The Dog Ate My WMDs

  By William Rivers Pitt

  t r u t h o u t | Perspective

  Friday 13 June 2003

  After several years teaching high school, I've heard all the excuses. I didn't get my homework done because my computer crashed, because my project partner didn't do their part, because I feel sick, because I left it on the bus, because I had a dance recital, because I was abducted by aliens and viciously probed. Houdini doesn't have as many tricks. No one on earth is more inventive than a high school sophomore backed into a corner and faced with a zero on an assignment.

  No one, perhaps, except Bush administration officials forced now to account for their astounding claims made since September 2002 regarding Iraq's alleged weapons program.

  After roughly 280 days worth of fearful descriptions of the formidable Iraqi arsenal, coming on the heels of seven years of UNSCOM weapons inspections, four years of surveillance, months of UNMOVIC weapons inspections, the investiture of an entire nation by American and British forces, after which said forces searched "everywhere" per the words of the Marine commander over there and "found nothing," after interrogating dozens of the scientists and officers who have nothing to hide anymore because Hussein is gone, after finding out that the dreaded 'mobile labs' were weather balloon platforms sold to Iraq by the British, George W. Bush and his people suddenly have a few things to answer for.

  You may recall this instance where a bombastic claim was made by Bush. During his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Mr. Bush said, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Nearly five months later, those 500 tons are nowhere to be found. A few seconds with a calculator can help us understand exactly what this means.

  500 tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the US Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located. Bear in mind, also, that this one million pounds is but a part of the Iraqi weapons arsenal described by Bush and his administration.

  Maybe the dog ate it. Or maybe it was never there to begin with, having been destroyed years ago by the first UN inspectors and by the Iraqis themselves. Maybe we went to war on a big lie, one that killed over 3,500 Iraqi civilians to date, one that killed some 170 American soldiers, one that has been costing us one American soldier's life per day thus far.

  If you listen to the Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, this is all just about "politics." An in-depth investigation into how exactly we came to go to war on the WMD word of the Bush administration has been quashed by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Closed-door hearings by the Intelligence Committee are planned next week, but an open investigation has been shunted aside by Bush allies who control the gavel and the agenda. If there is nothing to hide, as the administration insists, if nothing was done wrong, one must wonder why they fear to have these questions asked in public.

  The questions are being asked anyway. Thirty five Representatives have signed House Resolution 260, which demands with specificity that the administration back up it's oft-repeated claims about the Iraqi weapons arsenal with evidence and fact. The guts of the Resolution are as follows:



  Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 4 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents or other materials in the President's possession that provides specific evidence for the following claims relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:

    (1) On August 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: `Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.'

    (2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the President stated: `Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'

    (3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the President stated: `It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.'

    (4) On January 7, 2003, the Secretary of Defense at a press briefing stated: `There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.'

    (5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson stated: 'We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq.'

    (6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's `Meet The Press', the Vice President stated: `We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.'

    (7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: `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.'

    (8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: `Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'

    (9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.'

    (10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.'

  On June 10, 2003, Representative Henry Waxman transmitted a letter to Condoleezza Rice demanding answers to a specific area of concern in this whole mess. His letter goes on to repeat, in scathing detail, the multifaceted claims made by the Bush administration regarding an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and deconstructs those claims with a fine scalpel. "What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address?" the letter concludes. "This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts."

  It is this aspect, the nuclear claims, that has led the Bush administration to do what many observers expected them to do for a while now: They have blamed it all on the CIA. A report in the June 12, 2003 edition of the Washington Post cites an unnamed Bush administration official who claims that the CIA knew the evidence of Iraqi nuclear plans had been forged, but that CIA failed to give this information to Bush. The Post story states, "A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of 'extremely sloppy' handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."

  Ergo, it wasn't the dog who ate the WMDs. It was the CIA. Unfortunately for Bush and his people, this blame game will not hold water.

