Tim Blair

I agree with this Adams guy. In fact, I'm still waiting for my apology from Winston, Franklin, and Joe.

Just keep waiting, Phil. As history leaves you far behind.

You know how every few years the Alger Hiss case erupts, with either new evidence that Hiss was guilty or new claims that he wasn't monopolizing the attention of a few partisan magazines for a few weeks while the rest of the world doesn't give a flying shit?

That's exactly how this debate will continue from...

Aw, come on, Blair and Howard were just poodles, it's Bush who is the Hitler-esque imperialist wanting to rule the world....better stock up on supplies to make your brain sheilds.... We all know that Dubya is way worse than Sad ever hoped to be, don't we?
Gotta love the left........

To their nations and to history. is just a proxy for to me. Carly Simon was singing about you, Bozo.

He's right that whether you've done good or not always comes out retrospectively. In particular it's not possible to ``do good'' publically. He's not taking a very likely side of the bet though.

There are certain procedures you can follow to improve your odds, like modesty, listening to the other guy, seeing what works and stop doing what doesn't, all things Bush seems to have done. Don't bet against a guy like that.

How will history judge us for leaving Phillip Adams in place?

I happen to have a classic, "Heil Hitler" style Nazi in my journalism class at syracuse U. Lefties might think that he would have supported the war, as it was against poor, defenseless, semites, but, surprise, suprise, he OPPOSED the war. Why? "Bush lied about the WMDs to get revenge for his father." He's apparently very bitter than a fellow fascist, a world leader from a political party directly connected to the original Nazis. What lovely company those "peace" activists have.

Patrick -

You note an interesting and telling phenom. Not that I care, but I remember thinking just after 9/11 that, for better or worse, the militant militia maniac types and their Nazi compadres would definitely get a hard-on for going after the brown people who came and attacked us. Not that I think this way, I was simply making political calculations.

Lo and behold, to my surprise, the opposite occurred. Seems their loathing of Jews is SO intense (even though "Jews" per se, are about as assimilated as assimilated can be, and other minorities stand out and aloof), that they basically are signing up with Muslim fanatics. They both hate the "Zionist Occupied Gov" I guess, so it's lockstep time.

For white, blood and soil racists to sign up with Muslim Middle Eastern fanatics who are attacking the former's homeland is to, say the least bizarre, but it is happening, and says a lot in that, from a point to point alliance, you can now draw a direct line from White American Nazis to Muslim Fundamentalists to militant Leftists.

Fukayama was right. The "End of History", in the form of the stark choice between failure or 'representative democracy / separation of powers / market economy' has left all the loonies bunched up on one side.

You can judge a man, or a movement, by their associations, and bloody well should.

Phillip who?

hey, tim, give the poor guy a break. maybe he was on the waiting list for saddam's oil handouts...i'd be pissed too if that got cancelled right before it was my turn.

Lo and behold, to my surprise, the opposite occurred. Seems their loathing of Jews is SO intense (even though "Jews" per se, are about as assimilated as assimilated can be, and other minorities stand out and aloof), that they basically are signing up with Muslim fanatics.

The far left and far right are both aligning themselves with the Islamofascists. It either doesn't occur to them or matter to them that Islamic extremists would destroy them as well if given a chance.

Funny, no mention of Bush's bi-partisan inquiry into why everyone let him steamroll his war in Iraq on the back of phoney intel.

Funny, no mention of that here on the blogmire. I mean it's all over the news. Tim, you're slipping.

i think there's a few more murderous dictators out there, tim, that we can send our kids out to get. first, though, we gotta convince our citizens that the murderous dictators, apart from being Bad Men, are out to get us and have massive stockpiles of WMD and are friends with Osama. so our 'evidence' is old and untrustworthy - no matter! the truth don't matter anymore folks!

Yeah, Tim, lay off the long lunches and obsess over the teeny details that sorta kinda almost but not quite vindicate the head-in-the-sand killing-is-okay-but-war-is-bad peaceniks.

Miranda. Why did you come back? We were all so happy.

You have all the grace and social charm of a pubic louse.

