"The only thing I know is there was a big explosion and I saw bodies flying in the air,"

Once again the Religion of Pieces strikes on a group of worshipers nonetheless. Oh yea nice to see Islam is finally working towards equality with women these days.

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at March 17, 2008 2:20 PM

"The Religion of Piece(s)" -- everyone is in pieces over Islam these days!

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 17, 2008 2:41 PM

. . . Qaida in Iraq, which considers Iraq's majority Shiites to be heretics . . ."

This is not exactly right. It is not just al Qaida who considers Shiites to be heretics, it is the entire population of true blue Sunnis.

This is either sloppy writing or a purposeful effort to mislead.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 17, 2008 2:49 PM

An act of Pure Evil. I would call them savages, but that would be an insult to savages.

Posted by: Ruebacca at March 17, 2008 3:05 PM

Warning! Islam is fatal.

Posted by: champ at March 17, 2008 3:24 PM

WWM(bboh)S ... What would Mohammud(bboh) say?

Posted by: HotSpur at March 17, 2008 3:42 PM

As Bush and McCain say, the Surge is working. As Dick Cheney says, the Iraq war has been successful despite some challenges over the past few years. We need to support the troops over there so we don't have to support them over here. Otherwise, hundreds of suicide bombers will follow them--either by buying airline tickets or by rowing boats--and blow themselves up in our Wal-Marts.

Sarcasm? Yup. I opposed this misbegotten war of aggression from January 2002, when W. first began marketing it in his "Axis of Evil" speech. I'm glad he didn't invade North Korea instead and embroil us in a major war with China. We were better off with Saddam Hussein in charge, and tens of thousands of Iraqis un-killed and their cities un-bombed and un-shelled, and so were the Iraqis.

Posted by: sceptico at March 17, 2008 4:07 PM

Sceptico, I'm sure those Iraqis who were being held and tortured in Saddam's prisons would agree with you. I'm sure all the Iraqi's whose family members "disapeared" under Saddam's rule would also agree. I bet they miss him so much. Did you note the sarcasm?

Posted by: tori at March 17, 2008 4:31 PM

Pelayo,
It's not even sloppy writing. The clause between the commas can be removed, as is taught in writing class, and you still have coherence and truth.

but the U.S. military says al-Qaida in Iraq [, ... ,] is increasingly using women in a stepped-up campaign of suicide bombings

It's not necessary to point out that all Sunnis believe it. And what if they did? People can believe whatever they want. The issue is what they do with those beliefs. I could believe (I don't) that a non-Christian won't go to heaven and it won't matter as long as it goes no further than that. Al Qaeda is taking its beliefs and committing murder.

Posted by: PMK at March 17, 2008 5:25 PM

It's important to note that North Korea took this President seriously and thus was more apt and more willing to negotiate diplomatically. Saddam was also given ample time to resolve this matter peacefully. But he didn't comply with the terms of the UN resolutions.

Saddam is to blame for this war more than any other person.

All of the UN resolutions demanded that he destroy his WMD *under the presence of UN inspectors*. (the same WMD he used to kill some kurdish people)
Saddam never did comply with these resolutions. Instead, it became a game of hide and seek.

To this day there is no record of what happened to the WMD he once had. Rather, it is speculated that some may have been destroyed during President Clinton's bombings in the late 90's. Or perhaps Saddam destroyed WMD secretly without UN inspectors present. Or perhaps Saddam shipped some of it into Syria or elsewhere.

The debate of whether we should be helping Iraq to implement a new government is certainly valid. But I believe that Saddam needed to go. (incidentally, President Clinton also said that Saddam's regime needed to be toppled)

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 17, 2008 5:41 PM

another islamophobic muslim killing muslims

Posted by: TINBH at March 17, 2008 6:05 PM

A Muslim woman detonates herselfa in group of Shiite worshippers near a mosque in Karbala. Now I ask you, what the hell else did she have to live for? A few beatings from her husband? prehaps death for the family honor? An advanced degree in muslim home schooling? Holy crime, what indeed did she have to live for?

Posted by: DeadRecknoning at March 17, 2008 6:11 PM

To this day there is no record of what happened to the WMD [Saddam] once had.
-The Cool Ghoul

Many in the media and all over the world have decided that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - the WMD were never there. Saddam was just having fun with the inspectors when he blocked the entrance while others cleared the labs; he had to make people think he had WMD to prevent a coup, etc.

