Friday, January 18, 2008

Friday by the Numbers

Total American dead in the Iraq Illegal Occupation: 2500 2513 2532 2540 2546 2558 2571 2585 2597 2605 2619 2641 2710 2737 2758 2788 2809 2826 2865 2888 2906 2959 3006 3018 3025 3067 3087 3118 3132 3151 3166 3189 3210 3233 3245 3266 3299 3316 3337 3358 3387 3409 3444 3504 3519 3546 3577 3592 3611 3631 3683 3705 3725 3738 3760 3780 3795 3823 3830 3838 3845 3866 3875 3881 3886 3891 3896 3908 3921 3926

Total coalition forces dead: 307
Total Iraqi Dead: 700,000+

Number of days since Baby Doc said he'd get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive": 2319
Number of days since the illegal occupation of Iraq began: 1780
Number of days since "Mission Accomplished": 1722
Number of days between Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII: Only 1347

Number of days that the the Vice President has NOT shot a man in the face: 704
Number of days that the Bush Twins are still not pregnant with baste-'em-or-waste-'em Snowflake babies: 547.

It is still 362 days until the end of the BFEE Maladministration.

39 Comments:

C-dell said...

The numbers are really getting up there

jae said...

Thank you for consistantly publishing this. No one else wants to even look at the cost.

American Goy said...

700,000 Iraqis?

Farnsworth68 said...

That's a "best estimate", since no one really knows for sure how many have died. The US doesn't keep -- or doesn't share, anyway -- those statistics.
Some have estimated that over one million Iraqis have died since the illegal occupation of their country began.

Anonymous said...

You tell, 'em farnsworth. This old Mekong River sailor (69-'70)is getting fucking sick and tired of watching the best and brightest of our young men and women being sent to the meatgrinder of Iraq.

Farnsworth68 said...

Thanks, Mekong River Sailor. Welcome to OPOV, and I hope you'll come back on a regular basis.
--The F Man

futu said...

After the war started going horribly my neighbor joined the army so that he could go to Iraq and, as he said, "shoot some people." Just like he shoots deer, I guess. He mentioned neither patriotism, nor terror-war.
Another friend explained it to me that the "average (American) Joe" joins the war for god, country and something else (that I can't remember). I said that other Joes fight because they need the money or want a college education.
I said that people who kill other people, and, at the time know that it is wrong to do so, are guilty of a crime. This transgression is no different that the act of one who orders others to battle while knowing that it is ill-planned or wrong. The woman to whom I spoke these ideas became very indignant and insulted me for being a bad person and thinking so.
When I was in the draft I was determined to go to Canada to avoid fighting in Vietnam. I knew that that war was a waste. My draft number did not come up though.
To me, this war is a blatant act of imperialism planned a decade ago. Yet some still follow the politicians to war. So much for the "Powell Doctrine," and "just wars."

Norma said...

I followed a link from Crooks and Liars, Your side bar about the poor is one of the best I have ever read, and the Bush twins was great, I am 73, knew the war was dodo from the start. You are going in my favorites. Norma

pepsiholic said...

Sorry but the report of 700,000 deaths have been pretty much discredited. The study was done by an anti-war nutcase who demanded that the study be published right before and so it would affect the 2004 election and was 50% funded by George Soros but... I'm pretty sure that you already knew that. Dishonesty for some reason seems to run rampant in liberals. The latest and larger study done in part by the U.N./World Heath Organization and published by the New England Journal of Medicine stated that the number of deaths was at around 151,000 but like I said, you probably already knew that but decided to go with the higher number just to keep up with your dishonest nature. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782?loc=interstitialskip

Farnsworth68 said...

pepsiholic--
Your dates are off by a couple of years. The 600,000 cited by the research done under the auspices of the Soros group came out in 2006. I added another 100,000 to it just for the "fun" of it.
It is so like you nutjobs on the Right to latch onto something relatively insignificant and try to make THAT the story, instead of staying focused on the issues. You do that because you don't have any rebuttal for the real issues. Disgusting.
Oh, and you say that I go with "the highest number" -- not so; the "highest number" has the total Iraqi dead exceeding one million.
Okay, since no one really knows for sure how many dead Iraqis we've created, let's go with any reasonable number you can come up with.
Isn't that still too many?
You're not disputing the number of American dead, so I guess you're okay with that.
Isn't that still too many?

kiki said...

