One war criminal down...

Four to go:

Bush.
Cheny.
Rumsfeld.
Rice.

2007:

Hang these bitches until their tongues turn black.

Putting the nation's leaders in the forefront of the soldiers, on the battleground, didn't stop nations from maing war on one another.

But I'd still like to see that old custom revived.

You want to wage war on someone? Fine - but you go first.

Josh Marshall points out what Juan Cole says:

Saddam Hussein was tried under the shadow of a foreign military occupation, by a government full of his personal enemies. The first judge, an ethnic Kurd, resigned because of government interference in the trial; the judge who took his place was also Kurdish and had grievances against the accused. Three of Saddam's defense lawyers were shot down in cold blood. The surviving members of his defense team went on strike to protest the lack of protection afforded them. The court then appointed new lawyers who had no expertise in international law. Most of the witnesses against Saddam gave hearsay evidence. The trial ground slowly but certainly toward the inevitable death verdict.

Bush talks big on democracy but practices it little. It was just Bush's personal ugly little vendetta, because certainly, it was no Nuremberg trial, Bush didn't care if it was a fair trial or not.

I was no fan of Saddam Hussein and do not support the death penalty but if ever a man deserved to die it was him. Having said that, his trial was unbalanced and orchestrated and as devoid of rights as the prisoners that the war criminal in the White House has deprived the Guanyanamo prisoners and many American citizens of. It is time for real International War Crime trials to take place in spite of the threats of American military strikes.

Riverbend has a great post on the execution of Saddam.

ENEMY DEAD FIGURE?

HOW TRAITROUS TO OUR NATION AND DISRESPECTFUL TO OUR TROOPS NOT TO LIST ENEMY DEAD EVERY TIME - EVERY TIME - YOU LIST US CASUALTIES.

In WW II battle and war figures were always listed with figures for our side and estimates for the enemy's side: ESTIMATES FOR THE ENEMY'S SIDE.

There are somewhat greater ambiguity here because of the ENEMY'S DECISION to fight us in unilateral defiance of the Geneva Convention and any commonly decent rules of engagement as recognized through the history of mankind. But this could easily be solved by reporting total deaths and ESTIMATING AS IN WW II the number of enemy dead. These figures make our soldiers look like fools - they are not; and it makes our current Administration look incompetent - they are not.

But here is my number: 75,001 enemy "insurgents" dead since the beginning of this Iraq War (enemy #1 was hanged last night, hence 75,001); and 300,000-400,000 Iraqi people dead total: some innocent, some combatants in one form or another, and nearly all despising the USA and the West well before 2003.

THE POINT IS, PUT BOTH FIGURES IN; OR DOES THAT DEFEAT THE POINT. STATISTICALLY AND CUMMULATIVELY SPEAKING, THE MEDIA IS TRAITROUS TO THIS NATION AND IT IS THEIR SHAME: THEY MIGHT AS WELL STAB OUR SOLDIERS IN THE BACK ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

TOH

WHAT WAS THAT, TOH??????? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!

Right now on many wingnut sites are comments about how there are so many deaths for year from traffic,training and other accidents.They dust these off at every milestone.What do they see when they look in the mirror?

I usually do not receive what I want. I do not expect to receive what I want regarding withdrawal from Iraq or justice for W. Bush.

Happy New Year to all, even the mental midgets like Juan Cole that would have criticised a judge trying Himmler if his grandfather was Jewish - a Kurd! Oh the indignity! My reading of the New Testament has made me [very grudgingly] an opponent of the death penalty, but if anyone deserved it in our lifetime it was this man.

What do they see when they look in the mirror?

Vampires do not have reflections.

Can we please cut the crap about "We want to avoid number 3001" ??

That's enough moralistic grandstanding, Steve.

How about a realistic PLAN to face the threats in Iraq?

I saw that cloud of SCREAMING CAPS and though for a moment that Alice/Rudy/Keiser was enjoying renewed internet priviledges at the inpatient facility.

In other words, "Historian" (I have seen very little objevtivity, by the way) fucking learn HTML like the big kids or go to a chatroom somewhere.

I agree that the trial was mostly a farce. My recommendation would have been to give Saddam a brisk tap on the forehead with a baliff's nightstick the first time he popped off at the Judge. After that it might have been a more serious reckoning with his crimes against that country.

How about a realistic PLAN to face the threats in Iraq?

Bush is the Commander in Chief and he doesn't have a plan. Hell, he never had one. Maybe you outta be ringing him up instead of Steve with your complaints.

When Steve is elected President THEN feel free to savage him for his foreign policy failures.

Hostile/Brojo:

Drop me an email sometime. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions if that's all right.

