Like most people, I was glad that John Edwards admitted he was wrong to vote for the Iraq War resolution, but the excuse that he gives, that the Senate was not shown the same information as the president, while true, is dishonest.

The former chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham asked the obvious question of the CIA before the war:

If Saddam had nukes (or other WMD) would he have the will to use them against us?

CIA director George Tenet answered honestly:

He said

NO.

Saddam would only use them if attacked. Like every other country that has nukes.

Graham insisted that a version of Tenet's letter scrubbed of classified information be made available to the public and it was in the New York Times in October 2002, five months before the war.

Democrats on intelligence like Edwards saw the classified version of this in committee.

But you didn't need to be an intelligence expert to know that. You merely needed to be old enough to remember the Cold War and the last fifty years of the nuclear era. We had rough nuclear parity with the Soviets, and that was enough to keep us from attacking each other. If a bit player like Saddam got his hands on a dozen or even a hundred nukes, he would know that if he launched one at us, he would be dead and Iraq incinerated off the map before he even knew if his nuke hit us.

Every congressman and senator knows this calculus. Retarded people don't get elected to Congress (and only once to the White House).

My point is not to exonerate the GOP, but to be careful which Democrats we pin our hopes on.

If someone is still lying to us about why they voted for war, they are likely to tell lies to continue it or to start the next one when the oil companies ask for it.

And the common sense in Washington was that denying the threat was a radical position and therefore unreastic electorally regardless of what the facts said.

just to tear down Dems.

Democrats should have known better. If they had to pay a political price at the time, so be it, they payed a political price anyways in both the short term and the long term.

Or do they just dress up Karl Rove Talking Points in a Che T-Shirt for fun?

"The Lies of John Edwards" is inflammatory.

In that case, I know a lot of Jews who are anti-Semites.

Coming from an Evangelical religious background, I was shocked to meet Jews who were far less pro-Israel than me.

Then I did the research, mostly just actually reading the history.

Now it seems that anyone who doesn't say the Palestinians are entirely to blame for the conflict and that Israel needs to make some concessions for peace is called an anti-Semite.

I don't buy it.

We criticize other countries, including our Arab and European allies without being called racist. The same should be true of Israel.

But you earned your PR shill paycheck by making the required noise.

Website. I'm not sure who Cockburn gets paid by, but I'm willing to bet that the payer has connections to the Repukes. I've NEVER ONCE read anything GOOD about a Democrat or the Democratic Party on Counterpunch.

And I myself am not pro-Israel, I think it's about time Israel stood on its own two feet and stopped expecting us to baby them and protect them...the money we give Israel needs to stop, that disgraceful wall needs to come down and Israel needs to start behaving themselves. They also need to stop threatening under-the-radar other countries that are in their region and start learning to GET ALONG with their neighbors.

So I'm not pro-Israel.

from what you wrote, it sounds like you agree with him on Israel.

Right now, the only country that gets more deferential treatment from us is Saudi Arabia.

We need to be able to discuss a range of solutions for the problem with Israel and Palestine, including some that won't be to the liking of groups that want to claim all the land west of the Jordan River.

and get them to do the right things.

To the degree that Counterpunch accurately reports the machinations going on in DC, they are doing that, however ugly that truth may be.

And I shouldn't have to say this, but of course we pick on the Democrats because they might be responsive.

There is little or no hope of that with Republicans who are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America.

Did the article accurately recount and interpret their words?

If so, they did far better than most mainstream publications, and definitely better than most of our elected officials.

for John Edwards interview w/ Chris Matthews. He flat out admits he didn't believe the Intel report.

They feigned belief as a validation and rationalization to protect their interests and further their political ambitions.

There are very few peace lobbyists funding the Congress critters.

"They feigned belief as a validation and rationalization to protect their interests and further their political ambitions."

Funny, what INTERESTS are these...is John Edwards working for Halliburton or Bechtel or something, has he been personally profiting from the Iraq War, is that WHY he voted for the IWR, because he thought "Wow, I'm really gonna start cashing in on the reconstruction once we've bombed the shit out of Iraq."

How did the IWR vote contribute to helping further his political ambitions? Wasn't Edwards during the 2004 campaign criticizing Junior's Iraq policy and the clusterfuck it'd turned into?