  Early in October of 2002, Bush went before the American people and delivered yet another vat of nightmarish descriptions of what Saddam Hussein could do to America and the world with his vast array of weaponry. One week before this speech, however, the CIA had publicly stated that Hussein and Iraq were less of a threat than they had been for the last ten years.

  Columnist Robert Scheer reported on October 9, 2002, that, "In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States. The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons."

  Certainly, if citizen Scheer was able to read and understand the CIA report on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, the President of the United States could easily do so as well.

  The scandal which laid Bill Clinton low centered around his lying under oath about sex. The scandal which took down Richard Nixon was certainly more profound, as he was accused of misusing the CIA and FBI to spy on political opponents while paying off people to lie about his actions. Lying under oath and misusing the intelligence community are both serious transgressions, to be sure. The matter of Iraq's weapons program, however, leaves both of these in deep shade.

  George W. Bush and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of September 11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, and then used that fiction to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people.

  Latter-day justifications about 'liberating' the Iraqi people or demonstrating the strength of America to the world do not obscure this fact. They lied us into a war that, beyond the death toll, served as the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting drive in the history of the world. They lied about a war that cost billions of dollars which could have been better used to bolster America's amazingly substandard anti-terror defenses. They are attempting, in the aftermath, to misuse the CIA by blaming them for all of it.

  Blaming the CIA will not solve this problem, for the CIA is well able to defend itself. Quashing investigations in the House will not stem the questions that come now at a fast and furious clip.

  They lied. Period. Trust a teacher on this. We can spot liars who have not done their homework a mile away.

---------

  William Rivers Pitt william.pitt@mail.truthout.org is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available from Pluto Press at www.SilenceIsSedition.com. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

© Copyright 2003 by TruthOut.org

...the latest excuse: "Just you wait we'll fid them " or "It's a big country you think he just left them laying around"?

This of course ignores the fact that the Bush Junta said over and over and over that they knew for a fact that he had them "we've got solid intelligence, and it was upon that basis that we went to War and killed a lot of People and have had over 100 of our own kids come back in Body Bags. The only solid intelligence is the Blockheads that believed Duhbya.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

...article detailing the repeated lies: http://www.hermes-press.com/wmd_gate.htm

I learned a lot. Thanks

What a guy!

Build a scafold, bring the rope.

Nothing like a good Neck Tie to set off a Suit. Or is that send off a Suit?

Pinocchio rules:- lies that are never questioned



What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .

. . . when first we practice to deceive!

Updated: 06/14/03

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney

Speech to VFW National Convention

August 26, 2002



Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush

Speech to UN General Assembly

September 12, 2002



If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer

Press Briefing

December 2, 2002



We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer

Press Briefing

January 9, 2003



Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush

State of the Union Address

January 28, 2003



We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell

Remarks to UN Security Council

February 5, 2003



We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush

Radio Address

February 8, 2003



If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell

Interview with Radio France International

February 28, 2003



So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell

Remarks to UN Security Council

March 7, 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 Nation

March 17, 2003



Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher

Press Briefing

March 21, 2003



There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks

Press Conference

March 22, 2003



I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman

Washington Post, p. A27

March 23, 2003



One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark

Press Briefing

March 22, 2003



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



Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan

Washington Post op-ed

April 9, 2003



But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer

Press Briefing

April 10, 2003



We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush

NBC Interview

April 24, 2003



There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld

Press Briefing

April 25, 2003



We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters

May 3, 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 never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld

Fox News Interview

May 4, 2003



I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters

May 6, 2003



U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice

Reuters Interview

May 12, 2003



I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne

Press Briefing

May 13, 2003



Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps

Interview with Reporters

May 21, 2003



Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff

NBC Today Show interview

May 26, 2003



They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld

Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations

May 27, 2003



For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz

Vanity Fair interview

May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force

Press Interview

May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something?  Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency

Press Conference

A high school teacher, with no access to the intelligence on the subject, who has never been to Iraq, says there are no WMD.