2006 was the year i largely stopped commenting at kevin's place because the degree of idiocy from the right-wing regulars just became too much to look at on a regular basis, but every now and then i stop in.

and it's nice to know that the objective historian is still a complete mindless buffoon who prattles on endlessly about nothing, and it's heartening to discover new morons like hold the mayo who think there's a "threat" in iraq that has something to do with us.

in a changing world, the consistent stupidity of right-wingers has a reassuring quality....

Can I say something I know I'm not supposed to say?

Wasn't Saddam's comportment and behavior at his execution pretty remarkable, exhibiting a bravery and defiance in the face of death extraordinary in a person of any age, but particularly in a 69 year old man?

I have no particular larger moral to draw from this. But the fact itself is pretty impressive. Whatever else may be true of Saddam, one can see he was far out of the common run.

Amazing we killed so many insurgents we killed and they just keep coming back like heads of a hydra. How about some objective talk about how many insurgents we've created from this stupid way and how many people have decided to go with the jihadis because we continue to support brutal dictators like the Sauds as long as we like them

In other news, the Russian foreign ministry is giving us a talking to:

"Instead of so much needed national reconciliation and concord, the Iraqi people are facing a new wave of fratricide and numerous casualties," Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement.

"A hasty and cruel execution, which its external supporters were not ashamed to broadcast to the whole world, will certainly widen the split in the Iraqi society"

Pioneer10: Here is what Riverbend says about the seeming bumper-crop of terrorists in Iraq.

The question now is, but why? I really have been asking myself that these last few days. What does America possibly gain by damaging Iraq to this extent? I'm certain only raving idiots still believe this war and occupation were about WMD or an actual fear of Saddam.

Al Qaeda? That's laughable. Bush has effectively created more terrorists in Iraq these last 4 years than Osama could have created in 10 different terrorist camps in the distant hills of Afghanistan. Our children now play games of 'sniper' and 'jihadi', pretending that one hit an American soldier between the eyes and this one overturned a Humvee.

frankly0,

I think the behavior is pretty common among self confident psychopaths. Of course we (and the Maliki government) did a lot to reinforce his world view and Baathists and Sunnis with similar delusions will definitely gain strength from his performance.

Whatever you think of the man, you'd be wrong to characterize him as a trembling worm.

Saddam's trial and execution: disgusting. The guy was a monster and murderous tyrant. Still deserved a fair trial, if our effort in Iraq is not to be a fraud. What it was, was a coverup - A shameful kangeroo court to try and kill the vile jerk quickly on a minor charge before the circumstances of the bigger crimes (some of them done with US complicity and support) could raise their ugly heads. A real trial covering all of his crimes would be very enlightening to the US public. A lot of the big crimes were done while Saddam was the US's big pal in the middle east.

The wingnut comparison of war deaths to everyday hazards is both hilarious and disgusting. Last I checked, the probability of death is eventually equal to exactly one for each and every one of us. So, dude, that is far far worse that probability on one tour in Iraq. It is obviously SO much safer there than here. Everyone should go, beginning the the wingnuts making the argument.
Most of the accidental deaths in the US occur when some one is doing something on their own volition, that in their own view is legal, productive and worth doing in some way or other. Some unforseen circumstance of lapse in attention creates a tragedy. Many very good arguments can be made that the soldiers, and US population in general, are not involved in the Iraq war voluntarily, since the US administration lied to get permission to wage it. It could be also argued that it is not legal, and quite a bit of evidence has accumulated that it is not doing anybody any good anymore, and is counterproductive to everyone involved.

And yeah, I tremble in by boots that some Sunni Baathist nationalist, or a member of Shia death squads will follow the US troops home to blow something up here... until I think about the fact that they have no reason to do that whatever, since they are fighting each other for control of their own country. As for the Al Qaeda jihadis, it has been the stupid Iraq war and its incompetent prosecution that made them a problem, and from what I read, a problem that has grown worse with the Bush administration missteps in handling the war.

So, anyway, I gotta go work on my toaster now, hope I remember to unplug it.

"What will happen inevitably must happen immediately," wrote Henry Kissinger. We must immediately withdraw from Iraq. Whether we stay in there for two years or twenty, whether we add 10,000 troops or 100,000, there is nothing we can do to get the Sunnis and Shiites to stop hating each other, lay down their guns, and sing songs praising democracy, feminism, and secularism. Staying in Iraq will only lead to more tragedies and the deaths of more American heroes.

It is time our leaders served the troops as well as the troops have served us, and call for an immediate withdraw. The Republican leadership, who continue to fantasize that the war will "turn around" and the Iraqis will suddenly wake up one morning and decide to act like Americans, will not make this call. The Democrats are more realistic and understand there is no military solution to Iraq, and no American solution either. But do they have the courage to fight the Republicans' slander machine in order to stand up for what is both in our national interest and morally right?