As I pointed out previously, yes Edwards and the rest of them voted for IWR because they were lied to just like WE were lied to, they were shown the manipulated cherry-picked intelligence that Junior wanted the public to see.

I was against going into Iraq from the beginning...but it's done now and unfortunately we CAN'T go back and STOP it from happening...it's been done. But I can certainly respect a politician and believe that they have honor, by them coming out in public and admitting they were wrong and admitting that they were foolish to believe the lies.

I'd bet anything that Edwards...AND Hillary Clinton would probably cut off one of their ARMS to go back to the days before the IWR vote, and had they known what we ALL know now, en masse our Democrats would have voted NO on the IWR.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

<snip>

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

<snip>

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

He rilly, rilly, rilly wants to be President, and he's rilly charismatic, ya know, and he's got rilly nice hair.

Glad to see Counterpunch putting that phoney phuck in his place.

Let me guess who you'd like to get the nomination, is it one of these:

Dennis Kucinich
Sheila Jackson Lee
Cynthia McKinney
Ralph Nader

Edwards can admit that he made a mistake, our Democrats were lied to and shown the same manipulated intelligence that Bush Inc. used to lie their way into Iraq. At least Edwards can admit he was wrong to believe them...60% of the general public believed them too, and now they admit that they were lied to as well. So is 60% of the general public phoney fucks too?

Do you think that Edwards' concern over poverty and his poverty center are phoney too?

Of the group you listed, all were correct in their assessment of the war, so it isn't necessary for them to make non-apology apologies about how their votes were wrong in order to further their burning personal and political ambitions.

The only reason Edwards is admitting he made a "mistake" now, is because the nasty, criminal little war he helped sell is a failure of the first magnitude. Edwards, try though he does, and he does try hard, poor boy, was not a member of the general public at the time of his vote. He was a public servant, and more is expected of him. While 60 percent of the general public in the US may have believed all the constantly shifting rationales for invading Iraq, the vast majority of the rest of the world, and sizable minorities in this country, both citizens and public servants alike, did not. Mistakes can be forgiven, but he has no reason to expect that he should be rewarded for admitting a self-evident "mistake" of this magnitude.

Edwards' poverty concerns and poverty center, while they may have some incidental benefits, are largely self-promotional in nature.

and I admire all the Great Society stuff.

I bet Edwards would even strive valiantly to do the same.

The problem is, having access to quality education and health care won't mean much to you if you or your kid died in a foreign war to pad some corporations bottom line.

I wish these fucks would stop talking about the phony rationales for the war and just say "this is what we hoped to get out of seizing Iraq's oil, and this is what will happen with that if we pull out." Any former supporter of the war who doesn't say that is still lying--just in a different key.

And how can ANYONE say what they would have done in any Senator's shoes, without actually seeing the classified intel that they saw?

One day, all of that info will be declassified. We can't really know the strength of the documents until that happens. So this piece of opinion is really just that, a piece of...opinion. Unless it was ghost written by Tenet, and that seems unlikely.

Instead of beating up on Democrats like Edwards, let's spend a bit more time putting the goddamn blame where it belongs--on that asshole in the WHITE HOUSE, who directed his thugs to WITHHOLD the evidence that did not support his bullshit contentions, who had presented evidence EDITED to make his case stronger, and when all else failed, who MADE SHIT UP.

I'm sorry, I've had about enough of all this equivalency bullshit. COUNTERPUNCH seems a bit too eager to play the fair and balanced game, when there is nothing fair or balanced about what this administration did to con the nation into war.

Finally, regardless of the Dems, the IWR was GONNA PASS. And everyone forgets the mood of unease back then, the SOTU speech, Powell with his little vial at the UN. Had the Dems lockstepped and all said no, the party would have been marginalized even worse than it already was, and NO ONE would have had any voice at all.

A decision was taken by the Dems, even those with misgivings, to trade a meaningless vote that some made in exchange for other considerations, urging by their constituents, or other reasons (and it WAS meaningless, it would not have changed the result, the war would have gone on, and the Dems would be painted as weak on defense for another decade).