Good enough for me.

and when exactly were you in Iraq last(if ever)?

...the DESERTER, has never been their either and he says there are. Davie takes that as better than the Gospel of Luke.

More like the Gospel of Puke.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

...in a suit at the cleaners being dry-cleaned. Yeah, that's it! And they won't be back in Iraq until, say, after the next election.

Bush, Cheney and the CIA

the biggest terrorists in the world today!

...the article heading this Thread. It so eloquently encapsulates the logic and reasoning of the apologists for evil.

The Dog Ate My WMDs.

It just sums up so nicely all the arguments made by the people out supporting the Junta.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREND DIED. It really is that simple.

Most everywhere BUT Iraq, but does that matter?

I have the sense to know to listen to people whose JOB it is to know. You, on the other hand, will take as Gospel the word of anyone who agrees with your particular insanity.

Are you military, or just a tough-guy wannabe?

I don't see why the WMD matter much. Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was an evil ruler, right? Does anyone disagree? He got what he deserved.

May I lick your diseased snatch?

Mr. Daveman wrote:

"A high school teacher, with no access to the intelligence on the subject, who has never been to Iraq, says there are no WMD.

Good enough for me."



Good point.

In spite of the total air and ground control the allmighty US forces enjoy over Iraq, thousands of pimple-faced "Army Specialists" who are on site and do have access to the intelligence on the subject still have not found any WMDs after all this time.

Perhaps it is time to send in high school teachers who haven't been to Iraq yet.

Even if they don't find any WMD either, they stand a chance to be more useful to the Iraqi people than the barely educated, chest-thumping, uniformed kiddies.

People hate to admit that....maybe they were wrong.

They will go to great lengths to cover themselves so they will not admit defeat.

There never were any WMD in Iraq.

The right wingers are so embarassed now

and they wont admit that they were wrong.

because if they did that, then the next question would be.

What was the war really for?

Sure. Send 'em in. Send Mr. Pitt first.

Somehow I get the feeling he'll beg off, claiming a dental appointment.

You see, that's the difference between your typical "complain yet offer no workable solutions" Leftie and the "barely educated, chest-thumping, uniformed kiddies" who volunteer to serve their country. The Lefty is all talk; the people in uniform swore to serve and backed up that oath with action.

And no, I don't consider "protest marches" action.

"There never were any WMD in Iraq."

Hw did you arrive at that remarkable conclusion? Because none have been found?

Amazing! By that logic, in 1491, America didn't exist, because it hadn't been found yet.

The dark side of the moon didn't exist before the Russians photographed it.

Gravity didn't exist before Sir Isaac Newton discovered its principles.

Need I go on? Do you see how ridiculous your point is?

I doubt it.

But do you consider "protest marches"

a legal right given to all citizens of america?

If the police here were going to raid your house for lets say drugs...no, no say ILLEGAL WEAPONS.

Wouldnt they need probable cause of some sort of evidence?

And then if they raided that house and killed a bunch of people, then found no illegal weapons...

What do you think would happen next?

LAWSUIT AND HEADS WOULD ROLL

Certainly, protest marches are a Constitutionally-protected form of expression.

But in case you haven't been paying attention the last 10 months of so, they haven't done much good, now have they?

Plus, is the average peace marcher willing to die for his cause? Yeah...right. The average soldier however, is.

And in your scenario, a lawsuit would be in order. However, that kind of thing doesn't apply to nation-states. And once again, you fail to notice that SADDAM BEING GONE IS A GOOD THING. You, like the rest of the Indymidiots, would rather crap on Bush than admit a good thing happened for the Iraqi people.

And I will take your lack of comment on my extension of your "logic" that you agree your point is goofy.

They havent done much good.

It would depend upon your definition of what good means.

The protesters may have felt good to express thier constitutional rights. It may have felt good to expose thier feelings to an unknowing passerby. It may have felt good to see a majority of the world nations standing together for peace.

Dying for the cause?

