When do we say we were wrong about WOMD?

[JackC]

How much time do we give the military to search before we decide to come clean with regard to WOMD?

Is the peace in Iraq really the central battleground in the war on terror as one Bushie suggested last weekend?

Will Dubya's approval rating continue to fall as more stuff comes out?

Will Condy Rice take the fall?

What about Afghanastan? Will we finish the job there or have we moved on?

Where is OBL? Are we still looking for him or is Sadam enough for some people?

How big will this administration grow the federal deficit?

When will we here the I word?

Some many questions so few answers.

[Om]

"How much time do we give the military to search before we decide to come clean with regard to WOMD?"

As a potential topic for an actual discussion, Jack, this one never had a chance.

Dripping with far too much agenda to be taken seriously ... by other than someone with an equally extreme and cemented agenda.

[Kilmer17]

How much time do we give the military to search before we decide to come clean with regard to WOMD?

As long as it takes to figure out what they did with them. Or are you trying to argue that they didnt have them? If so, you would be on an island, because even the top Dems say he had them.

Is the peace in Iraq really the central battleground in the war on terror as one Bushie suggested last weekend?

_Yes it is. As with any battle, there are starting points and main objectives. Iraq is one of them. From there we will have an established base in the region to fight the war.

Will Dubya's approval rating continue to fall as more stuff comes out?

Maybe, but not to the point that a Dem can beat him. The closest Dem is Hillary and she's still behind 51-42.

Will Condy Rice take the fall?

Not a chance. She'll be President in 08.

What about Afghanastan? Will we finish the job there or have we moved on?

We have not moved on, we are still there, it is going according to plan.

Where is OBL? Are we still looking for him or is Sadam enough for some people?

My guess is he's dead, or we have him and will never let him go or let people know we have him. But we parade Saddam in front of the world and Bush's numbers will sky-rocket.

How big will this administration grow the federal deficit?

It's smaller than 80s in terms of a percentage of GNP which is the proper measuring tool. I want to cut spending, but unfortunately I dont see any Dems offering a different solution other than to raise taxes.

When will we here the I word?

On what grounds? As much as the partisans want to "pay back" for the lies Clinton told, the fact is that Bush has not lied or perjured himself.

Some many questions so few answers.

[Burgold]

There are some legit questions. The lead-off question is the weakest. While it feels like a very long time, it has in real terms been only an eye blink. Imagine all the places you could hide something if you had an entire nation to use. Was the administration guilty of exaggerating the threat? Was it guilty of picking and choosing intelligence that benefitted it? I don't know, but there isn't much question that Sadam had these weapons (whether for personal defense or for profit/terroristic purposes) and the fault isn't that we haven't found them, but that they have disappeared into far more dangerous hands. The other questions are pretty legit, I think. I do think that Afghanistan has been pushed way to the backburner, though I don't know if that is a result of public perception, coverage or reality. The more the CIA and the admin dicker. the clearer it seems to be that there is some dangerous gamesmanship being played. Bush's economic policy of cutting taxes and sharply increasing spending also is worriesome. As for OBL, I have no doubt that he is being hunted for as we talk and I actually prefer that he is being looked for with less publicity, reduces the chance that he knows where we are looking and what we are about. Anyway, good questions. Your leadoff would have been better at the end of the list.

[redman]

Originally posted by JackC

Is the peace in Iraq really the central battleground in the war on terror as one Bushie suggested last weekend?

What's that you're asking?

OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM

Foreign holy warriors face shocking reality

Called to jihad against 'infidels,' but find out people side with U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: July 29, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Recent Middle East press reports reveal religious leaders have encouraged Arab youth to travel to Iraq to become "martyrs" in a "holy war" against the United States, often with the aid of their governments and the enthusiastic approval of parents.

However, one of the many news features highlighted a Palestinian jihad warrior who went to Iraq for the sake of Allah only to discover, to his shock, the Iraqi people rejected him and were intent on getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

The press reports were translated and compiled by the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI.

A report in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar told of 36 Islamists from Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Syria who received visas from the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut to volunteer as martyrs.

In Baghdad, Sheikh Ahmad al-Kubaysi praised the Arab volunteers, reported MEMRI.

