But they never learn ...

[boutons_]

August 26, 2006

Hizbollah Expected "Limited Damage"

By REUTERS
Filed at 9:54 a.m. ET

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The magnitude of the Israeli response to Hizbollah's cross-border operation in July took the Lebanese guerrilla group by surprise, Hizbollah deputy leader Naim Qassem said in an interview published on Saturday.

Qassem told an-Nahar daily that Hizbollah had expected an Israel attack at some stage as part of a joint plan with the United States but it had no indication it would come in July.

``We were expecting the Israelis would respond at the most by bombing for a day or two or some limited attacks or targeting certain places, such that it would not go beyond three days and some limited damage,'' he said.

After Hizbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers on July 12, Israel started bombing Lebanon's civilian infrastructure in a one-month war which displaced more than 900,000 people.

Israeli attacks killed close to 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and did damage worth billions of dollars. Israel lost 157 people, mostly soldiers inside Lebanon.

Qassem said: ``Frankly we were surprised by the great size (of the Israeli response) and by this serious attack.''

Two days after the war began, Hizbollah learned that Israel and the United States had been planning an attack in September or October. U.S. media have also said the United States was enthusiastic about Israeli plans to strike at Hizbollah.

``Israel was not ready. In fact it wanted to prepare for two or three months more, but American pressure on one side and the Israeli desire to achieve a success on the other ... were factors which made them rush into battle,'' Qassem said.

( does anybody have any other sources for this? If true, the US pressured the UK into acting on the now seriously questioned plane bombers and may have compromised the UK into losing crucial evidence, and then, if true, pressured Israel into attacking Hezbollah. Are the Repugs involved in an election campaign or something? Whatever it costs to advance Repug partisan political power (to keep enriching the rich) is OK. )

The Israeli army said it would not comment on the state of its planning at the start, saying this was a ``political matter.''

( their self-critique about how poorly they performed has been public. With Hezbollah's tactics and fortifiations exposed, I expect the Israeli "Fire Next Time" will be very different. )

Leading up to the war, the Israeli government showed little public interest in Hizbollah, focusing on isolating Hamas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/hamas/index.html?inline=nyt-org) after the Islamist group won Palestinian elections and on a now-shelved plan to reshape the occupied West Bank.

Soldiers returning from the front say training in recent years focused too much on dealing with action in Palestinian streets, not on fighting a more formidable force like Hizbollah.

The Hizbollah official said the guerrilla group would co-ordinate with the Lebanese army as it moves into parts of south Lebanon dominated by Hizbollah.

But Hizbollah will not give up the concept of resistance against Israel, on the grounds that Israel continues to occupy the Shebaa farms region, holds Lebanese prisoners and overflies Lebanese territory almost every day.

``The justifications for ending it (resistance) are not yet there. When we agree on a defense plan to confront Israel, defining the job of the resistance, the army and the Lebanese people, then we will see what the rules and roles are,'' he said.

( IOW, Hezbollah/Syria/Iran will keep trying to destroy Israel )

The Shebaa Farms is a small patch of land claimed by Lebanon, but occupied by Israel since it captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war. The United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) deems the territory Syrian until such time as Syria cedes it to Lebanon.

[Jamtas#2]

"( does anybody have any other sources for this? If true, the US pressured the UK into acting on the now seriously questioned plane bombers and may have compromised the UK into losing crucial evidence, and then, if true, pressured Israel into attacking Hezbollah."

I'm not saying this can't be true, but considering that it was the leader of Hizbollah giving this information (and un-named US Media, whomever that may be) I would not give it too much credibility.


" Are the Repugs involved in an election campaign or something? Whatever it costs to advance Repug partisan political power (to keep enriching the rich) is OK. ) "

Given that you admitted that you were unsure as to the validity of the previous statement, making a comment like this is uncalled for. I have read many of your posts and understand you don't like republicans. Do you think that making a case for why you believe the Democrats to be better party is strengthed by throwing mud, or is going to change people's minds? Has someone ever convinced you to change your point of view or stance on something by insulting you, your point of view or what you believe in? By doing nothing but bash "Repugs" you are playing into the very partisan politics you are speaking out against.

[boutons_]

"why you believe the Democrats to be better party"

Why do you make that erroneous assumption?

Why do you switch a reference to this current group of famously, indispuatably corrupt, dishonest, incompetent Repugs to your own reference about the Dems?

I'm not talking about the Dems. While you weren't looking, it has been exclusively the Repugs fucking up the world the last 6+ years.

