OT: Former Coalition Commander offers ringing endorsement of the Management of the War

[kurgan]

From:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/

Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq
issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that
American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with
their "lust for power."

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and
2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for
which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and
Congress all share blame.

Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on
Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean
immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not
been held accountable.

He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed,
unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided
the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could
never achieve on its own.

Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos
that would have global implications.

"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its
desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a
strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the
greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.

Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the
National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into
"an intractable situation" in Iraq.

"We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is
being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."

Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and
not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is
retired he has an obligation to speak out.

"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.

The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field
commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not
achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.

"Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we
entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory
can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he
said.

"From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan,
to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has
failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and
military power," he said.

Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops
into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not
accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they
have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality
to the American people."

"Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen
loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution
because of their lust for power," he said.

Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.

"Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national
political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said.
"They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their
duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately
relieved or court-martialed."

Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless
there is a major change in commitment.

"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will
not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed
approach is stave off defeat."

"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in
sight," he said.

The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for
power in Washington ends.


"National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics
that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and
supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles
have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our
sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was
that political power had greater priority than our national security
objectives."

"Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving
victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are
doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that
would give us hope."

[Tom Kunich]

If you think that the Democrats would allow any government rather than an
extreme left-wing government to exist in Iraq you're not looking at the
Democrats with clear vision.

While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial good
judgement, most of his positions have been formed in order to get some sort
of cooperation from the lefties in the Democrat Party.

[Donald Munro]

kurgan wrote:

> From:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>
> Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'

I'm confused. I thought the neo-cons said invading countries
you don't like and stealing their oil would be a cakewalk.

Come to think of it the neo-cons seem to have all abandoned the
USS Mission Accomplished lately.

[fred.garvin@yahoo.com]

On Oct 13, 9:16 am, kurgan <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From:http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>
> Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq
> issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that
> American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with
> their "lust for power."
>
> Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and
> 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for
> which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and
> Congress all share blame.
>
> Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on
> Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean
> immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not
> been held accountable.
>
> He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed,
> unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided
> the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could
> never achieve on its own.
>
> Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos
> that would have global implications.
>
> "After more than four years of fighting, America continues its
> desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a
> strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the
> greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
>
> Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the
> National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into
> "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
>
> "We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and
> Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is
> being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."
>
> Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and
> not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is
> retired he has an obligation to speak out.
>
> "While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
> reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
>
> The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field
> commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not
> achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
>
> "Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we
> entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory
> can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he
> said.
>
> "From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan,
> to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has
> failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and
> military power," he said.
>
> Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops
> into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not
> accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they
> have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality
> to the American people."
>
> "Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen
> loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution
> because of their lust for power," he said.
>
> Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
>
> "Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national
> political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said.
> "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their
> duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately
> relieved or court-martialed."
>
> Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless
> there is a major change in commitment.
>
> "Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will
> not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed
> approach is stave off defeat."
>
> "There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in
> sight," he said.
>
> The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for
> power in Washington ends.
>
> "National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics
> that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and
> supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles
> have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our
> sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was
> that political power had greater priority than our national security
> objectives."
>
> "Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving
> victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are
> doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that
> would give us hope."

Of course Sanchez is critical of the administation and the war. In
practically any discussion of the poor execution of the early stages
of the war, it is pointed out that HE was the commander of US forces
at the time. Plus, any discussion of the current successes make it
plainly clear that his successor is doing things right. He HAS to
blame someone else, or else he has to accept most of the
responsibility himself.

Sanchez was a terrible commander and his predecessor has turned out to
be a genius who's turning things around. No big surprise that he's
passing the blame to someone else.

Please don't misunderstand, Bush has plenty to answer for. But,
Sanchez's word isn't the definitive word on this. He's just whining
to deflect blame from himself. I give his rantings no credence
whatsoever.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <13h2fmqisnuno4b@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial good
> judgement,

Turning the Middle East into a tinder keg was "good judgement"? Creating a
recruiting tool for bin Laden was "good judgement"? Giving the terrorists a place to
practice and hone their skills before going out into the world was "good judgement"?
Remember this exchange [1]:
_______________________
(me)
> Is it possible that by invading Iraq, Bush has inspired even more people
> to take up the anti-US terorism cause?
(you)
Is it possible that seeing war close up and personal will discourage a
greater number?
_______________________
Do you still think that's accurate?

> most of his positions have been formed in order to get some sort
> of cooperation from the lefties in the Democrat Party.

Tom, he has done *nothing* to get any cooperation from the Democrats. It's always
been "my way or the highway" with your hero W. If you really believe that propaganda,
then perhaps you can offer a cite or two, rather than just empty assertions.

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/4a1b7548c5046600

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Cliff]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:55:36 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial good
>judgement

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4711d0cd$0$2881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
> kurgan wrote:
>
>> From:
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>>
>> Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
>
> I'm confused. I thought the neo-cons said invading countries
> you don't like and stealing their oil would be a cakewalk.

Then you won't have a bit of trouble showing us a single quote.

> Come to think of it the neo-cons seem to have all abandoned the
> USS Mission Accomplished lately.

Have they? Tell me, how many people will Sadam murder this year?

[J. Carroll]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4711d0cd$0$2881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
>> kurgan wrote:
>>
>>> From:
>>> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>>>
>>> Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
>>
>> I'm confused. I thought the neo-cons said invading countries
>> you don't like and stealing their oil would be a cakewalk.
>
> Then you won't have a bit of trouble showing us a single quote.
>

None whatever.

Before the invasion of Iraq, various neo-cons suggested that the war
would be quick, easy, and above all, cheap.