"These young men who came here from other Muslim countries to defend Iraq are very brave," he said. "They left their homes and comfortable lives to protect fellow Muslims. That is the most important form of jihad. These mujahideen (holy warriors) are guaranteed paradise."

Parents of two Saudi jihad fighters killed in Iraq told the Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat of their pleasure in their sons' actions.

"I thank Allah that [our son] attained what he sought," said the father of Suheil Al-Sahili, 28. "For 14 years he sought [martyrdom]. He always pointed to his head and wished that a rifle bullet would split his forehead, and we have been told that that is what happened."

Al-Sahali also fought in Afghanistan in 1992, then Chechnya and Bosnia, according to his brother.

"After Chechnya, he returned to Saudi Arabia … and then we didn't hear from him," his brother said. "We got a phone call from him finally, in which he said he was going to the jihad in Iraq together with volunteers at the northern front."

The brother said his family received news about Al-Sahali from Internet forums.

"We always felt that he was a prisoner in this world while his heart was in the next world," he said.

In the city of Al-Quteif, the brother of Abd Al-Hadi Al-Shehri, 28, told the paper: "From a young age he wanted jihad ... after fulfilling this commandment of pilgrimage to Mecca, there was no contact with him until news of his martyrdom reached us."

Parental permission required

MEMRI notes some limitations have been put on the jihad warriors in certain Arab nations. In Qatar, an Islamic law court ruled the warriors must be called to jihad by a religious authority and require parental permission.

"It is considered against Islam to travel to another country for jihad without permission from one's parents," said the Shariah court.

At least one Middle East voice publicly questioned the whole enterprise.

In articles in the Egyptian daily Al-Gumhuriya, Egyptian historian 'Abd Al-Adheem Ramadhan bemoaned the fate of thousands of young Egyptians who went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a holy war, according to MEMRI.

The scholar said these youth were manipulated by jihad slogans and miscalculated the realities of modern-day warfare.

"The Islamic nation still holds the meaning of jihad as it had been in the past when the mujahid carried his sword and rode his horse into the battle field … . This interpretation persisted despite the developments that occurred in weaponry and training … and [despite] the emergence of tanks, airplanes, airplane carriers, and explosives. As soon as the Islamic nation gets involved in a war, young religious Muslims throughout the Islamic world rush to scream the jihad battle-cry and to go to war … . Obviously, the Islamic countries cannot resist these noble feelings … so they open the door to volunteerism, and open their borders to religious youngsters to head to the battle fields. And there, to their surprise, they find out that war is not what they expected, it is not [fought] with swords and spears. It is a war of tanks, planes, air strikes and the like."

Ramadhan said when thousands of Egyptian youth "were seized with enthusiasm and demanded to go to Iraq for jihad," they went unhindered.

"Naturally, the Egyptian government was unable to prevent them from going to Iraq, lest it would be accused of opposition to jihad and failure to fight."

The Egyptian historian called efforts by "Islamic elements in labor unions and others" to encourage the youth were a "propaganda ploy."

"They knew perfectly well that if those youngsters go to Iraq, they would fall into the same hell-fire that the Iraqi people faced," he said. "So, we witnessed thousands of young Egyptians who left their country and their relatives who needed them."

In Iraq, the regime opened its doors for the volunteer youth but did enlist them in its army and give them "necessary protection," Ramadhan said.

They fought in remote areas, away from the Iraqi army, he noted, and "when Baghdad fell, they did not know that, and continued to fight courageously."

"They did not even hear about the disgraceful disappearance of the Iraqi leadership, of Saddam Hussein and his men who abandoned their army and their people," Ramadhan said. "They did not know that the Iraqi regime let them down and that [the Iraqi regime] was not fighting to defend Iraq, but fighting a lost battle to defend itself."

Rejected by Iraqis

MEMRI said many articles in the Arab press have focused on ill treatment of the jihad fighters by Iraqis. A Lebanese volunteer who returned from Iraq said Iraqi officials isolated the volunteers and the Iraqis themselves "hunted them whenever they could, reported the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of London.

One volunteer from Lebanon said he was exposed "to more Iraqi friendly fire than American fire."

"The Iraqi people refused to accept the volunteers among them and betrayed them by leaving them exposed," he said.