Now, we have the high ground. We gave the Monkey his executive due, and now we find out HE LIED, first, and HE FUCKED UP, second. The lesson: Democrats have respect for the office of the Presidency, but the MONKEY is a BAD President, and Republicans are INCOMPETENT...!

The intel that hasn't been released would not change the basic equation that no leader of any country would think it's a good idea to nuke us.

We also have a growing pile of evidence on the real motives for the war, and it's likely that the Democrats quietly bought into that--they just didn't think Bush would go about it in such a ham-handed fuck up way.

They expect the finesse of his dad, who could screw somebody, make them pay for it, and hope to see him again soon.

else save Tenet's bunch have seen, that would have turned that vote around and no one, D or R, would have voted for the IWR. Those documents are STILL UNDER SEAL.

We know that a few of them related to WMD, but Tenet's assertion in and of itself--the NO--was mitigated by other intel, all of it BAD (by BAD, I mean LOUSY--not BAD NEWS). The intel they were presented made a case for war, not a terribly strong case, but a case.

But now, what we are hearing is that if they had seen it all, the polygraphs of the lying sources, the assessments that said that a lot of the stuff they took as truth was actually fishy info, they would have said NO WAY, NO, NO == NEVER! On both sides of the aisle...

The blame lies with the White House, plain and simple. They ginned up the phony documents, they gamed the assessments, they papered over the rough spots. The Senators who voted yes can be faulted for believing a bunch of liars...from Bush at the SOTU to Colin at the UN.

was a threat to us, even if Bush had been right about his weapons programs.

The primary reason to worry about Saddam having WMD is that it would limit our options to intimidate and invade Iraq in the future.

Do you want to tell me the Democrats gave no thought to Iraq's oil or the effect Iraq trading oil in Euros was having on the dollar?

I would forgive their IWR vote if they made a serious effort to document the real motives for the war and shared that with the American people.

Bush did lie, and did withold information, but what you are selling is that the Democrats are gullible idiots.

material out there that we do not know about, that provided sufficient "cover" for the vote that some took. And if you look at the other issues the Monkey raised, there was intel (that again turned out to be false) that we have not yet seen on that, either,

That vote was going to pass with or without the Democrats, you DO know that, I hope.

Also, WMD, though the biggie, WAS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE ON THE TABLE. Everyone has VERY short memories on the mood of the nation, but there were two other elephants (which later turned out to be false) in the room:

--Bush was claiming that Saddam had Terra Training Camps, and was training Al Quaeda operatives--he went so far as to falsely suggest that some of the 911 guys had wandered through Iraq and assorted Iraqi embassies. Remember the mockup of the airplane that he said was for hijacking training?

--He banged the drum CONSTANTLY (and ironically, given our conduct) over human rights. If I heard the phrase RAPE ROOMS once, I heard it a thousand times--Bush used to say it with something akin to glee. "He gassed his OWN PEOPLE!" Bush would cry--first, they were not "his" Tikriti people, they were Kurds, and second, it is looking more and more likely that they got caught in the crossfire between a chemical warfest between Iraq and Iran, but those facts were ignored--the same old pictures from decades back were dragged out to show what a brute Saddam was.

--The WMD (HE HAS NUKES!!!) argument was MORPHED into, OOOOOH, he can GET nukes, and he might, and also there was the truck in the desert that turned out to be for weather balloons, but here's Colin at the UN, waving his vial...and then there was that old YELLOW CAKE...

And that is WHAT WE KNOW. It is only the tip of the iceberg. There are WAY MANY MORE LIES, supposedly coming from Chalabi-like informants, that are still classified! One thing you have to say for BushCo, when they pile it on, they pile it HIGH AND DEEP.

The ones who voted with the GOP did so because, realizing it would pass anyway, they might as well milk an existing situation for political reasons; either to satisfy their conservative constituencies, or to show faux support for the administration so that they could forward their own legislative initiatives at a later date.

Oddly, that disappeared off the radar and was never mentioned again except by you (and me when I asked a couple of months ago what happened with that story).

If that evidence had any legs, it would have stayed part of the litany of crimes.

You are right that the 9/11 hysteria was still affecting the public.

Congressmen and senators are probably on the whole smarter than the guy sitting at home in his barcolounger though.

