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

April 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

YET MORE LIES....Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reports on the latest evidence of WMD fabrications from the Bush administration:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

....But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true....A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq not made public until now had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

...."There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."

Is this ever going to end? How many more deliberate fabrications would we learn about if we could just turn the White House upside down and shake it?

Kevin Drum 2:21 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (144)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

How much further proof is needed before the rabid partisans are cured of their infection?

Posted by: lib on April 12, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

Rove consistent game plan: When in a jam, ATTACK, ATTACK ATTACK.

Next up -- Iran.

Posted by: JC on April 12, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, that picture of the "lab" sure looks dangerous. Those sneaky Iraqis and their wheeless mobile weapons labs. I for one, feel a lot safer.

Posted by: enozinho on April 12, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me hundreds of times, Hail to the Chief!


Posted by: Ross Best on April 12, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

"Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs ..."

"YET MORE LIES.."

Well, you said it.

Posted by: am on April 12, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word Bush says is a lie, including "and" and "the."

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINK

When does it become necessary to re-examine the narrative of the actual invasion? The great victory over Saddam's regime is starting to look a lot less, well, great. It's kind of like patting yourself on the back for beating up a 10-year-old.

Posted by: enozinho on April 12, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin man,

You're not getting it yet. They don't care what the truth is. What they say to the public and what the public believes has no consequence to them. Until you guys in the media get it together and go totally hostile 24/7 they are going to keep saying whatever they feel like saying. They could have claimed anything they wanted for their victory dance, the fact that they spent so little time even constructing their lies and it took this long to speak about it in the "liberal media", says more about your profession's inadequacy than anything else.

Ultimately Team Bush/Cheney's incompetence will cause their downfall. Eyes bigger than stomach and all that.

You want a piece of that action, you need to get your editors and owners into the game. They will only respect you based on how hard you can hit them.

Posted by: patience on April 12, 2006 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

U.S. officials asserted that Iraq had biological weapons factories in trailers, even after a Pentagon mission found them unsuited for that role.

This caption says nothing about what is actually in the photo. What is it? Early speculation was a hydrogen gas generator for weather balloons. Any ideas?


Posted by: kostya on April 12, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

Reinventing history again. Check the declassified documents:

-Links with Al Qaeda's Philippines branch
-Intention to reconstruct program when inspectors leave

Good enough. Fact is, with WMD invading before they have usable weapons is a good thing.

Posted by: McA on April 12, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

Early speculation was a hydrogen gas generator for weather balloons. Any ideas?

Biggest Whippet in the world.

Posted by: enozinho on April 12, 2006 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

Is anyone going to ask why the report was classified?

Posted by: Boronx on April 12, 2006 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, what is this, a history forum?? - the point is the next Hitler in Teheran. He practically has the BOMB, mushroom clouds in Kansas, smoking guns, moving labs! Just in time for the midterms.

Posted by: jonathan on April 12, 2006 at 3:19 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, why do you continually agonize over the fact that Our Dear Leader is a pathological liar?

Posted by: jcricket on April 12, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

>>How many more deliberate fabrications would we learn about if we could just turn the White House upside down and shake it?

millions, and millions.

Posted by: jake on April 12, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

By October 2003, Iraq Survey Group head David Kay, who had not seen the classified report, reported to Congress that the ISG found no banned weapons in Iraq and could not verify the potential bio-warfare uses of the trailers. The final Duelfer Report from the Iraq Survey Group in October 2004 concluded definitively that the trailers were not in fact rolling bio-weapons labs:

ISG thoroughly examined two trailers captured in 2003, suspected of being mobile BW agent production units, and investigated the associated evidence. ISG judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. It is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent. ISG judges that it cannot therefore be part of any BW program.

The Bush administration, of course, already knew that. In fact, the White House knew it days before President Bush proclaimed in May 2003, "we have found the weapons of mass destruction."

For the full story, see:
"Trailer Trash: Bush's Bogus Bio-Weapons Claims."

For a complete archive of documents related to Iraq pre-war intelligence and weapons fo mass destruction, including the Iraq Survey Group, the Silberman-Robb Commission Report and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, visit the Perrspectives Iraq WMD and Intelligence Resource Center.

Posted by: AvengingAngel on April 12, 2006 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

This is un-freaking-believable. I don't think I can take three sober years of this absolute baloney.

Posted by: Caitlin on April 12, 2006 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

Good catch, AvengingAngel!

Posted by: kostya on April 12, 2006 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, I was unimpressed with this article. Hasn't this already been covered before? Moreover, aren't we in the plausible deniability thing again here? I mean, the article said the report was "shelved," not that the president or the WH read it.

Posted by: KC on April 12, 2006 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

"the biggest sand toilets in the world" pretty well sums up this little adventure.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 12, 2006 at 4:04 AM | PERMALINK

MM. Yeah, I remember them. So ? By the time the lies were uncovered it would be too late. Are you getting it yet ? The games/lies are still on and this is old news. It really never was/is anything but a shameless exercise of naked power with no domestic restraint. The only way to stop it is to throw them out. They're really having a bad old time.

Posted by: opit on April 12, 2006 at 4:27 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but Saddam had WMD in his heart. What does it matter is he actually had any that could actually, you know, be used?

Seriously, though, there's one thing that has always puzzled me: As a tactical matter, the way the war was conducted was as if Iraq did not have WMD. There were really no preparations or provisions made while the initial assault was going one, and no attempt to secure WMD sites immediately afterwards. If Saddam indeed had WMD, then logically we would have expected him to use them as a last resort -- and the initial assault would then have turned very ugly, with thousands of Americans deaths within days. So,why the tactical indifference to his WMD if we were supposedly certain (and the French too!) that he had them? I actually thought it was basic incompetence, but now I wonder whether Rumsfeld knew all along that Saddam had bubkes.

Posted by: Aris on April 12, 2006 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINK

Hasn't this already been covered before?

It just FEELS like it's been covered before, KC, because it's such a familiar storyline by now. The trick is to retain your capacity for amazement in the face of mindlessly repetitive mendacity. If you stop being surprised at the lies, then the terrorists have won. As it were.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 12, 2006 at 6:37 AM | PERMALINK

At what point is it appropriate to try them for treason or at least impeach them?

