Contrary to one of President Bush’s central claims for invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no direct connection to al-Qaida. That’s according to a new Pentagon-sponsored study of 600,000-plus Iraqi documents seized after the 2003 invasion.
The exhaustive review found no evidence of any operational link between Saddam and al-Qaida or the 9/11 hijakers.
None. Zip. The findings echo those of a 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which concluded that Saddam was “distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support.â€
Given the inconvenient truths in the report, it was no surprise to hear that the Bush administration blocked its widespread release this week. As usual, information that doesn’t fit the Bush storyline simply doesn’t exist..
Still, it’s good to have this reality check again before the general election rhetoric takes flight.
Everyone repeat: No Saddam link to al-Qaida.
181 Comments
9/11!
alQuada!
WMDs!
9/11!
Mushroom Cloud!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!
Randy
YOU got it wrong, you can even be corrected by your own words:
“Everyone repeat: No Saddam link to al-Qaida”
The report said “no operational link” not, “no link” — there is a HUGE difference.
The repord said, clearly, that OBL had made requests to Saddam.
Check back on several other, similar threads. How many people stated with absolutely positive passion and belief that OBL would “never” cooperate with Saddam?
There WERE links.
Hard to say “NO” if you were never asked, right?
The only thing preventing “Operational Links” was Saddam playing his cards.
If Saddam was still in power?
We might well have seen that “Organizational Link” come to pass.
And
Saddam DID support other terrorist groups.
And,
Much of the report talks about Saddam and 9-11.
Last I checked, Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either.
Everyone repeat: No Saddam link to al-Qaida.
If you are going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same “lies”. You must admit the truth if we are to learn anything from this and keep it from happening again. Both parties, all politicians played a part in our commitment to war:
“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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” S
- 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.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 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 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
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- 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
“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.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. 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.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Everyone repeat: No Saddam link to al-Qaida.
That has been repeated ad nauseum. Good LORD find some new news !!!
Randy what did you say when Bill Clinton had the US military lob bombs on Saddam? Saddam was a murderer and Al Qaida was for him.
This is what Saddam did, concerning 9-11:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html
Saddam wanted credit for 9-11, even if he had nothing to do with it.
The logo on the mural? It is an Iraqi Airline jet, in Saddam’s mural, crashing into a building!
“Saddam was a murderer and Al Qaida was for him”
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda wanted to overthrow the secular government of Saddam Hussein and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic government similar to the Taliban.
Saddam and bin Laden were mortal enemies.
Quoting statements made BEFORE the inspectors returned to Iraq in November 2002 is just disingenuous.
If George WMD Bush had allowed inspections to continue, they would have proven what we all know now – no WMD.
“Saddam and bin Laden were mortal enemies.”
How do you know they were “mortal” enemies?
Just curious.
WS
If OBL felt that way, why did OBL ASK for Saddam to cooperate with Al Queda?
Come on WS, catch up!
You have always claimed that OBL would have nothing to do with Saddam.
This very report proves YOU wrong.
OBL was more than willing to work with Saddam, and ASKED for Saddam’s help!
“A Pentagon report concludes Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out terrorist operations and provided sanctuary and aid to terrorist groups. But confiscated Iraqi documents show no direct link between the former Iraqi…”
———-
The thread lead in by Randy Scholfield failed to mention that Saddam’s regime supported terrorists and gave sanctuary to terrorist groups, just that they could prove no link to al qaeda. Significance?
Hindsight, with the benefit of having examined over 600,000 documents, is always better than foresight
Randy is still supporting Kerry against Bush, neither of which are running.
We expect bias, from Randy.
It would be more fun if he would stay current.
“How do you know they were “mortal” enemies?”
OBL was a radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorist. Saddam was a secular, virtually non-practicing Muslim.
One of the goals of the fundamentalist Islamic terror groups is to replace secular Arab governments with fundamentalist governments.
Hence, mortal enemies.
I would have to guess that Saddam figured if they wanted to overthrow his government, the probably weren’t REAL friendly.
We just did the overthrowing part for bin Laden.
“OBL was more than willing to work with Saddam, and ASKED for Saddam’s help!”
He asked for money, which he apparently did from several Arab governments.
How often do you ask your “mortal enemy” for money?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Here Paul, here is what your policies caused. They’re killing your own people, now what are you gonna do about it. Still defend the policies?
BAGHDAD – The body of a Christian archbishop kidnapped last month was found in northern Iraq Thursday while in Baghdad, a car bomb exploded and killed 18 people.
Gunmen abducted Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho and killed three of his companions soon after they left Mass in the city of Mosul on Feb. 29. It was the latest in a series of attacks against Iraq’s small Christian community.
“How often do you ask your “mortal enemy” for money?”
Rossell, you repeatedly try to make the argument that there WAS a connection between Saddam and bin Laden as justification for the invasion of Iraq.
It won’t work – YOUR government says that YOU are wrong.
As for why bin Laden asked for financing from Saddam? Ask him, he hiding in a cave in Pakistan. The answer is probably a buy off or the enemy of my enemy concept, but the fact of the matter is that al Qaeda wanted to overthrow Hussein.
***************************
Bin Laden’s actual statement was at pains to distance itself from the Iraqi regime. It called on Iraqis to fight the attackers, regardless of whether President Saddam or his party remains or goes, and despite the fact that Muslims consider socialists “infidels” – a reference to Saddam’s Arab Ba’ath Socialist party.
“It does no harm in these circumstances that the interests of Muslims and socialists crisscross in the fighting against the crusaders,” the statement said.
*************************
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/12/iraq.alqaida
Saddam was secularist who was reviled by Bin Laden and the terrible actions attributed to Saddam were the standard operating procedures for handling people who don’t agree with you, in that part of the world. The whole middle-East (save Isreal)is like that. What bugs me is that we now seem to think it is OK to replicate some of those procedures in the name of security which is their excuse too.
Scholfield just ticked cause I slapped him around with the truth on the Coal plant thread. :D
So, he posts some radical left liberal vomitorium topics to make up his liberal shortcomings. :)
Listen to the CONs.
