Iraqi democracy

I will fully confess that I have been remiss in not linking to reports of the Iraqi constitutional vote. My fault.

But I will link to reports that voter turnout is even higher than it was in January and that there was opposition — what democracy does not? But it appears the constitution will pass.

These are a people who are dying to build a democracy. And we continue to have an obligation to help them. How we got there is not an excuse to abandon them and their quest to secure their freedom.

  • Mork

    How we got there is not an excuse to abandon them and their quest to secure their freedom.

    Maybe not, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to do if those who got us there would be honest about it now so that it was possible to extend that support without feeling complicit in the deceit and cynicism that got us there.

    And that goes for their enablers as well.

  • Pre-Law

    The Criminal Act of invading a Sovereign Nation (Albeit Led by a Corrupt Dictator) will never bring about good in the long run.
    The pursuit for Democracy in Iraq, the Bush Administration’s excuse after the failed attempt to discov of WMD, has to date killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 2000 US Soldiers, not to mention scores of wounded US Soldiers mostly youth. Is this Democracy? The poor innocent Iraqis who are dying and who already had suffered under years of Sanctions, did not ask for this War..! I argue this is not Democracy at all, this is nothing short of Imperialism at its worst..!

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    And how is abandoning them to civil war and more death the moral choice? They have the same right ot democracy you do.

  • kat

    “Before, there was no constitution, there was only Saddam,” said Minascan Watanyan, an 82-year-old man who turned out to vote Saturday in Baghdad and who said his son was tortured to death under Mr. Hussein’s government.
    “I voted then, for Saddam, of course, because I was afraid,” said Jabar Ahmed Ismail, 75, living on a $100-a-month pension from a lifetime as an oil pipeline repairman. “But this time, I came here by my own choice. I am not afraid anymore. I am a free man.” But there are some like pre-law who prefer you remain a slave, Mr. Ismail!!
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/international/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5094&en=d5b31bcde9e0feac&hp&ex=1129521600&partner=homepage

  • http://wordvirus.blogspot.com Vincent

    Mork,

    I’m sorry to say but your concerns about “feeling complicit in the deceit and cynicism” just don’t really resonate. Is the anti-war faction’s vanity so great that it can’t put aside its “feelings of complicity” to actually do something to help a people throw off the yoke of oppression?

    It seems that an awful lot of folks are more worried about talking about their anti-fascist dope whilst hoisting obscene placards about the President at a gathering of like-minded individuals than actually doing anything substantive to actually promote liberal values in a concrete way.

  • David

    >I will fully confess that I have been remiss in not linking to reports of the
    >Iraqi constitutional vote. My fault.

    No need to apologize most of us know that you only crawl out of your wormhole when you have some positive spin that the administration wants you to report. We already know that once the initial euphoria dies down things in Iraq are no much better and the only thing that has changed is that a few more soldiers have been blown away. I wonder if you at least get paid more than Armstrong Williams for dishing out the administrations latest bs.

    >And how is abandoning them to civil war and more death the moral
    >choice?

    You should ask your pal Tom Friedman who’d like to arm the Shiites and the Kurds and then standby and watch the Sunni’s get slaughtered all in the name of peace.

  • Eileen

    On the eve of voting from Omar:

    “Tomorrow will be another day for Iraqi bravery. May God protect you my people…you have suffered so much and you will still be suffering for some time but I am sure the future will be bright.

    God bless you my people and all the freedom lovers who keep sacrificing to make this world a better place.” http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

    Unfortunately, Vincent, not all who post here are freedom lovers.

    What a fabulous ‘next step’ for Iraq, and what a great testament to “Iraqi bravery”. Omar walked four miles in extreme heat to cast his ballot.. The high vote levels prove the degree to which Iraq is embracing democracy; they realize the very process is their prize. We celebrate you and salute your courage, Iraq!

    Thank you, Jeff, and thanks to both you and your son for preview.

  • http://www.elflife.com/cgi-bin/txt.cgi/ Carson Fire

    “…the deceit and cynicism that got us there.” Why is it I see a sneer on every face typing stuff like this? And why is it I see mostly deceit and cynicism on the other end of this argument?