Posted by: Name on April 12, 2006 at 6:49 AM | PERMALINK

"It's kind of like patting yourself on the back for beating up a 10-year-old."
Posted by: enozinho

A 10 yr old who slaughters his own people.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK

Why has it taken 5 years for you guys to figure out that everything about the Bush Administration, the Republican congress and every other noecon proclamation of concern for the nation is a lie. The reason for being in Iraq, as opposed to continuing the hunt for Osama bib Laden elsewhere, is a lie. The reason for giving much needed tax revenue back to the wealthiest Americans, is a lie. The attempts to "improve" the operations of government with their so-called business practices, is a lie. WAKE UP! and stop wondering.

Posted by: Lamonte on April 12, 2006 at 7:50 AM | PERMALINK

whole lotta shaken going on'- we will see the biggest shakeup ever. the house, the senate, oh joy. it started last nite here in big red texas, praise jeebus.

Posted by: mestizo on April 12, 2006 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

A 10 yr old who slaughters his own people.

Seriously, don't you morons think it's about time to retire that old chestnut?

We stood back and did nothing as Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988. Now, almost 20 years later, it's a chickenhawk battle cry.

If it concerns you so much, why aren't you over there dishing out some payback?

Posted by: gmf on April 12, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Al sure believed these fabrications quite readily, though.

Oh, those heady spring days of 2003!

Posted by: chuck on April 12, 2006 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz??

[/crickets chirping . . ./]

Tbrosz?????!!!!

Posted by: chuck on April 12, 2006 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

Why do you libs keep ignoring the well-accepted facts that the Russians helped move all the WMD and technologies for manufacturing them to Syria in the days prior to the invasion, and then used their giant scrub brushes to eliminate any trace of them from Iraqi soil?

Posted by: Tbrosz stand-in on April 12, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

A hydrogen gas generator?
Someone slept through chem 1.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on April 12, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

When do arrive at Mars? The President said we were sending a man to Mars. Weapons trailers in Iraq, man on mars....it seems the president just says what's written on the teleprompter.

Posted by: Patrick Lane on April 12, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

The Bush adminstration can not ever admit to manipulating the public into war. It would be political suicide. They have no choice but to publically feign indignance at the suggestion. But everyone, from the President down to the most loathsome troll to ever post a comment on WM, knows that is exactly what happened.

That's why this strange little farce wer'e witnessing will never die.

Posted by: Paul on April 12, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

A hydrogen gas generator?
Someone slept through chem 1.

One assumes it isolates hydrogen gas out of solution in water, or whatever.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 12, 2006 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

Can we stop using the polite words? Like fabrication, misspoke, untruth, "contrary" to evidence?

It's LYING folks. Kevin, take notes.

Posted by: kimster on April 12, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Fact is, with WMD invading before they have usable weapons is a good thing.

Yeah, maybe we should just invade every country.


Spin, spin, spin..

Posted by: Stephen on April 12, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

For those that claim the President has plausible deniablity and there is no evidence he actually knew about the report, this merely would show that their intelligence operation was incompetent and still doesnt explain why they would trumpet the claim for a year after the fact.

The White House has tried to blame the CIA for intelligence failures and said they didnt try to shape intelligence, this is just one more example showing that the largest problems was with the leadership and its blinders to anything it didnt want to see while rushing in to grab things it liked.

Either it shows they were in fact duplicitous or incompetent or both.

Posted by: Catch22 on April 12, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

KD: Is this ever going to end? How many more deliberate fabrications would we learn about if we could just turn the White House upside down and shake it?

The Bushie WH is all spin all the time. The frigging SCLM worry about packaging the news more than reporting the facts.

With the latest flippity-floppity from the original War Whore Newt Gingrich, Taylor Marsh reminds us:

Newt criticized Democrats in 2004, but now he's parroting Jack Murtha, with a little John Kerry on the side.
He's also paving the way for what the president intends. Newt's murmur is going to be a ripple that begins the new Republican mantra on Iraq, made especially for an election year.
[...]
Like Joe Biden said this past weekend on "Real Time" with Bill Maher, we've already drawn down 30,000 troops. But what was the impetus for the draw down? Iraq continues to get worse. The drawn down is not attached to any gain by the Iraqis. Instead, it's attached to an election year gradual withdrawal that will get the U.S. military out of the cities, with smaller bases closing, while large long-term bases remain and so will we.
Don't be fooled. The plan is what Democrats started pushing for last October, which Murtha and Feingold took up, with Kerry being the latest to present a plan for strategic withdrawal, which has been the Democrats idea from the start.
Once again, Republicans are too weak to lead, find solutions and make corections when needed. They have to follow Democrats who take the heat for stepping forward, because Republicans don't have the ideas or the spine to find solutions.
Repubs are too busy carving up the loot to get what they can while covering their tracks before we kick the Rubber Stamp bums out in November. The GOP has been built on a house of lies.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 12, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

This story, and the one about the aluminum tubes, were debunked in real time. These aren't big revelations to me, or to anyone else who was reading the blogs back in late '02 and early '03.

Thing is, they were relegated to the dusty back pages of our nation's finest newspapers. So the issue here is not only the mendacity of the Bush administration, but the lameness of our media.

I'm glad they're playing these stories big now, I suppose, but it would have been nice if they'd done it before, when it could have done some good.

Posted by: hamletta on April 12, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like it's time for a Hiatt editorial denouncing those who claim the administration lied about WMDs.

Posted by: dp on April 12, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

"If it concerns you so much, why aren't you over there dishing out some payback?"
Posted by: gmf

1)The whole region concerns me as it should you unless you like the idea of terrorist attacks on innocent people. It's not just afganastan ya know. If we don't get a grip on the ENTIRE region then the war on terror will have to be another generations problem.

2)They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

We stood back and did nothing as Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988. Now, almost 20 years later, it's a chickenhawk battle cry.

Actually, we didn't stand back and do nothing -- we supported Saddam with diplomatic, economic, and intelligence aid while he used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

"One assumes it isolates hydrogen gas out of solution in water, or whatever."

I assume it is from anaerobic fermentation, e.g.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16084370&dopt=Abstract

Posted by: Joel on April 12, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

. . . [the Democrats] voted to make felons out of all of those who remain in our country illegally," [Frist and Hastert] said.

Now, Frist and Hastert have both deliberately and unequivocally lied to the American people.

Conservatives embrace dishonesty, deceit, and dishonor.

It becomes clearer with each passing day that lying is a rock-solid trait of conservatism.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker, you're only 45? I had you pegged for low 80s.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

"They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits . . ."

Actually, they do. Time for you to sign up, pal.