One report said 10 Arab nationals, mostly Syrians who volunteered to fight for Saddam's regime, were executed publicly in Baghdad during the war because they refused to fight in residential areas, according to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

Another report in the London paper mentioned the "Iraqi Shi'a in the Iraqi capital considered the Arab volunteers to be supporters of Osama bin Laden who they said had nothing to do with us."

Four Arab volunteers who returned home from Baghdad to Damascus and Cairo claimed Iraqi citizens were directing American forces to the hideouts of the Arab volunteers in exchange for large sums of money.

They said the American forces viewed the volunteers as one of the most important targets because they could carry out suicide operations against groups of American soldiers, according to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

An oath to Saddam

Before it was shut down by coalition forces, Saddam's Iraqi TV featured interviews with jihad fighters and showed them marching in formation, chanting "Allah Akbar," or "Allah is great."

An Egyptian fighter named Muhammad Ridha said on Iraqi TV: "Thanks to Allah, I arrived in June to volunteer in Saddam's 'Jerusalem Army.' I returned [to Egypt], but Allah decreed that I return [to Iraq], and I thank Him for that."

Ridha said he left behind four daughters and a son.

"I came to fight [the war of] jihad," he said, " and I take an oath in front of the leader Saddam Hussein that I will die as a martyr and that I do not want to return to Egypt. I say to all the Arabs and Muslims that jihad is our duty."

Abd Al-Karim Abd Al-'Azzam, a fighter from Aleppo, Syria, told Iraqi TV he wanted to "send a message to our Muslim brethren throughout the world."

"Brothers, we are not defending Iraq only, but all the Muslim countries," he said. "It started in Iraq, but Syria, Lebanon and other Muslim countries will follow. How long will we keep silent, how long will we wait? America and the Jews may decide next to bomb Mecca and Al-Madina (Medina), what are we waiting for? Are we waiting for them to enter Al-Madina?"

Abdallah from Algeria, added: "I call upon the entire Muslim nation to stand as one and defend the Muslim nation … truth is ours."

Abd Al-'Aziz Mahmoud Hawwash, a suicide volunteer from Syria, said in an Iraqi TV interview: "We are here, and we left our wives and children in order to defend the Arab and Muslim nation."

"We came as [martyrs] and we pray that Allah accepts our martyrdom for His sake," he said.

Another volunteer suicide-fighter from Syria said: "I came from Syria to fight along with our Iraqi brothers because this land is the land of the prophets and is the natural treasure of the Arabs."

The jihad warrior asserted "the Americans, Zionists, and the British want to control the oil and the natural resources of the Arab world. They say that Iraq has arms, but it is a lie. They want the oil and they want a crusade, but we will be the drawn swords in the hand of the jihad fighter Saddam Hussein."

Another volunteer, who did not mention his home-country, stated: "I send a message to the blood-shedding criminal Bush, and to his servant Tony Blair, and his new servant the Spanish [Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar], you want a crusade and we are ready for that, with the help of Allah."

"Oh [Muslim] nation, [which] is a billion and four hundred million strong, don't you see what is happening in Palestine?" the jihad warrior said. "What happened to the boiling Arab blood in your veins? We hope that you will come to the training camps in Iraq."

A fighter from Syria said: "Listen Oh Bush, and listen America, we are not the aggressors, you crossed the ocean and came here to slaughter our children and our women, and the most important thing that they came for is this religion … . We came to seek martyrdom and to raise the chant: Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar."

The 'hope' of martyrdom

In an interview with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Islamic activist Sheikh Muhammad Shu'fat, a Palestinian from Jordan, said after arriving in Baghdad, "I felt my heart beat with the hope of achieving victory or martyrdom."

"I did not go to defend the Ba'ath regime, but the persecuted Iraqi people who were suffering from injustice," he said. "I defended the Arab and Islamic land under occupation and aggression in advance of the takeover of the [entire Islamic] nation."

Asked how he explained the Iraqis' joy at Saddam's fall, Sheikh Shu'fat replied: "This is a message to the Arab rulers that they must make peace with their people and give them more freedom, so the people will unite with the armies in resistance to the colonialist aggression … . I do not feel sorrow for any Arab ruler who is brought down."

Sheikh Shu'fat said he had no explanation for the fall of Baghdad.

