
an artifact of only the most conservative interpretations of Islam.

> This clash of ideas was going to come at some point. Like the sun
> rising in the east. It had to. To be surprised that they wanted
> to knock off an apostate is to have been ignorant of islam prior.
> The real question is, where do we (the world) go from here?

The moderates in the Afghan government just want this whole thing
to go away. There's a chance it might, if the guy is ruled mentally
incompetent. If he's not and they execute, it's not going to change
our policy (we'd certainly not use it as a pretext to withdraw our
troops or stop supplying aid) -- but it's going to become a cause
celebre for the Christian right who may well punish legislators.

Think Schiavo ... though otherwise not at all morally or legally
equivalent, this issue hits Christians on the same visceral level.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

typos (from above) corrected. Sorry

"This comment is slightly off point, but it relates to the administration and the Iraq war, and a point Drum made back in December that is even more relevant today than it was back then. but the comments were disabled, so it couldn't post. Around the web (and in the news today) issues come up, then comment logs are disabled (on the web), and we move on to the next "topic of the moment." why?

Here's the post, responding to an interesting business analogy Drum made with respect to management of the Iraq war, and the issue of what should be do about Iraq:

Drum is right about our necessary commitment [which he had suggested at least initially existed, since we made the decision to go in], although I would not term it an "invasion" (even as much of the world sees it that way).
The real question is this; can our staying increase the chances that our vision of a less despotic, more democratic, less repressive Iraq, will become realized?

If yes, which it probably is, is this chance offset by a larger chance, if we stay, that Iraq will fall into a lengthy quagmire of unending civil war amongst the three main divisions? Thus, the question becomes, "can our staying decrease the chances that the current insurgency gain momentum?

Where is the focus on this particularly critical question? If the answer is, in fact, "yes," where is the focus on how best to achieve it, after three years, from a managerial aspect (as opposed to the field aspect, where it seems our forces are doing everything asked of them and more, often with insufficiently protective equipment?)

I think Drum's point is well taken, that the current administration lacked the requisite awareness of the situation and its ramifications, to go in with any reasonable understanding of what to expect, let alone how to manage it and adapt to evolving conditions -- and we see the ramifications of that now. Perhaps that is one of his arguments for leaving.

But it also, cynical as it sounds -- and even if the action was a good idea in principle -- might have been a good reason for not going in, in the first place, or at least not exactly how and when we did. (Didn't somebody else make a similar point a few years ago, and got chastised by the media for a full even calendar year over it?? hint; somebody who also said to the full Senate; "let me be clear. the reason I give this authority to the President is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of WMD, if we can not accomplish this through new, tough, weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies." The same weapons inspections, then, that after a four year hiatus were renewed under this new threat of force, and which, by march, 2003, when we engaged, led the inspectors to tell us, "wait, we haven't found anything yet, we need more time."

Oh yeah, I forgot, the media largely never bothered to cover those few irrelevant little details)."

Carter
http://www.pressthenews.com

Posted by: Ivan Carter on March 27, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK


Jay - Israel has violated many UN resolutions. Are you in favor of attacking Israel?

Posted by: Andy on March 27, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Will Americans fight for freedom, or go on dreaming about it?

Posted by: Steven Wanzell on March 27, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, by the way - I finally voted with my feet - for Spain. I continue to fight for a real democracy in America, but I cannot tolerate actually living there anymore. As a homosexual, an artist (and a poor one), an atheist, a socialist, and a person with AIDS, there's little to no support for me in my country of origin. Sad, but true. Western Europe has done much more to achieve the egalitarian democracy outlined by the U.S. Constitution, and with far fewer resources. Americans have mostly chosen the disaster it now struggles to free itself from. Some, like myself, got tired of waiting for Americans to fight for freedom. www.wanzellarts.com.ar

Posted by: Steven Wanzell on March 27, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

>>>>
Once again we see just how much liberals are committed to winning the war on terror: doing what it takes to win is considered "bad form".