Posted by: Joel on April 12, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

They wanted their war from the get-go, and no one would deny them, so they cooked the intelligence to get it. Who are "They"? They are the folks at the The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) [William Kristol, Chairman] also known as the Neo-Cons. After they unsuccessfully tried to get Prez Clinton to do "regime change" in Iraq(http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm), they seized on the events of 9/11 and the fact the "Village Idiot" had ascended to the presidency to strike again. Invading Iraq was part of the plan all along. They would not be denied this time. They would do whatever it'd take, including cooking the intellingence, to do "regime change" in Iraq...That is why we got the "Bush War". It is that simple and that clear.


Here are key exerpts from the letter (http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm) that the folks at PNAC had sent to the "Village Idiot" on while Ground Zero in lower Manhattan was still red hot:

"
September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
....
....
In order to carry out this first war of the 21st century successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism, we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powells recent statement that Saddam Hussein is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth. It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

In other words, cook the intelligence if necessary, but Saddam had to go, one way or another...hence the idiotic "Bush War". In large part, Bush is just the Neo-cons' "Useful Idiot."

Considering the premise outlined above, none of the current revelations about how Bush and his acolytes lied us into war are really that surprising, are they? The surprise, though, is how long they've gotten away with it, with a press corps that has been defanged and has been taken in over and over by the canards and Bushco's game of smoke and mirrors.

The problem is that after having cried wolf and spent our credibility, military might and moral authority going after Saddam's non-existent WMDs, what do we do now that we have a more real threat in Iran? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Posted by: dcshungu on April 12, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

"Lurker, you're only 45? I had you pegged for low 80s."
Posted by: shortstop

I hope to see it someday but not yet. *chuckling*

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Exhibit B for the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Bruce Cheney and George Walker Bush, right after the Downing Street memos.

Let's lay it out for the American people - These criminals lied us into a war for which we have paid with 2,300 American lives and $200 billion, against a country that was no more of a threat to us than Mexico and THEY KNEW ALL ALONG THAT THIS WAS THE CASE!!

IMPEACH AND IMPRISON GEORGE WALKER BUSH AND RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 12, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Just now waiting for the other shoe to drop...

Posted by: dcshungu on April 12, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Per someone's comment above, the falsehoods concerning the mobile weapons labs and aluminum tubes were readily apparent to anyone paying attention in the fall of '03. The Post may just be catching on, but this really isn't "news" per se.

Other favorites from that gilded era include the drone planes that Rummy threatened could attack within the US, as well as the seabound barge full of WMD's that Saddam could detonate at anytime, and anywhere. It was as clear as day that they were selling a dog-and-pony act of gigantic proportions.

Posted by: beefcake blogger on April 12, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

2)They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be.

Actually, the armed services are taking back prior enlistees as old as 59 years old. Depending on how much time you spent in the Navy, you could get an age waiver (for example, the maximum age of enlistment in the Naval Reserves is 39 but if you spent at least six years in the Navy before you can get an age waiver for prior service to 45). The Army, also, has raised its maximum enlistment age to 40, but you might be able to get a waiver for 45 since you have prior service. I recommend you go down to your local recruiter and make enquiries.

Besides, joining the military isn't the only option. You can sign up with a mercenary company such as Blackwater, doing work as a bodyguard or a convoy guard, or get a job as a driver or mechanic for Halliburton, or go over with an NGO as a volunteer to paint schools, build power plants or work in the slums. You don't have to be in armed forces itself to get right in the thick of the action in Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker, Stefan is making your desire to personally support your war incredibly easy for you. Which of these options will you be pursuing?

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Probably a hydrogen generator. One elevated reactant tank, probably an acid of some kind. Gravity feed because it's out in the field, no AC. Some metal goes in the reactor tank, iron or zinc. The recip compressor pumps the H2 into the ballon (it looks like a simple gasoline engine driver).

Definitely nothing biological. No temperature control of any sort visible. The ambient temp swings in a desert environment would kill off almost anything.

Posted by: Tim on April 12, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

"A hydrogen gas generator? Someone slept through chem 1."

No, this is actually Bio 101.

It's a portable fermenter that produces Hydrogen gas.

Photos of the trailers and their specifications were posted on the web waaaay back, even as Colin Powell was stumping around talking about the threat from these deadly mobile labs.

A British company produced them and sold them to Iraq back in the 80's... the information was available to anyone with a search engine.

Bloody liars... incredible liars... and a pack of incredibly gullible and ignorant americans to believe their horseshit.

Posted by: Buford on April 12, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

patience on April 12, 2006 at 2:59 AM

Word.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 12, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

IMPEACH AND IMPRISON GEORGE WALKER BUSH AND RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY!!!

"Bruce"? The guy's been VP for +5 years and this is the first time I've heard his middle name. And it's "Bruce"? Sheesh.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 12, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK.

The only liar here is KEVIN DRUM.

As the article makes clear, there were FOUR teams that analyzed the labs, at least two of which believed they were for weapons. The judgement of the CIA at the time was that they were for weapons.

So apparently Kevin believes that President Bush should have made his statement based upon ONE FIELD REPORT, which wasn't even sent to the bureauracy in Washington until two days before Bush's speech, rather than the judgement of the CIA at the time.

ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. Becuase more often then not, it shows that the REAL LIARS are those on the left, like Kevin.

Posted by: Al on April 12, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Here's a quick and easy way to get to Iraq:

SECURITY OPPORTUNITIES

Blackwater is providing qualified and trained Protective Security Specialists (PSS) for the purpose of conducting protective security operations in Iraq.

These positions currently include:

Protective Security Specialist (PSS)
PSS/Designated Defensive Marksman (DDM)
Explosive Detection Dog (EDD)/Handler
Administrative and Logistics Security Specialist (ALSS)
Intelligence Analyst (IA)
Armorer
Maintenance Positions
Medical Officer
Physician Assistant
PSS/Emergency Medical Technician (EMTI)

To be considered for a position as an Independent Contractor for Blackwater as a Protective Security Specialist (PSS) - Fill out and application and submit your DETAILED RESUME and a copy of your DD-214:

TO FILL OUT AN APPLICATION AND SUBMIT YOUR RESUME AND DD-214 CLICK HERE

Be sure to include your email address on all correspondence so we may contact you. By submitting your application, you will be considered for all available positions. It is not necessary to fill out multiple applications.

YOU MUST MEET OR EXCEED ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: Must have minimum of one (1) year experience in providing protective security services in: special operations, US military special forces, US Secret Service, or other federal agencies, commercial executive protection services, or law enforcement experience (i.e. US Military Police/Criminal Investigation Division, local & state law enforcement agencies).

