Have WMDs been found in Iraq?

[Bullet]

<p>Bed Head. Very astute analysis in post #82. But please allow me to provide MY interpretation. Feel free to debate as you see fit, because the more we talk and analyze the issue based on facts, the more enlightened we all become.</p>

<p>

1. The War was fought for ideological reasons that are about the political landscape in the Middle East and not about direct security threats to Americans on American soil – i.e. to install a democracy in the Middle East that would be friendly to our nation and spur democratization in that part of the world. This was argued by Wolfowitz and others. Bush bought into this vision and this is why we went to war. Other reasons were thrown into the mix to justify the war publicly.

</p>

<p>A little off IMO. Iraq was a pain in the side of the West for a decade when Bush II came to power, and most importantly a pain in one of the most strategically significant regions of the world. Removing Sadam, who was actively defying us, albiet on a limited basis, removed a possible threat to this strategic region. Installing democracy was a side benefit; we remove the threat and replace it with something more to our liking. But we wouldn’t have given a flying rat’s patootie about what happened in that country if it was in say S. America or Africa. No, the possible threat Sadam posed to our oil supply put it right on the front burner to this administation.</p>

<p>

2. The threat Iraq posed was trumped up by the Administration. The Administration stampeded Congress – both Dems and Republicans – into supporting their position, and Congress let itself be stampeded. Blame sits with all those who let themselves be stampeded without being skeptical; however, the vast preponderance of blame sits with Bush, Cheney and the rest of his Administration for pursuing an unnecessary war and doing so for false reasons.

</p>

<p>Concur</p>

<p>

4. Iraq under Saddam did not collaborate to any important degree at all with the Al Qaeda forces that were responsible for 9/11. Saddam did pay off suicide bombers prior to our invasion, but these were to attack Israel and they were not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s rise in Iraq was purely a function of our invading there. People who suggest fighting in Iraq was motivated by an effort to take the fight against the 9/11 to the terrorists to the enemy are either lying or misunderstand entirely what is going on in that country.

</p>

<p>Concur somewhat. The loud drumbeat presented by those against the war saying “Iraq was not involved in 9/11” was THE reason a few actually believed it did. The Bush administration was always careful to say, “Iraq has the will and and is planning to do something like 9/11. We need to prevent that from happening again.” And just imagine if Sadam DID provide terrorists witht he capability to attack Israel. Do you think Israel would just let it slide without escalating the issue into possible regional conflict? And do you think we would just stay on the sidelines if this occured? The issue was the Bush administration was not so forthcoming in actually telling us the true capability of Iraq to carry out it’s plan.
Let’s not forget, we had our nose bloodied in a rather embarrassing and tragic way. The Bush administration, rightfully so, vowed to do everything in its power never to let something like that happen again. Al Queda was only a part of the problem. The threat from all Islamic Extremists was the core issue. ALL OF THEM had in some way to be dealt with. Those against the war at the time confused the issue when THEY used the arguement that Iraq wasn’t responsible for 9/11. The administration failed in getting out the message “of course they weren’t, but that doesn’t mean others can be just as bad as a threat to America”
Was the potential for the threat there? Absolutley, but not as imminent as the administration made us to believe. </p>

<p>But they thought, perhaps correctly / perhaps not, that the ends justified the means. They were also very enthusiastic for a military solution. The saw first hand how successful it was in 90, and how “easy” it seemed. It should have been; we’ve spent trillions over the decades to have the best quality military in the world by far. They ultimately forgot that while the combat operations phase was and should have been a cake-walk, the next phase, post-conflict, is just as tough and just as important, and can’t be solved by military means alone. We were doomed to failure in this phase when Rumsfeld’s blusteringly trumped Powell in Bush’s circle of trust, and cut off the State Department’s efforts at the knees.</p>

<p>

When people suggest that we need to stay to fix Iraq, they don’t realize that our presence alone is one of the reasons why Iraq remains broken in the first place. When people argue for staying the course, they tend not to acknowledge that the course we adopted is one we have already failed at – we are no longer trying to install democracy. We are not staying the course at all. We have chosen a different course which is to limit the damage caused by our initial stupidity of invading the country. We are hoping for an outcome that will involve a unified Iraqi government and that will enable us to declare some kind of a victory.