Try fighting for the good guys sometime.
Posted by: Al on March 27, 2006 at 1:47 AM | \

Surely this Al must be jesting. If not, one can answer with a rhetorical question: At which point does "the good guys" turn into the bad guys?

If Canada had been as obsessed with telling everybody what they shouls do, they would have plenty good reasons to invade USA by now. They wouldn't even need to invent an excuse about WMD. We have them.

Reasons for going into Iraq:
1)Saddam Hussein connected to 9/11. Nope
2)Iraq had reconsituted WMD program. Nope.
3)Iraq a few months from being able to launch a nuclear attack. Nope.
4)Saddam a tyrant? Check
5)Saddam history of attacking neighbors. Check
6)Saddam allowing torture. Check
7)Iraq undemocratic. Check.
8)Iraqi want liberation. Half Check.

If you apply the same list of sins to USA and el presidente and his cabinet, they will be similar. Except that you will find checks were Saddam was lacking them. In essence, El Busho poopelhead has given the rest of the world the moral high ground to attack USA any way they want.

USA has lots of good guys. But none of those are inviolved in this incredibly horror of an administration. Freeakin Pol Pot had sounder values when it came to democracy than Bush and his torturing, cheating, stealing, spending, liar cabinet.

Posted by: Just Me on March 27, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Freeakin Pol Pot had sounder values when it came to democracy than Bush and his torturing, cheating, stealing, spending, liar cabinet.

Stoopidest thing I've ever seen written here. And that's saying a lot.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 27, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13:

Thanks for the credit on Trolletariat, Ive always been rather proud of that word coining. Seems to be catching on too, Ive seen it elsewhere other than places I have used it in the last year or so.

Grape_crush:

Thanks for your concern. Ive been busy between family matters and dealing with the Conservative idiots that currently constitute the Canadian government. So far they are limited to a weak minority so they can be defeated if the will is there, so I have been putting most of my blogging focus there the last several months. I do though still come here and read through posts and comments occasionally though, I just rarely leave comments because I know it is unlikely I will get back to them anytime soon afterwards given the limited time Ive had as of late. If people really are interested in checking in on me though I did finally set up a blog a few months ago, for those interested the addy is WWW.Saundrie.blogspot.com.

Take care everyone! See you soon.

Incidentally, as to the thread topic itselfwhat a shocknot. This Iraq war has been built on almost nothing but deception from the outset. At least real evidence is coming from the Brit side of things since the American side has clearly abdicated any belief in accountability of the government to the people/public that elect them.

Posted by: Scotian on March 27, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: My point is that radical elements from Afghanistan protesting the non-killing of a Christian convert is a "dog bites man" story.

Why if it is such an unsurprising "dog bites man" occurrence then the event shouldn't involve the personal attention of Bush or Secretary of State Condi Rice, right? Or countries with troops in Afghanistan like Canada, Italy, Germany and Australia.

Yeah, sure, no big deal. Thanks for your insight, Mike.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Apollo 13:

Well, it looks like sanity is prevailing and the Afghan AG instructed the judiciary to release the guy. I'm not sure exactly the grounds, but apparently it's proceedural, something to do with a statute of limitations-type time limit or perhaps that he has dual citizenship. The prosecution basically botched the case.

They had better get him out of that country fast before he gets killed by a mob. They were afraid that if they brought him to a hospital to have his mental health evaluated, that he'd be murdered by a patient.

Hehe ... isn't democracy a wonderful thang?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 27, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Why if it is such an unsurprising "dog bites man" occurrence then the event shouldn't involve the personal attention of Bush or Secretary of State Condi Rice, right? Or countries with troops in Afghanistan like Canada, Italy, Germany and Australia.

Huh? Why would you say that? Just because it's predicted and inevitable doesn't mean it isn't important. Duh.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 27, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

I kinda figured that a solution of some sort would perk up. Too many pressures on the Afghanistan government for Rahman to be executed. I agree with you on the need for further protection of the guy and getting him out of the country fast.

Weird that you brought up Shiavo. Saw that Mike Shiavo is on Larry King tonight.

Red State Mike: Just because it's predicted and inevitable doesn't mean it isn't important. Duh.

