U.S. Ends Fruitless Iraq Weapons Hunt


WASHINGTON (AP) - The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.

Democrats said Bush owes the country an explanation of why he was so wrong.

The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found. ``There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that'' but that it has largely concluded, he said.

``If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports,'' McClellan said. ``A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now.''

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

``Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war,'' she said.

``After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country,'' Pelosi said in a written statement. ``Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all.''

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. ``It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report,'' McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

``Nothing's changed in terms of his views when it comes to Iraq, what he has previously stated and what you have previously heard,'' McClellan said. ``The president knows that by advancing freedom in a dangerous region we are making the world a safer place.''

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

McClellan said the Iraq experience would not make Bush hesitant to raise alarms when he deems it necessary.

``But we're also going to continue taking steps to make sure that that intelligence is the best possible,'' he said.

``Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein,'' McClellan said. ``And now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws.''

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday about 120 Iraqi scientists who had been working in weapons programs were being paid by the U.S. government to work in other fields.

I heard about this on the radio this morning.

Well, they're not there. Fine. So the next question is: Where are they?

They didn't exist in the first place, and Bush's unconcerned reaction seems to show that he didn't care if they were found or not. He definitely had other reasons for going there. Personally, I'd like for him to just tell the truth. If it was for revenge for his father, oil, whatever, I don't care. I'd just like to know the real reason why. I don't understand why you would lie about the reasons for going to war, when you intend on going to war regardless of the rest of the world's opinion.

Yep..they were never there. I remember them interviewing several of the senior scientists who were charged with making WMD (nuclear and otherwise) and they said themselves that they LIED to Saddam about being "close" to having the WMD done. They were to scared to tell Saddam they couldn't make the WMD with the materials and facilities they had. They knew failure was not an option, so they lied instead. The only WMD they had were the ones they bought from the US and Britain....

Hey nice hearing from you Barry!!! hope your new year is going good!!

Hmmmm...... they didn't have any!!! Oh that's right they had them hid in the dessert! No, they are in Syria!

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

``Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war,'' she said.

``After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country,'' Pelosi said in a written statement. ``Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all.''



Well, that's all nice and fine, but we already KNOW the real reasons we invaded Iraq. :Bang

BuSh apparently likes to exercise the old adage, "Its easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission." Except in BuSh's case, the arrogant bastard isn't even going to ask for forgiveness. He and all his croonies are arrogant, self-serving LIARS who feel that they do not have to be held accountable for anything. The fact he was "re-elected" is beyond any reasonable belief. Obviously this country is full of gullible, easily mis-guided people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through all of BuSh's corrupt and deceptive propaganda.

Hey, at least Michael Moore won the People's Choice award for F-9/11!! :dancefool

Well, damn, you guys figured it out. The truth is there is a secret conspiracy out there on the part of President Bush and the military to destroy the lives of peace loving people. We tried our best to hide it but Michael Moore managed to look up while eating two dozen doughnuts and catch us in the act. And we were so close to exacting the second half of our plan...to rape and pillage every American city and drink the blood of the first born in every family...so close...so close...

Please, When I was in Iraq I did not see Nancy Pelosi in a HMMWV alongside me. I did not see Sean Penn helping distribute food to starving people who know nothing but oppresion. I did not see Michael Moore on patrol witnessing what the absence any knowledge of personal freedom can do to a society.

So go ahead and watch Farenheit 9/11, go ahead and believe all the people whose expertise is limited to a few hours of watching CNN and a speech by Barbara Streisand. Because when I handed a WFP packet and a teddy bear to Barirah (who couldn't have been more than 8) and she said in her best broken english "thank you Bush, thank you America" I knew we had done the right thing.

Please, When I was in Iraq I did not see Nancy Pelosi in a HMMWV alongside me. I did not see Sean Penn helping distribute food to starving people who know nothing but oppresion. I did not see Michael Moore on patrol witnessing what the absence any knowledge of personal freedom can do to a society.

So go ahead and watch Farenheit 9/11, go ahead and believe all the people whose expertise is limited to a few hours of watching CNN and a speech by Barbara Streisand. Because when I handed a WFP packet and a teddy bear to Barirah (who couldn't have been more than 8) and she said in her best broken english "thank you Bush, thank you America" I knew we had done the right thing.
As grateful as we are that you served for us in Iraq, attempting to protect us from what could have been a tragedy waiting to happen, I'm sure you must have or are due to ask yourself...

"Why did I have to leave my family to do this?"

Is it at all possible that "Barirah" did not need that teddy bear before we ambushed a country that had no real threat to us?

It's unfortunate that countries, such as Iraq, live daily the way they did, pre-war, post-war, inbetween war, but they live there, it's natural to them.

Is our "Next Stop" going to be Punjab, just because it's somewhere near Pakistan? I don't think so. Bush was wrong. You can't escape a lie. Period.

Don't take it the wrong way, once again, anyone who served in Iraq is TOP in my book... but WHY did you have to go? Tell us your opinion on WHY you went and left your family, risked your life, and saw things that some of us could probably not imagine. Why?

As posted by Skutter previously with color changes by me for effect.

Why don't we start with explanations and apologies from these illustrious flaming liberals and after we have dissected all their b.s., we can move on to Bushy. Deal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 1! 9, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ...... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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 an! y nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon 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

"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

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I simply don't understand the sentiments of many out there that say that BUSH LIED! If he lied, so did more than half the world. Get off the guys back. He did what was right. He did what needed to be done. If he didn't act, none of us would be getting any sleep, worrying all the time what was next., so stop second guessing.

Remember: The best defense is a good offense!

Don't take it the wrong way, once again, anyone who served in Iraq is TOP in my book... but WHY did you have to go? Tell us your opinion on WHY you went and left your family, risked your life, and saw things that some of us could probably not imagine. Why?Typical Liberal thinking. The reason 'why?' because freedom isn't free and some people understand the need to make the sacrifices that most of us aren't able or willing to make. Period.

Oh well some good debating again in the political section!!!

Looks like Bryan picked up an ally.:Beer

Not that he needs one. Bryan always has his i's dotted and t's crossed!

LOL.

Bryan is the BEST to debate with... which is why I haven't replied yet... I worked very hard on the Ipod Auto Connection thread going on...http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=4331

Bryan,
Thanks for that long list of quotes, however the ONLY two that really matter are those that come from the President of the United States:


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

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



WHY? Because the BUCK STOPS AT THE OVAL OFFICE! All of those other people cannot be held accountable for actions by the US.

We know now as FACTS, that Saddam's WMD programs have essentially been DEAD since '91. All of those other assertions in the quotes are based on the same flawed intelligence so clearly identified by the 9/11 Commission.