    The misunderstanding about the WMD situation makes too many on the left feel that they have carte blanche to spout any irrational nonsense they feel like. A few days ago, several media outlets “reported” a story they *should* be ashamed of, which was that soldiers were “coached” before a presidential Q&A. Nothing was out of place, everything was as it should be (and it would have been evidence of a sloppy, feckless administration *not* to have produced the Q&A the way they did), but there were widespread and silly media charges of coaching because the soldiers were allowed to prepare and made less nervous. The media “reports” are about as true as reporting that Santa Claus is really a criminal because he breaks into people’s homes in the middle of the night and steals cookies that just happen to have been left out — he *says* — for him.

    The same people now mad that a successful election and a probable win for the constitution is being “spun” to mean something positive are the ones who have been nattering that an unsuccessful election and defeat for the constitution necessarily means failure. You can’t have it both ways: either it means something or it doesn’t. You wanted it to mean something when you thought it would be (yay!) a great big bloody disaster with lotsa violence, but you want it to mean nothing when (boo!) not too many people get killed and more people get to participate in a democracy. You can’t get your stories straight, over and over, and somehow you can’t understand that this is very clear evidence that you are lying to yourselves, and in fact spreading those lies to others.

    WMDs were a mistake; ever since then, it’s been a constant stream of lies, mischaracterizations, snarks, and sneers from the left. But until the fringe left start winning elections again (er, ever, that is), they are as I suspect they are: ineffectual cranks.

    Sorry for ranting.

    Stephen Schwartz says this very well:


    We won again! For a second time, the Iraqi people proved the Western mainstream media, Islamist radicals, self-righteous and nihilistic war protestors, disaffected Democrats, and neo-isolationists wrong: the referendum on the new constitution was successful. The Sunni minority participated in the polling and those among them voting “no” were swamped by the positive outcome.

    But how long will the Western media get the post-9/11 story wrong before they understand that they, the MSM, are a major part of the problem?

  • Geek, Esq.

    The question at the end of the day is whether there is the collective will in Iraq to make this political endeavor happen, even if it means compromise on very, very important and inflammatory issues.

    If there is, then there will likely be success.

    If not, we’ve been tilling the sea.

  • Ravo

    none of the soldiers were told what to say, nor was indirect pressure applied to them to shape their answers.

    Of the putatively-outraged network news programmers, only Andrea Mitchell of NBC managed to vomit out that truth

    Here’s an account of CNN in Somalia: (maybe it’s why media EXPECTS it to be scripted)

    The media has been guilty of creating an appearance of spontaneous news for years. My husband had the opportunity to see this odious practice for himself when he was deployed to Somalia in 1992.

    One day as my husband and part of his battalion was out in a convoy he saw a CNN newscrew near a group of Somalis. The crew and the Somalis were blocking the road that my husband’s convoy was attempting to go down so my husband checked into what was going on.

    What he saw upset him so much that he called me that very day the first chance he got. He was livid.

    He told me that blonde haired white people who were obviously working for CNN were making and handing out signs to the poor Somali people and having them pose for the camera with the signs which said stuff like, “Go home U.S. military.”

    Now the news media is claiming that the Bush administration and the U.S. military are “staging” good news about Iraq?

    http://wideawakecafe.blogspot.com/2005/10/you-want-to-talk-about-staged.html

    (top quote from: http://www.conservativity.com/show.asp?A=301)

  • penny

    The Criminal Act of invading a Sovereign Nation (Albeit Led by a Corrupt Dictator) will never bring about good in the long run.

    So by your logic Saddam & Homicidal Sons Inc For Life were better in the long run? Derailing their historic romp replete with mass graves in the lives of ordinary Iraqis was damnable? And Sunday’s free election of a democratic contstitution was a screw up because Saddam didn’t get his Miranda rights read by the US to your satisfaction?

    Count me a criminal sympathizer then.

  • EverKarl

    Pre-Law has a point; we invaded France and Germany and what good has come of it?