Well, yeah. No kidding. I think your missing the point that the radical elements" in Afghanistan are a wee bit more than the .00001 percent of the population that actually hit the street in protest. Like the deeply conservative south and east where the Taliban is coming back and AQ operatives hide out. Time Magazine characterized Karzai's government as fragile and I think that's a fair assessment. I think Bob covered the import of the subject at 2:55 pm and 4:12 PM very well.

I agree with you on the main issue, Mike: where do we (the world) go from here? Indeed. That's the most important question. What's next?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 27, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Over 58,000 deaths in Vietnam, my bad. But still a completely ineffective effort.

Jay, why do you hate the troops? Are you saying the US military is incompetent?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 27, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with you on the main issue, Mike: where do we (the world) go from here? Indeed. That's the most important question. What's next?

Wherever we go, it's going to be a slow and painful process. Afghanistan is the cultural version of Encino Man, and they aren't going to modernize in a single lifetime. They are certainly willing to use modern weapons, of course.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 28, 2006 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: Just because it's predicted and inevitable doesn't mean it isn't important.

And a reminder that just because it's predicted and inevitable doesn't mean it was a wanted outcome.

How easily conservatives apply certain rules to themselves then change those rules when evaluating others.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 28, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: My point is that radical elements from Afghanistan protesting the non-killing of a Christian convert is a "dog bites man" story.

So was "Saddam is a bad man and has used WMDs against his own people."

So, again, what was your point?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 28, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

To understand how serious the situation is in Afghanistan, an excellent report from Christian Parenti, The Nation, Mar. 27, 2006 edition. An excerpt:

I am riding along with these two Humvees from the 164th Military Police Company to observe the American effort at keeping a lid on the Afghan caldron. I also want to compare US methods with those of the European troops who are taking over an ever larger part of the military mission here.
[...]
But many features of the political landscape here are not so inspiring--for example, the deteriorating security situation. Taliban attacks are up; their tactics have become more aggressive and nihilistic. They have detonated at least twenty-three suicide bombs in the past six months, killing foreign and Afghan troops, a Canadian diplomat, local police and in some cases crowds of civilians. Kidnapping is on the rise. American contractors are being targeted. Some 200 schools have been burned or closed down. And Lieut. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the senior American military officer here, expects the violence to get worse over the spring and summer.
Even in the once relatively stable northern and western regions of the country, foreign military bases and patrols are coming under sporadic attack, while civilian traffic faces a sharp rise in violent banditry. One security monitoring organization said they had seen a fourfold increase in such crimes over the past year.
I highly recommend reading the article.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 28, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

star,明星,演员
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
pic
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Posted by: hhgfh on March 29, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK


To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular
source of income. Despite invitations from credit
card issuers
, you will still have to demonstrate that you are a good risk
before they grant you credit.
The proof is in your credit report. Before you submit a credit
card application
, you may want to obtain a copy of your credit
report
to make sure it is accurate. Credit
cards by type
could be following:

0% Intro Low APR credit cards
- 0% Intro Low APR credit cards
,

Rewards credit cards
- Rewards credit cards ,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/instant-approval-creditcards.html">

Instant Approval credit cards

- Instant Approval credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/airline-milescards.html">

Airline Miles Cards

- Airline Miles Cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/business-credit-cards.html">

Business Credit Cards

- Business Credit Cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/gas-credit-cards.html">

Gas Credit Cards

- Gas Credit Cards,

Student Credit Cards
- Student Credit Cards ,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/low-insterest-creditcards.html">

Low Interest Credit Cards

- Low Interest Credit Cards, ,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/american-express-creditcards.html">

American Express credit cards

,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/bank-ofamerica-creditcards.html">

Bank Of America credit cards

- Bank Of America credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/chase-credit-cards.html">

Chase credit cards

- Chase Manhattan credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/citibank-credit-cards.html">

CitiBank credit cards

- Citibank credit cards

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/columbus-credit-cards.html">

Columbus Bank credit cards

- Columbus Bank credit cards,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/discover-credit-cards.html">

Discover credit cards

- discover credit cards

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/hsbc-credit-cards.html">

HSBC Bank credit cards

,

New Millennium Bank credit cards
- Millennium Bank credit cards, and

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/USbank-credit-cards.html">

U.S. Bank credit cards

Calculator
Mortgage
- calculator free mortgage, calculator mortgage rate

Mortgage
Calculator
calculator interest mortgage, mortgage interest calculator,

href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/calculator-mortgage.html">calculator
mortgage

.