What I say here is totally inconsuqeuntial, but I'm flattered by you thinking otherwise.

What the Repugs/WHIG do causes 10's of 1000s of deaths of innocent people and 100s of $B wasted, with mortal, criminal repercussions in human lives and world stability for years to come.

[Obstructed_View]

I always find it amusing that liberals seem to believe that if they repeat something enough times and ignore the facts that refute it that it becomes "truth".

[boutons_]

Do you mean like dickhead repeating the Saddam-WTC lie?

Do you mean WHIG repeating the Saddam-has-WMD lie?

Do you mean all the Repug slimebots repeating the Iraq-war-equals-terror-war lie?

[Jamtas#2]

Why do you make that erroneous assumption?
I will admit that this came not from this post, but from what I have read of your posts in other topics. I apologize for addressing it here if it caused confusion.


Why do you switch a reference to this current group of famously, indispuatably corrupt, dishonest, incompetent Repugs to your own reference about the Dems?

I don't believe I strayed from topic too much here. My point was how does your method of debate change anyone's view. The above description, IMO, describes politicans across the baord. I don't favor either party.


I'm not talking about the Dems. While you weren't looking, it has been exclusively the Repugs fucking up the world the last 6+ years.

Exclusively? Come on. Are you going to tell me that only Republicans take bribes and help big donors also? I know you can't mean that.


What I say here is totally inconsuqeuntial, but I'm flattered by you thinking otherwise.

Why post then? If you think your opinions to be inconsequntial, others will as well.


What the Repugs/WHIG do causes 10's of 1000s of deaths of innocent people and 100s of $B wasted, with mortal, criminal repercussions in human lives and world stability for years to come.

Is this your view of all Republicans or the current administration?
Please remember, I made my comments because you took a comment from a man who viws our country as an enemy and made a statement about the administration that relies on his statement to be true. If someone you don't like tells you one of your friends stabbed you in the back would you just start getting angry at your friend, or find out if it was true before you reacted? Do the same thing here is all I ask.

[valluco]

I always find it amusing that liberals seem to believe that if they repeat something enough times and ignore the facts that refute it that it becomes "truth".
Yeah, the GOP never ever does that now do they? :spin

[Nbadan]

I'm not saying this can't be true, but considering that it was the leader of Hizbollah giving this information (and un-named US Media, whomever that may be) I would not give it too much credibility.

You’re probably right; Israel has had this plan on the books for at least a year. It certainly didn't need any provocation by the U.S. Neo-Cons on how to act, but I seriously doubt that when PM Omert called the WH to tell him of his decision to bomb the Lebanon infrastructure in retaliation for the captured IDF troops, the administration had many real reservations with their plans. Also, what happened to the leaflets? I thought the Israelis dropped leaflets for a week before they started bombing the roads, airports, and bridges? I guess not.

[01Snake]

You’re probably right; Israel has had this plan on the books for at least a year. It certainly didn't need any provocation by the U.S. Neo-Cons on how to act, but I seriously doubt that when PM Omert called the WH to tell him of his decision to bomb the Lebanon infrastructure in retaliation for the captured IDF troops, the administration had many real reservations with their plans. Also, what happened to the leaflets? I thought the Israelis dropped leaflets for a week before they started bombing the roads, airports, and bridges? I guess not.

How about those Hezbolla leaflets? Oh wait, they don't need to send anything. They are free to launch rockets 24/7 right Dan?

[Nbadan]

How about those Hezbolla leaflets? Oh wait, they don't need to send anything. They are free to launch rockets 24/7 right Dan?

Intentionally targeting civilians is wrong no matter what side does it. That said, I believe that it was the Israelis who claimed they dropped leaflets for a week before destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, not Hizbollah.

[boutons_]

BBC NEWS

Nasrallah sorry for scale of war

Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.

He added that neither side was "heading towards a second round" of fighting.

More than 1,000 Lebanese died in the 34-day conflict which left much of southern Lebanon in ruins.

The Israeli offensive began after two Israeli soldiers were seized during a cross border raid by Hezbollah militants on 12 July.

Annan visit

"We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude," Sheikh Nasrallah said.

"Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping?

"I would say no, definitely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons.

"Neither I, Hezbollah, prisoners in Israeli jails and nor the families of the prisoners would accept it."

Sheikh Nasrallah was speaking on the eve of a visit to Beirut by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to discuss the expanded UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon.