These days they tend to deny that they ever suggested such a thing,
but I'm afraid the record speaks for itself:
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm


"Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very - an issue for the
future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country.
Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so
there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much
of the burden for their own reconstruction." - Ari Fleischer

"This is not Afghanistan... When we approach the question of Iraq, we
realize here is a country which has a resource. And it's obvious, it's
oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue
each year... $10, $15, even $18 billion... this is not a broke
country." - Richard Armitage

"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S.
taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...
and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could
bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or
three years... We're dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz

"If you (worry about just) the cost, the money, Iraq is a very
different situation from Afghanistan... Iraq has oil. They have
financial resources." - Donald Rumsfeld

"On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the
responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7
billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq... and
unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the
development fund." - Alan Larson

"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for
reconstruction, in a sense... (Reconstruction) funds can come from
those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a
variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very
substantial number of billions of dollars in it. - Donald Rumsfeld


So how's that working out?

Well, the New York Times reported that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html?ex=1336622400&en=034ced4a02a3dcd3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil
production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have
been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a
draft American government report.

Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was
valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.

(snip)

Iraqi and American officials have previously said that smuggling of
refined products like gasoline and kerosene is probably costing Iraq
billions of dollars a year in lost revenues.

The smuggling of those products is particularly feared because
officials believe that a large fraction of the proceeds go to
insurgent groups.

(snip)

Adding together both civilian and military financing, the report
concludes that the United States has spent $5.1 billion of the $7.4
billion in American taxpayer money set aside to rebuild the Iraqi
electricity and oil sectors.

The United States has also spent $3.8 billion of Iraqi money on those
sectors, the report says.

Despite those enormous expenditures, the performance is far short of
official goals, and in some cases seems to be declining further.


So let's see... the Bush administration has spent $5 billion of U.S.
taxpayer dollars to rebuild the Iraqi oil sector, and the result is
that an estimated 300 million barrels of oil have gone missing,
putting millions of dollars into the hands of insurgents who are using
the funds to kill American troops.

Way to go!

But just out of curiosity, how come we don't know exactly how much oil
is being stolen?


Mr. Ebel said the lack of modern metering equipment, or measuring
devices, at Iraq's wellheads made it especially difficult to track
smuggling there.

The State Department official agreed that there were no meters at the
wellheads, but said that Iraq's Oil Ministry had signed a contract
with Shell Oil to study the possibility of putting in the meters.


Well I guess they've only had five years to get that sorted out.

No rush.

--

JC

[Simon Brooke]

in message <13h49tt962i7t9d@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Kunich
('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:

> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4711d0cd$0$2881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
>> kurgan wrote:
>>
>>> From:
>>> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>>>
>>> Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
>>
>> I'm confused. I thought the neo-cons said invading countries
>> you don't like and stealing their oil would be a cakewalk.
>
> Then you won't have a bit of trouble showing us a single quote.
>
>> Come to think of it the neo-cons seem to have all abandoned the
>> USS Mission Accomplished lately.
>
> Have they? Tell me, how many people will Sadam murder this year?

[Yes, I know this is completely off topic here]

Not nearly as many as will die in the civil conflict that Western
intervention has caused. In his worst year ever he never killed his own
civilians on this scale. To suggest that /anything/ in Iraq is 'better'
now than it was before the illegal US-led invasion is simply ignorance.
Yes, it was bad then. But not nearly as bad as it is now.

The British have been defeated and driven out of Basra, which is now in the
hands of warring factions. The US is being defeated in Baghdad. Women, who
under Ba'ath party rule formed a significant part of the professional
middle class, are now confined to their homes. Electricity and drinking
water - and /gas/, for heaven's sake - which under the Ba'ath party was
available reliably everywhere, are now extremely hard to get. Basic
infrastructure has broken down. The hospitals and schools are in chaos.

This isn't to excuse the Ba'ath party. Their rule was oppressive in the
extreme. But civil war - with no end in sight - is not an improvement. We
have created a terrorist state - a breeding ground for terrorists - where
there was not one before.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

[Donald Munro]

J. Carroll wrote:
> Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil
> production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have
> been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a
> draft American government report.

There's a more sophisticated way to steal oil. Its called a
production-sharing agreement or PSA where a puppet Iraqi
government signs away a large percentage of the countries
oil wealth to US oil corporations for decades to come.

Perhaps those coffins coming back from Iraq should have Exxon
or Haliburton flags draped over them.

[Tom Kunich]

Ahh, so by "neo-con" you prefer to invent your own definitions. Why didn't
you say so?

[Tom Kunich]

There you have it from Simon - Iraqi women were much better off under
Ba'athist rule.

[William Asher]

Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:471250ee$0$2896$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om:

> J. Carroll wrote:
>> Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil
>> production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could
>> have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according
>> to a draft American government report.
>
> There's a more sophisticated way to steal oil. Its called a
> production-sharing agreement or PSA where a puppet Iraqi
> government signs away a large percentage of the countries
> oil wealth to US oil corporations for decades to come.
>
> Perhaps those coffins coming back from Iraq should have Exxon
> or Haliburton flags draped over them.

Not cynical enough. You need to come up with a slogan. I suggest:

Iraq: Come for the democracy, stay for the oil!

--
Bill Asher

[J. Carroll]

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:16 am, kurgan <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> From:http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>>
>
> Of course Sanchez is critical of the administation and the war. In
> practically any discussion of the poor execution of the early stages
> of the war, it is pointed out that HE was the commander of US forces
> at the time. Plus, any discussion of the current successes make it
> plainly clear that his successor is doing things right. He HAS to
> blame someone else, or else he has to accept most of the
> responsibility himself.