PLUS these BSC Requirements:

Must be willing and able to deploy overseas for at least 6 months.
Must be a U.S. Citizen, proof of citizenship required (copy of Blue Tourist Passport)
Must be able to pass a general health physical.
Must be able to obtain a Secret Clearance.
Weight must be proportionate to height.
Must be able to pass a physical fitness test.
Must present and maintain a neat and clean appearance.
No history of major illness or mental disorder.
Experience must be verifiable, submit a DD-214 or other paperwork that can be
independently verified.
Must have an Honorable Discharge.
Must possess good written and verbal communications skills in English.
No felony or violent crime convictions (NO WAIVERS).
No personal bankruptcy or outstanding credit deliquency within seven years.
No DUI or illegal drug use history within seven years.
No spouse abuse or domestic violence conviction.
TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION AND SUBMIT YOUR RESUME AND DD-214 CLICK HERE.

Be sure to include your email address on all correspondence so we may contact you. By submitting your application, you will be considered for all available positions. It is not necessary to fill out multiple applications.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/securityconsulting/secopps.asp

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

When they get through explaining the lies that got us into the war, maybe they'll explain where the missing $8.8Billion in CPA funds went. They went to American colleges and dragooned feckless, conscienceless, business-experience-free YRs to be managers in the CPA.

-Where did the money go?
-Gee. I don't know.
-Let's see the books.
-Well, gee, the books are in a bit of disarray.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 12, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Here's another:

http://www.halliburton.com/careers/index.jsp

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, if this is so important, why haven't you joined the insurgency?

CHICKENHAWK!

Posted by: Al on April 12, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Catch 22 wrote: For those that claim the President has plausible deniablity and there is no evidence he actually knew about the report,...

Yeah, it would be very interesting to track the progress of this report to see just how far it got toward the President, which is where it should have gone. If it was stopped short, who stopped it and why? Maybe a Congressional investigation could get some people under oath and figure that one out?

Posted by: tim on April 12, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

This group below also looks like they could use some help in Iraq:

Aid volunteers willing to take risks in Iraq
30 November 2005
by Oliver Moore

Toronto, Canada: An aid group struggling with the kidnapping of its members in Iraq said volunteers are typically willing to take risks in the violent country because of strong beliefs on social justice.

Christian Peacemaker Teams has sent volunteers to the world's hot spots for years, but was rocked this week by the kidnapping of several members, including American Tom Fox and Canadians Jim Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden and Briton Norman Kember.

The group has run a number of missions to Iraq, several of them led by Loney.

The hostages were shown Tuesday in video that was broadcast on the Arab television news network Al-Jazeera. A previously unknown militant group, whose name has been translated as the Swords of Righteousness Brigade, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, and called the men "spies working for the occupying forces" under the guise of a Christian aid group.

William Payne, a spokesman for CPT, said that volunteers are well aware of the dangers they face.

"I continue to believe, and I think Jim (Loney) believes, that a just peace is possible without violence," he said, his voice heavy with emotion.

Payne said that his group would welcome military assistance in freeing the men, but not if it led to more violence.

"That belief that Jim has, that I share, means that you have to stand by your word," he added. "Soldiers are asked to give their lives for bringing a different kind of peace that we don't believe in."

Payne, who remains hopeful that the team will be released, said volunteers try to improve their safety by building strong relationships with local organizations. They rely on the opinion of these locals when weighing the security situation.

The group typically avoids the heavy security apparatus in which most foreigners take solace. A member of a previous mission said group members lived outside the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and avoided armored vehicles that drew attention, preferring to walk or use local buses.

Loney had a close call in Iraq two years ago, when a truck he was traveling in skidded off the Basra-Baghdad highway and rolled over. He survived, but a fellow volunteer named George Weber was thrown from the vehicle and died.

From: Scripps Howards News Service

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan? Hello? Are you joining the insurgency now to make sure that we get out of Iraq?

Posted by: Al on April 12, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, whatever, Al.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 12, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Apologies if it's already been stated but basic germ-disease tenets from the late 1800's would clearly classify giant sand toilets as biological weapons. Especially if they were in the hands of the world's most dangerous man in the world's most dangerous region.

Posted by: toast on April 12, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

"Which of these options will you be pursuing?"
Posted by: shortstop

Sorry short, it ain't workin. Not to mention Ol' Al (or who ever he is ) has a pretty good point over here. I assume you will be right behind Stefan?

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop: Lurker, you're only 45? I had you pegged for low 80s.

Are we talking age or IQ?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;-)

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Al: Stefan, if this is so important, why haven't you joined the insurgency?

Because he doesn't support the insurgency.

But you and Lurker do support the President and his war effort.

Big diff.

Lurker: Not to mention Ol' Al (or who ever he is ) has a pretty good point over here. I assume you will be right behind Stefan?

Just another way of calling liberal traitors.

So, you do engage in insults.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

The administration recruited a team of people, flew them to Kuwait, got them on a secure base in Iraq to look at evidence that would justify a war. This was a team assembled shortly after the labs were found (Baghdad fell just the month before) and they faxed a report within two days of arriving. I'd imagine everyone was breathlessly waiting for this report. Here's a money quote:

"After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?

In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production."

Posted by: Pete on April 12, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

"Are we talking age or IQ?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;-)"
Posted by: Advocate for God

I wouldn't have been able to either :)

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Wouldn't it be easier and more concise to record the few times that Bush didn't lie when he opened his mouth? This is tiring.

Posted by: ckelly on April 12, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry short, it ain't workin.

What ain't workin'? You said "They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be." and I've been (quite helpfully, I believe) doing some research on my own time to provide you with several options as to how to get to Iraq. Assuming you were serious when you said you wanted to go I'd expect at least get a word of thanks for helping you figure out how to do it. This doesn't seem like gratitude to me.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry short, it ain't workin.

Why not? Please explain why you won't be doing any of the things Stefan so helpfully laid out for you. Go on; we're listening.

Not to mention Ol' Al (or who ever he is ) has a pretty good point over here. I assume you will be right behind Stefan?

Lurker, this false analogy are dumb even for you. Stefan and I are consistent in not supporting this war--including the actions of the insurgents. You, on the other hand, claim to support Bush and the invasion, meaning your refusal to do anything to back up your aimless chatter renders you a giant hypocrite.

