Browse By

29 thoughts on “The Search for Iraq WMD: 6 years, 6 months, and 4 days”

  1. qs says:

    Well did you watch that documentary I pasted for you from Buchanan’s site? People were conspiring on both sides of the isle to invade Iraq even BEFORE 9/11 happened. 9/11 was just cover, and it was not just Bush that was pushing for it.

    1. Jim says:

      Yeah. Pat Buchanan isn’t the most reliable source, but what you’re saying has been documented pretty broadly, from Project for a New American Century on down to Rumsfeld’s lets-go memo on the plane on 9-11. Yep.

      1. qs says:

        Well it’s on the story I am referring to is on the front page of the American Conservative right now, and antiwar radio was covering it too. The documentary is on Pat’s page. The story is so complicated and convoluted that it’s hard to even understand what the heck they’re talking about until you see the documentary.

        PNAC was just Kristol’s one interest group. I think people give him too much credit as Dr. Evil.

        Kill the messsenger

        1. Jim says:

          PNAC was not just an interest group set up by the Kristols. It was the nexus in which neoconservative operators gathered in the 90s and formulated the foreign policy that has messed up the world in the 00s.

          1. qs says:

            Ya Jeb Bush was signed on and Gingrich as original members.

            You’re still overstating its influence. There are a million of these groups.

          2. Jim says:

            And Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and…

          3. qs says:

            It’s still just one small piece.

          4. Kevin says:

            No. it wasn’t. it was a major clog that spawned a dozen other front groups. all dedicated to war with Saddam. this was a policy in waiting and when Bush II was elected they were in the door and in charge.

            Planing for attacks on Iraq were put on the front burner in early 2001.

            counter-terrorism? not so much… better the CIA work on copywrite infringement because that’s what business is complaining about.

          5. qs says:

            I don’t think the Jewish American left really supports the neoconservative movement, but they do support the Likud party, which does have very right-wing policies that overlap. Then there are all these intelligence agency games.

            I’ve read that there is a center-left group in the U.S. that goes by the name of J-Street that serves as an alternative lobbying group to AIPAC. Basically its rational for existing in this last election cycle is to provide some degree of cover and American-Jewish support for Democratic congressman who did not support the invasion of Gaza this go around.

          6. Jim says:

            The Jewish American left isn’t monolithic; I’ve met some Jewish people here in the states who are practically Marxist yet also very nationalistically Zionist. On the other hand, I’ve met some Jewish liberals who will go on for hours if you listen about the plight of the Palestinians, and are not fans of the Likud party at all.

          7. qs says:


            Well that’s why there is the J-Street.

            However there is a population shift. I think the younger Jewish-Americans are more likely to support something like J-street whereas older Jewish-Americans trend more towards AIPAC and kind of a reactionary nationalism.

            But maybe I am simplifying.

            But why is it that Kerry, Biden and Clinton and many of the other dems supported Iraq if none of what I am saying is true? There is behind the scenes pressure that is difficult for the dems to resist. Why was Jimmy Carter banned from speaking at the Democratic Convention in 2008 (people didn’t like what he has to say.)

  2. ReMarker says:

    And this matters, why? Hasn’t the WMD issue been resolved for some time?
    Why aren’t we discussing more current progressive concerns like;

    President Obama’s remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative.

    President Obama’s remarks at a health care reform rally in the Comcast Center at College Park, Maryland.

    President Obama’s remarks at a United Nations summit on climate change.

    Why was a census worker hanged and “Fed” scrolled on his body?

    or many many other progressive concerns?

    Re: Buchanan
    Pat Buchanan is from the Nixon Administration. To think, “Pat Buchanan isn’t the most reliable source”, is to give Mr. Buchanan credit for having minimal reliability. Mr. Buchanan is morally and ethically bankrupt (NOT RELIABLE), and is an enemy to anything even close to “progressive”.