Let's see Miranda. 18 months and numerous ineffective UN sanctions is considered a steamroll? Sounds more like a glacier to me. What part of the intelligence do you consider "phoney" (as in telephone?). Was it the same intel that Bill Clinton (and numerous Democrats) used to say Saddam had WMD's? What did Saddam have to hide when he kicked out the UN inspectors or stonewalled the last inspectors? Intelligence might be incomplete, spotty, mis-interpreted or any combination. Remember the Indian/Pakistan nuclear tests that nobody predicted, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, embassy bombings? Democrats and other Bush-haters are going to have to tread softly as the oversight panel meets and information comes out. You know things like what Dems cut intelligence budgets, political correctness in working with human intelligence gatherers, that sort of thing. But then the Bush-haters and appeasers will claim the findings are a whitewash meant to help support President Bush in getting re-elected. Michael Moore and Oliver Stone will have a field day and produce more fiction.
BC

It's awful sad that anyone needs to be convinced that these murderous dictators, apart from being "Bad Men", need to be opposed and removed from power at all.

Especially when the meme becomes "He wasn't an obvious threat to me."

Awful, awful sad.

Funny how all of a sudden Wilkie, Blix et al are being proved correct by the turn of events. Ritter too, but his sexual peccadilloes seem to have discredited anything he has said re Iraq and the existence of WMD.

But then again it wasn't really about WMD was it?

It was about liberation and freedom for our Iraqi friends! It was a humanitarian intervention!

As Tim Dunlop has blogged, John Howard said:

"Well I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn't justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I've never advocated that. Much in all as I despise the regime."

Huh? You mean if we knew what we knew now about WMD you would have left him in power? Controversial!

The reason we went to war was because we were not certain Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and we were unwilling to take a chance and just assume he did not. As was clearly explained before the war.

Fuck me this is getting tiresome. Yes, WMD was the main excuse used, but as Wolfowitz explained, it was only one of many justifications, and it was used because they thought it would make the international community get up and do something.

Bush, Blair, Howard, Chiraq, Schroeder all believed there was WMDs.

For Christ's sake: the Kay report says Saddam believed he had WMDs.

Since the information is only coming out now, why do people still cling to the idea that Iraq would irrevocably disarm and provide proof thereof AND promise to not undertake any further weapons development AND stop funding terrorist organisations WITHOUT the regime being removed?

Otherwise its just the worse of nitpicking, disguised by a holier-than-thou "Oh, we were LIED too!" and "Iraqis died!" bullshit.

I know you don't really care about the people in Iraq. Admit it. Otherwise you would conclude, like 69% of them have already, that they are better off without a mass-murderer feeding them into plastic shredders.

But since you'll disregard everything I'm saying why do I bother? Who knows.

Bush bad man, very bad man! He lied, Iraqis died, no WMD, oil, oil, Haliburton! Neo-con! Zionist!

Funny, no mention of Bush's bi-partisan inquiry into why everyone let him steamroll his war in Iraq on the back of phoney intel.

Well, you just mentioned it. And I think its hard to argue Bush lied if he's doing an inquiry into it.

Idiot.

What About The Weapons Of Mass Destruction?

JH has more quotes on there from ALL the World leaders who were convinced he had them...
But why let Facts get in the way of the left......

Has no one on the left ever heard of poker? He bluffed, we called him on it. Too damn bad.

And Bongoman, what discredited Ritter was saying Iraq had the weapons until Saddam paid him to be a shill. What discredited Blix was saying Saddam had the weapons until it actually looked we would do something about it (and put him out of a cushy job he was obviously intent on milking for as long as possible).

"rightwingnews"?

crusader, i thought fox had trademarked that term? :P

Didn't Phil claim he was ridding us of his babble in the Australian a year ago?

"rightwingnews"?

crusader, i thought fox had trademarked that term? :P

Hey, at least we are open about it, unlike CNNNBCCBSPBSNPRMSNBCBBC etc....8^P

President Truman used to have a sign on his desk that read "the buck stops here".

“this troll won't be fleecing the sheep on the blogmire in 2004. I've had enough stooping into the gutter. Time to look at the stars again, away from such tripe as you lot.”

-- Miranda Divide, December 26.

Last night's Late Night Live on ABC Radio National had Adams with an English woman, Beatrice Campbell, whom Adams described as "a journalist and commentator" and someone called Greenslade - all of them together for a mutual masturbation session about Hutton, Blair, the BBC, WMD, etc.

Not surprisingly, they were unanimous: Blair and Campbell rigged the intelligence reports. The BBC and Gilligan were being pilloried for daring to expose them, Hutton just didn't understand that journalists had to get "off the record" briefings from "experts" like David Kelly, a sensitive flower to whom the defence establishment owed a duty of care, and Hutton was crushing investigative reporting by being "legalistic". None of them could imagine, so they said, that anyone could possibly have reached the conclusions Hutton did. The whole of Britain was now so culturally savvy that the entire population "knew" it was a whitewash and Blair cannot possibly survive the next election.