"Suddenly, the Iraqi resistance disappeared," he said. "…We were confused because something we did not understand had happened. Our hope was to achieve victory or martyrdom. [The Iraqi soldiers] went back home and turned into ordinary citizens."

He said, nevertheless, "I am happy that I waged jihad for the sake of Allah. I suggested to [the Iraqi soldiers] that they carry out martyrdom operations, but they said it was too soon."

The sheikh said some of the Arab volunteers did not return to their countries because they had no money for the trip, and some had their passports taken by the Iraqis.

Shocked that Iraqis sided with U.S.

A Palestinian fighter, interviewed by Al-Ahram, the Egyptian daily, expressed shock at the Iraqi people's rejection of the jihad warriors.

"'I cannot believe that I am alive. I was in hell and Allah brought me back," said the fighter, who gave the pseudonym Abu Khaled.

In early April, he joined other Arab volunteers in the battle at Baghdad's airport.

At the beginning of the war, he says he was shocked at the sense of panic that seemed to pervade among the Iraqi troops.

"The Iraqi soldiers were scared to death, with some even fainting," he said. "I did not understand their attitude then."

Now, Abu Khaled believes the soldiers must have sensed there was a conspiracy.

After fighting to defend the Baghdad airport, Abu Khaled said he walked 12 miles to reach the capital.

"Exhausted, tense and with almost no food or drink for several days, I reached a house where I thought I could finally find shelter," he said.

After an Iraqi man opened the door, Abu Khaled announced proudly his identity as an Arab jihad fighter.

"The man slapped the door in my face and said, 'Go away we do not want you in our country,'" he said.

Al-Ahram notes, "It was then that Abu Khaled realized that the Iraqi people had a different agenda."

"To his astonishment," the paper said, "he was later told that the Iraqis wanted to get rid of the dictatorship and oppression of Saddam Hussein at any cost."

In this context, said the paper, "the Arab volunteers were regarded by them as supporters of the regime, who are cashing dollars, only to prolong the Iraqi suffering."

Abu Khaled said he was not a defender of the Saddam regime.

"I joined the resistance to defend the Iraqi people," said a shocked and bewildered Abu Khaled, according to Al-Ahram. "I wanted to take part in the war against our brethren in Iraq. I came to defend the dignity of the Arab nation."

Abu Khaled said he later joined fellow Palestinians helping resist intensive coalition strikes.

"The Palestinians' resistance delayed the coalition forces' capture of the center of Baghdad for a whole day," he recalled. "I saw one Palestinian kill five Americans with one missile."

But even more staggering to Abu Khaled, reported Al-Ahram, was "the realization that many Iraqi civilians did not want to see further resistance to the invasion forces struck."

"While we were defending ourselves from the coalition strikes, I saw an Iraqi in a nearby building shooting at us," he said. "I had to protect myself and my people, so I fired an RPG missile at his house. While he was not killed, the second floor of the house was destroyed."

After the U.S. captured the center of Baghdad on April 9, Abu Khaled decided to return to his hotel. He discovered, however, he was no longer welcome.

"They welcomed me as a Palestinian before the war because they feared Saddam Hussein; now that he is gone they do not see any reason to give me shelter," he said. "They told me that they needed the room because they have other people who offered more for the room."

Al-Ahram said Abu Khaled is now without shelter and is dependent on the generosity of others for food, tea or coffee.

"I avoid being alone or recalling what happened to me," the fighter said, "because whenever I remember what happened at the airport, how I was abandoned – I feel betrayed and devastated."

Originally posted by JackC

Will Dubya's approval rating continue to fall as more stuff comes out?

Bush's approval rating both overall and with specific regards to Iraq increased last week, presumably due to the demise of Uday and Qusay.

Originally posted by JackC

Will Condy Rice take the fall?

The "fall" for what. The war in Iraq remains popular with most Americans who feel it was justified even without finding caches of WMD.

Originally posted by JackC

What about Afghanastan? Will we finish the job there or have we moved on?

Where is OBL? Are we still looking for him or is Sadam enough for some people?

Afghanistan and the search for al Qaeda leaders including UBL continue. Don't forget that we found one of the primary leaders only two weeks before the war in Iraq started. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Originally posted by JackC

How big will this administration grow the federal deficit?

Depends on how much social wellfare pork guys like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd insist on keeping in the budget, or had you forgotten that that was the largest growing segment of the budget over the last 40 years, including during Reagan's term?

