Redstate

it does sound pretty dumb.  

The story says the concrete bunkers, or whatever the nukes were stored in, were "designed in a way to unable sophisticated sensors from discovering nuclear radiation."

Designed to unable huh?  Bad grammar is usually an indication of bad facts...I wish it was true!

If I had a nickle for everytime I got my hopes up about finding WMDs I have moved back to Kansas to retire by now.

That concrete substance that blocks radiation seems like it'd be something a lot of other countries would want to use in their reactors for shielding, and I've never heard of something like that.  

Actually, concrete does an excellent job of blocking radiation (which is why Chernobyl's #2 reactor is encased in a very thick layer of it) - but in the case of a nuclear power plant or anything else that needs to vent heat, eventually you have to let some of that radiation escape where it can be detected.

While this story is most certainly a pile of steaming BS, it is entirely possible to encase a nuclear weapon in a thick enough concrete shield that a Geiger counter would not detect it.

You wish it were true?  Wow . . . I'm speechless.  I just don't know what to say.

Why would you hope Saddam had WMD?

I'm starting to see some pretty psychologically unsound thinking here.

This is all beside the fact, anyway -- the problem with justifications based on WMD is that the Bush Admin. said they knew Saddam had them and they knew where they were, which turned out to be false.  Lucking upon some program they didn't know about doesn't somehow make it true -- they still invaded on faith.

Bergman, I may just have a mental block, but in spite of fairly careful attention to the case for war well prior to, just before, during, and now after the war, I don't recall ever hearing the Bush admin saying that it knew where the WMD were, only that they agreed with France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Denmark, Swaziland, and that country between Austria and Sweden, that Saddam did in fact possess weapons which he should not have possessed, and had not given sufficient indications that he had gotten rid of them.

The hopes that people have that we will find WMD is not to somehow technically legitimize the war, I would assume that people who make those comments are not the ones who need convincing that the war was justified, but I also hope, from the PR standpoint, that we find something like three nukes buried in a bunch of radiation-blocking concrete.  Blathering about technicalities and long-winded justifications for the war -- though accurate, entirely acceptable and well-reasoned -- do not make for good soundbites and therefore do not win the PR war in an election year the same way "We found Saddam's nukyaler weapons" does.  

I thought html tags were supposed to work on this thing... apparently not in titles.  Good thing to know for the future.

Well, we can't have this discussion if you are still unclear about why we invaded Iraq.  I have humbly written a little reminder for those still confused.

The discovery will reinforce to those in mainstream America that Saddam indeed was a threat and of course this helps Bush's chances of winning the election.  Further many on the left seem to have forgetten just how much of a threat the Iraqi regime was and I think this new information, if true, would provide a very fun time for pundits all over:  watching the left squirm and seeing who is intellectually honest and who is a shill.

Of course this is all besides the fact:  Saddam did have WMD.  He refused to tell us where they were.  It's quite clear Saddam had faith that many in the world community wouldn't act and that he was more than willing to play along in the charade.  So why should it be a surprise when the U.S. acts in good faith and enforces the words of 10 years of Security Council resolutions which Saddam has, in bad faith, disregarded?

I meant "that country between Austria and Switzerland..."  which is, of course, Liechtenstein.  

there are, of course, more than a couple countries between Austria and Sweden.  

Boy, this has been a red-letter first comment on Redstate for me.  I'm going back to sleep now.

So this is all about the election.  Bravo.

it should be required to say that every Western intelligence agency, the UN, and the Clinton Administration "knew" Iraq had nuclear/biological/chemical weapons and had known that since Halabja.

Though this story is going to be inevitably proven false to say that because such weapons have not been found means they do not they exist is classic argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It doesn't diminish the right-ness of the war, that is justified on many grounds.  Finding or not finding WMD won't change the legitimacy of the war.

But it is good for PR.  Are you prepared to say that Kerry would be pleased if we found three nukes?  I'll tell you what he'd say in that case:

"The timing is suspicious in an election year."  

Of course, that's what they're saying about revelations that Berger stole classified docs, that's what they'd say if we caught OBL, that's what they'd say if we did many things that protect the nation from future attacks and talk about them.  So don't try to play righteous on this one, the PR war goes both ways.

Actually most any mater will block most forms of Radiation (except Neutrinos damn them) in enough quantity. As the poster said up-thread yes even concrete. Ever wonder why nuclear power plants have the big concrete dome instead of a wooden one?