First, they deny they were wrong.
Then when proven wrong, they say it doesn’t matter.
Then when shown that it does matter, they say it’s “old news.”
Anybody who still thinks that Bush isn’t the Worst. President. Ever. has lost all touch with reality and can’t be reasoned with.
No amount of empirical data can convince them that George W. Bush wasn’t wrong about everything.
But thanks for trying, Randy.
Reality continues to have a “liberal bias.”
Well, I see the AmWay is playing the usual “Democrats saw the intelligence as George Bush” game, and therefore that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate. Except that they didn’t. George Bush was told, repeatedly, by CIA operatives, that Saddam Hussein had NO WMD’s. He chose to ignore their advice, and shared it with no one.
“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.”
(snip)
“Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
So, AmWay, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I won’t call you a liar. Should you and others (that means YOU, Econ101) continue to insist that Democrats “saw the same intelligence as Bush,” I won’t hesitate to describe you as a liar.
Meanwhile the real terrorists–high Saudi officials–remain untouched.
They continue to engage in both slavery and sex slavery with impunity.
House maids are routinely CAGED in Saudi Arabia . . .
The Kurds are victim to Iraqui reprisals as they were victims of Iranian and Turkish reprisals over the years. Having been promised a homeland (Kuridstan) by the Brits in WW1 for their support against the Ottomans, they have been a thorn in the side of those 3 countries in which they reside as sizeable minoriies. There is some debate as to whether Iraq or Iran gassed the Kurds of Iraq by reason of the death configuration/attitudes indicating the poison used was Soviet supplied rather than American, hence Iranian inflicted. Note the current tension between Turkey and the Kurds.
Give it up, Randy, brain-dead people cannot be reasoned with.
It is very sad, but little is gained from beating your head against a wall of stupidity.
CF2K,
First of all, your linked article is full of crap.
Naji Sabri never said that Saddam had no WMD’s.
He actually said that Saddam still had Chemical weapons left over from the first Gulf War.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/page/2/
So when you link to an article that said Bush knew there were no WMD’s it is very questionable.
The truth of the matter is that Naji turned out to be more accurate, but that there were still other sources which were telling a different story.
Actually, I am having trouble finding any other news source which claims what Salon is claiming.
I am not going to outright say Salon is wrong, but do you have any other valid links besides that piece from Salon?
I’ll answer that, Nathan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
Former Marine and Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter claimed that Saddam had no WMD’s because he was there in 1998 and they had all been destroyed by then.
Ritter again promoted a conciliatory approach toward Iraq in the 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq, which he wrote and directed. The film tells the history of the UNSCOM investigations through interviews and video footage of inspection missions. In the film, Ritter argues that Iraq is a “defanged tiger” and that the inspections were successful in eliminating significant Iraqi WMD capabilities.[6] (For more see below under “Documentary”.)
[edit] Iraq War Predictions
Just after the coalition invasion of Iraq had been launched, but prior to troops arriving in Baghdad, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament that the United States and the United Kingdom believed they had “sufficient forces” in Iraq. At that very time Ritter offered an opposing view to Portugese radio station TSF: “The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win… We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable… Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost,” Ritter added.[7]
U.S. forces swiftly took Baghdad, but characterizing the result as “winning the war” remains controversial. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Ritter appeared on the Sean Hannity show debating the validity of the invasion and his involvement in the Weapons Inspection program. Hannity claimed Ritter was biased and paid off by the Iraqi government to endorse the idea of WMD’s no longer existing in Iraq. Ritter claimed the US would be in Iraq years from now
*****
There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)
We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)
If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)
[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[8]
CapnAmerica,
That was an answer to a question I didn’t ask, but thanks anyway.
So where are these WMD, Price? Why hasn’t anyone been able to find them?
WS Clark,
Why don’t you ask all your Democrats and Liberals who were out saying Saddam had them and needed to be disarmed?
“Why don’t you ask all your Democrats and Liberals who were out saying Saddam had them and needed to be disarmed?”
One, most of the quotes I have seen from Democrats regarding Saddam and WMD were from BEFORE the inspectors returned to Iraq.
Two, answer the question – where are the WMD in Iraq?
Is Mr Scholfield just catching up on that news? After all, the administration clearly said Saddam had no link to Al Queda before we invaded.
A link to Al Queda, no. A link to terrorism, definitely.
Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Freedom Act into law in 1998, declaring that Saddam was a danger to the world and that he needed to be ousted and replaced with a democracy.
George W believed Clinton, obviously and the rest is history.
Catch up, Randy. You’re beating a long dead pony, it ain’t gonna get up and run.
“Last I checked, Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either.”
(a) Hitler’s Germany was officially allied with Japan; and
(b) Germany declared war on the United States.
So, Paul, what is your point?
Saudi Arabia had infinitely more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did.
WSClark – the burden of proof was not on us to show that Saddam had WMDs, it was upon Saddam, himself, to show he didn’t.
By his own admission, he listed WMD’s on the list after the first Gulf War that he was to dispose of.
He never announced that they were gone.
So – why should we believe he didn’t have any, when he, himself, refused to declare them destroyed?
You think we should have employed better remote viewers?
Saddam got what he deserved.
Just not soon enough.
“So – why should we believe he didn’t have any, when he, himself, refused to declare them destroyed?”
As he told the CIA prior to his execution, he wanted IRAN to think that he had WMD.
“Saddam got what he deserved.”
And we lost 4,000 Americans and spent $1 trillion to dethrone a two-bit, tin pot dictator that couldn’t even control all of his own country and could not defeat Iran in a eight – ten year war WITH weapons of mass destruction.
Nice job, George.
“After all, the administration clearly said Saddam had no link to Al Queda before we invaded.”
No true – Rumsfeld stated in late 2002 that they had “bulletproof” evidence that Saddam and bin Laden were linked.
Dick Cheney stated AFTER the war began, as recently as LAST year, that there was proof that al Qaeda and Hussein had operational links.
