Novak names names in Plame leak case

Parent Cafe
121

<p>"You miss my point entirely, we haven’t changed anything except now some of our children are getting killed or maimed in the mix. </p>

<p>Yes Sadam is a bad man. the world is full of them, what people should we free next?"</p>

<p>Opie, I agree that the US cannot be the world’s policeman. However, that is the price and the burden that the most powerful nation on earth has to bear. All eyes are always turned towards us and all our actions -our inactions- scrutinized or loudly criticized. </p>

<p>History is not written in a few years; it will take time to sort out if the invasion -or liberation- of Iraq was a collosal blunder or an epic strategic masterpiece. We can only speculate what could have happened to the region without the military presence of the US in Iraq. Would a weakened Iraq under a stressed Saddam have been able to resist to an Iranian attack or further intrusion of terrorists being chased from neighboring countries? </p>

<p>We’ll never know the answer to such scenarios. However, one fact remains undeniable is that there have been no direct attacks on the US since 9/11, while they multiplied under our former ultra-insular policies that included futile negotiations and lack of attention to a developing enemy.</p>

122

<p>zoos,</p>

<p>“No I don’t think all the news services would possibly allow that to become public knowledge. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about the amount of stuff initially described by the Administration. I think that the stuff was there, the capability was there.”</p>

<p>Remember new today is entertainment, the idea that they would willing withhold anything that would give them ratings is suspect. Look at the NY times…:slight_smile: The only things I saw that were considered chemical delievery systems was shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war. They were considered unoperational due to rust and time. They found like 4-5 shells. What was more of a concern was finding the ammo dumps full, not guarding them and returning to find them empty. Most of the roadside bombs are probably mcgyvered devices with components from those ammo dumps. </p>

<p>“I think it’s pretty clear, based on UN reports that sanctions were eroding pretty quickly. I also think that the Oil for Food scandal was a large cause of that. The UN simply can not be trusted with something this important.”</p>

<p>The thing is and was WE (the US) were there, not the UN enforcing the no fly zone and the borders. Sadam had no way to move his armies anywhere without OUR permission or a better word allowance. </p>

<p>Remeber there were Americans involved in the food for oil thing as well. Three American companies got oil notes to lobby congress on behalf of Iraq. Kinda funny change Sadam to Abrahoff and things still line up. The UN thing is no different than some of our own follies. true?</p>

<p>“I’m not even sure how Whitman hooked up with this administration in the first place. Perhaps because she’s a woman? She was always out of step with the administration. That relationship was always going to end badly.”</p>

<p>She was a hot topic as a woman gop er. They are quick to embrace, just as quick to distance anybody who they think can help. </p>

<p>“It’s that deficeit that bothers me and the fact that China is funding our war by buying up our debt. They are our largest creditor. We have sworn to help defend Tawian. What happens when our largest creditor invates our ally? Who do we owe?”</p>

<p>“Brilliant question. You are quite the one for interesting and provocative questions.”</p>

<p>Well, gee thanks. It’s just being aware of the ripple effect a decision has on other seeming nonrelated subjects. Something might be done with the best intent towards one issue and create another fire elsewhere without intention.</p>

123

<p>“Remember new today is entertainment, the idea that they would willing withhold anything that would give them ratings is suspect. Look at the NY times.”</p>

<p>Ewwww. Do I hafta? Kidding. I do read it.</p>

<p>“The only things I saw that were considered chemical delievery systems was shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war. They were considered unoperational due to rust and time. They found like 4-5 shells.”</p>

<p>500 were found recently, as well as some other stuff. Bear with me on that, though. </p>

<p>"What was more of a concern was finding the ammo dumps full, not guarding them and returning to find them empty. Most of the roadside bombs are probably mcgyvered devices with components from those ammo dumps. "</p>

<p>True, that.</p>

<p>“I think it’s pretty clear, based on UN reports that sanctions were eroding pretty quickly. I also think that the Oil for Food scandal was a large cause of that. The UN simply can not be trusted with something this important.”</p>