Originally posted by JackC

When will we here the I word?

Jack, not to worry, you display your "Ignorance" every day.

[JackC]

It appears some here think denial is a river in Eqypt

It's a total cop out to blame the lack of fiscal responsibility on the democrats because the GOP controls all the branches of government.

Dubya will be a one termer just like his Daddy!

[Kilmer17]

Not blame Jack, I just dont hear the Dems offering any alternatives. If you do, please tell us.

[JackC]

Burgold,

The administration said they knew where the WOMD were over and over. So where are they? They told us Iraq could launch an attack on 45 minutes notice. 45 minutes! Not an hour, no 45 minutes! WTF was that based on?

Our word has little trust in the world now because of this "cowboy" president! I hate the Cowboys!

[The Evil Genius]

I would imagine that nothing will come out of this report...that demonstrates some contradiction among the varying Rice comments...she will get a free pass on it...

Rice Faces Credibility Issue in Report

Mon Jul 28,10:48 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The congressional report on pre-Sept. 11 intelligence calls into question answers that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) gave the public last year about the White House's knowledge of terrorism threats.

It's a fresh credibility issue for the adviser whose remarks about prewar Iraq (news - web sites) information also have been questioned by members of Congress.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s adviser told the public in May 2002 that a pre-Sept. 11 intelligence briefing for the president on terrorism contained only a general warning of threats and largely historical information, not specific plots, the report said.

But the authors of the congressional report, released last week, stated the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives into the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives.

The White House defended Rice, saying her answers were accurate given what she could state publicly at the time about still-classified information and that Bush retains full confidence in Rice.

Rep. Porter Goss (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, endorsed Rice's work Monday. And Rice's spokeswoman, Anna Perez, said her boss' statement was accurate because the information about a possible Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)-backed explosives attack in the United States "does not constitute a specific warning. It is in fact general with no when, how or where."

The Sept. 11 congressional investigators underscore their point three times in their report, using nearly identical language to contrast Rice's answers with the actual information in the presidential briefing.

The president's daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained "information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives," the report stated.

A footnote to that passage then quotes what Rice told the public at a May 16, 2002, news conference.

Rice "stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method," the footnote said.

At the same May 2002 press briefing, Rice also said that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

But the congressional report states that "from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons."

The report says that Rice and other top officials, including Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, weren't told of the intelligence and concluded the information was "not widely known" even in the intelligence community.

White House officials defended Rice's answers.

"Dr. Rice's briefing was a full and accurate accounting of the materials in question without compromising classified material that could endanger national security," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Perez said Rice, during her May 2002 briefing, did mention that U.S. intelligence received specific threats against U.S. interests in April and May 2001 but said the focus at that time was principally on overseas targets.

"She did not avoid specifics about she could talk about. She was pretty specific," Perez said.

More recently, Rice's explanations about what the White House knew about Iraq also have been questioned by members of Congress and by Democrats seeking the presidential nomination.

But Goss, the Intelligence Committee chairman, said Monday night he believes Rice has been honest in her answers and served Bush well and that some of the recent criticism in Congress stems more from some lawmakers' frustratiuon at not getting full access to information from the NSC about terrorism and Iraq.

"I don't think there is anything in the report that casts any shadows at all on Dr. Rice's credibility," Goss said. "I think she has served the president very well. She is more than a capable person, she is a brilliant person."

Rice told the press several weeks ago that Bush's State of the Union message never would have included any mention of Iraq shopping for uranium in Africa "if we had known what we know now."

But Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy, disclosed last Tuesday that two CIA (news - web sites) memos and a phone call from CIA Director George Tenet had persuaded him to take a similar passage about Iraq and uranium out of a presidential speech three months before the State of the Union address.

Hadley said he had forgotten about the CIA's objections by the time the State of the Union was being crafted in January.

Hadley said one of the memos casting doubt on the intelligence was sent to Rice. She doesn't recall reading it, the NSC's spokesman said. Hadley said he didn't consult Rice on the matter.

In regard to Sept. 11, Rice said in the May 2002 press conference that intelligence reports prior to the attacks had focused on "traditional hijacking."