OK,
How about Bill Odom then?

Victory Is Not an Option.
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy

By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01



The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf
that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war.
Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in
Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of
producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus
judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in
rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence
community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to
the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of
control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still
asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure,
and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility
for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the
bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding resolutions" that oppose the
president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of mind, the
president's relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress's anxiety has
paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of
democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not
inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of "who
gets the blame" could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will
vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.

No task is more important to the well-being of the United States. We face
great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects will be
difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at least, public
acknowledgment that the president's policy is based on illusions, not
realities. There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq.
Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the
matter beyond question:

First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal,
constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by
professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created
since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly
"constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a
broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation.
None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep
sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.

Strangely, American political scientists whose business it is to know these
things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the lead-up to the March 2003
invasion, neoconservative agitators shouted insults at anyone who dared to
mention the many findings of academic research on how democracies evolve.
They also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create the
democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now expected to create a
constitutional order in a country with no conditions favoring it.

This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal democrats. When they
immigrate to the United States, many do so quickly. But it is to say that
Arab countries, as well as a large majority of all countries, find creating
a stable constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be
pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It
took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward
British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting
Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have
recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters
of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and
only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the
Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families
live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy
and military command.

As Congress awakens to these realities -- and a few members have bravely
pointed them out -- will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many lawmakers
have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's
new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will
occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this
formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made
inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which
has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim
their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that
quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a
"failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon
us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in
Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war
aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian
influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably,
would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam
Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress
swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent
precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that
Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration
and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war
into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be
far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And
the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more
lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it
was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S.
forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its
strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S.
withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni
groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements
could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to
question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq.
On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there
now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument
effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in
grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid
pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so
because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the course" --
whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third and fourth
tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many
news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups
are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and
officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground.

But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the
implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue
the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to
the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it
clear that "the buck stops" in the Oval Office? If the president keeps
dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress?

Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to exercise its power of
the purse to end the war and open the way for a strategy that might actually
bear fruit.

The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply
prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of
Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal
will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy
our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with
us in Iraq and the region.

Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the
Middle East.

Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually
destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to
prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening "regime change," using the
hysterical rhetoric of the "global war on terrorism" -- all undermine the
stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.

Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not
primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so
they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a
"tactical draw" and make "regional stability" our measure of "victory." That
single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region,
where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs
shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order,
albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have.

Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will
hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important
allies. This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of
Iraq. Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are
increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will awaken most
leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-led diplomacy to stabilize
their neighborhood.

If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical legacy, he would
seize the initiative to implement this kind of strategy. He would eventually
be held up as a leader capable of reversing direction by turning an
imminent, tragic defeat into strategic recovery.

If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress the opportunity to
earn the credit for such a turnaround. It is already too late to wait for
some presidential candidate for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress
cannot act, it, too, will live in infamy.

diane@hudson.org


William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was

head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under
Ronald Reagan. He served on the National Security Council staff under Jimmy
Carter. A West Point graduate with a PhD from Columbia, Odom teaches at Yale

and is a fellow of the Hudson Institute

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html



--

JC

[rjk3@my-deja.com]

On Oct 14, 2:03 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:16 am, kurgan <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From:http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/
>
> > Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight'
>
> > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq
> > issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that
> > American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with
> > their "lust for power."
>
> > Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and
> > 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for
> > which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and
> > Congress all share blame.
>
> > Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on
> > Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean
> > immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not
> > been held accountable.
>
> > He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed,
> > unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided
> > the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could
> > never achieve on its own.
>
> > Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos
> > that would have global implications.
>
> > "After more than four years of fighting, America continues its
> > desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a
> > strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the
> > greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
>
> > Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the
> > National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into
> > "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
>
> > "We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and
> > Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is
> > being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."
>
> > Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and
> > not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is
> > retired he has an obligation to speak out.
>
> > "While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
> > reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
>
> > The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field
> > commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not
> > achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
>
> > "Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we
> > entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory
> > can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he
> > said.
>
> > "From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan,
> > to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has
> > failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and
> > military power," he said.
>
> > Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops
> > into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not
> > accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they
> > have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality
> > to the American people."
>
> > "Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen
> > loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution
> > because of their lust for power," he said.
>
> > Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
>
> > "Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national
> > political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said.
> > "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their
> > duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately
> > relieved or court-martialed."
>
> > Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless
> > there is a major change in commitment.
>
> > "Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will
> > not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed
> > approach is stave off defeat."
>
> > "There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in
> > sight," he said.
>
> > The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for
> > power in Washington ends.
>
> > "National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics
> > that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and
> > supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles
> > have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our
> > sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was
> > that political power had greater priority than our national security
> > objectives."
>
> > "Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving
> > victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are
> > doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that
> > would give us hope."
>
> Of course Sanchez is critical of the administation and the war. In
> practically any discussion of the poor execution of the early stages
> of the war, it is pointed out that HE was the commander of US forces
> at the time. Plus, any discussion of the current successes make it
> plainly clear that his successor is doing things right. He HAS to
> blame someone else, or else he has to accept most of the
> responsibility himself.
>
> Sanchez was a terrible commander and his predecessor has turned out to
> be a genius who's turning things around. No big surprise that he's
> passing the blame to someone else.
>
> Please don't misunderstand, Bush has plenty to answer for. But,
> Sanchez's word isn't the definitive word on this. He's just whining
> to deflect blame from himself. I give his rantings no credence
> whatsoever.