It’s no surprise to the educated that Saddam had no links to Al-Queda. This was known well before the invasion, as was the fact Saddam had no WMD.
But then again there are neo-con nuts like Paul who get their news from Fox News and Rush Limpballs. So another report comes out confirming the obvious and those who cheered on the war respond to this newest report by plugging their eyes and repeating “9-11, 9-11, 9-11.”
There is no educating the willfully retarded.
The Soviet Union was once allied with Hitlers Germany.
The Molotov Ribentrop Treaty was violated by Hitler.
That is the only reason that the Soviets were “allies” of the United States.
The Soviets would not even help the United States, in the Pacific War.
However, we went to war with Hitler, first, prior to attacking the Japenese.
—-
We have been in a Veterans Administration/Defense Department/U.S. Government recognized “state of war” in Iraq under 3 Presidents.
Ever since the invasion of Kuwait, we have been in a War in Iraq.
Every single serviceperson to serve since the invasion of Kuwait is a “combat veteran”.
“Two, answer the question – where are the WMD in Iraq?”
WCLARK
Don’t blame Bush, he looked behind his couch and under the rug for the WMD. He thought Rumsfeld might have left over from when he hand delivered some to Saddam back in the day.
So, what is your point, Rossell?
We all know that Hussein was a bad man, of is/was Castro.
Was it worth 4,000 American lives and $1 trillion (and counting)to get rid of him?
Iraq is still a mess, but we had Saddam hanged.
Was it all worth it?
Good job Paul, I guess you forgot about those conflicts between Japan and the Soviet Union back in the late 1930s. Had not the USSR signed the neutrality pact with Japan in 1941 then the Soviets couldn’t have concentrated their activities against Germany.
Try learning a bit more history. Actually, try some knowledge of current events too. As a matter of fact perhaps it’s best if you didn’t say anything at all unless you want to continue to look foolish.
“As he told the CIA prior to his execution, he wanted IRAN to think that he had WMD.”
Day late and a dollar short.
“Day late and a dollar short.”
And if Bush had waited another month, the inspectors would have proven that Saddam had no WMD and we could have saved $1 trillion and, more importantly, 4,000 American lives.
Paul – under the United States Constitution Congress must declare war. They did that against Japan. Then, after Germany declared war on the US Congress declared war on Germany. When did the Congress declare war against Iraq?
The weapons inspectors already concluded that the WMD were destroyed after the conclusion of the first Bush’s war with Iraq. Bush Jr. didn’t want to listen and announced that there was going to be war, just for the sake of getting his political capital.
Live in the now. blahblahblah
“Live in the now.”
When you have made the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States, it’s EASY to say “live in the now.”
Forget that HUGE boo-boo, just think about today.
Doug
When Japan and Hitler and Italy joined as a united AXIS power, The Soviets were under no obligation to respect any treaty with Japan.
Besides that, after the United States had done the work, against Japan, the Soviets then claimed some Japanese islands.
Why don’t you learn some history, you Soviet apologist?
Nathan,
A fair job trying to evade the real issue, which is that Bush had access to intelligence that Democrats did not–but not a particularly good job on your part. And then you repeat the same assertion that “Democrats thought Saddam had them, too!”–which precisely ignores the speciousness of the comparison.
That make you a liar, Nathan.
Ben
The Veterans Administration only grants some benefits for those who serve in war time.
The Veterans Administration says that we have been in a state of war since the invasion of Kuwait.
It is the law, Ben.
Hard for you to accept, I understand, but that is the law.
Yes, Econ, that’s correct about the benefits. I would classify this as an administrative decision, not a declaration of national policy, but that’s just me.
Nathan,
And here’s a corroborating account from the WaPo’s Walter Pincus.
“When it came to chemical weapons, Sabri told his handler that some existed but they were not under military control, a former intelligence official familiar with the situation said. Another former official added: “He said he had been told Hussein had them dispersed among some of the loyal tribes.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html
But this, of course, is immaterial: the fact is that Bush didn’t want to hear that Saddam hadn’t been able to reconstitute his nuclear or biological programs, even despite evidence and testimony. His mind was made up. And because it was made up, he hushed up the presence of evidence to the contrary.
Since Al Queada is an Idea, would it not be difficult for Congress to declare WAR on an idea??
WS
“Worst Foreign Policy Blunder of the United States in History”???
Wow
Do you know how many single battles, during WW2, had more than 4,000 American deaths? Do you have any idea how many mistakes we made, militarily, in WW2?
Do you realize that Nixon played the “China Card” way too late, in Vietnam? Do you realize that, had LBJ gone to China, early on, much of the Vietnam war could have been avoided?
Do you realize that LBJ and his “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” was responsible for huge loss of life?
Do you realize how many of our troops died, in Korea, due to very poor equipment and communications, and the fact that many were shipped to Korea with NO winter gear?
Try to avoid the hyperbole, would you please.
Actually, Econ, to be fair to the VA, it is my recollection (again, just that) that there was never a formal “peace agreement” signed following the action taken against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. It seems to me an armistice was signed, much as the case in Korea. Thus, as only an armistice was in place, there would be a “state of war” until a formal peace treaty was signed. BTW, I’m not up on the VA’s various rules, etc.; is the same treatment afforded those in Korea at the present time, actually at any time after the formal “hostilities” ended in 1953?
I think the term Econ101 is searching for is serving during and in a Combat Zone.
For instance, one can get a National Defense Ribbon awarded just for serving on Active duty (anywhere) during a time of combat. Vietnam, First Gulf War and Iraqi Conflict are examples. Awarding a theater medals are often restricted to zones declared such by the Department of Defense (service medals,etc.)
One can get combat pay or hazardous duty pay, special dispensation for savings, deferred taxes and etc. for serving in a declared combat zone. Once outside of that zone, the benefits don’t apply.
Also, I think what Econ101 was referring to was those Acts passed by Congress during times of combat that benefit all service members regardless of duty status – i.e. the VA benefits.
“Since Al Queada is an Idea, would it not be difficult for Congress to declare WAR on an idea??”
Exactly. Just what address would you put on the envelope?
