Mickey

What I find most encouraging here is not that we got the #2 or #3 guy or whoever, it is that we must have received some good intel about an area where he have had no success in the past. That means that we might have cracked the protection these people are getting in that particular area from the local populace. I hope that is what it means anyway.

Ghost of Bib.

"You're doing a heckuva job Bushie" Really, he hasn't been that bad. Historically, I'd rate his Presidency somewhere between Grover Cleveland's second term and Zachary Taylor's electrifying 1 year run cut short when he succumbed to indigestion clearing the way for the meteoric rise and fall of one Millard Fillmore. Just think, Cheney is only an uncooperative pretzel away from the Presidency.

The Devil lives in Alaska? I thought sure he was a Floridian and a Dolphin fan.

Yeah, kind of like Paul O'Neil, McCain, General Shinseki, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Arlen Specter, Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, Souter, O'Connor, Whitman, Wilkerson, Hegel, etc., etc. Might as well add Murtha, as conservative a democrat as you could find who often has sided with the administration and yet, when he dared to disagree on Iraq, they went after him. I believe Specter's testicles are still in a jar of alcohol on James Dobson's desk. Maybe he will get them back after confirming Judge "he man girl hater" Alito ("Women? At Princeton?!@*@!$??? It shall not be!)

Legal, schmeegal. In Texas, a little thing like innocence is no bar to an otherwise perfectly good conviction so why on earth would any body care about the legality of Delaymandering your way to fame, fortune and free rounds of Golf at the Royal and Acient Golf Club in Scotland? Screw the law, Jesus wanted them to come up with a districting plan that looks like something drawn up on a spirograph so who are we to object? Accept Jesus as your lord and saviour and shut the eff up already.

I'm sorry, I thought I was stating a fact, that they haven't caught Bin Laden. Was that in error? Has he been caught? As for what would have happened if democrats ran the show, I said nothing at all. The poster wondered why the republicans here seemed so intent on attacking democrats, I offered what I hoped was a humorous explanation. Sheesh, talk about cranky. Let a smile be your umbrella tiger. I don't think I could call the sky blue without getting an argument from you lately. *Edit in light of CTM's Nerdliness, albeit correct nerdliness: I don't think I could call the sky something that is perceived by me as blue without getting an argument from you lately.

When it comes to homosexual necrophilia data, you da man.

Finally, someone else gets it. I have long made the argument, in vain, that the real problem in Iraq is necrophilia.

Well, they haven't caught Bin Laden and the insurgency in Iraq goes on and on and on to the point that even republicans are not buying the administration view anymore. Add in the budgetary lunacy and corruption charges and you are left with one cranky, frustrated party. Maybe if they attack democrats enough it will all go away. Who knows, maybe if Ann Coulter's next "Kill all the liberals" book makes the best seller list, the Iraq war will end. Its like the guy who gets beat up at work and goes home and yells at the kids. "Displacement" I think the shrinks call it.

Yeah, it was horrible there no doubt but the conclusion does not follow that it is a safer place now. We have no idea who and how many died under Saddam in the last 2+ years of his rule but certainly, we do know that lots and lots have died in the last 2+ years since we invaded Iraq. I think that if any conclusion can be drawn at this point it is that Iraq was a murderous place before we got there and despite all we have spent in lives and wealth over the last 2+ years, it still is. I'm not sure that was our goal. I don't recall the administration using the campaign slogan: "Iraq, we haven't made it any worse" back in the fall of '04.

Did I read that right? It seemed to say that the only Arab participants in the conference were Palestine and Turkey. It also said that all the Arab participants wanted that line about being able to resist foreign occupation in accordance with international law. Does that mean that it was objected to by Palestine and Turkey and thats it because the rest were not there?

None but ourselves to blame really. I'll bet Goode's constituents were perfectly happy to have that $3 Million per year FSAC in their district and will vote to send him back provided he isn't indicted first. Didn't Alaska go kablooey over losing the money for some bridges to nowhere? One of the Dakotas also had a fit over a big base closing. I dimly recall that both of these alleged wastes of cash were restored. Pork=The public funds spent in someone else's district. Sound fiscal policy=the money spent in your district.