See, it's not so hard; it just requires a basic familiarity with logic. And an ability, lacking among all our trolls here, to comprehend that more than two polar, unshaded opposites may coexist.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

"this false analogy are dumb"...perhaps it is I who are dumb in writing that sentence!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Bush was actually elected Pope of the evangelicals and any pronouncement is considered "infallible", so he's not lying.

Why are we in Iraq again? I think it's what Jon Stewart mentioned "Q, N, so we were off by a letter".

Can't wait for Bush to nuke Iran so we can prove once and for all that these are the "End Times". With the Xians raptured, that will leave the world to those that care about it.

Posted by: reboho on April 12, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Al does not have a "pretty good point". The story is about the shelving of the findings of a Pentagon-picked group that was sent to examine the trailers and resolve the dispute within the intelligence community. The group examined the trailers and found unequivocally that the trailers were not associated with weapons production. Not only were their findings ignored, but their careers suffered for delivering bad news and not yielding to pressure to "soften" their findings.

This is consistent with the Bush admin's approach to all of their policies. Trumpet anything that appears to support the point of view and suppress what doesn't.

Posted by: Paul on April 12, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

I am not sure shaking the White House upside down will separate the sand from the shit.

It is however... worth a try.

Posted by: koreyel on April 12, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

-Intention to reconstruct program when inspectors leave

McA you dishonest fuck. This isn't the movie "minority report". So what if Saddam wished he had a weapons program? I wish I could sleep with Angelina Jolie - uh oh, better notify Brad Pitt right away.

Pretty piss poor reason to launch a war.

Posted by: ckelly on April 12, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

The group examined the trailers and found unequivocally that the trailers were not associated with weapons production. Not only were their findings ignored,

Again, utter lies.

Their report was not "ignored" - it was a MINORITY. There were TWO other analyses that reported that the labs WERE FOR WEAPONS. The judgement of the CIA was that the two reports were correct, and this report wasn't.

Why, oh why, can't the left-wing say anything without lying?

Posted by: Al on April 12, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

"meaning your refusal to do anything to back up your aimless chatter renders you a giant hypocrite."

So you are saying that anyone who supports the war and isn't over there in some capacity is a hypocrite? 'And this is logic to you? *shrug* Ok, have it your way. I'm a hypocrite...to you. I can live with that.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

You forgot to tell us why you won't be doing any of the things Stefan mentioned, Lurker. Why won't you?

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

I think that picture of a wheel-less trailer as "the dreaded WMD" is a priceless symbol of the hysteria, fearmongering and cowardice that has been propagated by the Republican party and the Bush administration and gripped our formerly brave and strong nation in the past 5 years.

Posted by: ckelly on April 12, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

So you are saying that anyone who supports the war and isn't over there in some capacity is a hypocrite?

I'm saying that someone who specifically said just above that he would be over there if he could be--and then is told the various ways he could be--is a hypocrite if he doesn't follow up. Why aren't you following up?

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

I'm still looking for a viable link, but I'm sure I recall a BBC report at the time which said the British had sent inspectors who concluded that the trailers were purchased by Iraq in the eighties for hydrogen production. Their first clue was the "Made in England" stickers...

Posted by: A Hermit on April 12, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

You forgot to tell us why you won't be doing any of the things Stefan mentioned, Lurker. Why won't you?

You forgot to tell us why you aren't over their fighting against our troops to try to get them out of Iraq! Why won't you? Sounds like you are a CHICKENHAWK!

Posted by: Al on April 12, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

So you are saying that anyone who supports the war and isn't over there in some capacity is a hypocrite?

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused...this isn't about "anyone," as you rephrased it above, this is about you. You had just said, hadn't you, that "They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be," indicating, quite clearly, that you wanted to be over there if only you could find some way, that you had a clear desire to support your country and the troops in the fight against the terrorists. After all, that's what the "I probably would be" is supposed to mean, right? Now I've found you several ways, and suddenly you don't want to be over there, you don't want to help anymore?

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

OK. this on'e a little after the fact, but it wasn't news to me even in 2004....

From "the Washington Post January 7, 2004:

"According to the two men, Iraq bought mobile hydrogen generators from Britain in 1982 and mounted them on trucks. The Republican Guard used one type, Iraq's 2nd Army Corps another."

....

"In the late 1990s, the Republican Guard sent some of its trailers for refurbishment at the Kindi Co. The 2nd Army Corps signed a similar contract with Saad Co. Masraf said the first units were finished in 2001, including the two discovered by coalition forces around Mosul."

Posted by: A Hermit on April 12, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Lurker, where'd you go? We're trying to help you live your stated dream of serving in Iraq. Tell us what's holding you back. We're listening.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, two out of four ain't bad..

In my opinion, two out of for is enough to realize that there is doubt and you shouldn't state it as though it were fact.

Sounds like cherry picking to me.

Posted by: Stephen on April 12, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

The judgement of the CIA was that the two reports were correct, and this report wasn't.
I see AL has been eating his captain crunch talking points.
Al, the team of scientist and experts was sent to confirm the initial reports by military teams on the ground. Each and every member of the team of experts said NO!

Posted by: michaelw on April 12, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

I'm still looking for a viable link, but I'm sure I recall a BBC report at the time which said the British had sent inspectors who concluded that the trailers were purchased by Iraq in the eighties for hydrogen production.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html - June 15, 2003

"The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control."

Mission Accomplished...

Posted by: Stephen on April 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

But everyone, from the President down to the most loathsome troll to ever post a comment on WM, knows that is exactly what happened.

Yes but the prize for most loathsome troll is still up for grabs. am and Lurker started strong, McA was his usual mendacious sack of shit self but now "Al/fake Al/parody Al/ Albot" is making his move. And we haven't heard from tbrosz, Norman Rogers, or cnut.

Posted by: ckelly on April 12, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

"How many more deliberate fabrications would we learn about if we could just turn the White House upside down and shake it?
Kevin Drum 2:21 AM "
Ooo, a CONTEST! I'm good at those! I guess....
20,000.
(That's based on roughly ten lies per day x approx number of days in office).
When will the real answer be revealed, and what's the prize if I guessed closest?

Posted by: smartalek on April 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Al : You forgot to tell us why you aren't over their fighting against our troops to try to get them out of Iraq! Why won't you?

Maybe because withdrawing our troops, not engaging in illegal wars based on a pack of lies, is the right answer, Bushtard, not your mumbo-jumbo disjointed wingutty gobblety-gook.