Just think though, when the history books look back on this, hopefully there will be one big hard lesson learned. That the conservatives will look like total fools, along with the religious right. And the liberals, once again, will make everything right.
Econ101,
Troop losses are not the sole or even the most important metric for judging strategic success or failure. Korea wasn’t a relative success and Vietnam a failure because the former conflict had fewer casualties. Rather, it is because the former achieved its objectives where the latter did not.
What were the objectives of the Iraq War? WMD? The removal of Saddam? The locking up of Iraq’s oil reserves under U.S. control? All of these and none of these. In one way, Econ101, you are correct: it is hard to assess Iraq as a strategic failure, simply because it’s very difficult to ascertain precisely what was supposed to be accomplished by us being there at all.
However, I’d also say that invading a country 6,000 miles from North America, which posed NO threat whatever, destroying its government and infrastructure, and making our dire enemy, Iran, who are right next door, into the effective local and regional power, does, indeed, take the cake as America’s “all-time strategic blunder.”
VT
Actually, though the decision was “Administrative” it is based on historical legal precedent.
There was a “Declaration of War” when we pushed Saddam’s Iraq out of Kuwait.
That conflict never ended.
There was a “cease fire agreement” but the war, itself, was never really over. Saddam ignored and violated the “cease fire agreement” making real peace impossible.
Then, Congress authorized the use of force, again, in order to remove Saddam. Some do not think that second authorization was necessary, but it did happen.
The VA tends to look for Congressional Authorization for “combat” status.
Grenada does not count.
The bombing of the Marine Barracks, in Lebanon, does not count.
Haiti and Kosovo and Bosnia and Somalia, under Clinton? They do not count, on their own merits, but every service man or woman who served, under Bill Clinton, DID serve in “war time” due to:
IRAQ!
Sorry PMom, arm flailing and whining, which is what about the only thing Liberals do is not note worthy enough to be placed in History Books. :)
Listen to the reich-wing spin:
Saddam had WMD’s. Okay, he didn’t but the DEMS thought he did. Maybe he still does, even though he’s dead. Clinton belived in regime change. We were fighting a war in Iraq under Clinton too. Saddam had Al Qaeda ties! Okay, maybe not “operational” ties but ties nonetheless. Okay, maybe not Al Qaeda, but terrorists nonetheless. Nevermind, it’s all old news anyway.
The simple fact is this–
George W. Bush wanted to invade and occupy Iraq, obviously to control the oil, since before he took office. (See this 1999 link of Candidate Bush: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DF143EF930A35751C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
Bush said in 1999, “if I thought in any way shape or form that he [Saddam] was developing any weapons of mass destruction, I’d take him out. I’m surprised he’s still there.”
After 9-11, the perfect pretext presented itself. Then the propaganda war that Saddam had WMD’s and was linked to Al Qaeda began.
Democrats did not invade and occupy Iraq for five long years. That was pure George W. Bush’s doing.
And come November, you can bet the American people will remember.
Yep, Econ, I think I figured this all out. After the Kuwait matter, under the aegis of the U.N., during Bush 41’s administration, there was no formal peace agreement signed; just a “cease fire”. Thus, under the various acts referred to by you and Regular, the intervening period between the cease fire and the pre-emptive invasion was still during a “time of war” for purposes of the VA benefits you cite. Got it.
VT
Look up the “VA Pension”
It is actually available to anyone who serves in the Military, during time of declared war. The person involved does not have to actually see combat.
It is great as a way to help pay for Long Term Care costs.
Requirments?
1.) Disabled OR over age 65
2.) Served during a declared war
3.) Means testing of net income, with deductions for nursing home costs. Also some net worth tests.
Cap’N,
Gosh, you sound like you think there’s still, like, a WAR going on in Iraq. Haven’t you heard? “The Surge is working!”
Oh, wait–fifteen soldiers killed between Monday and Wednesday?
Look! Eliot Spitzer had to resign!
By the way, spouses and widows/widowers also qualify.
Hehehe, CF.
And sure enough, just as Randy said above, the Pentagon decided to cancel its report due out yesterday.
Yup, nothing to see here. Move along.
******
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30172.html
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.
Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won’t be posted on the Internet.
The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.
In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam’s regime had ties to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network.
But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.
The study comes at a difficult time for the Bush administration. The fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is approaching on March 19, and Bush is attempting to hold support for a continued large U.S. troop presence there following a report from his on-the-ground commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, in early April.
Pall,
“How often do you ask your “mortal enemy” for money?”
Well, your great love Bonny Huy sent me several requests for campaign contributions!
More good news, if you’re a CON–
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23591348/
BAGHDAD – A U.S. military spokesman said three American soldiers were killed in a rocket attack on their combat outpost south of Baghdad on Wednesday. The deaths bring to 12 the number of U.S. troops killed in three days.
Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, told The Associated Press that the soldiers were killed on Combat Outpost Adder near Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad.
Two other American soldiers were injured in the rocket attack. Eight American soldiers died in separate attacks on Monday and one was killed Tuesday.
Also Wednesday, four Iraqi civilians were killed and nine others injured when a roadside bomb exploded near a passing U.S. military patrol, local police said.
The deaths mark a significant rise in violence over several days that included dozens of civilians dying in sectarian violence. The bloody uptick casts doubt on the relative calm that followed a surge of U.S. forces to Baghdad last year.
According to an Associated Press count, at the height of unrest from November 2006 to August 2007, on average approximately 65 Iraqis died each day as a result of violence. As conditions improved, the daily death toll steadily declined. It reached its lowest point in more than two years on January 2008, when on average 20 Iraqis died each day.
Death toll jumps
Those numbers have since jumped. In February, approximately 26 Iraqis died each day as a result of violence, and so far in March, that number is up to 39 daily. These figures reflect the months in which people were found, and not necessarily — in the case of mass graves — the months in which they were killed.
Other recent violence includes two massive bombs last Thursday that killed 68 people in Baghdad’s Karradah neighborhood, and twin car bombings on March 3 that killed 24 people in the capital.
