US Weapons Inspectors: "No WMD in Iraq"

[ghostdog2]

"but apparently, compared to the odd blowjob in the copying room, launching an unjustified war based on lies and part-truths about a dictator that we helped put into power pales into insignificance."

Dude, did I mention Billy C.?
And you're right: GB2 can't hang with the hipster when it comes to lies and half truths.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

"but apparently, compared to the odd blowjob in the copying room, launching an unjustified war based on lies and part-truths about a dictator that we helped put into power pales into insignificance."

Dude, did I mention Billy C.?
And you're right: GB2 can't hang with the hipster when it comes to lies and half truths.

Dude, was he mentioning President Clinton?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

"Just listen to the Supreme Leader. All Hail the Supreme Leader." Peachmonkey

"She's got it. By Jove, I think she's got it." With apologies to Prof. H. Higgins

Wow, talk about the death of a democracy.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Apparently it's come time (pun intended) to repeat the obvious AGAIN...

See, dudes, even if you lie about sex and minor real estate deals that is somewhat lover on the Big Scale of Evil than lying about taxes and finances for a whole country, lying about cutting retirees' benefits (the latest: BUSH GOV'T TO HELP BY CUTTING SSI CHECKS), and lying about, like dude, a whole war thing with another country.

It's a family tradition. here's a bumper sticker seen yesterday: READ MY LIPS. NO NEW TEXANS.

Boy, did we screw that up.

 

[ghostdog2]

History? I'll give you history. Say hello to my pretties......(apologies to Al Pacino)

Historical Candidate 1 (hereafter HC1)
Through the freak accident of a 3rd party candidacy, a lying, horndog Jimmy Swaggart type Southern pol winds up in the White House where he continues serial philandering and all comers groping while his shrewish wife fails to socialize medicine thus failing the Administration's Great Initiative.
Back at the WH, Da Prez has repeated affairs, accepts illegal campaign cotributions from foreign enemies and uses his office to frighten and intimidate anyone in his way. Some end up dead or in jail, some have their secret FBI files scrutinized, the IRS audits others. While ignoring or mis-handling attacks against our country here and abroad, he uses his remaining energy to fight impeachment in hopes of getting out of office with his skin. " He is finally brought down when he ejaculates on an intern's dress and lies about it under oath-and it turns out the intern has kept the dress!" (Thanks AC))
Leaving office as gracefully as they entered, HC1's staff do $15,000.00+ worth of damage to the White House and EOB through vandalism and graffitti.
Way to go, dude.
Historical Candidate 2 (HC2)
This reformed alcoholic turned born again Christian squeaks into office after losing the popular vote. Shortly thereafter, 19 Islamic extremists fly multiple planes into mutiple targets and bring jihad home to the U.S.
He rallies the country, steadies an economy shaken by HC1 excess and terrorist concerns, takes the battle to Al Quaida, wins the war in Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban and installing a democratic gov't. All the while not screwing a single government employee nor weeping publicly in the company of a minority minister to show his sincere repentance.
After the most rancorous campaign in recent memory, HC2 is re-elected with a majority of the popular vote and a clear win in the Electoral College. The economy has turned around, the market is back, Americans are traveling again and no more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. All done while propping up Israel, speaking for a Palestinian State, winning the war in Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein.. More minorities and women are appointed to more important positions than in any prior admin. Tax reform, education and soc. sec. reform should all get done before long and then HC2 can turn things over to the liberals who said none of this could happen.
And I bet he leaves all the silver when he goes

You're right, History will judge them.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please offer substantiation for the claims about Clinton.

it may also be useful to fit in a few more bits of reality of candidate #2:

Born into an extraordinarily wealthy and well-connected family of texas oilmen, politicians, and businessmen, George Bush spends his early years lollygagging about. Fortunately, his father's connections are used to secure him affirmative action admission to yale University, where he does reasonably well--taking classes from, among others, his future opponent's same debate teacher.

Subsequently, the young Bush manages to avoid being drafted through his family's connections, which are used to secure a spot in the Texas ANG over more than a hundred others on the wait list. He flies F-104s, and is transferred out-of-State, again apparently through his family's connections, and leaves the Guard early under irregular circumstances, to attend Harvard Business School--experience he will use, subsequently, to decry his opponents' Ivy league connections as elitist and snobby.