A force of 15,000 soldiers, 7,000 of them from European Union states, will be deployed to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

The UN hopes to have some of the troops on the ground within a week, although the foreign minister of Finland - which currently holds the EU presidency - has said it will be two to three months before the whole force is deployed.

The force will be led by France until February, at which time Italy will take command.

Speaking in Brussels on Friday, Mr Annan said the plan would only work if the enlarged UN force, called Unifil 2, was "strong, credible and robust".

Mr Annan said the force offered the possibility of a "durable ceasefire and long-term solution" to the Middle East crisis.

( bullshit )

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5291420.stm

Published: 2006/08/27 18:28:14 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[sabar]

When you lose, claim ignorance and reap the rewards from pity.

[Obstructed_View]

Do you mean like dickhead repeating the Saddam-WTC lie?

Do you mean WHIG repeating the Saddam-has-WMD lie?

Do you mean all the Repug slimebots repeating the Iraq-war-equals-terror-war lie?
Those are three excellent examples. Keep repeating them over and over, and they become more and more true. Ramsey Youssef didn't enter the US on an Iraqi provided passport. Abdul Rahman Yasin didn't flee to Iraq. Nobody before George Bush tied Saddam to Bin Laden, LA LA LA LA.

[Obstructed_View]

Yeah, the GOP never ever does that now do they? :spin
So that makes it all right?

[RandomGuy]

I always find it amusing that liberals seem to believe that if they repeat something enough times and ignore the facts that refute it that it becomes "truth".

I always find it amusing that conservatives seem to believe that if they repeat something enough times and ignore the facts that refute it that it becomes "truth".

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Nobody before George Bush tied Saddam to Bin Laden.

Actually they never did, and neither did George Bush.

George actually admitted as much.

You have sucked up some :spin from somewhere when you say that there is any link, and directly denying what the administration itself has said.

[Obstructed_View]

Actually they never did, and neither did George Bush.
I meant politically, and they all did.

[Nbadan]

Lebanese are split down the middle on U.N. demands for the disarmament of Hezbollah following the month-long war between Israel and the group, a poll published Monday suggested.

The poll by IPSOS for the French-language daily L'Orient-Le Jour found 51 percent of respondents supported the group's disarmament, with 49 percent against, a difference within the survey's margin of error.

Among the Shiite community -- Lebanon's largest and the support base for Hezbollah -- the poll found 84 percent of respondents wanted the group to keep its weapons.

But among the Druze and Christian communities, 79 percent and 77 percent respectively wanted the group to surrender its arsenal. Among the Sunni community, the poll found a slender majority of 54 percent in favor of the group disarming.

Link (http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/08/post_18.php)

Recent surveys showed that the Christian/Secular group in Lebanon was much bigger than previously accounted for. They made up nearly 45% of the population. Even if the Shiites are bigger than the Sunnis, figures show that the "diehard" Hezbollahs are not more than 25% of the population. Hezbollah was losing popularity before the attack. Now Nasrallah has been catapulted as the hero of the "Arab" masses, but what the Lebanese want is to integrate the Hizbollah armed forces into the regular Lebanese Army, which will likely happen in the end.

[PixelPusher]

Those are three excellent examples. Keep repeating them over and over, and they become more and more true. Ramsey Youssef didn't enter the US on an Iraqi provided passport. Abdul Rahman Yasin didn't flee to Iraq. Nobody before George Bush tied Saddam to Bin Laden, LA LA LA LA.

If an Iraqi passport is sufficient to implicate Saddam and his Iraqi government in the WTC attack, then I guess we need to swing our military around and head for Saudi Arabia.


Meanwhile, 5 years later, nobody's bothering to go after Osama Bin Laden, you know, the guy who WAS responsible for the WTC attack.

...but keep "staying the course in Iraq", and I'm sure he'll turn up.

LA LA LA LA.

[Obstructed_View]

nobody's bothering to go after Osama Bin Laden
Bye bye credibility.

[PixelPusher]

Bye bye credibility.

Pardon. saying "nobody" is an exaggeration. The U.S. does have about 18,000 troops in Afganistan to hold down the fort against a resurgent Taliban resistance and, yes, search for Bin Laden in the mountains along the Afgan/Pakistan border. It's a tall order to be sure, and it would help a great deal if we could deploy more troops to Afganistan, but, well...you know..."Stay the course in Iraq!"