Even burying warheads in sand deep enough would be enough to block the radiation given off by the natural decay of the fissile isotopes, provided you buried the warheads deeply enough.

However you'd think that such excavations should be detectable by geological surveys.

I had no qualms about taking out Saddam for his crimes, that alone was sufficient.  And though those were a major reason for war itself, they weren't the reason for the rush to war, which has resulted in a much more destabilized Iraq than was necessary -- as well as a unilateral attack, which puts us exactly where the Islamists want us: U.S.A. vs. Islam.  It should have been The World vs. Saddam, and it could have been, paranoid delusions about the U.N. aside.  

Genocide is widely accepted as a reason to invade and depose a country's leader; it worked with Milosovich, albeit a bit too late, thanks to the G.O.P.'s firm resistance to said measures (which largely proves false their humanist hot air vis-a-vis Iraq).  However, it alone is not reason to treat Saddam as an imminent threat that must be removed as quickly (or can we say, "politically expediently") as possible; certainly he had engaged in genocide in the past (though it could have been Iran that gassed the kurds, but still Saddam should stand trial so we can find out for sure), but he wasn't engaging in genocide in Spring 2003.  But all things considered, he genocidal tendencies and his other crimes against humanity should have been focused on, but they were just sort of thrown in as an afterthought to make the Democrats look like a bunch of hypocrites for not wanting to ensure GW's status as a "war president" (which, let's face it, was the ultimate political goal here).

Just as a refresher, though:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

(And just for fun . . .)

This is about an imminent threat.

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

(Emphasis mine, natch.)

It seems that it would have been wiser to know for sure about something if in fact we were saying we knew for sure about something.  But what this all paints a picture of -- again, regardless of what is found now, at this late stage (not to mention that anything we "find" now will look planted) -- is an adminstration that uses faith-based strategery [sic], which I daresay is not the best way to keep America safe.  If the CIA was expressing doubts about the WMD, Bush shouldn't have said that he had no doubts.  Just because Saddam was evil doesn't mean that we had a license to be sloppy or cavalier; we're the good guys, and if we want to stay that way, we have to do things by the book, otherwise we become the bad guys.  See?  It's why vigilantes are not considered honorable, just, or righteous -- and the sick thing is it seems like a lot of people in this country just love the idea of being vigilantes.  Might makes right, I guess.

Everyone agrees that Saddam had to go, so you'll see no "squirming" from the left on that account.  What was vital in this post-9/11 era was how, and that part was mucked up big time.  Stiff jaws and resolute bleatings about the righteousness and exceptionalism of America, who "had to do the right thing", don't change the fact that we look like a bunch of liars to millions of people who we really shouldn't want to look like a bunch of liars in front of.  And I'm not talking about Islamists, I'm talking about those Muslims who we want on our side fighting the Islamists -- they alone can win the war, unless we want to just kill all of them and let Allah sort 'em out.  We want Muslims to want democracy, but we've given democracy a bad name -- a (fatal?) blunder which I dearly hope can be rectified as soon as possible, the first step being that we apologize for our mistakes (still waiting . . .).

I agree that Kerry will try to spin this as much as possible, but he's far too slick to just come out and spout conspiracy theories like Dean did.  I'd expect something more along the lines of, "congratulations, President Bush, what took you so long?" (applause)

The conspiracy theories and whisper campaigns are, wisely, left up to the pundits.  Make no mistake: this guy's slicker than Clinton, in his dry, droll way.  Kerry will do or say nothing, and I mean nothing, that will make himself look unpresidental, which is why you see so much optimism and smiles and no negative campaigns (unlike Bush's camp, which needs to wise up on that if they want to win).

I for one find the idea that Bush would "hold out" on finding WMD or Osama simply laughable.  The chance of a leak is just too great -- and the fallout from the public hearing that Osama was being held on the side until just the right moment would simply be too great to overcome.  And besides, there's no more "right moment" than right now -- there's no political capital to be gained from waiting with this stuff.  The sooner the public hears about an OBL capture or WMD discovery, the better.  Though I guess July 26, 26 or 28 would be ideal.  (snark)

it is false, the intel was bad.  It is still quite scary that we're not sure what happened to those WMD we knew had but can not account for now.  In the interest of honesty Saddam's actions with regard to WMD should also be mentioned.  Thus the casus belli.