As for British journalism, as exemplified by the above: we're talking about the vile, contemptible morons who propagandise the greenhouse cult, who ran the "Frankenfoods" scare, who predicted the Stalingrad/Vietnam quagmire in Iraq, who predicted massive civilian casualties and millions of refugees and who, generally, are not worth a pinch of shit. Their kin are in full flower at the NYT, the ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald, etc.

Perhaps life would be simpler for them and for people like Gilligan if they remembered one simple rule for journalism: don't lie. Then there wouldn't be any need for a "legalistic" public inquiry which just might decide that, on the facts, they're a bunch of self-serving, self-promoting, egomaniac wankers.

President Truman used to have a sign on his desk that read "the buck stops here".

Yes, Mork he did. And to the day he died, President Truman defended his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan because, he felt, it saved lives (US, Aussie, Brit, Russian, and Japanese) and shortened the war.

The Leftists/Klansmen/Islamofascists can piss and moan until the end of time but Bush, Howard, and Blair were correct in liberating Iraq.The buck stops with them and they made a courageous and moral decision.

I note some of you guys are surprised that the Nazis are on-side with the Islamofascists, who also have the leftists on side.

So dumb. The Nazis were the National SOCIALIST Party. They were always the radical enemies of the conservatives. Its the lefties who successfully created the 'conservative=facsist' meme. You suckers have all fallen hook, line & sinker for it.

Saddam was the leader of the Baath SOCIALIST Party. Set up in 1943 with German Nazi help (ie, money).

Finally - the Mufti of Juresalem (who was the effective Palestinian leader in the 1948 war to destroy Isreal) spent WW2 in Berlin. He organised the recuitment of 2 battalions of Kosovar Moslems into the SS. Most of them served out the war as concentration camp guards, killing them some Jews.

The Mufti praised the 'Final Solution' and repeatedly called for it to be implemented across all Moslem lands. To considerable Arabic approval. And all Arab countries are now Judenrein. With no compensation to the refugee Jews. Or right of return.

The German Nazi/Islamofascist link is way stronger than any 'blood for oil' bullshit. But even you guys are surprised to see it rear its ugly head.

JDB - I don't see any of those three gentlemen taking responsibility for the decision ... all I see is a lot of finger pointing at the silly old CIA.

And if we invaded for humanitarian reasons, don't you think it might have been a basic part of a leader's responsibility to tell us that was what we were doing at the time?

Hey tim, so what? I had some good news to spread? Hey quentin, how fucking tiresome, eh?

Of course, up until yesterday Bush was claiming that we should all wait for the Iraq Survey Group to "finish it's important work". That had a familiar ring about it, no?

If these chumps had any brains, they would have thrown the "find the WMD" contract to Halliburton by now, then we would have seen some results.

Oh yeah, Halliburton paid USD$15m in tax last year and runs subsidiaries in tax shelters like Vanuatu.

You yanks have been taken for a ride haven't you? And by your very own, too.

Elegant proof the world is round: Go far enough left and you end up on the right, go far enough right and you end up on the left.

Miranda lied! Troll trustworthiness died!

Hmmmm ... originality seems to be dying pretty quickly aroung here, too.

Mork,

The Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb was greenlighted by FDR after he was persuaded by Albert Einstein, among other prominent scientists, that the Nazis were developing an atomic bomb.

After the war, it was determined that the Nazis had not in fact progressed as far as was believed. (That Einstein--what an idiot!!!)
The horrors of Aushwitz, Bergen-Belsen, etc., were never the less seen as justification for toppling the Nazi regime.

I'm satisfied that overthrowing Saddam was worthwhile for a multitude of reasons, both strategic and humanitarian, and if he didn't have WMD's in 2003, that's cool, too. It'll now verified like the UN could never hope to do and now the sanctions are lifted and Iraq can progress.

Personally, I think there is stuff still hidden in Iraq and in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley by the Syrians. It'll turn up eventually.

(In 1915, a German U-boat sunk the liner Lusitania, claiming it was carrying weapons. The British and American governments denied it. Around 1970, the Germans were proven correct. The ship was loaded with weapons and munitions. Cold comfort for the Krauts but sometimes history takes a while to write.)