Out of college, he fails in starting three separate businesses. It is at this time that he becomes well-known as a partier, and may have become heavily involved with alcohol and cocaine. His family secures for him a loan to buy into the buyout of the Texas Rangers, and he makes around 11 million on a 600.000 investment, using taxpayer money to build a new stadium.

Discovers God in 1987 after a Billy Graham show...

Runs for Texas governor, elected through a combination of liberal-baiting and what turns out to be gross exaggerations of his plans for State education and other programs...

Runs for President against a war hero, State prosecutor, Lieutenant Governor and long-time Senator. Given his lack of war record, administrative experience, and public service, devotes campaign to attacking opponent's patriotism and moral values.

Incidentally, while Bush was swanning about, Clinton was busting his *** as a poor country boy with an abusive father, working his way through the University of Arkansas into Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. His wife was working her way through law school. But DO hang on to that fantasy of Bush as the man of the People, and Clinton as the liberal elite, and do remember to retreat into petty and childish attacks on people you've never met ("his shrewish wife," was charming; Ann Coulter and Nancy Reagan much?) whenever the facts aren't supportive enough...

 

[ghostdog2]

"Please offer substantiation for the claims about Clinton."

Okay. I'll try to borrow the dress, but blue's not my color.

 

[MisterMike]

Please offer substantiation for the claims about Clinton.

it may also be useful to fit in a few more bits of reality of candidate #2:
Not really...
Born into an extraordinarily wealthy and well-connected family of texas oilmen, politicians, and businessmen,(we can't really pick what we're born into, but hold it againt him anyways) George Bush spends his early years(hardly anything to hold against someone) lollygagging about. Fortunately, his father's connections are used to secure him affirmative action admission to yale University, where he does reasonably well--taking classes from, among others, his future opponent's same debate teacher.

Subsequently, the young Bush manages to avoid being drafted through his family's connections(not substantiated - paperwork and draft papaers please?), which are used to secure a spot in the Texas ANG over more than a hundred others on the wait list. He flies F-104s, and is transferred out-of-State, again apparently through his family's connections, and leaves the Guard early under irregular circumstances, to attend Harvard Business School--experience he will use, subsequently, to decry his opponents' Ivy league connections as elitist and snobby.(Has never used those words)

Out of college, he fails in starting three separate businesses.(It aint easy. Ever try it yourself?) It is at this time that he becomes well-known as a partier(only in the liberal crowd, who have nothing better to complain about), and may have become heavily involved with alcohol and cocaine. His family secures for him a loan to buy into the buyout of the Texas Rangers, and he makes around 11 million on a 600.000 investment(Good for him!), using taxpayer money to build a new stadium.

Discovers God in 1987 after a Billy Graham show...(I know - religion bad, unless it's yours)

Runs for Texas governor, elected through a combination of liberal-baiting and what turns out to be gross exaggerations of his plans for State education and other programs...

Runs for President against a war hero, State prosecutor, Lieutenant Governor and long-time Senator. Given his lack of war record, administrative experience, and public service(lack of? What's a governor do again?), devotes(hardly-Kerry bothced thatup enough all by his self.) campaign to attacking opponent's patriotism and moral values.

Incidentally, while Bush was swanning about, Clinton was busting his *** as a poor country boy with an abusive father(I know - relevent because that's Bush'd fault too), working his way through the University of Arkansas into Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. His wife was working her way through law school. But DO hang on to that fantasy of Bush as the man of the People, and Clinton as the liberal elite, and do remember to retreat into petty and childish attacks on people you've never met ("his shrewish wife," was charming; Ann Coulter and Nancy Reagan much?) whenever the facts aren't supportive enough...

I dunno, but if all those colors represent bullet holes, your arguement would've bled to death.

:sadsong:

 

[PeachMonkey]

History? I'll give you history. Say hello to my pretties......(apologies to Al Pacino)

It's interesting how the only "history" you know revolves around the Clinton Administration, which has *nothing* to do with the topic of the thread, whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You don't even have the Al Pacino quote from "Scarface" right.