Imagine if Bush and Company had ignored Saddam after 9/11 and something else happened. The media, which gets things right only in hindsight, would be saying he failed to protect the American people. Instead today the newest book is by an investigative reporter blaming Ahmed Chalabi for "pushing America to war". The reporters who swallowed his stories and eagerly regurgitated them in print are now making heroes of themselves for finally getting it right, or so they think.

Posted by: PMK at March 17, 2008 7:44 PM

I just had a strange thought. The Sunnis think the Shi'ites are heretics, and vice versa. To prove the quality of their devotion to revealed truth, they've been killing each other for 1400 years, but what if they all woke up one morning and realized while at prayer that MOHAMMAD was a heretic whose "revelations" from Allah via Jibreel were so much bloody nonsensical psychotic bullshit?

I believe in miracles.

Posted by: Lex at March 17, 2008 8:04 PM

PMK states:

"Imagine if Bush and Company had ignored Saddam after 9/11 and something else happened. The media, which gets things right only in hindsight, would be saying he failed to protect the American people."

---
There's no question that many of the same people who are critical of toppling Saddam's regime would also have been the first to criticize if we had been victimized by the WMD he once had.

In fact, many of these people who are critical of toppling Saddam weren't critical of toppling Milosevic.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 17, 2008 8:33 PM

Islam is fun ! ! ! !

weeeee ! ! ! !

oops, we're all dead . . .

thanks Islam !

FUN !

Posted by: Crunchy Jello at March 17, 2008 9:15 PM

The increasing use of women suicide bombers is hardly surprising. After all, they are only women........and therefore utterly expendable.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 17, 2008 11:37 PM

Islam: where death is the only relief from...

[return to beginning of sentence].

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 18, 2008 1:53 AM

"All the tight security measures designed to protect us were in vain."

Lesson: never trade freedom for security.

Posted by: HawkWatcher at March 18, 2008 4:20 AM

WMD - Outright lie (The US has the most advanced satelites, how on earth could so many WMD be moved without the US knowing.) None found.

Mass graves as evidence of Serb genocide - Another outright lie. None found.

Two illegal wars. Politicians in two countries deliberately mis-leading and lying in houses of governance and to their own people and they get away with it.

And as Hugh has described many times on JW, war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the dumb move. There are far better and far smarter alternatives - all aimed at weakening Dar al Islam - but hey, the war machine don't make greenbacks without death and destruction so who cares about truth, who cares if people are innocent, it's all for a good cause.

Isn't it?

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 5:37 AM

Oh, almost forgot!

This woman who blew herself up. I'm confused.

OK, she has become a shahid. Does she:

1. Go to Allah's garden to be pleasured everyday by 72 black-eyed male houris or is she to be pleasured in the same way as male shahids, i.e. by 72 female houris?

2. As she is a female, she has no right to be pleasured in Allah's garden or anywhere else for that matter so she has to become a houri and do the pleasing. If this is the case,will her Father/Brother/Son/Uncles/Grandfather/Cousin kick off bigtime when they reach paradise because the family has been dishonored?

Thanks in advance :-)

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 5:46 AM

Britannia's Lion,

Saddam killed Kurds with chemical weapons.
If you claim the WMD was an "outright lie", then you should be able to tell us when and where the WMD Saddam once had were destroyed.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 8:57 AM

Just remember that the surge is working.....well that's what everyone's told.

Hundred year war (nation building)?

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 18, 2008 9:13 AM

How many counries in the world have chemical and bio weapons? US war in Iraq was a war of sensititivy, launched at winning the hearts and minds of those lovable fuzzy people....it wasn't a war of destroying the enemy, it was a war of slaving for the enemy, bribing the enemy with the insane dreams of a united peaceful democratic Iraq.

Hardly romantic.

Fine US wanted to take Saddam out, sure np...when david kay said nothing here...time to move. Instead, they are hanging around for what?

Peace in our Time !

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 18, 2008 9:32 AM

Fine US wanted to take Saddam out, sure np...when david kay said nothing here...time to move. Instead, they are hanging around for what?
--Sneakyzionistcrusader

-----------------------------------
I don't disagree. (read earlier posts)

Once we toppled Saddam's regime, we could have left.

But I must confess, I'm torn about the effort to rebuild a new government. But I don't see this step as a military operation.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 9:47 AM

Cool Ghoul:

Yes he did use chems against the kurds - in 1988.

GWII started in 2003. It started because the US and the UK insisted that Saddam was in possession of WMD.