...or is that sank the liner? God, I'm gettin' like Margo...

I'm not all that well up on Nazi race theory.
Can Arik fill in the gap?

According to Genesis, Abraham had two sons, Ishmael, by his servant-girl, and Isaac, by his wife Sarah. (Sarah is also called his sister in Genesis).

Now the Hebrews, (and hence the Jews) descend from Isaac, and the Arabs traditionally descend from Ishmael. So Jews and Arabs are "half-brothers".

Where were the Arabs in the Nazi hierarchy of race? Was palling up with the Arabs much the same as palling up with Stalin?

JDB - simple question: do you believe that the leaders of a democracy owe their citizens an honest explanation of the reasons for war?

Mork,

There have been numerous honest explanations, some of which have been cited on this thread; you and Miranda and the rest of your Leftist buddies refuse to accept ANY expanation.

Citizens of any country deserve honesty - what were Saddam's reasons for war?

Citizens of any country deserve honesty - what were Saddam's reasons for war?

Now there's some moral equivalence for you!

Four simple words to all of you anally-retentive losers- Get A Fucking Life.

It's over- we won; surely there's an endangered species to annoy, or some business you can interfere with to re-inflate your own sense of self-importance.

I know getting whupped like this is damaging to your fragile egos, but some other idiot cause is BOUND to pop up- why, there's asylum seekers still behind razor wire! Man the barricades and get those mimeographs pumping!

Mork, we've had an honest answer.

You just don't like it.

Tough.

Hey, Paul, starting to see the writing on the wall, aren't you?

If only I were more of a partisan, and if only the issues weren't so serious, the conservative crack-up that's currently underway would be a lot of fun to watch.

Paul?

Peggy Sue,
I'm not right up on Nazi race theory either BUT:

Goebbels visited Egypt and (I think) Palestine in the Thirties and got pally with anti-British factions there, including the infamous Mufti.

Those guys really dug Mein Kampf, but they didn't like Hitlers 'Race Ladder' (you know, Aryans on top, Jews right down there, niggers on the bottom etc).

By special request from the Mufti and others, in exchange for political and cultural support, Hitler EDITED MEIN KAMPF to move Arabs up to (I think) second place, where they could be 'brothers in arms' against the monkeys and pigs further down. The business about Arabs being semites etc was immaterial to Adolfs pupose.

In essence the Nazi race theory was flexible, and contingent. And is still very popular in Araby.

Why do I always want to sing when I read your name Peggy Sue ? I am convinced you are drop dead pretty, cause I can't imagine a Peggy Sue who is plug-ugly!

Mork, Miranda, and the rest of you trolls: why don't you fuck off? Seriously. You people are bores. You must come here because this is the only place where anyone will talk to you. (I am so sure that Miranda at least has been banned from every other forum and blog that has the capabilities.) I mean really, you just come here and repeat your tedious shite over an over again as if you had some sort of compulsion. See a goddamn psychiatrist, you pathetic pair of losers. We don't care what you think. We don't agree with you. Fucking deal with it, you sad babies.

The rest of you guys, don't feed the trolls. They get their jollies arguing. Your well-meaning attempts to educate them are wank-off material for these creeps. I once thought that Mork, at least, showed a rudimentary intelligence, but he has proved himself to be a monomaniac retard just like the rest of them.

Tim, as usual, your memory is failing you. Don't you remeber Howard saying regime change was not his aim? Tony Blair said the same. Their concern was weapons, and they were happy to leave Saddam in power as long as he didn't threaten... well, there wasn't much he could threaten by about 1998. Apart from selling oil in euros.

Apart from that, a perfect time for getting rid of Saddam was 1988, when he committed various crimes against humanity. Of course, at that stage, getting rid of Saddam was not on the agenda. After all, he was proving useful.

Fucking hypocrites!!

Careful, Andrea, you don't want any of that foam to get into your keyboard.

Please disregard my earlier post to Paul insofar as it applies to you.

I'm enjoying watching you crack up!

Kiss my ass, you fat sack of crap.

That goes for you too, Dork. Ooh, I mean Mork. Actually, no I don't -- I mean Dork.

By the way, you (Mork) will have your next comment replaced by "I am a useless fuckstick." So don't bother saying anything.

But who is this Paul anyway?

Maybe he thinks you're really Paul Prudhomme, chef to the stars.