I'm glad you put "knew" in quotes.  I mean, I thought he did too, but I wanted to know for sure before invading -- not that I wasn't itching to see Saddam's head on a stick before 1998 (when the inspectors were kicked out), but that I knew we needed justification in the eyes of the world or it would turn into a war of civilizations and not a war between good and evil.

I don't know how many times we need to repeat it before anyone gets this, but it wasn't what Bush wanted to do in Iraq, but how he did it, that has severely undercut the war on terror.  WHAT, not HOW.  The process, not the goal.  That's all.

Seems to me that's a pretty high bar for anyone to clear.

If we are to have any modicum of security in the future potential enemies should know we will go to war based on a hint of a future threat, not on some pollyannish standard of perfect knowledge.

As a sovereign nation we have the right to go to war with anyone for any reason. That is our decision and ours alone. Why an apology is required for acting within our rights is just baffling.

on this. So much so that dialog is probably just not possible.

What was wrong with HOW we did this? 12 years of UN resolutions? The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? The Congressional resolution in 2002? Repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire?

No. Not only what we did was righteous, how we did it was, also.

Have had this arguement before, but I still love it so here goes.

The ultimate political goal of invading Iraq was to make Bush a war time president?  I think 9/11 did that.  Your comment here is looming dangerously close to lunacy.

Speaking of lunacy, let's look at the UN.  The Oil-for-Food scandal is quite real and quite scandalous.  It speaks to the fact that many countries involved in opposition to our case for war did so out of economic self interest.  Thus to think we could have gotten the whole world on board is folly: those opposed were quite happy with the status quo (even the French rejected a resolution or two before the Iraqi's did!)

Also bordering on delusion is the idea that the coaltion's war "has resulted in a much more destabilized Iraq than was necessary."  Al-qaeda would still be fighting in Iraq whether France & Russia were with us or not.  The islamic terrorists hate western civilization, not just Americans.  They have already clearly made it us vs. them and a refusal to recognize this will result in flawed thinking on how to win the war.  The US has never said this is us against Islam, it may look like that to Al-jazeera and other middle east news orgs, but of course to them Israel is the worst nation on the planet so go figure.

But just as these mid-east outlets get information wrong, so did most of the West's intelligence agencies get the WMD information wrong.  It certainly looks bad, but our actions as a result are far from a faith-based strategy.  Reality is this:  Terrorists are different because they have no qualms about women & children, or themselves.  To them it is take out as many as possible.  The most prudent way to defeat this is pre-emption.  Intent & capability made Saddam the threat he was and to treat this like an episode of law & order is silly.  Terrorism and the proliferation of WMD's in the 3rd world requires pre-emption.

The how is important, and the intelligence was bad but the fact of Saddam's non-compliance with the UN legitimized the war.  The how did not involve a rush to war, this was debated for months on end around the world.  I fail to see how we have given democracy a bad name: (1)we are establishing one in Iraq (2) If enough people think so, Bush won't get re-elected (3) we're not beating down & beheading muslims in our cities (4) we're conducting public inquiries to improve our intelligence capabilities.  I don't think we need to apologize for our conduct, we were trying to protect ourselves and promote freedom.  We have and are conducting thorough inquiries into improving our intelligence.  Those opposing the war were obviously not moved enough by the threat posed or by the genocide conducted, perhaps they should be apologizing.

I can't believe you just said Kerry isn't being negative.  If by "not negative" you mean "nothing but negative," then sure, but his entire campaign so far has been "Bush is the Devil, I'm the White Rider though I have no specific plans... yet.  And the ones I do have I'm not going to tell you about."

Praising the people at that disgusting hate-fest at Radio City Music Hall as "speaking for Americans" or whatever ridiculous statement he made is an endorsement of what they said.  Whether you say it or just heartily endorse it, and mimic it in toned-down forms, that's negative.

No surprise, but the nuclear-tipped missiles report is fiction.

"Nothing's been found. The report is not factual," said Master Sgt. Robert Cowens, a spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division, based in Tikrit.