I think that some soldiers I knew had this to say:

I dont want to die for my country

I'll let the other soldier die for his.

Why wouldnt our democratic ways that we are trying to promote in Iraq apply to how we engage in war with them?

Seems a bit one sided

but then again

-----you're the all knowing

"logic master"

"There never were any WMD in Iraq.

The right wingers are so embarassed now

and they wont admit that they were wrong.

because if they did that, then the next question would be.

What was the war really for?"



....Does not suggest a rich inner life.

The war was to get rid of WMD. Obviously.

The question really is, what did Sadam do with them as the UN fought to give him PLENTY of time?

Lord knows who has them now. But they'll turn up thanks to folks like you.

The appeal of the uniform¡K aaah¡K you¡¦ll look like these heroes at the movies, exuding male potency, you¡¦ll get girls, maybe a chance to get even with life when you never had the guts to take charge of it¡K.

The greatest military people I have met shared, among other, a few common features:

They were humble.

They were educated, inside or outside the military.

They never generalized about the civilian being this, the military being that.

They never bragged about their rank, branch, exploits.

Can you measure up them? I know, you don¡¦t need to.

You are confusing "volunteer to serve your country" with "have no other prospects in life" or "I'll look so virile in one of these uniforms" or "I'll get to steer one of these speedboats like in the ad". Pretty appealing if you are a teen I must admit.

Yes Daveman, enrolling in the army is serving your country. But there is so many other ways, look around you if you please.

Becoming politically active, caring and being aware of your community, voting, educating the next generation and promoting more for all and less for a few are just as patriotic but aren¡¦t as rewarding as signing a paper sheet at the recruiter¡¦s. For many people enrolling, this will become an extended adult day care; I have enough examples to back up this assertion.

It is not the military¡¦s fault that it caters today¡¦s teenager wishes, it has just adapted to it. I want it all, I want it now, I don¡¦t want to put the effort and patience but I want all the recognition.

Have you seen their ads? If they were a corporation they would be continuously sued for fraudulent advertising (what percentage of the recruits actually gets to fly the helo, become a SEAL etc). They make it look like you can choose, that all is possible, which is technically correct; but the truth is the majority of recruits don¡¦t get even close to their initial project. You may argue they didn¡¦t work hard enough, I give you that.

Your defensive reply indicates that you must be a member of the armed forces. Taking the risk to appear nosy, may I ask you what is your personal contribution to the delivery of the ¡§workable solutions¡¨ you mention? It is ok if you don¡¦t want to describe your activity for obvious reasons, what may be interesting here is to ask yourself what the real motives are besides jingoistic platitudes made out of ¡§protect¡¨, ¡§oath¡¨, ¡§action¡¨, ¡§flag¡¨.

Last week while sitting in traffic, I ventured myself asking other drivers what ¡§support our troops¡¨ or ¡§the power of pride¡¨ meant to them. After all, these statements were in plain sight of the following driver, so anybody affixing such a bumper sticker must have a strong conviction to share its content with others. There isn¡¦t anything wrong with the display of patriotism or what is perceived as such; what was disturbing was that among the 8 people I politely asked, none of them was capable to muster an explanation. It ranged from canned ¡§preserve our freedom¡¨ to racist invectives or simple ¡§uh?¡¨. Maybe I just didn¡¦t get lucky.

So here we are, putting tough-talk stickers and being incapable of making sense of them. Kind of reduces them to same level as the other vulgar Nike ¡§Just do it¡¨ stickers. Sad. This shows how much people in America have been conditioned to link symbols to emotions in a Pavlovian way.

We are so convinced we are the toughest people on the planet. Our contrived efforts to show it to the rest of the world are just the hallmark of our insecurity about it.

I understand the frustration of our young ¡§specialists¡¨ in Iraq not finding anything; first told they would fight to protect their homeland about impending WMDs, then being shot by the people they ¡§liberated¡¨ and finding Iraqi Miracle-Gro as the closest thing resembling WMDs. Sorry Daveman, so far these are the facts.