  • http://www.cadence90.com/wp/ Lisa Williams

    How do you choose which people are deserving? The world is littered with kleptocratic dictators; so many that even we can’t invade all their countries. What do we say to the Congolese? the Burmese? Sudanese? and on and on and on?

    What do you say to the American people when we’re broke and the dollar is worth 1/10 of what it was — and we can’t help anybody anymore, not even ourselves?

  • Ravo

    — and we can’t help anybody anymore, not even ourselves?

    No, it is impossible to do it all. One must work smart, and do it where it is a win-win for the country involved and the US as well. Of course, should it be at all beneficial to our own country, the “anti- their own country” anything liberals scream.

    But, the truth is …we can’t do it all, and must carefully pick with an eye to our own interests. An empty well helps no one.

  • penny

    Lisa, I really don’t think that immediately following 911 the strategic choices placed in front of Bush were invading, let’s see, the Congo, Burma, Sudan or Iraq.

    Show some pity on those persons bilingual in Samoan who have been sadly disappointed with their resume rejections with the CIA since 9/11 too, Lisa. Jobless unless we are attacked by Samoa. History can be a heartbreaker.

    If we are broke maybe it’s the zero rate of savings in the US, our personal credit card debt, mortgage debt from trading up McMansions, keeping OPEC’s coffers fat with our SUV’s in the time of peak oil, gobbling up Chinese junk at Walmarts raising the trade imbalance causing the problem, Lisa. I guess given that I’d say to the American people that it is to live more frugally.

  • David

    >I really don’t think that immediately following 911 the strategic choices
    >placed in front of Bush were invading, let’s see, the Congo, Burma, Sudan
    >or Iraq.

    Plans to invade Iraq were already in place *before* 9/11. They just used the death of 3000 people to justify their actions.

    >we can’t do it all, and must carefully pick with an eye to our own interests.

    This is the kind of logic that got us into this mess. You go on propping up dictators around the world (or invite them to your ranch for some fun and sun) because it’s not in our interest to get rid of them then don’t wonder why “they hate us.”

  • penny

    Plans to invade Iraq were already in place *before* 9/11. They just used the death of 3000 people to justify their actions.

    So, Dave, when you say “they” are we to presume you mean all of the vast majority of members of Congress – both parties, remember – that voted for the Iraq invasion? You do remember that vote in Congess? Or was that not the “they” you had in mind?

    because it’s not in our interest to get rid of them then don’t wonder why “they hate us.”

    Dave, you really need to clean up this “they” thing of yours. If I read what you wrote, then the “they” dictators, or did you mean someone else, hate us.

    Some regimes you gotta live with, Dave, like the Saudis unless you can run your car and heat your home on Pepsi. With some regimes you get lucky and can take out giving you and its citizens a lucky break. That’s what Iraq was all about. An opportunity that nations with the will and the means can parlay to their advantage, one more less messed up place in the world to deal with. A “mess” to you. Freedom from the messed up Saddam family for the Iraqis.

  • http://www.elflife.com/cgi-bin/txt.cgi/ Carson Fire

    …then don’t wonder why “they hate us.”

    No, no… it’s the “anti-war” (pro-leftist tyranny) movement that worries about *that*. I *know* why “they hate us”. The “they” we are talking about are generally dictators, thugs, socialists, and fascists. “They” want to destroy and ban freedom of thought and expression; “they” applaud the rantings of tyrants; “they” publish newspapers like The Guardian that have very little to do with facts and truth and everything to do with ideology.

    “Why they hate us” isn’t even something the left worries about. It’s a dodge, a lie: you, democracy, have sinned, and therefore must submit to defeat internally and externally. We know you are a baddie, democracy, because domestic leftists can point to international leftists who hate you.

    It’s never about who wuvs us or not; it’s a question of whether it was the right thing to *do*. Was it right to topple Saddam and liberate the Iraqis? Or would it have been more right to allow him to flout his decade-old cease fire, shooting at our planes, and torturing people who thought we were going to help them after the first Gulf War? Neither of these questions has anything to do with whether we ever coddled a dictator or not, or if even if we build McDonalds in France. Those who hate the US will continue to hate the US; the kind of people who hate the US, we should have *no* interest in mollifying.

