<p>I also beleive that I will have enough money for my retirement
That Social security won’t fold
and that someday there will be peace in the Middle East
( oh and Clinton didn’t inhale)</p>
<p>Neither did he “have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”…;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because one poster = all Democrats.</p>
<p>“Clueless jokers”…niiiiiiice!</p>
<p>And the Clinton reference…and Monica, all within the first 20 posts. Excellent!</p>
<p>Actually, the tinder box in the Middle East is exploding, and this trip to Armegeddon has been hastened by the Bush adventure in Iraq. Anyone who cheers this is obviously awaiting their “rapture”. There is no sane response to the madness in the ME, particularly the hornet’s nest that the US has stirred up.</p>
<p>Hits the nail on the head:
If only Americans were as sophisticated and well coifed as their Euro-betters…and their fawning admirers in this stump-jumpin’ country of ours, eh?</p>
<p>Latte anyone?</p>
<p>"Let’s be honest; This is something we probably know more about than 99% of the things we rely on as true every day, for those who are willing to accept fact over ideology. Iraq had no functional WMD’s as of 2003. It had no WMD “program” in 2003. "</p>
<p>Kluge, I think this is completely untrue. We don’t have any idea what Saddam had or didn’t have and we don’t know what happened to the components we did know about. And you know what? This is beyond damning of both the Bush and Clinton administrations. As I said before, the history has yet to be written on this sad chapter and I stand by that. You can take cheap shots if you’d like, but it doesn’t make you factually correct.</p>
<p>“The only reason anyone feels differently is a drumbreat of propaganda from talk radio and blogs. I remember a similar survey in mid-2003, when a majority of those who primarily got their information from Fox News thought that the WMD’s had actually been found. Do you think any of those people ever developed the slightest feeling of embarassment or irritation about being misinformed? Or did they ever even realize it?”</p>
<p>What an offensive and condescending post. Really. I don’t even know where to begin to refute it. For the record, I’ve been studying the Middle East for over 20 years. I am very well read both historically and on a daily basis. I have never, ever, not once in my entire life listened to talk radio. I read the NY Times every day, as I read the Wall Street Journal and about 8 other newspapers. One of the big-name foreign affairs reporters at the NYT is a personal friend. (My name is Zoosermom and I’m a news addict.) From all that reading, speaking, listening and studying, I am completely confident that we do not yet know the half of the story about Iraqi WMDs. Most of the relevant documents haven’t even been translated and for that I blame the Bush administration. This is a classic case of not knowing what we don’t know (that means you, too, Kluge). I am not sure what the final story will be, but I am sure that it won’t resemble today’s conventional “wisdom” and people like Kluge who think they are so sure will either have crow to eat or will continue to spread misinformation in an attempt to make their personal fictions true.</p>
<p>zooser,</p>
<p>We do know what Saddam had. We sold a lot of the stuff to him.</p>
<p>The sad part of some of the comments on this thread is how efective the RNC propaganda has been:</p>
<p>To talk about what Saddam wanted to do, what he mighta done, what he coulda done, that the stuff, the WMD might still be hidden there etc. is wonderful rhetoric, because no one can ever dispute it. After all, prove to me the tooth fairy does not exist. You’ve never seen one? You just haven’t looked hard enough. Keep looking.</p>
<p>With all the real problems we now face, none of which are new (a reminder for those of you who only read Rove missives: N. Korea is still around, reactors running, making more plutonium every day…Iran, backed by Russia, is gearing up. Oil is at record prices and Saudi Arabia none too stable…), keeping in mind that, unlike the claims for Iraq, that Saddam wants to build WMD etc., even though he didn’t, these countries don’t just want to, they’re doing it, why we wasted time in Iraq is beyond me.</p>
<p>Peace, freedom and democracy? Yea, great result. Just ask the Iraqis.</p>
<p>Zoosermom: with all due respect, the jury is not really out on this one.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/</a></p>
<p>Newmassdad posts: “To talk about what Saddam wanted to do, what he mighta done, what he coulda done, that the stuff, the WMD might still be hidden there etc. is wonderful rhetoric, because no one can ever dispute it. After all, prove to me the tooth fairy does not exist. You’ve never seen one? You just haven’t looked hard enough. Keep looking.”</p>
<p>And you can’t prove the reverse. AGAIN, we don’t know what we don’t know and to presume otherwise is just, frankly, silly. It is entirely possible and, I think, likely that we will one day know what happened to Saddam’s programs. The documents exist, the witnesses exist. We aren’t talking about ancient Greece here, guys. If you’re trying to imply that I believe WMDs existed in the manner/amount stated by the administration, please stop because I have said nothing of the sort. I have said very specifically: “we don’t know.” That’s it. Dispute that.</p>
<p>“With all the real problems we now face, none of which are new (a reminder for those of you who only read Rove missives: N. Korea is still around, reactors running, making more plutonium every day…Iran, backed by Russia, is gearing up. Oil is at record prices and Saudi Arabia none too stable…), keeping in mind that, unlike the claims for Iraq, that Saddam wants to build WMD etc., even though he didn’t, these countries don’t just want to, they’re doing it, why we wasted time in Iraq is beyond me.”</p>
<p>You are more than entitled to hold your opinion, you are more than entitled to hold your own values and priorities. What you aren’t entitled to do is make statements that can not yet be validated or disproven. The case against not the war in Iraq is a powerful one (and you don’t know my view on that although some people seem to be assuming) and history is currently bearing out some of the objections. But, again, you don’t know what will happen tomorrow or the next day or the day after, you just don’t. I take a much longer view of history than some of you and I could be condescending and obnoxious about those people, but I choose not to. This is one of those issues where there are important facts on both sides and your (collectively) choice to pick and choose and create final determinations much too soon is a tad juvenile and unserious. (Ok a little condescending and obnoxious. Sorry!)</p>