You are ignoring Paul Bremer, architect of disbanding the Iraqi army.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:

>Victory Is Not an Option.
>The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>
>By William E. Odom
>Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01


Odd...when did the Surge start?

Gunner

[Bill C]

On Oct 14, 6:48 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <no...@haha.cam> wrote:
> >Victory Is Not an Option.
> >The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>
> >By William E. Odom
> >Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
>
> Odd...when did the Surge start?
>
> Gunner

Hey Folks
Gunner makes TK, Rush, and Coulter look like moderates.
This dude is Hitler in a democratic costume.
Bill C

[J. Carroll]

Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:
>
>> Victory Is Not an Option.
>> The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>>
>> By William E. Odom
>> Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
>
>
> Odd...when did the Surge start?


"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis
to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest
that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day
when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
-George W. Bush, 2005

McConnell, Pelosi Agree on Iraqi Govt. Failures
While McConnell Believes Congress Will Compromise on Kids' Health Care,
Pelosi Not So Sure
By MARY BRUCE
Oct. 14, 2007 -


Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., this morning admitted that "the
central government in Iraq has been an embarrassment."


It's an assessment he said he shares with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif.


"I'd have to say that I agree with her," McConnell said in a "This Week with
George Stephanopoulos" interview. "They've not been able to produce any of
the kind of political compromises that we had hoped for."


In a separate interview, Pelosi blamed the Iraqi government for not making
the necessary changes to bring the war to a close.


"The purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which the
political change to end the sectarian violence could succeed," she said.
"Why should our troops be risking their lives in a civil war that, even when
we intervene and create the room for them to make change, they refuse to do
it?"



McConnell, idiot-Ky, then goes on - incredibly, as in absent any credibility
or proof - to state that the "surge" is working.



In fact, here are his subsequent words:

"Violence is dramatically down," he said. "There's just simply overwhelming
evidence to that effect. And most of us have not given up. We believe we can
win. And my definition of winning is a stable country and an ally in the war
on terror. I think we're making significant progress toward that end."

You see Gunner, if the Iraqi people won't assume the responsibility for
running their own country this "surge" isn't doing anything worth
accomplishing. It sort of resembles the bush regimes prior stumbling,
bumbling and locker room/frat boy nonsense. Nonsense, BTW, that has been
extremely costly in every way and which hasn't, won't and can't produce
anything but more of the same.


How, exactly, is that "working" or succeeding?

--

JC

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:51 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:

>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:
>>
>>> Victory Is Not an Option.
>>> The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>>>
>>> By William E. Odom
>>> Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
>>
>>
>> Odd...when did the Surge start?

So John..when did the Surge start?

(leftwing blather snipped)

Gunner

[J. Carroll]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> There you have it from Simon - Iraqi women were much better off under
> Ba'athist rule.

Certainly.
Saddam ran a secular ship.
Saddam Hussein, as hes any dictator, focused on threats to his power.
You can truthfully say the same thing about bush.
Hell, bush has even dismembered due process using the same logic Saddam did
in his day.


--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

[J. Carroll]

Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:51 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:
>
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Victory Is Not an Option.
>>>> The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>>>>
>>>> By William E. Odom
>>>> Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd...when did the Surge start?
>
> So John..when did the Surge start?
>

So you admit that Mitch and the rest of goober bush's team constitute "left
wing blather"?
70 percent of America is "left wing blather"?

Thanks for confirming reality in your own strange way dude.

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis
to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest
that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day
when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
-George W. Bush, 2005

McConnell, Pelosi Agree on Iraqi Govt. Failures
While McConnell Believes Congress Will Compromise on Kids' Health Care,
Pelosi Not So Sure
By MARY BRUCE
Oct. 14, 2007 -


Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., this morning admitted that "the
central government in Iraq has been an embarrassment."


It's an assessment he said he shares with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif.


"I'd have to say that I agree with her," McConnell said in a "This Week with
George Stephanopoulos" interview. "They've not been able to produce any of
the kind of political compromises that we had hoped for."


--

JC

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Oct 14, 6:15 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:51 GMT, "J. Carroll" <no...@haha.cam> wrote:
> >Gunner Asch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <no...@haha.cam> wrote:
>
> >>> Victory Is Not an Option.
> >>> The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>
> >>> By William E. Odom
> >>> Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
>
> >> Odd...when did the Surge start?
>
> So John..when did the Surge start?
>
> (leftwing blather snipped)
>
> Gunner


Isn't the important question not when the "surge"
started, but when it will end, and what happens
then? Do you have a plan?

Ben

[Tom Kunich]

"J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in message
news:LNzQi.8277$6p6.3037@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> There you have it from Simon - Iraqi women were much better off under
>> Ba'athist rule.
>
> Certainly.
> Saddam ran a secular ship.
> Saddam Hussein, as hes any dictator, focused on threats to his power.
> You can truthfully say the same thing about bush.
> Hell, bush has even dismembered due process using the same logic Saddam
> did
> in his day.

So perhaps you can tell us about how due process has been "dismembered"?

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:05:36 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>On Oct 14, 6:15 pm, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:51 GMT, "J. Carroll" <no...@haha.cam> wrote:
>> >Gunner Asch wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:27:10 GMT, "J. Carroll" <no...@haha.cam> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Victory Is Not an Option.
>> >>> The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
>>
>> >>> By William E. Odom
>> >>> Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01
>>
>> >> Odd...when did the Surge start?
>>
>> So John..when did the Surge start?
>>
>> (leftwing blather snipped)
>>
>> Gunner
>
>
>Isn't the important question not when the "surge"
>started, but when it will end, and what happens
>then? Do you have a plan?
>

Seems to be working pretty well.