[Obstructed_View]

Pardon. saying "nobody" is an exaggeration. The U.S. does have about 18,000 troops in Afganistan to hold down the fort against a resurgent Taliban resistance and, yes, search for Bin Laden in the mountains along the Afgan/Pakistan border. It's a tall order to be sure, and it would help a great deal if we could deploy more troops to Afganistan, but, well...you know..."Stay the course in Iraq!"
I'm not sure how to address this attitude.

Why is our commitment to the people of Iraq somehow less meaningful than our commitment to the people of Afghanistan? In fact, how would not "staying the course" help any of those people or give us any credibility. Not helping to keep those people safe from those that would prey on their weakness for whatever reason makes us exactly what many say we are. I'm not real happy with that idea. I wouldn't have a problem with doing something drastic, like splitting the place up among the three groups, telling Turkey to eat shit, taking over the oil wells and cutting each country a check for a third of the profit. Is that "stay the course" or "cut and run"? Both terms are rhetoric, as is the implication that Saddam Hussein was an innocent victim of American imperialism.

I don't really care how it looks politically one way or the other as long as we don't abandon people I thought we all agreed about wanting to help three years ago. As soon as the news organizations and the college students decide that the fight is too tough, or as soon as the enemies of the president decide that they can flip flop to gain political purchase, this is the shit we go through.

[boutons_]

"As soon as the news organizations and the college students decide that the fight is too tough"

try these, they all work more accurately than yours:

as soon as people realize they were lied to, before, during, and now, ...

as soon as the lie-based adventure becomes an glaring, worsening misadventure, ...

as soon as observers and especially 2006 mid-term voters, anti-Repug and Repug, realize the misadventure was misconceived, rushed to support 2004 prez election campaign, under-planned, under-manned, under-equipped, botched in execution, insurgency unforeseen, keeps getting severely worse 3+ years after "mission accomplished", unrelated to war on terr, etc, etc ...

[Ya Vez]

a few helpful reminders for our friends on the left...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

[ChumpDumper]

And which one of those ordered the invasion?

[boutons_]

The Repugs campaigned for and started the phony Iraq war, not the Dems.

The Dems have NO responsibility for the Iraq war, above all not the Dems of the previous administration.

[Obstructed_View]

The Repugs campaigned for and started the phony Iraq, not the Dems.

The Dems have NO responsibility for the Iraq war, above all not the Dems of the previous administration.
That's ridiculous. The previous administration is responsible for 9/11, which was the impetus for the current administration's action against Iraq and Afghanistan with full support of the American people. Iraq represented a clear and present danger to Americans when there was still a smoking hole in lower Manhattan, due to Saddam Hussein's rhetoric, what evidence we had, and the belief of everyone that not taking action against America's enemies would allow them time to develop weapons, sponsor terrorism and maybe pull off similar attacks against the US in the future. Once the mess in New York was cleaned up and the democrats saw a possibility of taking political advantage, their collective dissociative disorder kicked into high gear. It's amazing how many liberals claim to have been against it all along when the poll numbers contradict it.

[boutons_]

"The previous administration is responsible for 9/11"

holy shit. how so? which obscure blog are you referring to?

The Repugs' NSA/FBI/CIA were incompetent in the 8 months under dubya/dickhead and when they actually got some alarms raised to dubya at his ranch in August, he "said, ok, thanks. you've covered your ass". Trust the Repug's with US security, GMAFB.

What prevented the Repugs between Jan 20 2001 and Sep 11 2001 from stopping the WTC attack?

[Ya Vez]

they still were lying to us even after clinton was gone....

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[ChumpDumper]

Which one of those ordered the invasion?

[Ya Vez]

so I guess the president went to war without authorization from congress ... ?

[boutons_]

Has war been declared?

WHIG presented a fudged case, all serious doubts suppressed and concealed, for invading Iraq, and the Repug Congress rubber-stamped it. Many of those rubber-stampers, of both parties, are now distancing themselves as far as possible from dubya, as the the majority of the country, aka voters, have turned against the war, see the phony war in Iraq as separate from the war on terror.

[Obstructed_View]

"The previous administration is responsible for 9/11"

holy shit. how so? which obscure blog are you referring to?

The Repugs' NSA/FBI/CIA were incompetent in the 8 months under dubya/dickhead and when they actually got some alarms raised to dubya at his ranch in August, he "said, ok, thanks. you've covered your ass". Trust the Repug's with US security, GMAFB.

What prevented the Repugs between Jan 20 2001 and Sep 11 2001 from stopping the WTC attack?

Able Danger. Jamie Gorelick.