<p>"The thing is and was WE (the US) were there, not the UN enforcing the no fly zone and the borders. Sadam had no way to move his armies anywhere without OUR permission or a better word allowance. "</p>

<p>I don’t think his armies were the issue and, as you said, we were in the no-fly zone and the borders. Those are relatively small areas.</p>

<p>“Remeber there were Americans involved in the food for oil thing as well. Three American companies got oil notes to lobby congress on behalf of Iraq. Kinda funny change Sadam to Abrahoff and things still line up. The UN thing is no different than some of our own follies. true?”</p>

<p>So if Americans are involved, it’s ok and not dangerous? I don’t think corruption, anywhere, mitigates danger.</p>

124

<p>"exigge,</p>

<p>{Opie, I agree that the US cannot be the world’s policeman. However, that is the price and the burden that the most powerful nation on earth has to bear. All eyes are always turned towards us and all our actions -our inactions- scrutinized or loudly criticized. }</p>

<p>The price and burden is to use that power wisely. It wasn’t. “Bring it on” is not a wise use of power. </p>

<p>{History is not written in a few years; it will take time to sort out if the invasion -or liberation- of Iraq was a collosal blunder or an epic strategic masterpiece. We can only speculate what could have happened to the region without the military presence of the US in Iraq. Would a weakened Iraq under a stressed Saddam have been able to resist to an Iranian attack or further intrusion of terrorists being chased from neighboring countries? }</p>

<p>Sorry this really isn’t correct, you imply that we weren’t there. HEY we were all over the neighborhood, in Sadui, Kuwait, Afganistan, satelite, in the air and on the water. We also easly could reach the middle east from europe and aisa. We had a presence there, it wasn’t a empty spot in the world where the US lacked a presence. We were already there with enough force and the ability to bring in additional forces quickly to keep the nonsense locked into each country’s border. Iran didn’t spew the garbage the last decade they do now. Now they know we would have to institute a military draft to invade and hold both Iran and Iraq, they aren’t so afraid of us now because we’re tied up elsewhere. And by removing Sadam (their ememy) we’ve allowed Iran to influence activities in Iraq that they couldn’t have done before we invaded and they didn’t have to fire a shot. You don’t think they have anything to do with the civil war in Iraq? </p>

<p>{We’ll never know the answer to such scenarios. However, one fact remains undeniable is that there have been no direct attacks on the US since 9/11, while they multiplied under our former ultra-insular policies that included futile negotiations and lack of attention to a developing enemy.} </p>

<p>Would that be the current admins lack of attiention? :slight_smile: This really is a straw arguement. We’ve never had ultra insular foriegn policies, C’mon. We’ve had our hand in so many cookie jars that when we get caught it just means they missed the other 10-20 things we got away with. And that applies to both parties. C’mon.</p>

125

<p>Oppie said: "You asked if Iraq would be better off with Sadam still in power? The answer is “yes”. "</p>

<p>Rather than presume what the Iraqis think, how about if we ask them? Well, as it turns out someone did ask them this exact question:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The result: 91% of the Kurds said it was worth it; 98% of the Shia agreed and (surprise, surprise) only 13% of the Sunni agreed. So, before you presume to know how the Iraqis feel about pre and post-war Iraq based on what you see on the network news, you should keep these results in mind. Kind of gives you a whole new perspective of how bad things were under Saddam.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf[/url]”>http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

126

<p>

And there haven’t been any cougars around here since I starting whacking these two sticks together, either…</p>

<p>(Parent Trap, 1998 :))</p>

127

<p>{“The only things I saw that were considered chemical delievery systems was shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war. They were considered unoperational due to rust and time. They found like 4-5 shells.”</p>

<p>500 were found recently, as well as some other stuff. Bear with me on that, though. }</p>

