The Great Politics Thread (Split from Campaign Thread)

[_Moniker]

Oh, Powell says his speech is a "blot" on his record. I remember my parents going to get duct tape and plastic sheets and I still rib them about that. The country was in a state of panic and hysteria -- really. Ripe for whatever Bush said. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt... but I still wasn't convinced. I was, quite frankly, at that time, more concerned about North Korea than I was Iraq.

Oh PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE Moniker. We had just been attacked and 3,000 innocent Americas killed on our own soil. What hysteria? Within a year at least half the country had forgotten it. It took a full year to get into Afghanistan and get the retaliation under way. What panic and hysteria are you talking about? Funny, I don't remember any such thing, not even a faint hint of it.

Really? Well you must have had your head in the sand. The American people were told to prepare for a chemical attack. To buy duct tape and plastic sheets (puhleez indeed) to protect them from this. Recall the little light weight plane that was going to be remotely controlled that would hiss poisonous gases on us? I remember that! But then again, it's been established that my memory is just better then yours, I suppose.

Wishful revisionism of this kind destroys credibility as fast as lightning. WE WERE ATTACKED ON OUR OWN SOIL WITH CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES! There should have been something near hysteria, but there was not.

What do you define as hysteria? The public was terrified -- TERRIFIED that there was going to be another attack on our soil! We were told that there probably would be and it would be chemical in nature. That did not cause terror? Yes it did, Coggins! It CERTAINLY DID! Do you recall seeing the first plane that flew overhead after 9-11? I recall staring at it. My friends recall seeing one too -- it was freaky -- we were SCARED!

And the reason there was little if anything resembling "hysteria" is because many of us have simply become to anesthetized by our seemingly endless peace and prosperity to really even care about something like 9/11. If it didn't really effect our pocketbook or the planned vacation at Disneyland, why worry?

Right, and it certainly helped that we were TOLD to go prepare ourselves for some sort of chemical attack that didn't cause concern or fears? No one wanted to fly. Sooo... you're saying now that we should have been scared senseless? So which is it, Coggies? SHOULD we have been freaking out or should we not have? Sure, as a country we did feel rather inoculated from attack on our own shores. Yet, the public's reaction was anything but calmed and reasoned. It was FEAR. I'm not saying that wasn't appropriate -- my point is that during that vulnerable state Powell was sent up to tell the American public and the world that to protect ourselves we needed to invade Iraq.

Good heavens Moniker, going to war to protect and defend us against our sworn enemies is one of the last things government is doing that's actually in the Constitution. Indeed, that's the primary fuction of government. The real reason so many are against the war is really cultural; many of the American people, after generations of uninterruped wealth, prosperity, leisure, peace, and the pursuit of the good life, just don't want to be bothered with it.

Its such a hassle.

Coggins, don't lecture me on the purpose of government. I'm already aware. Yet, good people (that already understand that purpose to protect as THE fundamental purpose) can disagree about how to best meet that purpose. No?

[_Coggins7]

Somehow I knew, I just knew, that coggins would insist that Iraq really did have something to do with 9/11 after all.

You've jumped the shark, coggins.

No Beastie. What these articles indicate is that you have utterly failed to educate yourself on these matter at all, and are, for all intents and purposes, completely out of the loop. Probably 90% or your beliefs regarding the war and Bush's motivations have their origins in the fever swamps of MoveOn.org, The Daily Kos, Mother Jones, and the queen mother of useful idiocy, Cindy Sheehan, exactly as I said and whether you patronize those venues or not.

The Al Quada connection to Saddam goes back to at least 1993, according to the CIA and other interesting intelligence sources, and Clinton had that intelligence long before Bush did.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4yqqnr.asp

Now, its time to start doing some more, in depth, broad based, serious reading, and turn off CNN. Get away from the mainstream media and start looking at some of the substantive alternative intellectual resources out there and begin doing your own thinking. Letting Katie Couric do your thinking for you is only going to reduce your credibility further when you take positions such as the one's you have taken in this thread.

[_Coggins7]

Really? Well you must have had your head in the sand. The American people were told to prepare for a chemical attack.

Just wondering Moniker, what access to U.S. intelligence did you have at the time that would have indicated to you that such attacks were not, in fact, being planned?

What do you define as hysteria? The public was terrified -- TERRIFIED that there was going to be another attack on our soil!

Uh...Why shouldn't they have been?