Moreover, of the accusations you level, the only one that has been substantiated is his philandering with Monica Lewinsky. Most of the others, including the ridiculous vandalism claim, have been specifically repudiated. And it didn't "bring down" Clinton; you may recall that he remained in office, and actually left office with higher approval levels than GW Bush has.

None of this is relevant to the topic at hand; it's the typical crap you see from dittoheads, who when faced with the ugly facts, simply perform a bit of misdirection and scream "But Clinton was a scumbag!" Guess what: they're *all* scumbags; you're naive if you don't watch each one like hawks.

 

[ghostdog2]

Peachmonkey:

Feel better now? Good. The adults will continue this conversation in a lower tone.
Thanks for the input @ Scarface. It's important.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Feel better now? Good. The adults will continue this conversation in a lower tone.
Thanks for the input @ Scarface. It's important.

I'm not sure why you read an elevated tone into my last post, but c'est la vie.

So far, you've responded to discussion point after point by changing the topic or with this sort of juvenile response. Thanks for making it clear that you're on "The Study" just to troll. I'll treat your future off-topic diatribes accordingly.

 

[loki09789]

It's interesting how the only "history" you know revolves around the Clinton Administration, which has *nothing* to do with the topic of the thread, whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You don't even have the Al Pacino quote from "Scarface" right.

.

This isn't accurate at all. WMD's were a concern/topic for any administration post Desert Storm. Colin Powell/Schwarzkoff (sp?) both were clear (when Bush Sr. would not sign off on invading Iraq during Desert Storm) that one of the campaign objectives was to disable the Iraqi war machine so much that it would take approx 10 years to rebuild. If SHussein was side stepping UN inspectors and feeding false information to the international community (not just GW BUSH) during that time, it would mean that Clinton Admin decisions/action do have something to do with the WMD discussion.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

We had the right with Iraq because of the first Gulf War and the UN resolution to tell them to disarm. We can't invade just any other country without more reason.

If the UN told Iraq to disarm in 1992 and it's taken until 2005 to show that it had been done then something is wrong. What we did is try to wrap up a potentially dangerous situation, where the '90s were all about appeasing Saddam (who incidentally barred the inspectors from doing their job as much as he could) and using a sit-and-wait policy.

WhiteBirch

How does one prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist? Please show me how it is possible to prove a negative.

You're claiming that Saddam should have proven the weapons didn't exist. We now know, post-invasion, that they don't exist and never did. How is he supposed to have proven this?

I spent a great deal of time debating you in another thread wherein I documented the administration's efforts to engineer a perception of threat regarding nuclear weapons. We didn't even touch on the chemical weapons issue. It was a civil, but intense discussion. You concluded it with this final refutation: "I promised myself several months ago that I wouldn't get into this argument because I don't believe it can be proven either way."

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16529&page=4&pp=15&highlight=Justification


I honestly have to question if any amount of evidence would satisfy any of the apologists for the administration, or whether anybody would concede points on this issue.

WMD was the administration's casus belli. Inspectors prior to the war, such as Scott Ritter, said they didn't exist. As I indicated in the thread (above), the administration prior to 9-11 was on record stating that Saddam wasn't a threat--you can hear it in Powell and Rice's own words--and the National Intelligence Estimate of 2000 gave little indication that Iraq loomed as a dangerous entity. The International Atomic Energy Agency's pre-war reports clearly stated that Saddam lacked the ability to produce a nuclear weapon, and these were misreperesented by the administration.