Ah, the last laugh will come in November, 20004, when the trolls will be apoplectic at how Bush was reelected, complaining about "sheep," etc. I can't wait...

Adams showed his usual insensitivity and arrogance by dismissing the Kelly suicide as trivial on a par with a WWI donkey or Milosevic's grammar. I hope Kelly's family does not read Adams' piece.

Isn't this the same Philip Adams who persecuted some old woman for daring to cross a corner of his property in a wheelchair? It would seem that insensitivity is a persistent trait of his.

Peggy Sue -- I would supplement the answer made to your question by Arik, by saying that I don't think any of the really devoted Nazis were Christians (maybe in name only as needed for pre 1933 electoral purposes). So -- what Old Testament biblical chronicles said was probably immaterial to them anyway.

A while back on TV, here in the U.S., there was an interesting documentary (Discovery channel? History channel?) about some castle in Germany where Himmler was supposedly devising what he evidently felt was a recreation/simulation of ancient Germanic sun or sky worship rituals. It was confusing (at least to me) because evidently not much documentation survived, and also perhaps because Himmler was never able to develop the theology coherently. I suppose other duties competed for his attention.

Arik's answer was interesting. I think Hitler's alliance with the Arabs was opportunistic, considering his need for mideast allies against the British and French empires. Also remember the traditional alliance/friendship of imperial Germany for the Ottomans (WWI allies, also pre-WWI construction of Berlin to Baghdad railway).

Jerry, Bush re-elected? They don't admit he was elected the first time.

Good. That means he can have a third term.

By the way, re Paul H's comment 'Also remember the traditional alliance/friendship of imperial Germany for the Ottomans ...'

John Buchan's 1916 novel Greenmantle tells the story of German attempts to foment Islamic fundamentalism into a Jihad designed to set the Middle East on fire, distracting the world from Germany's WW1 plans. It's a stunning espionage tale - the more things change in the ME, the more they stay the same. If you can't be bothered hunting it down, read it onscreen at Project Gutenberg.

Action of a dishonest Government: Start a war claiming there are WMD. Upon arrival in the country plant the weapons - end of storey.

Action of honest accountable Government: Based on intelligence that is agreed to by everyone remove a vicious dictator. Search for the weapons that everyone though were there, and when they remain unfound conduct an inquiry into the intelligence assests to determine where things MAY have gone wrong.

The left can second guess the intelligence communities all they like. Its easy to punch orgainsiations that in there very nature are unable to fight back in an open forum. How very frustrating it must be to work for an organisation like ASIO or the CIA where they are unable to publicise their successes and only their apparant failures are paraded around. This or course results in a distorted view of their worth.

Personaly I choose to reflect upon the fact that intelligence organs do us far more good than we can ever know. I do this rather than blame them for successful terrorist actions. I reserve the blame for those to the terrorists.

I just hope that this inquiry does not set out to crucify an individual - unless they are found to be criminally negligent - because a ritual sacrifce will never appease the loonies of the left, and will only serve to demoralise hard working intelligence professionals. That will only help the Islamic scum terrorists more, and it must never be forgotton that they are the enemy.

Gilly - yes. Problem is, then there's no conspiracy. And there has to be a conspiracy, because otherwise the gibbering loonies like Mork would be exposed as, well, gibbering loonies.

Paul H. - Mork doesn't seem to like you, even when you're not here.

That's all very well, Gilly, but let's bring your hypothetical a little closer to reality.

What would you call a government that places pressure on intelligence services to come to a particular view, publicly criticizes it for not doing so, and then creates a new office within the intelligence service to produce rival reports based on the intelligence service's raw data?

What would you call a government that systematically exaggerates the strength of intelligence and ignores qualifications and doubts expressed by the intelligence agency, and then blames the agency when those exaggerated statements turn out to be wrong?

At what point is a government responsible for the decisions that it makes on the basis of data that is tenuous and uncertain ... if the intelligence service provides a report that says "our best estimate is X, but our evidence is vague and uncertain", who bears the responsibility for the decisions that are based on that report: the intelligence service or the government?

Does it affect your view of the accountability of this government if it deliberately times its investigation into "intelligence failures" so that its conclusions are not available to voters until after next election?

Where does the buck stop?

Yes, Mork, we know you are a useless fuckstick. Thanks for letting us know that you now realise this too.

(Why wait for Andrea?)

A government that places any pressure on services to force them to come to certain conclusions or to come up with outcomes that suit them politically until after the election would be called a New South Wales Labor Government.