</p>

<p>We finally come to what I feel should be the meat of this arguement: what do we do NOW? You’re absolutely right, our current strategy isn’t helping the situation. I absolutley hate the phrase “stay the course”; too simplisitc and confuses the situation. Let’s say we’re a football team in a big game (I know, also a pretty simplisitc analogy). We plan for weeks for the big game, only to get through the first half down by 14 and it being obvious our gameplan isn’t working. We have three options: stay the course (continue with the same gameplan), just stay in the locker room for the second half and call it a day, change our gameplan. I would prefer we choose option three. </p>

<p>Of course our objectives have changed. That have to change to meet the changing situation. I beleive we need to keep our ultimate goal, a free and stable Iraq, but we need to adjust our strategy to get there.</p>

<p>So, IMO, what should we do now? 1) Bush needs to go before the Iraqi people and HUMBLY ask for their forgiveness. Admit we made mistakes that put them in danger. But remind them our intentions were noble, and promise them we wil not stop helping them until we fix it. Notice I said “not stop helping them” over “leave”; let the IRAQIs decide if they want our military presence, let them vote on it. I’m pretty sure they can see it would be in thier best interest to keep our military presence there as BACK-UP for now until their country is ready to defend itself. But promise them that the moment they feel they can go it alone, we’ll pack up and go (and leave the campground tidier than when we arrived). 2) Actually come through on the promise. Use ALL of our power (diplomatic, informational, economic, and military) to ensure the country achieves a managable state of affiars. Let’s not do our standard “we’re gone, and so is our interest in you” routine. It would only make the matter even worse. Getting all of our troops out within the next 12 months is too dangerously close to going down this path, IMO, and risks alienating theregion even more.</p>

<p>Is it going to be tough to accomplish? You betcha, and it unfortunatley it will cost us more invalauble resources, both in money and blood. But unfortunatley it is a price we still need to pay for now to make the situation right in the rest of the world’s eyes. We broke it, we need to fix it…</p>

[kluge]

<p>Bullet, what you say makes a lot of sense. The problem I see is here:

let the IRAQIs decide if they want our military presence, let them vote on it.

Substitute “Yugoslavians” or “Czechoslovakians” for “Iraqis” and you see the problem. Iraq may not be a viable nation without someone like Saddam (or us) holding it together by force. To really appreciate the “Pottery Barn” analogy is to understand - it really is broken. It might have broken eventually anyway, but as it happens - we broke it now. Can the pieces - Shiite, Sunni, Kurd - be successfully put back together again? I’m not sure that speaking of “the Iraqi’s” deciding anything is a meaningful concept. I’m not sure “the Iraqis” is a meaningful concept.</p>

<p>Reminds me of the story of the Tar Baby.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

A little off IMO. Iraq was a pain in the side of the West for a decade when Bush II came to power, and most importantly a pain in one of the most strategically significant regions of the world. Removing Sadam, who was actively defying us, albiet on a limited basis, removed a possible threat to this strategic region. Installing democracy was a side benefit; we remove the threat and replace it with something more to our liking. But we wouldn’t have given a flying rat’s patootie about what happened in that country if it was in say S. America or Africa. No, the possible threat Sadam posed to our oil supply put it right on the front burner to this administation.

</p>

<p>Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was one of the key proponents of the attempt to “democratize” Iraq as a way to establish a secure core within – and transform the – Middle East so that it would secure our strategic objectives: the security of oil supplies and the security of Israel being our two main interests in that region. What you said and what I said are in essential agreement and the rest is a difference of semantics, IMO. You can look all this up. This is the vision that Bush bought into. It was a highly rosy prospect – i.e. they’d greet us with flowers as liberators and democracy would magically unfold the secure our objectives for us. Wow, what were they smoking, is what I thought at the time.</p>

<p>

So, IMO, what should we do now? 1) Bush needs to go before the Iraqi people and HUMBLY ask for their forgiveness. Admit we made mistakes that put them in danger. But remind them our intentions were noble, and promise them we wil not stop helping them until we fix it. Notice I said “not stop helping them” over “leave”; let the IRAQIs decide if they want our military presence, let them vote on it. I’m pretty sure they can see it would be in thier best interest to keep our military presence there as BACK-UP for now until their country is ready to defend itself. But promise them that the moment they feel they can go it alone, we’ll pack up and go (and leave the campground tidier than when we arrived). 2) Actually come through on the promise. Use ALL of our power (diplomatic, informational, economic, and military) to ensure the country achieves a managable state of affiars. Let’s not do our standard “we’re gone, and so is our interest in you” routine. It would only make the matter even worse. Getting all of our troops out within the next 12 months is too dangerously close to going down this path, IMO, and risks alienating theregion even more.