Did Clinton lie? In retrospect, YES. Did BuSh lie? In retrospect, YES. BUT, the BIG DIFFERENCE between Clinton and BuSh that seems to escape the comprehension of most conservatives, is that BuSh not only ACTED on the flawed intelligence, but he "cherry picked" the intelligence reports that supported his hidden agenda to make his case, whereas Clinton did NOT. Clinton has been criticized over and over for not acting on Iraq earlier. But the reason he held back is because the conflicting intelligence reports did not make a clear-cut, no-doubt-about-it case. YES, Clinton gave Saddam the benefit of the doubt. In contrast, BuSh had access to the same flawed intelligence, but he CHOSE to be selective, and CHOSE to IGNORE the conflicting reports. This goes way beyond lying. This is ignorance at the highest level attainable by any US official. And beyond that, once the facts do come to light, instead of taking responsibility for the mistakes, BuSh simply makes excuses, displaces blame and denies any accountability. Sorry, but this, in my opinion, is totally unacceptable. Unlike you, I have much higher expectations for our CIC.

"Why did I have to leave my family to do this?"

I didn't leave my family...my family was beside me all along...carrying a weapon and watching my back...while I watched theirs.

Is it at all possible that "Barirah" did not need that teddy bear before we ambushed a country that had no real threat to us?

She needed that teddy bear cause no one else was there to give her one...her family was murdered by Saddam's regime...you see, he didn't much like the shia'a people and systematically slaughtered them to keep them in line.



Don't take it the wrong way, once again, anyone who served in Iraq is TOP in my book... but WHY did you have to go? Tell us your opinion on WHY you went and left your family, risked your life, and saw things that some of us could probably not imagine. Why?

If people who serve in our nations military are tops in your book that's great...I applaud you. But don't sit back and applaud someone (Michael Moore) who created a work of fiction that only portrays servicemen as ignorant brutes, high on adrenaline and heavy metal music with a blatant desire to kill.

I also did not "have" to go to Iraq...I volunteered...twice. I volunteered to defend this nation and it's interests the day I signed on the dotted line. I also volunteered (read: begged) to go to Iraq. That is where my job was...that is what I train for. I went there so somone else would not have to. So sombody's daddy could come home. I went there FOR MY FAMILY.

P.S. I don't take anyone's opinions the wrong way. Sometimes I may seem a little inflammitory but this is not my intent. Only the ignorant use anger as a tool to change someones mind...and this is the least ignorant site I've ever been a part of.

Only the ignorant use anger as a tool to change someones mind...and this is the least ignorant site I've ever been a part of.
Our registration page effectively eliminates all 'morons' from participating on the site. But I knew we should have installed a 'lib filter' feature, but then things wouldn't be half as fun.

Seriously, thank you for your comments and your service to our country. People like you are what make and keep this country the greatest in the world.

YES, Clinton gave Saddam the benefit of the doubt.
This is in essence where we differ Johnny. I am not prepared to roll the dice with innocent American lives because we wanted to give somebody the benefit of the doubt.

I sleep better knowing Saddam is in jail. Hopefully he has a bubba keeping him nice and warm.

For the record, I didn't agree with Fahrenheit 9/11 and have not seen it, unless it's free on NBC i'm not paying to see it in any fashion either
-Sincerely Yours,
A Real NY'er.

As like always what's good about being an American is the freedom to be able to have your own opinion!!

What's great about this site is that we are able to voice our opinion debate issues with other members and still remain friends even if we disagree.
:Beer way to go :V

This is in essence where we differ Johnny. I am not prepared to roll the dice with innocent American lives because we wanted to give somebody the benefit of the doubt.

I sleep better knowing Saddam is in jail. Hopefully he has a bubba keeping him nice and warm.


Well, GW certainly "rolled the dice" w/ our soldier's lives invading Iraq. 1300+ American lives lost due to GW's roll, ZERO as a result of Clinton's roll. Had something actually POSITIVE have come out of it, I might say GW's roll was worth it. However, nothing truly positive has come about. I'd be sleeping much better had Osama Bin Ladin had been captured instead of Saddam. All your argument is doing is giving you a false sense of security.

Free Faller, from your statements ("a work of fiction that only portrays servicemen as ignorant brutes, high on adrenaline and heavy metal music with a blatant desire to kill") I'm guessing you've never seen F-9/11. American soldiers are not portrayed as you have described. After you get done patting yourself on the back, take off your blinders and watch the movie. $4 on PPV, is that too much to spend for enlightenment?

hottweelz, how can you disagree w/ something you have not seen firsthand? Please don't pass blind judgement, spend the $4.

Am I the only one who is bothered by the name "Bin Ladin" on signs on the outside of buildings in Texas? Folks, the fox is watching the hen house!

Our registration page effectively eliminates all 'morons' from participating on the site. I got news for ya Bryan, that filter didn't work on me . . . nanny nanny boo boo!!

Thanks for referring to F911, I needed a good laugh today. As for me, I'm holding my breath waiting for the Iraqi election. Hopefully the fighting will subside afterwards and it will be considered a legitimate election by the Iraqis and the world, but we'll see.

Well, GW certainly "rolled the dice" w/ our soldier's lives invading Iraq. 1300+ American lives lost due to GW's roll, ZERO as a result of Clinton's roll. I guess if Clinton HAD "rolled the dice" with Bin Laden when he had the chance to take him off the streets, 3000 Americans in New York would still be alive, and we wouldn't be spending additional trillions of dollars in the aftermath. And I wouldn't be on the TSA hit list and have to drop my trousers everytime I want to board a plane to make a sales call.

That was a hell of a price to pay, wouldn't you say, because Clinton didn't have irrefutable proof and therefore didn't act?

Bush is a liar. I believe Bush to be a pathological liar. He doesn't know the truth, so he makes it up. We are going to be in Iraq for the next 20 years. What a waste. Debate that MonsterMark.

Bush is a liar. I believe Bush to be a pathological liar. I believe in the Holy Father, the Lord and giver of Life... Is that the same???

He doesn't know the truth, so he makes it up.Whew! I thought you were going to say he makes up lies. Making up the truth is sooo much better.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

We are going to be in Iraq for the next 20 years. What a waste.60 Years later, aren't we still in Japan and Germany and going on 50 in Korea and 40 in Vietnam? Sounds par for the course. 20 would be a deal.

Debate that MonsterMark.With myself? I hate picking on myself.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif

Barry, just rais'n your blood pressure. It's been a while since we had some fun.

You are a sick man if you think that mortgaging your children's future is worth getting rid of one madman.

What makes my blood pressure go up is that you are trying to transfer blame to Clinton when Bush clearly lied to the American public about his intentions.

How could he have entered into this without an exit plan?