Just wait until they come home, hopefully complete and alive, to discover that besides medals and a short-lived hero¡¦s welcome, the ones who return to civilian life won¡¦t get the special treatment they think they deserve. Again, I speak from experience.



You are right, the Left is often all talk and not enough action, as much as the people in uniform are all about action, emotion and not much real-life thinking. Armies are good at one thing, blowing to pieces people or things; don¡¦t ask them to rebuild a country, this is sissy work, leave it to the UN.

I hope you feel you got special attention now that I have written this long reply just for you. I actually work for a living and don¡¦t enjoy the vast amounts of free time the army seems to grant you to write all these posts.

Perhaps that¡¦s all you are doing in your free time... not healthy Daveman. Tell me, is there other websites where you are as prolific as Indymedia or do you simply enjoy the attention of getting people mad by writing antagonistic posts?

I have broken it in several paragraphs so you can conveniently quote me and insert your pertinent remarks in between, one of your favorite activities it seemsļ.



Enjoy your long evenings,

Ziegler

I'm posting as "Nessie." Pretty clever, don't you think?

www.kobehq.com

Daveman: 'the rest of the Indymidiots, would rather crap on Bush than admit a good thing happened for the Iraqi people...'

How pompous of you to speak for others. What gives you the qualifications to say that what happened to the Iraqi people was good for them? Is lack of electricity good? How about the lack of running water? Oil fires are good for you? DU munitions littering the countryside? You are both arrogant and ignorant.

We support the killing of Muslims and niggers. Please visit our website.

"They never generalized about the civilian being this, the military being that."

You mean just like you're doing?

'"have no other prospects in life" or "I'll look so virile in one of these uniforms" or "I'll get to steer one of these speedboats like in the ad"'

Generalizing like that is okay for you but not me, huh? Typical Indymedia double standards.

"For many people enrolling, this will become an extended adult day care; I have enough examples to back up this assertion."

Show them. For every example you give, I can give a hundred that show military members as responsible adults performing a vital service to their coountry.

"It is not the military¡¦s fault that it caters today¡¦s teenager wishes, it has just adapted to it. I want it all, I want it now, I don¡¦t want to put the effort and patience but I want all the recognition."

Not in the Air Force; I've seen many kids who joined for the wrong reasons and who refused to adapt get the boot. Which branch of the service is kissing slackers' butts, anyway?

"...what percentage of the recruits actually gets to fly the helo, become a SEAL etc..."

Npot many, granted. For every sexy and glamourous job, there are a hundred unsexy and mundane jobs...but without the boring stuff getting done, the helo won't fly and the SEAL won't get his job done.

"Your defensive reply indicates that you must be a member of the armed forces."

Yes, I am, and I get defensive when people who have no understanding of the military feel qualified to denigrate it. Me, I'm in one of the Civil Engineering career fields, one that gets deployed second only to Security Forces. In the 6 years I was in deployable units, I was in the Middle East 14 months. I did a year in Korea, leaving behind my wife and 4-month-old daughter. I did 15 months in Oman, but was blessed enough to have my family with me. I've left every shop I've been in better than when I arrived. I've saved the government a great deal of money with my work, and made it safer as well. My training and experience has left me qualified to hold jobs in generator installation, operations and maintenance, hazardous waste management, facility management, and quality assurance. I could easily earn twice as much as I'm making now on the outside. But I choose to stay in the service...I reenlisted for 5 1/2 years just yesterday. My commitment to my country means a great deal to me. Am I proud of my service? You bet your bippy. Am I arrogant? I don't think so...but you are free to form your own opinion.

Again, you make generalizations: You asked 8 people what they thought a bumper sticker meant, and then extrapolate how the country feels from that sample. Your conclusions don't deserve comment.

"...the ones who return to civilian life won¡¦t get the special treatment they think they deserve."