As they started an illegal war because of this statement and as they are our elected representatives who have access to the most advanced reco technology in the world, I would say that their failure to find any WMDs speaks volumes.

The burden of proof is on those representatives who demanded war to support their claim with evidence. But there is no evidence is there? And citing an event from 15 years previous doesn't have any bearing at all. There was no mention of the massacre of the Kurds as being the reason for GWII, the reason clearly given was that Saddam had WMDs period. They didn't find any.

Ergo: The reason for going to war was an outright lie. Just as the "mass graves will be found to prove Serb ethnic cleansing" was as well.

2 illegal wars both started by governments lying to further their own motives. A disgrace and an affront to our democracies and in the case of Kosovo it shames them too IMHO.

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Britannia's Lion,
We're beating a dead horse (in more ways than one) but, IMHO, claiming Saddam had stockpiles of WMD was the wrong reason to go to war. Pointing out that he had the means to make them and had shown the propensity to use them in the past made him a threat we could no longer afford to ignore, all thanks to al Qaeda.
WMD was never a hypothetical. Saddam had them. He'd used them, on his own people and (possibly) on Iran. His behavior during the nineties and his defiance of the weapons inspectors (why DID we need seventeen Security Council resolutions?) didn't inspire confidence that he had gotten rid of them.
And what about "containment"? Democrats say we had Saddam "contained" and there was no reason to invade, but how was that containment achieved? Our soldiers were in Saudi Arabia (sacred Muslim ground - the major excuse for 9/11) on standby and our air force patrolled the no-fly zones.
It's not the best metaphor, but I equate it to the guy who points to his finger in his pocket and says he has a gun. He makes himself a threat. We can discount the risk, but at our own peril.

Posted by: PMK at March 18, 2008 11:29 AM

PMK

I agree with a lot of what you say.

But the politicans didn't say any of that. They were adamant. Saddam had WMDs, he wasn't co-operating and therefore we're going to war.

They lied. Millions of dollars and pounds on technology and intelligence and they found nothing. No WMDs and no mass graves.

It's interesting as well that comments following my post restrict to commenting on Iraq and don't mention the "mass graves" used to justify the criminal bombing of Serbia. That the US and NATO were co-operating with Al Qaeda and Iran to support the UCK further undermines the arguments about what Al Qaeda were doing in Iraq.

I think war in both cases was wrong. Morally so with Serbia but with Saddam, I believe there were better, smarter solutions, ones that would protect the west better and weaken Islam.

Be good if anyone could answer my question about what happens to a female suicide bomber in the Islamic paradise it's really aroused my curiosity!

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 11:54 AM

"Yes he did use chems against the kurds - in 1988."

"The burden of proof is on those representatives who demanded war to support their claim with evidence."
--Britannia's Lion

You really should take the time to read the UN resolutions.

In the early 90's, as a condition of cease-fire of the Gulf War, Saddam was ordered to destroy his WMD under the observance of UN inspectors.

Saddam acknowledged that he had WMD and agreed to destroy them under UN inspectors.

So when and where were the WMD destroyed?

Saddam didn't comply with the resolutions. Thus his regime was justifiably toppled.

What good are UN resolutions that are never enforced? Saddam certainly didn't care. Plus he had bribed the UN via kick backs from the oil for food program. And you talk about lies and corruption?

Could the military operation have been handled better? Certainly. Should we stay to implement a new government? Good question and one worthy of debate. But whether Saddam deserved to be toppled is a clear yes.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 11:58 AM

Britannia's Lion,

With all due respect, politicians (both liberal and conservative) made similar statements. And it was not just politicians that made these statements. Below is a statement from one of the UN weapons inspectors.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 12:08 PM

Cool Ghoul:

You are now twisting the debate. The issue was not "Did Saddam deserve to be toppled" it was "he had WMD". We were told: "We will find scores of them its just a matter of time."

We're still waiting. You also use the same tactic the politicians used when it became clear their lies would be exposed: It was about removing evil Saddam really. With respect, no it was not.

Many leaders deserve to be toppled - Mugabe springs to mind - but the US and the UK can't just go into other countries without UN support and change the ruling regime. They did so twice based on complete lies.

I have no interest in the lies of the UN or politicians of other nations only those who have been elected in my country. They lied to start a war for thier own gain, and I for one certainly don't think it had anything to do with removing Saddam.

As for your quote - it means nothing without evidence. If what he says is true, the politicians would be producing the evidence left right and centre. They aren't. And again, Ritter's quote - 5 years before the war started - does nothing to justify GWII or the illegal bombing of Serbia again based on an outright lie.