The fact is that the rest of the world, ( well 99% of it anyway), was not in favor of invading Iraq. Why? because despite their fears over Saddam, they didn't want to be responsible for singlehandedly wrecking a country. Over 70% of Falluja has been leveled and we haven't even driven them all out yet. How greatful are the people who live there? I read a real interesting story about Iraqi christians who had been given religious freedom by Saddam. They went to church, worshipped and were even allowed to sell alchohol to other christians. They no longer reside in Iraq. They had to flee because it is now too dangerous for them. It took a week to defeat Saddam's army and now we've spent like a year fighting randon insurgents. That kind of gives me the impression that Saddam wasn't that big of a threat to us. I'm not saying that Saddam didn't need delt with, but anyone who thinks this was the only way; well I don't get it. By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm not conservative,. I'm not Democrat nor Republican. I'm just a simple atheist who likes loud music and hates war. I think that the idea that you solve problems by blowing up large areas of a country with very little regard for civilian life is absolutely insane. Going to war for peace is like f***ing for virginity. And thats not to say that I have any hostilty towards our armed forces. They are very brave people who we need... For protection, not aggresion. Personally, I'd like to see our forces come home and protect our "what should be" sealed, hard to get into boarders, then we; get rid of our corrupt ass; narrow minded leadership, fix our messed up; can't support my family with 2 jobs economy, help the poor, sick and hopeless in OUR country, and THEN worry about the rest of the world. I find it hard to get teary-eyed over the charity, wait, I mean the propaganda (winning of hearts and minds) that we bestow upon other countries, when I see the things that I see right here at home.

Wow. After reading those last 2 posts, let's just say I am glad that 52% of America believes that President Bush did, and is doing, the right thing.

I would rather have to work harder to pay more taxes than to sit back and coast, which is certainly a strategy that would guarantee that my kids would have no future. Who wants to survive in a fallout shelter? Who wants to live thru a nuclear winter? Not me. And until we kill all the bad guys, that is potentially our future.

There is no amount of appeasement, no amount of money, no quantity of virgins that can be offered up that will stop these evil people from harming us. They want us all dead. They want our society destroyed. There is no middle-road for them. There is no 'leave us alone and we'll leave you alone' scenario. Only death will utimately decide this struggle. Either we die, or they die.

That's the cold hard reality we all face. Sorry to have to lay it out there.

Wow. After reading those last 2 posts, let's just say I am glad that 52% of America believes that President Bush did, and is doing, the right thing.

I am not one to get into politics and all, but if the american public doesn't have a clue what the truth is, thats a problem. I can come up with stats to prove anything I want, its not hard. The way I see it is that if bush came out into the open and said something like "We are over there because I wanted to settle a score" it would be interesting to hear what people had to say about it. I for one could care less about him, we are stuck with him for the next 4 years. I just wished he would be honest for once.

Also, bush made it seem like there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, but none were found. I don't doubt that he knew that there were no weapons, but that was a cover. I personally don't trust anything the government says, especially when it comes to things like weapons...

We've been involved in Middle East issues since before most of the people attacking us were born. I can't say whether they would leave us alone if we left them alone. Why? Because we haven't left them alone in a long, long time. I do know that going to Iraq and killing many many people, and destroying whole cities isn't helping relations any. If they insisted in being involved in our problems for 60 years and then came to our country, dropped bombs on neighborhoods and killed alot of innocent people, we would react the same way they are. In fact we would be raining bombs on them like mad with no discression whatsoever. So, since everyone thinks the same, how is provoking people making us safer. I'd say that, since we went to Iraq, our danger has been elevated beyond what it was during the cold war. I know that 52% of the people would disagree with that, and we could go back and forth all day. I have no energy for that, so I'll just wait and let history decide. I don't think its as simple as we die or they die though. I think its more like a whole lot of all of us die. And the ones left... They fight somemore. That being said, I'm going to go back to talking about cars and girls and sports.
I'd rather :Beer than argue2

Who wants to survive in a fallout shelter? Who wants to live thru a nuclear winter? Not me. And until we kill all the bad guys, that is potentially our future.


Chicken Little couldn't have said it any better himself.

I reiterate, "George Bush is a liar". Always has been, always will be. And he's stupid, to boot.

Chicken Little couldn't have said it any better himself.Looks like Humpty Dumpty is still sitting on the wall.

And he's stupid, to boot. Sometimes facts are hard to come by, eh!

Bush/Kerry IQ Comparison (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/051556.php)

Steve Sailer has an exhaustive analysis (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm) of standardized tests taken by the two candidates, including SATs and officer candidate aptitude tests, to conclude that, if anything, George Bush is probably a little smarter than John Kerry. The article wanders a great deal, and never quite gets down to claiming a direct comparison, but if I read it right the conclusion is that both men have IQs of 120 or higher, and that Bush's is probably in the range 125-130. In other words both are above the 90th percentile in IQ, but Kerry's is probably in the low 90s and Bush's in the mid 90s. Sailer also draws some conclusions about the differences between how the men are likely to use their gifts: " The subtle difference between Bush and Kerry in two words: Bush is competitive and Kerry is ambitious." Read the whole thing (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm).

This Just In—Kerry's IQ Likely Lower than Bush's!
By Steve Sailer (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/index.htm)

"Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead."

Howell Raines (http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrcspotlight/raines/welcome.asp)
- Former Executive Editor of the New York Times
"The 'Dumb' Factor" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37225-2004Aug26.html)
Washington Post, August 27, 2004



Oh yeah?

On this tenth anniversary (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_10yr.htm) of the publication of the much-denounced The Bell Curve (http://www.vdare.com/pb/bell_curve_10yrs.htm), it's amusing to reflect on one of the enduring ironies of American political life. Liberals tend to believe two things about IQ:

http://www.vdare.com/_themes/blocksvd/redball.gifFirst, that IQ is a meaningless, utterly discredited (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/CDYR4L6N/verbalist's)concept.
http://www.vdare.com/_themes/blocksvd/redball.gifSecond, that liberals are better (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/iq.htm) than conservatives because they have much higher IQs.
Thus back in May, hundreds of liberal websites, and even the prestigious Economist magazine, fell for a hoax (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/brown_debate.htm) claiming to show that states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 have higher average IQs—by as much as an incredible 28 points—than states that voted for George W. Bush.

(In reality, no such data exist. But, for what it's worth, Bush and Gore voters were identical (http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139) in educational level, and the states they won were almost dead even in 8th grade achievement test scores.)

Similarly, in 2001, many liberals, including Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1530220.stm) and The Guardian newspaper, fell for the notorious "Lovenstein Institute (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html)" prank, which absurdly claimed that the IQ of Bush, (http://web.archive.org/web/20000815202310/http:/www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue320/item7250.asp) a man with two Ivy League degrees, was a sub-average 91, while Bill Clinton's was a Galileo-like (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Cox300.html) 182.

But now I've turned up some hard facts about the IQs of Kerry and Bush.

Most significantly, at the age of 22, both men took the IQ-type tests required of candidate military officers. (The U.S. military, which has studied the predictive power of IQ (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html) in vastly more detail than any other institution, remains intensely dedicated (http://www.todaysmilitary.com/ns/t5_ns_howtodecide.php) to the value (http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep98/html/2-afqt.html) of intelligence testing (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/army_and_race.htm).)