The one problem with the "favor trading" analysis is it's hard to figure out what the hell the Democrats got in return.

The way the GOP is running things, the Dems have NO VOICE. The GOP sets the schedule, the agenda, the legislative calendar, EVERYTHING. If the GOP does not want it brought up, it does not get brought up, and if they do not want it to pass, they kill it in committee. The Democrats have no input into the process at all.

What they got was a cosponsor or two for bills they want to introduce--and a bit fairer distribution of floor time to make their case--without that, they are effectively muzzled. Even with that, they are hamstrung.

It sucks being the minority with the current rules in place.

politics, especially in the House, the Senate was WAY more collegial. After all, there's only a hundred of them. Some of the older hands in the Senate are still that way (when Trent's house blew away, the first call he got was not from a GOP crony, but from John Kerry--he and Teresa sent planeloads of shit down to help him and his neighbors). The newer guys, like Frist, are purely and simply assholes who do not really work for the people or the legislative process, but for the White House.

But even when they disagreed in the old days, it was not nearly as vicious. That really changed with the Newt business, it has been ugly ever since. The temptation will be HUGE to act like assholes if we get the majority again, but I really think, after a bit of targeted punishment, that we should take the high road, and make sure everyone KNOWS that we are so doing.

This is a good read on what happened to Newt (and we should take the history lesson, because what goes around always comes around): http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/11/09/gingrich.html

don't look the other way or say it's a lovely flower arangement.

Democrats don't have to throw a hissy fit, they just have to say what the GOP did was wrong, why, and whose interests it served.

relationship will be resumed. For now, though, if the Democrats push too hard, their chances of passing any decent legislation go out the window. This GOP congress is into PUNISHMENT on an absurd scale.

It is a tough balancing act--that is why some Dems play a more conciliatory game--they are in essence, Harry Reid's emissaries to the enemy camp. It's all strategy and tactics. The ones who are running in 06 will appeal solely to their constituencies, while the ones who are not will be taking up positions across the spectrum, to confound and frustrate the enemy as much as they can, seeing as they have little power otherwise.

Here's an old article on the GOP attitude, that is still pretty accurate today in terms of how they think. The big difference now is that the Dems are fighting back, hard: http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/RepublicanOneParty.html

Nearly half the electorate -- people who chose Democrats to represent them in Congress -- are, to an increasing degree, disenfranchised. Their representatives aren't simply outvoted on the House and Senate floors, they're not even present when key legislation is discussed and refined. The pendulum always swings back eventually, though, and should the White House and Congress shift hands, this year's brutal and partisan practices may ensure a retaliatory cycle in which each aggrieved party feels compelled to wreak vengeance, lest it be viewed as wimpish.

...Some Republicans can dismiss such talk as the musings of political losers and "good government" softies. But even hard-headed veterans are shaking their heads at the shortsightedness of excluding the minority party and injecting more partisan bitterness into Capitol Hill. It's like drinking too much on New Year's Eve: It feels good at the time, but there's hell to pay later.

I want leaders who talk to us like grown up and do the discuss the real reasons for doing things in public.

Are you so young you don't remember the Cold War? Have you read the history (or present or future) of oil?

I fought in it! I'm happily retired nowadays.

See my post below on how the Senate does business. It might help to explain to you my view of what is happening with the Democrats nowadays.

Besides bolstering your opponent, you stab your supporters in the back, and make people in the middle wonder what the hell you actually stand for.

A lot of Democrats stand for getting in line to replace the GOP at the corporate trough, and that's why this struck a nerve.

The DLC defenders know this is your achilles heel. You can't be honest AND keep progressive voters because the honest agenda is serving corporations, period.

Chamber of Commerce Democrats have a problem that GOP counterparts don't . What GOP voters demand doesn't overlap or conflict with the party's corporate agenda at all. GM and Exxon don't give a rat's ass if abortion is legal or illegal, or if kids pray in school, as long as their senators and president do as their told.

Since Democrats actually care about economic issues, the Chamber of Commerce types have no "red meat" to throw us except for the mirror opposite of the GOP on cultural issues. So one of the most corrupt Democrats, who supported and is profiting from the war, Dianne Feinstein, is an ardent pro-choice advocate. Because that costs business nothing.