    And of course there are other nations that should be freed from tyranny. But it’s not a credible argument from the left that nothing should have been done in Iraq because we can’t do everything everywhere. It makes about as much sense as saying “I can’t climb every mountain, so I better not climb one”. You climb the mountain that you can. This argument is another lie from the left that seeks to blur the timing and strategy of Iraq: there are other tyrannies, but none with which we had so recently clashed; there are other tyrants, but Saddam in particular was shooting at our planes in violation of a cease-fire he was bound to. There are other enablers of terror, but Saddam in particular was paying money to terrorists while *not* hiding in a cave. Forget the WMD fetish, Saddam’s violation of the cease fire *alone* was enough to justify our entry there. WMD and other issues became important because opponents kept nattering for more and more justifications, hoping to block the inevitable.

    It’s also foolish to say that 9-11 was just an excuse to go into Iraq. Iraq quite clearly could have been ignored by Bush, just as it was by Clinton before him, if 9-11 had not happened. From the US perspective, 9-11 upgraded Saddam from a tin-pot nuisance to an opportunity to strike back at terrorists in the region by establishing a democracy, while at the same time rectifying the disappointment of Iraqis who thought we were going to topple Saddam the first time. The argument from the left, then, should be whether this strategy was correct or not.

    But instead of engaging in a debate, the fringe left has instead carried forward a crusade of lies and crude insults, lately fronted by Cindy Sheehan, who turned out to be just another leftist crank.

  • penny

    I guess given that I’d say to the American people that it is to live more frugally.

    Should read: I guess given that I’d say to the American people that they need to live more frugally.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Huh. I think I’m actually in agreement with you on this one, Jeff — with one big caveat. While it would be shameful to abandon the Iraqis who took us at our word when we said we had come to spread democracy, the people responsible for orchestrating the invasion of Iraq should nevertheless answer for their lies.

    Just because a cop thinks he was shooting at an armed perpetrator does not prevent a full investigation and possible disciplinary chargers if that supposed criminal turns out to be an innocent civilian. Why should it be any different in the case of launching what has proved to be a costly and — based on the reasons presented before the invasion — unnecessary war?

    As 2006 approaches watch how fast the Republicans will break ranks with the Bush Administration and call for bringing the troops back home without delay, lest they get trounced at the polls by the Dems. How’s that for irony? The invasion that was arranged to secure Georgie’s second term as President will either cost the GOP control of Congress or guarantee years of bloody civil war in Iraq (though to be fair, that may happen no matter what).

  • kat

    No one in their right minds will vote for pro-terrorist democrats who cajole jihadis and allow them to get away with jihading as Clinton did….the kind of people Jersey wants in power so jihadists can operate freely again… people like the cindy sheehan nutcases. No one wants another 911 that Clinton enabled.
    Terrorists hope and pray for failure in iraq–right, Jersey?

  • Eileen

    Aye yai, Kat,

    I was about to say that anyone who endeavors to create supposed analogies to criminals ala Bush, or who uses the term ‘criminal gangs’ or ‘criminal anything’ related to Bush are Those Who Are Hellbent on Talkin’ Taqiyya. Man, they must all read the same memos and view the same videos in their training camps.

    Jersey you aren’t even close to becoming a ‘we’? Live free or die. Ever hear that one? It’s a quaint, old American expression. We don’t need you here working for our demise or dhimmitization.

    Jeff: Do you actually want this *real* criminal gang hangin’ out at your doorstep?

  • all i have to say

    is that too many people have died already. today in a village somewhere in iraq, a father’s child was blown to bits by a bomb. that is all you need to know.

    UBL, Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Zawahiri, etc. can rot in hell for all I care.

    Damn them all.

  • an american

    do you hear me out there?

    TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED ALREADY.

    we are not only “liberating” them from saddam, we are “liberating” parents from children, husbands from wives, soldiers from legs and arms…

    the united states used to fight for “truth, justice, and the american way”. now all it fights for are Israel and Ahmad Chalabi’s swiss bank account.

    DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Eileen and Kat,

    Read my post again carefully. Law enforcement officers are subject to the most intense scrutiny WHENEVER THEY DISCHARGE A WEAPON, whether in fact they were justified in doing so or not. Why should it be different with the Chief Executive Officer of our country when he commits our troops to war?

    Oh yeah, I forgot: because Bush is God, Islam is the Devil, and anyone who questions this is a taqiyya-practicing terrorist!

    You two should take your show on the road. No, really.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    And while you’re at it, Kat and Eileen, why don’t you explain to us why it’s repugnant for a Muslim to practice taqiyya but just fine when our own leaders misrepresent the truth in order to get what they want…

    Guess what? Americans don’t like to be lied to or manipulated, no matter how good the government’s intentions were. As far as the average Iraqi is concerned, I agree with Jeff that at this point it doesn’t really matter how we got there. But it sure as hell matters here at home.

    You two may not care about having leadership that is transparent and accountable for its actions, but fortunately you are in an ever-shrinking minority nowadays.

  • penny

    Why should it be different with the Chief Executive Officer of our country when he commits our troops to war?

    He? Try they? Congress and the President committed our troops to Iraq. You and David don’t seem to get that point. And as far as scrutiny goes that’s what the press and the party of opposition are for. So how is Bush getting a free ride from them?

    is that too many people have died already. today in a village somewhere in iraq, a father’s child was blown to bits by a bomb. that is all you need to know.

    Please. Your zero ability at analysis and depth is only half as vacuous as your hackneyed prose. Life in general has got to be a crushing burden on someone like you.

    ……now all it fights for are Israel and Ahmad Chalabi’s swiss bank account

    I rest my case.

  • Ravo

    What about the 24,000 LIVES PER YEAR THE IRAQ WAR SAVES ?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501528/posts

    And while they may have not “found” the WMD, all on the list below believed they were there.

    If they were never there, how did Saddam gas all those found in the mass graves? What about the empty factories?

    Look at all the people on the left that STATED their belief (rightfully so) that the WMD WERE THERE, and now are acting as if they didn’t.

    “[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

    ….and on and on.

  • Ravo

    Whoops,…forgot the link to that list:

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

  • an american

    “Please. Your zero ability at analysis and depth is only half as vacuous as your hackneyed prose. Life in general has got to be a crushing burden on someone like you.”
    _________________________

    lady, if you knew the horrors of what we have wrought upon the people of iraq, egging their leader to start a war with Iran, bombing them in ’91, ’98, and ’03, putting through punishing sanctions throughout the 90’s, and now by inciting all manner of wahabbi salafist jackasses to come to Iraq, you’d take your “analysis” and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
    _________________________

    “I rest my case.”

    Lady, you never made one. you just presented attacks as a refutation of my opinion. but i am not here to change minds. you can keep believing that the expenditure of three hundred billion dollars to effect regime change was a wise decision. i believe the money should have been spent on curing cancer, eliminating poverty, colonizing space, and other more pressing needs.

    the neoconservatives chose instead to kill people. that’s a strange choice if you ask me.

  • an american

    “What about the 24,000 LIVES PER YEAR THE IRAQ WAR SAVES ?”

    ken mehlman, is that you?

  • kat

    The money is being spent on fighting the worst cancer in the world–I read somewhere that Islam is the fastest growing ‘cancer’ in the world. If civilized people just sit back in silence and let it spread- it’s going to destroy the entire humanity in just a couple of decades. So I figure the money is well spent fighting islamofascists. What good is a cure for cancer if you get blown up by a jihadi spreading his ‘cancer’. The iraqis need help eradicating that disease.

  • Andy Freeman

    > today in a village somewhere in iraq, a father’s child was blown to bits by a bomb. that is all you need to know.

    Hmm, the person who set that bomb doesn’t matter…. Or, does “Bush is evil” justify anything? (If so, I want a pony.)

    What about the Sudanese person who was chopped to bits today?

    I got a hangnail.