Bush's scores on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test have been briefly mentioned (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r) in the press. But no-one before now has fully explained what they mean.

And, even more important, this is first article to publish Kerry's score on the Navy's Officer Qualification Test.

The two tests aren't perfectly comparable. But they provide no evidence that Kerry is smarter. If anything, Bush is smarter than Kerry.

These scores are still relevant because IQ's don't change much over time. The Daily Telegraph of London reported on a 66 year long study in Scotland:

"People who sat an IQ test at the age of 11 in 1932 were ranked in exactly the same order when they took the exam again at the age of 77, showing that intelligence is stable throughout life." [Longevity is linked to IQ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2000/09/28/ecnage28.xml), By Auslan Cramb, September 28,2000]

So the scores politicians earned as college seniors still have surprising significance.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

Boy oh Boy!!

Bryan vs Barry again!! :F two intelligent gents each with their own style!!

Are the 4 year of Bush over!! Can I stop my hibernation!!!

Is the US still a Democracy!!! Or an Empire!!!

Do we still elect a president or is the self proclaimed Emperor of the world still in power.

Remember the German people were fooled by Hitler and followed him blindly!!

They believed his lies and followed him to their demise!

What a broken record this thread has turned out to be. Take your pot shots at Bush all you want. It's pathetic whether in faux jest or in spite. The "liar liar pants on fire" stuff is a complete waste of time, especially when most of us know who hates Bush here.

To isolate ourselves is to condemn our country. Isolationism is a proven failure in every single case in history. I'm sorry, but that is a naive and irresponsible viewpoint.

I'm not saying that criticism isn't warranted, but we're committed now and have been for 2 years. Anything constructive to say on the subject? Or have you just given up and now your sole purpose is to infect everyone else with a defeatist attitude. "Woe is our country!!"

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted against Bush. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, until this election.

I'm not comparing Kerry to Bush, you are. I'm not judging Bush by Kerry's level of intelligence, I'm comparing him to my level. At least I can pronounce "nuclear". Bryan, didn't you watch the debates? The world was laughing at Bush.

Mespock's analogy comparing Bush to Hitler hits eerily close to home. Hitler had 52% of his people's support, too. He came to power in hard economic times and catapulted to power on the premise that he would make things better. Sound familiar? Hitler tried to wipe out Jews and Gypsies. Bush went after Afghans and Iraquis. The North Korean people are preparing for an invasion by US forces. I think they are right to be afraid of GWB.

How can you keep defending Bush by casting blame on Clinton? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Show me one credible link and I'll leave the subject alone. Promise. Until then, I stand by my statements that Bush is a stupid liar.

I'm comparing him to my level. At least I can pronounce "nuclear". Bryan, didn't you watch the debates? The world was laughing at Bush.Bush was absolutely terrible in debate #1. I know exactly what it is like to run yourself too thin before you make a big presentation. My largest failure in business came when I stay up for 2 straight days preparing for a venture capital meeting. I couldn't put 2 words cohesively together. People came out of the meeting thinking I had lost my mind. I didn't get a dime. Same with Bush. He wore himself ragged taking care of other people (hurricane) and was simply mentally and physically exhausted. Been there, done that. In debates 2 and 3, he wiped Kerry's ass with Kerry's own hand. Bush is tremendously smart. He is a street fighter. Watch the Apprentice this season. The 'Book Smarts' vs the 'Street Smarts'. The Street Smarts will destroy the book smarts. Watch.

Hitler tried to wipe out Jews and Gypsies. Bush went after Afghans and Iraquis. The North Korean people are preparing for an invasion by US forces. I think they are right to be afraid of GWB.Great comparison. Hitler killed INNOCENT people without regard. We are killing BAD GUYS. Are there innocent casualites? Sure. But name another country in history that goes so far out of the way to protect innocent lives as we do, much of the time exposing our own to unnecessary risks? We are going to invade Korea? If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. Invasion??? Laughable!

How can you keep defending Bush by casting blame on Clinton? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Show me one credible link and I'll leave the subject alone. Promise. Until then, I stand by my statements that Bush is a stupid liar.Because of all the pansies running around, it took an event like 9/11 to help sway public opinion about having the balls to deal with Saddam. Clinton doesn't have balls. Bush does. 10 years was long enough to wait for the SURRENDERED LOSER to come into compliance with the terms he agreed to back in 1991. 9/11 was the impetus to get us to finally confront reality.

Maybe I should send a letter to all your customers, explaining that they really do not have to pay their leases and invoices. That the terms that they agreed to (after all, they didn't have a gun to their head, did they) really don't mean anything because you are not going to do anything anyway if they don't pay up. Get the analogy?

Free Faller, from your statements ("a work of fiction that only portrays servicemen as ignorant brutes, high on adrenaline and heavy metal music with a blatant desire to kill") I'm guessing you've never seen F-9/11. American soldiers are not portrayed as you have described. After you get done patting yourself on the back, take off your blinders and watch the movie. $4 on PPV, is that too much to spend for enlightenment?

Yes, I have seen F 9/11.

Oh, and here's more servicemen "patting themselves on the back" at the tomb of the unknown soldier. Maybe you should go there... Maybe you should go to your local VFW and speak to those men and women. Maybe you should go... Forget it... I just want to talk about cars now...

"Here Rests
In Honored Glory
An American Soldier
Known But To God"

The Sentinels Creed

My dedication to this sacred duty is total and wholehearted.
In the responsibility bestowed on me never will I falter.
And with dignity and perseverance my standard will remain perfection.
Through the years of diligence and praise and the discomfort of the elements,
I will walk my tour in humble reverence to the best of my ability.
It is he who commands the respect I protect.
His bravery that made us so proud.
Surrounded by well meaning crowds by day alone in the thoughtful peace of night,
this soldier will in honored glory rest under my eternal vigilance

:L

One very important tidbit to remember in the political forum!

Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has some fact whether exaggerated or not that for some reason they hold dear! This is still America a country that people like FreeFaller has dedicated a portion of their life time to defend!

Remember that even if some posts buy members may disagree with what you believe we are still one great group of people enjoying this great site created by some wonderful people!

My hats of to you and members like you FeeFaller who have chosen to serve our country. My hat is off to those who have died carrying out their orders and duty.

My heart bleeds for the families of those who have suffered loss!

FeeFaller, these debates have graced this forum since the start of LvC. Don’t let anyone’s opinion upset you! But please make sure that you state your opinion. As this is an open forum for all to express how they feel, whether it’s a popular opinion or not.

I consider Bryan a good friend even though we do not have the same political views. What we do know is that we both :L and that’s the purpose of this site! and don't for get :C .

I also know that Barry and Bryan have a lot of fun both with good facts! and if you read older Threads you will see that there is respect of each other.