Right, and it certainly helped that we were TOLD to go prepare ourselves for some sort of chemical attack that didn't cause concern or fears?

Good, now, after watching the twin towers collapse in flaming cascades of fiery rubble, you're position, if I understand it correctly, is that the government should not have warned its citizens to prepare for possible further attacks, even if it had good reason to suspect more were imminent. Is that an accurate depiction of your position?

It was FEAR. I'm not saying that wasn't appropriate -- my point is that during that vulnerable state Powell was sent up to tell the American public and the world that to protect ourselves we needed to invade Iraq.

A perfectly reasonable claim at the time, considering what the intelligence was saying about him. But, uh...Moniker...in point of fact, we attacked Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Coggins, don't lecture me on the purpose of government. I'm already aware.

Are you? That's good to hear.

Yet, good people (that already understand that purpose to protect as THE fundamental purpose) can disagree about how to best meet that purpose. No?

Yes. But people like me are going to demand intellectual seriousness when one does disagree (and some degree of education on the fundamental facts on the matter, as well as an indication that one has listened to and digested points of view from different perspectives) not conspiracy theories about cabals of scheming capitalists, Zionists, Neocons, Masons, Illuminati, Satanists, Bilderbergers, or ex members of the Skull and Bones Society seeking to conquer the oil fields of the Middle East for Exxon Mobile and Rupert Murdoch and force all Palestinian Arabs into indentured servitude at McDonald's (and that of course, would involve a conspiracy to feed transfatty acids to Palestinian children, fulfilling the genocide against the "Palestinian people" Beastie says was the forté of George Bush senior). I will listen to serious, intellectually substantive, measured, reasoned criticism of George Bush. l have a number of them myself.

I will not abide the alternatives.

[_Moniker]

Really? Well you must have had your head in the sand. The American people were told to prepare for a chemical attack.

Just wondering Moniker, what access to U.S. intelligence did you have at the time that would have indicated to you that such attacks were not, in fact, being planned?

I trusted my government to provide me with facts. They related the concern of SMALLPOX (recall that one? woop! That was fun!), biological and chemical warfare. YOU said there wasn't hysteria! I'm relaying what the public was told that intensified that hysteria. Now I'm not saying the administration intentionally lied to the American public. My point was that during this fear and hysteria the case was made that it was VITAL to invade Iraq to save us from the imminent assault.

What do you define as hysteria? The public was terrified -- TERRIFIED that there was going to be another attack on our soil!

Uh...Why shouldn't they have been?

Coggins, do you even remember what you wrote less than an hour ago? You're all over the place.

Right, and it certainly helped that we were TOLD to go prepare ourselves for some sort of chemical attack that didn't cause concern or fears?

Good, now, after watching the twin towers collapse in flaming cascades of fiery rubble, you're position, if I understand it correctly, is that the government should not have warned its citizens to prepare for possible further attacks, even if it had good reason to suspect more were imminent. Is that an accurate depiction of your position?

knock! Knock! Helllooooo? Did I say that? Nope. I say during this state of fear that the case was made to invade Iraq. Get it?

It was FEAR. I'm not saying that wasn't appropriate -- my point is that during that vulnerable state Powell was sent up to tell the American public and the world that to protect ourselves we needed to invade Iraq.

A perfectly reasonable claim at the time, considering what the intelligence was saying about him. But, uh...Moniker...in point of fact, we attacked Afghanistan, not Iraq.

We didn't invade Iraq? Holy fricken hell -- I've been tripping for the last few years. This explains soooo much!

Yet, good people (that already understand that purpose to protect as THE fundamental purpose) can disagree about how to best meet that purpose. No?

Yes. But people like me are going to demand intellectual seriousness when one does disagree (and some degree of education on the fundamental facts on the matter, as well as an indication that one has listened to and digested points of view from different perspectives) not conspiracy theories about cabals of scheming capitalists, Zionists, Neocons, Masons, Illuminati, Satanists, Bilderbergers, or ex members of the Skull and Bones Society seeking to conquer the oil fields of the Middle East for Exxon Mobile and Rupert Murdoch and force all Palestinian Arabs into indentured servitude at McDonald's (and that of course, would involve a conspiracy to feed transfatty acids to Palestinian children, fulfilling the genocide against the "Palestinian people" Beastie says was the forté of George Bush senior). I will listen to serious, intellectually substantive, measured, reasoned criticism of George Bush. l have a number of them myself.