</p>

<p>A beautiful vision that forgets a couple of things, the first being that George Bush would never admit such a mistake. The more important one, though, is that you assume that all Iraqis would speak with a unified voice. This is the problem, and this is why it was stupid to do what we did by invading the country. The Shi’ites want control, the Kurds want essentially sovereignty, and the Sunnis don’t want to get screwed out of a piece of the oil revenues and they want security and economic opportunity. I have of course over-simplified this, but it’s already quite complicated as I put it.</p>

<p>Regarding all this, it is a very hard thing – and here comes the Kerry question – to ask a man to be the last one to die for a policy mistake. It becomes politically untenable to tell people that a huge error was made, but that we want to send off more young men/women to die to correct that error. That is something quite less grand than asking people to, in a big picture kind of way, “serve their country.”</p>

<p>You are right. Whatever happens won’t be pretty. But remember who has the lion’s share of the blame for driving us into this ditch. Unfortunately, given the short attention span of the electorate, whoever presides over the unwinding of the problem will be blamed in the press and the populace for their hard and wrenching work. However, always, the blame will fall on the legacy of Bush and his Administration and to a lesser extent the ennabling Congress.</p>

<p>Thanks for your kind words, by the way.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

Please. The truth is much simpler and shorter. The Middle East has always been about oil. Carter was in bed with the Saudis before any Bushes or Clintons.

</p>

<p>Almost. The Middle East is about oil AND Israel. Absent these two factors, we wouldn’t really care about this part of the world. And that’s why the Bush Administration cooked up this “democratizing scheme” to secure our interests there. Great idea.</p>

[Bullet]

<p>Kluge, BedHead,</p>

<p>I see your points on how fractured Iraq is and how difficult, if not ludicrously impossible, it would be to get the country to act as one. Perhaps I am a touch overly optimistic in the human condition and the power of goodwill to accomplish what would ultimatley be in everyone’s best interests. Heck, I can’t even get my kids to agree on anything, and their deep rooted hatred of each other and self-motivated view of right and wrong is only slightly lower than the situation in Iraq! :)</p>

<p>It may be delusional of me, and I know the costs will be high, but I know in my heart we have to try. Why, because I also know it would be delusional of ALL OF US to believe that if we leave now, the country will somehow settle it out on its own in a way that won’t drag us back into an even bloodier mess. We could use Vietnam as an example of “we left it alone and look, things didn’t turn our so bad”, but we also need to remember that Vietnam isn’t sitting on the throat of the world’s oil supply. It could have blown up in a million pieces and we would have read about it in our morning papers while sipping coffee and thought little more about it than saying “what a shame”. Iraq goes kablooie, and drags the rest of the region with it, and things will get “interesting” for us all.</p>

<p>And BedHead, I agree with you that Bush will never admit to the mistakes his administration made. All the more that I am now embarrassed and ashamed that I once was his supporter. I still see the reasons we did what we did; a little humility on his part to admit to some HUGE mistakes would have been nice, and IMO, would perhaps regain some respect internationally. BUt then again, when was the last time we’ve seen ANY politician admit guilt? not in this day and age, which is a shame. </p>

<p>And BTW, thanks to both of you for debatng this is the spirit that I always hope all issues should be covered here in the Parent’s Cafe. Not one “you a pansy idiot! No, you a war-mongering jerky-head!” amonst us. Bravo! :)</p>

[mini]

<p>“Mini, are you referring to an absence of intellect or no information at all?”</p>