Five of the U.S. soldiers killed Monday died while on foot patrol in central Baghdad after a suicide bomber detonated his explosives vest after approaching them.
Three others died in a roadside bombing in Diyala province, a violent province where al-Qaida in Iraq has been active.
The soldier killed Tuesday died when the patrol he was on was hit by a roadside bomb near Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad. Two other soldiers were wounded in that blast.
Bomb targeting U.S. convoy kills 16 civilians
On Tuesday, Iraqi sources said 16 passengers on a bus in southern Iraq were killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq. The U.S. military initially claimed no one died in the attack.
But U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner on Wednesday recanted that stance and said the attack was a roadside bomb aimed at a passing U.S. convoy. The bomb exploded as the convoy and bus passed in opposite directions.
Total number of American dead in Iraq . . . 3987.
Will it hit 4,000 by March 19th, the fifth anniversary of the war?
P-Mom.
“Just think though, when the history books look back on this, hopefully there will be one big hard lesson learned.”
We don’t seem to learn lessons very well. The lesson that we should have learned from Viet Nam was that wars are ever so much harder to get out of than to get into. And here we are again, five years into a six-week war!
Paul, it’s clear you don’t know dick about Soviet history. The Soviets had just got done with a war with Finland and was going into the Baltic regions. They had conflicts with Japan on the Eastern borders and despite gaining some victories could not maintain a war on two fronts.
Why would it make sense for the Soviets to break their treaty with Japan when they were getting their asses kicked by the Nazis? It’s a stupid strategy to being losing in a conflict then pick another enemy to fight.
Paul, you continue to be one of the most ignorant people on this forum. Then again you thought invading Iraq for the entertainment value was a good idea. So really you have no credibility on any issue.
Oh, and Paul, when Germany did surrender the Soviet Union did break it’s pact with Japan and fought on it’s Eastern front despite your comments to the contrary. Not surprising the United States had the same strategy as the Soviet Union. The US focuses it’s attention on the war in Europe first then fought later in Japan after victory in Europe was secured.
So you condemn the USSR for taking the same actions as the US. But you are a Republican so your idea of using the military is to stretch them thin and battle on multiple fronts. There was a cocksure nation like that, it was Nazi Germany that thought a war on two fronts was a good idea. How well did that turn out.
Thanks for showing everyone another side of your stupidity.
4. Drowning
Deaths per year: 4,000
3. Poisoning by solids and liquids
Deaths per year: 8,600
2. Falls
Deaths per year: 14,900
1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsfull.html
——————-
So the Capn and other Radical left bloggers tread on the graves of our brave military to put forth their political ideology.
Just take a gander at the deaths per year regarding accidents.
Puts life into perspective doesn’t it?
Remember, one has a 3.75 greater chance of dieing to a fall than a military member does being in Iraq. And that is just one year, not over five years! Over five years, one would have a 18.75 chance of dieing to a fall than someone stationed in Iraq.
Where’s the outcry Radical Left? :)
It must be nice to be a conservative being able to tell a grieving family that their son or daughter’s death in Iraq is insignificant because the total number of deaths is small. How many must die before conservatives view the loss of life as significant?
Doug,
They would have to die before they considered it significant. Other People’s Children are expendable.
No one said deaths are insignificant Doug and you know this or perhaps not, since your panties always appear to be in a twist.
The point is, that brave military people who serve their country, don’t need their corpses waved around like black ideological flags.
To do so, is disrespectful and the ultimately selfish deed.
Truly amazing how a pentagon study finds no real contact between Osama and Saddam, and the Republicans here find fault with it. That is ironic, don’t you think, considering Bush is Commander in Chief, and still insists the two were in bed with each other.
We have gone from reality to the twilight zone in seven years. Beam be up, Scotty, there ain’t no life here.
Doug:After a 2 front WW1, Germany never wanted another, so the Non-Agression Pact signed with the USSR was designed to give it time to defeat the west before moving east. The USSR knew that also and it used the time to renovate it’s forces after the debacle against Finland. By offering the USSR half of Poland, Hitler figured (rightly)Russia would move their military lines west to the river dividing the areas of Polish occupation and herein was the supposed master plan. If you attack you do must so in strength at a concentrated point, if you defend you must defend in-depth so as to dissipate the enemies thrust, kinda like rope-a-dope. Hitler knew the treaty would eventualy be broken by one side or the other, so he timed Barbarossa to catch the USSR in neither the strong in-depth defensive positions they had held before the Pact was signed, nor in strength enough to launch a concerted attack from their newly occupied Polish positions, but in transition! Hitler knew it was a matter of time (years?) before the US came into the war, even if Japan had not bombed Pearl, so had to take out Stalin before America could bring it’s awesome power against him. He damn near did it too! This post is taken from Red Army Staff Comments about the origins of the Great Patriotic War written decades after Stalin died, a different and possibly the best history of Operation Barbarossa I’ve seen.
Regular obviously doesn’t know shit about statistics. The very stats he sights proves that it is extremely dangerous to be a soldier in Iraq. Much more so than someone dying from a fall in the US.
Regular must have some great disrespect for our military to so openly and falsely display such an ignorant disregard for the facts.
Regular, the AGE RANGE for deaths from falls is also usually ELDERLY. For crying out loud. Eventually 100% of the people in America will die of something. WAR shouldn’t be a reason to take YOUNG MOTHERS, SONS, FATHERS, AND DAUGHTER’s unless there is a G’D. GOOD REASON.
Doug: as a PS: The soldiers/commanders which stopped the advance of the of the Heer both north and east were mostly the Asiactic divisions freed up by the pact with Japan. Japan found it beneficial because they could now concentrate on the Pacific Theatre. Hitler would had no inkling of the strength of Soviet Asiatic Divisions assuming the entire Red Army was like a rotten house where the door just had to be kicked in to bring down the whole structure.
The exhaustive review? Review of what? The most sensitive information in Saddam’s archives were destroyed by his intelligence services before coalition forces secured the sites where the various archives existed.