Trust me...they'll be happy just not to be called baby-killers by a bunch of Leftist peace-marchers whose idea of service to the country is waving signs and blocking traffic. That's all the special treatment they'd like.

"...as much as the people in uniform are all about action, emotion and not much real-life thinking."

Haven't seen much action OR thinking from the Left. It's all emotion...based of no facts.

"I hope you feel you got special attention now that I have written this long reply just for you. I actually work for a living and don¡¦t enjoy the vast amounts of free time the army seems to grant you to write all these posts."

Well, thanks for the unwarranted condecension, but I really have no particular feelings about your long post. I certainly don't feel "special", as you seem to think I should. I work for a living, too, and visit this vast wasteland only off duty.

"Perhaps that¡¦s all you are doing in your free time... not healthy Daveman. Tell me, is there other websites where you are as prolific as Indymedia or do you simply enjoy the attention of getting people mad by writing antagonistic posts?"

Nope. There's a real life out here, and it's a lot of fun. There are other people in here who do need to try it out, though.

Oh, by the way...keep your arrogant attitude to yourself. I see no reason it's warranted.

[Not in the Air Force; I've seen many kids who joined for the wrong reasons and

who refused to adapt get the boot. Which branch of the service is kissing

slackers' butts, anyway?]

What the hell are you doing all the time, airman daveman?

You don't have a clue about what I do.

One more idiot spouting off about things he's unqualifed to.

Mmmm, judging by the clues you left around here, there's not much your mentally qualified to do...

...and I don't think many of us around here would bother to strain a braincell thinking about it too much, except to say that your are probably overpaid.

...what does a Caveman make these days, anyway?

You managed to get through a three-line post without talking about your penis or spouting obscenities!

You feeling okay, man?

WMD bitching is so may, can you not find something else to generate ire towards bush. No one really cares that were not finding wmd. Besides violating his 1991 agreement, saddam, activiley supported terrorism. Isn't that enough. Keep trotting out this tired wmd argument and spinning your wheels so hard you dig a whole for yourselves.

"Besides violating his 1991 agreement,"

Funny how the real shills around here always seem to dance around this gem.

Yes we have some operatives in all corners of the world.

We're called the CIA and all our client intelligence (newspeak for state sponsored terrorists) and our well funded PR connections. Many of us trained the creatures that left a river of blood and pain in central and south america.

Wanna know how to place a charge on a school bus gas tank to

turn the interior into a searing inferno?

Use of physical and psychological torture or social control through acts of unspeakable brutality to promote a feeling of impotent misery? Just got another raise and more personnel.

Here in the CIA, we are for hire when the corporations

run into trouble.

What ever it takes.

Haven't found Saddam either. Yet.

What would be easier to find? Substances buried in the ground or one of the most recognizable people on the planet?

Both will be found. But both will most likely require help from witnesses.

-What would be easier to find? Substances buried in the ground or one of the most

recognizable people on the planet? -

we already know where the oil is, for god's sake.

Anyone who believes the davie is an ordinary "Airman" also believes in:

Santa Clause

The Tooth Fairy

Bush's Claims.

If he is even in the Air Farce he is attached to an Intel Office doing PsyOps/Disinformation.

Likely he is just another paid schlmiel from Langely etc....

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

You are really too much.

I see what you're using instead of reasoning, though. If I'm paid by the government to spread disinformation, it means you're onto the "truth", and therefore it lends credence to your wacko theories.

Get this through your conspiracy-theory-addled brain: No one here is paid by public money to shoot holes in your crap.

We consider it a public service.

Who knows...one day you may come to your senses.

I really doubt it, but hope springs eternal.

Now say it with me: "There are no shills at IMC".

There! That was easy, wasn't it?

...if you really were here to change mind or even open them up you would not be dealing in, disinformation, misinformation, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks.

The one thing a paid shill would never admit to is being a paid shill. It destroys their credibility. What chaps your hide I suspect is that people are wising up and are becoming aware of your tactics, how to spot shills like you, and then to disregard anything they have to say.