But in its first hearing last September, the congressional inquiry emphasized that the intelligence community had produced various reports over the years suggesting that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons.

In 1998, the government obtained information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. A month later, intelligence agencies obtained information that Osama bin Laden's next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport.

"It shouldn't have been a shock to anybody that the people would take airplanes and make them weapons of mass destruction, or at least local destruction," Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), the inquiry's co-chairman, said last week.

[JackC]

I have zero trust for this administration. I can't believe anything they say. It really is a shame.

Is our military really kidnapping women and children in an attempt to have some one turn themselves in? Are you OK with this tactic? Doesn't sound like the American Way to me!

Shame on you Mr Bush!

[Kilmer17]

No they're not Jack. Weak attempt at a straw man attack.

[The Evil Genius]

Funny cartoon in the local paper this morning...thought it was kind of on topic...

[@DCGoldPants]

I think it'll be a big topic if a year from now we're still losing a few military folks every day....and no big lots of weapons have been found.

[Erwin S.]

Here's the deal... Iraq (meaning Saddam) had plenty of time to hide and/or sell their WMD. I've seen interviews with former UN weapons inspectors who said they are not surprised by the fact that we have not found WMD's. In fact, one inspector said on CNN about a week ago that he would be shocked if we found them. He said Iraq could easily bury them in the middle of nowhere and we wouldn't find them UNLESS someone told us EXACTLY where they were. Anyone who continues to scream about not finding them is either stupid or they are being intentionally obtuse (probably due to being a Democrat).

From my perspective it looks like the economy is turning around. We should have Saddam within a couple weeks and I believe the loss of American life will end shortly there after. Face it, Bush has taken a beating by the media the past month and he is still holding onto a majority of voters. What happens when things die down and Iraq looks better and the economy improves? It's called a land slide in '04.

[Burgold]

Jack,

My biggest confusion on the WMD issue is in your arena of questioning. First, if we could truly track by satelite and surveilance the trucks being used to cart around thousands of tons of this stuff just out of armsreach of the UN inspectors, then why could we not follow and find out where Sadam hid this stuff. Shouldn't we have been able to track where these trucks went? Second, the forty five minute attack... I believe that was one of two things... it was either an exaggeration designed to try to scare the US and others into action or it was the truth and it never got acted on because the Iraqis were in denial and expected us to pull back like we had in the past.

Regardless, if we could track the cat and mouse game played by Sadam with the UN inspectors before the invasion, I am not certain why we could not track them to their new hidden locations. As we've discussed before, these are not small ammounts. Quantities and equipment on this scale must be visible when on the move. On the other hand, if for some reason it is reasonable for the US to become suddenly incapable of tracking these items, trucks, and equipment, then finding where they are hidden would be very difficult.

Therefore, the administration must have overstated its case. Either it knew less than it suggested it did and the Security Council was correct to be skeptical of or their abilities or resources got stretched too thin or there were some lies being told.

[Guest Matt Kyriacou]

Originally posted by JackC

Dubya will be a one termer just like his Daddy!

I would love to take you up on a wager over that one.

By all means, please let me know and we can arrange an escrow for whatever amount you would care to lose.

[redman]

Originally posted by JackC

It's a total cop out to blame the lack of fiscal responsibility on the democrats because the GOP controls all the branches of government.

Name a spending cut or tax cut being proposed by a Democrat leader, or any democrat for that matter.

The Dems are the party that tends to promote government spending to create social welfare. Denial indeed.

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by JackC

Dubya will be a one termer just like his Daddy!

And then you wake up.....and the sheets are all wet.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by redman

Name a spending cut or tax cut being proposed by a Democrat leader, or any democrat for that matter.

The Dems are the party that tends to promote government spending to create social welfare. Denial indeed.

Redman,

http://www.ctj.org/html/dem0103.htm

The Senate Democratic tax cut plan introduced by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) offers substantially larger tax relief to most taxpayers this year than President Bush’s latest tax cut proposal, provides far more economic stimulus this year, and at the same time is far less costly over the long-term—thereby avoiding the big budget-deficit expansion that the President favors.

An analysis of the Democratic plan released by Citizens for Tax Justice finds:

Under the Democratic plan, almost all families and individuals (94 percent) would receive tax relief. Under the President’s plan, a third of taxpayers would get absolutely nothing, and almost half would get less than $100.