I do take your point to an extent, but don't shoot the messengers, dont crucify intelligence officials. Actions based on intelligence assessments are entirely the responsibility of the goverment taking said action.

I have not seen all of the intelligence that was available, and I suspect neither have you.

I also believe, and suspect that you would agree, that different individuals will place different emphasis on different information, and that different people will look at the same information and draw completely different conclusions, or make different dicisions. We are after all different and have disperate world views. From my point of view as a conservative I agreed that Saddam had to go because of the dangers that his regime represented to Australia and our allies. I am actually shocked that more left wing people didn't support removing Saddam because of the way he treated his people - the pro refugee lobby were always quick to point out that we should take Iraqi refugees because of the evil excesses of the Saddam regime, but they didn't seem so keen to get rid of the root of the problem.

From what I saw I think that our governement made, and that governments of our allies made the correct decision. The outcome is one that really should be supported by the left and the right, it sits well with both the ideological view points. In an honest and accountable democracy our governments now have to face an inquiry. I think it would be preferable if the results were known before the respective elections, but obviously George Bush is getting political advice from State Labor.

And Pixy, I have always thought that the first sign of insanity is believing in conspiracy theories.

Anyone who believes a government orgainsation is capable of organising a complex conspiracy has obviously never worked for a government organisation.

fatfingers

"Apart from that, a perfect time for getting rid of Saddam was 1988, when he committed various crimes against humanity. Of course, at that stage, getting rid of Saddam was not on the agenda. After all, he was proving useful.

Fucking hypocrites!!"

Who was President genius?

Mork

Andreas right you are becoming tedious. Just because people are getting sick of you doesn't mean your winning (shouldn't be a game in any case). Its more likely that you are doing what you do on other sites is draw the thread onto you personally. Get a site of your own, put all your thoughts in one place. That way well can see if you consistent and making an effort in find things out.

Mind you, there are actual conspiracies, such as the recently uncovered underground nuclear weapons trade.

Oddly enough, the conspiracy nuts don't seem to be giving that one much attention.

Wow. Mork and Miranda offer a tiny spark of dissent in this blinkered honour roll of kneejerk reactionaries, and just look at the backlash.

Is this a sign of weakness? You have no argument so you go berserk? Shouting and screaming will not make you right, you know. What other cause for your hysteria? Or is it all phony outrage? Just a cover up because you know you're wrong?

And you do know you're wrong.

I think Andrea deserves a special mention, but why bother? Mindless ranting seem to be her speciality, so let's leave that to her own questionable devices. I'm just curious whether she has ever, in any field, at any time, said anything remotely sensible about anything?

Anybody? Tim - could we please have a post of non-invective Andrea contributions? No? I guessed as much.

As for Phil Adams - he is, by and large, a dolt. Has he really said "Bring Back Saddam" as accused above?

But history will be kind to Phil - he will probably write it.

Get a life?

Get a clue.

Another bore rears his head. Join the line for the door Nem, you wanker.

Arik I am convinced you are drop dead pretty, cause I can't imagine a Peggy Sue who is plug-ugly!
Let's just say I have a great face for radio!

Paul H "there was an interesting documentary about some castle in Germany where Himmler was ... devising ... a recreation/simulation of ancient Germanic sun or sky worship rituals.
The place was Wawelsburg.
'Also remember the traditional alliance/friendship of imperial Germany for the Ottomans ...

Didn't Disraeli say that nations have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests?

1) Evidence of "presssure" on intelligence officials to drum up WMD evidence is specious at best;

2) Obviously the belief that Iraq possessed WMD was not partisan -- EVERYONE believed they possessed them, based in intelligence -- the only debate was what to do about it.

3) Personally, I believe an invasion would be justified (of Iraq) if the intelligence data had simply a 10-20% chance of being accurate. The idea of needing 100% certainty is insanity. I single out Iraq due to Saddam's history of instability, psychopathy, and previous use of said weapons.

4) Yes, intelligence capabilities need to be improved (increasing funding to pre-Clinton cuts would be a start). But, again, waiting for 100% certainty when dealing with dictators is certainly not requisite.

And please don't confuse this position with war-mongering: it is simply a post-9/11 reality. If when have a reasonable idea that Syria, for example, either has Iraq's old WMDs, or some of their own, something will need to be done about it -- period. Don't like it? That's fine -- vote for Kerry.