Obsessive Historian,

Since, as General Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts," the military doesn't divulge these figures to us little people. If you want the military command to change their policy and begin publishing body counts I suggest you write to general Abizaid, or maybe to Secretary Gates, not Washington Monthly. I don't think those guys read Political Animal.

I was no fan of Saddam Hussein and do not support the death penalty but if ever a man deserved to die it was him

I disagree.

For many years I have searched for the ideal hangover cure and now at last I have found it. It is extraordinarily simple and straightforward.

Observe at this picture for two minutes,

Cure the Hangover

and you will feel fully settled and restored.

howard:"2006 was the year i largely stopped commenting at kevin's place because the degree of idiocy from the right-wing regulars just became too much to look at on a regular basis, but every now and then i stop in.

True for me as well. Maybe 2007 will be better?

Bodycounts? Remember the ones in Vietnam where they estimated they had killed twice the population? What good do the estimates do the those Americans now dying uselessly because Bush doesn't have the courage to get out?

3000 tragedies for what was long ago admitted to be a sham. These people should be removed from office.

Well PTate, I for one have missed you and I hope you bring your insights and wisdom back to us more often. you have always been one of my favorites.

Interesting point FranklyO. If Riverbend is correct, CNN inaccurately reported Saddam's last works, and rendered them considerably less dignified. Perhaps we aren't exhibiting a complete confidence in our actions if we need to do this.

I don't mean his guilt or innocence - he was guilty as hell. I mean the sloppy trial and the bizzarre scene with the guys in ski masks. Not you model of probity and due process somehow.

My son speaks Arabic fluently and he says Riverbend has it right and dismissed CNN as a propaganda tool.

The real cause of this fucking war is the REPUKELISCUM SUPPORTERS OF KING GEORGE TURDEATER.

If you voted for Bush, You are responsible for the deaths.

Hold a Repukeliscum responsible.

And did anyone notice the glaring exception in CNN's photo montage that ran in the background? Not once did the infamous picture of him and Rumsfeld appear.

Bernard Shaw, would you get your ass back in the anchor chair, please?

Fucking morons like the OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL BUTTFUCK, sitting here commenting on the Internet, are the real causes of this war.

OBJECTIVE BUTTFUCK, Enlist, you turd, and go to Iraq.

The so-called OBJECTIVE HISTORIAN - is neither.

howard:"2006 was the year i largely stopped commenting at kevin's place because the degree of idiocy from the right-wing regulars just became too much to look at on a regular basis, but every now and then i stop in.

Unfortunately, the Repukeliturds turn up everywhere. Mostly, they are armchair generals, and little shitty cowards who are sitting here safe in America, while the war they support and enable with their votes goes on.

Enlist, you cowardly turds, and do the world a favor by getting your butts killed.

How about a realistic PLAN to face the threats in Iraq?

Leave.

Now we'll take all the hard questions.

OT... pioneer10 -- deja vu.... I worked on the imaging photopolarimeter, periapsis command/control, and the quick-look/science imaging rectification (*cough*) work (zip, zap, and zot... if that rings a bell) for that mission... did you?

has407 - My husband is reading over my shoulder. He is an electrical engineer and not easily impressed, but that impressed him. He said "Damn! You need four years of post-secondary education just to say that."

And we are both such geeks that we have boxes of punch-cards collecting dust in the back of the closet in the spare room.

Global Citizen -- Thanks. So, having a couple beers, (and not wanting to think of more depressing matters), and seeing how it's New Years and many years past... I'll tell a little story about that mission (not to be repeated, of course :)...

The image rectification (or "rectalfication") software, as we fondly put it, was intended to put the spin-scan images from the spacecraft back into a form humans could recognize. That was no mean feat, as "spin scan" imaging essentially took a 1-pixel-wide image each rotation of the spacecraft. In the case of Pioneer 10, it was relatively slow; 5 RPS, with a data rate of 512-1024 bps IIRC.

This was the first time it had been tried with a moving target and spacecraft (it had been done previously with slow-moving or geostationary spacecraft above Earth). However, in this case the relative velocities of the spacecraft and planetary rotation (>80K mph) made it considerably more difficulty to put the image back to anything humans could recognize or that was of scientific value. Not to mention that the spacecraft had only 2 color channels, red and blue, and we were expected to "synthesize" green (translation: a human familiar with the colors of Jupiter would fiddle with the colors until they look right).

Of course, there was the pressure to get flashy images out for the press. Pictures make for news, and news makes for funding. We had tapes brought in by special courier every morning---and were expected to rectify the images and send JPL/NASA back pretty pictures by return courier. (For the geezers: the tapes were 9-track 800 BPI, post-processed on a CDC-6400, and images were produced on an optical drum plotter driven by an HP2214A to produce the negatives.)