GOP epistemic relativism, a descriptor coined by Digby, which basically means, if Al and his type are called out as pro-Iraq war chickenhawks, the response is you are the chickenhawk... You aid terrorists... You are the traitor.

Zzzzzzz....

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 12, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Nice to see Al using the good 'ol "I'm the rubber youre the glue" defense. Chickenshit Al and chickenhawks will be here all thread for our entertainment.

Posted by: elmo on April 12, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop & Stefan

"Lurker, where'd you go?"

Did you miss my post at 10:52?
You can beg and you can plead and I'm still not going to play your little game.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Nice to see Al using the good 'ol "I'm the rubber youre the glue" defense. Chickenshit Al and chickenhawks will be here all thread for our entertainment.

What entertainment? Stefan altruistically did all the work to make Lurker's avowed wish a reality, and I'm seriously trying to help speed it along in any way I can. I just don't understand where Lurker went in the middle of this conversation...unless he's down at the recruiters' office exploring options right now? That's probably it.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Al is a hoot, isn't he?

Posted by: Ace Franze on April 12, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

"You forgot to tell us why you aren't over their fighting against our troops to try to get them out of Iraq! Why won't you? Sounds like you are a CHICKENHAWK!"
Posted by: Al

Probably because, unlike the neo-conservatives and Bush-supporters who fought to put our troops in harm way in the first place, liberals actually support the troops.

Posted by: Robert on April 12, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

The President has the power, indeed the duty, to prevaricate during the time of war if doing so is in the public interest. Look up the constitution.

Posted by: lib on April 12, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, there you are, Lurker! What "little game" is that?

1) You proclaimed that you'd be in Iraq if they'd take you at age 45.
2) Stefan and others explained that how that was possible, and offered a number of additional opportunities for you to help out over there.
3) You suddenly decided you didn't support the war enough to put your body and your talents on the line. It's up to other people to die for your cowardice, lies and hypocrisy.

Isn't that pretty much how the "game" went? Or is there another explanation? Tell us why you don't want to check out these fine options. We're always listening to you.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

This is a game to you? You'd just said quite clearly that you wanted to be in Iraq, and would be if only you weren't too old. I pointed out, quite helpfully, that your advanced age was no impediment, and that plenty of people in their mid-40s were finding ways to serve in Iraq, either by re-enlisting, by working as mercenaries or contractors, or by volunteering.

You said, in essence, "I want to go to Iraq." I answered, after doing my own research on my own time, "these are several organizations that will get you to Iraq." How is that not helpful to you? Why do you now see it as a little game?

I have to assume you were serious when you said you were interested in helping the cause of freedom. Remember, if we don't get a grip on the ENTIRE region then the War on Terror (TM) will have to be another generation's problem, and we'll never get that grip if good men like you just stay home.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Lurker's avowed wish a reality"

Typical Democrat strategy. Take a stastement, twist it until it suits you and then harass the shit out of you about a statement you didn't make. But that's ok, I'm amused.

I never said I WANT to be over there. Again, Read my 10:52 post.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

I never said I WANT to be over there.

They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be.

Was this second statement made by an imposter, perhaps? Someone else posted this under your handle?

Just tell us why you won't even check out the options, Lurker. Help us understand.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html - June 15, 2003

"The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control."

Thanks Stephen, I knew I hadn't dreamed it...LOL!

Posted by: A Hermit on April 12, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Well, why DON'T you want to be over there, Lurker? Isn't Iraq where Freedom is being defended and Terror being warred upon? Isn't Iraq where every able-bodied patriot should be? If these are not sufficient reasons to WANT to be there, tell us why they are not.

Posted by: Ace Franze on April 12, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Name wrote: At what point is it appropriate to try them for treason or at least impeach them?

When they stole the 2000 election.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 12, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

I never said I WANT to be over there.

Well, no one wants to be over there, but according to you when you wrote

The whole region concerns me as it should you unless you like the idea of terrorist attacks on innocent people. It's not just afganastan ya know. If we don't get a grip on the ENTIRE region then the war on terror will have to be another generations problem.

if we want to win we HAVE to be over there. I'm sure most of our soldiers don't want to be in Iraq either, but they're doing it because it's their duty. It's not a question of what you want to do, it's a question of what you're willing to do for your country. Which, sadly, doesn't seem to include going over to Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan and Shortstop,

Awww, c'mon. We all know Lurker42 is nothing but a blowhard and a coward.

Assuming he actually was in the Navy (does heve ever tell the truth?) he probably cheered us sending Army and Marines into combat while he sat offshore a safe distance. His biggest threat was getting VD off some hooker. What about it, Lurker, did you fail any "Short Arm" inspections?

Tell the truth now.

Posted by: Tripp on April 12, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Read this article by a retired general, if you haven't already.

Posted by: lib on April 12, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM: 2)They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits...

But Stefan demonstrated that they do.

...and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be.

So, if I follow your thinking, 'cause God knows let's not play games, you've been out of the navy too long to join up and fight in Iraq and if you hadn't been out of the navy for so long, you would sign up. Is that what you're trying to say?

Just want to make sure how deeply committed to Bush's war you are since the military is also taking out-of-shape older recruits and they will give you a signing bonus to boot. I guess your support of the war is to commit others to fight. So can we count on you to support increased funding for the VA and writing your congress critters about it? A quick withdrawal from Iraq? Opposition to long-term bases in Iraq? Replace Rummy? Any solution other than whatever the Bushies say? Want to make sure we've got the game you're playing correct.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 12, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

"Good enough. Fact is, with WMD invading before they have usable weapons is a good thing."

Woo-hoo! Let's invade everyone! And if we're proven wrong every time, that just shows how smart we is.

Posted by: Kenji on April 12, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Al: You forgot to tell us why you aren't over their fighting against our troops to try to get them out of Iraq!

Kill the troops in order to save them?

Posted by: cowalker on April 12, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

It's not a question of what you want to do, it's a question of what you're willing to do for your country. Which, sadly, doesn't seem to include going over to Iraq.

And apparently you are too cowardly to go over there yourself to try to get our troops home. CHICKENHAWK!

Posted by: Al on April 12, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Since Lurker 42 has as hard a time remembering what he wrote earlier today as he does standing up for his beliefs, a refresher is in order:

2)They don't take 45 yr old men as new recruits and I've been out of the navy far too long to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I probably would be.


"Otherwise I probably would be" means except for the conditions specified, he'd be making an effort to serve. Notice the word "want" or his desire or lack of it never enter into consideration.