Be careful with that argument. Nazi Germany was a sovereign nation when they started WWII. Japan was a sovereign nation when they attacked pearl Harbor. Heck, Iraq was a sovereign nation when they attacked Kuwait. Sovereignty doesn't justify war.  

not to make an argument on my behalf that I don't make.

sov·er·eign·ty

Variant: also sov·ran·ty 'sä-vr&n-tE, 's&-, -v&-r&n-

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural -ties

1 a : supreme power esp. over a body politic b : freedom from external control :

I'd find it very hard to argue that Germany, Japan, and Italy didn't have a right to go to war in 1939. The wisdom of their decision is clearly subject to debate but not their right.

We have to rely on our internal political processes to provide justification for our actions in our exercise of sovereignty. Once that decision is made we have the right to execute it.

No, it was all going just fine up through the part where the weapons inspectors began crawling around Iraq.  Then, suddenly, Bush decided he couldn't wait for them to do their work -- he even went so far as to claim that Saddam was in violation of resolution 1441 -- and we had to rush in, no planning, no true coalition, just "resolve" and self-righteousness.  

I for one agree that Clinton dropped the ball on this in '98; we should have gone in then, when Saddam actually did not let the inspectors do their work.  But then, in '03, when they were in there, doing their work, why did we go in then?  The official justification was that he had missles that could be fired beyond the allowable range -- if they were empty of fuel, that is.

The reason that justification is important is because of the fallout in the Arab/Muslim world.  Fortunately, we have a good test case: Afghanistan.  You'll notice that invading that country and deposing the Taliban didn't result in thouasands of Muslims rushing to sign up with al-Qaeda; it didn't meet with widespread disapproval among Afghans, who were more than happy to be occupied by Americans.  So what was different about Iraq?  Justification.  We said Saddam was armed to the teeth and was an imminent threat -- just like the Taliban more or less was, though in a different way -- and then it turned out he wasn't.  This is why so many Iraqis don't trust us (along with failing to support the Shia uprising), and why its so easy for insurgents to do their work there.  You and I (well, you, anyway) might think that Bush was simply "misinformed" by the CIA, but the average Iraqi doesn't really draw a distinction between Bush and his intelligence services; it looks like a set-up.  So, armed thusly with perceived dishonesty and duplicity, we rushed into the war with no planning and nothing but optimism (which, tactically-speaking, isn't worth a bucket of snot).

Sure, Bush has you convinced, and almost has me convinced, that we are there for the good of the Iraqi people -- that the invasion was handled righteously.  But our opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant; what matters is what Iraqis think about it, and from what I can tell they don't trust us and want us out of there ASAP.  That is the "how" that Bush got wrong; he just had faith that Iraqis would welcome us and help build a democracy, but faith is a worthless sentiment and is the worst way to go about planning for what should have been easily predicted as a chaotic post-war environment.  He should have known that America alone could not be the liberator if it were in fact a humanitarian mission, and that if we were the liberator, it had to be in self-defense (i.e. Saddam had to have had WMD and clear, Taliban-style al-Qaeda ties).  

If Bush (or any US leader) had wanted to do this right, he shouldn't have gone in on the WMD justification unless he knew for sure they were their, which we all thought he did at the time but now know he didn't.  OR: he could have gone in on the humanitarian issue alone and strung Saddam up on genocide charges, which may or may not have forced the UN's hand, but definitely would have made our good intentions clear to the Muslim world (as our defense of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia did).  Normally, his mistakes wouldn't be that big of a deal, but post-9/11, the importance of nuance in dealing with Muslims cannot be underestimated.  Because if its civilization vs. barbarism, civilization always wins; if its America vs. Islam, Islam wins.  That is what 19 guys taking down the WTC armed with nothing but box cutters taught me, anyway, and I have a feeling Kerry has picked up this important truth as well.  State sponsorship of terrorist is the least of our concerns.

Such weaseling doesn't convince many Muslims, I can tell you that much.

Al-qaeda would still be fighting in Iraq whether France & Russia were with us or not.

The thing is, AQ isn't the primary problem in Iraq, its a home-grown insurgency fueled by resentment over America's mishandling of the reconstruction: cooperation of ordinary Iraqis because they want us out of there.  If Iraqis, as a whole, trusted us and wanted us to rebuild their country (over 70% don't, currently), the insurgency -- let alone AQ -- wouldn't have a chance of survival.  So good PR with the Iraqi people is THE only way to win this war; force alone is worthless in promoting democracy, just as in Vietnam.  You can't bomb people into making them help you help themselves, as it were.

Saddam's non-compliance with the UN legitimized the war.