And yes, the corrupt UN have innocent Serbain and Albanian blood on their hands as well as the UK and the US.

No matter how anyone tries to excuse the politicians they lied to the people who elected them to start a war in Iraq they were desperate for and to create an Islamic state in the heart of Europe to appease the Islamic world.

I'm sorry GG but its rotten whichever way you look at it and the consequences continue to be severe for both the US and the UK. And they will get worse in Europe, without a doubt.

I wish someone would tell me what Islam say will happen to female shahids, its driving me mad!

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 3:34 PM

Cool Ghoul:

Some interesting reading about how our governments took us all for fools and knowingly lied to us:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

Note in particular, the quote from Gen.Paul Wolfowitz when asked why the US hadn't attacked N.Korea, a state who possessed WMD.

And in the UK, the curious case of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly who criticised the UK gov claims about Iraqi WMD - suicide or murder?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/18/iraq.iraq

Let's face it: the govs of the UK and the US stink to high heaven and have as much regard for their own people who they are supposed to serve honorably as a lion has for an antelope.

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 4:30 PM

Britannia's Lion,

I haven't twisted the debate whatsoever.

This issue was, and remains, whether or not Saddam deserved to be toppled. We toppled Saddam because of his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions. We were under no obligation to "find" anything. Rather, it was Saddam's obligation to destroy his arsenal under UN inspectors. All of the resolutions were very clear on this point.

Did we expect to find stockpiles? Absolutely. But Saddam played the UN and our leaders like a fiddle. Saddam likely destroyed WMD secretly or shipped some elsewhere prior to the arrival of military forces. Don't you think that the politicians would have softened their rhetoric if they had known that WMD wouldn't be found? What politician would knowingly create political stress for himself?

I just don't buy into the conspiracy that politicians on the left, on the right, in multiple countries, and members of the UN lied to us.

Whether we should stay to rebuild a new government is an entirely different matter.

As for what happens to female shahids, your guess is as good as mine. :-) I just want to know if a jihadist from one islamic sect kills another from a different sect, who scores the 72 virgins? Is it considered a draw with each getting 36?

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 5:50 PM

CG:

You are continuing to twist the debate! Once again, OUR POLITICIANS made no mention of Saddam deserving to be topplped - this is in itself a fudge that was only uttered AFTER they knew no WMD would be found!It was all about WMD - read the links full of quotes from our leaders that I have posted please.

And why just Saddam? What about others especially the Korean playboy? Didn't he deserve to be toppled as well? How about what China is doing to Tibet? Mugabe? I could go on...

I can tell you haven't read any of the links I provided - hey hum, you believe what you want to believe I guess. But the evidence is clear for anyone else who seeks truth.

That a weapons inspector said that "the dossier about justifying a war against Iraq was deliberately sexed up" should send alarm bells ringing. Read how he was treated by the commons investigation commitee, read about his "suicide" - all of it stinks the place out. Read the exchange between Bush and Blair - damning evidence if ever there was. Liars to a man jack one of them no matter how painful you and people like you find this truth.

I note you still do not mention Serbia and Kosovo in your comments. Very interesting.

As for our friendly neighborhood shahids, isn't it bloody silly? You really have to laugh at Islam at times like this don't you?

NO SERIOUSLY YOU DO :-))

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 18, 2008 7:02 PM

"but the U.S. military says al-Qaida in Iraq, which considers Iraq's majority Shiites to be heretics"

This is typical of what this goofball president and the state dept thinks about al qaeda. That every violent action of muslim must be pinned to Al qaeda or if not then it is ignored. Al qaeda is a bad group but it is not nazi germany, there is no al qaeda nation. al qaeda depends on the willing support of fellow sunni muslims in iraq. All sunni muslims view shiittes as heretics and non muslims. most sunnis would not disgree with al qaeda philosophy except for the harming of sunni muslim during their attacks. This is the only reason that some sunnis have turned against tham.

Posted by: desidude at March 18, 2008 7:06 PM

Britannia's Lion,

I'm not disputing that the politicians stated those things. Yes - I've read those statements many times.

I'm talking about the actual justification for the war. The UN resolutions were clear. Please read them.

Politicians (left and right), from multiple governments, including UN members and UN inspectors all said those things. I'm not disputing that. My point is that they wrongly assumed that they WMD would still be there after the invasion. But Saddam out foxed them.

As such, I don't think it's likely that they were all lying. Again, why would any politician bring political stress upon himself if he knew that his words would soon backfire?