The problem with the trolls is they have no valid arguments, but continue to repeat debunked theories and to ignore the simple reality. They also dwell on minutia and ignore the context and signifigance of their concerns to the big picture. There was overwhelming evidence that Saddam was pursuing WMD and that he supported terrorism. There was never certainty that WMD stockpiles existed. Logic would suggest that Saddam's regime would pursue WMD, but not keep stocks until sanctions became unpopular and too difficult to maintain. Many of us who supported the war, befor it happened, suspected that Saddam allowed his capabilities to be exagerated. He had a reputation, and by not making his weapons programs transparent he implied a threat. Whether it was real or not did not matter. Also, Saddam's regime was very visibly defiant to terms of surrender and numerous UN resolutions over 12 years. It was a great embarrasment and detrimental to the credibility of western countries.

The press and people's fears played up the WMD threat in the US. Most in the administration were ojective.

Saddam's regime was brutal and murderous. It placed a great burden on his people. It brought down the spirits of the entire region. It manipulated it's neighbors. It fostered an evironment where terrorist ideology could flourish. It deprived the world of the benefits his people could contribute. It deprived the Iraqis of the benefits they were capable of producing. It's existance gave comfort to those who were also opressive and defiant.

Iraq still had a progressive people, but that would change with time. Those who remember freedom would eventually die off. Learned helplesness and victim mentality would become more and more prevalant. Its resources would eventually become obsolete.

Sanctions and no-fly zones were expensive, were a hinderance and not a solution, and had no forseable end.

Iraq had been dealt with diplomatically for 12+ years.

Ideas like "setting an example," creating a model democracy, reducing terrorism by improving peoples lives, etc. are more difficult to accomplish and less well recieved when announced in advance.

First things first. There are many opressive regimes. Which ones do you topple? The ones with progressive people that wish to assimilate? The ones with resources to help with the cost and to assimilate more easily? The ones which will provide you the most support, contribute to your culture, improve the economies of free nations, improve the lives of more people, are of strategic advantage, will make you stronger and more capable to deal with others in the future? The ones most likely to do the same for someone else in future?

...Mork and Miranda offer a tiny spark of dissent...

Is THAT what gang-trolling with useless off-topic ad hominem attacks is called in the brave new world of doublespeak? "Dissent"?

Someone call Al Franken. He'll tackle this dissent. HUT HUT HUT!

Aaron: very nice, very eloquent. Good job.

Jerry writes:

Ah, the last laugh will come in November, 20004, when the trolls will be apoplectic at how Bush was reelected, complaining about "sheep," etc. I can't wait...

The correct term is "sheeple". What, you say, how would I use this strange word "sheeple" in a sentence?

"There are fewer sheeple than true patriots in the U.S., thus explaining Al Gore's popular vote victory in the 2000 U.S. presidential race."

"Sheeple are stupid yet their moronic, yet evil champion gained the U.S. presidency through their satanic machinations."

"The U.S. sheeple population was thought to have declined precipitously beginning in early 1992. However, through serious in-breeding, the Midwestern and Southern U.S. varieties began flourishing again in early 2000."

"Mork, Miranda Divide, and Nemesis are definitely not sheeple though they exhibit the herd instincts of the related species known as sheep."

Couple of questions:

1. Who on earth is Al Franken?
2. The governments of the coalition of the willing are all now expressing doubts about the stated case for war, but you lot just persist with your discredited lies. Why so?
3. Repeating my earlier question - did Philip Adams really express a desire to "Bring Back Saddam". If so, I will write to him and explain to him why he is a jerk (I will post the letter here, if you like).
4. For Sortelli. Go count the ad hominem attacks on Mork and Miranda (and me, for that matter), you silly little twit. (Oops, sorry - ad hominem!)

Andrea, Pixy,
You both keep referring to Mork as "a useless fuckstick".

Purely out of interest in the sociological phenomonem, what kind of fuckstick is useless ? I envisage a very droopy one, or perhaps one with flat batteries, but I would like to be enlightened.

BTW, I am assuming Pixy is of a gender or bent to be knowledgable in fuckstick use.

Nemesis

1-4: Learn to read.

Arik: you said it yourself: "I envisage a very droopy one, or perhaps one with flat batteries..." You know, impotent, as in "the impotent rantings of [insert troll name]."

Arik

Nemesis entire commentary history can be summed up as "ad hominem attacks". He/she does little else but troll sites to stir.