I don't think FreeFaller is taking it personally he's debating like everyone else

Thanks for the fine sentiments Rich. You hit the nail on the head. I PM'd Steve (Freefaller). He is fine with the debate. People can get hot under the color. That is what brings out the passion and make things fun.

I like all you guys. Whether we agree or disagree. I like to disagree. How else can you learn?

I like to go after Barry because he takes it and dishes it out. gotta run...

I don't think FreeFaller is taking it personally he's debating like everyone else

I know Steve is new here and if he hasn't gotten arojnd to read some of Bryan's and Barry's Post Election Debates - to someone new it might look like they hate each other.

Like Bryan said what's great about this site is we accept the fact that other members may have a difference of opinion from our own personal view.

And again what helps make this site great is that this site is so American!

Just like Lincolns vs Cadillacs we has Reps vs Dems, Cons vs Libs, etc.

My hats off to :V :Beer

I'd have to agree, this is the only forum (of the half-dozen or so that I frequent) where discussions like these are:

A) Welcomed.
B) Don't degrade into immature pissing matches.

I meant no dis-respect to FreeFaller, I commend and appreciate anyone who serves for this great country. My grandfather was a WWI vet, my father a WWII vet, and my wife served during Gulf War I. It just pains me deeply to see our great service men and women put into harms way un-necessarily, or at least when it is not the last resort.

:V
:L

Bryan,

On Augist 6, 2001 Bush and Rice-baby were told an attack was ALMOST imminent. But they didn't believe it was credible enough. Too bad 3000 Americans died because he ignored the warning...So who's rolling the dice, Bryan?

Bryan,

On Augist 6, 2001 Bush and Rice-baby were told an attack was ALMOST imminent. But they didn't believe it was credible enough. Too bad 3000 Americans died because he ignored the warning...So who's rolling the dice, Bryan?
And the planes took off from John Kerry's airport, Boston Logan, where Kerry was personally briefed on the potential terrorists passing thru the airport. He ignored it and passed the buck. And that's who YOU wanted in the hot seat?

PASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! I love revisionists, almost as much as back seat drivers.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Eh, I see Canada really initially stood up after the Tsumani. Something like $3 mil trickled out at 1st. Impressive. See, even your PM is a dink at times.

And the planes took off from John Kerry's airport, Boston Logan, where Kerry was personally briefed on the potential terrorists passing thru the airport. He ignored it and passed the buck. And that's who YOU wanted in the hot seat?


Its actually sad how many people passed that buck, dems, reps, indies, aliens :P

Bryan,

You are guilty of projection. You can no longer defend Bush by bashing Kerry. Bush is our President, not Kerry. You can't defend Bush's acting on false WMD information by saying that Kerry or Clinton would have done the same, you don't know that.

You know as well as anyone that we could have handled Iraq differently. It may have taken longer but it may not have been as deadly to American forces and INNOCENT Iraquis.

Bashing Canada about tsunami aid in this thread is typical of the Bush administration's smokescreen tactics. You really need to admit that Bush :q:q:q:qed up and that we will be paying the price for years to come.

We could do a whole thread on smokescreens. All politicians do it. We need to put an end to it and insist on the truth from our leaders. I know your response will be "You can't handle the truth" but I believe we can and we deserve it.

Bush will go down in history as a stupid liar. Don't drag yourself down with him. You're too intelligent for that.

They didn't exist in the first place, and Bush's unconcerned reaction seems to show that he didn't care if they were found or not. He definitely had other reasons for going there. Personally, I'd like for him to just tell the truth. If it was for revenge for his father, oil, whatever, I don't care. I'd just like to know the real reason why. I don't understand why you would lie about the reasons for going to war, when you intend on going to war regardless of the rest of the world's opinion.
Im not a fan of our or any outher goverment. I think who killed kennidy is a better question???? Bush did not fight for going to war, he was mearley presanted (by rumsfeld) with the info to make an informed dechion. we do hase satilight photos of thies wepons. at any rate no one will disagre that sadom neded to be over thrown. you might ask why our problem, since we know why we are there. well who put him in power, we did so we are cleaning up our own mess. I just pray for my frends and familey that our over there. also dont blame bush Congress had to pass it.

Dertyclown,

Your post is nonsense. Kennedy?

That all sounds so well and good Barry, BUT, you know for darn sure that if we had had another attack, of any kind, Bush would be taking hell for it. They would say he did nothing. And you know it. There is no win-win for Bush, so he has to do what is right and just. The left purposely sabotages this country in an effort to achieve and maintain power.

(tangent)
5 years ago Clinton was talking about the CRISIS in Social Security. Now that Bush is going to do something about it, ALL THE LEFT is coming out and saying that there really isn't a problem and that Bush is going to CREATE the problem.

Slowly but surely, the American public's eyes and minds are being freed from the trappings that the liberals have had on them thru government policies, the mainstream tv media and national press and the education system. Slowly but surely, the brainwashing from the left is being neutralized. The country is returning to its conservative roots. More good times are ahead for all of us.

(Back to the topic at hand)
Had Saddam been left to his devices, he would have obtained the WMD he so badly needed (I still think it was moved by the ruskies) and then threatened his region with them. He would have the upper hand with Iran, could have invaded Saudi Arabia, cut off oil supplies in the region and turned the western-world economies on their ears. Gas would be, what, $100 a gallon? This is the scenario I think would have played out if Saddam would have stayed and continued to work on his programs. Heck, just the threats he could make would have half of us quaking in our boots.

He could have cemented his friendships with the Russians, who are btw, working very hard to get in bed with the Chinese. The traitors like France and Germany would throw up their hands and surrender and we (US,Brits,Aussies) would be outmanned and outgunned, from a tactical, non-nuclear standpoint. We would have to submit. I don't know about you, but I do not want to be anybody's b!tch.

I toss things out like Kerry passing on the threats he received and had first hand knowledge of because it needs to be shown that as a leader, he would have been an unmitigated disaster and was a threat to our freedom.

I hate Kerry as much as you hate Bush. As for going down with Bush, you bet I will. I spent 3 months of my life getting him re-elected because he was and is the best man for the job at this time in our history. And history has proven that men of conviction like Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush2, are what make and keep this country great.

Stop and think about it! Not even a car-bomb or spilled milk in over 4 years. I thank the Lord and I thank George Bush everyday for that track record. It know it won't last forever but I know this. I have never seen anyone get into a fight when they knew going in that they were going to get their butts kicked bad and maybe not even get in a punch. Ever. Peace thru strength is the only way to achieve true and lasting peace. It is in our dna. It is all we understand as humans.

P.S. You can keep calling Bush a stupid liar, but the more you do, the more I am convinced that you personally don't believe it.

Please believe it Bryan. I truely believe that my dog has more common sense than GWB. Plus, he can lick his own balls.

You are nothing more than a fearmonger. That's how the new Republican Party works.

Ah, the politics of fear and destruction. How quaint!