So the moment of truth comes... periapsis is approaching... close-up images are expected... and the fancy image rectification software produce... after much crunching.... what looks like a question mark... with spangles... So me and my trusty zip, zap, and zot (which took about 1/100th the CPU time as that fancy software), get to work. We produce something that looks like--due to the relative motion of spacecraft and planet--an image of Jupiter that looks like a loooong sausage.

That would obviously not work... So the final "rectification" on that fateful day, performed somewhere between 2-3AM, in the darkroom at the top floor of the Optical Science Center at the University of Arizona, by George Kew and Lynn Doose (apologies to both for revealing the ugly truth... me, having been up for >120 hours, was passed out cold), was done by taking the negative of the "sausage", and tilting the easel (50-60 degrees IIRC) to project something approximating a circle on to a flat surface.

And thus you have what we referred to as the "great egg" (Jupiter's a little, um, "out of round" :). notable are the great red spot, and especiallt the image of IO and it's shadow. That is the image which appeared on the cover of Time, as well as gracing the covers of numerous other periodicals. NASA, and everyone else, fell for it--at least for a while. But boy were they pissed when they found out. The Happy Ending is that eventually the image rectification software was made to work, and that is what you will find in the "science imaging" sections about the mission, and that is what the science is based on.

And just remember whose war this is NOW. It was and it remains Bush's War and it was and remains the Republicans War. But day by day it is becoming McCain's War as well. As John Edwards so accurately stated this weekend, escalation is the McCain Doctrine.

Let's try to keep matters like this in mind. How about it?

To all posters who enjoy calling for a plan for Iraq, I responded with a new one in another discussion. Only one poster noted it while the rest continued their juvenile flame wars.

Perhaps it is time for citizens of the US and the world to raise some money for a memorial, buy a piece of property in DC (not on public land, so the government can't dictate the design) and erect a name by name memorial to those fallen in Iraq.

The memorial should be prominantly named:

Those who were sacrificed in George W. Bush's War.

has407 - just a few miles away, under the Sonoran Desert, in a Titan II silo, an officer really wanted to get home to his wife and newborn son, and the timer on the BVL (Butterfly Valve Lock) was giving them fits. He took his Timex off his wrist and replaced the timing mechanism. He then put the microphone in a coke can and taped the coke can to the adjacent portal so they could hear the mechanism...

Send me an email and I'll tell you a much better one, involving a length of chain, a paperclip and a strata-blue Dodge pickup, used to make fire.

Leaving Iraq too soon will create more problems than it solves.

Iraqis who cooperated with the USA in any way will be murdered. That could be thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Shiite attacks on Sunnis will increase, and vice versa. Moderate Muslim countries will be MORE vulnerable to Islamic extremists, not less vulnerable. Islamic extremists worldwide will be emboldened.

So anybody who advocates pulling out of Iraq too soon is reckless.

Honestly, I can't understand why Bush isn't tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, treason etc.

Sticking with a handle for a minute, or will we be treated to the sock-puppet chorus?

I love the smell of all-caps in the morning, it smells like ... zealotry.

Beside the fact that poor TOH should learn to begin a posting with a complete sentence, beside all the previously mentioned issues with the Pentagon and enemy body counts both now and in Vietnam, what is his point? That somehow the alleged fact that we've killed thousands of the 'enemy' and hundreds of thousands of innocents makes the 3,000 OK? Is he saying 'Yeah, they died, but they took a lot of them Arabs with 'em?" Wow. We're supposed to feel better because of a good kill ratio? Man, that's just whack.

It's occassionally helpful to visit the comments here, just to get a taste of wingnut. I forget how strange it can be. I suppose it would be too much to ask TOH to work up some kill ratio figures for Sunni militias versus Shiite ones, so we can really see who's doing the most effective job of bloodletting in Iraq?

Not only is "TOH" neither, it's a fucking semantic impossibility, since all history is subjective, written by the victors.

So we have "turned the corner" 16 times?

If Iraq is a square it means we have gone in a circle four times.

But Iraq is probably more like a Republican gerrymandered voting district, which means we have another 30 or forty corners to turn before we end up right back where we started. Where did we start anyway? Oh never mind.

And unfortunately, when our Wise Men and young College Republicans talk of a "sustained surge" this is how they'll get many of those 20,000 - 35,000 soldiers to ship to Iraq. Because, you know, a draft, or even a tax cut is out of the question.

It's always depressing to think how many Americans and Iraqis were alive and well on March 18, 2003 who are now dead or permanently maimed, or how many American and Iraqis whose families were intact on that day have lost thousands of loved ones since. All because of the baseless decisions of a handful of extremist ideologues and their strutting, mercenary shills. And for what purpose is all this tragedy and suffering? So a prancing twerp and his war profiteers could reap a harvest of transient political power, obscene lucre, and ephemeral glory. And who now lack even the mere political courage to do more than escalate the damage.