It looks like Duke Cunningham, a former fighter pilot whose later political career has tragically ended with convictions for bribery is likely just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Mitchell Wade, formerly of defense contractor MZM, Inc., partcipated in a sweetheart real estate deal with the Duke that netted the congressman over 1.6 million for a house worth about 975G's. Not long after that, MZM's flagging business picked up as it started to win numerous defense contracts. Of course, Duke was on the Defense Appropriations Committee. Mr. Wade was not so foolish as to put all his corruption into one congressional basket. None other than Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), yes that Katherine Harris had a one day haul of 28G's from a visit at the MZM trough in March of 2004. She was given 14 checks totaling 2 grand each from MZM employees who later claimed that the "donations" were coerced. A week later Wade's wife gave Harris two more $2,000 checks for a one week MZM haul for Harris of 30 large. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) received over 48G's from MZM employees in the 2004 election cycle and over 38 since to get ready for next year. Oh, and Goode also had the Foreign Supplier Assessment Center built in his district which is being run by MZM, something the Defense Department didn't ask for. It has a 3 million dollar budget this year and is listed as a "Congressional Add" in the budget documents. FSAC Budget The Abramoff and Delay investigations continue. Michael Scanlon has agreed to testify in the Abramoff scandal after pleading guilty to bribery charges. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) seems to be the congressman in the most hot water now that Scanlon has been flipped. Certainly at some point, if these things are investigated fully, we will see a fair share of democrats in trouble as well since this kind of corruption appears to be standard practice. I would think that given their control of every committee and sub-committee in the House that Republicans will end up with the most dirt to wipe off. There is not as much reason to bribe democrats, they don't control anything. Pigs at the trough.

I have a brother-in-law who is from some apostolic church which actually forbids the use of a christmas tree to celebrate Christ's birth because of the pagan connection. I guess they must be christians who hate Christmas?

Try though you might, you can't disguise the fact that this is simply another step in the global war against christianity being waged by atheists everywhere. We can only hope that the madness ends before christians, hanging on by a thread, succumb to sprititual extinction.

Or he might have figured that his most loyal supporters wouldn't care and besides, by then it wouldn't matter because we would already be there and he could always just rely on the other umpteen reasons we had for invading Iraq.

I see, so if one has ever been critical of the CIA on one issue, then one can never believe them on any other issue ever again? They wanted to got to war with Iraq and they did all they could to make the best case for war. That would be fair enough as long as they threw all the cards on the table, not just their aces. Our national credibility has taken a huge hit and the next time we cry wolf, I'm not sure we will get anyone to listen.

Is it in the folder marked "Blame Clinton" or in the one marked "Pretend that intel in 1996 justified war in 2003"?

From Washington Monthly, a purported list of intelligence manipulation by suppressing information that called into question the allegations supporting the case for war (List w/links): 1. The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN. What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war. 2. The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many administration figures during the runup to war. What We Know Now: The German intelligence officials who handled Curveball told the CIA that he was not "psychologically stable" and that his allegations of mobile bio labs were second hand and unverified. Link. The only American agent to actually meet with Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about." Link. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Link. 3. The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address. What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link. 4. The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union address. What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger. However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the reliability of this intelligence. Link. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents were "completely implausible." Link. Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was overruled. Link. Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director George Tenet admitted publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link. 5. The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002 and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003. What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October 2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link. 6. The Claim: Administration officials repeatedly suggested that Saddam Hussein had substantial connections to al-Qaeda. Even after the war, George Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Dick Cheney said the evidence of a relationship was "overwhelming." What We Know Now: As early as September 21, 2001, President Bush was told by the CIA that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." In fact, according to Murray Waas, "Bush was told during the briefing that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime." Link. 7. The Claim: Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, an Iraqi defector, told the CIA that he had secretly helped Saddam Hussein's men bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. After this information was passed to the New York Times by Ahmed Chalabi, it was cited in "A Decade of Deception and Defiance" as evidence of Iraq's continued WMD programs. What We Know Now: Al-Haideri told his story while strapped to a polygraph. He failed. The CIA knew from the start that he had made up the entire account, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa. Link.

Ahhhh yes, the one in the tinfoil bikini, I remeber her well. I'd be her training thrall any day.

That would cost you a whole lotta quatloos my friend, a whole lot.

I just don't accept for a second the idea that congressman Bluffnfuss has as much candid information before him as the President of the United States. Previously you suggested that they shouldn't have that much info because they can't be trusted and now you seem to be saying that they had the info anyway or access to it through unofficial channels. If I didn't know better I'd think you were searching through a drawer full of justifications hoping to find something that will fit. We don't know just what they saw and what the President saw or had available but that is why it should be investigated. Our credibility abroad has taken a huge, huge, huge hit over the WMD fiasco. Who in their right mind is going to believe us the next time we cry wolf after this? I for one want to know the details of exactly how we effed this up so badly.

They only need to unionize it they want to make a decent wage. Just look at the nations that have no real union presence and then look at the wages and living standards of those workers. If we want to turn America into a third world cesspool, obliterating unions would be a good start.

I share that concern but that would not really effect the point that Senators and Congressman did not in fact have the same intelligence as the President as the administration has repeatedly claimed. The problem is that how can you give the power to declare war to them and then deny them all the information they need upon which to base their decision? The idea that you can't allow them to see everything because they can't be trusted creates the opportunity to mislead them by spoon feeding them cherry picked intel. I think this is a weakness of democracies that you have to accept or just not have a democracy. You have to give them the information, all of it, within reason.