<p>There was not a shred of intelligence that suggested that: 1) Saddam was building stockpiles of WMDs - all the evidence that existed said he was destroying them (under U.N. supervision in some cases), though all the leftover weapons from the Rumsfeld Handshake hadn’t been destroyed yet, and there was no way he was going to announce the destruction of WMDs and risk invasion by Iran; 2) Saddam had a program to manufacture WMDs; 3) Saddam had a plan for a program to produce WMDs; or 4) That Saddam had a plan or program for use of WMDs that was an “imminent threat”. Not one shred of evidence for any of it. Clinton/Tenet manufactured it whole cloth, and sold it to the so-called “experienced Democrats”, all of whom called for war, voted for the illegal Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and started the war with Iraq with the bombings of December 1998. Post-December 1998, there was only one source of “intelligence” to both the U.S. and other nations on these issues - “Curveball” - and he was entirely discredited by the summer of 2002.</p>

<p>I think there is a far greater chance of peace if the U.S. removed its presence in its entirety and quickly. The Kurds will take care of themselves. The government will slant heavily toward Iran (as it already does); the Sunnis will lose out, but they’ve already been walled in by the U.S. policy of “ethnic cleansing”. The U.S. doesn’t fear civil war in Iraq (in fact, I don’t think the U.S. cares one wit about Iraqi lives, not with 4.4 million refugees starving, and a million widows already created, and a million people, half of them children, killed by Bill Clinton); what it fears is a democratically elected pro-Iranian government that can, in fact, achieve peace, and control its own oil revenues.</p>

[Bullet]

<p>OK, here it comes. Wait for it – drum roll please: Mini, for the most part, I agree with you! (ducks under desk for the expected “house comes crashng down around me!” ) The fear of a pro-Iranian ruling body in Iraq is a major factor. And I do believethis ruling body can establish a relative peace (after it completes a blood-letting on a scale that would put the numbers you provide above look like a church picnic).<br>
But who knows if that relative peace would remain only in the borders of Iraq, or would this new strengthened coalition become more emboldened to engage in policies to actively influence the region? Would that even be a bad thing in the big picture? (or maybe a better question would be: “should we really care”) An interesting debate. </p>

<p>Who-da thunk it? This former die-hard republican actually thinking a little like an isolationalist! Shows you what 8 years of embarrassing leadership can do to one man’s opinion! Where is that link to the Ron Paul 08 web-site? (OK, just joking, I ain’t THAT desperate yet!)</p>

[mini]

<p>Of course, they will try to influence their region - it is THEIR region! That’s like asking whether the U.S. tries to influence policy in Mexico…or Cuba.</p>

[mini]

<p>So…if the U.S. left Iraq, they would have been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, booted out of Iran, turned tail in Lebanon, and have no significant bases left in the Middle East. And no friends…except for Israel.</p>

<p>And Israel knows it, which is why they might choose to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Because if they did so, Iran would send short-range missiles raining down on U.S. bases in Iraq. In turn, the U.S. would feel obligated to stay and fight. Israel would thus control the shots.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, McCain still can’t tell a Shiite from a Sunni.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

I think there is a far greater chance of peace if the U.S. removed its presence in its entirety and quickly. The Kurds will take care of themselves. The government will slant heavily toward Iran (as it already does); the Sunnis will lose out, but they’ve already been walled in by the U.S. policy of “ethnic cleansing”. The U.S. doesn’t fear civil war in Iraq (in fact, I don’t think the U.S. cares one wit about Iraqi lives, not with 4.4 million refugees starving, and a million widows already created, and a million people, half of them children, killed by Bill Clinton); what it fears is a democratically elected pro-Iranian government that can, in fact, achieve peace, and control its own oil revenues.

</p>

<p>Wow, I am agreeing with Mini here. Well, not that I disagree with him often, but I emphasize different things.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is exactly why our invasion of Iraq was stupid. If, as it now appears, we were also concerned about Iran, we have now paid incredible amounts in lives and dollars to strengthen Iran’s hand. Good going.</p>

<p>I agree: we need to get out of there. It will be hard to face the fact that we can’t control what happens there and that we will end up at a disadvantage compared to our position there before.</p>

[Bullet]

<p>

So…if the U.S. left Iraq, they would have been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, booted out of Iran, turned tail in Lebanon, and have no significant bases left in the Middle East. And no friends…except for Israel.