<p>“Zoosermom: with all due respect, the jury is not really out on this one.”</p>
<p>Garland, with all due respect, of course it is. But if it gives you comfort in your worldview to think you know all there is to know about an important and evolving matter, then you should take that comfort. Perhaps five years out when the documents have been translated, the fighting ended, and the investigation concluded you will re-open your mind and see what is instead of what you hope to be. I don’t presume to know what the whole story is and I have no horse in that race. I just want to know what really happened. Even if I don’t like it, even if the facts break my heart. I want to know, not just to assume.</p>
<p>Am I the only one (FundingFather where are you?) who finds it pricelessly amusing that people who spew about the RNC, Fox News, etc. are, themselves, repeating the DNC talking points and have much in common with the folks on Democratic Underground? Arguments with no basis in fairness and little basis in fact but they just KNOW these things because, after all, they’re on the side of right!</p>
<p>Zoosermom–I obviously added the link as evidence to explain what I meant. I wasn’t just idly speculating. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.</p>
<p>I don’t think that presenting an objective article backing up my assertion should have earned such a snarky rejoinder, and I was very surprised,and dismayed, to get one from you.</p>
<p>Garland, I’m sorry if you took the post as snarky, I really am. It wasn’t intended that way but sometimes on message boards it’s hard for sincere feelings to come through. I read the link but I don’t think it proves anything since it’s so old and the situation is changing so much. There is ample proof that WMDs (by definition) WERE found in Iraq relating to the timetable and there are also some very serious questions that have yet to be answered. My point is and always has been exactly what I said. No one yet knows the whole story. No one. I’m really surprised that such on-the-ball people as yourself have rushed to judgment when so much is left uninvestigated and unsearched, so many witnesses are un-interviewed and so many documents are untranslated. It seems to me (and I’m sincerely not being snarky here) that the only people who could be sure that they know what Iraq had or didn’t have and planned or didn’t plan are people who have affirmatively chosen to find “facts” to support that position for reasons of their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>newmassdad, just for the record, here is the way your fellow Democrats talked about Iraq. They were just as sure of the WMD threat as you are of the Korean nuclear threat. It’s just that now these weasels don’t have the backbone to stand behind their pre-war rhetoric:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
No the irony is not lost on me one bit. I find it alternately highly amusing and very sad.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–that the CIA concluded back in 2004 that there were no WMDs and that we subsequently gave up the search doesn’t seem to have been nullified by any credible sources I can find since.</p>
<p>There is some unsubstantiated speculation of theoretical WMDs moved to Syria prior to the war, but no evidence of their actual existence or any evidence found by inspectors before, during, or “after” the war to show any records of them, labs, etc.</p>
<p>If these weapons did in fact exist, and that seems extremely doubtful, then the fact that they are now moved from a country which was loaded with inspectors and hampered severely by sanctions to another country which does not have those restrictions would seem to be a catastrophic error on our part. I sincerely hope that is not the case.</p>
<p>If I had something to hide, I’d give it to Bin Laden.</p>
<p>Garland posted: “Zoosermom–that the CIA concluded back in 2004 that there were no WMDs and that we subsequently gave up the search doesn’t seem to have been nullified by any credible sources I can find since.”</p>
<p>The 500 rounds did, in fact, meet the definition of WMD and we do know that the Bush administration has been (why?) dragging its heels on translating thousands and thousands of documents, and we also know that only a small portion of Iraq has been investigated. I’m not saying and never have said that the administration’s case was accurate, but I am saying and will continue to say that it’s too soon for a final judgment.</p>
<p>“There is some unsubstantiated speculation of theoretical WMDs moved to Syria prior to the war, but no evidence of their actual existence or any evidence found by inspectors before, during, or “after” the war to show any records of them, labs, etc.”</p>
<p>We don’t know all of what records exist yet and I hope with all my heart that we never find out with absolute certainty that Syria has Iraq’s WMD’s because we wouldn’t find out in a good and happy way.</p>
<p>“If these weapons did in fact exist, and that seems extremely doubtful, then the fact that they are now moved from a country which was loaded with inspectors and hampered severely by sanctions to another country which does not have those restrictions would seem to be a catastrophic error on our part. I sincerely hope that is not the case.”</p>
<p>Pre-war Iraq may have been loaded with inspectors, but it is abundantly clear that the inspectors weren’t inspecting. Thus the UN Resolutions. I also think, in light of Oil for Food, that sanctions were no longer holding and couldn’t be relied upon. Garland, I can understand that you will disagree, but please understand that my disagreement with YOU is not an attack in any way.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–I have always found you to be a thoughtful poster. I am think it’s very useful to discuss facts about issues. I do see this differently; we’ll just have to disagree on our interpretations.</p>