Were they embarrassed? Yes. Did Saddam fool them? Yes. But that is different than saying that they lied. To say that they lied is to say that there was a grand conspiracy across government and political lines.

In the days just prior to the war, President Bush stated that the UN weapons inspectors should be able to confirm that the WMD had been destroyed. (which is the original charge of the resolutions) Anything else was not satisfactory. It wasn't supposed to be a game of hide and seek.

As for Serbia/Kosovo, my contention is that it is illogical to support that effort and not support the war to topple Saddam. (I mentioned that much earlier in these posts)

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 7:38 PM

desidude,

I agree that too much emphasis is placed on Al Qaida. Islam is the problem and that needs to be recognized and understood.

Personally, I suspect that behind the scenes, the leaders of western nations know this. But they are reluctant to state this since it will expand the war. (which is inevitable in my opinion)

After 911 - we weren't going to error on the side of Saddam. He was supposed to destroy his WMD under UN inspection. He didn't. Since nobody could confirm if, where, or when the WMD were destroyed, we needed to topple his regime.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 7:46 PM

And why just Saddam? What about others especially the Korean playboy? Didn't he deserve to be toppled as well? How about what China is doing to Tibet? Mugabe? I could go on...

-----------------

Just as we did with Saddam, we first tried diplomatic negotiations in N. Korea. N. Korea complied. Saddam refused.

Also, we should have addressed N. Korea years ago prior to their development of nuclear weapons. Ignoring these problems doesn't make them go away.

Incidentally, Saddam was linked to funding the development of nukes in N. Korea. And he helped to fund terrorism in other states. Imagine trying to disarm an islamic state after they have nukes!

Saddam's regime clearly needed to go.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 18, 2008 7:54 PM

cool ghoul, I agree with the toppling of saddam.
H eneeded to go, he was developing and using wmd and thumbing his nose at the USA and UN. To me this war should have ended with his capture. thats it pack and leave iraq for these barbarians to decide what they want Iraq to be. the same with afghanistan. These muslims have to be taught the lesson over and over again that any violance against the western world will be payed back double , triple, quadraple. Until these barbarians get it through their thick heads not to attack again, that their beloved allah is not with them. But we had to go for the alternative, trying to teach these savages western infidal civilization. While at the same time telling them to keep following their korans because it is a book of love and peace. Is it worth spending billions of your dollers and thousands of our soldier's lives? to me absolutly not.

Posted by: desidude at March 18, 2008 10:08 PM

Cool Ghoul:

I am well aware of the UN resolutions perhaps you're not aware that the UN did not support the war?

The politicians did not speak of these resolutions though. They were - both UK and US - adamant and clear: Saddam possessed a threat to the west, he had WMD and could launch an attack against countries in 45 mins. They said he had links to Al Qaeda and of course North Korea.

All of them a pack of lies, all proven to be so.

Take George Galloway. I despise the man. He is a nuaseating, publicity seeking media whore. He was hauled before US congress about the accusations he made about the lies and deceptions that started GWII.

He absolutely wiped the floor with the US politicans, so badly so it was embarrassing.

Weapons inspector David Kelly stated that the US and the UK had lied about the WMD. He stated that no mobile laboratories were found. He also demonstrated that politicians in the UK had sexed up the dossier for war to make the threat from Saddam far greater than it actually was. Kelly said "he was no threat to the west at all".

It is also abundantly clear that Bush and Blair were committed to war in 2002. There was no "no war" option. Read all of this page:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

You'll find out about the lies in more detail.

As for those who say "Saddam had to go" this is both wrong and misguided. It is wrong because no other country - including the US and the UK - has the right to say who should go and who should stay in any other nation. We also could've used Saddam to weaken Islam without going to war.

Galloway humiliated US congress over this. When he
asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, [Paul Wolfowitz] said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." [Guardian 4/6/2003]

There you have from the horse's mouth why our politicians lied to us and started an illegal war. For the second time in 4 years.

And saying "Saddam out foxed us" as an excuse for not finding WMDs after being told "it was only a matter of time before we find them" simply isn't an acceptable answer. The evidence doesn't point to Saddam out foxing anyone it points to the fact that the WMDs didn't exist and that this indeed was a lie to force a war for economic interests.