Why is this information being suppressed by the media? Why the cover-up?
http://www.thexreport.com
Paul, JM, just think, you’d had been on Hitler’s side in WW2.
That’s exactly what you would have done, I can tell who’d be a Nazi just by reading on this board.
We know why Hitler came to power, because people believed in Nationalism and listened to the words of an insane man and followed.
The very stats he sights proves that it is extremely dangerous to be a soldier in Iraq.
Yeah, since the force size has been approximately 130,000 to 160,000. So let’s see, say, the stats for Terra Haute.
Of course might argue that the population of Iraq is a more one appropriate population, but then one has to include those pesky civilians (and Iraqi military etc.) in the numbers–which are dramatically higher.
I also think deliberately minimizing the significance of their deaths is a funny way to show “reepect.”
Oh thanks for that PMom, Econ101 would have been Nazi’s eh?
You know, it is true, when a conversation turns to Nazi comparison, one can rest assure that the opposition has already lost and is just flailing about.
I’d tell my Uncle who was a stout conservative and fought in the Battle of the Bulge, that he would have been a Nazi if he was on Hitler’s side. Can’t tell him, because he’s dead. Or, the five other relatives that died in WWII.
Perhaps I’ll pass it along to my father who is still alive, that he would have been a Nazi because he had conservative beliefs. He was in the Navy during WWII.
“Remember, one has a 3.75 greater chance of dieing to a fall than a military member does being in Iraq.”
FALSE STATEMENT. Misuse of statistics.
The 14,900 per year is of a population of 300 MILLION which is about 0.05 per thousand.
If you figure about 1000 dead per year in Iraq out of 150,000 that works out to about 7 per 1000.
133 times GREATER death rate in Iraq than falls.
FALSE STATEMENT.
Military are part of the U.S. population.
(chortles)
“There was a “Declaration of War” when we pushed Saddam’s Iraq out of Kuwait.’
FALSE STATEMENT. The United States Constitution has specific requirements – they were never met.
FALSE STATEMENT.
Sure felt like a War when I was in the Middle East Theater.
Just because the Congress was spineless on making a decision isn’t the military fault.
Regular, nobody accept a few miscreants believes the shit you put out.
You have lied from day one and are merely another poop stain in the game of life.
133 times GREATER death rate in Iraq than falls.
Regular poop stain apparently caught with his head up his ass.
Sure felt like a War when I was in the Middle East Theater.
Really poop stain Regular?…what was playing in the theatre?
Kansas = Yet another Radical Left Trolling nic switcher.
Whoever he his, evidently he doesn’t have the balls to use his ‘usual’ nic.
Shame, but we all know that Radical Left Liberals are cheese-eating surrender chimps that will avoid direct conflict at any cost.
he his = he is
I don’t believe you either James.
Normally, there are liars, damned liars, and statistics… but this time, the statistics pointed to the liars!! Tooo funny!! I love it!!
I’ll figure out who it is eventually. Whoever likes to use the word miscreant and doesn’t know the difference between “accept and except.”
Yes, I notice these things and much more “hidden” attributes.
Gee, add a touch of OCD, and we can change your name to Monk ROFL!! :-D
Gee poop stain Regular…you are far too OCD to have ever been in the military.
Obviously another of your wet dream lies!
You’ll figure what out? The color of your poop stain?
BTW poop stain Regular…time to go run and hide again because there are bloggers who not only know who you are but they also know the full extent of your lying.
Go run along and lick your toilet seat for comfort…like you did for the last two hours.
We know who you are and the lies you tell about yourself.
Kansas — He thinks you are a “Radical Left Liberal” hiding behind a nic :-)
That’s wierd. I always thought Osama bin Laden had ties to al-Qaida. Maybe I’m just ignorant.
I did it.
Because I want J M to leave this blog.
Oh boy… here we go again!!
Ummm Phil — Bin Laden DOES have ties to Al
Quaeda…. Keep up now, ok??
Doug=Soviet apologist
Doug, the Soviets did NOTHING to help the United States deal with Japan, in WW2, yet the Soviets wanted land and territory, once Japan was close to surrender.
Doug, you are part of the “blame America First” crowd.
You think it is ok that the Soviet policy cost America more deaths, in WW2.
Do you realize, that were it not for the U.S. Purchase of Alaska, America could have been destroyed by Japan?
I know quite a bit about history Doug.
Enough to know that you will support the Communist Soviet Union over the United States in every possible argument.
Tell me Doug, did the Soviets do ANYTHING wrong, in their relationship with the United States?
Ever?
Blame America First Doug!
The post at 8:44 is not mine.
Paul your take on history is positively ignorant.
Why don’t you tell us again how Hitler wanted to kidnap the Pope or whatever nonsense?
I would like for JM to leave the blog though.
J R = Tool = obsessed about poop= whiny irresponsible yssup!
JR — One of these imbeciles just set you up!!
Ben
You are wrong.
There is no “majic wand” that must be waived to be in a Congressionally approved war.
There are no “majic words” that must be said.
A simple authorization for the use of force, by the United States Congress IS a “Declaration of War” —
Show me any legal or historical expert who argues against this point, would you?
“A simple authorization for the use of force, by the United States Congress IS a “Declaration of War””
No it isn’t – if it were – FDR would have asked Congress for an “authorization” not a Declaration of War against Germany and Japan.
The United States has not declared war since December 1941.
Ya know Paul is in trouble when he starts saying “would you?”.
Let’s see… Seweard bought Alaska from the Russians (when they were still Russians) in the middle 1800’s… And then, somehow, buying Alaska from the Russians, kept Japan from destroying the US in the middle 1900’s???
Uh huh… And the New Orleans Saints are going to win the Superbowl in 2012 too!! yep..
JR
Hitler hated the Catholic Church and Hitler DID give orders to kidnap the Pope.
Orders that were never carried out, as Italy was already falling to the Allies at that time.
Hitler held all of Europe.
If he had any problem with the Catholic church OR the Pope, he could have acted on it easily.
You’re an idiot paul.
PMom:
“Political_mama
Posted March 13, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
Paul, JM, just think, you’d had been on Hitler’s side in WW2.