Regards,


Steve

 

[ghostdog2]

Peachmonkey:

Thanks for your understanding. You may, in the future, consider getting a life.
These posts, on my part, are intended to be good natured and fun. Or at least a harmless diversion from REAL LIFE.
As for me, since you ask, I have a wife, 2 kids(at home), a dog, a cat and sometimes a gerbil. A job(a profession, actually), golf, MA training, hunting and fishing take up most of my time and damn near all my energy.
As a result, I don't research this nonsense, I don't "give support" for my position and I DON"T GET MY FEELINGS HURT.
In case you haven't noticed, there's no one here. Look around. This forum has, what, 300 or so members? How many (few, really) get to The Study and how many/ few of them to any one thread? 20? 10? 50? Who knows?
Sooner than later, most threads devolve into 1 or 2 or 3 people shouting thru their computers. Enjoy it, for God's sake. No one's going to be converted, and if they were, it would all end.
Now, take a deep breath.....

p.s. i do my best work after @ two drinks and when the kids are in bed. I shoo the dog off the sofa and fire off brillant stuff like " Get a life".
Come on, smile now. Lighten up, there.
p.p.s. I almost committed the unpardonable sin of trying to be pun-ny and calling it "the blew dress." But I resisted. Now, am I forgiven?

 

[loki09789]

Moreover, of the accusations you level, the only one that has been substantiated is his philandering with Monica Lewinsky. Most of the others, including the ridiculous vandalism claim, have been specifically repudiated. And it didn't "bring down" Clinton; you may recall that he remained in office, and actually left office with higher approval levels than GW Bush has.

.

So...does that mean that the topic of "Bush is bad" that creeps into just about every current events discussion now isn't really the central lesson to take from this?

Does this observation mean that if Clinton was re-elected post-quitous )) AND Bush was re-elected post-oopsus, that all this pulpit pounding about 'character, honesty and the American way...' really means little to the mob? Does it mean that the PR axium of any press is good press is true? Could this be grounds for a discussion/justification for a return to a ruling class if the voted officials are corruptable/corrupted regardless of party?

And, yes I know this is a far reaching extension, exaggeration, off topic and irrelevent to the discussion so just ignore it or comment as you will but I would say that it does shed some perspective on how out of proportion some of the "Bush is the Anti-Christ (politically speaking)" comments that are being made can be when taken out of historical context as well.

 

[lvwhitebir]

The previous UN inspectors believed they had destroyed Hussein's WMD program.

I don't know how you determined that...

UNSCR 1441 determined:
1) that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
2) that Iraq has failed - in clear violation of its legal obligations - to disarm; and
3) that, in consequence, Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire laid down by the Council in SCR 687 at the end of the hostilities in 1991, thus reviving the authorisation in SCR 678.

1441 said that they hadn't completed the disarmament.

Paragraph 2 of SCR 678 authorised "Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions to restore international peace and security in the area." The phrase "all necessary means" was understood then (as it is now) as including the use of force.

The authorization [to use force under SCR 678] was suspended for so long as Iraq complied with the conditions of the ceasefire. But the authorisation could be revived if the Council determined that Iraq was acting in material breach of the requirements of SCR 687.


CNN 1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday.

The revelation, drawn from Butler's talks in Baghdad earlier this week, means the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) teams have little chance of fulfilling their duty to certify that Iraq has no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.

CNN 4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."

Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.
...
In contrast, Butler's UNSCOM report said the group had made "virtually no progress" over the last six months in determining whether Iraq is holding long-range missiles and chemical and biological weapons.


CNN 12/16/1998
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler claims in a report to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with his team of arms experts.

In the report, delivered to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan late Tuesday, Butler said Baghdad has not lived up to its promise to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has abandoned its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for Iraq's prohibited weapons program," Butler wrote.


CNN 3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s.

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax.
...
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for.


So in 1998, after 7 years we still didn't know what they had and what they didn't have. At that point, the inspectors left the country because of unbelievable Iraqi demands to them.

Before our recent invasion and occuation, the United Nations was inspecting his program, had not found evidence of a WMD program, and requested more time to complete their investigation. This time was denied them, and the invasion was launched. If Hussein had then proceeded to throw out the inspectors, or continued to prevaricate, then the UN could have acted; if the UN had continued to fail to act, then the US would been justified to act unilaterally. None of these actions were allowed to take place.

Let's see, after 12 years we put forth UNSCR 1441 to give Iraq a final attempt to comply with it's responsibilities required by the UN. 1441 was approved by the UN. It spelled out in detail what Iraq must do to be considered compliant and that serious consequences would be delivered if they didn't. They had several months to comply and didn't. We invaded.