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 19, 2008 6:03 AM

As for those who say "Saddam had to go" this is both wrong and misguided. It is wrong because no other country - including the US and the UK - has the right to say who should go and who should stay in any other nation. We also could've used Saddam to weaken Islam without going to war.
by Britannia's Lion

Then please stop talking (not you Britannia's Lion, but the CBC and everyone else on the Left) about how the US "supports dictators". We didn't pick Saddam but people insist he was our ally and that we "supported" him during the war with Iran, ignoring the fact that our aid was measured and only given when it appeared Iran would overrun Iraq. That's what I'd call using Saddam to weaken Iran, if not Islam.

Don't forget that during the Cold War Saddam was allied with the USSR. He was not our friend. He wasn't going to "weaken Islam". Far from it. Once his grip on power was threatened he began paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He had ties to terrorists. Abu Nidal lived quite comfortably in Baghdad for years, only to turn up dead on the eve of the invasion. Convenient.

As for why we went after Saddam and not North Korea: Saddam posed a greater threat. North Korea is surrounded by China and Russia. If these countries want to remain on good terms with the US, and particularly if China wants to keep dumping its slave products on the US, they'll keep North Korea in line. We don't have anything to do with that.
There are plenty of dictators whose rule we abhor but who quite simply don't threaten us. They're monsters with their own people but they are not a threat to our interests. That's cold but we can't play avenging angel to every oppressed nation.
Then there are those whom we simply can't do anything about because they're too strong. Russia and China are on that list. The bigger nations have an interest in international order. Someone like Saddam, who will invade one neighbor after another, cannot be tolerated. If North Korea invaded South Korea it would be a different story. Until then, it's live and let live.
Please stop linking this to Bosnia and Serbia. Yugoslavia broke up. Like it or not, Milosevic was no angel. He tried to peel off portions of the other provinces to create Greater Serbia. Maybe those sections were once part of Serbia in the past but it was the past. Just as Muslims don't deserve to take over countries because they live there, the Serbs didn't either. The people of Europe need to get their own house in order. I agree with you in one respect: the US should never have gotten involved. Clinton had some notion that, with all our problems in Iraq, coming to the aid of European Muslims would win us points in the Muslim world. Instead, no good deed went unpunished. Europeans keep talking about how stupid America is and how they know best. We should have let them show us, right then and there.

Lastly, Saddam wasn't going to "weaken" Islam. At the height of his power, he couldn't do that.

Posted by: PMK at March 19, 2008 11:36 AM

Britannia's Lion,

To say that the politicians "lied" is to say that politicians from multiple countries, both liberal and conservative, as well as UN inspectors all "lied".

If you want to believe in some grand conspiracy, be my guest. But this doesn't strike me as a very reasonable or logical position.

Rather, they all wrongly assumed that the WMD were still in Iraq. But that doesn't equate politicians from all over the globe to lying. Saddam made them look foolish by destroying them or shipping them prior to the invasion. Granted.
But to say that "the politicians did not speak of these resolutions though" is simply not accurate. President Bush made that point abundantly clear days prior to the war. He said that the inspectors much have accounted for all the WMD Iraq once had in accordance to the UN resolutions in order to avoid military force.

Iraq clearly had WMD when they killed thousands upon thousands of Kurds with them. So what do mean they never had WMD? The question remains, where and when was the remaining inventory destroyed?

Yes, I'm quite aware that the security council wouldn't vote to enforce their own resolutions. However, they did pass 17 resolutions and a final resolution giving Saddam 30 days to account for all the WMD that were once in his possession. The security council was keenly aware that Saddam was once in possession of WMD and had not complied with their orders to destroy them under their watch.

If you want to understand why some of the members refused to enforce their own resolutions which they approved, check out the oil for food kickbacks Saddam gave to some of the security council members. Large sums of money and oil right. He had them bought. He only needed one of them to veto authorization. As such he continued to thumb his nose at the world.

This is why the UN is such a joke. Gross injustices occur without their intervention because the security council typically has someone with a conflict of interest. (often times China, Russia)

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 19, 2008 1:14 PM

cool ghoul, I agree with the toppling of saddam.
H eneeded to go, he was developing and using wmd and thumbing his nose at the USA and UN. To me this war should have ended with his capture. thats it pack and leave iraq for these barbarians to decide what they want Iraq to be. the same with afghanistan. These muslims have to be taught the lesson over and over again that any violance against the western world will be payed back double , triple, quadraple. Until these barbarians get it through their thick heads not to attack again, that their beloved allah is not with them. But we had to go for the alternative, trying to teach these savages western infidal civilization. While at the same time telling them to keep following their korans because it is a book of love and peace. Is it worth spending billions of your dollers and thousands of our soldier's lives? to me absolutly not.
Posted by: desidude

I agree with you. I must confess that I'm torn on this issue whether to attempt a democracy there. Clearly, this is an uphill battle and may not be achievable. OTOH, if it does work, it could be the best weapon against islam. I also don't like throwing away entire populations of people who live under the oppression of islam.