Do you know why a dog licks his balls?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because he can!

Dertyclown,

Please forgive me for being rude. You really need to stick to the subject if you want to participate here.

All I know is Osama was responsible for killing 3,000 innocent civilians at a cost of a dozen of his own. Bush is responsible for 20,000 innocent civilians at a cost of 1,300+ of his own men. Who's the bigger a$$hole???

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Let me tink.

I'll get back to you on that one.

Geez. I've been trying for years and years to crawl and slither into the mindset of a liberal. I just can't seem to reach my goal. The quest and ultimate gratification that would come with obtaining the intellectually superior treasure trove of unreputed knowledge and insight appear to be out of my reach. Bummer.

The way I see it, one dirty bomb or one nuke; or even one hijacked plane, or maybe even one more invasion and all your numbers go out the door. I would love to see the arithmetic behind the 20,000 number. We certainly know where the 3000 came from, don't we?

Would it really matter if I gave you the source, Bryan?? We both know the letter I mentioned in the previous posting was shown at the 9/11 Commission hearings..but to you that was "revisionist". Even if I could provid birth certificates for all of the deceased in Iraq, you'd call them "forgeries" or something. Would the soruce matter? If it were the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, the UN, CNN, Al-Jazeera, Arby's Menu, Mad Magazine, whatever, you wouldn't believe it anyways. I'm surprised you actually believe Bush is responsible for 1300+ military personel who have died. Throughout the last several wars and conflicts the US has been involved in (back to WW2), they have killed more "incidental" innocent civilians than most any other nation. I supposed you won't believe that either...or that the US military in Iraq is clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions several times over..(do I have to publish the Geneva Conventions so you believe me on that one too??) I don't think it really matters. You're a die hard Republican, and their party lines deem that you DENY DENY DENY.

Unlike Bryan's attitude toward "Liberals" I don't villify Republicans. Apparently anyone that doesn't agree with Bryan is labeled as evil. He sees lurking monsters behind every door just waiting to harm us. I believe that, if that were true, we would have had a flood of harm come across our porous borders and shores long before now.

I believe that his differentiation between Bush and Hitler is bogus. How can he say that Bush is not killing INNOCENTS? In my opinion, the figure is much higher than 20,000 in Iraq. Hitler came to power under virtually identical circumstances and he took his country to ruin.

We need to stop trying to spread Christianity just as Hitler needed to stop spreading the Master Race. We need to leave the rest of the world alone. Democracy will come naturally as human beings yearn to be free whether Muslim or Buddist or whatever. We need to stop labeling ourselves as a Christian nation. What made this a great nation was the tolerance of all races and religions. We need to live together and stop shoving one religion down eveyone's throats as that will only get ours slit.

I don't hate everything that Bush stands for but he has clearly lied to the American public about just about everything. There is a hidden agenda everywhere. Faith-based everthing is no better than Hitler Youth or Saddam's Fedayim. Quit force feeding us this crap or there will be a civil war here.

Just because Bush has 52% of the people fooled into thinking he is doing right by this country doesn't mean that he is right. People, in general, are a bunch of sheep that want to be led around and told what to do.

I am proud to say that I have values that lean toward the Republican side but I also have a compassionate side that is more in accordance with the Democratic platform. Kerry was a poor choice to run against Bush but that is in the past and Bryan will start to look the fool if he continues to use the argument of what Kerry "might have done".

We need to stop trying to convince the world that we are the guys in the white hats by sending half a billion dollars to aid tsunami victims whose governments don't want our help. Half a billion doesn't seem like much in the scheme of things but that money should have been spent here.

We need to mind our own failings before we fall apart.

Stop and think about it! Not even a car-bomb or spilled milk in over 4 years.

You are forgetting the Anthrax scare, as well as the DC sniper attacks, and other sniper attacks along the OH turnpike. No, those weren't carried out by alQuida, but they were certainly "terrorist" activities.

The "war on terrorism", like the "war on drugs", is an un-winnable war. The best defense against threats like those is NOT a strong offense (the only result will be deaths because you CANNOT win these wars), but to make ourselves a small target. And that doesn't require us to crawl into a hole like you'd like us all to believe. It will take smarts and strong political persuasion with the world, both of which BuSh has in short supply.

Well said.

Bing, Bang, Boom, huh!
.
.
.Quite! Shiiiiish! Listen!
.
.
.
(Then the faint clicking sounds can be made out of a person loading a 50 caliber and a gutteral whisper of "I'll get those liberal commies".

I have to say Bryan, that was about the least intelligent response you've ever posted.

Following your master's lead?

Do you know why a dog licks his balls?

Because he can!

I would if I could - :D

Lets get Bryan all fired up with this one.....

I was saving it for the inaguration but, what the hell



-

Actually GWB is the only Stooge. The other two have their hands so far up his ass that they control everything he does.

Would it really matter if I gave you the source, Bryan??

Would it matter to me? Only if it served to back up your assertions with facts. It would probably help.

I'm surprised you actually believe Bush is responsible for 1300+ military personel who have died.

Sure, he's responsible. He doesn't shirk his duties or run away from making the tough decisions. It is never a pleasure to send your country's sons and daughters to war. I am also sure that he is responsible for making sure not another innocent civilian has been killed on our soil at the hands of a terrorist. I guess that doesn't count, huh?

Throughout the last several wars and conflicts the US has been involved in (back to WW2), they have killed more "incidental" innocent civilians than most any other nation. I supposed you won't believe that either...or that the US military in Iraq is clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions several times over..(do I have to publish the Geneva Conventions so you believe me on that one too??)

When you have the enemy hiding like cowards within the civilian population and storing arms caches in hospitals and mosques, what do you expect us to do. The United States could wipe Iraq off the face of the earth. We could go in and slaughter every man women and child if we wanted. The United States has shown itself again and again to be the most humane and sensitive of any nation, ever, on the face of this earth.

Here is the distinction you need to make. Read these 2 phrases:
1) Intentionally killing innocent civilians.
2) Civilians being killed unintentionally.
If you think it is US policy to follow Number 1, no sense in talking anymore?
Hitler was Number 1.
We have and always will follow Number 2. War sucks. Accidents happen. Innocent people get killed accidentally.

We bombed the crap out of a city of 12 million, and how many civilians were casualties?


I don't think it really matters. You're a die hard Republican, and their party lines deem that you DENY DENY DENY.

No, I am a die hard realist. Quit using the Clinton tactic of Deny, Deflect, Accuse and Attack. That's the Dems modus-operandi. I'm a die hard compassionate conservative. Republicans just happen to be the party most aligned with my ideals.

Unlike Bryan's attitude toward "Liberals" I don't villify Republicans. Apparently anyone that doesn't agree with Bryan is labeled as evil.No. Everybody that is not a compassionate conservative is misguided, not evil. Misguided good intentions are just that, misguided.