Read more about personal
finance
, earnings,
stock
markets
and economy
at online business news. More offers
can be found at credit cards
offers
.

Visa credit cards visa credit
cards

Visa gift cards
visa gift card

Visa platinum
visa platinum

Chase visa chase
visa

Aspire visa
Aspire visa

Aspire visa
Card
Aspire visa Card

Visa Master
card
Visa Master card

Royal bank visa
Royal bank visa

Capital One
Visa
Capital One Visa

Prepaid Visa
Prepaid Visa

Bank of America
Visa
Bank of America Visa

Visa Gold Visa
Gold

MBNA visa MBNA
visa

Visa
student credit card
Visa student credit card

Secured visa
Secured visa

Visa
credit card application
Visa credit card application

Bank One Visa
Bank One Visa

Prepaid
visa credit card
Prepaid visa credit card

Chase Visa card
Chase Visa card

Worldperks Visa
Worldperks Visa

Bad credit
visa card
Bad credit visa card

Visa debit card
Visa debit card


Master card

Master Cards and Mastercards best offers

Chase master card

Chase master cards offers

Master Card gift
card


Master card gif cards listings

Platinum Master
Card


Platinum master card listings

Prepaid Master
Card


prepaid master card offers

Citibank master
card


Citibank master card offers

Master Card credit cards

Master Card credit cards top offers

Citi master card

Citi master card offers

Shell Master Card

Shell master card best offer!

Orchard bank
master card


Orchard bank master card - get here!

Gold Master Card

Gold Master Card best offers

Bad Credit Master
Card


Bad Credit Master Card offers

HSBC master card

HSBC master card listings

Master credit card

Master credit card listings


You can search, compare and apply for
a credit card online
- and in some cases even get a credit
decision
within 60 seconds!


Low Interest
Credit cards
low interest credit cards

Cash Back Credit
Cards
cash back credit cards

Fixed APR Credit
Cards
fixed APR credit cards

Balance Transfer
Cards
balance transfer credit cards

Reward credit cards
reward credit cards

Gas Rebate Cards gas
rebate cards

Shopping Rebate
Cards
shopping rebate cards

Travel Rebate Cards
travel rebate credit cards

Airline Credit
Cards
airline miles credit cards

Business Credit
Cards
business credit cards

Student Credit
Cards
student credit cards

Pre-paid Debit
Cards
prepaid debit cards

Bad Credit
Credit Cards
bad credit credit cards

Catalog Credit
Cards
catalog credit cards

Advanta credit
cards
advanta credit cards

Amex credit cards
amex credit cards

Chase credit cards
chase credit cards

Citibank credit
cards
citibank credit cards

Aspire visa card
aspire visa card

Discover credit
cards
discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit
cards
HSBC bank credit cards

New Millennium
Bank credit cards
New Millenium Bank credit cards

Pulaski Bank credit
cards
Pulaski bank credit cards

Worlperks visa
credit card
Worldperks visa credit card


Credit Reports credit
reports

Mortgage Loans mortgage
loans refinance

Credit card application Credit card
application

Credit card online application Credit
card online application


Affiliate programs are
the best way to make your web site profitable. There's a huge range of

href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.net">web affiliate programs

available
now, so each webmaster could find

href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com">affiliate program

suitable to
his/her web site category. Check out web

href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com/affiliate-resources.html">affiliate
resources

section for the best information on affiliate events and how to
set up your own affiliate program
or tools to help affiliates.