America deserves better than to be so shamed by the actions of such cowardly, feckless people.

Some right-wingers, like "The Objective Historian", (who as Global Citizen astutely pointed out is neither), think that the so-called liberal media is subversive for publishing the U.S. casualty count, but it is helpful to remember that the U.S. enabled Saddam to become the dictator that he was. The CIA and the right-wing politicians in our government are the ones who are the traitors.

Hussein was most definitely a monster of our own creation.

If the tempo of US KIA continues apace from now until Nov. 2008, we'll all be discussing the number 4500. At the same time, most of the staunch Iraq War supporters who are up for re-election in the US Congress will be cleaning out their desks.

The wise old men who pass for today's elite political leaders (cough, McCain, Lieberman) simply don't appreciate how much this catastrophuck (tm Jon Stewart) and the decider-in-chief are despised. Nov. 2008 will change all of that.

Wasn't Saddam's comportment and behavior at his execution pretty remarkable

If you consider that Saddam probably had abundant experience at personally observing and/or participating in the killing and torture of his fellow citizens then it isn't unusual that he should face death with a certain courage. My impression is that people who live by the sword often are not surprised by their own comeuppance.

OTOH, the trial & rushed execution was a farce and it will contribute to the lasting and ignominious legacy of GWB, a true coward by all appearances.

"Honestly, I can't understand why Bush isn't tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, treason etc." - Name

That would require proof, and if you have such proof, please present. And if you are so sure of his guilt, and had any decency whatsoever, you would continue to present that proof until he is impeached and imprisoned.

The left has screamed like drama queens for years now on Bush's guilt. WELL, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR STFU.

So which one of our delightful trools won the Trools Ghoul Pool on the magic number?

Understand that the winner gets to have a half hour session with Shrub in the sauna at the White House.

"OTOH, the trial & rushed execution was a farce and it will contribute ...." - obscure

Yet another vote of confidence from the left on Iraqi's ability to govern. How to win friends and influence people.........

The trial in Baghdad was a farce in the eyes of a liberal because they compare it to their preferred method of judication ie: the Hague and Milosevic, wherein Milosevic actually died of boredom because NOTHING was being done and nobody had the courage to declare his guilt or innocence.

Of course, Kerry voted for his guilt right after he voted to acquit.

Saddam's death is not a milestone, it is just one more dead Iraqi, one more Iraqi political assassination.

The fear of a draft being reinstituted is not only a fear for our children but as my friend pointed out hell i could be drafted.

Casey you said it! They should go first instead of all of us and our children!

Bush's true "milestones" or "benchmarks" is how horrible Bush can make the war in Iraq.

Bush ignored the pre-9/11 warnings, so Bushie got the milestone of 9/11, if Bush ignore pleadings for help with Katrine's aftermath, it's a benchmark too, if Bush ignores calls for more troops, pre-civil war when it mattered, thats another milestone or benchmark.

Bush has accomplished quite a lot of true “fiasco� milestones and benchmarks for having done absolutely nothing during his term as president, and except for Bushie’s usual style of “fly-by the seat� worthless political speeches of confusion and delusion, there isn't any legacy there for a man who set on his ass, possible drunk most the time.

I see that John F. Burns has finally felt the full brute of Bush’s ineffectual leadership, as the president who sneering with pride that he listening to nobody and did nothing of good thoughout his entire president.

Hey all you Clinton lovers. Do you know that more military servicemen died during the Clinton's adm. then Bush's? You can look it up. If you're lazy go to Gateway Pundit.

jay: Kerry voted for his guilt right after he voted to acquit.

flip
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." -- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

flop
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

jay: Yet another vote of confidence from the left on Iraqi's ability to govern. How to win friends and influence people.........

"Absolutely, we're winning." - President Bush, October 25, 2006

"We're not winning, we're not losing." - President Bush, December 19, 2006

This is one of my favorites:

"Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." - Howard Dean 6/7/2005

"What I said was the Republican leadership didn't seem to care much about working people," he said. "That's essentially the gist of the quote." - Howard Dean 6/10/2005

Mr Irony displays his level of intelligent debate techniques by taking quotes out of context.

For a remedially educated child, Mr Irony has come along way.

Good quotes, mr. irony... Here's another from Bush:

�We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. 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." -- President George W. Bush -- Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

jay>>bush excuser 2nd class

"We’ve never been stay the course." - GWB on ABC 10/22/06

never?

"We will stay the course." - GWB Salt Lake City, Utah 8/30/06

oops

jay...what's it like to be that shallow?

I forgot to include Cheney's astute observation about the war in Iraq:

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
-- Dick Cheney, CNN/Larry King, Monday, Jun. 20, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Dec. 31) - American deaths in the Iraq war reached the sobering milestone of 3,000 on Sunday even as the Bush administration sought to overhaul its strategy for an unpopular conflict that shows little sign of abating.