Being anti-war cost corporations A LOT. As Marine Corps general Smedley Butler said, war is pure profit. It's a hostile take over and we provide the venture capital--corporations reap the profits.

than they are. These senators will vote for something even if they do not like it if they know it will pass anyway to throw a bone to a segment of their constituency. It's how you hold on to power. And all power is not bad, you get good committee assignments out of it, as you become more senior.

Another reason you vote for something you do not support is to ally yourself with someone on the other side of the aisle so you can get YOUR legislation through at a later date.

This is only done if your vote will not change the final results, and it is done in consultation with Senate Democratic leaders--if it is a tight vote, and there is a chance to win, then they may only let a few vote the other way if it will help them. They "get permission" basically, before they break ranks. It's not a shock when the votes are tallied. And if they really want to make a point, the whips whip the crap out of them and whip them in line so they vote the right way.

I suggest you read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate. It isn't hearts and flowers ideology going on up there, it's the same compromising, dealmaking, and horse trading that has been going on since the days of the ROMAN senate. It's strategic thinking, with tactical action.

And the moderate Democrats, truth to tell, do not need the left-progressives as much as they did before. They are the opposite of the fundies, on the edge, and they can either get with the program or go vote for Nader. I am not intending any insult, here, so do not take any--this is simply analysis on my part.

The right (D) candidate has a very good chance of tearing off a significant chunk of moderate GOP vote, as well. You may not like hearing that, but it is what they foresee. If more people lose their jobs, if prices go up, we know the GOP will not help the average person, they just love those market forces. But the Democrat will appeal--like Clinton (Bill) did.

I've heard yet.

conflict, it's a coin toss who they will side with.

I'd like better odds than that.

By progressive, I don't mean pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug and multi-cultural hugs. I mean I want to be able to pay my student loans and go to the doctor.

A lot of the moderates you're hoping to snare are actually fairly progressive on economic issues, but they don't see any party voicing what they feel on trade agreements and things like outsourcing.

What are called moderate Democrats often seem to be little more than Republicans with different cultural window dressing.

Those types are sometimes swing voters, also called Reagan Democrats. They vote with their pocketbooks, and worry way less about the social agenda on the platform.

All I am saying is that if the Monkey continues on this course, the Bread and Butter types from the GOP side will become (fill in name of Democratic candidate) Republicans, and also vote with their pocketbooks. The fundies will stay home if the GOP puts up someone too socially moderate to suit them, and the social issues leftists who cannot compromise on a timeline for ending the war will go vote for Nader.

The great middle will go for the candidate who can best preserve their paycheck and their quality of life. In this regard, the Democrats have an edge, because the GOP has had the power, and look what they have done with it?

I'm just looking at it pragmatically, and that is what I see going forward. 06 will give us a better idea of where the sense of the nation is trending.

to fail.

On trade issues, "moderate" Democrats are hard to tell from the GOP.

People in the middle probably vote for Republicans because they can understand what they say they stand for, and they can connect the dots between what they say and what they do, however destructive it may be.

Why would someone vote for a person who says nothing of substance and fights for even less?

Who are these Democratic moderates that you think will appeal to "swing" voters.

You criticize Nader, but if he were a Democrat or Republican, his stance on corporate crime and accountability would look a hell of a lot like that bread and butter populism you are talking about.

You also haven't addressed my Chamber of Commerce issue. It seems that a lot of "moderates" and DLC types are actually bought and paid for by corporate interests as much as the GOP, or like Dianne Feinstein, they are actually using their position to fill their own pockets. I have had some involvement with the very lowest levels of local government, and have been shocked how much even there, elected office is used to throw contracts to friends.

The war is no exception. The Democrats who support it see a way for themselves or their friends or donors to make a buck, a lot of them.

Why exactly do you think someone needs to compromise on a timeline for ending the war? What is to be gained from that?

The "stunts" with the Senate rules and the Murtha-thon in the House have set the GOP back. They are steering the debate from the back seat, nowadays.

I am looking at the big picture over the long haul, and this is what is jumping out at me. Trade issues are important, yes, but not enough people are suffering badly over them yet. The people who are losing their jobs to outsourcing are grumbling and going to work at shitty jobs. They aren't in the streets demonstrating. Not yet, anyway. I am not averring that this might not change, mind you.