Affiliate
networks
Affiliate networks

Top affiliate program Top
affiliate program

Free affiliate program
Free affiliate program

Best affiliate program
Best affiliate program

Pay
per click affiliate program
Pay per click affiliate program

Casino
affiliate program
Casino affiliate program

Online affiliate program
Online affiliate program

Affiliate
software
Affiliate software

Affiliate
program software
Affiliate program software

Affiliate
sales program
Affiliate sales program

Web
master affiliate program
Web master affiliate program

Mp4 player Mp4 player

Mp4 video player Mp4 video player

Digital mp4 player Digital mp4 player

Mp3 player Mp3 player

Mp3 players Mp3 players

Portable mp3 players Portable mp3 players

Cheap mp3 players Cheap mp3 players

Best mp3 players Best mp3 players

iPod mp3 players iPod mp3 players

Flash mp3 players Flash mp3 players

Top mp3 players Top mp3 players

Mp3 video player Mp3 video player

Digital mp3 player Digital mp3 player

Buy mp3 player Buy mp3 player

Mp3 players for sale Mp3 players for
sale

Cheap portable mp3 players Cheap portable
mp3 players

Wholesale mp3 players Wholesale mp3
players


Online travel reservation, travel
reservation
, cruise travel, discount
travel
, discounted travel, Cruize travel, Last
minute travel
, Travel Asia. The best place to book cruise travel tickets
for

Alaska Cruises
, Bahamas
Cruises
, Bermuda
cruises
, Canada
Cruises
, Caribbean
cruises
, Eastern
Caribbean Cruises
, Western
Caribbean Cruises
, Southern
Caribbean cruises
, Europe
Cruises
, Norwegian
Cruises
, Western
European Cruises
,Western
Mediterranean Cruises
, Eastern
Mediterranean Cruises
, Mexico
Cruises
and Hawaiian
Cruises
is here. discount hotels Las
Vegas
discount hotels las vegas

Gold Coast gold coast las vegas,

href="http://www.travelsuper.com">discount hotels New York

discount hotels
new york, discount hotels Orlando discount
hotels orlando, discount hotels Chicago
discount hotels chicago, discount hotels
Atlanta
discount hotels atlanta, discount
hotels London
discount hotels london, discount
hotels Boston
discount hotels boston, Discount
Hotel Rooms
discount hotel rooms, Discount
Car Rentals
discount car rentals. Hotel
reservation
- hotel tickets -
online travel reservation

hotel, cheap hotel,
las vegas hotel, discount
hotels
, new
york hotels
, london
hotels
, hotel reservation, orlando
hotels
, hotel
chicago
, hotel visitor, hotel motel, hilton hotel,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/san-francisco-hotels.html">san francisco hotels

,
hotel deals, cancun
hotels
, paris hotels,
habbo hotels,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/new-york-hotels.html">new york city hotels

,
rome hotels, hotel
accommodation, hotel
california
, boston
hotels
, reno hotel, hawaii
hotels
, miami hotels,
hotel rooms, sheraton
hotels
, san
diego hotels
, amsterdam
hotels
, radisson hotel, discount
hotel rooms
, singapore
hotels
, prague
hotels
, bangkok
hotels
, hotel search, doubletree hotel, best western hotel,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/toronto-hotels.html">toronto hotels

,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/dubai-hotels.html">dubai
hotels

, las
vegas hotel reservation
, disney hotel, discount vegas hotel,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/venice-hotels.html">venice hotels

, hotel
car, choice hotel, tokyo
hotels
, washington dc hotel, malaysia
hotels
, westin hotel, beach hotel, atlantic
city hotels
, hotel
atlanta
, seattle
hotels
, hyatt hotel, wyndham hotel, los
angeles hotels
, bellagio hotel, dublin
hotels
, hotel lodging, new
orleans hotels
, vancouver
hotels
, las vegas hotel discount, mgm grand las vegas,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/thailand-hotels.html">thailand hotels