As for when it ends...thats a good question.. Probably when the job is
done.

Ask Hillary. She will inherit the problem. She doesnt seem interested
in surrendering, or leaving anytime soon.

Gonna suck to be her.

Well..it already does...

Gunner

>Ben
>

[Donald Munro]

Gunner Asch wrote:
> Ask Hillary. She will inherit the problem. She doesnt seem interested
> in surrendering, or leaving anytime soon.
>
> Gonna suck to be her.

The Clintons always seem to end up having to clean up after the mess
caused by the Bushes.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:36:19 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> Ask Hillary. She will inherit the problem. She doesnt seem interested
>> in surrendering, or leaving anytime soon.
>>
>> Gonna suck to be her.
>
>The Clintons always seem to end up having to clean up after the mess
>caused by the Bushes.


Really?

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt,
they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America
have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as
during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been
buried.

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and
associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal
investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution
case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state
court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were
indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that
there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because
of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development
scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton
machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these
occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in
addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were
imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier
ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before
entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon
and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of
the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or
were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same
figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through
History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138
administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had
been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct
and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved,
the record of his administration was the worst ever."

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas
(including one governor, one associate attorney general and two
Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal
investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal
investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton
machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth
Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of
foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases
involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture
Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION

- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted
and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising
scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September
2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in
the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign.
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for
campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance
laws.

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax
evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5),
fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions
(5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was
passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation:
1
- Median length of investigations that led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation: 69 months.
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
- Total cost to taxpayers of the Madison Guarantee failure: $73
million

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR
REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal
foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology,
physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury,
intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted
intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees,
lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials,
flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet
members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to
investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state
police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for
sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony,
laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by
medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the
firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were
investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies
in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by
witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files,
improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false
testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding
and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against
(and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug
traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the
White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before
Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something
similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan.
17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his
memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how
many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific
memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME

- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to
have committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in
federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of unexplained deaths: 4
- Total suspicious deaths: 46
- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156

It is important in considering these fatal incidents to bear in mind
the following:

* The fact that anomalies need to be investigated further carries
no presumption of how a death actually occurred, only that there
remain serious questions that require answers.
* The possibility of foul play must be taken seriously in a major
criminal conspiracy in which over two score individuals and firms have
been convicted and over 100 witnesses have pled the Fifth Amendment or
fled the country.
* If foul play did occur in any of these cases, that fact by
itself does not carry the presumption that the the Clinton machine was
involved. Given the footprints of organized crime, drug trade, foreign
espionage, and intelligence agencies on the trail of the Clinton
story, such a assumption would not be warranted. It is also well to
keep in mind the classic prohibition era movie in which the corrupt
poitician's job was not to engage in illegal acts but to avoid
noticing them.

ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT

- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas
Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during
1980s: $50 million
- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000
- Number of commercial banks: 570
- Number of bank regulators: 1
- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in
the mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the
Worthen Bank.
- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly
up: 3
- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%
- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four
months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.
- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots
who lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%

THE MEDIA

- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired,
transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble
because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten,
Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt,
Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10

FRIENDS OF BILL

- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to
questions during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000
- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny
Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160
- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White
House in the two years before the 1996 election: 577
- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top
positions in the Clinton administration. 18
- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37
- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks:
261
- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce
Department: 500

UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA

- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by
the White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical
points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both
McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in
preparation for the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit:
45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the
knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been
physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen
Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): 6
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten
up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10

THE HIDDEN ELECTION

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state
legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public
attention. But there was an important national story here: evidence of
the disaster that Bill Clinton was for the Democratic Party. According
to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a
1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of 1998 that lead had
shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats,
nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats
controled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures
than the Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more
than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under
Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had
controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in
1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our
latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president:
1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president:
9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton
became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton
became president: 3

THE CLINTON LEGACY: LONELY VOICES

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and
others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill
Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others
at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story
often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only
major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall
Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even
heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or
rewarding experience. At least ten reporters were fired, transferred
off their beats, resigned, or otherwise got into trouble because of
their work on the scandals.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed
ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the
independent.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His
attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were
repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories
undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable.
Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in
Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to
use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's
work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including
members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called
"train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced
a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with
cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena
for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on
his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30
witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She
refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops
told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually
fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of
racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30
federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other
charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed
the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever
was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national
security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and
state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source,
"Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan.
Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money
laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised
that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the
probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the
face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control
as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in
Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has
gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and
suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state
police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and
prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary
Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate
reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was
acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he
accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On
the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6
million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that
Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football
tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained
15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil
penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false
statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal
gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate
transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal
receipt of USDA subsidies. In addition, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from
pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in
Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton.
Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get
the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat.
He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing
conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus
most Americans don't know that he told Newsmax, "Let me tell you, if
we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses
before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking
about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I
begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for
witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to
get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially,
you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time."
Schippers also said that while a number of representatives had looked
at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not
a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft.
Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he
saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements
were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly
harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation
technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke was his
dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that was largely
ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the
Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to
the Starr Report.

OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive
students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas
Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas
politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early
Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

[Dan Connelly]

Cliff wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:55:36 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial good
>> judgement
>
> Found those "WMDs" yet?

He showed good judgement through 19 March 2003.