<p>That’s my point on what qualifies as a WMD. Those shells even if in working order could only inflict limited battlefield damage. We used gas air bombs that could incenerate life for around a square mile. Those weren’t considered WMD’s. A chemical weapon isn’t necessarily a WMD, especially in an artillery shell. It may have the same killing field as a 150 mm round, it’s just with chemical, you can find the bodies. </p>

<p>“I think it’s pretty clear, based on UN reports that sanctions were eroding pretty quickly. I also think that the Oil for Food scandal was a large cause of that. The UN simply can not be trusted with something this important.”</p>

<p>{“Remeber there were Americans involved in the food for oil thing as well. Three American companies got oil notes to lobby congress on behalf of Iraq. Kinda funny change Sadam to Abrahoff and things still line up. The UN thing is no different than some of our own follies. true?”</p>

<p>So if Americans are involved, it’s ok and not dangerous? I don’t think corruption, anywhere, mitigates danger.}</p>

<p>No, I wrote this to note that greed knows no one country or party.</p>

128

<p>fundingfather,</p>

<p>Here’s the rub, I don’t care what the Iraqis thought of Sadam, that’s their business. Things are bad under alot of leaders around the world and statistics and polls are just a way to prove your arguement, not fact, just a guess. Should we poll the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans as well? </p>

<p>How many American kids are you willing to commit to make people in other countries “happy”? </p>

<p>And actually had you read the question in the post I WAS SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, NOT THE IRAQI PEOPLE. I made no premise one way or the other that they were or weren’t happy with the result. I would venture to guess there’s at least 50,000 who can’t be polled who might disagree with the results. </p>

<p>MY concern is for the sons and daughters of fellow Americans who in order to validate your poll, have had to give either their lives or limbs. </p>

<p>While I admit that might be selfish, the reasons we entered and will have to stay a long time were not enough for me. Unless of course we as a people decide it is our responsibility to use our troops to correct any preceived wrongs of governments around the world. We could move from continent to continent establishing military bases in countries whose political systems we don’t agree with. We could leave when they form an American style democracy. No wait, we tried that along time ago along with France and England and the Dutch. :)</p>

129

<p>opie,</p>

<p>Actually, chemical artillery shells (the size is 155mm in the good old days, as well as 105mm. The 155s weight about 100 lb and the 105 about 38 lb, gas, housing and all) are LESS effective than high explosive in most circumstances. Unless you have ideal conditions: 20C, medium humidity, no wind, chemical shells are not so great. When I had access to the weapons data, I realized that I would be MUCH more likely to live having a chemical shell land nearby than a high explosive shell. </p>

<p>If you’ve ever used malathion in your garden, you’ve sprayed nerve agent. Yes the malathion is optimized for bugs, not people, and is less lethal against people, but not by as much as you think. It is the same chemical family.</p>

<p>Here’s a good link about fuel-air munitions, with a little video. <a href=“http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm[/url]”>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Yes, these things are nasty. In Gulf I, where I had a relative serving, I was told the pull back distance (safe distance) was over 1 KM.</p>

130

<p>Newmassdad,</p>

<p>Thanks, yea I thought someone mentioned experience with artillery previously. That’s what I thought as well about chemical rounds. It pretty much would have to land right on top of you, where a conventional round would do immediate harm just by hitting within it’s killzone. </p>

<p>I think for some the idea of a chemical weapon is much more frightening than a regular type of round. Probably because it sounds worse. I was under the impression that artillary has killed more soldiers than any other munition in war. Is that correct? </p>

<p>I’ll take a look at the site you listed. I’ve seen that one gas bomb they used …wow. Also the mini munitions bombs are pretty impressive too. As I said I guess it depends on the definition of what a WMD really is.</p>

131

<p>Not quite on top of you. If you were on the downwind side, got cauht in the spray when a chemical round detonated etc., you’d have a problem.</p>

<p>The reasons and advantages of chemical weapons are complex. The threat of their use does the most damage. It is more difficult to do anything when you’re in chemical protective gear. Just ask anyone from the early days of the Iraq war. </p>