While it is a matter of curiosity it is to some degree irrelevant who signs your paycheck. You are here because you are paid to be here or you are a psychotic.

There is no third option.

But unconvincing as there are now, what, five weasels on this board?

Or one really manic burn-out with multiples in battle for control.

It's so mediocre. They are weak and transparent reduced to mimic, hate and other methods to disrupt.

They instruct, yeah right. Like a belligerent drunk will instruct you

on some subject they are ignorant about and believe that you suffer

worse on this than they do.

We know why they are here. Best to step over their little traps even when

they so invitingly make asses out of them selves.

"You are here because you are paid to be here or you are a psychotic."

Can I please get an Amen!



The irony of this statement is AMAZING!!!!!!!



I mean, my God! This is just too much.

SIMPLY LAUGHING OUT LOUD.

Maybe Dio and Sheepdog will explain to us why THEY are here.......

upon my overworked dieing love's mouth, I heard her say "get those bastards, Sheepdog"

or was it " get those bastard sheepdogs..."(?) I'm not sure.

Well, what the hell! It's Friday night!!!

Nay, my son, but I will fire up a bong load in a few just for you.

I

Thats my IP

so you can visit my computer in the wee hours of the

night



Ha H@hA

hA HA H@

H@ HA Ha

What's my IP right now, Enrique? It changes every time I get online!! I've never seen such excitement over such insignificant information!

I'm flattered that you'd try, quite ineffectually I might add, to get my info, Enrique. Too bad I've already got yours, utterfailure. But if you want my address, just let me know. It can be arranged. I don't think I've got much to worry about, what with you being in Spain and all.

Stop this at once! I shall tell your fathers if this persists> and they will

tar both your butts. Take heed.

I've fucked all my mother's friends. And none of them were very good.

couldn't bring out the woman in them? That's because they were men

...to continue making life miserable for Bush Asskisser after I chased him off Portland Indymedia and found that there were a whole lot more shills here to beat up on. A wealth of imbeciles to use as instructional props.

What does it say about someone who has to pat their own selves on the back?

What does it say about someone who must say out loud they think they are outdueling their opposition?

It took two of you to write that?

WE GET HIGH. CHILDREN DIE.

non sequitur alert

I did not write the above post.

As for dumb and dumber - the usual shill tactic - insult and innuendo.

Yawn.

"What does it say about someone who has to pat their own selves on the back?"

People who know they're good don't have to pat themselves on the back.

"What does it say about someone who must say out loud they think they are outdueling their opposition?"

If they were outdueling their opposition, it would be obvious, they wouldn't feel the need to have to say it.

"What does it say about someone who has to pat their own selves on the back?

What does it say about someone who must say out loud they think they are outdueling their opposition"

this one doesn't know about these weasels haveing to do this very

self congratulatory dance in amonst their own circle jerk of ( did you

notice they seemed to all go on vacation at the same time?) hitler youth on their kamps...

Please, oh please get real.

"hitler youth on their kamps"

Now, man, like going on vacation and taking a cruise or staying on a tropical island for a week is, like, hitler youth kamps, man.

Yes I know it's a personal question.

Still is amusing that your fellowship had fun. Nice. With pay?

Decided to drop in or a chat and see how the freedom fighters are doing.

Keep the faith.

OH and err-ic

still defending the constitution from behind a desk?

Happy about your reenlistment promotion?

Still Lying about being a SEAL.

jOkE.

ps

you need to repaint the fence outside of your house, it looks like shit.

Tell your wife she needs to lose a little weight.

If yOu OnLy KnEw

HA h@ Ha

ha H@ hA

hA h@ Ha

SucKa!!!!!!

be in the US soon to check on a few things............

Youll have to excuse me since your the

SAME PERSON

ha H@ hA

HA h@ Ha

H@ ha HA

ps

lose the glasses they make you look gay.

Like I told Paul King, I understand why you think everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. Less frightening that way.