How bout this? I have a degree in the relevant field and still stay abreast of political theory. I haven't been spouting conspiracy theories -- pot? Kettle? You're talking about Jews and what not -- which have what to do with WHAT precisely? Oh wait! I'll start talking about the evil of the 60's and the decline of western civilization and I'll be in like flynn, rightio?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Somehow I knew, I just knew, that coggins would insist that Iraq really did have something to do with 9/11 after all.

You've jumped the shark, coggins.

No Beastie. What these articles indicate is that you have utterly failed to educate yourself on these matter at all, and are, for all intents and purposes, completely out of the loop. Probably 90% or your beliefs regarding the war and Bush's motivations have their origins in the fever swamps of MoveOn.org, The Daily Kos, Mother Jones, and the queen mother of useful idiocy, Cindy Sheehan, exactly as I said and whether you patronize those venues or not.

The Al Quada connection to Saddam goes back to at least 1993, according to the CIA and other interesting intelligence sources, and Clinton had that intelligence long before Bush did.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4yqqnr.asp

Now, its time to start doing some more, in depth, broad based, serious reading, and turn off CNN. Get away from the mainstream media and start looking at some of the substantive alternative intellectual resources out there and begin doing your own thinking. Letting Katie Couric do your thinking for you is only going to reduce your credibility further when you take positions such as the one's you have taken in this thread.

Cogs,

This is the point at which people start ignoring you...because we've literally heard your rants against the Left (and your definition of "the Left" is quite encompassing) a thousand times.

Did you come out of the womb anti-Left or did you have to suck it out of your mother's nipple?

[_beastie]

Coggins,

There is no need to link me to various right wing sites which claim that iraq really was involved with 9/11, I am completely aware of the fringers like you who insist that this is so despite the fact that credible research into the issue, notably the 9/11 commission, found that there was no connection. All these "connections" others state are as solid as the yellow cake assertion. Certainly members of Al Qaida may have stayed in Iraq for periods of time, but Saddam, above all else, was a secular dictator who was determined that his power would not be encroached or threatened, so the idea that he actually would join with the religious jihadists - who could be a threat to him as much as us - is ludicrous.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun16.html

For god's sake, even Bush has admitted that there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, although he still tries to create the illusion that saddam was in cahoots with al qaida (based on his reasoning, so were we, since we trained bin laden in afghanistan).

And yes, the fact that Bush selected people with close ties to the project for american century is evidence of what he always intended to do, combined with the fact that he moved very quickly to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11. No, I don't expect you will ever admit it, although I have no idea why, except you're loathe to admit I'm right about something. For heaven's sake, you think invading iraq was the right thing to do, so there appears to be no other reason to fight reality.

Your insistence that Iraq was really involved in 9/11 is based solely on right wing nutjobs who defy even the reality bush has been forced to admit constitutes "jumping the shark", where you've gone beyond any semblance of logic, reason, or the hope of either. This is why I knew that "talking" to you about it would be the equivalent of trying to "talk" to a radio permanently set on the most extreme right wing basher (akin to michael savage).

by the way, the source for my assertion that the "higher father" supported genocide of other tribes is the Bible.

[_Mister Scratch]

Coggins,

There is no need to link me to various right wing sites which claim that iraq really was involved with 9/11, I am completely aware of the fringers like you who insist that this is so despite the fact that credible research into the issue, notably the 9/11 commission, found that there was no connection. All these "connections" others state are as solid as the yellow cake assertion. Certainly members of Al Qaida may have stayed in Iraq for periods of time, but Saddam, above all else, was a secular dictator who was determined that his power would not be encroached or threatened, so the idea that he actually would join with the religious jihadists - who could be a threat to him as much as us - is ludicrous.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun16.html

For god's sake, even Bush has admitted that there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, although he still tries to create the illusion that saddam was in cahoots with al qaida (based on his reasoning, so were we, since we trained bin laden in afghanistan).

And yes, the fact that Bush selected people with close ties to the project for american century is evidence of what he always intended to do, combined with the fact that he moved very quickly to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11. No, I don't expect you will ever admit it, although I have no idea why, except you're loathe to admit I'm right about something. For heaven's sake, you think invading iraq was the right thing to do, so there appears to be no other reason to fight reality.

Your insistence that Iraq was really involved in 9/11 is based solely on right wing nutjobs who defy even the reality bush has been forced to admit constitutes "jumping the shark", where you've gone beyond any semblance of logic, reason, or the hope of either. This is why I knew that "talking" to you about it would be the equivalent of trying to "talk" to a radio permanently set on the most extreme right wing basher (akin to michael savage).

by the way, the source for my assertion that the "higher father" supported genocide of other tribes is the Bible.