...

The grim milestone was crossed on the final day of 2006 and at the end of the deadliest month for the American military in Iraq in the past 12 months. At least 111 U.S. service members were reported to have died in December. - A.P.

"They are in the last throes of the insurgency." - Dick Cheney June-2005

apollo....excellent observation...

but as jay knows...its not much without

perspective..

Jay:

Yet another vote of confidence from the left on Iraqi's ability to govern. How to win friends and influence people....

Jay, you know nothing and you aren't worth responding to except as a remedial exercise in rudimentary debate. Rightist whackjobs like yourself normally scoff at "winning friends & influencing people" as the bailiwick of limp-wristed Democrats. Suddenly you're all touchy-feely??

It doesn't take much, Kid, to get a general overview of the state of Iraqi "governance."

*Note to mr. irony: Don't forget GWB's post-Katrina promise of the "greatest reconstruction effort the world has ever seen."

Kate offers the specious Gateway Pundit...Those figures he cites as evidence that the war ain;t so bad and 300 is just a number include all military deaths that occured on Clinton's watch, including car accidents and natural causes and stateside bar-fights. It's a straw-man stat to distract. Oh, and Gateway Pundit is a useless tool.

obscure...thanks...

what about this one?...

"We are fully prepared." - President Bush 8/29/05

i forget who said...

actions speak louder than words...

Here's a pretty good Bushism. Perfectly illustrates his lack of empathy and humanity. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma September 24, 2006.

And for a poignant view of "Commas", I highly recommend everyone to take a trip to the Blue Girl Red State site of Global Citizen - While there, peruse her Accountability thread.

This post has NOT been paid for by the GCPac Committee. Strictly volunteer.

Have fun reading:

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

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

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

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

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

And since then, everyone of these disengenous blowhards has retracted these statements.

Mr Irony has graduated from the Cindy Sheehan school of debate. Well Done.

I would say proof of treason would be leading a nation knowingly into a war based on false evidence; evading the obligat6ions of the Constitution and thus breaking the Presidential oath; orchestrated, government-sanctioned, torture, of citizens and prisoners of war which have even lead to death and the transfer of citizens to foreign states for torture would constitute war crimes under "The Buck Stops Here" plan that Bush holds everybody else up to. No, it's the the lying pandering,right wing, suck holing revisionists that need to get a grip on reality and STFU!

And what about Jay's own flippity-floppity words on Iraq:

Gauging the reaction to the bombing this is most certainly a tipping point in this conflict. If the Sunni's are proven to be behind this, it could easily to an all out civil war which could be disastrous and if that, I am in agreement with Honey P; maybe it's time to get out and let them fend for themselves....
--Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:16 PM

And since then, everyone of these disengenous blowhards has retracted these statements.

That's false, and you're a liar, Jay.

Show us an instance of retraction, Schmuck.

I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma

I think what Bush meant was:

In the post-apocalyptic future that will arise as a result of his disastrous policies, the history of Iraq -- angrily scratched out on a broken concrete slab with a twisted piece of rebar in what used to be a library -- will in fact look just like a comma due to the fact that an actual written language will have long been lost in the day to day struggle just to survive.

Global thanks for a quick refute of unadulterated nonsensa.refer to kate.

Gandalf- just wait until I've had my coffee.

My New Years resolution is to stop pussyfooting around when I come across an asshat. I have been way toon nice.

U.S. Ends Iraq WMD Search

By BASE MUDDLE
Assassinated Press Writer
January 12, 2005

"In a characteristically weak-kneed response, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said." - Nancy Pelosi 2005

Huh. Funny how none of those people Jay quoted had access to the full, unvarnished intelligence about Iraq in 2003 nor were they responsible for tying that intelligence to an invasion.

Also funny: a number of them did not support in invasion and counted on the UN inspectors to be able to do their job in identifying and disarming Iraq of WMD's -- which Bush didn't let them do, of course, presumably because the latest and best intelligence said that there were none and he needed a pretext to invade.

Jay gets his ass handed to him every day and yet still he posts. Jay, how about some economic figures from Britain to describe how good our economy is doing? Or maybe you could tell us how we need to cut and run from Iraq -- exactly like Murtha's plan but not really -- and then tell us how we need to stay in Iraq instead and carpet bomb its citizens into submission and kill all the "Muslim cockroaches" -- oh, I'm so confused....

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said." - Nancy Pelosi 2005

Jay's 2002 quotes from Dems demonstrate that Bush not only bamboozled the country, but Congress as well.

Where or where is phase II from the SIC on pre-war intel that Pat Roberts promised but never delivered?

Rep. Nancy Pelosi voted against the Iraq Resolution, BTW.

Smarter trolls, please!