,
montreal hotels,
hong kong hotels,
niagara falls hotel, bahamas
hotels
, clarion hotel, barcelona
hotels
, hotel
san antonio
, eck green hotel line mecklenburg pomerania schaefer west, cheap
hotel rate, casino hotel, bali
hotels
, hotel dallas,
sydney hotels,
travel hotel, hotel
philadelphia
, holiday inn hotel, italy hotel,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/palm-springs-hotels.html">palm springs hotels

,
new orleans louisiana hotel, florida hotel, renaissance hotel,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/mexico-hotels.html">mexico
hotels

, phuket
hotels
, w hotel, maui
hotels
, hotel resort, canada hotel, hotel management,

href="http://www.travelswanted.com/manhattan-hotels.html">manhattan hotels

,
intercontinental hotel, florence
hotels
, omni hotel, myrtle
beach hotels
, south
beach hotels
, four season hotel, discount hotel rates.

European vacation European
vacation

European vacation packages
European vacation packages

cheap european vacation
cheap european vacation

european vacation tours
european vacation tours

European vacations european vacations

european cruise travel vacations
european cruise travel vacations

vacation
package discounts
vacation package discounts

vacation
package specials
vacation package specials

cheap
vacation packages
cheap vacation packages

family
vacation packages
family vacation packages

Travel Europe travel europe, europe
travel

cruise
vacation packages
cruise vacation packages

ireland
vacation packages
ireland vacation packages


home security home security

x10 x10

home
security system
home security system

barking
dog alarm
barking dog alarm

voice
dialer
voice dialer

x10 home automation x10 home automation

home automation software home automation
software

assisted
living
assisted living

wireless
camera
wireless camera

xray vision
xray vision

x10 cameras x10 cameras

entertainment
entertainment

wireless cameras wireless cameras

home automation home automation

nanny cam
nanny cam

nanny camera
nanny camera

home
security system
home security system

home automation kits home automation kits

wireless
camera systems
wireless camera systems

universal
remotes
universal remotes

camera
systems
camera systems

home
automation
home automation

home
security systems
home security systems

broadband broadband

wireless cellular
wireless cellular

cell phone rebates cell phone
rebates

broadband phone broadband phone

broadband
internet
broadband internet

broadband wireless broadband
wireless


Article search Article search

News articles News articles

Health articles Health articles

Science articles Science articles

Free articles Free articles

Find articles Find articles

Business articles Business articles

Technology articles Technology articles

Psychology articles Psychology articles

Nutrition articles Nutrition articles

Chemistry articles Chemistry articles

Science news articles Science news
articles

Marketing articles Marketing articles

Health and fitness articles Health
and fitness articles

Fitness articles Fitness articles

Education articles Education articles

Medical articles Medical articles

Sports articles Sports articles

Computer articles Computer articles

Research articles Research articles

Management articles Management articles

Article submission
submit your articles free

Child development articles Child development
articles

Food articles Food articles

Internet marketing articles Internet
marketing articles

Economics articles Economics articles

Business management articles Business
management articles

New articles New articles

Physics articles Physics articles




Top news Top
news

Top gear Top
gear

Top news
story
Top news story

Top story
Top story

Top products
Top products

Top movies
Top movies

Top search
Top search

Top shop
Top shop

Top
home based business
Top home based business

Top sites
Top sites

Top models
Top models

Top stuff top stuff

Top search engine Top search engine

Top news Top news


Top news Top
news

Top gear Top
gear

Top news
story
Top news story

Top story
Top story

Top products
Top products

Top movies
Top movies

Top search
Top search

Top shop
Top shop

Top
home based business
Top home based business

Top sites
Top sites

Top models
Top models

Top stuff top stuff

Top search engine Top search engine

Top news Top news

Free news
Free news