In 2003, we gave them another chance to come clean. We still didn't know what they had and what they didn't. As they had done over the passed 10 years, they balked at their responsibilities. They were again asked to provide a weapons declaration because the previous one was found lacking.

Butler Report,
Dr Blix, 27 January "Regrettable, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number".

IAEA written report, 27 January "The Declaration contains numerous clarifications. It does not include, however, additional information related to the questions and concerns" outstanding since 1998.

Some questions outstanding were:
- Amount of mustard gas unaccounted for is at least 80 tonnes.
- it cannot be excluded that [Iraq] has retained some capability with regard to VX that could still be viable today. There are significant discrepancies in accounting for all key VX precursors.
- It seems highly probable that destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist". (Unresolved Disarmament Issues, 6 March)

The Declaration also contained significant falsehoods, many listed in the Butler Report.


CNN 1/31/2003
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday he has so far seen no evidence of a promised increase in Iraqi cooperation and that he is still considering Baghdad's offer to return for further discussions on disarmament.
...
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441.



According to the Chief Weapons Inspector himself, Iraq wasn't forthcoming. The inspectors were trying to do their jobs, but there was no Iraqi cooperation that was required to keep an invasion at bay.

Iraq had not attacked the United States; had not been proven to have WMDs; inspections were underway again; the sanctions regime punishing Iraq for its previous failure to comply with inspections was, all of its brutal human rights violations aside, depriving Iraq of its ability to develop WMD; the United States did not declare war on Iraq;

They did not attack the US, true. But they had attacked Kuwait and we were part of the UN force that repelled them and have been there since 1991 trying to make them comply with the UN resolutions.

We had proof that they had the weapons prior to 1991. They had not fully declared what was destroyed, so we (the UN and arms inspectors) had to assume the stuff was still there. In some instances the inspectors found weapon capabilities we didn't even know they had (biological). In others, we had proof that they had more than they were declaring (VX gas).

I don't know what you want to say we declared war on them, but both the House and the Senate voted for military action.

CNN 10/10/2002
The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.

CNN 10/11/2002
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
...
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."



So let me see. A country attacks another and is repelled. They're told to give up all of their weapons, and prove they have done so, and they refuse. Over a period of 12 years, we hem and haw trying to get them to comply. For 4 years they even refuse inspectors to enter their country. We finally threaten to invade and they give in (as had been done several times in the '90s). The UN gives another resolution that says comply or else, and they choose else. Now we're the bad guys. Gosh, sorry but I don't understand your viewpoint.

WhiteBirch

 

[ghostdog2]

"Gosh, sorry but I don't understand your viewpoint."WhiteBirch

No wonder. Liberals don't have a viewpoint. They have a philosophy. A viewpoint requires reason and logic. A philosophy requires adherence, not thought.

In an effort to appear manly, as I've posted earlier, liberals pretend to support war as a concept. In reality, they quibble, rationalize and distinguish this war (or any war) as not worth fighting. Unconditional surrender is the Battle Cry of the New Left. Usually in French.

 

[PeachMonkey]

This isn't accurate at all. WMD's were a concern/topic for any administration post Desert Storm.

Ghostdog's discussion of the Clinton Administration was not relevant to Clinton's handling of Hussein or Hussein's WMD, but rather attacks on Clinton's character and administration, and was therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I know most of the attacks on Bush must be unpleasant for his supporters, but given that they most often come up when discussing issues that are are related to decisions made by his administration, I don't feel too terrible about them

 

[PeachMonkey]

I don't know how you determined that...

I determined that by the statements of Scott Ritter, retired from the US Marine Corps, former leader of UN's weapons inspection teams, a man more qualified than any of us to comment (as he was actually on the groun) I've referenced them in previous threads. Here's some more:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/19/ritter/index.html

Ritter actually inspected the sites. He dealt with Iraq's recalcitrance. He was pulled out in 1998, not by Iraq, but by the United States. He knew that Iraq did not present a WMD threat to its neighbors or the United States.

Despite UNSCOM's success in dealing with these obstacles, Iraq had not met its obligations under UN sanctions to fully comply with the original UNSCOM inspections, and as a result, was punished by UN sanctions.