  • an american

    The money is being spent on fighting the worst cancer in the world–I read somewhere that Islam is the fastest growing ‘cancer’ in the world. If civilized people just sit back in silence and let it spread- it’s going to destroy the entire humanity in just a couple of decades. So I figure the money is well spent fighting islamofascists. What good is a cure for cancer if you get blown up by a jihadi spreading his ‘cancer’. The iraqis need help eradicating that disease.
    __________________________________________

    but we’re not fighting “islamofacists”. we’re engaging in a campaign of global hegemony. we’re making iraq a new colony. are we supporting democratic institutions in egypt, jordan, and saudi arabia? not really. because if we truly did, those countries would have governments that really really were anti-american.

    believe what you want, but you’re wrong.

  • penny

    lady, if you knew the horrors of what we have wrought upon the people of Iraq, egging their leader to start a war with Iran

    Please. “We wrought”? Get a grip past the melodrama. Saddam wrought, for starters. But, I suppose that a self-loathing American such as yourself sleeps better at night with the thought that no evil act could not have the hand of America in it.

    And colonizing space as a more pressing need than alleviating misery on earth where and when it’s expedient and practical reveals the soul of a jerk. Curing cancer is rather lame in places where you die young because of dictatorships before age related diseases can effect you. Or maybe you never notice the mass graves of the young in Saddam’s Iraq? Or the horrendous casualties of Saddam’s Iran war on the young?

    you’d take your “analysis” and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

    Ditto to your pathetic melodrama. Your angry virtucrat at a keyboard rant, as Andy points, out is a bore.

  • Eileen

    “but we’re not fighting “islamofacists”. we’re engaging in a campaign of global hegemony.”

    Right, “””American”””.

    Islamofascism doesn’t exist.

    9/11 didn’t happen.

    Gut blowing (thanks, kat), head lopping and killing of innocents on every continent of the globe is NOT taking place in the name of The Religion of Pieces.

    Muslims aren’t killing Muslims.

    Sharia law doesn’t exist.

    And the Islamofascistnazi quest for a global Caliphate is a Chimera.

  • kat

    Only ones engaged in a campaign of global hegemony are islamists–like Darfur and Ambon for instance–genociding the inhabitants to establish a muslim state.
    However, you likely also believe that al queda doesn’t exist–it’s those jooos.
    You are a good dhimmi but calling yourself ‘an american says’ is deceitful…try ‘a jihadist says’…….allah and osama would prefer that.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9872

  • an american

    “Islamofascism doesn’t exist.”

    I never said that. But we’re most definitely not fighting it. Where do you get your information? The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit is my source. I suppose you are more content believing a former baseball executive. That’s fine, but it’s also wrong.

  • an american

    ok, here’s the ultimate test of objectivity:

    answer me this one lady:

    aside from the fact he is our mortal enemy, why do YOU oppose usama bin laden and al qaeda?

    humor me please and answer the question.

  • http://www.centcom.mil SPC Richardson

    Hi there Buzz Machine. I’m not here to comment on any political correctness or policy decisions. But I have a suggestion for you and your readers. You may want to check out and possibly link Central Commands website at http://www.centcom.mil . It has all the latest news (good or bad) from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. It includes “hard to find stories” and photos, Press releases, Casualty updates, and an interesting “what extremists are saying” section. Just an idea.

    All the best,

    SPC Richardson
    Central Command Public Affairs
    “Strenght Through Truth”

  • Eileen

    SPC Richardson:

    How utterly perfect. It is very comforting to see you in the neighborhood. And it should give *some* jihadis who spew their taqiyya trash here – along with issuing occasional threats to people like kat and me – a bit of pause.

    I have never been more proud to be an American. To all our guys and gals fighting the WOT, you have my deep gratitude and prayers for your well being. Thank you for your service, kind sir.

  • an american

    wow lady, you’re really something. now i’m a “jihadi”. that’s priceless. in your world, posting comments on “buzzmachine” equals “jihadi”.

    that’s awesome!

    and you never answered my question.

  • Eileen

    Did anyone mention *you*, specifically, by your “fake, deceitful name”? Heh.

    /Spit