</p>

<p>Mini, the permanent member base housing project is going quite well in Qatar as we speak, seeing as we have signed the 99 year lease with them. A rather nice little drop off point even more conventiently located than Saudi. And you’ve conveniently forgotten the amount of equipment we currently have staged in Kuwait, almost enough for an entire Corps to fall on. I won’t even mention the 3 carrier wings within a few hours striking distance of ANY point in the Middle East (oops, guess I did). Saudi wanted us out, we glady obliged because we found cheaper, and friendlier digs. </p>

<p>And you also have to remember that part of the reason we stay engaged in the area is to ensure that Israel doesn’t feel backed into a corner and decides to use the example you talk about above. Why do you think they’ve shown much restaint in regards to the Iranian nuclear facilities so far? The other reason, and why we care about what goes on there more than we do Mexico and Cuba, because the world’s economy, of which YOU get to enjoy as a member of the biggest player, depends on it. Because of the strategic significance, we HAVE to worry about what goes on there. Trust me, if the next generation of factories and vehicles ran on Koala bear poop, we’d be asking Australia for an increase in port visits by our Nvy as we speak.</p>

<p>And if Cuba or Mexico had ANY strategic significance to the US outside of our inability to get a good cigar and cheap labor, do you really think we would not have acted by now? Let Fidel and his brother have all the 4-hour speeches against the Evil Satan U.S. he wants, who cares outside of Miami? Oh yeah, we did once, when they allowed nuclear capability to be placed in our backyard. And how long did Kennedy sit on that piece of info before acting. Oh, about an hour.</p>

<p>And Suzzettel, nothing alcoholic today, but I did have a great time at DS’s grad party last night! Gaza? Small potatoes in the bigger picture of the area. The oil ports are clear on the other side of the Saudi peninsula for this to be a strategic issue to us. Now, if the tankers were parked in their neighborhood, we would anchor a carrier group right off the coast. Tragic events? Certainly, and we must ensure that if violence starts is stays in that location alone. Will we send the 82d Airborne to intervene if it stays in gaza alone? Not on a long shot.</p>

[mini]

<p>I haven’t forgotten anything. It’s only a matter of time before our owners kick up out of our next set of temporary digs. </p>

<p>I think it is the IRANIANS who have have shown massive restraint thus far. The U.S. has armed and trained and encouraged their enemies - first Saddam Hussein, then Sunnis in Iraq, and the Israelis - all of whom have a major track record of aggression. If I were the Iranians, I would be building nuclear weapons just as quickly as I could.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think the Israel/Palestine conflict is solvable. Really. But what isn’t immediately solvable is that in 35 years, within current borders, Israel will have an Arab majority.</p>

<p>Oh, I understand the “national strategic interests” involved (remember, I worked for the U.S. government in Iran). That’s why Clinton tried to topple Saddam and committed genocide to begin with. Bush’s invasion was simply the second stage of the hot war begun with the aerial bombing of 1998. But it was short-term thinking: consider the two trillion dollar cost of the war, reinvested, and we wouldn’t require ANY Middle East oil, we’d have free health care for all those uninsured, the Social Security “problem” solved, our infrastructure repaired. </p>

<p>There are “other interests” that supersede those of the American people.</p>

[Bullet]

<p>Suzettel, my party is the American people. When they call upon the military to protect their strategic interests, its my butt on the line in the front. I have a vested interest in understanding what the strategic issues are, and understanding the realtions between them and why our national policies sometimes seem a little not to your liking. I followed an entirely different party’s line when I was over Iraqi airspace dodging bullets in the 90s. </p>

<p>I don’t question either party (which I thank goodness for. I would NEVER want our military to get involved in policy decisions. I want Civilian leadership deciding when to unleash the dogs of war.). I salute sharply and carry on with the mission the party in charge says I need to do.</p>

<p>Seems to me the you’re one espousing party lie here. I am just trying to explain why that particular piece of this planet stay sso high in our interests. Goodness knows I’ve visited that piece of gosh-foresaken dirt too often, and don’t want to go back again. But that is not my call.</p>

[Bullet]