"lose the glasses they make you look gay."

I'm glad you find them attractive, but really, I'm hetero.

they make you LOOK gay

not that you ARE gay

eric

And I'm not Eric.

Stupid.

But I guess you still find me attractive, huh? You didn't deny it.

maybe i was in that car driving slow past your house, or maybe i was that guy next to you in the grocery store, or maybe i was that guy sitting in the corner of the bar watching you.

I know that you are daveman=eric=simple simon.

My investigation of you is complete.

You are a fraud and a liar.

"...maybe i was in that car driving slow past your house..."

Not my house. You wouldn't be allowed near it.

"...maybe i was that guy sitting in the corner of the bar watching you."

I don't go to bars.

"daveman=eric=simple simon"

If you keep on believing it, it makes the fear go away, doesn't it?

What are you afraid of?

"My investigation of you is complete."

Who did you interview? The voices in your head?

"You are a fraud and a liar."

I don't lie. I don't have any reason to.

Once again, sissie: What are you afraid of?

George F. Will: Proof of WMDs is crucial

By George F. Will

Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, June 22, 2003

WASHINGTON -- An antidote for grand imperial ambitions is a taste of imperial success. Swift victory in Iraq may have whetted the appetite of some Americans for further military exercises in regime change, but more than seven weeks after the president said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," combat operations, minor but lethal, continue.

And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for pre-emptive war. The doctrine of pre-emption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy.

To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very imperfect information. But pre-emption presupposes the ability to know things -- to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war.

Some say the war was justified even if WMDs are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is "better off" without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny -- on to Burma? -- it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for pre-emptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure -- so far -- to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president's policy and rhetoric.

Saddam, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and biological WMDs. President Clinton, British, French and German intelligence agencies and even Hans Blix (who tells the British newspaper The Guardian, "We know for sure that they did exist") have expressed certainty about Iraq having WMDs at some point.

A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using fictitious WMDs as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible explanation of the failure to find WMDs. What is plausible? James Woolsey, President Clinton's first CIA director, suggests the following:

As war approached, Saddam, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.

Based on his experience in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties -- perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals -- to inflame world opinion, and count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMDs on the eve of war.

Or shortly after the war began. Saddam, suggests Woolsey, was stunned when Gen. Tommy Franks began the air and ground offenses simultaneously and then "pulled a Patton," saying, in effect, never mind my flanks, I'll move so fast they can't find my flanks. Saddam, Woolsey suggests, may have moved fast to destroy the material that was the justification for a war he intended to survive, and may have survived.

Such destruction need not have been a huge task. In Britain, where political discourse is far fiercer than in America, Tony Blair is being roasted about the missing WMDs by, among many others, Robin Cook, formerly his foreign secretary. Cook says: "Such weapons require substantial industrial plant and a large work force. It is inconceivable that both could have been kept concealed for the two months we have been in occupation of Iraq."

Rubbish, says Woolsey: Chemical or biological weapons could have been manufactured with minor modifications of a fertilizer plant, or in a plant as small as a microbrewery attached to a restaurant. The 8,500 liters of anthrax that Saddam once admitted to having would weigh about 8.5 tons and would fill about half of a tractor-trailer truck. The 25,000 liters that Colin Powell cited in his U.N. speech could be concealed in two trucks -- or in much less space if the anthrax were powdered.

For the president, the missing WMDs are not a political problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMDs not found, so we "feel good about ourselves."

But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action. Until WMDs are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done.

A G.I. a day keeps Texaco away.

Its not Vietnam.....

Its just another oil company scam....

Salute the flag for uncle Sam....

Just take your money and

place your bets-

ITs Afganistan

So fix bayonnets

Check grenades

Got enough bullets

Got enough bombs to

Wipe out this place.

We're the infantry

and the cavalry

watching bodies burn and people die.

(repeat top)

end

written by Keith Morris

Circle Jerks

(1983)

"someone weaker than you should rape you"

Michael Gira

1985