(emphasis added)

You guys are wasting your time. Coggins, time and time again, links to sites such as "thefrontpage," without pulling up any actual quotes at all (this is why I have said that he would likely fail his introductory college writing class), and then says he's "just warming up." Will he ever actually be "performance ready"? Cause I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, I'm sure we can all go on weeping about his plight---i.e., the fact that he isn't respected or apparently even liked by his Mopologetic peers. He is so caustic and whacked out that even the MADites want nothing to do with him. Maybe he will one day wake up to these various flaws in his character. One can only hope.

[_Coggins7]

I trusted my government to provide me with facts. They related the concern of SMALLPOX (recall that one? woop! That was fun!), biological and chemical warfare. YOU said there wasn't hysteria! I'm relaying what the public was told that intensified that hysteria. Now I'm not saying the administration intentionally lied to the American public. My point was that during this fear and hysteria the case was made that it was VITAL to invade Iraq to save us from the imminent assault.

False. No such claim was ever made. The claim was made that Saddam needed to be removed from power before he became an imminent threat. You're claim is mainstream media mythology disseminated by the usual suspects. President Bush never even used the term in making his case for the War. Here is the relevant part of his 2003 State of the Union Speech:

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 3rhzvm.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8fmxyz.asp

And, as Jacob Laskin reported at Frontpagemag.com:

Lie #2: “Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat.”

Opponents charge the Bush administration with trumping up the case for war by casting Iraq as an “imminent threat.” Claims Rep. Dennis Kucinich, “This administration led this nation into a war based on a pretext that Iraq was an imminent threat, which it was not.” Sen. Robert Byrd seconds this assessment, saying, “(Bush) presented an imminent threat to the United States.” The Center for American Progress, headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, has carried on a determined campaign to prove that the administration did in fact use the phrase, “imminent threat” to make the case for war. The closest the leftist think-tank came to conclusive evidence was a February 10, 2003. remark by White House spokesman Scott McClellan: “This is about an imminent threat.” But while the quote is reproduced faithfully, its context is not. A review of the press conference transcript shows McClellan’s comment was directed to a specific question—about Turkey, not Iraq.

In fact, White House officials took great pains to stress that Saddam Hussein’s regime must not be allowed to become an imminent threat. The president’s 2003 State of the Union Address accented this very point. “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,” Bush said. “Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

Not surprisingly, the war’s critics, generally eager to use the administration’s words against it, have shied away from referencing the president’s address. Thus, the myth of the “imminent threat” faces no imminent threat. Just last Friday, Detroit Free Press liberal columnist Brian Dickerson groused that “Iraq has failed to live up to its billing as an imminent threat to U.S. security.” Lost on Dickerson is the fact that it was never billed as one—and that, thanks to the intervention of coalition forces, it never will be.

If you've got a degree in the relevant area Moniker, don't you think you should be above making mistakes such as this? You clearly have gotten virtually all of your knowledge of this issue from the mainstream pop media, and have not seriously pursued the issue across other relevant and competent points of view from other substantive sources.

knock! Knock! Helllooooo? Did I say that? Nope. I say during this state of fear that the case was made to invade Iraq. Get it?

History lesson 101: America went into Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001 in direct response to the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not invaded until March 20, 2003. Bush's State of the Union speech, which laid out the case for war to the general public, was made in January of 2003, over two years after the Twin Towers attacks, and long after any alleged "hysteria" had long returned to working toward retirement at the country club and worrying about whose next to get voted off of the island.

If this is your attempt at political and social history, please color me, respectfully, unimpressed.

I said:

A perfectly reasonable claim at the time, considering what the intelligence was saying about him. But, uh...Moniker...in point of fact, we attacked Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Moniker retorts:

We didn't invade Iraq? Holy fricken hell -- I've been tripping for the last few years. This explains soooo much!

Read my frickin' posts Moniker. Of course we invaded Iraq...over two years after 9/11. I'm pretty sure you don't have reading comprehension problems, so there's no need to try to score points in this manner.

How bout this? I have a degree in the relevant field and still stay abreast of political theory. I haven't been spouting conspiracy theories -- pot? Kettle? You're talking about Jews and what not -- which have what to do with WHAT precisely? Oh wait! I'll start talking about the evil of the 60's and the decline of western civilization and I'll be in like flynn, rightio?