The 2003 inspections were underway and Iraq continued to defy the full compliance requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions. However, the UN inspectors and the IAEA requested more time to continue their inspectors, and the United Nations Security Council did not believe further action was necessary until their research was complete. The investigations completed after the war have justified all of this research, as well as the positions of Ritter.

The Waxman report has found detailed evidence that the Bush Administration specifically ignored evidence contradicting the belief that Hussein had an active WMD program in order to support their desire to go to war. Moreover, the WMD programs Hussein had before the original UNSCOM inspections were largely developed with the assistance of United States companies when Iraq was a US client state, and his "evil use" of WMD touted during the run up to the war occurred while Iraq was a US client state, and yet at no time did the US take action against Iraq or stop exporting WMD materials to it.

These are the kinds of things that lead one to be suspicious, and to think we might have been the "bad guys", or at least seriously incompetent, when it comes to Iraq.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Under the twinned topics of, "Darn that pesky reality!" and "Darn that 'liberal' habit of preferring reason and evidence to personal attacks and self-contradiction!" a couple or three notes:

1. Going back to the actual topic, we've found no WMDs in Iraq. Nor have we found the capacity to make them. Nor had the UN inspectors; nor had our own inspector of the 1990s.

2. Whatever technology Hussein had pre-1991, I checked. This is 2005; we invaded in 2003.

3. So the "conservative," position now is: previously, we claimed that the UN had its head in the sand, and/or was incompetent, and/or was corrupt. We also claim that we have the right to say, "Screw the UN, we're going in!" Now, we're claiming that the UN did its job properly, knew what it was talking about, and authorized us to go in. Huh.

4. Liberals just have a biased "philosophy," about all this, not a viewpoint, because a viewpoint requires logic and reason. At the same time, we truth-seekers don't have to, "research...and give support for my position," and we are perfectly entitled to simply launch belittling insults about other people's, "effort to appear manly," and need, "to get a life." That is to say, because we are politically correct, we don't have to actually know anything or discuss reality or explain our ideas.

5. An excellent illustration is provided in the response to actually discussing the careers of Bush and Kerry, in the section that asserts that Bush must have been experienced because he was a governor. First, indeed Bush did have more of such experience: he was an administrator for the Texas Rangers. Second, Bush was a one-term Texas governor: a) in their system, the Governor in fact has very little power, and b) Bush ran for Prez starting in his first term in office, if memory serves. In this plane of existence, then, Bush's experience was vastly inferior to that of an officer who commanded a small unit in combat, who served as a state prosecutor for years, who served as lieutenant governor for years, who served as a US Senator for 12 years before running for President. The experience does not mean he was necessarily better for the job; however, it--unlike the response--actually pertained to reality.

6. For the 4, 657th time: this fantasy that everybody who disagrees with the lunatic Republican party line is perforce a, "liberal," is simple nonsense. Moreover, it is profoundly ignorant nonsense, grounded solely in the sort of loopy (but very profitable!) ignorant nonsense pumped out by Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al. Fer cryin' out loud, will you at least go read some Buckley, Himmelfarb, Goldwater, C.S. Lewis, Simon Schama, Geo. F. Will, etc.? At least flip through "National Review," and, "The American Spectator," and "The Wall Street Journal," once in a while, willya? Conservatism used to have a strong, proud intellectual tradition--it's depressing to see it sink to this level of sheer ignorant crapola.

7. However, one expects at least a small torrent of personal abuse, accompanied by more-or-less open attacks on one's patriotism, masculinity, neuroses, etc. It remains fascinating, fortunately, to see how far individuals will go to protect dearly-held fantasies about the world--and revealing, not incidentally, to see how well-learned have been the lessons taught by rightist ideologues over the past two decades. One can only hope that, at some time, it will become easier to see real enemies--ignorance, a lack of good education (personally, one believes that lazy and liberal and chickenshit teachers are indeed responsible for a big chunk of this1), a capitalism advanced to the point that everybody seems to think that they only matter as consumers and workers, a current wave of imperialism, and a bizarre deployment of religious and moral dogmas that help paint over the whole thing.