Stefan and Shortstop have shown those conditions don't apply.

Rather than facing the contradiction in his own statement, Lurker42 resorts to ad hominem attack about a "typical Democrat strategy," though it is very difficult to see where SS and Stefan twisted his words. He does a good enough job twisting them himself!

It is perfectly okay to advocate for a cause you have no intention of supporting in a meaningful way. But we reserve the word "hypocrite" for such a person. Also blowhard.

Good job S and SS teaming up to corral this hypocritical blowhard!

Posted by: Tbrosz watch on April 12, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

The Founding Fathers never anticipated such venal, short-sighted, dim-witted, political, unpatriotic administration. Cutting the rotten head off this stinking carcass(impeachment) would not be sufficient. The whole vile mess should be removed.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on April 12, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42:

You dug this hole you are in about serving all by yourself. If you hadn't of stated that other then your age you would probably be over there on top of making the argument that America has to be over there you would not be in this dilemma. In short your mouth (in this case fingers I suppose) issued a check you are not able to cash. As for Al's moronic attempt to try and turn this into a tit for tat idiocy (one of his many idiocy specialties), it relies on an unsupported assumption, that those Americans that oppose the war and/or want the troops home also support the insurgency. Otherwise the comparison he is trying to make falls flat on it's face. For you are an American that supports the Iraq war that stated his support for that war and his regret that he was too old to fight in it. Whereas shortstop and Stefan oppose the war but also oppose the insurgency even while accepting that such insurgency was a logical outcome of the war, especially given how it was planned and executed AFTER the initial invasion. So there is no equivalent basis for them to need to join the insurgency since they do not support it while you do support the war your nation is fighting, you are ex military, and since the military has become so stretched because of the Iraq war they have significantly increased the age limit for recruitment, especially of those that have already served.

So sorry you are unable to do such basic reasoning. Indeed, the fact that you were willing to take Al's comments at face value and as a serious defence all but confirms your qualifications in the 101st keyboard brigade (chickenhawk) of the Trolletariat. Stefan only took your post which certainly sounded like it was regretful that you could no longer serve and help the fight in Iraq and showed you how you could. From that you call this a game, well the only person playing games with this is yourself, well with backup from Al, whatever that may be worth, little I expect.

This is what happens when you try to make yourself appear ready to serve except for age (oh woe is me) to try and put down the critics of the Iraq war. Now, are you going to open your mouth again to change feet or are you going to stop digging this hole you are in any deeper. Somehow I suspect the latter.

Walter E Wallis:

Nice to see you discrediting your science/engineering background yet again, assuming you actually have one. You must be one of the science specialists for the Trolletariat these days, given their faith based nature there cannot be many with a real science background willing to prostitute and misrepresent their skills/expertise for the purposes of the Faith (aka cult of Bush).

Posted by: Scotian on April 12, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK


It's not fermentation. You use aluminum metal plus sodium hydroxide plus water to make hydrogen. The hydrogen is used for artillery balloons: you use the balloons to determine high-altitude winds; knowing those you can correct your aim.

We have similar modified Humvees, only they make hydrogen in a different way, from methanol.

Al, the group that said those vans contained the DOE technical experts on biological weapons: the military teams did not. The Administration haas repeatedly ignored real technical experts, real engineers and scientists, as long as they could find a non-expert who told them what they wanted to hear. Hint: You don't evaluate technical intelligence by majority vote among the ignorati.

The Feds kept up this stupid claim for the best part of a year. They knew the boss wanted to hear it. My favorite part was the argument that the aluminum can in the van (the 'fermenter') must have been used for _something_ biological since they found urea. There was a real simple explanation for that.
The Iraqi soldieers were supposed to use distilled water, but they often peed in the can, undoubtedly as part of their elaborate deception program...

Posted by: gcochran on April 12, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Reinventing history again. Check the declassified documents:

-Intention to reconstruct program when inspectors leave

Ummm...the inspectors had left, some four years previously.

If Saddam was just waiting for his chance to make WMD, why didn't he do it then?

"Reinventing history"

You guys are one incredible piece of work.

Posted by: pdq on April 12, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Over at Ezra Klein there still seems to be some confusion about helium and hydrogen. Also some confusion about weather soundings. Weatherpersons make routine weather soundings daily or several times a day at agreed times. These balloons carry a radiosonde that gives readings about pressure and temperature at various heights. This helps in weather reporting and forecasting. A military operation might also make visual soundings with a theodolite to determine wind direction while doing bombing runs or missle firings. There are also those who would shoot at balloons for target practice.

Helium, which is far safer to deal with than hydrogen, is unfortunately a fairly scarce resource. Thus, weather agencies may prefer hydrogen both as a matter of cost and good conservation practice.

Posted by: kostya on April 12, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Is he allowed to prevaricate to get us into a war?

Posted by: reboho on April 12, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Look, I yield to no man and to few women in my loathing for this junta and its wars, but can we stop belaboring the "chickenhawk" meme quite so much? Once in a thread seems quite enough; to make it a pillar of one's arguments when there are so many other, sounder lines of attack readily to hand seems just silly.

Posted by: Rand Careaga on April 12, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Lest anyone question my motives, I was against sending the troops in the first place and I advocated bringing them home right from the start.

I took this position when it was unpopular, and I worked towards bringing it about by trying to influence the politicians who claim to represent me and who have the authority to actually bring the troops home.

Now Albert tries to twist that into some kind of commitment into fighting for our enemies? This is stupid on a couple fronts.

First off, I can't even begin to flow that 'logic.'

Secondly, helping the insurgents is likely to actually keep our troops there longer. I want the insurgents to go away so we can bring our troops home!

Sheesh. Our college republicans are getting stupider and stupider.

Posted by: Tripp on April 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Rand,

I wouldn't call this "making it a pillar of one's arguments," at least not toward the Bush administration and this latest deception. It was just a side foray, albeit an extended one, into calling a sniveling troll on his empty bravado and blatant lying.

But you're right; our work in that quarter is done. For now.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

The bottom line is that Bush lied, since even had the mobile labs been capable of producing WMDs, they were not themselves WMDs.

Therefore, no WMDs had been found.

Bush didn't claim that the mobile weapons labs were evidence of WMD capability or active programs, but that actual WMDs had been found.

The trailers were not and could never be actual WMDs - only what they (purportedly) could produce would have been actual WMDs.

Bush lied.

Regardless whether intel showed the labs to be WMD-related or not.