    1. Jim says:

      Has the Iraq war been resolved?
      Has the use of fear to push violent policy been resolved?
      Has the politicization of intelligence agencies been resolved?
      Has the use of torture to obtain false statements in pursuit of war been resolved?
      Has the uncritical approach of the media to government claims been resolved?

      I think a lot of people in power want the issue to go away because the fake WMD episode exposed some uncomfortably embarrassing defects in American government. I think a lot of people have stopped talking about the WMD fiasco. But no, I don’t think the issue has been resolved.

      As for President Obama’s remarks, well, gosh, I paid much more attention to Barack Obama’s remarks when I thought he would abide by them. Obama said he’d back the endangered species act, but he’s using agencies to gut it. Obama said in the primaries he’d oppose offshore oil drilling, but dropped that as soon as he got the nomination. Obama said he’d oppose key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but now he’s supporting their renewal. Obama said he’d vote against the FISA Amendments Act, then he voted for it, then he said he’d reform it, and now he’s using it and showing no inclination to stop it.

      So pardon me if I ignore President Obama’s remarks; they’re such a poor predictor of what he will actually do.

      On another note, I completely agree with you that Pat Buchanan is a creep.

  3. ReMarker says:

    No problem.

    However, Obama can’t do ANYTHING alone. He has repeatedly asked us to help him.

    It’s to bad I.T. doesn’t seem to be interested. Good luck finding someone else that is better than Obama to support.

    I’ll just make one point that is difficult to dismiss.

    Why would a non-white aspire to the office of the Presidency of the U.S. when it is predictable that he puts himself (and his family) at risk, from the time of announcing his intent to run for President through the time he is President? Could it be that Obama has more courage than people need in being patient and supporting him?

    I repeat, Obama can’t what he said he wanted, without support. He clearly has lost I.T.’s

    1. Jim says:

      Oh, I AM interested in helping Barack Obama. I mean that sincerely. I AM interested in helping him do what he should do. And the way I am doing that is by providing public pressure to remind him to do what he said he would do. If enough people raise their voices in that regard, it will be easier for him to do the right thing. During the campaign, he ASKED us to hold his feet to the fire. That’s what I intend to do.

      Regarding your second question: Why would ANY person, white or non-white, aspire to the presidency and put his family in the spotlight and at risk? That’s a mystery for the ages, but I think it probably takes a little hubris, which is why people tend to defend and try to accumulate presidential power once they take the office. That presidential hubris is one reason it’s important for Americans to stop acting like subjects of a King (bow, scrape, be patient, support the ruler) and start acting like citizens in a democratic republic (speak, discuss, advocate, support appropriate policies).

      1. ReMarker says:

        Maybe I am confused. Maybe my confusion is rooted in my belief that for a person to be successful at doing a job that requires millions of people’s support, the supporters are the ones that need coaching.

        It is clear from Obama’s words, before his election and after his election (refer to my links to Obama speeches) he (Obama) hasn’t changed from his desire to make America “citizen friendly”. He has articulated many ways that can be done, full well knowing he needs support (legislative and citizen) to be successful.

        In my view, Obama is still on track and his non-courageous supporters are the ones “breaking weak”.

        My advice is, if someone wants Obama to be successful then build the fire under those that should be supporting him. The Executive branch does not legislate.

        In other words, beat up on the legislaters and anyone that is not supporting Obama’s initiatives. Beating up on Obama, means falling into a conserva-trap, then,,, no more Obama.

        I choose to support Obama, and beat up on those that don’t. The fence walkers can watch the battle from their “safe” place.

        The battle is for the “soul” of our country!!!

        1. Jim says:

          If in your view Obama is still on track, then I can see why you would support Obama.

          I do not believe that Obama is on track when it comes to many policy areas, such as the ones I described earlier in this thread. Therefore I do not support Barack Obama’s policies in these areas, and I note what those areas are, and I express my honest position regarding what I believe he should be doing. I do not believe that is “beating up” anyone.