That’s exactly what you would have done, I can tell who’d be a Nazi just by reading on this board.
We know why Hitler came to power, because people believed in Nationalism and listened to the words of an insane man and followed.”
—-
Hitler was a National SOCIALIST.
A Nazi IS a SOCIALIST.
Also, the Nazi Party had a treaty with the Communist Soviets —
This treaty was signed long before the United States was “allied” with with the Soviets.
FDR sacrificed American lives to supply the Soviets:
http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html
The Murmansk run was one of the worst events of WW2.
“Only 11 of the 34 merchant ships reached port. Twenty-four were sunk, along with 153 mariners and Armed Guard, 250,000 tons of war materiel, including 3,500 trucks, 200 aircraft and 435 tanks. Lifeboats brought some mariners to German-occupied Norway where they became POWs. Some survivors spent up to 3 weeks on rafts and open lifeboats and lost limbs to frostbite.”
More of Pauls deluded take on history…
Hitler was a fascist. He was supported and even funded by conservatives in the United States. Among them Prescott Bush.
WS
YOU ARE WRONG
Again, the Veterans Administration is the only LEGAL authority that I know of which has the legal authority to look back on a conflict and decide whether or not that conflict had “Congressional Authorization.”
The VA says that the conflict in Iraq DOES have Congressional Authorization.
As such, Veterans who served during the War in Iraq have benefits that those who served between Vietnam and Iraq ARE NOT QUALIFIED to receive.
What is your legal authority?
You are pulling biased opinions out of the air.
Chas
You do realize that Japan captured some of the Alaskan territory, in WW2, don’t you?
Chas, You do realize that America took back those Alaskan Islands and used them to attack Japan, don’t you?
You do realize, had Russia or the Soviet Union still held Alaska, we would not have had a “forward base” in Alaska, from which to fight Japan.
Moreover, Hitler’s rise to power was facilitated by German business interests.
They thought they could control him. He (mostly) turned the tables on them. And again. he was supported also by American capitalist interests that feared the rise of socialism in Russia.
JR
Hitler made a fake, temporary peace with the Soviets.
Everyone here seems to agree on that point.
Why is it hard for you to understand that Hitler did not want to fight everyone at the same time?
Hitler hated Christians.
Hitler particularly hated Catholics.
However, Hitler realized that he could not go after all of his hated enemies at the same time.
This is from the “Boston Globe” JR.
Argue with them:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/01/16/hitler_plot_to_kidnap_pope_pius_xii_detailed/
Also, you might look into the fact that Joe Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer, prior to Pearl Harbor.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, also had lots of nice things to say about Hitler and the Nazi Party.
Hitler called HIMSELF a “Pagan”:
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
“What is your legal authority?”
Huh? What the Hell are you talking about?
And, from Wiki………………….
“Nazism was the main form of National Socialism that emerged after World War I, and is generally considered by scholars to be a form of fascism.”
And………..
“National Socialist German Workers’ Party”
Not socialism – they just used the word in their name.
They weren’t much for workers, either.
Much like you Paul, your take on history is extremely simplistic and biased.
Nazi Germany was the result of a broken and angry country being led by a broken and angry man fronted by financial interests.
Not a lot unlike America right about now.
WS
You claim that the United States has not “Declared War” since WW2.
I say that you have NO legal basis to make that claim.
I say that you can not show me a single, official body of the United State Government that agrees with your statement.
And, the Nazis were Socialists.
There is very little difference between a Communist and a Nazi.
Neither has much respect for the individual.
Both place all power with the STATE.
To be a Nazi, you must also be a Socialist. A Nazi is just a militaristic, nationalist Socialist.
Nazi was an abbreviation for Nazional… Nazi’s in Germany were what we would call the National Socialist Party. They were also Facist.
Facists and Communists have never gotten along, because the economic theories are diametrically opposed.
JR
You are a “broken and angry man” by your own posts here.
You are the one who wants to eliminate the State of Israel. (Hilter would love you for that!)
You are the one who wants to blow up Mexican immigrants on the border, with land mines. (Hitler would love you for that, as well!)
You are the one that wants an all powerful government.
Well aside from being an idiot Paul, what you are is a feudalist.
Paul, that’s a pretty sad pathetic desperate whatever it is you’re trying to do.
Bush had done and is doing many of hte same things the Nazi party and Hitler did. And it’s WELL documented that he was Christian.
JR Feudalism is actually a good way to describe the over all aims of the Neocons… Very good choice of words!!
I want the nation of Mexico fixed by its people as opposed to folks like you exploiting their refugees Paul.
And I don’t think any nation has a religious right to exist and be supported in a location that brings it and its neighbors death and destruction.
And YOU are the broken man. You bailed on your union and you managed somewhere along the way to lose your wife.
You are no deeper than your wallet.
Chas
So what? Faschists and Communists don’t get along because they both want to be in control, they both want to be in charge.
Communists want the state to own the means of production.
Nazis want the means of production to be privately held but under the thumb of the State.
Neither respects individual rights.
Again, Hitler and Stalin formed a pact, the Moletov / Ribbentrop treaty.
Hitler was NO friend of the United States, ever.
The United States spilled blood in support of the Soviets and the Soviets would not lift a finger to help the United States.
“And, the Nazis were Socialists.”
No they weren’t, they were fascists.
Pmom
You just lied, perhaps —.
That is rather out of character for you, so .
We have our disagreements, but you can not state the Hitler was a “Christian” and be considered informed on the matter.
You are either uninformed, or you are stating a deliberate falsehood.
Hitler hated Christianity.
Hitler’s inner circle made several comments, at the Neuremberg Trials and elsewhere, concerning Hitlers hatred of Christianity.
WS
How can you have a political party with the word “Socialist” in the name and NOT be a “Socialist”???
National Socialists were SOCIALISTS.
Nazi Party members were Socialists!