Number of days since some right-wing chickenhawk scum has been on the internet supporting the war they won't fight in, despite the figures mentioned in the main post: sadly, zero.

Don't expect that particular statistic to rise any time soon.

Pepsiholic said...

Yes, you are correct. There was a 2004 study designed to affect the 2004 election and a 2006 study funded by Soros that was designed to affect the 2006 midterm elections.

It's amazing that if this was a discussion about global warming and I quoted a skeptic that 35 years ago had done a climate study that big oil had contributed $10,000 to, you'd be screaming that this skeptic had been bought by big oil therefore we can't trust his results. The Lancet study was done for one reason only, to affect the elections... but hey, the guy wasn't biased or wouldn't fudge his results right?

If there are 700,000 to a million dead, where are the bodies? When someone dies they are taken to the cemetery. When a family arrives — after going through the indignity of having the coffin searched repeatedly for explosives — the body is taken to be washed at one of five family-owned businesses. Female bodies are washed by teams of women. Men wash the male bodies.

The bodies are then carefully wrapped in white cotton shrouds, made in factories in Najaf that also export them. Then the bodies can be taken to the tomb of Imam Ali for a ceremony that includes circling the imam’s tomb.

After prayers, the coffin is borne to the gravesite. There, professional preachers are paid to recite verses from the Quran. The family and the gravedigger remove the body from the coffin and ease it into the grave, placing the head in a niche dug at the end of the grave that faces Mecca.

After the burial, there is another prayer, then workers build a tomb over the grave. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/20530.html

So why aren't the type of numbers you quote seen at the cemetery?

And yes, the number of American soldiers dead is high but when you look what happened at D-day when we lost over 2500 soldiers in one day or the Normandy operation where over 50,000 troops died. Iwo Jima, over 6,000 dead to take an island. The 3,500 troops is pretty low casualty rate.

And Kiki... I spent 8 years in the military supporting my country. Why don't you put your money where your loyaties lie and go become a human shield if this war is so offensive to you?

pepsiholic said...

Oh and Farns... If the U.N. and Congress gave permission for Bush to use force against Iraq, by what twisted logic is this war illegal? What, are you going to quote the DSM?

futu said...

On going to war: our President was given conditional support for using military against Iraq. The President was required to exhaust all means before striking with deadly force. He broke his oath with the Congress, the American people, the UN and the world. The inspectors were doing a great job and contended that there were no WMDs. This war is illegal. It was planned more than ten years ago, was ill-conceived and based on lies.

pepsiholic said...

From what I remember, Bush waited 6 months before attacking. How is that a rush to war? And the Weapons Inspectors were NOT doing a great job. Saddam was intent on keeping up the belief that he had WMD and no amount of inspections was going to change that.

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Saddam informed his generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before.

According to a NY Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

And what lies was the war based on??? The ones where Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton (both of them)and other democrats claimed that Saddam had WMD?

pepsiholic said...

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 | Source

“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 … 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 | Source

“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 | Source

Farnsworth68 said...

Okay, PH, go ahead and quote all you like from people in the Democratic firmament. It doesn't matter in the long run. They were all wrong, for whatever reason. Probably because Bushco lied to them as well as to the American people. Despite what Der Monkey Fuhrer tried to tell us, they DID NOT see the "same intelligence".
But let's say that they did. Does that make a difference? Do two wrongs make a right?
This was was and remains an illegal war that were were lied into fighting. When did the UN tell us or authorize us to invade Iraq? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: THEY DIDN'T!!!
And whatever did happen to those "weapons of mass destruction" that Saddam supposedly had? And whatever happened to that "clear and convincing" connection to Al Qaeda that he supposedly had? You know, the one that Dickless Cheney was flogging on the asspundit talking heads shows long after The Smirking Chimp himself said it didn't exist.
It was all a pack of lies, and if you were at all honest with yourself you'd see it too.
And D-Day???!!! Give me a fucking break. If you can in your own mind equate our illegal occupation of a nation THAT DID NOTHING TO US with the liberation of Europe from the murderous heel of Nazi Germany, then you, my friend, have drunk entirely too much of the Rethug Koolaid.
If Bush were filmed stomping kittens to death, you'd find a way to justify it: "But they were terrorist kittens."
So come on back when you have some rational arguments to propose. Otherwise run along, sonny, and leave the adults alone.

pepsiholic said...