[Tom Kunich]

"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fl16j3dau244klelet0e5s5f7i90eq88d3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:55:36 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial
>>good
>>judgement
>
> Found those "WMDs" yet?

Do you even have a clue what the hell you're talking about?

[Cliff]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:12:00 -0600, Dan Connelly
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:

>Cliff wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:55:36 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial good
>>> judgement
>>
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
>He showed good judgement through 19 March 2003.

He was probably about to be impeached soon after 9-11
HAD IT NOT been for 9-11 & his beloved optional insane wars.
The bin Ladens & bush-I had a good view of 9-11 from
the Carlyle Group's offices.
And guess who got to fly just after 9-11. Does "bin Laden"
ring a bell?

Now, Tell us why USAF General Cheney ON 9-11 had taken
**personal control** of US air defenses and sent them off to
Greenland/Iceland for "training exercises". Normally they
would have rather rapidly intercepted any large stray aircraft ...

Found those "WMDs" yet?

There don't seem to be any at all in Iraq .... just
as many have known all along .... Hussain Kamal had been
in charge of all such programs & long ago defected (in 1995)
... AFTER he had (on Saddam's orders) had them all (what
few there may once have been) destroyed.

"The interview was conducted in Amman on 22 August 1995, 15 days after Kamel
left Iraq."
[
In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
]

Consider:
So when the neocons claimed that they knew & had irrefutable proof
and refused to tell any that asked?
When they set up their plans to tell lies?

Can you use this excuse to break into your neighbor's house,
steal his things, murder him & his family, burn the house down,
call all your other neighbors that would not help you "terrorists",
and get off with huge prizes from the police?

"Officer, someday he might have had a BB gun in his basement. If
he ever got one he might have hurt someone's cat or invaded
Antartica with it ."

It's murder, pure & simple. Of about ~ 650,000 ++ ... plus
~ 2,000,000 now homeless IN Iraq and another ~ 2,000,000
(those that could afford it) refugees in other nations. Of those
~ 4,000,000 the US has taken in about 20 over all the years.

"If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and
does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital
offense charged, be put to death." - Third Law, The Code of Hammurabi
written in about 1786 BC. In what is now (or was) Iraq.

The Neocon Menace is worse by far than the Communist Menace
ever was.
http://www.lincoln-ma.com/news_archive/documentpages/peacebuilders.htm

Famous Republican saying: "Everything is fine in politics as long as you
don't get caught in bed with a live man, or a dead woman.”

"I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up
with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled
to THE math." - Karl Rove

"Cheney shoots somebody in the face and it's no big deal. But Clinton? He gets
impeached for it."

[
Quotes: Family Guy: Peter
[Riding a circus elephant]
Peter: Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a
fat white guy who is threatened by change.
]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." - Albert Einstein

Considering the events of recent years, the US has a long way
to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the world.

"Lord of the Right Wing"
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2003/f_lorw-p1.php

SureShot Cheney is no Dan Quayle !!
"If you repeat a lie often enough, then it becomes a Bush policy."

"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda". -
george w. bush on May 24 2005

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

"Moogs, would you buy it for a quarter?"

"Rumour has it that the intrepid wingers have finally discovered
two new uses for sheep. Meat and wool."
--
Cliff

[Howard Kveck]

In article <13j7o2oasoju843@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> "Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fl16j3dau244klelet0e5s5f7i90eq88d3@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:55:36 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial
> >>good
> >>judgement
> >
> > Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
> Do you even have a clue what the hell you're talking about?

Huh. So where are the Iraqi WMD? I know you love to say that the Duelfer Report
proves they were there, but that's proof positive that you *haven't* actually looked
at it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Cliff]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:21:44 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:fl16j3dau244klelet0e5s5f7i90eq88d3@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:55:36 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>While Bush certainly has been treating the war badly after his initial
>>>good
>>>judgement
>>
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
>Do you even have a clue what the hell you're talking about?

Well, I must as I'm not a winger or a neocon ....

Found those "WMDs" yet?

There don't seem to be any at all in Iraq .... just
as many have known all along .... Hussain Kamal had been
in charge of all such programs & long ago defected (in 1995)
... AFTER he had (on Saddam's orders) had them all (what
few there may once have been) destroyed.

"The interview was conducted in Amman on 22 August 1995, 15 days after Kamel
left Iraq."
[
In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
]

Consider:
So when the neocons claimed that they knew & had irrefutable proof
and refused to tell any that asked?
When they set up their plans to tell lies?

Can you use this excuse to break into your neighbor's house,
steal his things, murder him & his family, burn the house down,
call all your other neighbors that would not help you "terrorists",
and get off with huge prizes from the police?

"Officer, someday he might have had a BB gun in his basement. If
he ever got one he might have hurt someone's cat or invaded
Antartica with it ."

It's murder, pure & simple. Of about ~ 650,000 ++ ... plus
~ 2,000,000 now homeless IN Iraq and another ~ 2,000,000
(those that could afford it) refugees in other nations. Of those
~ 4,000,000 the US has taken in about 20 over all the years.

"If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and
does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital
offense charged, be put to death." - Third Law, The Code of Hammurabi
written in about 1786 BC. In what is now (or was) Iraq.

The Neocon Menace is worse by far than the Communist Menace
ever was.
http://www.lincoln-ma.com/news_archive/documentpages/peacebuilders.htm

Famous Republican saying: "Everything is fine in politics as long as you
don't get caught in bed with a live man, or a dead woman.”

"I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up
with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled
to THE math." - Karl Rove

"Cheney shoots somebody in the face and it's no big deal. But Clinton? He gets
impeached for it."