"Also funny: a number of them did not support in invasion and counted on the UN inspectors" - trex

(Except for this)

"Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/editors

"Funny how none of those people Jay quoted had access to the full, unvarnished intelligence about Iraq in 2003 nor were they responsible for tying that intelligence to an invasion." - trex

"...dispatched national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to the briefing room to issue a rebuttal to "the notion that somehow the administration manipulated prewar intelligence about Iraq." The administration's judgment on the threat posed by Iraq, he said, "represented the collective view of the intelligence community" and was "shared by Republicans and Democrats alike....Some of the critics today," Hadley added, "believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people. For those critics to ignore their own past statements exposes the hollowness of their current attacks."

Hadley noted that the presidential commission, led by retired judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said it found no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence.

"Enough Democrats have always been available to push these appropriations through, sometimes by huge majorities or, in the Senate, unanimous agreement. Here's the record of shame: By 2004, when it was clear a disaster was unfolding and after Iraq's alleged WMDs had been exposed as frauds invented by U.S. and British intelligence agencies and the press: The House voted more money for the war, 410-12. The Senate agreed, 96-0. In 2005, by which time it was clear that the U.S. attack had spawned civil war, plus staggering corruption, the House voted war funds 368-58. The Senate gave it an OK, 100-0." -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/27/EDG58N61K31.DTL

The Democrats just keep voting for war. Why can't they stop themselves?

Maybe he didn't say Trumanesque after all. Maybe he said Rubenesque. Laura is getting that menopausal -er- thickening.

Sorry - wrong thread.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Rep. Nancy Pelosi voted against the Iraq Resolution, BTW." - Apollo

So let me get this straight; Nancy can talk a tough game but won't actually do anything to deter a dictator, especially if it means getting her skirt dirty.

Uh, having the administration send one of its lackeys like Hadley to say how they didn't manipulate intelligence is like Capone sending one of his boys to say how they're not in the rum-running business.

Idiot much?

If you've read the news you'd know it's come to light that a number of allies -- and in particular your personale favorite souce of data, Britain -- warned the Bush administration time and again that their intelligence showed that there were no WMD's in Iraq. In fact, this concerned them so much that their private assessment was that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal under international law.

As is cited and sourced here time and again, there was no "international concensus" that Iraq had illegal weapons. If I recall correctly even the Dutch knew, and the Dutch government just charged some reporters with revealing classifying knowledge that the government knew Iraq didn't have WMD's but hid that information in the run up to the war.

BTW, the quotes from 1998 by Democrats about Saddam -- classic you. Got anything even older and less relevant than that? How about something from the first Gulf War? What a tard.

So let me get this straight; Nancy can talk a tough game but won't actually do anything to deter a dictator, especially if it means getting her skirt dirty.

It's not the job of the U.S. to overthrow the governments of other nations we don't like.

Nor is it legal.

Nor is it moral.

And has the Iraqi debacle has shown...

Nor is it wise.

let me get this straight: Jay is still trotting out these pathetic, stupid, abysmal arguments? he is still unable to differentiate between chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons? he still doesn't understand that the vote in 2002 was not a war vote, although bush treated it that way? he still doesn't understand that Hans Blix and his inspectors were systematically demonstrating that the WMD claims had no foundation? he still doesn't understand that noting that Saddam was not a good guy and that he longed after nuclear weapons isn't a justification for the kind of national security disaster that our iraq policy has been?

in short, he is still just as ignorant and idiotic as he was four years ago? and he still has the nerve to open his mouth? what a fucking moron.

thank goodness that buffoons like Jay no longer constitute a majority of the american voting public.

Jay quotes Pelosi when Clinton ordered new military strikes on Iraq in 1998....

CNN, December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Containment was working. Secretary of State Colin Powell testified that Saddam's WMDs weren't a serious threat:

The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.
--Secretary Powell, May 15, 2001, testifying before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"It's not the job of the U.S. to overthrow the governments of other nations we don't like." - trex

)I guess that means starting in 2001, right?)

"In December 1995 the Clinton Administration ended the fighting in Bosnia- Herzegovina. Proud of what was perceived as one of his few foreign policy successes, President Clinton announced that, under the US-brokered Dayton Peace Accords, 'refugees will be allowed to return to their homes'. He continued: 'People will be able to move freely throughout Bosnia, and the human rights of every Bosnian citizen will be monitored by an independent commission and an internationally trained civilian police force. Those individuals charged with war crimes will be excluded from political life.' None of these things have happened. As a result, Bosnia is being partitioned into three ethnically pure mini-states." -
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/bosnia/clindeb.html

howard: thank goodness that buffoons like Jay no longer constitute a majority of the american voting public.

Yes, you are right!

Happy New Year, howard! Good to see you.