Adults, I don't see any adults here. All I see is a bunch of wacko liberals. Where was your outrage when Clinton went to the U.N. for permission to attack Bosnia, was told no and proceeded to attack anyway? It would be different if you lumped the past Presidents because of "illegal" wars but somehow I think that you feel Clinton was OK with what he did because he had a "D" for his party affiliation.

And for your information, the democrats were saying the same things about Saddam having WMD before Bush even took office. You act like we invaded Denmark in regards to WMD. Saddam had them, used them. President Clinton was the one who signed into LAW for regime change in Iraq.

This blog is nothing but a whiny little man refusing to concede the results of the 2000 election. You truly have manic obsessive Bush hatred. Liberalism is a mental disease.

pepsiholic said...

"Probably because Bushco lied to them as well as to the American people."

Oh, and how did Bush lie to these people since he wasn't even in office? And how was Bush to know that Saddam didn't have WMD when even his generals thought he had them?

"[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

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

"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 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

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Farnsworth68 said...

PH, you're starting to flail here. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Go take a Xanax and chill out, dude.

futu said...

"And what lies was the war based on???:" Yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes, drones capable of hitting the U.S., mobile labs, "intent on creating a nuculor weapon," "WMDs," "Mushroom cloud," etc., etc.
Good lord, man, how blatant can it be? You destroy a country, its men, women and children and then attempt justification of the horrors with data that shows just how wrong that you actually are. Where is the evidence that would show that you are just and honorable, slow to anger, and powerful in your conquest with death and misery?

Pepsiholic said...

Farns you're pretty funny. Your wit consists of nothing but lies and hatred. Sort of like why liberal radio will never be a hit... any trucker with a cell phone can easily debunk a liberal host's position.

You think that it's a big deal that we haven't gotten OSL (How long did Eric Rudolph hide out in the mountains in the US and we coundn't catch him... 3 years?) but you'd also be screaming bloody murder if we went into Packistan to root him out. You can't have it both ways... oh wait, that's right I forgot, your a liberal, all you do is whine.

And FUTU, how is this a lie?:
In 2000, Iraq ordered, via a company in Jordan, 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes manufactured from 7075-T4 aluminum with an outer diameter of 81 mm, and an inner diameter of 74.4 mm, a wall thickness of 3.3 mm and a length of 900 mm, to be manufactured in China. These tubes were classified as controlled items by the United Nations and Iraq was not permitted to import them. [1]

The order was placed with an Australian company, International Aluminum Supply (IAS), which was associated with Kam Kiu Propriety Limited, a subsidiary of the Chinese company that would do the manufacturing. Concerned that the tubes might be related to Iraqi efforts to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, Garry Cordukes, the director of the company, contacted the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS). In turn, ASIS notified U.S. intelligence services.

ASIS also asked Cordukes to obtain a sample of the tubes for examination. He obtained one and handed it over to the ASIS.

On May 23, 2001, a container load of about 3,000 aluminum tubes left the factory in southern China. It traveled on a barge to Hong Kong. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was watching its progress, as was the ASIS. In July 2001, the tubes tubes were seized in Jordan by the Jordianian secret police and the CIA, according to a CIA presentation later that year.[2]

Iraq also attempted to acquire aluminum tubes of the same type in late 2002 and early 2003, with negotiations still going on with a Syrian company when the 2003 Invasion of Iraq began. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

So to recap, it was the U.N. who listed those tubes as a prohibited item. It was Australia who was concerned about their use. The U.N. listed those specs for a reason...

It would be a lot easier chatting with you guys if you'd start using facts for a change but facts and liberals go together like oil and water.

Pepsiholic said...

Hey FUFU I have another quote for you:

Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Pepsiholic said...

Some more for Farns and Futu who thinks it was Bush who came up with this truly crazy idea that Saddam had wmd...

President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple. The Whole World Changes If Saddam Ever Has Nuclear Weapons." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)

Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10147)

Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)

Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)

Farnsworth68 said...