[
Quotes: Family Guy: Peter
[Riding a circus elephant]
Peter: Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a
fat white guy who is threatened by change.
]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." - Albert Einstein

Considering the events of recent years, the US has a long way
to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the world.

"Lord of the Right Wing"
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2003/f_lorw-p1.php

SureShot Cheney is no Dan Quayle !!
"If you repeat a lie often enough, then it becomes a Bush policy."

"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda". -
george w. bush on May 24 2005

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time,"
Bush told a news conference.

The Bush Doctrine: Lie, lie some more, create ultimate disasters,
take vacation.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

"Moogs, would you buy it for a quarter?"

"Rumour has it that the intrepid New Zealanders have finally discovered
two new uses for sheep. Meat and wool."
--
Cliff

[Donald Munro]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Huh. So where are the Iraqi WMD?

I thought everyone knew. They're in the Kunich Parallel Universe (KPU).

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47341e71$0$1769$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Huh. So where are the Iraqi WMD?
>
> I thought everyone knew. They're in the Kunich Parallel Universe (KPU).

By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush talking
about weapons of mass destruction.

[D Murphy]

Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in news:etq8j3p14n8445nrbk2it3clen1tdgfavg@
4ax.com:

> He was probably about to be impeached soon after 9-11
> HAD IT NOT been for 9-11 & his beloved optional insane wars.
> The bin Ladens & bush-I had a good view of 9-11 from
> the Carlyle Group's offices.
> And guess who got to fly just after 9-11. Does "bin Laden"
> ring a bell?

<http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp>

HTH

--

Dan

CNC Videos - <http://tinyurl.com/yzdt6d>

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush talking
> about weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47347a2f$0$1782$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush
>> talking
>> about weapons of mass destruction.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

"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

Then the slimy bastard did nothing. Some bottom line.

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"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.

Surely you remember Sandy Berger - he was the one stealing and destroying
secret papers from the National Archives to protect his administration?

"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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.

"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.

"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 b elieve
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.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
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.

You need more you sanctimonious son of a *****? Somehow to mother rapers
such as you and your pals, the Democrats loved Hussein from the start.

The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope they
hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <13j9q8csanj5qb5@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
> somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
> tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
> they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope they
> hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.

Well, once again Tom shows where his mind is: death to the people who disagree
with his ridiculous politics. Sorry Tommy, but no one "invented" Bush's talk about
WMD except him and his cohorts Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. If we're supposed to
have "invented" the talk of WMD by Bush, how do you explain Colin Powell's speech in
front of the UN? And if there were no WMD, then why were the people in the ISG going
around *looking for them*? And why have you been spending so much time bloviating
about them being found and described in the Duelfer Report? You are such a putz.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Donald Munro]

>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush
>>> talking about weapons of mass destruction.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Tom Kunich wrote:
> The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
> somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
> tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
> they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope
> they hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.

Retard,
1] You asked me to supply "a complete and direct original quote of Bush
talking about weapons of mass destruction" and I did. I don't recall
saying Bush "invented weapons of mass destruction" even though there
is plenty of evidence that if he didn't invent it he and Cheney
certainly liberally embellished the so called intelligence that they
had.

2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason unless of course
you'd like to put me in Guantanamo and have me Heineken-Lite-boarded
for criticizing Boy George.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Nov 9, 4:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> You need more you sanctimonious son of a *****? Somehow to mother rapers
> such as you and your pals, the Democrats loved Hussein from the start.
>
> The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
> somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
> tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
> they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope they
> hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.

I know quite a few treasonous leftist enemies of the
state, and none of us believe Bush invented weapons of
mass destruction. I mean, even his friends don't think
GWB is a nuclear physicist.

Ben

P.S. "Mother rapers" is a line from Alice's Restaurant.
That's how you can tell Kunich is putting us on. He's
probably posting this while wearing his old 60s fringed
jacket, jeans with a flag patch on the butt, and one
of those Women Strike for Peace "War is not healthy for
children and other living things" t-shirts. Also, he's
eating an Alice B. Toklas brownie.

[Cliff]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:11:08 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:47347a2f$0$1782$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush
>>> talking
>>> about weapons of mass destruction.
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

> President Clinton

So the poor dumb neocons & wingers were so bloody
STUPID that even poor little Monica could trick them into huge lies
& disasters?

The US spends over 50 BILLION US dollars on "intelligence"
every year. And herr shrubie is spending more on the US
military than even ronnie raygun (with his astrologers) did
NOT EVEN counting Iraq & Afghanistan.

I guess wingers & neocons cannot buy *actual* intelligence
(they had to fake it).
--
Cliff

[Cliff]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:11:08 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:47347a2f$0$1782$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush
>>> talking
>>> about weapons of mass destruction.
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
>"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
>
>Then the slimy bastard did nothing. Some bottom line.

DANG !!!
Perhaps the UN said Saddam had no "WMDs"?

Not even papa bush would support the neocons/"fuc*ing crazies".
--
Cliff

[Howard Kveck]

In article <47357698$0$1768$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush
> >>> talking about weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
> > somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
> > tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
> > they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope
> > they hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.
>
> Retard,
> 1] You asked me to supply "a complete and direct original quote of Bush
> talking about weapons of mass destruction" and I did. I don't recall
> saying Bush "invented weapons of mass destruction" even though there
> is plenty of evidence that if he didn't invent it he and Cheney
> certainly liberally embellished the so called intelligence that they
> had.
>
> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason unless of course
> you'd like to put me in Guantanamo and have me Heineken-Lite-boarded
> for criticizing Boy George.