I believe that his differentiation between Bush and Hitler is bogus. How can he say that Bush is not killing INNOCENTS? In my opinion, the figure is much higher than 20,000 in Iraq. Hitler came to power under virtually identical circumstances and he took his country to ruin.Congratulations. The most unintelligent phrase to roll off your keyboard and into cyberspace. Comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler, a man who intentionally killed innocent people to Bush who, thru the theater of war may have unintentionally killed a few. You are a raving moonbat.

We need to stop trying to spread Christianity just as Hitler needed to stop spreading the Master Race. We need to leave the rest of the world alone. Democracy will come naturally as human beings yearn to be free whether Muslim or Buddist or whatever. We need to stop labeling ourselves as a Christian nation. What made this a great nation was the tolerance of all races and religions. We need to live together and stop shoving one religion down eveyone's throats as that will only get ours slit. Have you ever looked at a world map? I can't resize the one I selected. too big. View it here. http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff2008.jpg

This is just the 1990's, mind you.


I don't hate everything that Bush stands for but he has clearly lied to the American public about just about everything. There is a hidden agenda everywhere. Faith-based everthing is no better than Hitler Youth or Saddam's Fedayim. Quit force feeding us this crap or there will be a civil war here.Bush hasn't lied about anything. I hope there is a civil war here. Atheists and agnostics should be made aware that they are free to take their moral decay anywhere else they want but it is no longer welcome here.

Just because Bush has 52% of the people fooled into thinking he is doing right by this country doesn't mean that he is right. People, in general, are a bunch of sheep that want to be led around and told what to do.52% of the population has NOT been fooled by the corrupt liberal mentality. The swing continues, or haven't you noticed. People are obtaining more information from more unfiltered sources and are joining the conservative movement. Stand aside or get run over.

I am proud to say that I have values that lean toward the Republican side but I also have a compassionate side that is more in accordance with the Democratic platform. Republicans are far more giving and far more compassionate than the Democratic party. The Democrats give lip service only. With the mexican population growing at the fastest pace, I look forward to a more conservative movement from them, thus neutralizing the ridiculous grip that for whatever reason (plain stupidity) on the part of the black population, they continue to support Democrats who have done nothing to help their cause.

Kerry was a poor choice to run against Bush...Understatement of the year. And you have admitted to voting for that fool. What does that say about you? You didn't vote for the best man because of your displeasure with some of his policies. Shame on you.

We need to stop trying to convince the world that we are the guys in the white hats by sending half a billion dollars to aid tsunami victims whose governments don't want our help. Half a billion doesn't seem like much in the scheme of things but that money should have been spent here.Ah, we finally agree. Let the ingrates suffer.

You are forgetting the Anthrax scare, as well as the DC sniper attacks, and other sniper attacks along the OH turnpike. No, those weren't carried out by alQuida, but they were certainly "terrorist" activities.

The "war on terrorism", like the "war on drugs", is an un-winnable war. The best defense against threats like those is NOT a strong offense (the only result will be deaths because you CANNOT win these wars), but to make ourselves a small target. And that doesn't require us to crawl into a hole like you'd like us all to believe. It will take smarts and strong political persuasion with the world, both of which BuSh has in short supply.
Johnny, your turn.

Can we please make a disdinction between US and foreign terrorists please?

Make ourselves a small target. OK. How do we go about doing that?

Ever notice the name Bush? bUSh. As in US, as in United States. Ironic isn't it?

In this case US stands for "Unforgivable Stupidity".

Unparalleled Supremacy

Usurped Society

Bryan,

I'm sad to say it, but terrorists WILL kill other Americans on US soil. )on Bush's watch..again) And like the 1st time, they won't be coming from Iraq....

I agree. All we can do is slow them down and thin their ranks. They will never stop. That's why we have to fight them on their turf. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, is the way it is going to be from now on.

Johnny, your turn.

Can we please make a disdinction between US and foreign terrorists please?


Why? What's the difference? In either case, innocent people die. Oh YEAH! Now I remember, the odds of squeezing oil and profits out of retalitory attacks on US terrorists are 0%, while those odds are MUCH HIGHER if it's a "foreign terrorist".

Make ourselves a small target. OK. How do we go about doing that?


DIPLOMACY. Stop getting involved in other countries' buisness for solely monetary reasons, only get involved for humanitarian reasons. Stop selling weapons to covert groups to wage war against our "enemys". STOP MAKING enemys. I could go on for days...........

Ever notice the name Bush? bUSh. As in US, as in United States. Ironic isn't it?

Weak, its more like BuSh, as in Bull Sh!t.

Bryan,

You said "That's why we have to fight them on their turf." Please don't tell me you are one of those dumb-a$$es that think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism?


Oh..and in a previous post, you were referring to Hitler with regards to killing innocents. Since you brought up WW2, it's safe to say that the night time firebombing of Japanese cities made of wood was no accident, and the thousands upon thousand of Japanese burned to death in their beds was no accident. And then we could open the can of worms about the civilian population killed with the dropping of the A-bomb. Again...no accident. Those were civilian targets...

I feel such a burden to enlighten you and many others on these important topics of the day.

To answer your first query, I must admit to being a dumba$$. Just ask Barry.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif
Was Saddam a part of 9/11? NO.
Was he violation of UN sanctions for 10 years?YES.
Was he is possession of WMD? YES.
Would he use those weapons if given a chance or use them as blackmail? YES.
Was the oil-for-food program a scam to get additional weapons and technologies from the Frenchy-french and the German potato salad guys? YES.
Did the Ruskies come in and pull out some of Saddam toys? YES.
Were the rest sent to Syria and Iran? YES.
Are we looking for them there? Hopefully.
Was Saddam a bad guy that killed hundreds of thousands of his own people? YES.
Lastly, are we fighting mostly disenfranchised Iraqis in Iraq or thousands of 'terrorists' that hopped buses into Baghdad to join the Holy War against the Infadels? Humm.

All you "Give Peace a Chance" people have no clue how the real, ugly, vicious world works.

Did we drop some bombs on Japan? Sure.
Did we provoke and attack them first? NO.
Were they using their people as weapons and indoctrinating them in the practice of 'holy' harikari? YES they were.
Were we faced with the prospect of losing hundreds of thousands of Americans and killing millions of Japanese? YES.
Did the 2 bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki kill innocent people? YES.
Did the bombing in fact save 100 or even 1000 times as many lives? YES.

See, sometimes a country such as the United States, the leader of the free world since 1776, has to make the tough choices. To do the unpleasant for the good of all. It's what we have always done. We've always taken the path that would minimize the pain and suffering for ALL involved. Friend or combatant. We do the right thing.

So as you look in the mirror at the horror cast down upon those 2 cities, do you not understand that those horrific events saved millions of lives? Without having to face an overwhelming power demonstrated upon their people, the Japanese government would never have surrendered and were preparing their people to fight with broomsticks till the bitter end. (Make no mistake, we ourselves may someday be facing that same threat). We would still be burying people 50 years later. We did the right thing. The world learned the horror of the 'nuclear age' and learned a valuable lesson in the process. Avoid it at all cost.