<p>Historically, artillery has been a primary weapon because it’s a standoff weapon - it can be used from afar. Consider that the standard 155 howitzer can fire 25 km. That’s like firing from the lower tip of manhattan and hitting the GW bridge. Now the trend is toward rockets because they can put even more explosive on a target in a short time.</p>

<p>Anyway, it is not by accident or stupidity that terrorists, as well as the military, rely on high explosive weapons over chemical. HE just works better. </p>

<p>Consider the case in Japan a few years ago. Aum Shinrikyo did mulitple releases of Sarin nerve gas under ideal conditions in a crowded subway underground. How many died? 12. The rest recovered. If it had been a series of parcel bombs, you could expect a much higher death toll, not to mention the injured and dismembered - permanently.</p>

<p>So yea, calling chemical weapons WMDs is convenient political fiction, but not really connected to reality.</p>

<p>Yes, some of our “normal” weapons, like fuel-air munitions (a big one is informally called the mini-nuke), cluster bombs and the like ARE WMDs but the story just does not work politically. Who would want to admit we used WMDs ourselves in Iraq and Afganistan?</p>

132

<p>"500 were found recently, as well as some other stuff. Bear with me on that, though. "</p>

<p>Um, weren’t found recently, and this has been debunked by the pentagon, etc, as not being WMD nor anything we claimed we went in to get:</p>

<p>Pentagon officials quickly dismissed the recently declassified report by telling “reporters the shells are old and inactive, dating from the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s and that the shells are not the weapons of mass destruction we were looking for when U.S. forces went into Iraq.” </p>

<p>“All the chemical weapons found to date were manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and have been found in ‘small numbers’ in various places.”
“The munitions are ‘generally in poor condition’ and ‘are not in condition to be used as designed.’”
“[M]ilitary and intelligence agencies had no evidence of unconventional weapons produced in Iraq after 1991 or of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that President Bush and other top administration officials cited as a potential threat in justifying the invasion in 2003.”</p>

<p>Theres more, but even when the pentagon says this wasn’t them, people still choose to throw out that information to buck up their points</p>

133

<p><a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2188959[/url]”>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2188959&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Plame sues Cheney, Libby and Rove, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.</p>

134

<p>Well, now, this could get interesting…</p>

135

<p>

So what you are saying is that Saddam was being a humanitarian when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, killing thousands of them at a time. Kind of a warning shot as it were, to let them know that if he gets really mad he would use conventional weapons on them.</p>

136

<p>Kluge asked: Zoos - the only post I found in the DHS thread was about “Bushcronium” - is that the one you find offensive</p>

<p>I never indicated that I found any post offensive. I did mention that there was one that poked fun at republicans. It was, in fact, funny. I can laugh at myself and my party 'cause sometimes we’re hilarious. And sometimes democrats are a laugh riot too.</p>

137

<p>

Intentionally so? : )</p>

138

<p>Citygirlsmom raved: “Theres more, but even when the pentagon says this wasn’t them, people still choose to throw out that information to buck up their points”</p>

<p>Perhaps you could have waited for me to post a specific reference before you took your cheap shot.</p>

139

<p>Susantm commented: “Well, now, this could get interesting…”</p>

<p>On so many levels! I read the complaint and it’s pretty amusing. Rather than suing, the Wilsons should be giving LIbby, Rove and Cheney a cut of the money they’ve earned since being lifted out of anonymity. I hope Mr. and Mrs. Wilson are deposed and I hope we find out who is paying their legal bills. If it turns out to be Soros or some such, can we then compare Ms. Plame to Paula Jones? I wonder when Penthouse (or was it Playboy?) will come calling.</p>

<p>{{rubbing hands together and cackling with glee!!}}</p>

140

<p>Fountain Siren asks: “Intentionally so? : )”</p>

<p>How many democrats have you met with a sense of humor about themselves? Quick. No thinking about it. Hmmmm. Ok. Give up? : )</p>