So what? Just because "everybody" thought he had them, where was the justification to invade a country that had never attacked us AND one that had no collusion with Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein wasn't the only tinhorn dictator in the world carrying around a big hardon for the US. Why him? (Hint: It's oil!)
Even Baby Doc's own CIA wasn't on board with the whole "he's got weapons" scenario, and the BFEE found it necessary to construct out of whole cloth the whole "buying yellowcake uranium from Niger" thing just to scare weak little members of the Moron-American voting bloc like you.
PH, you're just going over the same tired ground here. Why don't you come up with something new and original. You're becoming tedious.
And I was just waiting with baited breath the argument that "it's all Clinton's fault".
You didn't disappoint me.
Why don't you eat a nice big bowl of yellowcake and run along and play.
--The F Man, preeminent purveyor of scintillating wit based on lies and hatred.

futu said...

If you are harping on the aluminum tubes because you think that they were to be used for nuclear bomb material processing, you are as wrong as Bush's lot. Those tubes were neither the grade nor the type that could be used for centrifuge.
In fact, it is widely disputed how that they could be so erroneous in that assertion. The tubes might have been used in weapons but never in nukes production. Even so, after learning that the claim was mistaken (at best) Cheney, etc., did not correct or disavow the falsehood in the same manner that they continued to infer that Iraq was responsible for 911.
What people said about the intelligence has no meaning when one learns that the claims were preposterous, certainly to intelligence officials.
Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz, etc., were determined to go to war no matter what.
As for your personal insults and name-calling: it places doubt on your facts, belittles your patriotism, and degrades you.

Farnsworth68 said...

I also think it's hilarious that PH cites a Wikipedia article on those tubes, but chooses to ignore this little gem from the very first paragaph: "After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group determined that the best explanation for the tubes' use was to produce conventional 81-mm rockets; no evidence was found of a program to design or develop an 81-mm aluminum rotor uranium centrifuge." [Emphasis added]
Jeez, I almost feel sorry for the guy.
No, not really.

pepsiholic said...

Futu and Farns... first FUTU, sorry about the "FUFU" was going by memory, didn't check first when I wrote the name. And about the tubes... I didn't write the spec on the tubes the U.N. did. These were prohibited items plain and simple. I also noted that you didn't include this from the wikipida: A June 4, 2003 article in the Financial Times reported that "French intelligence had seized a separate shipment of tubes to the US, and tested their tolerance by spinning them to 98,000 revolutions per minute, concluding they were too sophisticated to have alternative uses."

And about yellowcake, Farns I believe you are mistaken. Bush said Saddam was attempting to get yellowcake from Africa not Niger. He based that on British intelligence that even today stands by their report. Even the liar Joe Wilson reported to the CIA that Iraq was inquiring into trade with Niger and the Niger representative assumed that the Iraq representative was inquiring about yellowcake. Niger only has two industries, goats and yellowcake.

As for why him, why attack Saddam. Why take the chance? Do either of you deny the fact if AQ could get a hold of several drums of VX nerve gas that instead of the 3,000 dead from 9/11 that the death toll would be in the millions? Do you forget that he was already supporting terrorism in the middle east? That he paid the families of suicide bombers for attacks against Israel? How big of a leap is it for him to slip some chemicals that by his own admission he had to people who hated us as much as he did (The enemy of my enemy is my friend)? It was Saddam who capitulated at the end of the first gulf war and agreed to specific terms and failed to abide by those terms.

The problem I have Farns is that you make like it was Bush that came up with the idea that Saddam had wmd. It wasn't. Democrats were long screaming that Saddam had wmd and needed to be stopped. And I still say that if Gore had been elected and gone after Saddam (yeah, yeah, I know that you'll say he would never have done that), you Farns would not be trashing him and the war in Iraq like you do Bush just because he's a democrat and you would probably be on the bandwagon with him. I on the other hand supported Clinton in his military actions. Clinton lost my support not because of Monica but because of his pledges to go after the terrorist but his actions were to send cruise missiles at empty training camps. Hell, I even voted for Clinton the first term... back when I was a democrat and I still believe in abortion, stem cell research and seperation of church and state (Up to a point. This nation was founded on christion principles).

pepsiholic said...

So Farns tell me... have you gone off the deep end too and believe that the neo-cons masterminded 911?

Farnsworth68 said...