          The argument you’ve made, that we should not criticize our president because then he’ll be replaced and we’ll get a worse one, has been made at the Congressional level as well. Don’t get all woolly on the Democrats in Congress, party members say, or they’ll lose their election. You can make that argument all the way down to the Town Mayor. It’s just not my inclination, ReMarker, to sit down, express unequivocal support despite what I think, and trust that people in power will do the right thing. I guess I’m not a team player. But I also guess that politics is not a sport.

          1. Jacob says:

            Dont worry folks. As long as Obama keeps performing like this I think we have a great chance of getting Mike Huckabee in next term!!! Or maybe Tom Tancredo, I actually like him better…

          2. ReMarker says:

            Obama has not changed. He is on track by virtue of wanting America to be “citizen friendly”, now, as before he was President. It is the principle on which he pursued the Presidency and is clear in his speeches. The
            “adjustments” to which you refer, I expect are an effort to have progress on his agenda, without having as much support as he had hoped.

            The policies that emanate from the Executive must take into consideration the POLITICS of the legislaters from which it (the Executive) MUST get support.

            70%+ of Americans want a single payer health care system.
            Obama began that way and because many Obama supporters stopped supporting and started criticizing, instead of building a fire under the legislaters that needed to hear from Obama supporters, Obama modified his stance.

            I do not disagree that there are questionable decisions coming from the Executive. I do disagree that Obama intended to make many of the compromises that are being made. But what is he to do if he doesn’t have support?

            If Obama fails, like Limbaugh, qs, Kevin, and others are content to have him do, we have only ourselves to blame, because he (Obama) didn’t get enough support.

            I do not have blind faith. I do believe in the promise of America as guided by our Constitution. Imo, Obama happens to be one of the very few that has the courage to embrace the opportunities that present themselves at this time in our history. I support him doing it, even if he doesn’t do it perfectly.

            God (or whoever) have mercy on America if Huckabee, Palin, Romney, Canter, Jindal or any other like minded Presidental aspirant gets the job.

            The legacy of Conservatives and Conservatism is skepticism about the promise of America. Their bullshit has not afflicted me.

          3. Jim says:

            It may be very clear in his speeches. I am referring to his policy, which as you note has not measured up to the speeches.

            Obama responded to health care policy pressure on the right, not on the left.

          4. ReMarker says:

            Thank you. That’s my point. How can Obama be successful if he doesn’t have enough SUPPORT to be successful in the policy battles?

            Obama’s “right” support is non-existant. His “left” support is reflected in your most recent article
            “Senators Who Voted Against FISA But Aren’t Supporting FISA Reform”, which shows it (“left’s” support) is not 100%, and can not be assumed.

            My reason for commenting in this thread is to take exception to the “It’s all Obama’s fault” perception that permiates most of the articles in I.T. and comments with few exceptions.

            I have grown tired of pleading for understanding that being the President of the United States may be a little more difficult than many seem to or want to, understand.

          5. Jim says:

            What I’ve just demonstrated is that his INTENTION is not in the direction that I would want. He’s not on the right side of many of these policy battles in the first place.

            I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree, ReMarker. I just don’t consider it my duty to cheer for what my president when I think he’s following the wrong path.

          6. Jim says:

            … and let’s not blame all of Obama’s policy letdowns on legislators. Consider the FISA Amendments Act and the Patriot Act. Barack Obama as Senator last year actively chose to break his promise made in the primaries and vote to pass the FISA Amendments Act. As President, Barack Obama has the power to simply decide to stop using warrantless surveillance authority under the FISA Amendments Act. He has not done so. Indeed, it is under Barack Obama that the latest episode inappropriate domestic use of FISA authority occurred. Three sections of the Patriot Act are up for renewal this year. As President, Barack Obama could recommend that the three sections be allowed to expire. Instead, the Obama administration sent a letter to the Senate last week expressly calling for the renewal of these three sections of the Patriot Act. These are decisions made independently of what any legislators have been doing, and they’re not the Change I Can Believe In. It would be a betrayal of my principles to shut up, pretend there isn’t a problem here, and wave a happy flag with an O on it.