When exactly did Saddam not cooperate with the UN inspectors in 2003?  Certainly access was improving, not being reduced; how many weapons inspectors were there in 2003, as opposed to 2002?  A lot.

And anyway, you can't have it both ways: if you say that rejection of UN resolutions justifies force, then using force without a UN resolution is therefor unjustified, right?  Glad to see at least that you admit that democracy (UN resolutions) is important when deciding which countries deserve regime change and which ones don't.

I don't feel much need to apologize for calling the handling of this war a mistake, particularly as I'm easily in the majority opinion in this country.  Certainly Bush may get re-elected despite how the overwhelming majority (70%+) of Americans think he messed up -- we're apparently a forgiving people, or maybe feverishly partisan is a better way to put it -- but I at least can take consolation that history will prove me right.

I'm talking about the political ads: Bush's are nothing but rants about how bad Kerry is, because Bush's negatives are so high and he can't seem to get them down.  Thus, attacking Kerry is his only alternative.  Kerry's ads are staying positive, not even mentioning his opponent by name.

Certainly the Democrats as a whole are negative -- the whole "anybody but Bush" thing -- but that's not who I meant to illustrate.  Kerry's tactic is to take the high road and hope Bush can hang himself.  Problem is, Bush might just not do that -- too much can change between now and November that Kerry has no control over.

I don't know why anti-Bush rallies are called "hate-fests" -- at least you don't have lots of people actually booing when the "enemy's" name is mentioned, like at Bush rallies.  Those things are like Jerry Springer shows!  Do you really not sense any hatred of Kerry on the Republican's side, or are you just filtering that out?  What are the boos all about, then?

would have been justified going to war in 1998 but with the same facts on the ground war 5 years later in the aftermath of the Iraq Liberation Act and the Congressional authorization for use of force war is somehow wrong. My head will explode if I try to process that within my Western linear logic mind. I'll just accept that YOU believe that and leave it there.

Your use of clairvoyance admittedly gives you an advantage over me in this discussion as you can read my mind but I can't read yours. I haven't stated we were there for the good of the Iraqi people and I have never believed that. That is a nifty side benefit for the Iraqis but doesn't mean squat to me. Neither do their opinions. Public opinion polls in Germany in 1950 showed they didn't like us much either but they got over it. The Iraqis are at least as adaptable.

Neither have I evinced an opinion on whether or not Bush was misinformed. I've worked with the intelligence community enough to know that they aren't terribly reliable. We are in Iraq because we decided that we would no longer play his silly games and because of a strong belief that virtually any successor government would be a strategic improvement over the status quo ante.

I don't see where kowtowing to people whose opinions are really immaterial gains us anything in either the way of freedom of action or legitimacy. Quite honestly, I don't think there is a whit of empirical evidence to suggest the Muslim world hates us more today than they did on 9-10-01. One thing is for sure: they are a lot more fearful. And as Martha would say: That is a good thing.

As to our justification for war it would be useful if you used the text of the Iraq Liberation Act and the Congressional resolution instead of Fahrenheit 9/11 as a factual basis. A cursory reading of those two shows there were many other reasons given by two administrations for going to war than WMD.

"...if you say that rejection of UN resolutions justifies force, then using force without a UN resolution is therefor unjustified, right?"

No, because you are blatantly assuming your conclusion.  This "argument" depends on a non sequitur at the point of the first comma.

where you are getting your information on the following I'd appreciate it, as I'll naively assume here that we are trying to reach a concensus and not just talk past one another:

its a home-grown insurgency fueled by resentment over America's mishandling of the reconstruction

I took a cursory glance at CNN's main Iraq story today and it seemed to belie what you are saying.  Sure some former remnant of the Baathist regime are still fighting, but Why are home grown insurgents killing their own?  Why is "leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi warning Muslims and Arab countries against sending troops to Iraq and specifically threatening Japan."?  Why are they kidnapping citizens of any nationality if it is just America they hate?  Where is the evidence that Iraqi's are participating in an insurgency because America has mishandled reconstruction?

Iraqis, as a whole, trusted us and wanted us to rebuild their country (over 70% don't, currently)

Again, under the impression this is not the case.  Gallup has polls which do not show a 70% number as you are showing.

Good PR will come when the security and infrastructure improves.  The only people causing problems with those two things belong to al-qaeda.  To defeat al-qaeda we need to capture or kill their members.