If we don't do it, who will? The UN will never do anything effective. I suppose we can only help build Iraq to a point, then leave it to them.

It amazes me that people around the world believe that America, UK, and some others are at war "against Iraq" when in fact we're trying to help Iraq overcome islamic oppression. Our soldiers place themselves at risk in order to save Iraqi lives. (car checkpoints, patrols, etc...) If we were truly at war with Iraq, we could level the whole place in a day. And the loss of life would be horrific.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 19, 2008 1:27 PM

PMK,

I like the way you think.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 19, 2008 1:32 PM

PMK:

Saddam was not a threat - the weapons inspectors said so. Read the link below - over 200 deliberate lies.

And I will not stop linking this with Serbia because the fact you are refusing to accept is that Clinton and NATO lied. Milosevic wasn't an angel - no side is without its guilt in that war. But why NATO had to interfere and bomb a christian ally lying through its teeth to do so is a question that needs to be asked.

Cool Ghoul:

This isn't a conspiracy. The politicians have been caught bang to rights lying. On the link I provided there is clear and absolute evidence that they lied.

You just don't want to accept the evidence and you keep banging on about resolutions and the UN -both are irrelevant. The evidence is clear that Bush and Blair had decided on war in 2002.

An d you mention the kurds again. The attack happened in 1988. Rice stated in 2001 that his arms had not been rebuilt. So how could he be a threat?

Its clear to see GWII wasn't started to remove Saddam (that's regime change and illegal). The reasons given for going to war was because politicians on both side of the pond made it categorically clear:

1. Saddam had WMD. They even said "we know where they are, there are a number of sites."
2.It was only a matter of time before they were found.
3. He was a threat to the west and could launch an attack against the US quote Rumsfeld: "That would kill 100,000 people in just 45 minutes".

Complete tosh.

This as a follow up to "the serbs have committed ethnic cleansing and we will find mass graves to prove it."

Two wars started on complete lies and the lack of evidence is damning. But instead of these war criminals being made to account for their deceptions, people make excuses for them and in doing so condone war crimes.

The way we could've used Saddam to weaken Islam is as has been suggested on here many times, to play on existing tensions within dar al Islam so they continually escalate so Islam destroys itself. Bush snr nearly did this after GWI and then left the shia insurgemts who he had encouraged high and dry. War is not the smart solution - as has now been found out to our cost.

Our so-called elected servants of the people have lied to start 2 illegal wars and in doing so used the stars and stripes and the union jack as toilet tissue and grossly insulted the people who elect them.

Read the Waxman report here that lists 237 occassions when Bush, Blair, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld knowingly lied:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

This is no conspiracy theory CG, they have convicted themselves out of their own mouths. Galloway humiliated them with ease over it. Shame on them all for what they have done. And I for one am now 100% convinced that they did it because as Wolfowitz said "Iraq swims on a sea of oil."

Disgraceful.

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 19, 2008 1:57 PM

Britannia's Lion,

Unfortunately for you, just released today is an account from Saddam Hussien of what happened to his WMD.

Saddam confirmed that he had WMD. Many were destroyed in the 90's with UN inspectors. But not all. The remaining ones that he hid. He later ordered them to be destroyed secretly prior to our invasion.

He also said that he didn't really believe that we'd go to war with Iraq. He underestimated President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.

So do you still think President Clinton, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Chirac, UN inspectors, and dozens of officials throughout various government all lied? Or perhaps Saddam lied to the interviewer? Or maybe the interviewer is lying? I'll send you a list of all these liars. :-)

You see, Iraq did indeed have the WMD. After 911, we weren't willing to tolerate the hide and seek game any longer.

Yes, indeed President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were planning for war. And for good reason. Because they really didn't expect Saddam to come clean of his WMD even though we'd given him one last chance to comply.

Saddam goes on to confirm that he needed to maintain the illusion of having WMD even though he had destroyed them. He also knew that this would create enormous political pressure on allied forces to withdraw. You are evidence of Saddam's scheme working. Fortunately, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair remained resolute.

Saddam's strategy backfired. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are to be congratulated for providing strong leadership.