          7. ReMarker says:

            I will make the final point in my last post again, in a different way.

            Put yourself in Obama’s place. Assume the ecconomics of the U.S. and the world are as he and others discribed. Realize that the actions needed to save the lives and jobs of millions of people will compromise virtually any social agenda and will not save all the lives and jobs that would not be lost except for the ecconmic crisis.

            NOW, priortize your agenda, knowing the predictable opposition for anything you do. Does pragmatism have a place in your decisions?

            Considering all that, I would say Obama is doing as good or better than most would/could do. I support him. Are you interested in how many emails I have sent to Obama and his Cabinet with suggestions of things to consider, referencing things that concern me? Remember, I do not have blind faith.

          8. Jim says:

            But, see, I DON’T “realize that the actions needed to save the lives and jobs of millions of people will compromise virtually any social agenda…”

            Barack Obama could recognize the stalemate in Afghanistan, withdraw and save significant money to be used elsewhere.

            Barack Obama could, in revenue-neutral fashion, decide that torture and torture conspiracy statute 18 USC 2340 applies no matter whether one is a former administration official.

            Barack Obama could, in revenue-neutral fashion, stop unconstitutional search, seizure and surveillance practices.

            Those are just three examples.

            So I disagree with your premise, which means that your question does not follow.

            I am also not what you would describe as a “pragmatist” in my approach, that is, someone who is willing to sidestep legal issues to just get things done. My reasoning is idealist but also practical. I believe that following the rule of law must be paramount in a democratic republic, because if the rule of law is weakened to fit one set of pragmatic concerns then it is likely to be weakened elsewhere: corruption and authoritarianism follow. Practically speaking, who besides the few powerful people in authority want to see that come to pass? I don’t. To the extent that Barack Obama is continuing contra-constitutional practices of the Bush administration, I believe he is setting the stage for further abuses and the weakening of American constitutional government. That is not a trivial matter to me.

          9. ReMarker says:

            I don’t disagree with you in a literal sense about the existing circumstances of your points.

            My point is only, how can anyone do what WE want if they don’t have a lot of support.

            The question is, I suppose, what is support and what is disagreement. The line between support and blind faith is thin and seems to be causing confusion for you, but I know the difference and don’t cross it. The line between disagreement and ridicule is thin and is causing confusion for me, because I think I.T. crosses it.

  4. Kevin says:

    “He has repeatedly asked us to help him.”

    No. He has repeated snubbed and ignored his most ferverent supporters. He has refused to consider progressive concerns and has koe-towed to right wings powers and interests.

    He has adopted all the bad policies of the Bush admin and has thrown out his supporters to teh left of .. oh.. Joe Biden.

    When cannibis rights was the top question on his WH site, he laughted at the poeple who voted it there and gave an f’n snotty little stupid answer.

    He told his supporters to STOP ASKING him to stand by his promises and to shut up about progressive issues…. Obama does NOT want to hear about what progressives want.

    He has already sold out in less than a year. sad really.

  5. qs says:

    Hey Jim,

    The Southern Avenger of TAKI magazine explains Mark Levin’s anger at Glen Beck in more detail, and he hails the defeat of Manchurian candidate John McCain in this last presidential election.

    When McCain told voters that he idealized Theodore Roosevelt as the ideal president, what he was actually saying was that he was endorsing the republican precursor of the Wilsonian interventionist movement among the American left, which would build on what Roosevelt had done.

  6. qs says:

    The mainstream GOP establishment is running short of fools.

    “The attacks on Beck by Levin are a reflection of what’s happening on the American Right as a whole, where the old fools’ game of merely corralling grassroots conservatives into the Republican Party is suffering from a severe shortage of fools.” -Southern Avenger

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!