Nader may have captured the imagination years back, but now he is a rather wealthy tool of the right. He can't win, he is too old, too rigid, and he gives many people the creeps. Yet he runs anyway, on pure principle (or hubris). Pure principle is fine, but this country is IN EXTREMIS right now, and he could probably do more by framing the debate, helping a Democrat (one that is likely to win) and getting a cabinet job out of it for his efforts. Right or wrong, he just does not have "it" and never will. That makes the GOP happy, because he is one hell of a distraction and a vote siphon for the "I'll take my ball and go home" crowd.

If you think we are going to get corporate interests out of politics, the nation has to support the idea of federally funded elections. Everyone says it is a good idea, but no one checks the block on their tax return, do they? No one likes it quite ENOUGH to insist on it.

And to suggest that all Democrats who "support" the war (I haven't met any, myself, though I do know some who want to phase the withdrawal) are corporate toadies, well, I just can't see that, either. Some remember our history as the moral compass of the world, the nation that helps others, the nation that keeps their promises and does not leave people in the lurch--and that is why they don't want to abandon them. And then there is the Powell Pottery Barn argument--we broke it, we have to patch it back up before we leave. I think most Democrats, save a few that think they are all babykillers, support the troops, but most have serious issues with the war.

I've heard that sense, that we can't just go in there and tear the place to shit and then abandon the people whose lives we've ruined, from people who did not want to go to Iraq in the first place. Even Jack Murtha wants us close enough at hand to go back in if need be. Already the air component is plussing up in preparation for a phased withdrawal of ground forces (even though no decisions have been taken, supposedly, yet). The challenge is how the aircraft will be used, and the question is if they can be used effectively, which I doubt.

If the elections go well, we may be able to escape from that mess, but I am not even hopeful in that regard, honestly. I think our best bet is to get the UN to replace us on the ground. They have peacekeeping down to a science--and they have the credibility, to say nothing of the Arab speakers, to at least transition that place to their own government while keeping the lid on until the military is trained up.

At some point, there probably will be something that looks like a civil war, or the nation will split in three. We do NOT need to be there for that shit when it really gets rolling...

And please stop with the WMD and terrorist boogey man stuff. We've established that it's not true and the Bushies knew it.

If we are honest about the real reasons, we'll be more likely to see how we can get out.

Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)--totally. That was IT. He sure spun a good tale, got the CIA to shut up and not share their intel fully, bullied and theatened people to get his way, and insisted that he was right. He used every trick in the book, he is a con man of the First Order.

I also think the "he tried to kill mah deddy" bullshit came into play, and that was completely personal. For some reason the Monkey feels compelled to one-up his "deddy" at every opportunity. Most kids get over that in their twenties, at the latest, but he has a serious case of arrested development. And we have to watch him play it out on a world stage.

The neocon agenda vis a vis Israel and the 'democratic experiment in the ME' also was a factor, but what was really happening was they wanted another place where they could pump plenty of oil, just in case Saudi Arabia went wobbly. They also wanted to recreate the three pillars strategy of yore with pillars that did not consist of nations, per se, but ideas about how the entire region should be constructed politically.

Last but not least, there is all that religious bullshit (remember the use of the word CRUSADE in the first operations, that was later changed?). I am not certain that he really believes all that shit, but it sure helped him close the deal with the fundies, and he used it to the max.

Had we been spending the past five years working on alternative energy development, we'd be making money with advances in technology, and saving money in energy costs. Because of Iraq, we ARE behind the curve, and it is not gonna get easier to get ahead, I fear. Bush wasted way too much time counting on oil that he can't get out of the ground because some pesky fellows keep blowing up the pipelines. Because of that, I think we are in for hard times for some time to come.

and louder.

I have a feeling that Israel is really the tail not the dog, and we just make it look the other way so we can blame them when things go south.

was not that he would launch nukes against us, but that he would sell or give them to Al Qaeda to use against us, possibly to be used in "dirty bomb" form.

This is why, they argued, war was necessary (among other reasons pointed out by other posters).


Of course, one would need to have WMDs first before one could sell them to anybody...