Middle-income taxpayers would get an average tax cut of $542 under the Democratic plan, compared to $289 under the President’s proposal.

Low-income individuals and families would get an average of $266 each from the Democratic plan, compared to $6 under the President’s proposal.

The richest one percent of taxpayers would average $817 in tax breaks under the Democrats’ plan, versus $30,127 each under the Bush program.

The Democrats’ plan would provide a refundable tax credit equal to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. The maximum would be $300 per taxpayer ($600 for couples), plus $300 per child (up to two children). Thus:

A single person with no children would receive up to $300. Married couples without children would get up to $600.

A single parent with one child would get up to $600. Married couples with one child would get up to $900.

A single parent with two or more children would get up to $900. Married couples with two or more children would get up to $1,200.

For typical taxpayers of each family type, the actual tax credits would generally equal (or be very close to) the maximum amounts.

The Democratic plan also includes $40 billion in federal aid to state and local governments, which will help states balance their budgets without raising taxes on their citizens or cutting important services.

The overall Democratic package, including the state and local aid, short-term corporate tax cuts and long-term curbs on corporate tax shelters, is expected to provide $141 billion in economic stimulus this year and cost a total of $114 billion over ten years (the ten-year cost is less than the 2003 cost mainly because of the effect of the corporate tax reforms in later years). In contrast, the President’s “stimulus” plan is expected to put only about $30 billion into the economy this fiscal year, but cost $674 billion over the upcoming decade (almost $900 billion including added interest on the national debt).

The tax plans were analyzed using the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model.

[redman]

LOL, I forgot about their half-hearted attempt to compete with Bush's budget! I stand corrected! :laugh:

And the spending cuts? Where are they?

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by redman

LOL, I forgot about their half-hearted attempt to compete with Bush's budget! I stand corrected! :laugh:

And the spending cuts? Where are they?

Probably alongside the GOP spending cuts (cue a scene to Mad Max in the desert).

Who needs to cut spending when the economy is obviously so good?

[Kilmer17]

Probably alongside the GOP spending cuts .

Sadly, this is true.

[luckydevil]

The day democrats talking about cutting spending/government spending to solve the deficit problem is the day I become a democrat. I, however know better. The dems solution is to raise taxes

Ironic how leftists are ****ing about deficits.

[Sarge]

How much time do we give the military to search before we decide to come clean with regard to WOMD?

Is the peace in Iraq really the central battleground in the war on terror as one Bushie suggested last weekend?

Will Dubya's approval rating continue to fall as more stuff comes out?

Will Condy Rice take the fall?

What about Afghanastan? Will we finish the job there or have we moved on?

Where is OBL? Are we still looking for him or is Sadam enough for some people?

How big will this administration grow the federal deficit?

When will we here the I word?

Some many questions so few answers.

____________________________________________________

Wow JackC. Insecurites getting to you again? Let's see if Uncle Sarge can help;

First question: As far as I can tell from my contacts, it will take about 5 more months to turn up something, sometime around Christmas. It might be sooner, but Christmas/New Years looks like a good bet. TAke a moment to actually think about, "a country the size of Texas". That's a LOT of ground. I'll bet I could bury a tractor trailer in the county you live in and you and a hundred others (That is about the ratio judging by the area of Laurel) would be hard pressed to find it, especially with four months of UN approved delay to hide it.

Iraq (for now) is the central battleground. Thanks to Clinton administration cuts in the military, we no longer have the strength to take out Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea at the same time. So......right now we are taking a breather. Check back about the rest of the Axis of Evil around Christmas. Personnally, I won't be happy until we take out Saudia Arabia.

Not enough for any weak-dicked, no idea democrat to beat him

Nope.

We will finish off Afganistan. It's all but done now, the biggest challange remaining to get the Afgan army up and running from scratch.

He's dead and buried under a mountain.

I'm not worried about the deficet, we'll spend our way out of it eventually. As for spending, I wish the line item veto would have held up. I don't mind spending on national defence, because to me, there is no price for national security. But both sides are throwing the pork in there, and while I expect that from dems, I am severely disappointed in the Republicans for not curtailing spending on stupid stuff.

Clarify please.

Hope that helps

[Kilmer17]

"I" word is Demspeak for impeachment.