Do take the time to study the UN resolutions.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 19, 2008 3:00 PM

"[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

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

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

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

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

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

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

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

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 19, 2008 3:08 PM

CG:

You are now borimg me to tears. You repeat BS as if it were truth. You and I know you are lying just like Blair and Bush. All you have to do is provide evidence. After all, they were ADAMANT they knew what Saddam had AND WHERE IT WAS. But you cannot. So you resort to BS to justify lies.

You are - just like the US politicians want - as gullable as the day is long. New evidence now Saddam is dead? Hey ENGAGE BRAIN.

Strong lesdership - you have got to be joking? This is hilarious.

Galloway, on the mark, in the heart of the US constitution, humiliating all US liars assembled before him and on his own:

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

STRIKE ONE. And my God how easy was it for Galloway to bring US senators to their knees. Hey, if only YOU'D have been there huh? Maybe not. He could've humiliated you too.

Then asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, [Paul Wolfowitz] said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." [Guardian 4/6/2003]

STRIKE TWO. IN THEIR OWN WORDS. You get that? None of YOUR BS - Wolfowitz forced into a corner spilled the beans - and you still maintain otherwise. Pardon me for not agreeing with you.

NOW - WHERE ARE THE SERBIAN MASS GRAVES THAT PROVE GENOCIDE? OOPS, NONE FOUND.

STRIKE THREE.

You're out.

Evidence is all and you have ZERO. You support liars, tricksers, con artists who use you like a gullible fool. There were no WMD, there still aren't any mass graves, you've been done like a kipper. And I think you know it.

And a media whore like Galloway proved it, right in the heart of US governance and made US senators look like amateurs. So much so the USA and its politicians were made to look like a laughing stock by a third rate scottish circus act. FACT.

And now you come along years after the crime with this crappola that the US senators didn't even know about? PURLEASE, don't insult people's intelligence. No evidence damns you and them and it is so easy to make your argumemts be exactly what they are - after the crime excuses.

But hey, let's play nice. If what you say is so solid, why didn't the US politicians crucify Galloway with it and make him look ridiculous instead of being made to look like the lying hyenas Galloway easily exposed them as?

I'd say it was because they had nothing in their tank just like you and that's why he won hands down. After all, 237 lies as outlined here speak far louder than the BS you're spouting don't they?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

All those millions of dollars on satellite reco from the world's major super power and they couldn't find a single site to prove their claims of WMD. Doesn't that resonate with you CG? It certainly does with me.

As does the lack of "mass graves" NATO promsied us were in abundance and yet 9 years on, have yet to fimd a single one.

The time for producing supporting evidence was 5 years ago. They were absolutely certain then. Miraculously finding it 5 years later just doesn't cut it, especially in the light of people like Condi Rice acting directly against CIA advice - you explain that to me - if you've read the Waxman report that is.

How sad this all is for the USA and its little poodle the UK. How beneficial for dar al harb.

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 19, 2008 7:56 PM

A mind is a terrible thing to waste...

Posted by: HawkWatcher at March 20, 2008 5:09 AM

...but not nearly as terrible as wasting the lives of 4300 service personnel over a pack of lies.

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 20, 2008 10:13 AM

Yes Britannia's Lion... all these people and more are lying to you. And they started these lies a decade ago and never stopped lying to you.

Please do take the time to write to them and voice your dissent. I'm sure that they'd love to hear your brilliant analysis of the actual events.

And let's see, these politicians created these lies knowing that they would soon backfire and create enormous political pressure on themselves.

And that strikes you as reasonable?

I don't think you really thought this one out too well. But then again, that seems to be a pattern with you.

And do you think that Saddam himself is lying when he too said that he had the WMD and secretly destroyed them? And that he didn't want to cooperate with the UN resolutions because he WANTED people to think that he had WMD? Or maybe the interviewer was also lying? And maybe the tape recordings and video recordings were rigged to support their lies?

Then Saddam acknowledges that he planned to reconstitute making more WMD once the conflict waned. And he also expected to acquire nuclear weapons. But - ahh yes - Saddam must have been lying to you about that one too.

Fortunately, Prime Minister Blair and President Bush behaved as leaders and not politicians.

Do take the time to study the UN resolutions.

Below are some more lies from President Clinton and others. :-)

********************************************

"It(Iraq)admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs."

"And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."

--President Bill Clinton, 1998

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/weapons062398.htm

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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 May 28, 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 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 May 21, 2003

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 20, 2008 1:12 PM