No, not there yet.
So when did I EVER say that Baby Doc Bush dreamed up the whole WMD thing all on his own (not that he personally was smart enough to do it, but you get my drift...)?
He just used it as a pretext for attacking a country that he was going to attack anyway.
We knew that Saddam has those weapons of mass destruction at one time because we sold them to him -- Donnie Rumsfeld still has the receipts.
And those were the very weapons that Saddam used when he gassed the Kurds. You remember Baby Doc stating with studied incredulity, "He gassed his own people!"
But by 2003 they were either all used up or rendered useless by time and deterioration. Sarin nerve gas, for example, has a shelf life of only five years or so.
Finally, the UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq right up to the time that Der Monkey Fuehrer told them to get out or get killed.
And you are very wrong in making assumptions about whether I would support a Dem who did the same thing. I am an equal opportunity blaster, and if any Dem fucks up the way every Rethug has, then I'll be first in line to criticize him (or her). It may surprise you to learn that I was as against Bill Clinton's misadventure in Bosnia as I was against "Poppy" 41's insertion into Somalia (which resulted in dead Americans on Clinton's watch, so he got the blame instead of the guy who put them there in the first place).
Go take a look at the Wikipedia articles on Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction and the yellowcake controversy.
So maybe you can tell us where and when Joe Wilson lied?
And finally, if there were so many "good" reasons for invading Iraq, why didn't the BFEE Maladminstration use THEM instead of trucking up a tissue of lies.
As far as the 9-11 attacks, just how would the perpetrators of that attack, the vast majority of whom were from Saudi Arabia (and none from Iraq), get that deteriorated nerve gas from Saddam Hussein. They were Al Qaeda, remember, and Osama Bin Forgotten hated the quasi-secular Iraqi state (about half as much as he hated the US).
Despite the lameass protestations and the Big Lie on the part of Dickless Cheney, there was NO connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
But we were told repeatedly that the smoking gun "could" come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Bullshit. This was all smoke and mirrors to terrify our own citizens. And apparently it worked really well with some of you.
So thanks for participating, PH. I hope that you can come up with some different arguments that are somehow grounded in the reality-based community.
But I'm not counting on that actually happening.

pepsiholic said...

Oh so a handshake is your evidence? How about this?

In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[8] Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s.[9][10][11][12][13] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[14]

France built Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s. Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and so bombed it in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. Strains of dual-use biological material also helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[15]

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[16] The government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun, precipitating the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.

Many other countries contributed as well; since Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s was officially viewed internationally as for power production, not weapons, there were no UN prohibitions against it. An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare. Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982. Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.[17]

Furthermore, after listening to Wilson's testimony to the 9-11 Commission (based largely on the material in his book) the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee were both forced to concede that the CIA report on Wilson's mission to Niger differed substantially from his testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Wilson's report to the CIA, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report by Bob Novak, "...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase [yellowcake uranium]." With respect to Wilson's statement to the Washington Post about 'forged documents" involved in the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy uranium—a bombshell that is apparently in his book—Wilson admitted to the 9-11 Committee that he may have exaggerated. The 9-11 Committee found conclusively that Iraq was attempting to procure enriched (yellowcake) uranium in Africa.

Because the conclusions of the 9-11 Commission and the findings of the supposedly nonpartisan US Senate Select Intelligence Committee debunked both Clarke and Wilson, the Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee led by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV wanted a watered-down report that neither condemned nor exonerated the White House while not criticizing either Wilson or Clarke whom they characterized as victims of the Bush Administration in order, one imagines, to maintain their nonpartisan appearance.

Not content with a Democratic whitewash that sought to mitigate the erroneous testimony of Clarke and Wilson by simply labeling their falsehoods as personal views (which by extension makes Bush appear guilty), Senate Select Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts issued his own scathing statement noting that rather than confining his comments about what actually happened when he went, as a agent of the US government, to Niger on a fact-finding mission, Roberts observed that "...the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the intelligence community would have or should have handled the information he provided...Time and again Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa...[N]ot only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe [the MI-5 story was] true." In concluding, Roberts noted that much of what Wilson had to say contained absolutely no basis of fact. But, when you are a Democrat throwing stones, one rock is just as good as any other rock—until you look at them and discover that some of them are petrified cow poop. http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon49.htm

Harry Homeless said...