I don't recall ever hearing the Bush admin saying that it knew where the WMD were

Rumsfeld said he knew where they were, "in the area near Tikrit..." remember that comment he made?  He's part of the Bush admin, is he not?

Which is why the original poster should not make arguments based on UN resolutions justifying force.

I haven't stated we were there for the good of the Iraqi people and I have never believed that. That is a nifty side benefit for the Iraqis but doesn't mean squat to me. Neither do their opinions.

At least now we're clear on that part.

a strong belief that virtually any successor government would be a strategic improvement over the status quo ante.

I see.  Perfect reasoning, that.

Quite honestly, I don't think there is a whit of empirical evidence to suggest the Muslim world hates us more today than they did on 9-10-01.

Well, they certainly care a lot less about us than they did on 9-12-01.  Their outpouring of grief sort of rand dry -- Arafat himself looked like his son died, fer cryin' out loud! -- once Bush hijacked such sympathy for his political agenda.  Oh, wait, you're still on page one.  Maybe it would be enlightening to read some of what the Arabian leaders and citizens (not to mention French and German ones) were saying about the U.S. at that point, and how much they supported our righteous response to 9/11 in Afghanistan.  The entire world was on our side at that point, and now its almost wholly against us.  Thus, anti-Americanism is not the answer, as tempting as that paranoid view may be.  What, pray tell, could it have been?  I'll give you a hint: it starts with "I" and ends with "raq".  All you have to do is draw up some outlines about what was different then, with Afghanistan, and now, with Iraq, and the answers will all become painfully clear.

Western linera logic, indeed.  Sheesh.

...because my point obviously didn't make it across the first time.

The proposition "rejection of U.N. resolutions justifies force" is in no way logically related to the conclusion "using force without a U.N. resolution is unjustified."  They are simply two propositions that may both be true, both false, or one true and the other false, i.e. logically unrelated.

Of course, given that your following sentence tries to link "democracy" with "U.N. Resolutions," an odd couple if I ever saw one, I'll let the casual reader evaluate your logical dexterity for himself....

Well, considering that democracy is a matter of all participants in a society voting on a collective course of action, as we do here in the U.S., the UN is a pretty good definition of democracy, albeit on a global instead of national scale.  Each nation gets a vote, and we all abide by what is voted on: simple.

Unfortunately, the current system is tantamount to letting felons vote, which should be worked out ASAP.  As should the system where the U.S. and France (& China & Russia & England) get over-represented.  Ultimately, it should only be made up of democratic nations, though some would argue that that is un-democratic -- so perhaps we should let all nations vote on our collective outcome except those who act criminally?  Sounds good to me.  As long as we don't equate non-capitalist economies with criminality, of course.

Praising the people at that disgusting hate-fest at Radio City Music Hall as "speaking for Americans" or whatever ridiculous statement he made is an endorsement of what they said.

I should add, that li'l "hate-fest" Bush held, in which Dennis Miller made gay jokes about Kerry and Edwards, easily goes over the top of Whoopi's lukewarm jokes about Bush's name (imagine if she said Cheney and Bush should "get a room"?!).  Yet Miller is praised as a hero to the American people for support his President, yada yada yada.  Oh, liberal media, where are you when we need you most!

So are you defending Miller or do you celibrate his allegience and feel he's a decent representative of the GOP?  Fish or cut bait, please.

I just can't find it.

As I said earlier, this is counterproductive and a waste of valuable PlayStation time. We simply don't have enough common agreement to have a dialog.

...correct when he said, quite some time ago...

"For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We have found them."

Or is that grossly incorrect? I wonder if he will admit to making a mistake (if, in fact, he was wrong).

What I find much more likely than actual nuclear warheads would be illegal missiles that are nuclear warhead capable, like those SCUDs that Saddam swore to Hans Blix were all destroyed.

But at this point, the pathology of those committed to "Bush lied" is so great that they only will admit to error when it is a matter of warheads. Longer range missiles and R&D programs are now just unimportant technical violations.

Let's remember that they're still pulling up WW II munitions out of secret buried caches in Europe today. Saddam didn't have paperwork that even approached Hitler's Germany yet people are still finding weapons caches form that earlier age even today.

We simply don't have enough common agreement to have a dialog.

Ditto.  I care about national security and you care about lip-service for same.