Jay continues to prove his idiocy at 1:25 by citing a completely irrelevant scenario: intervening in the balkans had nothing to do with "not liking." it had to do with genocide taking place.

what a fucking moron your are, Jay. keep 'em coming, why doncha? i got some minutes to kill this morning, and i'm happy to start 2007 by denouncing right-wing asswipes.

bring 'em on....

hey, apollo 13, good to see you, too! as i noted last night, it's the sad predictability of the stupidity of the likes of Jay and egbert and other right-wing know-nothings have pretty much driven me from commenting here, but i admire those like you who have kept up!

Yeah, howard,
I know what you mean. I come and go here at PA. With the holiday break, I've had more time to post. But with new projects on the horizon, I will probably won't comment as much as I have recently. Still, it's good to see you.

Bush's benchmarks and milestones

This on Google now:

3,000th US soldier killed in Iraq
San Antonio Express - 12 hours ago
The list of American dead in Iraq crossed the 3,000 mark Sunday, the casualty an Army specialist from the Houston area, but that grim milestone wasn't the only bad news.

The OTHER bad news is that we still aren't actively talking about impeachment yet, but hopeful Dems will decide that is the only logical course to pursue once they take over congress in 2007.

My New Years resolution is to stop pussyfooting around when I come across an asshat. I have been way toon nice.

Ah, a little levity, try to keep it. I'm trying myself, I swear, I'm trying.

I agree with the folks who say some important milestones have been achieved. But milestones on the road to what?

Milestone 1, invasion and military victory in Iraq, courtesy of our armed forces. Immediate Upshot: proof that the WMD pretext was a lie.

Milestone 2, GWB’s huge effort to conduct caucuses controlled by Americans. Upshot: GWB had to back down in a very public way to Sistani who insisted that a democratic election would be preferable.

Milestone 3, Elections which featured candidates who dared not even campaign, Sunnis who could not vote because security was so bad, etc., ad nauseum. Upshot: elections Western-style took a hit and political and ethnic prejudices harden across Iraq.

Milestone 4, a national constitution is “approved� that was so bad they had to include wild promises that it would be promptly “revised� to eliminate some of the worse features. Nobody, from day one, pretended to abide by the constitution, especially the “ruling� legislative factions. Upshot: opportunity to advance constitutional government blown, political and ethnic prejudices hardened

Milestone 5, Mr. Zarqawi., the superman terrorist, was killed and it had zero effect on the violence or anything else, just as all the non-Bush-supporting observers had predicted. Upshot: all but 30% of Americans acknowledge that the milestones don’t mean anything positive.

Enough of that, I won’t even work in Fallujah and some other important milestones.

Just note that these milestones are probably deserve the characterization “milestone�, but they are milestones along the road to a disastrous failure.

I could be wrong but according to what I've read, Specialist Hess won't be counted in the 3,000. You have to die *in* Iraq for that -- die from your wounds anywhere else in the world and you're not added to that total.

What's that? How many have died outside of Iraq? Who knows? It's not a number they publish or if they have, it's hard to come by.

That is a misconception. Spec. Hess is considered a casualty. Can you imagine the outcry from the families if their loved ones who die after being med-evaced out were not counted?

That myth was debunked a year and a half ago.

I'm the farthest thing from a Bush apologist there is, and I find this war abhorent and criminal; but truth is truth and we have no need to spin it.

"....intervening in the balkans had nothing to do with "not liking." it had to do with genocide taking place." - howard

But we deposed Saddam because we didn't like his government? Having nothing to do with anything else? Is that about right Howie?

Go away again, like you did last time. You're much more intelligent when you're in seclusion.

"Containment was working." - Apollo

Containment was definitely working for the liberals. With Saddam in power they didn't have to face the hidden horrors playing out in Iraq, they didn't have to come to terms with the starvation of many Iraqi children as a result of "containment", and they wouldn't have to interrupt the cocktail party to actually have to do somehting about which they lecture everyone else on: Human Rights (as long as Saddam was contained, Iraq's human rights violations really were inconsequential, right?)

"i got some minutes to kill this morning, and i'm happy to start 2007 by denouncing right-wing asswipes." - howard

you gots you some time do you now, howie?

Yeee haw! I can hear the banjos now.

I missed the 'retraction', Jay.

Idiot.

jay: And since then, everyone of these disengenous blowhards has retracted these statements.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."--Dick Cheney, August 2002

no doubt?

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC 3/16/2003

..in fact?

"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." - George W. Bush 10/07/02

that's a..proven lie...

The only portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be true.....were the caveats from the State Department. - WASH. POST November-2005

no doubt? in fact?

no caveats there...

jay:)I guess that means starting in 2001, right?)

"You can support the troops and not the president." - Tom DeLay (R-TX) 1999

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." - Tony Snow March 24, 1999

U-S death toll in Kosovo? z-e-r-o

dead enders were hoping for more dead americans...

they had to wait for gwb and 9-11...