The Arab countries also learned a similar lesson. The US is no longer a paper tiger. We will back up our words with action. Countries need to pay attention to what we say. No more bluffing. Better have a good hand because we're always gonna call your hand.

You attack our innocent civilians (9/11) and we will hunt you down (Afganistan). You might get away hiding in a cave or in a rat hole, or even walk around wearing a burka (Osama's favorite outfit), but make no mistake, we will get you. Sooner or later, we will get you.

You attack another country (Kuwait) without provocation and we will come to their aid. You agree to surrender (1991) and then violate the terms of that agreement (1991), you will pay the price (2003).

The world is much clearer now. The Palestinians are learning that if they want a homeland, they have to stop with the suicide attacks. Iran and Korea know we are not fooling around and if they want to go down the path of arming themselves and endangering peace in the world, we will act to make sure that does not happen.

It is all so clear.

So why the haze on your lenses?

WOW!! I take a 5 day vacation with my wife and come back to find over 1200 new posts! I'd say that's a good indication that this site is booming. But the more this site grows, the more it stays the same. Poor Bryan is still drawing fire from all sides, and returning shot for shot! I don't really have anything to add but to encourage everyone to participate. Don't let me or anyone else discourage or bully you from posting here. The more the merrier, on topic or not!

Bryan,

I've never said you were a dumba$$. I think that your views are skewed on the subject of the President. I think you harm your credibility with certain comments that are obviously inflamatory, but I don't think you're dumb.

At least you finally admit that 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a start. The key comment about the situation in Iraq is that he was killing his own people. We didn't step into Rowanda or other African nations because there was no oil. Please admit that Iraq is about oil, you'll regain some credibility with me.

You keep saying that your compassionate conservative movement is gaining strength. If so, where are all your supporters. Your views are attracting much more dissent than support, at least, on this web site.

I think you harm your credibility with certain comments that are obviously inflamatory, but I don't think you're dumb.I do try to inflame. It makes the give and take more fun. Don't you agree?

At least you finally admit that 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a start. The key comment about the situation in Iraq is that he was killing his own people. We didn't step into Rowanda or other African nations because there was no oil. Please admit that Iraq is about oil, you'll regain some credibility with me.I have always felt that it was President Clinton's job to deal with Saddam but he never did. And he had 8 years to do it. The Bush strategy was brilliant. As long as we had to make a major commitment over there with enforcing the sanctions and going into Afganistan, it made sense to kill several birds with one stone. Deal with the Taliban. Take out Saddam because he was too unstable, (no one knew when he would crack). Stabilize the region to keep the flow of oil going. I could go on and on why it was the appropriate strategy. Except Clinton should have been the one to do it. 9/11, like I said, provided the impetus. All the world's intelligence leaned in that direction. The Democrats we're getting behind it although they are never hawkish unless they are in power (hypocrites).

You keep saying that your compassionate conservative movement is gaining strength. If so, where are all your supporters. Your views are attracting much more dissent than support, at least, on this web site.Never underestimate the silent majority and the power the silent majority. The right doesn't whine when we're losing and we don't brag when we're winning, so just because you don't here from most of us, doesn't mean we're not there. I would hope that this last election demonstrated that point.

More people showed up at the polls to show their support of President Bush than showed up to voice their disapproval. I think that speaks volumes. Bush survived an unrelenting negative attack unprecedented in American politics. Give the man some credit.

Oil is a major reason for our actions in the mideast. But not because it will make GW and his "cronies" rich. Oil is power. If we allow a rogue tyrant with the dream and the will to conquer the world by force to control the worlds largest oil supply, then we allow that tyrant the means to achieve his dream as well. There's nothing in Rwanda or that part of the world that could give the ruler of that country the means to threaten the world. Why is this so hard to understand?

We didn't step into Rowanda or other African nations because there was no oil. Please admit that Iraq is about oil, you'll regain some credibility with me.

What about:

Operation Restore Hope (Somalia)
Operation Provide Comfort (Turkey, Northern Iraq)
Operation Allied Force (Balkans)
Operation Shining Hope (Balkans)
Operation Provide Promise (Balkans)
Operation Provide Relief (Somalia)
Operation Provide Refuge (Kosovo)
Security Restoration Operations (Liberia)

This is just the tip of the Iceberg concerning non-oil related actions taken by the United States with the sole purpose of helping people. I swear that Democrats love to hate this country. We are by far the world leader in humanitarian assistance. Be it governmentally supported or private. This country does more to spread goodwill, peace and hope to more people than has ever been documented in the history of mankind. Yes, the United States has a vital interest in the Global Security of Oil. Without it economies would collapse the world over and our Lincolns and Cadillacs would be lawn ornaments. This is the nature of the world. But to say that any other President than President Bush is or would have been more rightous is just an ignorant belief. It also show a complete lack of understanding of our Republic and its intricacies. The belief that a single man in our country has sole and complete power over all things great and small in our policies is a fallicy purported all over the world by poeples ignorant of a free society. The largest power in this country is controlled by representatives that YOU choose every two years. These are the loudest voices in the presidents ear. Not Halliburton, Mobil, the Saudis or any other of the ideas that some would believe. YOU tell your congressman what to do...YOU. Therefore we are all equally responsible for what this country does. And always remember...just because you have spoken your voice does not mean you get your way. That's how a democracy works...by majority. For eight years I dealt with it...I was in the minority. But I didn't call ANY of President Clintons actions traitorous or deceptive. President Clinton was an honorable man, as is President Bush. It is up to us to make sure they stay that way by electing our representatives in the congress to speak for us. To watch our backs.

Aww crap...I'm on a :soapbox: again...I guess I'll get off now...

I don't know about anybody else, but I love when you get on your soapbox. You make so much sense it is scary. I welcome your continued contributions. Great minds think alike.

The largest power in this country is controlled by representatives that YOU choose every two years. These are the loudest voices in the presidents ear. Not Halliburton, Mobil, the Saudis or any other of the ideas that some would believe.

While these my be the LOUDEST voices in GW's ear, the voices that he LISTENS to are those who fill his pockets the fastest. When you are getting paid $400+K / year to lead the greatest country in the world while your friends and families' oil-related buisnesses are absorbing BILLIONS each year in profits.......... WHO are you going to LISTEN to? "Who's your daddy?"

While these my be the LOUDEST voices in GW's ear, the voices that he LISTENS to are those who fill his pockets the fastest. When you are getting paid $400+K / year to lead the greatest country in the world while your friends and families' oil-related buisnesses are absorbing BILLIONS each year in profits.......... WHO are you going to LISTEN to? "Who's your daddy?"

Don't forget your Daddy's friends the Bin Ladens!