Those are Beastie's take on the issue, I never said they were yours.

[_Coggins7]

6yu

[_Coggins7]

There is no need to link me to various right wing sites which claim that iraq really was involved with 9/11, I am completely aware of the fringers like you who insist that this is so despite the fact that credible research into the issue, notably the 9/11 commission, found that there was no connection.

Not even a nice try Beastie, and just as I suspected. What you have just finally demonstrated is that you are a typical left winger with the typical, standardized, formatted, CBS Evening News formed and flaked views on matters of which otherwise you know virtually nothing.

As its clear you didn't bother reading the essays at the links I posted, you still know next to nothing, and probably always will, because looking hard and at depth at the facts and evidence pokes holes in your politics and world view. But, it is only you yourself who have placed yourself in the position in which world views and beliefs are so easily perforated by reality.

The 9/11 Commission is ancient history. Only the barest fractioln of the documents captured since the initial invasion have been translated, and many that have have yet to become publically available. You cannot possibly make the claim that there was no connection because, had you read the essays at the links I posted, you would understand that:

1. There is substantial evidence of such links from multiple sources.

2. Our own government knew of such links at least as early as 1992 (from the earliest days of the Clinton administration to the beginning of the Bush administration)

3. Only the smallest fraction of the documentation has been translated and analyzed.

All these "connections" others state are as solid as the yellow cake assertion. Certainly members of Al Qaida may have stayed in Iraq for periods of time, but Saddam, above all else, was a secular dictator who was determined that his power would not be encroached or threatened, so the idea that he actually would join with the religious jihadists - who could be a threat to him as much as us - is ludicrous.

This is long discredited mainstream media hokum. Go back and throughly read the essays and analysis I linked to. Oh, and by the way, the Yellow Cake assertions still stand; neither British any other intelligence sources that brought that claim forward have ever backed away from it. Its status is unproven, but solid intel.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Start doing your homework Beastie. The conversation is over until you educate yourself on the subject. The dubious Washington Post is editing, abridging, and carefully filtering its reporting, as it and the rests of the pop liberal media have always done. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. I've already long ago done mine from both sides of the Left/Right divide. You patently have not, and are relying strictly upon sources that validate your already existing prejudices. Typical Liberal: only avail yourself of sources that tell you what you want to hear.

And yes, the fact that Bush selected people with close ties to the project for american century is evidence of what he always intended to do, combined with the fact that he moved very quickly to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11.

Logically, all this indicates, at best, is that Bush sought out people who held a philosophy generally compatible with his own...what all President's do. It is inferentially evidence of nothing beyond this. Iraq was not invaded until over two years after 9/11, which is evidence that Bush may have taken quite a while to work out in his own mind just what the policy toward Iraq should be.

No, I don't expect you will ever admit it, although I have no idea why, except you're loathe to admit I'm right about something. For heaven's sake, you think invading iraq was the right thing to do, so there appears to be no other reason to fight reality.

Beastie, the Al Qaeda/Iraq connections, more than a few, have already been substantiated and settled; they are a part of political and social history. The U.S. government knew of the connections in the early 90s, and documentation and intel coming out of Iraq has done nothing but confirm that relationship. Stand back from the Washington Post and start exploring some other substantive sources of information from alternative points of view. Your getting your information, as I suspected, from highly politicized and ideologically interested sources that pretend to be the objective reporting of news. My sources, scholarly, journalistic, and polemical, are interested, but above board and clear about their bias. Big difference. Frontpagemag.com is hardly fringe (this just indicates your utter ignorance of the existence of any intellectual world outside of the Washington Post/Good Morning America northeastern media elite High School clique that is the mainstream news media.

Your insistence that Iraq was really involved in 9/11 is based solely on right wing nutjobs who defy even the reality bush has been forced to admit constitutes "jumping the shark", where you've gone beyond any semblance of logic, reason, or the hope of either. This is why I knew that "talking" to you about it would be the equivalent of trying to "talk" to a radio permanently set on the most extreme right wing basher (akin to michael savage).

All intellectual credibility or seriousness has just vanished, once and for all. Stephen Hays, a "nutjob"? David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Victor Davis Hansen, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Kagan?

This is precisely why the Left, and the Democratic Party that is its institutional face, have moved well beyond rational discourse and into little more than a pure quest for power and domination of the culture through any means other than the marketplace of ideas.

They have no ideas to market.