Pretty funny debate! But I have to award victory to pepsiholic. Debating the Iraq war is like debating Hitler on whether we should kill all the Jews. Hitler will cite all sorts of "reasons" and quote many like-minded folk but you cannot defeat his argument because the premise is false. The wrongness of the holocaust is not debatable! The wrongness of the Iraq war is not debatable either.

No rational person is so naive at this point to think we went over there out of the goodness of our hearts. And neither is anyone so gullible as to truly believe we attacked Iraq because we feared them. So anyone saying they are for this war is just yanking your chain. Give them a cookie, they are a sad people.

futu said...

I was willing to work at it for a while. It seemed that it might become a sound and reasonable argument. However, it spun out past reality to radical fundamental christianism. If reason gets blended with metaphor and hyperbole there is less chance of understanding or a meeting of the minds. Unless, that is, the deal comes full circle and there is a change of conciousness. Sadly, that is only precipitated when one hits bottom.

Farnsworth68 said...

HH, you are right on the money. I'm afraid that my new BBF, "pepsiholic", has been possessed by one of those irrational GOP demons after drinking too much of the Rethug Koolaid.
I think he said at one point that he spent eight years in the military. I don't know when that was, but my best guess is that it wasn't during wartime or in a combat zone -- if it were, he'd be flogging that at every turn.
Nevertheless, he is a True Believer, and we know that it's impossible to achieve a change of mind/change of heart in a True Believer. People like him are way beyond the pursuasive powers of logic and reason.
I know a lot of fellow Vietnam veterans, active as I am in various veterans' causes and organizations, and PH reminds me, more than anything, of those bitterly unreconstructed Vietnam vets who will desperately cling to, even to the grave, the myth that we could have "won" the Vietnam War if only...[insert your favorite "enemy" here: The leftwing media, the civilians in control of the war, the Democrats in Congress, etc. etc. blah blah blah].
In short, they will latch onto anything to avoid facing the awful truth that our government involved us in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, and LIED our way into it, with the result that we had something approaching 60,000 dead Americans who were sacrificed for a FUCKING LIE!!!.
And those vets in turn remind me more than anything else of the German soldiers who came home from WWI with the belief that they could have won their war if it hadn't been for the those subversive and treacherous "Jews" back home.
With the potential for a substantially resonating result.
Our good buddy PH himself seems unreasonably desperate to justify the unconscionable actions of his Monkey Fuehrer, and at this point it's one of those "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts".
Thanks for the post, HH, and for shining the light of reason on this debate. I hope you'll come back often. BTW, I like your blog, Sarcasm Alley a lot -- everyone else, be sure to check him out.
--The F Man

pepsiholic said...

Shining the light of reason from you liberals? Whose hatred of Bush is so juvenile that you have to result to name calling such as Monkey Fuehrer and Dick(less) Cheney? Give me a break. Your infantile rants even plunge to the depths by talking about the impregnation of Bush's daughters and the pagan ritual of having them sacrificed on the alter of war just to prove to you that the war is important to him. Yeah you sure have an open mind don't you?

Farnsworth68 said...

blah blah blah, yap yap yap.
Since you seem to be so attracted by lies, hatred and venom (otherwise why do you keep coming back here?), why don't you curl up with a steely dan and have a wet dream about the queen of venom, mAnn "The Liar" Coulter?
You seem to have a lot to say about subjects about which you seem to know everthing, so why don't you have your own blog?
Or are you one of those robotic wingnut trolls who can't come up with his own ideas, but gets a secret thrill out of overreacting to what reasonable people have to say?

Farnsworth68 said...

So how 'bout them lies, PH? Still standing by your man?

Farnsworth68 said...

"It's the lying, stupid!"
So, PH, you seem to be strangely silent, now that your fair haired boy has been proven to be a FUCKING LIAR!!!!!!!!!!
Where's that support for the war now? I can't believe that you have been rendered silent by my "blah blah blah yap yap yap" post.
Dude? Ball's in your court; shit or get off the pot.

pepsiholic said...

What lies are we talking about Farns... and remember, a lie is only a lie if you can prove he knew it was wrong. And sorry I'm not on 24 hours a day. Some of us (unlike yourself) have a real life.

And getting back to the original discussion Farns... If there are 700,000 to a million dead, why aren't the cemetery works seeing those numbers... where are all the bodies... remember, the poll said they were dead, not missing.