<p>Mini, quite frankly, I agree with you (falls out of chair). We do need a better long range plan, and we’ve relied on our military strength too long to hold back anyone in that region form getting “uppity”. Trust me, I would love to see a a stronger diplomatic effort, as I’m pretty sure it is not even worth the effort to prevent Iran from espousing plans for a more significant role onth eworld stage (and I agree with you (a second time! In one post!) that keeping Israel from acting unilaterally to a percieved threat is a primary reason we are there).</p>

<p>I also don’t think that if we didn’t go to war we would suddenly be flush with two trillion extra dollars to solve all our other problems. Remember, we borrowed that money in supplemental budgets. Tragic shame and burden we are putting on future generations. But I don’t think we would have borrowed two trillion to ensure everyone has health care and our roads were freshly paved.</p>

[hops_scout]

<p>I find it interesting that the United States has bases throughout the world, but other countries don’t have bases in the United States…</p>

[mapesy]

<p>Great discussion!</p>

<p>But what about the scenario the Bush administration is reportedly pushing for? According to the Christian Science Monitor, the administration wants the same kind of agreement in Iraq that governs the US military presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Prime Minister Maliki, the Kurds, and some Shiites in the ruling coalition also reportedly want some kind of long-term US military presence in Iraq. What might be the future strategic impact of such an accord?</p>

<p>Much as I personally favor getting the US military out of Iraq quickly and completely, I can understand the reasons some think we should stay longer. In addition to what Bullet has already discussed, what would stop the Iraqis from nationalizing their oil industry? We’ve already seen what happened when Iran announced it was nationalizing its oil assets in the early 1950s. Some people even believe the roots of modern terrorism can be found in this overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran by CIA and British agents.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>What would nationalizing their oil industry really accomplish against us? They still need to sell the oil to the market whether the beneficiary is a company or the state, if they want to get value from that oil.</p>

<p>The deal of which you speak – that the supposedly is similar to our other agreements elsewhere – has been summarily rejected by the Iraqis, it is being reported by the Associated Press.</p>

<p>Classic Bush Administration move, I might add. They deny they are pursuing such a deal and then it comes out they were pushing for something to be ratified by the Parliament.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>^^^It’s really sad that we can’t believe anything the Bush administration says. You’re right, BedHead—it’s got Cheney written all over it.</p>

<p>(It occurs to me that previous US presidential administrations were perhaps equally deceptive, but the explosion of the availability of information on the internet in recent years has made it much more difficult to deceive the public.)</p>

<p>

What would nationalizing their oil industry really accomplish against us? They still need to sell the oil to the market whether the beneficiary is a company or the state, if they want to get value from that oil.

</p>

<p>It could threaten the hegemony of the US dollar. Some believe the US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is more significant in preserving America’s global dominance than is our overwhelming military strength. </p>

<p>In recent years, the US has fought increasing momentum in the international community to denominate oil in euros. To counter such a move, it’s been rumored that the US wants to create a new oil car cartel of some African and Middle Eastern countries to replace OPEC. Such a move would be impossible if the US didn’t have geo-strategic control of significant oil reserves in the Middle East or Africa. If the Iraqi government were to announce it is denominating oil in euros, some experts believe the value of the dollar would immediately drop 20-40%.</p>

<p>Why should anyone believe the Iraq government might denominate oil in euros? Last year, Iraqi officials wanted to diversify some of their financial reserves out of the US dollar into euros because of the increasing international perception that euros are more likely to hold their value. The US Treasury nixed the idea because they thought it might show lack of confidence in the dollar. The Iraqi government complained loudly that the consequence of the American refusal to allow them to diversify into euros cost them $5 billion USD.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>^^^One of the reasons the US wants a strong dollar is to continue to attract foreign investment in US government debt instruments. Here are some scary numbers:</p>

<p>-Foreign ownership of US public debt is 25% of the total.</p>

<p>-Of debt held by the public in 2006, 44% was held by foreigners (debt held by the public is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments.)</p>

<p>-Central banks of foreign countries held almost 66% of the above 44%, with central banks from Japan and China owning the most US government debt.</p>

<p>If there is a shift to a euro-denominated oil market, US debt instruments will likely prove far less desirable to foreigners. The Asia Times Online says all Beijing has to do is mention the possibility of a sell order of US debt and it would devastate the US economy more than any nuclear strike by the Chinese.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Wash Post column on Congress report on Bush “lies”.</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]</p>