Actually, Clark, the Nazi’s were Nationalist Socialists… as opposed to open market Socialists, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, etc. They were facists because they believed in the power of the Industrialist Economy to run the State…
Youre right Econ… Hitler was no friend of the US… although a number of rather big name Americans tried to be friends of Hitler… Henry Ford to name one… Prescott Bush to name another…
Econ, NAZI was an abbreviation for National Socialist Party… shortened to NAZI… All for the Flag, Fuehrer, Foundry, etc…. All about Nationalism…. which was the basis for the quest of the Super Race… The Super Aryan… Dominance — Dangerous dominance!!
The proof is in the name paulie?
Ya mean like the “right to work laws”
Or maybe the “clear skies initiative”
Or perhaps the “healthy forests initiative”?
Hitler was a pawn who made himself a King on the will of a desperate and angry people. The Republican party in America is not all that different.
Regular
Posted March 13, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
Scholfield just ticked cause I slapped him around with the truth on the Coal plant thread.
So, he posts some radical left liberal vomitorium topics to make up his liberal shortcomings.
**********
We must have forgot, this whole blog is about James all the time. He is so smart and wonderful, how could we mere humans, forget?… LMAO every time I read one of this retard’s posts. Sorry Pmom, will explain it to you later.
You are lots of not good things Paul.
Your take on history demonstrates you as an utter moron.
Hitler couldnt gain FULL control over Germany, until he had fused the positions of Chancellor, and Prime Minister into one person… HIM… Sort of like one group here trying to combine the authority of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive into just one branch!!
Some Mel Brooks Hitler fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2NqfISm9k
History Channel just had a remarkable 4 hour series two days ago on HOW Hitler managed to do what he did… Most fascinating!! Most likely it will be on again soon, since that is their programming pattern…
JR — the formation of a “Populist” Party in the US would be even greater cause for alarm, IMHO…. The Republicans at least pretend to work within the “system” — SO FAR… :roll:
I cannot directly attribute this to the very rich General George Patton.
I have it only from the movie.
“Instead of disarming these German troops, we oughta rearm them and get us to help us fight the Goddamn Bolsheviks.
I believe that is somewhat close JR :-)
Patton was sort of to Europe what McArthur was to the Pacific…
The Hitler – Japan – Soviet Union history is important for this reason:
In history, often our “allies” do little to actually help us. The USSR never really helped us, for instance.
Also, the United States fought Hitler first, before turning on Japan. That was a strategic decision.
On this point, I do not see what strategy would be served by beating our saber, against radical Islam, while leaving Saddam in power, as Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement.
Alliances can change, radically, in a very short period of time.
Osama Bin Laden was willing do DEAL with Saddam.
If we had left Saddam in power, the contacts and talks between Saddam and OBL would have become OPERATIONAL!
Paul you do not care about Iraq, or Iran or America.
What you care about is maintaining your cash flow. And you do not care what that costs to others.
It is all about you.
And here is where I am at paul. Somebody wants to saw your head off? Hell I’ll applaud.
Yeah Steven Davis,
Explain why you ran away like a scared little girl with the Fisters.
Explain that.
(chortles)
Damn, Rossell, try READING for a moment.
From the same Wiki article.
“In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism – a term whose definition is itself contentious”
And……………….
“If we had left Saddam in power, the contacts and talks between Saddam and OBL would have become OPERATIONAL!”
Bullshit.
J R, all you care about is diverting Econ’s cash flow to you, so you don’t have to be responsible.
WS
Communism, Fascism and Nazism are ALL antithetical to American ideals.
These radical, state centered idealogies all have far more in common with each other than they have with the United States.
Looks like paulie is out James.
Let’s you and me dance.
Communism, Fascism and Nazism are ALL antithetical to American ideals.
These radical, state centered idealogies all have far more in common with each other than you want to admit.
I would add “Progressive” to that list Econ.
What an alliance!
We have the mental defective James joined up with the soulless shill Paul.
Both of them section 8’s.
JR
What have you accomplished, in your life?
The dividends on hate are pretty pathetic, aren’t they?
“Communism, Fascism and Nazism are ALL antithetical to American ideals.”
No one disputed that, Rossell. I responded that the Nazis were NOT socialists.
End of story.
Paul had a wart on his back.
Poor guy. Rush Limbaugh got excused from service for something similar.
James? Well we don’t know.
We know he is on the dole and we have only his many takes as to why.
“(chortles)”
Did you get a license on the use of that word, McCreepy? Do you get a $0.50 kickback every time you use it?
J R, everything is a conspiracy to you. Why is it so hard for you to grip the fact that people (not person) massively disagree with your pathetic, helpless, self serving attitude?
How are your dividends against mine there paulie?
Yup. I’m poor.
I easily look myself in the mirror.
Probably? You do too. The absence of a soul helps I imagine.
Thing is paulie?
Nobody hates me. Nobody wishes me ill.
I mean outside of you and James.
You can’t pay for your kid’s health insurance, but you can pay for internet, political donations, and whatever else? You are really making sacrifices for you kid! You are a real victim aren’t you? Lazy and selfish is more like it!
How very accomplished you must be paulie.
Five kids you said?
And after all that must have taken your wife bailed on you or you ditched her?
Limbaugh got out of the draft because he had a periodontal cyst on his poop chute.
Rossell, served his country in the US Marine Corps.
You cannot compare the two.
Sigh
James? your sister Linda will be down shortly to change you and give you your meds.
JR
I do not hate you.
I do not hate anyone.
If I decide to hate anyone?
You will be way down on the list.
You just are not that important.
Hate is always a waste.
To hate someone as pathetic as you?
Why? To what purpose?
In the game of life, you have lost to everyone.
Hey there J R,
Want me to start using your Mom’s and Son’s name on this Blog and what they do?
I suggest you cool your jets.
Regular, I suggest you not be making those kind of threats on the Blog… Somebody might tend to get most offended… eh??
J R, you seem to run away from your responsibilities. You are a whimpering pup and do not know REAL struggles.
Let’s keep “noncombatants” out of this, okay, folks?
Carry on. . .
Ok, I take back the “balls” comment
Yeah ANTI, J R has always been a paranoid delusional.
I’m tired and heading out.