Free gear
Free gear

Free
news story
Free news story

Free story
Free story

Free products
Free products

Free movies
Free movies

Free search
Free search

Free shop
Free shop

Free
home based business
Free home based business

Free sites
Free sites

Free models
Free models

Free stuff Free stuff

Free search engine Free search engine

Free news Free news

Free news
Free news

Free gear
Free gear

Free
news story
Free news story

Free story
Free story

Free products
Free products

Free movies
Free movies

Free search
Free search

Free shop
Free shop

Free
home based business
Free home based business

Free sites
Free sites

Free models
Free models

Free stuff Free stuff

Free search engine Free search engine

Free news Free news

Myspace layouts Myspace layouts

MySpace backgrounds
MySpace backgrounds

Myspace codes Myspace
codes

MySpace graphics
MySpace graphics

Free myspace layout Free myspace
layout

MySpace Music
MySpace Music

Myspace music
code
Myspace music code

MySpace Video
code
MySpace Video code

MySpace cursor
MySpace cursor

Cute MySpace layout Cute MySpace
layout

MySpace stuff MySpace stuff

MySpace layout
code
MySpace layout code

Free MySpace
layout code
Free MySpace layout code

MySpace html code
MySpace html code

Free Music Code
for MySpace
Free Music Code for MySpace

MySpace background
code
MySpace background code

MySpace picture
code
MySpace picture code

MySpace html
MySpace html

Cool stuff
for MySpace
Cool stuff for MySpace

MySpace cursor
code
MySpace cursor code

MySpace music
html code
MySpace music html code



Cheap hotels Cheap hotels

Las vegas Hotels
Las vegas Hotels

Discount hotels Discount hotels

New york hotels
New york hotels

orlando hotel orlando
hotel

hotel reservation hotel reservation


hotel chicago hotel
chicago

san francisco hotel
san francisco hotel

hotel motel hotel motel

hotel deal hotel deal

hotel visitor hotel visitor

london hotel london
hotel

paris hotel paris hotel


hotel houston hotel
houston

d iscount hotel rooms d iscount hotel
rooms

myrtle beach hotel
myrtle beach hotel

hotel pensacola
hotel pensacola

miami hotel miami hotel


san diego hotel
san diego hotel

hotel california
hotel california

sheraton hotel sheraton
hotel

reno hotel reno hotel


hotel dallas hotel
dallas

los angeles hotel
los angeles hotel

boston hotel boston
hotel

bangkok hotel bangkok
hotel

luxury hotel luxury
hotel

hotel atlanta hotel
atlanta

rome hotel rome hotel


best western hotel
best western hotel

westin hotel westin
hotel

hotel akron hotel akron


hotel philadelphia
hotel philadelphia

amsterdam hotel
amsterdam hotel

tokio hotel tokio hotel


choice hotel choice hotel

portland hotel portland
hotel

las vegas hotel
discount
las vegas hotel discount

hotel phoenix hotel
phoenix

hotel riverside
hotel riverside

seattle hotel seattle
hotel

hotel new york ny
hotel new york ny

fl hotel fl hotel

hawaii hotel hawaii
hotel

new york city hotel
new york city hotel

hotel rooms hotel rooms

york hotel york hotel


new orleans hotel
new orleans hotel

bellagio hotel bellagio
hotel

hotel lodging hotel lodging

wyndham hotel wyndham
hotel

hotel canton hotel
canton

hotel washington
hotel washington

hotel chattanooga
hotel chattanooga

singapore hotel
singapore hotel

hotel denver hotel
denver

toronto hotel toronto
hotel

hotel anaheim hotel
anaheim

cancun hotel cancun
hotel

tokyo hotel tokyo hotel


disney hotel disney
hotel

south beach hotel
south beach hotel

atlantic city hotel
atlantic city hotel

leading hotel of the world leading hotel
of the world

hotel nashville
hotel nashville

tampa, fl hotel tampa,fl
hotel

hotel pittsburgh
hotel pittsburgh

discount vegas
hotel
discount vegas hotel

hotel lincoln hotel
lincoln

hotel san antonio
hotel san antonio

palm springs hotel
palm springs hotel

florida hotel florida
hotel

prague hotel prague
hotel

hotel search hotel
search

bloomington hotel
bloomington hotel

hotel accommodation
hotel accommodation

niagara falls hotel
niagara falls hotel

montreal hotel montreal
hotel

dubai hotel dubai hotel


hotel salt lake
city
hotel salt lake city

hotel louisville
hotel louisville

miami fl hotel miami
fl hotel

washington dc hotel
washington dc hotel

hotel oakland hotel
oakland



Arts & Entertainment
articles


Celebrities articles


Humanities articles


Humor articles

Movies articles