End of story.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Good job S and SS teaming up to corral this hypocritical blowhard!"
Posted by: Tbrosz watch

HAHAHAHAHA You guys are STILL goofing around with that. You guys crack me up. But I'm flattered that you would waste so much time on lil' ol' me. Imagine my surprise when I come back from lunch and you guys are still stuck on that one little comment. HAHAHAHA

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker: Imagine my surprise when I come back from lunch and you guys are still stuck on that one little comment.

Were you eating crow by any chance?

;-)

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yeeees, Crow. A big ol' bucket of kentucky fried crow. LOL

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker: A big ol' bucket of kentucky fried crow.

Were you able to discover the secret recipe?

I have a feeling you are going to be in need of more.

You might also need to feed Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and McClellan, too.

Stock up!

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty thin gruel, Kevin.

The report in The Washington Post said a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. The newspaper cited government officials and weapons experts who participated in the secret mission or had direct knowledge of it.

The Post said the group's unanimous findings had been sent to the Pentagon in a field report, two days before the president's statement.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the account "reckless reporting" and said Bush made his statement based on the intelligence assessment of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), an arm of the Pentagon.

Bush cited the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction as the prime justification for invading Iraq. No such weapons were found.

A U.S. intelligence official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the field report cited by the Post, but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated.

"You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the (intelligence) community based on a field report," the official said. "It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter."

Posted by: thinstuff on April 12, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK


BUSH: We have found the weapons of mass destruction.

I remember this trailer trash talk from Bush quite clearly. I recall also that he was overseas at the time (in Poland, as a Google search reveals) making this announcement to foreign press. I watched him say it on TV--live, I believe. I immediately went to Buzzflash. com, as any sensible person does when he wants to find out what's going on in the world. I clicked on any pertinent headlines and learned that, yeah, some trailers had been found. Already then, there was controversy over what they might be used for. After all, we'd all heard already about the aluminum tubes Condi Rice had misrepresented. In any case, everything that was written about the matter in real time confirmed one thing: Bush had not found weapons of mass destruction.

That fact is clear in examining Bush's own words at the time. Here is the context of his remarks:

BUSH: We have found the weapons of mass destruction. We've found the proof we were looking for. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons? They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.

So Bush spoke in Poland. But look at what he says. He's merging two ideas into one. The administration had said prior to the war that Iraq had mobile laboratories which could be used to develop biological weapons. And U.N. sanctions against Iraq had declared that such mobile labs were illegal. But labs are not themselves weapons of mass destruction. Rather, they were believed to be capable of producing them.

This is not a fine distinction. Bush said the labs were illegal "and we've so far discovered two." In the next breath he says, "And we'll find more weapons as time goes on." More weapons? So far, they hadn't discovered any. Bush goes on: "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." No, Bush hadn't found any weapons.

And he knew it--if not then, soon after. Because he stopped saying it. I'm quite convinced that he got back to Washington and was finally filled in regarding the Pentagon-sponsored mission's official findings concerning the trailers. When he realized that the trailers weren't even illegal, he stopped saying they had found weapons. In the days, weeks, months and now, years, that followed, we learned what the president almost certainly either knew when he spoke in Poland or when he arrived back in Washington: The trailers were completely innocent and legal.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 12, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK
A U.S. intelligence official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the field report cited by the Post, but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated.

"You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the (intelligence) community based on a field report," the official said. "It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter."

I dunno; if you've got a report that has been "coordinated" by the intelligence community but not actually based on substantial expert review of the facts on the ground, and you send experts to review those conclusions, and they immediately tell you that it is completely untenable, then I'd think that the responsible thing to do would be to let anyone who might be relying on the earlier report to be cautious in their reliance on it.

Rather than waiting for a final report of the review team, and when it contradicted the earlier report, trying to get them to spin it so it didn't.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42,

See, that's the thing about one little lie.

It brings the credibility of everything else you say into question.

"Liar."

Posted by: Tripp on April 12, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

HAHAHAHAHA You guys are STILL goofing around with that. You guys crack me up. But I'm flattered that you would waste so much time on lil' ol' me. Imagine my surprise when I come back from lunch and you guys are still stuck on that one little comment. HAHAHAHA

Newsflash to Lurker42: while you were away we agreed to stop talking about you. Why you persist in coming back to this settled issue is anyone's guess. But one thing: you might want to drop your current snarky and childish tone; you were much more entertaining in hypocritical blowhard mode advocating stuff you don't believe in.

Posted by: Tbrosz watch on April 12, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Just imagine the converse scenario. There are two vetted analysts' reports that say that the trailers are not BioWMD Labs. Then two days before the speech, a field report is produced that says that they are indeed BioWMD Labs.

Which report do you think will make it into the President's speech?

Posted by: lib on April 12, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Today, out of the mouth of the truth-challenged Scott McClellan, came the claim that the WaPo report was "irresponsible."

Is Scottie a clown, shill, or robot? Hmmm, maybe a hybrid.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, though, there's one thing that has always puzzled me: As a tactical matter, the way the war was conducted was as if Iraq did not have WMD. There were really no preparations or provisions made while the initial assault was going one, and no attempt to secure WMD sites immediately afterwards. If Saddam indeed had WMD, then logically we would have expected him to use them as a last resort -- and the initial assault would then have turned very ugly, with thousands of Americans deaths within days. So,why the tactical indifference to his WMD if we were supposedly certain (and the French too!) that he had them? I actually thought it was basic incompetence, but now I wonder whether Rumsfeld knew all along that Saddam had bubkes.

Posted by: Aris on April 12, 2006 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINK


I recall seeing lots of pictures of troops in chem warfare suits. I don't think that there was tactical indifference at all.

Posted by: Campesino on April 12, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, let's see....

Ask thousands of Khurd's who lost loved ones to gas attacks if they think that Bush lied about WMD?

Give it a rest, Kevin. You're sounding shrill and hysterical now.

Posted by: madmyk on April 12, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

bush lied.....again?

you know there's even worse stuff we don;t know about...

let's ask the pashtun...lol

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on April 13, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Ask thousands of Khurd's who lost loved ones to gas attacks if they think that Bush lied about WMD?

See, there's this thing called "time." The fact that Hussein used his US-financed chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988 doesn't mean that he still had them in 2003.

It's rather like, oh, claiming that Germany had concentration camps in 1960 because it had been running them in 1945.

Posted by: Stefan on April 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM | 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