It's amazing that he can spend so much time arguing with reality and arguing
against things that he was arguing *for* a short time ago. To say that things that
happened and are in the vast public record didn't happen and expect anyone to take
him seriously is just plain stupid and/or delusional. Maybe he was drunk posting last
night. But not in a LIVEDRUNK kind of way...

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Nov 10, 1:15 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason



Dumbass -


Lucky you.

These days, they're not America's finest.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47357698$0$1768$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
>
> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason

Ahh, good because the Mounties look the other way when people like you
disappear.

[Cliff]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:15:07 +0200, Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> By all means supply the complete and direct original quote of Bush
>>>> talking about weapons of mass destruction.
>
>Donald Munro wrote:
>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
>> somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
>> tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
>> they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope
>> they hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.
>
>Retard,
>1] You asked me to supply "a complete and direct original quote of Bush
>talking about weapons of mass destruction" and I did. I don't recall
>saying Bush "invented weapons of mass destruction" even though there
>is plenty of evidence that if he didn't invent it he and Cheney
>certainly liberally embellished the so called intelligence that they
>had.

They (and Rumsfeld & crew) *set up entire departments* to
fabricate lies.
There is no telling how many oters they paid to fabricate them too,
nor for how long.

But we do know that Cheney, Rumsfeld & crew have been at this a LONG time.
Look at their job history.

>2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason unless of course
>you'd like to put me in Guantanamo and have me Heineken-Lite-boarded
>for criticizing Boy George.

Don't count on that anymore.
--
Cliff

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:19:02 -0800, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 1:15 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>Lucky you.
>
>These days, they're not America's finest.
>
>
>thanks,
>
>K. Gringioni.


neither are you.

You nazi bastard traitor.

Gunner

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Ahh, good because the Mounties look the other way when people like you
> disappear.

At least in Canada the head of the RCMP was forced to resign after
apologising to an innocent computer programmer who was 'rendited'
to Syria for torture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401672.html

Anyway as a honorary new Canadian citizen I will need to understand
the rules of ice hockey. Presumably you don't need to be a nuclear
physicist to understand the laws of ice hockey, but I still don't get
when its legal to attack an opponent and with what.

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Ahh, good because the Mounties look the other way when people like you
> disappear.

At least in Canada the head of the RCMP was forced to resign after
apologising to an innocent computer programmer who was 'rendited'
to Syria for torture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401672.html

Anyway as a honorary new Canadian citizen I will need to understand
the rules of ice hockey. Presumably you don't need to be a nuclear
physicist to understand the laws of ice hockey, but I still don't get
when its legal to attack an opponent and with what.

[Tom Kunich]

"Gunner Asch" <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:61gcj3h6n9mh3pfsqrd557l0qsitmelqjl@4ax.com...
>
> neither are you.
>
> You nazi bastard traitor.

Actually he's just a gay inheritance baby who never needed an education in
the real world.

[Cliff]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:35:27 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:19:02 -0800, Kurgan Gringioni
><kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 10, 1:15 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason
>>
>>
>>
>>Dumbass -
>>
>>
>>Lucky you.
>>
>>These days, they're not America's finest.
>>
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>>K. Gringioni.
>
>
>neither are you.
>
>You nazi bastard traitor.
>
>Gunner

Found those MWds yet?
--
Cliff

[Tom Kunich]

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/past.html

[Michael Press]

In article
<1194747463.031531.263710@y27g2000pre.googlegroups. com>
,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> On Nov 9, 4:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > You need more you sanctimonious son of a *****? Somehow to mother rapers
> > such as you and your pals, the Democrats loved Hussein from the start.
> >
> > The fact is that people such as yourself who purposely spread the lie that
> > somehow Bush invented "weapons of mass destruction" should be jailed and
> > tried for treason towards the United States. Then after the firing squad
> > they ought to force your family to pay for your jail stay and the rope they
> > hang you with. Just like your great friends the Chinese.
>
> I know quite a few treasonous leftist enemies of the
> state, and none of us believe Bush invented weapons of
> mass destruction. I mean, even his friends don't think
> GWB is a nuclear physicist.
>
> Ben
>
> P.S. "Mother rapers" is a line from Alice's Restaurant.

No, it is not. Look it up.

> That's how you can tell Kunich is putting us on. He's
> probably posting this while wearing his old 60s fringed
> jacket, jeans with a flag patch on the butt, and one
> of those Women Strike for Peace "War is not healthy for
> children and other living things" t-shirts. Also, he's
> eating an Alice B. Toklas brownie.

--
Michael Press

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 10, 6:17 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> I know quite a few treasonous leftist enemies of the
> state, and none of us believe Bush invented weapons of
> mass destruction.

I know you're kidding. But it is a good takeoff. A leftist who
"Hates The State" is oxymoronic. A conservative who accuses a leftist
of hating the state is always talking out their ass.

No leftist is an Enemy of The State. Leftists have a religious love
for The State. They just get frustrated when their juggernaut child
(Frankenstein) doesn't do what they want.

http://www.amazon.com/Enemy-State-Life-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1573928097

[Michael Press]

In article
<4736f427$0$1761$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> 2] I'm not a US citizen so you can't try me for treason
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Ahh, good because the Mounties look the other way when people like you
> > disappear.
>
> At least in Canada the head of the RCMP was forced to resign after
> apologising to an innocent computer programmer who was 'rendited'
> to Syria for torture:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401672.html
>
> Anyway as a honorary new Canadian citizen I will need to understand
> the rules of ice hockey. Presumably you don't need to be a nuclear
> physicist to understand the laws of ice hockey, but I still don't get