Music articles


Poetry articles

Business articles


Advertising articles


Article Marketing articles


Careers articles


Customer Service articles


Entrepreneurs articles


Ethics articles


Home Based Business
articles


Management articles


Marketing articles


Networking articles


Public Relations articles


Sales articles


Small Business articles

Communications
articles


Broadband Internet
articles


GPS articles

Mobile Phones articles


Satellite Radio articles


Satellite TV articles


Video Conferencing
articles


VOIP articles

Computers articles


Computer Certification
articles


Data Recovery articles


Games articles

Hardware articles


Networks articles


Software articles

Disease & Illness
articles


Breast Cancer articles


Colon Cancer articles


Leukemia articles


Mesothelioma articles


Multiple Sclerosis
articles


Ovarian Cancer articles


Prostate Cancer articles


Skin Cancer articles

Fashion articles


Clothing articles


Jewelry articles


Shoes articles

Finance articles


Credit articles


Currency Trading articles


Debt Consolidation articles


Fundraising articles


Insurance articles


Investing articles


Leasing articles


Loans articles


Mortgage articles


Mutual Funds articles


Personal Finance articles


Real Estate articles


Stock Market articles


Taxes articles

Food & Beverage
articles


Coffee articles


Cooking articles


Gourmet articles


Recipes articles


Wine articles

Health & Fitness
articles


Acne articles

Alternative Medicine
articles


Beauty articles


Cardio articles


Depression articles


Diabetes articles


Exercise articles


Fitness Equipment articles


Hair Loss articles


Medicine articles


Meditation articles


Men Issues articles


Muscle Building articles


Nutrition articles


Supplements articles


Weight Loss articles


Women Issues articles


Yoga articles

Home & Family articles


Babies articles


Crafts articles


Elderly Care articles


Gardening articles


Hobbies articles


Holidays articles


Home Improvement
articles


Home Security articles


Interior Design articles


Landscaping articles


Parenting articles


Pets articles


Pregnancy articles

Internet Business
articles


Adsense articles

Affiliate Programs
articles


Auctions articles


Audio-Video Streaming
articles


Blogging articles


Domains articles


Ebooks articles


Ecommerce articles


Email Marketing articles

Ezine Marketing articles


Ezine Publishing articles


Forums articles


Internet Marketing
articles


ISP's articles

Podcasts articles


PPC Advertising articles


RSS articles

Security articles


SEO articles

Site Promotion articles


Spam articles


Traffic Generation
articles


Web Design articles

Politics articles


Commentary articles


Current Events articles


History articles

Product Reviews
articles


Book Reviews articles


Consumer Electronics
articles


Digital Products
articles


Movie Reviews articles


Music Reviews articles

Recreation & Sports
articles


Biking articles


Extreme articles


Fishing articles


Gambling & Casinos
articles


Golf articles


Hunting articles


Martial Arts articles


Running articles

Reference & Education
articles


College articles


Homeschooling articles


K-12 Education articles


Language articles


Philosophy articles


Psychology articles


Science articles


Sociology articles

Self Improvement
articles


Attraction articles


Coaching articles


Creativity articles


Goal Setting articles


Grief articles


Happiness articles


Innovation articles


Inspirational articles


Leadership articles


Motivation articles


Organizing articles


Spirituality articles


Stress Management
articles


Success articles


Time Management articles

Society articles


Dating articles


Divorce articles


Marriage articles


Relationships articles


Religion articles


Sexuality articles


Weddings articles

Travel & Leisure
articles


Aviation articles


Boating articles


Cruises articles


Destinations articles


Outdoors articles


Travel Tips articles


Vacations articles

Vehicles articles


Boats articles


Cars articles

Motorcycles articles


RVs articles


Trucks-SUVS articles

Writing & Speaking
articles


Article Writing articles


Book Marketing articles


Copywriting articles


Posted by: good article on March 30, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly