Ritter Rips Peaceniks
Former U.N.weapons inspector and now full-time anti-war activist Scott Ritter has ripped his fellow peaceniks a new one. Describing the peace movement as nearing "complete collapse," Ritter gets it all about half right.
First the good part:
It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in the mirror, and be honest about what they see. A poorly organized, chaotic, and indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects and idealism that barely constitutes a "movement," let alone a winning cause. I have yet to observe an anti-war demonstration that has a focus on anti-war. It often seemed that every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda, so that "No War in Iraq" shared the stage with the environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes which not only diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent, but also guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran), but do not want to be associated with any other theme. The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war (Original ital--).An exellent point. One I've been hammering on for, oh, about three years so far. Unfortunately, Ritter goes on to make the very same mistake for which he criticizes the rest of "the movement." To belong to Ritter's anti-war movement it really isn't enough, it turns out, to simply oppose the war. You also have to recant any earlier support for it. And you must agree to a series of political propositions that paint the current moment as one just short of Armageddon. Here's what Ritter has to say about Jack Murtha, the conservative Pennsylvania Democrat who shook up his own party last year with an early call for U.S. troop pullback from Iraq:
Take the example of Congressman Jack Murtha. A vocal supporter of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, last fall Mr. Murtha went public with his dramatic change of position, suddenly rejecting the war as un-winnable, and demanding the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While laudable, I have serious problems with Jack Murtha's thought process here. At what point did the American invasion of Iraq become a bad war? When we suffered 2,000 dead? After two years of fruitless struggle? Once we spent $100 billion? While vocalizing his current opposition against the Iraq War, Congressman Murtha and others who voted for the war but now question its merits have never retracted their original pro-war stance. Nor have they criticized their role in abrogating the Constitutional processes for bringing our country into conflict when they voted for a war before the President had publicly committed to going to war (we now know the President had committed to the invasion of Iraq by the summer of 2002, and that all his representations to the American people and Congress about 'war as a matter of last resort' and 'seeking a diplomatic solution' were bold face lies).Excuse me, but If Jack Murtha can't be part of the broadened and focused anti-war movement that Ritter is calling for, who can? Now one has to recant? Didn;t Scott Ritter himself once support military intervention against Saddam? (yes). One problem with Ritter, I think, is that he approaches politics with a techno-military view. He's legitimately worried about command, coherency and organization -- but a little too much. The deeper politics seem to be missing. I prefer the faster, simpler Scott Ritter: to be opposed to the war you need only be opposed to the war. Can the rest.Â
April 4th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Kerry has come forward with a clear policy that makes sense (yeah, THAT Kerry):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05kerry.html?hp
April 4th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Quit Kvethcing about Ritter!
He stands alone!
April 4th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
One of Ritter’s most provocative and disturbing points is buried in the middle of his piece:
“But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren’t against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.”
If this is even partly true, it is true in large part because the only Americans who are directly affected by the war are those who go to Iraq to fight it and their families. America is a nation of spectators, whether it be watching reality TV or watching a war on TV. We need to bring back the draft, in war and peacetime, and require everyone to take an equal share of responsibility in the wars we launch by taking an equal risk–not just fobbing that risk off on the kids who enlist in the military for economic reasons. In essence, the old Civil War habit of the rich paying the poor to fight for them is still very much in effect, although now it is entirely institutionalized.
April 5th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Just read the Kerry piece. Geeze.
Why couldn’t he ever talk that firmly, intelligently and forthrightly before, say…… November 2004????
April 5th, 2006 at 12:15 am
“Why couldn’t he ever talk that firmly, intelligently and forthrightly before, say…… November 2004????”
Because it would have made a difference if he had said it then, rosedog, and making a difference is not what the Democrats were about in that election. Not too sure it’s what they are about now, either.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Because he was busy windsurfing? Or sticking his finger into the wind? Or elsewhere?
April 5th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Democrats smothered the antiwar movement in 2004. The DNC’s various ‘pwogwessive’ fundraising / propaganda offshoots are parading around, masquerading as antiwar organziations and pushing ‘we can fight the war better’ Rahm Emaunel sockpuppets.
And now democrat pundits are whining about the antiwar movement being fragmented? Wow, the bullshit is just hip deep around here.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:10 am
I really don’t have time for complete discussion on this, but here goes a quick-and-dirty.
You on the left just think that Kerry said something brilliant. He said (1) we can’t win–something akin to Howard Dean’s brush with treason and (2) let’s set a deadline so that the terrorists know that they just need to hold on that long–like North Viet Nam.
(Begin rant: I guess a lot of you liked the way southeast Asia turned out after the U.S. followed such a plan in withdrawing from that region, after being undermined by Kerry, Fonda, and company. Kerry even met with the North Vietnamese on his own in Paris–in violation of our laws! Has he had a face-to-face with Bin Laden? But, it was only millions killed and tortured in Viet Nam and Cambodia after we left. At least we looked bad to the world, and you really took pleasure in that then and today–and, isn’t that really what’s important? End rant.)
If Kerry made the comments during the election, he would have been ripped–and justly so, and it wouldn’t have taken a Karl Rove to do it. Average citizens and voters would see his agenda and surrender at any cost attitude. Screw the victims.
I hope Democrats keep believing in their “wisdom” and keep running on their “wise solutions” so that they keep losing elections when they are exposed for the failures that they are.
Keep dreaming.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Obviously Woody chose to ignore this:
Nothing like what happened in Vietnam. Apples and pears. Like just about every hound in Woody’s kennel that dog won’t hunt.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Randy Paul,
You’re right. Nothing like “genuine diplomacy” was ever tried in Vietnam.
You appear to be ignoring Woody’s “rant” about Kerry’s Vietnam diplomacy.
Could it be that, in Kerry’s own soft-bellied manner, that he finally is acknowledging the stink of his meeting with the Viet-Cong in Paris?
April 5th, 2006 at 7:18 am
Look I anlayzed Kerry’s get out of Iraq plan at the time in a class and it was the same thing they’re proposing now. It was Murtha’s to a T with stepped up training and so on. The only thing many (that means a large number somewhere short of all) folks wanted to hear was let’s leave tomorrow. Anti-war for technical and factual reasons definitely, but not for imaginary ones like taking over the world’s oil, like that hasn’t panned out enough for folks to cinvince those like Ann Lamott.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:20 am
So Kerry ended the viet nam war? Jesus if that isn’t the mother of all false cause fallacies.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:28 am
No, Jay Cline, I was making the point that Woody’s analogies to Vietnam was false on its face.
As for the administration, all they ever say is “stay the course” while ignoring the mess they created: no changes in the leadership at the Pentagon, nothing, jst stay the lousy rotten course built on deceit that they created.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Mr. Paul,
There are only a few problems with your lines of thought.
1. It appears that you are actually expecting that the Sunni/Shia/Kurd/Insurgent/Socialist leaderships want to be diplomatic. Let alone ‘genuinely diplomatic.’ I dare say this is, has been, nor the case.
2. Getting the Arab League involved is a non-starter, given their evident mistrust of anything American let alone democratic (to begin with), and their continued backing and financial support of terrorists organizations.
3. For all the good things the UN can achieve – the last 15 years has seen it’s influence severely diminished along with the Security Council turning into a deaf/dumb venue due to the ABUSE of the Veto powers of the permanent members.
4. Dismantling the Militia’s (which number in the hundreds) is unrealistic without first obtaining assurances from each and every one of the factions funding them. (Please re-read my comment above regarding the Arab League).
5. Hard intelligence leads take time, and time is apparently something only one side seems to be willing to concede.
Won’t even go into what your idea of garrisoned status is.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:42 am
The other day I wished upon a star that those attacking Jill Carroll could be handed over to her kidnappers for 82 days. Now I am wishing that Woody and Jay Cline be forced to ride together in a Humvee down the streets of Baghdad. How about it boys? Let’s see just how patriotic you really are, or if you just want to run your mouths and let other people do your fighting for you.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Marc, you state your agreement with Ritter’s argument, which is that the antiwar movement should be purely antiwar without what he sees as piggybacking of other leftish causes onto it, in order to be as broadly inclusive as possible of all potential antiwar constituencies. I presume there is an implicit argument that either a) stopping the war is such an urgent matter that normal politics should be suspended in favor of a short- to medium term alliance against the war or b) the war is sui generis, something bad but not connected to any other aspect of politics, like imperialism. What’s the argument ?
April 5th, 2006 at 9:03 am
C’mon guys, give Kerry SOME credit. He WAS talking about those things during the election, albeit very late in the campaign. Do you forget? Around the time of the debates he started being much more aggressive in laying out a solid, intelligent and honest critique of Bush’s Iraq policy. At the time, people around here were commenting about Kerry finally showing up to the Iraq debate. Was he proposing immediate withdrawal? No, but who was at the time? Michael Moore? It’s bad enough that those numbskulls gave Moore a throne at the convention, they certainly didn’t need to start adopting more of his Iraq war rhetoric. Keery may have been a joke (though at least you could chuckle at it, unlike the BAD joke that Bush is), but I do give him some credit for nailing down the right position on Iraq at a time when direct and honest talk about it was nowhere to be seen amongst this county’s leaders.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I love that Woody is willing to let a bunch of Iraqi sects hold America hostage politically and militarily and imagines that he’s on the side of something grand, rather than a mindless echo of the RNC campaign bullshit from 2004 that nobody except GOP dead-enders believe anymore. I’m all for “purple fingers” Woody, but not the one in the middle. Woody has all of the independence of mind regarding Iraq of a speck of lint clinging to Don Rumsfeld’s suit and the analytical depth of my “Support The Troops” refrigerator magnet. As for Jay Cline, his statement on his website that he wants Jeb Bush to become President in 2008 is enuff said about the mentality we’re dealing with here. In his case, it’s lint on any empty suit hanging in the Bush family’s closet.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:14 am
“Because he was busy windsurfing? Or sticking his finger into the wind? Or elsewhere?”
“…finger in the wind” – legitimate gripe, especially the wind around the Grand Canyon where Kerry inanely told a reporter that even knowing about tha absence of WMD, he, like Bush, would have invaded Iraq
“…windsurfing” – can’t you shake this meme already; it’s no longer remotely clever or revealing. Had he actually done this more than once in the campaign it might represent something more than an excuse for snarky journalistic shorthand.
“Or elsewhere?” – a comment unbefitting a deep-sea fisherman.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Just so Woody and Jay can play catch-up with most of America, I’m posting again the link to a transcript of General Tony Zinni’s remarks on MTP.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12067487/
He speaks to the Vietnam analogy, among other things. This is the best concise rebuke to a lot of the ignorance masquerading as “conventional wisdom” among the BushClones and the Bushboozled I’ve seen.
Cline and Woody – read George Packer’s “Assassin’s Gate”, Larry Diamond’s “Squandered Victory”, Trainor/Gordon’s “Cobra II” to get a grip on what’s actually happened as regards this war before you embarrass yourselves with further mindless commentary based on the increasingly unhinged Iraq delusions of the Right Blogosphere.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:28 am
go, reg!
April 5th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Anybody here ever tried windsurfing ? It’s requires a lot more skill and athleticism than wandering around a ranch between beers with your buddies blowing away little birds with a $3000 Italian shotgun. Or peddling along on your Trek in polyester shorts and a plastic helmet, for that matter…
April 5th, 2006 at 10:40 am
“a comment unbefitting a deep-sea fisherman.”
As fly-fisherman and biologist I can testify bait fishermen usually insert the hook through the anus of the bait. That and the dock is a long way from the pelagic zone.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Oh-oh. I detect an impending Tom Grey Cambodia/ Vietnam screed on the horizon (T minus 10…9…8…)
April 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
I was struck by the same point in Ritter’s rant as Michael Balter: “Americans aren’t against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.â€
It’s a powerful point — international geopolitics as a form of team sports — but I don’t happen to think it is entirely true. The level of US popular support for the invasion has been greatly exaggerated after the fact. Opinion polls taken in early 2003 showed ambivalence, at best — something that I confirmed when I did a little opinion-sampling of my own in the Midwest in January 2003. (Many people I met, regardless of party affiliation, said they were leaning against the invasion; they also said they believed — wrongly, as it turned out — that they were the only people they knew who felt that way.)
In any case, being against the war because it is wrong, and being against it because it has turned out badly are not necessarily contradictory positions. In fact, I’d argue there is rather more honor in turning against the war because of its disastrous progress than Ritter suggests. We were told the war would depose Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East; quite a few Americans responded to that by thinking — IF that’s the case then maybe it’s not a bad idea. Now, the more tentative supporters of the war are catching up to the notion that spreading democracy at gunpoint, and by means of an unprovoked invasion at that, was neither workable nor morally justifiable from the get-go. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
The importance of harnessing the political power of this disappointed/disillusioned middle cannot be overstated. As Scott Ritter (and, I think, Marc) say, there is unfortunately no evidence that a broad anti-war movement is making any significant headway on changing the war-oriented mindset of the two parties in Washington, or that it is likely to change US national security priorities in the foreseeable future, under a Republican or Democratic administration.
That’s what we all need to work towards finding a way to change.
April 5th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Sorry, I compacted that second-to-last para a little too much. That broad anti-war movement doesn’t, of course, exist yet.
April 5th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Scott Ritter is ignoring one fact when he talks about the shallow opposition to the war. At least 30% of the public was firmly against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and thruout. About 30% was for it. The remainder has remained in the middle, shifting back and forth. That is the “public” that I suppose Ritter refers to. Now that 40% is almost unanimously against the war, many because we aren’t apparently accomplishing much, and certainly not our money’s worth. Most people, unlike Bush and his folks, realize that someone, or someone’s grandchild, is going to have to pay the trillion dollar tab for this adventure in nation-building.
The hope is that the 40%, and perhaps some of Bush’s solid supporters, will learn a lesson from the failure of this mission, perhaps that it was a mission unworthy of a nation born thru its opposition to tyranny from the outside.
And I wanted to address one statement in passing Woody made about Kerry, that his meeting with North Vietnamese (I think it was actually South Vietnamese supporters of the revolutionary opposition, but I may be wrong) was “against the laws” of this country. It was not. It was, and is, against the law for an individual to purport to negotiate on behalf of the United States. The Logan Act, I believe. It is not illegal to talk, even to an enemy. If it were, much diplomacy of the most crucial kind–back-channel contacts–would be unlawful.
Probably the most important foreign policy development of our lives is that between the US and USSR that led to glasnost and perestroika and ultimately the disintegration of the totalitarian governments of Eastern Europe and a scale-down of the mutually-assured nuclear destruction stand-off between “us” and “them”. The renewed communication began in the mid-80s when writers and scientists and regular citizens of the two countries opened channels of communication with the avowed purpose of achieving what Reagan and Gorbachev ultimately agreed to do. People-to-people communication almost always increases the chances of peace. It is not treasonous at any time (unless one is disclosing important state secrets), and is not a violation of law.
April 5th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
One other thing about the “war”. [Is it a war now? How exactly is the "enemy" defined?] It has become crystal-clear that the military leadership has decided that this is a mission it does not support and wants no part of. That is what John Murtha’s defection signified. It is certainly what Gen. Zinni’s public appearances mean. Isn’t it time for the proponents of military involvement to stop waving the bloody sheet and start looking for ways to extricate ourselves from this debacle in the least-damaging manner available? I have friends who are scheduled to go back to Iraq and they know and we all know there is no point, not really.
John Kerry’s 1971 query is current once again: who will be the last to give his or her life for a mistake?
April 5th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
“We were told the war would depose Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East; quite a few Americans responded to that by thinking — IF that’s the case then maybe it’s not a bad idea.”
Had that been a reasonable assumption in it’s entirety and not the bleatings of people who have been proven fantasists and incompetents, the war wouldn’t have been a bad idea. Even just the first piece – deposing Saddam – wouldn’t have been defensible from the perspective of U.S. national security and would have inevitably meant cutting back our efforts against bin Laden – as we now know was part of the plan early on – but it wouldn’t have actually been “immoral” in my book, had there been a viable strategy for turning the country over to some indigenous “lesser evil” with the capacity to govern. The more I watch this drama unfold, the more it’s apparent that we have met the enemy and it’s our own hubris. Things are gonna get a lot worse before they get better in the realm of rational, effective national security. We’re stuck with the worst, most ineffectual and cluelessly arrogant gang in my memory. Nixon was better.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Sorry I cant resist this: But as usual Mark York has no friggin’ idea what he’s talking about. Im a damn near full-time bait fisherman and Ive never seen anyone hook a bait thru the anus!
Live bait fish are hooked either through the nose or thru the meaty flesh behind the gill– the object being to keep it alive as long as possible and swimming freely. Sticking a hook through its butt …um… would not achieve that goal. On occasion, when dealing with a really large live bait i.e. a strapping sardine or maybe a 5-6″ herring, sometimes the hook is placed through the meaty part of the dorsal area, allowing the fish to swim freely.
As to dead bait: never would u hook it thru the ass. Again the hooking would be through the nose in order to at least simulate free swimming.
Mark York: You are WAY WAY WAY WAY over any normal quota of postings… so please dont answer this. Im considering putting you on time out anyway. You need to find something else to do rather than to post here every 10 minutes.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
One of the hallmarks of liberal myopia is that wars like Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. They were criminal, immoral violations of hte nuremburg laws on aggressive war. However they were not at all mistakes, they were well-planned, and barring some problems, actually achieved their objectives, even if, like Vietnam, America seems to “lose.”
America’s goal in Vietnam was not so much to defeat “communism.” though ostensibly it was. It was to destroy the prospect of Vietnam as an example to other Southeas Asian colonies. By the time America bled Vietnam dry, they did not have the resources to build the egalitarian society originally envisioned. They did however, defeat the Khmer Rouge who America backed in the 80s.
America’s goal in Iraq was to control the oil and establish permanent bases. No matter what the case may be, this is a done deal. See http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=0
April 5th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
“It’s high time to recognize that we as a nation are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies with those who promote war as an American value and virtue.â€
It is difficult for most Americans to “connect the dots,†to reach a political analysis, which allows them to ideologically leap from being against the Iraq War, to concluding that our government’s imperialistic polices must end now.
“It often seemed that every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda, so that “No War in Iraq” shared the stage with the environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes which not only diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent, but also guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran), but do not want to be associated with any other theme.â€
Ritter’s criticism of left-wing groups, who use the Iraq War to vent other issues shows a naïveté on his part regarding American politics—the environment, ecology, animal rights pro-choice; etc.., are all tied to Iraq, and are examples of how our capitalistic system creates the circumstances which allows bullies like us, to invade countries for their resources, without any regard or concern for the ecology and the environment.
So the Left, has not HIJACKED the anti-war movement, all these political issues are in sync—they all represent examples of how corporate America has utterly disregarded human life, if they determine that profit and exploitation of another country’s resources takes precedence.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
This is a little analysis that I put together regarding Zinni’s interview last Sunday on “Meet the Press”:
ZINNI MEETS THE PRESS: VENI, VIDI, VICI,
Retired General Anthony Zinni appeared on Meet the Press Sunday Morning, and boldly spoke out about the Iraq war in a no holds barred interview, he expressed his utter dismay about the planning of the invasion, and the subsequent occupation—he called the war in Iraq “ill-conceived†with “no end in sight,†he stated that Saddam was “contained†and was absolutely no threat to the U.S., he questioned the wisdom of the initial invasion and ultimately concluded that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, should be held accountable and fired.
Zinni said that Bush’s loyalty to his staff is admirable but what’s more important than loyalty is competence. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was under the misguided impression that fewer troops and high-tech weapons could do the job, later he was “surprised†by the massive insurgency; acknowledging that he hadn’t anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq. Well, what did he think was going to happen when the U.S. invaded and occupied a country in the Middle East?
Isn’t it paramount that the Secretary of Defense— consults with military officials, review intelligence reports and then logically assesses the ultimate outcome of Military intervention? HASTE MAKES WASTE , AND THIS ADAGE CERTAINLY APPLIED TO THE IRAQ WAR! But is it possible that Rumsfeld was warned, but chose not to listen and to rather take the advice of certain “neo-conservatives” at that time such as: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby. All of these “neo-cons†saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to strengthen American geo-political interests in the Middle East – and these interests took precedent over logical and legitimate military concerns.
In fact Zinni has stated: “You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems, not just generals, but others — diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation; friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that (Rumsfeld). There has been poor strategic thinking ,†says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it’s time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. It’s been a failure.â€
SO THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WARNED THAT THE WAR COULD BECOME A DEBACLE, AND INSPITE OF ALL WARNINGS, WE INVADED THE COUNTRY LIKE A DRUNK ON A WILD WEEKEND BINGE!
The neo-con strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the so-called 21st century, which is just a euphemism for U.S. intervention and domination of all Middle Eastern countries. And isn’t interesting, that Zinni feels that the aggressive intervention of Iraq, which became a priority for this administration, has caused us to be viewed as “the modern colonial power in that part of the world.â€
LET’S HAVE AN ELECTION!
An election “does not a democracy makeâ€â€”as can be attested by our last two Presidential Elections, which was rife with voter fraud. Building an election booth does not represent political stability or a democracy! In fact, modern history has proven that many a dictator regularly declares their support for a democratic regime and then often holds contrived elections. The acceptance of a governments depends on its perceived legitimacy, if the government is not accepted by the voting population as the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, then these elections become merely a catalyst, inciting a civil war. Is this possibly what we are now seeing in Iraq; a civil war?
CORRUPTION, TERRORISM, POVERTY, AND MISOGNY ARE NOT THE KEYSTONES FOR A DEMOCRACY!
Zinni recounts a story that was told to him on election day, an Iraqi came anxiously to vote, seemingly so excited saying all sorts of wonderful things about democracy in Iraq, timidly looking at one of the voting officials, finally asking him, “who would you vote for?†The official would not say who to vote for, but read the names of all 169 candidates, whom the Iraqi knew nothing about.
Spoon feeding in the long run teaches us nothing but the shape of the spoon.
E.M. Forster
April 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Please, how long does bait stay hooked through the nose? Although it may be what you do. We used to snell the baitfish such as smelts with hook coming out the anus just like a baitfish imitation fly. But then fly-fishermen are snobs when it comes to baitfishing in general. This is what I was referring to.
It’s damn shame you’ve chosen to single me out for ridicule for participating in your forum, but since you have even when the majority of the time I’m agreeing with you it must be a personal problem. I don’t know.
What I do know after living in LA since 1996 is this is the most unfriendly place I’ve ever been to bar none. It’s the egos and the competition. I was in the movie business so I very familiar with that. Journalism is more of the same. It’s about stars and fans and eliminating the competition. Or barring that just trashing them. Been there seen that. It’s too bad but whatever, who wants to stay where they aren’t wanted? Say LaVie.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Sorry I brought up fishing in the 1st place. Had no idea it would lead to controversy or an undeserved insult to a fellow New Englander. I therefore retract my statement and pull out its metaphorical hook. My statement on wind-surfing, however, still stands.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Michael Crosby hit it on the mark when he discussed Murtha and Zinni. The brass loathes this war, particularly the Army and Marines, since they know the force is being ground up in the deserts of Mesopotamia with no end in sight.
There will be no good end here and everyone knows this. I don’t know if Steve Gilliard is right when he suggests that it will end with the Iraqis staging a Dien Vien Phu on us with plenty of 120mm Howitzers playing a tune but the idea that a debacle is in store is a truth that is becomming more and more universally acknowleged.
As tired as I am of Immigration I am even more tired of the cant that this time, unlike Vietnam, we will win. Those who want to refight our SE Asian misadventure are welcome to play war games and check out Norris and Stallone Movies. But please stop calling real vets, like John Kerry, traitors. He was there and , I suspect, you weren’t.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
See those numbers?
They are the numbers of US soldiers who have died in Iraq over the last 6 months due to enemy action. See Brookings:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Just as in Vietnam, the US military is “winning” —
but the media doesn’t want you to know. It still might take some 4 or 8 more years; have we won enough in Europe to get out of Germany yet?
Yet the anti-war critique is right that you can’t create democracy with a gun.
Democracy takes time, lots of time, prolly 5 – 21 years to develop anything like maturity — a lot like people. It takes time for voters to learn they DO have power, to select a winner — but whichever bozo they give real power to, the gov’t is not going to be so great at solving problems. Compromises with political rivals are necessary in order to move forward.
And virtually all young democracies elect folk who are corrupt, to a greater or much greater extent.
Bush’s biggest mistake is in not explaining how slow the democracy building will be. Booting Saddam, great & necessary. Building democracy, even more important; but so
very
very
slow.
And Americans used to 90 minute movies want the happy ending. Now.
Or else they’ll start lobbing obscenities at anybody who says staying and winning and creating a democracy is better than the alternative of leaving Iraq to the death squads. (Like who America left Vietnam for.)
They might even write a false fact about the US supporting the Khmer Rouge in the 80s when, in fact, Pol Pot was deposed in 1978 by Vietnam based Cambodian commie Hun Sen; who again had a coup in 1997. (Try wikki on Hun Sen)
Of course, on Marc Cooper’s site, many of the most prolific commenters don’t let things like facts get in the way of insulting those disagreed with; the alternative Leftist sites are even worse!
April 5th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Ritter’s contention that the diversity of leftist causes on display in the anti-war movement dilutes the message and prevents moderates and conservatives from joining in because they don’t want to associate themselves with any other theme is tragically myopic.
For one thing, Ritter fails to understand that were it not for these diverse groups coming together, there would be no anti-war movement. It wasn’t mainstream centrist organizations that organized the massive rallies held around the world before the war… it was a coalition of dozens of left leaning organizations coordinating their efforts that pulled that off. Even today, the burden of organizing, obtaining the required permits and insurance, and all of the other heavy lifting of the movement continues to fall squarely on the shoulders of these diverse lefty coalitions.
I suppose if the left adopted the tactics of the right, where rallies are tightly scripted affairs, where participants are screened and dissenters from the party line are subject to expulsion or arrest, we would see the kind of homogenized, stay-on message anti-war movement of Ritter’s dreams. But such an ideal is nothing more than a fantasy… the left has always been comprised of a diverse group varying interests, all united by certain common goals. Although support for the war is in steady decline, the fact remains that active opposition to this war, or any war for that matter, is an act of defiance against the status quo, and most any mass movement against a status quo is by it’s vary nature comprised of diverse groups of people united around a common cause. Why today’s anti-war movement should be any different is beyond me.
If conservatives or moderates hesitate to join, I believe it’s less about the diversity of views being expressed and more about the race and class of the movement’s participants. Here in Los Angeles, I’ve participated in every major peace action since before the war began. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me at these events is the sheer diversity of the participants, and I’m not just talking about political causes. The streets have been filled with thousands of protesters comprised from just about every race, nationality, and religion to be found in Los Angeles. Ages run the gamut from young children to senior citizens. Yet, despite all this diversity, the one area where diversity lacks is class. Although there are some exceptions, the participants are for the most part working class and poor people. If you are someone who is inclined to live isolated behind a gated community, you aren’t likely to be found marching in the streets alongside working class people of color, regardless of their politics.
It’s my belief that Ritter is missing the true culprit behind the lack of participation by moderates and conservatives. It’s not so much the message, nor the messengers, it’s really about class. This war is mostly just an abstraction for the middle and upper class. For most of these folks, the war in nothing more than a blip on the evening news. Their level of commitment is limited to placing a few inane magnets on their SUV. As long as their kids aren’t doing the fighting and dying, what reason do they have to pay attention? Meanwhile, the war is mostly being fought by the kids of the working class and the poor. Is it any coincidence that the working class and the poor are the most represented in the anti-war movement? Hardly. Until such time that Uncle Sam starts sending the sons and daughters of the middle and upper classes to die for Bush’s folly, these folks will be content to ignore the war and let the lower classes do all fighting and dying… and protesting. I have no doubt that the moment kids from the suburbs are forced to fight, Tad and Buffy will drop their mocha lattes and join the protesters in the streets, diverse political views be damned.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Didn’t Ritter get popped for trying to pick-up little girls on the internet?
April 5th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
“I believe it’s less about the diversity of views being expressed and more about the race and class of the movement’s participants. Here in Los Angeles…”
Of course it is. Isn’t everything on Earth? Funny I rmember a whole bunch of regular ole caucasian captains and lt’s risking their lives but who the hell cares about them? I mean they’re so well, colorless.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
evets I’m sorry too. It’s requirement to believe Kerry is the anti-christ and I failed that test clearly. You are right though on all counts.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Easy, Jake… a knee jerk reaction doesn’t make you look good. Being defensive about bringing up race says a lot more about your insecurities than anything else, and that’s coming from the whitest caucasian this side of Idaho. Open a cold one and calm down.
You might want to pretend that race is not an issue in our country, but then you would only be deceiving yourself. Besides, my central point wasn’t about race, but rather class, which transcends racial issues. (Aren’t you aware that the largest group of people living in poverty in the United States today are white females?) There’s plenty of poor and working class white kids coming home in body bags along with their minority brothers and sisters. I would never suggest otherwise.
My point still stands… the primary reason middle and upper class people don’t join the anti-war movement is because their kids aren’t doing the fighting and dying. Am I wrong?
April 5th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Idaho huh? A bit cliched but that is where the aryan nations wound up so you’re right on track with the stereotyping and oppression memes.
“Am I wrong?”
Yes you are. Sure many are lower class and poor but they are also 49-year-old reservists with family. Hell, even Doris Kearns Goodwin’s son and Antonin Scalia’s has been over there. This current anti-war bunch is the saddest deluded lot I’ve ever seen. This sure “ain’t the 60s.” Fighting for fallacies is more like it.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
“I prefer the faster, simpler Scott Ritter: to be opposed to the war you need only be opposed to the war. ” While I often disagree with you, Mr. Cooper, this is totally right. Frankly, the war isn’t going to be ended by Dems, who are clueless. This is an all volunteer army, and it can be sqeezed to death. Black recruitment has pretty much dropped by half in the last two years. The army continues because it can recruit among Hispanics and rural whites. Even among rural whites, however, there have been drops — the Pacific Northwest recruitment area, for instance, had the worst record last year, a drop of almost forty percent.
This means that anti-recruitment should concentrate on both the Hispanic and the rural population, and should be trying to reduce recruitment levels to half of what the army wants this year. The army wants 80 000 new recruits. If they can be denied 30 thousand troops, they are going to be up the creek. Without volunteers, this much deployed American army will fray into chaos. That can happen, and will, if the anti-war movement simply gives up on the politics in D.C. and goes strongly into discouraging any signing up. That doesn’t mean anti-militarism per se — in fact, for a lot of people, the army or national guard is a pretty good choice, economically and in terms of getting one’s life together. It simply means delaying the decision for a year or two. It means pointing to the President and Vice President as models, actually, of patriotism — both of them avoided serving in Vietnam since they saw that the war was pointless and not in the American interest. Cheney’s phrase about that — he had other priorities — should be honed and used to help potential recruits see — the signup bonus isn’t worth the risk and the opportunity cost. If that attitude was good enough for our highest officials, surely it is good enough for everybody.
I believe that, properly conveyed, that simple message can have a cumulative effect. Who knows, maybe the people can take back the volunteer army. and keep it from being used as a mercenary force for vanity projects by the executive branch.
Since we are probably going to have a horrible hurricane season and more shortfalls of personnel, due to the Guard being routed to Iraq, this message should really start hitting home in August and September.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Stereotyping and oppression memes? Honestly, Jake, you are trying way too hard. You are the one who said, “Funny I rmember a whole bunch of regular ole caucasian captains and lt’s risking their lives but who the hell cares about them? I mean they’re so well, colorless.” You’re the one who felt the need to stand up for whitey, not me, which is peculiar considering I was talking mostly about class, not race. You do understand the difference, don’t you?
Jake… what’s your point? Are you saying that because there are 49-year-old-reservists and the sons of folks like Doris Kearn Goodwin and Antonio Scalia fighting in Iraq, that the majority of enlisted personnel fighting in the war aren’t working class or poor? You really want to make that argument?
I’m in no way demeaning the service of the folks in your example, only pointing out that the brunt of the sacrifices for this war are being burdened upon the working class and the poor. Do you have information that contradicts that? If so, I’d like to know.
That’s not to say that there aren’t upper class folks doing their part, but it’s a big leap to say that they are giving as many of their loved ones to the cause as the lower classes. Just consider how many sons and daughters of Senators and Congressmen are serving and you will see what I’m talking about. Sure, there are many middle and upper class people serving, but the vast majority of the middle to upper class is not participating in the war, and if you compare their numbers to the numbers of working and lower class folks serving, it’s very clear that the middle and upper classes aren’t beating down the door at their local recruiter. They are okay with the war as long as their kids don’t have to fight it.
My point still stands… upper class folks don’t care about the war because their kids aren’t fighting it. Until their kids start coming home dead in significant numbers, they will leave the protesting to others. If I’m wrong, please show me how, preferably with some well reasoned information instead of ad hominem attacks on people who oppose the war.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Marc;
My question is whether there is any issue that should be tied to the war issue. I see the civil liberties issues intrinsically connected to the war itself. Even from the simple supposition by the Right that opposition to the war and opposition to the National Security State that the Bush Administration are somehow anti-American and anti-soldier. But, this issue obviously goes further since it has been shown that he Pentagon is spying on people who simply oppose the war–or *any war* as in the case of the Quakers in Pennsylvania.
I would also submit that the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being wasted by this Administration on the war is clearly an area that the “Left” should take a position on. The Right is also upset by the massive amount of government spending that this administraiton has involved itself in. Again in this regard one cannot excape the Iraq War and the lunatic “War on Terrorism” regime that the Bush Administration has set up with its wide net and its foolish prosecutions. Some of the idiocy around the “No Child Left Behind” Act has military implication that are familiar to many of us.
It is becoming more and more clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes to make up for money that Bush has borrowed to give away to the rich. It would not be likely that one could get the Right to agree on rescinding the tax cut openly, but people are seeing that something has to be done. You cannot cut taxes and then fund a war. The mispending of the treasury was largely what the relatively conservative Chicago City Council kept harping on in the debate on the anti-war resolution here.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Michael Balter wrote: Now I am wishing that Woody and Jay Cline be forced to ride together in a Humvee down the streets of Baghdad. How about it boys? Let’s see just how patriotic you really are, or if you just want to run your mouths and let other people do your fighting for you.
Michael, just how stupid can arguments get? Your requirement to be patriotic is simply, well, idiotic.
Do you get out into the ghettos and slums with the police or do you just let them do the crime fighting for you?
For the rest of you, I’m working too long of hours to read your comments. Michael Balter’s was short, so it won.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
“My point still stands… upper class folks don’t care about the war because their kids aren’t fighting it.”
Your point is cartoonesque as you don’t know what the so-called upper class people think. I think many of the very rich both in NY and on the west coast disagree with the war. The same was true in the American Revolution. Poor working stiffs always fought wars. Richer folks ran them, but still wound up killed in battle. What battles have these spoiled kids marching in the streets ever fought? What about those without kids old enough to fight? They just don’t care? I’m afraid you’re nothing but a far left radical who longs for a French-style coup complete with guillotines. You don’t haver the guts for it, though do you?
April 5th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Besides being a hack, the guy is embarassing. To the extent that he was against Gulf War 2 from the beginning, I wouldn’t bother to quote the dishonest little jerk even if he had all the goods on Saddam Hussein’s weapon making capabilities. When he isn’t apparently trying to lure little girls; the guy uses corrupt mideast money to make his hideously crude and borish documentaries. Appearing on the same Fox New Network as his fellow toe sucking connesseur Dick Morris (Tell ya, between him and O’Reilly we’ve got more cooze hounds on this team than the Minnesota Vikings), the little piece of eye snot tries to claim that there has been no quid pro quo on his film. Pooey, I have already written too much about the weasel.
I am just amazed, though, that you Marc would agree with what he said about the protestors. (“[It] needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war” )Unlike you, I wasn’t even alive during the Vietnam protests, but it is funny that it has to be me to point out that those protests back in the late 60′s and early 70′s were hardly homogenious. There were several competing interests, in fact, I would venture to say that the left was far more fragmented and bitter toward one another than today. And, again, I don’t need to remind you (as I know that like me, you have read the Pentagon Papers) that policy makers were definitely swayed by anti-war sentiment, even as polarized as the New Left were.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
typos typos, excuse me.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
By the way, I was in Washington in 2003 and I can tell you that this guy must not have been there. I saw Catholic priests, farmers donning overalls, peace punks, crusty punks, skinhead (good skhd) punks, pop punks, old hippies, retro hippies, Mennonites, nuns….quite a nice little spaghetti sauce. I don’t know where this guy was.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Hey, those were good points, Dennis Dixon.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
“Michael, just how stupid can arguments get?”
Here’s my point, Woody: One of the reasons we get into messes like Iraq is that for too many Americans, there is no bogus argument too flimsy and no lie too transparent to keep them from still wanting to send OTHER PEOPLE off to die. You are one them, I am sad to day.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:27 am
I admittedly have not read every comment on this thread. But, for those who care, our pal Andrew Gumbel—aka: modestproposal—- has just posted an excellent immigration piece on LA City Beat.
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=3541&IssueNum=148
Whether you agree with him or not, it’s worth the read.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:09 am
In fact, the US did support the Khmer Rouge, through China, during the low-intensity conflict between them and Pro-Vietnam forces. This is documented history.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Michael Balter and reg,
You are assuming, of course, that I have never been in a Humvee in downtown Baghdad.
You would, of course, be wrong.
Michael, have you? If so, does that give you and me the sole right to discuss this?
C’mon dude! Ask any soldier why he/she serves.
The most common answer is, “to give every idiot the right to speak out”.
Ok, they probably wouldn’t use the word, idiot.
Most of them are a hell of a lot smarter than tha.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Before I get a nonsensical response from Michael or reg, let me ask if the following people are also excluded from vocalizing support for military action:
- those boys classified as “4F”s by the Army
- people with flat feet
- people with 6 toes
- people with one arm, or leg, from a childhood farm accident
- the dirt farmer whose 16 hour days out in the field are the only reason his invalid parents don’t starve to death
- or,
how about that guy from Massachussetts, you know, the lawyer-politician who never served a day in the military.
No, not Sen Kennedy.
John Adams. 2nd President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, who, as a Congressional delegate during the Revolutionary War, fought Congress tooth and nail to get Washington what little supplies he could.
If it hadn’t been for Adam’s efforts, Valley Forge would have been a holocaust, not a defining moment of strength.
Yeah, Adams. He vigorously support armed conflict and the only time he ever picked up a gun was to hunt game.
Yeah, he shoulda been silenced too.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:27 am
and then there were the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Presidents as well, lawyers and politicians all and all of whom, I believe, didn’t to time in the military.
All they ever did was speak a lot about liberty, freedom and equality.
yeah, let’s silence them too.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:28 am
correction “do time” not “to time”
April 6th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Lord, I am frothing at the mouth today. Rabid dogs do that to me.
Michael, maybe we should just abolish that whole notion of the military being subordinate to civilian authority….?
April 6th, 2006 at 9:52 am
reg,
That statement on my website about Jeb Bush was in response to being slimed by a spammer.
You don’t recognize hyperbole?
April 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
One problem with Ritter, I think, is that he approaches politics with a techno-military view. He’s legitimately worried about command, coherency and organization — but a little too much. The deeper politics seem to be missing.
For once, we agree heartily on something. See comments at Max’s:
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002112.html
April 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Jake… easy brother… you really need to calm down a bit. Okay, I admit that when I say upper class folks don’t care about the war because their kids aren’t fighting it, that is a broad generalization. However, you seemed to have missed the qualifying statements I made before that, clearly acknowledging the involvement of some of the middle and upper class folks. I guess it was wrong for me to assume you would understand those distinctions, and for that I apologize.
My point is that the vast majority of the middle and upper class aren’t protesting the war because they simply don’t have a dog in the fight. Their kids aren’t signing up in any significant numbers. Their taxes haven’t been raised to pay for it. They haven’t been forced to make any real sacrifices to support the war. Until the middle and upper class is negatively impacted by the war, we aren’t likely to see many middle class and upper class folks joining the protests. I’ve yet to hear anything from you that invalidates that point.
I must confess that I was rather amused when you proclaim that, “Your point is cartoonesque as you don’t know what the so-called upper class people think,” only to go on and to accuse me of being, “nothing but a far left radical who longs for a French-style coup complete with guillotines. You don’t haver the guts for it, though do you?” Hmm… unless I’m mistaken, I don’t believe we have ever met. In fact, I think it’s a safe bet that you don’t know one damn thing about me. When you make statements like that, you only make yourself look like a complete f-ing idiot.
Finally, I would assume that when you said, “What battles have these spoiled kids marching in the streets ever fought?” you weren’t speaking about the hundreds of Iraq and Vietnam veterans who I’ve marched alongside with at protests over the past few years. I’m sure the Iraq vet I met at the last march, the one who was in a wheelchair because he left two legs on a battlefield in Iraq, would find your dismissive attitude towards protesters as nothing more than spoiled kids rather insulting. He might forgive your arrogance, but I won’t
April 6th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Back to the original point, I do hope that the organizers of the next antiwar gathering (4/29, I believe) give more consideration to mobilizing middle America to take action to end the “war”, and less attention to the need to educate us on the crisis in East Inflamistan and of course the mandatory Mumia update. I agree with Marc and Ritter that the dais at most rallies have been cluttered with some pretty disjointed and occasionally over-the-top presentations. PLEASE dear organizers, these mass rallies are not the time and place to “challenge” middle America’s misapprehensions about every issue confronting the cosmos.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Mr Cline I’m glad you survived your humvee rides in Baghdad. I rode in geeps around Saigon and Pleiku and Quang Nhai Provinces in Vietnam in 1970 and didn’t have to worry about IEDs – or even snipers for that matter as long as it was daylight. So Iknow you had it rougher. Does that suggest anything to you?
April 6th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
A `’nuf said’ fab fave five:
Alan Smithee:
“Democrats smothered the antiwar movement in 2004. The DNC’s various ‘pwogwessive’ fundraising / propaganda offshoots are parading around, masquerading as antiwar organziations and pushing ‘we can fight the war better’ Rahm Emaunel sockpuppets.”
modestproposal:
“there is unfortunately no evidence that a broad anti-war movement is making any significant headway on changing the war-oriented mindset of the two parties in Washington, or that it is likely to change US national security priorities in the foreseeable future, under a Republican or Democratic administration.
That’s what we all need to work towards: finding a way to change.”
Dennis Dixon:
“I see the civil liberties issues intrinsically connected to the war itself.”
Eleanor kjellberg (quoting Zinni):
“I think it’s time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. It’s been a failure.â€
Snori Sturlusson:
“I presume there is an implicit argument that …the war is sui generis, something bad but not connected to any other aspect of politics, like imperialism. What’s the argument ?
April 6th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
richard,
Unlike many on this and other blogs, I don’t not presume to know other peoples minds or blindly follow arguments.
Got a point?
Make it.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
“I guess it was wrong for me to assume you would understand those distinctions, and for that I apologize.”
It’s quite obvious you use the same tactics on everyone. Yes I’m sure you feel the need to recognize exceptions sans having any real numbers to back it up, and then enforce an overgeneralization fallacy. Still having a problem with that logic course I see. But then you have an agenda to support so caveat lector.
April 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Here’s a question for Marc: If a move to impeach Bush starts getting traction, will you flip flop and support it?
April 6th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Jay – Ralph Peters has also taken that Humvee ride in Baghdad and he is as clueless as they come. Some people don’t learn a damned thing even if given the opportunity. You seem to be one of those. Bush had access to a ton of alleged data that I didn’t. He got everything wrong – wilfully – and I was pretty sure he had. The folks I pay attention to on this one also have serious experience on the groung and investigating the key players. You have some experiences but not much wisdom – not even common sense – in my view. Pity that.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:27 am
reg,
You are absolutely correct.
It is a real pity when people refuse to learn the lessons that you think they should.
Shows a real lack of respect on their part…
Tha arrogance of it!
April 7th, 2006 at 8:24 am
The lessons are a consensus view, it’s just mr. Cline may be blind to them or just doesn’t recognize them. His ride was indeed limited in view but it’s also possible that no number of bombs going off short of killing him would sway a predetermined opinion on the cause in Iraq. There are those who feel that way, but sometimes someone else has to turn the off switch on a windup toy when it keeps banging up against the wall since it doesn’t have the ability to make that judgment.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Ah the arrogance of it all.
Yes, I must be blind.
Just one question. When there are two conflicting consesus opinions, who decides which one is right?
I guess we’ll have to wait for 2006 and 2008.
All those elections since 1994 have since been invalidated, no?
Dudes, c’mon! It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is one thing to believe it.
But to belittle someone else’s opinion merely because it doesn’t fit your worldview, well, that way surely leads to blindness.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Depends are which consensus has more evidenciary weight.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I can’t read all of this. But, the military sure doesn’t want me adding to their problems by driving through Baghdad. They have their hands full rescuing the likes of Jill Carroll and the “Christian” Peacekeepers.
Also, it’s apparent that schools in Alabama must be better than schools in California, as evidenced that someone from California doesn’t understand our system of government in which everyone gets a voice in our countries priorities and whether or not we go to war–not just those who are combatants.
If only combatants had a voice, we would no longer be a democratic republic but be ruled by a military junta–and, one made up primarily of 19-22 year-olds. I think I like our existing system better, and I’ll continue to express my views on what is best for our nation.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Mark,
I am glad we finally agree on one thing.
So, have you got 4 years of your life that you are willing to dedicate to going through all those thousands and thousands of captured Iraqi documents that are increasinly showing that Bush was right?
http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2006/04/bush-liednot.html
C’mon. If calling for war supporters to pony up and put their money and time and engery where their mouth is, how about helping out a bit, if only to discovering the truth.
I promise, no gun play.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Increasingly according to whom? Son if it was that easy why would it take for years to find proof? It’s an appeal to ignorance. Like the weapons that increasingly looked as if they weren’t there. That one panned out. What one widhed for is another matter even for Hussein. He had squat.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
So, you’re not gonna put your money where your mouth is?
The truth is becoming increasinly apparent to those who are taking the time to read the docus, instead of shooting their mouths off.
Current estimates of sifting through this mountain of docs is in the decades, not just years. That is why it is taking so long.
Or were you expecting a nicely wrapped Xmas present?
So, how about a little help? Huh?
Ok, 6 months. That’s all. Surely your commitment to your beliefs are worth that.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
As far as the WMD, you have heard the news story, haven’t you? You know, the one that in those docs it was found that Saddam indeed didn’t have WMD, but he kept the fiction alive because he was using it as a threat to region adversaries?
You remember, don’t you? Where Saddam even fooled his own generals, who were understandable pissed when they found out their leader’s assurance that he would make them available to them when they needed it?
C’mon. 4 months. We’ll do a Buddy Program. You and me. Get a Guaranteed Career Program from the Army recruiter…
C’mon! Let’s do it. You and me, bro!
April 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Your burden for you is to find the document. You may believe an old shell from the Iran/Iraq war counts but I don’t. If you say they have already have it then link it. Insinuating it’s there based on a nebulous amount of papers is fallacious.
I’m not in the army or eligible. I was 4F in 1974.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Dude.
you are making the accusation.
isn’t the burden of proof upon you?
Ah well. I did so hope a left wingnut could be cajoled into a little intellectual honesty.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Mark A. York,
I can barely contain my laughter each time you attempt to apply logical fallacies to any argument you don’t agree with… especially after your last debacle in reasoning. I guess you’ve forgotten how badly you embarrassed yourself when you repeatedly accused me of committing Ad Ig on a prior thread. Even the link you supplied to support your reasoning clearly demonstrated that you were a bit confused about the proper application of that fallacy. Your logic teacher would have been quite embarrassed for you, no doubt.
What’s even more amusing is that you don’t really understand logic anywhere near as much as you think you do, as you make the common mistake of assuming that any conclusion reached by an argument that does not pass the rules of logic must be wrong. Certainly, an “A” student of logic, such as yourself, understands this. Just in case you missed that day in class, I’ll give you an example. Try this argument on for size:
When I stand upon the tallest mountain, I observe a curvature of the earth, therefore, the world must be round.
Do the rules of logic say that this is a fallacious argument? Yup. Does this mean that the conclusion must be false? You tell me, “A” student.
You may believe that simply declaring that someone’s argument is fallacious based on the principles of logic should suffice, but that’s not debating. You are awfully fond of declaring fallacies, yet you never seem to back them up with any counter argument… which hardly lends any credence to your opinion. The fact that your last post aimed at me declares fallacies while declining to offer up any counter argument illustrates that clearly.
I know, this may confuse you, but not every opinion expressed requires irrefutable documentation. I guess if you are Mark A. York, you are free to ignore life experience and education, along with empirical and anecdotal evidence if hard numbers aren’t readily available at your fingertips. I suppose every opinion must be backed by a fully referenced bibliography before Mark A. York will consider it worthy. I’ll be looking forward to seeing irrefutable proof of your assertions in all of your future posts. Just do yourself a favor and make sure you actually understand your sources, otherwise you just make yourself look ridiculous, as you did with your Ad Ig clusterf-k.
What amazes me is how quick you are to jump on me, declare fallacious reasoning, then smugly declare that I’m pushing some kind of agenda, only to decline offering any meaningful critic of my opinion or offer anything to the debate. My only goal is to express my opinion and engage in intelligent debate. I have no problem with people who disagree with me, and I sincerely enjoy being challenged. If I have something wrong, I want to know, but simply declaring me wrong without any reasoned argument to back it up isn’t enough. Where I take offense is when some yahoo tells me how wrong I am without giving any supportable reason as to why, usually followed by some kind of personal attack or smear against people who don’t share their opinion, as happened with Jake.
Whether I’m successful or not, I at least try to back up my opinions with some insight to my reasoning, and try to engage my detractors in a reasoned exchange. Even with Jake, I gave him several opportunities to explain to me how I was wrong and engage him in a reasoned debate, and it wasn’t until he began attacking me and my friends that I went after him. I even gave you several opportunities to step up to the plate when we last tangled, yet you failed miserably. Whether I’m right or wrong, I try my best to engage in an honest debate, something you never seem to bother with. Simply crying, “Logical Fallacy!” and resting on that only exposes you as the lightweight you are.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I realize it is difficult for some people to do their own leg work, so with regard to my statements about Saddam and WMD, let me offer a couple signposts.
The NYT reported just this last March 12 that Saddam secretly only told his generals the truth about the WMD in December 2002. Now I really don’t think our intel then (or now) was good enough to get that info from Saddam’s chambers to Washington within the 3 months that preceded the war. So the question is, if Saddam’s generals believed Saddam had WMD ready to use, what crystal ball should Bush have had?
You’ll have to go to the library and read the hardcopy. NYT’s makes anything older then one week available only to paid subscribers:
Mr. Hussein did take some steps to avoid provoking war, though. While diplomatic efforts by France, Germany and Russia were under way to avert war, he rejected proposals to mine the Persian Gulf, fearing that the Bush administration would use such an action as an excuse to strike, the Joint Forces Command study noted.
In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq’s weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.
To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said.
Mr. Hussein’s compliance was not complete, though. Iraq’s declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government’s control.
Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator’s goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview “deterrence by doubt.â€
That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Mr. Hussein’s efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.
Also, in testimony before the Senate Armed Forces Committee on Jan 28, 2004, David Kay made the following statements about Saddam’s deception,
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.): I believe at one point you noted that even his own military officers believed they had them [WMD]. In other words, they Would think-
David Kay:-that someone else had them.
Sessions: Could you explain that?
Kay: Well, in interviewing the Republican Guard generals and Special Republican Guard generals and asking about their capabilities and having them, the assurance was they didn’t personally have them and hadn’t seen them, but the units on their right or left had them. And as you worked the way around the circle of those defending Baghdad, which is the immediate area of concern, you have got this very strange phenomena of no, I don’t have them, I haven’t seen them, but look to my right and left. That was an intentional ambiguity.
And realize freedom of discussion and movement was not something encouraged in Iraq. For example, Republican Guard divisions never entered into the city limits of Baghdad. Only the SRG [Special Republican Guard] was allowed to. You didn’t even train in multidivisional units because of that issue of his concern about them. It was a powerful deception technology. We have it [WMD], but we haven’t seen it, but we know that someone else has it.
Sessions: And it is true, I think no one can dispute, that had he not had these weapons of mass destruction and had opened his country and plainly demonstrated it, this war would have been avoided.
Kay: Yes, I think that’s true. And that’s one-always been one of the mysteries for all of us to determine: how-why would he have run this risk that cost him his regime and the death of members of his family if he didn’t have those weapons?
April 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
So, if a man says something that isn’t true, does that necessarily mean he is lying?
It would certainly be a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient.
If the man has reason to believe what he is saying, than he cannot be called a liar.
Wrong, yes.
So, did Bush lie?
April 7th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
You, btob, offer personal very limited experience to extrapolate wild broadbrush conclusions. Keep your friggin insults to yourself. Debate to you is blind acceptence. I see no data that can be extrapolated from the small subset of humans found in street marchers with far left causes as the focus. Yet by virtue of only that limited group you do. Anecdotal indeed. Microscopic and irreleveant to boot. You’re a pious far left radical and thus, not even in the game just like the ANSWER crowd. Peas in a pod.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Any fool that didn’t want badly to believe he had weapons even to the point of claiming active nuclear programs could see by the inspections that possibility was getting slimmer by the week before the search was called off to invade.
Except the fools running the country.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Mark A. York,
You completely fail to address anything I’ve said to you, instead coughing up a personal attack. What a coward you are!
You are so pathetic. You complain that I offer broadbrush conclusions based on limited experience, only to turn around and make broadbrush accusations against me based on your limited knowledge of me. Brilliant! You just made yourself look like a complete idiot and I didn’t have to do a thing. Thanks for making things so easy for me.
All you have to offer is a personal attack against me. You accuse me of limited experience, despite the fact that you know nothing of my experience. You accuse me of being guilty of blind acceptance, yet you have no knowledge of how I formed my opinions. You accuse me of being a left radical, yet you have no freakin’ idea of my politics or my history. You accuse me of not being in the game, despite the fact that you have no idea the level of my involvement. You accuse me of using only a small subset to extrapolate my conclusions, this despite the fact that you have no idea where I draw my conclusions from, let alone the extent of my experiences. You assume too much, Mark A. York.
Do you have any idea what a complete ass you have just made of yourself?
I don’t know what is more pathetic, the unprovoked attack you made against me earlier in this thread, or this latest attack that amounts to nothing more than worthless shit spewing from a puny mind. Once again, you demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to offer, the perennial lightweight to the very end.
You continue to bore me… as I bet you bore most people. Feel free to respond with yet more meaningless bile, as I’m sure someone will be amused by your pathetic flailing. As for me, I am done with this thread, so you will have to lash out at me elsewhere, you sad little f-k.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
I think sad little f–k is appropriate with these one-way allowable attacks. But not on my behalf.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:08 am
Mark A. York,
I agree with the call for civility in debate, and will try to comply.
You said, “could see by the inspections that possibility was getting slimmer by the week before the search was called off to invade.”
Point 1. The search was called off by Saddam when he kicked the inspectors out.
Point 2. David Kay, an inspector, agreed in his congressional testimony, to Sen Sessions when the good senator made this comment about the results of the inspections in the weeks and months before (as I quoted above):
Sessions: And it is true, I think no one can dispute, that had he not had these weapons of mass destruction and had opened his country and plainly demonstrated it, this war would have been avoided.
Kay: Yes, I think that’s true.
As well as this commentary from the NYT article of March 12, also quoted above:
Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons,
[...]
That strategy led to mutual misperception. … Mr. Hussein’s efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.
Your conclusions are not a slam dunk that any fool would have recognized.
Hindsight is great.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Jay, I’m glad that Mark York has you on whom to place his focus now. Eventually, you’ll learn that he, as others on the left, has a learning disorder. They keep making the same mistakes and coming up with failures and just think that they need more of it to work. Thank you for your intervention and good luck.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Woody why don’t take O’Reilly’s advice and just shut up? You have the IQ of a sea slug. HIndsight? I said it at the time and so did multiple CIA sources that were tossed into the ditch. Kay was fooled all along. Your argument fails on its face no matter how many times your repeat the fact that Hussein was bluffing. I new he was and so did experts. Since I have a blog my predictions can be checked.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:53 am
The wayback machine finds:
http://mayork.blogspot.com/2003/02/it-is-unlikely-bush-will-listen-to.html
http://mayork.blogspot.com/2003/02/gotta-win-on-street-opinion-journal.html
http://mayork.blogspot.com/2003/02/speaking-of-conspiratorial-thought-try.html
“Powell said he read a transcript of “what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden” will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, “where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq,” Reports the NYTimes. Well this is seems to be a “metaphorical” reference to the brotherhood of all Arab muslims which is key to the bin Laden thesis. Why infer a direct admission to an Iraq link on a factual basis? This is what is troubling about the logic path taken by all conservatives in the process. This is not proof of a link, although there may be one; and again there is long-shot chance that the Raelians are correct in their beliefs too, but a logical thinker would doubt it. The administration needs to lose this tactic, or remain uncredible.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Mark,
I have read your links, but it does not answer the question.
Did Bush lie?
I would be curious how you came to the conclusion just before the war that the evidence was false. That has not, even now, been born out.
The evidence wasn’t false. At best, Saddam’s “clean-up” was misinterpreted, even by those inspectors, such as Kay, as indicated in the NYT article and Kay’s own congressional testimony.
Nor has your conclusions back then been born out. The “play” is still running.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:07 am
And Mark, if you want the debate to stay above the belt, it takes two to tango.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Was I asked that question? And what have I said that was below the belt? You may think I’m your new wingerville project but this is one tango partner that has better things to do than play shift the burden fallacy. The information is solid: aluminum tubes, faux uranium from Niger, little evidence of chemical weapon arsenals, inspections that increasingly turned up nothing; fake mobile biolabs. The believed negative affirmation based on spreadsheets. The play is over. Only you don’t know it. Don’t bother answering this. I won’t respond to a vacant argument.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:41 am
(first, apologies to all for the length)
Yes, Mark, I have asked twice so far without a straight answer, and I’ll ask a third, fourth and fifth time.
Did Bush lie?
Let me see if I can insert a little intellectual honesty into this debate.
There are two divergent political views on the issue of the Iraqi war.
Both have merit, both have long since devolved into mudslinging.
The real issue is, should we have invaded Iraq? did we have the sufficient cause? was it legit?
Since 1991, there have been two sharply divided opinions on Iraq. The first, mostly from the left, has been that while pushing Saddam out of Kuwait may have had some legitimacy (or not), pushing all the way to Baghdad would have been provocative, if not blatantly illegal.
The other point of view, mostly from the right, is that the danger from Saddam was larger than just his invasion of Kuwait and as long as we had troops in the area, we should have dealt with him then, instead of later.
Personally, I favored the later point, except that the damage to international relations would have been large, even excessive. To me, it was six of one and half dozen of another. But I didn’t overly disagree with Bush Sr’s judgment.
After 12 years of ineffective sanctions and Iraqi shell game politics, the desire to deal with Saddam once and for all got stronger and stronger. And in reaction to that, the opposition likewise got stronger and stronger, until there was nothing left in the middle.
9/11, if it didn’t change everything, certainly tipped the scales. Those who believed that Saddam was a danger that would have to be dealt with sooner or later, pushed harder. Those who saw danger in the runaway train, got run over.
Everyone, from both sides of the aisle, knew Bush had every intention of pushing for aggressive action against Saddam. If you didn’t, you didn’t see his 2002 State of the Union speech.
Now at this point I am not going to try to represent the point of view that opposed Bush. I won’t put words in people’s mouth and I won’t counter their arguments with accusations of “vacant argument”, “sad little f–k”, “blind”, “no number of bombs going off short of killing him would sway a predetermined opinion on the cause in Iraq”, or telling those who disagree with their own POV to “just shut up”, or calling them “fools” or idiots with an “the IQ of a sea slug” or a “windup toy … (that) keeps banging up against the wall since it doesn’t have the ability to make that judgment.”
Sorry. I sunk a little on that. But Mark did want to know what I considered “below the belt”.
My argument is that despite the flaming rhetoric on how Bush allegedly lied or deceived all the fools who believe anyway (that actually doesn’t make sense, cuz those fools already believed; it was the fools on the other side of the aisle that needed convincing), despite the demonizing from those who accuse everyone else of “divisive” politics, there was nothing wrong with Bush’s logic, given the assumption that Saddam was an evil man that had to be dealt with.
If you don’t accept that statement, then I certainly can understand and appreciate and respect a differing political opinion.
But folks, that is all it is, from both sides.
So, back to my question.
Did Bush Lie?
Mark brings up the “aluminum tubes, faux uranium from Niger, little evidence of chemical weapon arsenals, inspections that increasingly turned up nothing; fake mobile biolabs”.
The tubes and the uranium are the result of questionable intelligence, questionably used to sell the War.
Questionable means uncertain. Questionably means it probably shouldn’t have been used in the debate.
But not lying.
The fact of the matter is it is almost universally accepted that Saddam had been pursuing WMD, chemical, biological, nuclear, for at least a couple decades. The fact of the matter is he had actually used WMD on his own people. The fact of the matter is his own generals believed until 3 months before the invasion that they would have access to them.
The second two facts Mark raises, that of little evidence of chemical weapon arsenals and inspections that turned up nothing (well, that is not entirely correct, but I’ll agree to it for the sake of the argument), are fully debunked as issues in the two quotes I have already provided, especially when coupled with my last paragraph about Saddam’s history with WMD.
The notion that Saddam would use WMD is not theoretical. His attempts to “clean up” former sites refutes that idea that he never had them, his desire to maintain the fiction that he had them as a regional strategic deterrent worked only too well.
We had every legitimate reason to believe he still had them and he intended to use them.
That is what they call, a very real threat.
And the fake biolabs? Without some referential material I have to rely on my own recollections, but I don’t ever recall them being proving as fake? Yeah, maybe it was hyperbole based on Iraqi drawings of mobile labs, but if they were Iraqi drawings and given what I have just said, why the label “fake”? Unless “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” is somehow proof of them being fake.
Again, did Bush lie? I keep asking because that question keeps getting lost in the fur fight. Being unknowingly factually wrong is not a lie, but I have already made that argument and y’all can just page up to reread it.
April 8th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Yes is intentionally misled the country for a war he wanted in 2002: “Everyone, from both sides of the aisle, knew Bush had every intention of pushing for aggressive action against Saddam.”
Where I come from that’s a lie no matter how one cuts it.
April 8th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Intentionally misled?
Again, I am not going to second guess anyone or put words in their mouth or parse sentences together.
How did Bush intentionally mislead the country? He believed the intel himself.
It was good intel.
I will make one attempt to second guess your claims.
Did Bush et al put more emphasis on intel that confirmed their own beliefs?
Of course. Everyone does that. Yes, even you. Even me.
That isn’t lying.
April 8th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Dude.
I am more than willing to go the extra mile to understand you POV, even accept and respect it.
But when I ask Did he lie? and you argue yes, because he intentionally misled…
Where I come from, that is a slap in the face.
Every school kid with a dictionary knows
lying = intentionally misled.
If your arguments are going to continue to be desultory and filled with non sequitors, I am not going to waste my time.
I do not consider a lively debate a waste of time, if you want one.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
He intentionally disregarded negative information (against his assertions of an inminent threat such as they had no signs of weapons. What little they had was so slim as to not be a valid concern. The continued inspections would have revealed that as they doing at the time. It was a broken country, crippled by sanctions and a lunatic dictator with no cards in his hand. Anyone could see that at the time. Not giving at least equal weight to all pertinent information is criminal when this many lives are are on the line. It’s over now. There’s no point in dicussing old news like this. Let us know when you find the wmd.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
What do you know. This is what I was referring to.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0302nj1.htm
April 9th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Many news organizations, like the NYT, Weekly Standard and Foreign Affairs are now beginning to dive into those captured Iraqi documents I mentioned earlier and are finding some incredible stuff.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/071sfzkp.asp
The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.
In other words, before the Iraqi War, before 9/11 Saddam was planning to use the same kind of terror to strike American interests that al-Qaeda used on 9/11.
I call that a real threat.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/009euijs.asp
SADDAM’S ULTRA-LOYAL Fedayeen martyrs were ordered to carry out bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and “self ruled areas” of Iraq in May 1999,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
These documents add to the growing body of evidence confirming the Iraqi regime’s longtime support for terrorism abroad.
The first of them, a series of memos from the spring of 2001, shows that the Iraqi Intelligence Service funded Abu Sayyaf, despite the reservations of some IIS officials.
The second, an internal Iraqi Intelligence memo on the relationships between the IIS and Saudi opposition groups, records that Osama bin Laden requested Iraqi cooperation on terrorism and propaganda and that in January 1997 the Iraqi regime was eager to continue its relationship with bin Laden.
The third, a September 15, 2001, report from an Iraqi Intelligence source in Afghanistan, contains speculation about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda and the likely U.S. response to it.
Tangentially, Foreign Affairs offers this Iraqi assessment on international support for the war,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html
Throughout the years of relative external peace for Iraq after Operation Desert Storm, in 1991, Saddam Hussein continued to receive and give credence to optimistic assessments of his regime’s prospects dished up by his top military officers. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz described the dictator as having been “very confident” that the United States would not dare to attack Iraq, and that if it did, it would be defeated. What was the source of Saddam’s confidence?
Judging from his private statements, the single most important element in Saddam’s strategic calculus was his faith that France and Russia would prevent an invasion by the United States. According to Aziz, Saddam’s confidence was firmly rooted in his belief in the nexus between the economic interests of France and Russia and his own strategic goals: “France and Russia each secured millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi. In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq. Moreover, they wanted to prove their importance in the world as members of the Security Council — that they could use their veto to show they still had power.”
Had Gore or Kerry been in office, we would have knuckled under to French and Russian economic interests. Saddam read the Democrats rather well.
Couple this with your arguments and it looks to me that of all the people misinterpreting the intel, Bush actually had a better grasp on what was going on.
Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were “intended for conventional weapons,” a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.
The point is those tubes were multi-use items, capable of being used for a variety of purposes. Unfortunately, what you are ignoring is that there are cheaper, more readily available materials for all those other purposes, except the nuclear use.
Question: why would Saddam buy the more expensive material?
Answer: To have those materials available when he did resurrect his nuclear program.
Please note. Resurrect, not initiate. Saddam had a very good political nose. He knew that international support for the sanctions was beginning to crack; unfortunately he also believed that the Bush Administration was made of the same stuff as the previous Democrat regime.
Bush did not lie about the aluminum tubes. At worst, he was wrong about the “intended use”. At best, he recognized the illogic of buying those higher quality, more expensive materials if Saddam’s “intent” was completely innocent.
That is an example of what the Supreme Court calls the “smell test”. That is not lying; that is using good judgment.
Again, from your quoted source,
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States — except if “ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime” or if he intended to “extract revenge” for such an assault, according to records and sources.
Well, that doesn’t exactly square with what is now coming out, doesn’t it. Again, Bush and company seem to be the ones who truly understood ALL the intel they were receiving.
The “truth” you extract, with your more dogmatic interpretation of even your own quoted references, increasingly appears to not only be missing the mark, but the target range as well.
The play is still on, but it is a play that is beginning to hint at a surprise ending.
Except for those of us who knew the danger all along.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:41 am
I have to ask.
negative information?
Do you understand the logical implications on your argument with that?
eg, I do not know if the sky over Baghdad is clear, therefore there it must be raining in Iraq?
April 9th, 2006 at 10:43 am
fyi, my response is under review by the moderator for some reason, so we’ll have to just wait.
Although I have already posted my response on my own website if you want a sneak peek.
Jay Cline Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:47 am
http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2006/04/rebloggedmore-on-bush-lied-not.html
April 9th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Negative refers to reports whose conclusion conflcted with the president’s. They are real and as it turned out accurate unlike the president’s “choices.” He had them and yet rejected them. Surely you’re capable of understanding that but you don’t want to so say lavie. You are referring to negative “affirmation” inacurately so. In fact this fallacy ad ignorantiam is what you are claiming.
April 9th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
My apologies. I did misunderstand.
However, I have already argued that data coming forward, in fact, shows the conclusions in those reports mentioned in your reference, are the ones in conflict with reality.
I await a response to what I have said…
April 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
No you haven’t.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:36 am
I give up.
Mark, let me know when you are serious about debate.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Hey, I thought my query below deserved an answer, but I’m still waiting. Yes, we’d be better off without the ML sectarian factions that dominate two of the anti-war coalitions and yes, Mumia Abu Jamal has already received plenty of attention. Still, to say that the antiwar movement should eclude discussion of anything other than the war reinforces the longtime problem that the left in the US has no program or ideas to offer. We are against a series of things, like the war, global warming, torture, etc. We might be for some things too-legal abortion, civil liberties, affirmative action, but we have no explanation for what ties these things together. To decree that all discussion at an antiwar demonstration must be about nothing but how war is bad is to condemn the left to continued irrelevance.
Worse, the sectarians are not going to take Marc’s advice here, and it would be sad if the democratic left leaves them unchallenged. Do we want to present a democratic socialist alternative, or do we want to leave all coherent ideas to the RCP?
>I presume there is an implicit argument that >either a) stopping the war is such an urgent >matter that normal politics should be >suspended in favor of a short- to medium >term alliance against the war or b) the war is >sui generis, something bad but not >connected to any other aspect of politics, like >imperialism. What’s the argument ?
April 10th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Snorri,
I long abandoned the Democratic Party explicitly because of its anti-war rhetoric. I personally favor Ritter’s desire to divorce the anti-war movement from general politics, if only to see the Democratic Party find a way back to my own values.
Being a progressive who believes in a strong defense and the promotion of democratic ideals around the world, I often find myself out in the cold in our two-party system and have to pick which issues de jure are important.
As an example of being out in the cold, just watch the flaming rhetoric in response to this…
April 10th, 2006 at 10:35 am
I should have said you’ve made that argument but I didn’t find it convincing. I still don’t, but it’s a done deal now regardless. Let’s figure out how to get out of this mess. The evidence for going in was weak and puffed up by Bush while casting aside doubtful claims on his “evidence.” They were correct and he was not. It’s a standard right-wing polemical attack. They use it in global warming denial as well. SOP.
I also find the anti-war crowd farcial. They have no idea what they’re doing and detract from the validity of any issue.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Jay, I couldn’t disagree with you more, which makes for a good discussion. See below.
Jay> I long abandoned the Democratic Party >explicitly because of its anti-war rhetoric. I >personally favor Ritter’s desire to divorce the >anti-war movement from general politics, if >only to see the Democratic Party find a way >back to my own values.
If you are put off by the Democrats’ “anti war rhetoric,” you are sure listening to different Democrats than, say, the Clintons, Kerry, or Reid. Some of them like Pelosi and Dean try to play both sides, but only a few DP dinosaurs who are at the end of their careers anyway, like Byrd and Kennedy, have taken clear antiwar positions.
Jay> Being a progressive who believes in a >strong defense and the promotion of >democratic ideals around the world, I often >find myself out in the cold in our two-party >system and have to pick which issues de >jure are important.
I’m sure this issue has been well vented here already but I can’t resist challenging the idea that the US is engaged in promoting democracy in the ME. That would be a 180 degree turn in longstanding American policy, which is to squash any threat to American coprorate interests by sponsoring some of the most undemocratic regimes in the world, like Egypt, Saudi A, Kuwait. When Israel welcomes back all five million 1948 refugees and descendants and gives them the vote, then I’ll agree that the US stands for democracy in the ME.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:05 am
Snorri,
I think it makes an excellent point of beginning a discussion and I thank you for your offer. I have broken this down into a couple posts, if only to avoid the dreaded, under moderation delay. I am also posting the entirety to my own blog,
http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2006/04/rebloggedanti-war-rhetoric-and.html
“put off by Democratic election rhetoric”
Clinton (the only one that counts in today’s debate) – I see her dancing ’round the middle, looking for firm ground, but am not really sure of her real POV. I am not sure she is ready to espouse it.
Kerry – Sorry. I was extremely disappointed by his cut ‘n run strategy. I know. Those are fighting words, but we are engaged in a good fight and, for whatever reason, he is hung up on “bring ‘em home”. I agree with the counter arguments that say declaring a timetable only encourages insurgent intransigence, just as it did during the Vietnam War. The Paris Peace talks were a sham, a shell game that the North Vietnamese played very well. There have been two very good articles recently calling, not for the return of American troops, but the necessity for their remaining in Iraq, in full strength, for the next few years. See below.
Reid and Pelosi are indeed playing both sides, orders of magnitude more than Clinton, but being House and Senate leaders, that is their job. I still don’t like the Bush Evil; Saddam Misunderstood rhetoric.
ok, that was indeed hyperbole. But this knee jerk reaction to ignore Saddam’s Evil and oppose Bush just to oppose him not only does not cut the cheese, but is, in my opinion, the single most important reason why the Democrats keep losing elections. The Democrats could take a few lessons in warfare from the likes of Saddam and the Chinese. You don’t engage in a frontal assault on the home turf of a stronger opponent, especially when they are at their zenith.
I don’t know. Maybe I just don’t understand American politics.
Dean is not playing both sides. Not in any serious attempt. He campaigned on a harder anti-war rhetoric than Kerry. And he hasn’t changed the CD player.
But, funny you didn’t mention Kucinich or Feingold or Boxer as anti-war Democrats.
The Democrats I would like to listen to, and support, are ones like Miller and Lieberman.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:06 am
“pro-war rhetoric”
Stephen Biddle at Foreign Affairs makes, I think, a compelling argument that we should get more involved, not less, in Iraqi politics, using our military presence to “manipulate the balance of power” among the sectional interests,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85201-p0/stephen-biddle/seeing-baghdad-thinking-saigon.html
[T]he United States must bring more pressure to bear on the parties in the constitutional negotiations. And the strongest pressure available is military: the United States must threaten to manipulate the military balance of power among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to coerce them to negotiate.
[...]
The only way to break the logjam is to change the parties’ relative comfort with the status quo by drastically raising the costs of their failure to negotiate. The U.S. presence now caps the war’s intensity, and U.S. aid could give any side an enormous military advantage. Thus Washington should threaten to use its influence to alter the balance of power depending on the parties’ behavior. By doing so, it could make stubbornness look worse than cooperation and compel all sides to compromise.
Michael Eisenstadt (now there is a good German name, Iron City – sorry, my ethnic pride is showing…) from the Washington Institute wrote a piece a couple weeks ago, Quelling Iraq’s Sectarian Violence: What the United States Can Do, that touches on this as well,
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2455
The violence in Iraq is first and foremost a struggle over who will rule the country. For this reason, efforts to forge a national unity government are rightly seen as the key to curbing the violence.
[...]
the United States will have a hard time finding enough troops from its overstretched forces to deal effectively with both insurgent attacks and escalating sectarian violence. The U.S. ability to influence such events, and the forces that sustain sectarian violence, will dwindle further as its forces in Iraq are drawn down in the coming years.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:07 am
“that ol’ time religion – anti-corporatism”
I agree that we have made some unsavory undemocratic bedfellows, ie Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. I disagree they are completely disagreeable. I also strongly disagree it was strictly out of corporate interests (I didn‘t know our commercial interests in Egypt were that compelling). Geo-political interests and concerns, especially during the Cold War, has been the predominant rationale for that. I also disagree that America is in some sort of exclusive Three Musketeer Club, as much as I admire the moral precepts of honor, loyalty and fealty. The world is what it is. We cannot change it (ie to promote democracy) if we do not engage it.
As far as American corporatism running the show, yeah, they have influence, perhaps, probably, too much. But they also have interests, legitimate interests. Walter Russell Mead, in his book “Special Providence” said that the Jacksonian meme of American thought accepts that politics is always going to be a little corrupt, but as long as the legitimate core interests are being met, as long as that corruption doesn’t, well, unduly corrupt the operation of the government, then the Jacksonians aren‘t going to get their undies in a bind about it. I’m all for siccing the FBI on their arse and letting them get what they deserve, but I am not going to let that affect policy.
[Larry the Cable Guy probably personifies Jacksonian attitude the best, "Git R Done!"]
Corporate America is not the only ones running the show. If they were, then there is no point in defending any Democrats in Congress, cuz by that logic they are all on corporate America’s payroll. From Kucinich to Miller.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:28 am
addendum, another call for troops to remain in Iraq:
http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2006/04/american-troops-should-stayiraqi.html
A senior Iraq general is calling for American troops to make a three to five year commitment. Major General Anwar Hamad Amin, commander of the second brigade, 4th Iraqi army division in the ethnically-mixed northern oil city of Kirkuk, told AFP on Monday,
“If they leave, I am sure there would be a disaster,”
[...]
“They need to stay another three to five years to ensure stability,”
“They support us now and in the future we will take over … We are like a baby and just now starting to walk.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060411/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitary&time=1144745722&feed=iraq
April 11th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
He lied.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28744
April 13th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Mark,
You aren’t serious, are you?
You have read it, I mean, objectively, yes?
Let me dumb this up for your. Your own quoted source quotes Bush saying in his State of the Union speech,
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .â€
sought is very much an operable word here, given your “proof” that Bush lied.
Again, I quote,
On Oct. 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI [director of central intelligence] testified before the SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]. Sen. Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that “the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations.” (page 54) [Note: Ambassador Wilson provided the following summary in his letter to the Senate Intelligence committee.]
On Oct. 4, 2002, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that “there is some information on attempts … there’s a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries … For us it’s more the concern that they [Iraq] have uranium in-country now.” (page 54)
On Oct. 5, 2002, the ADDI [associate deputy director for intelligence] said an Iraqi nuclear analyst — he could not remember who — raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq. (page 55)
Based on the analyst’s comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the deputy national security advisor that said, “Remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory.” (page 56)
On Oct. 6, 2002, the DCI called the deputy national security advisor directly to outline the CIA’s concerns. The DCI testified to the SSCI on July 16, 2003, that he told the deputy national security advisor that the “President should not be a fact witness on this issue,” because his analysts had told him the “reporting was weak.” (page 56)
On Oct. 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House that said, “More on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.” (page 56)
The argument against the Nigerian question is not, did Saddam attempt to acquire, as Bush alleged, but whether Niger could fill the order.
Again, from your quotes,
We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.
and
On Oct. 4, 2002, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that “there is some information on attempts … there’s a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries … For us it’s more the concern that they [Iraq] have uranium in-country now.” (page 54)
Let me explain a lie. it is when you tell something that isn’t true.
Bush’s argument all along was about stopping Saddam before he acquired WMD, nuclear or whatever.
I do appreciate you providing the quoted sources that bears that out.
Thanks.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Allow me to try and simplify this a tad.
A guy walks into the police station and tells the desk sergeant,
Some guy just tried to kill me!
The desk sergeant takes one look at him and says,
But you’re not dead yet. So it didn’t happen. Keep lying about it and I’ll throw you in jail for wasting our time.
Oh, and get to the hospital. You are bleeding all over our carpet.
April 13th, 2006 at 11:29 am
About “antiwar” falling apart with no focus.. Hard to tell if you descibed antiwar or Democratic party..Want a REAL antifwar movement, suggest that we bring back draft with ZERO exemptions…. to avoid that one all sorts of “Patriots” would, shall we say. Go out in the sunshine…as that is their ilk.
Love of nation will first be love of selfs butt!
As long as most of usa citizens kids safe from war… we will continue to have them..and ALL in DC/Penatafools learned less of NAM… no draft, no concern, no protests.
April 13th, 2006 at 11:55 am
fw,
that argument is getting stale.
And still as facetious as ever.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I didn’t read every single comment, but the comments I did read totally missed Ritter’s entire point, if they were referring to his article that is.
The ones the really missed the boat, let alone the point, are the ones who throw a counter-criticism at Ritter without acknowledging anything the anti-war movement actually needs to do to succeed.
Ritter’s point about laser-like focus can be seen in the Civil Rights Movement. There were lots of other problems and issues of the day but they never muddled their message or wavered in their purpose. That cannot be said of the left today. Until the lefty groups get a grip on the fundamental thing they all have in common, it will never gain any traction and continue to be a fragmented mess mired in internicine wars.
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 am
I agree with Ritter, the peace movement needs to focus on congress and force them to do their jobs. Scott Ritter spoke to congress before the war in Iraq, told them the truth about the lack of weapons and they ignored him so he has a right to be pissed that they will not acknowledge their participation in this sham. The first step to fixing this mess is for them to admit they made a mistake, and that will be what prevents IRAN. The way things are going though….only four in congress voted against sending Iran to the UN again based on lies. Those four are Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Pete Stark and Jim McDermott. That is it folks! The rest are posers. Whatever they are saying about Iraq now is a load of crap when they are doing nothing about stopping Iran.
JOHN CONYERS VOTED TO SEND IRAN TO THE UN!! And he is the one we are counting on to hold Bush accountable?? When the illegal wiretapping came out(a clear admitted impeachable offense) John Conyers came out with a call for censure over Iraq. He has yet to introduce a resolution about illegal wiretapping.
SCOTT RITTER IS RIGHT!! WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE AND DEMAND THEY DO THEIR JOBS IMMEDIATELY!!! THAT shoud be the focus of the anti-war movement.
p.s. John Kerry can KISS MY ASS! What a bastard to come out and talk about dissent now. He wouldn’t even let people speak about the war in Iraq at the democratic convention in 2004.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Denied Ringtone…
Tangerine Sky Ringtone Tangerine Sky Ringtone Out Of My head Ringtone Out Of My head Ringtone Supernatural Ringtone Supernatural Ringtone Revolution Ringtone Revolution Ringtone Stand Up Ringtone Stand Up Ringtone Lose My Cool Ringtone Lose My Cool Rin…
July 18th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Great work!
[url=http://nzwjidjq.com/qpne/oddw.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://bmsqevzp.com/stvy/yipm.html]Cool site[/url]
July 18th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
July 29th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
ephedra extract ephedra extract
July 30th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
gas motor scooter gas motor scooter
August 6th, 2006 at 10:30 am
metabolife 356 metabolife 356
September 15th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Array
December 30th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
http://shivery.bravehost.com/treasure-valley-community-college.html treasure valley community college [link=http://shivery.bravehost.com/treasure-valley-community-college.html]treasure valley community college[/link]
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
http://wapurl.co.uk/?CJ8UTOI
good site
July 6th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Free Celeb Nude video
http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/TCPOK9VTURIO7MDLP
September 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
best home insurance quotes…
Best home insurance new york ny posted by fuelfriends. Problems in residential and commercial properti……
October 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Marc Cooper,
Are you even a bit embarrassed at The Nation Online’s whoring itself to Ann Coulter ads?
Frederick George Wilson, Reno, Nevada
——————————————
911: the Road to Tyranny
October 21st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t81.html#159
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t82.html#160
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t179.html#161
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t3.html#162
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casin-t4.html#163
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t5.html#164
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t6.html#165
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t7.html#166
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t8.html#167
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t9.html#168
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t10.html#169
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t11.html#170
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t12.html#171
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t13.html#172
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t14.html#173
http://www.forumprofi4.de/forum10730/casino-t15.html#174
October 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
CASINO
CASINO
CASINO
CASINO
CASINO
CASINO
CASINO
CASINO
October 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=110&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=111&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=112&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=113&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=114&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=115&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=116&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=117&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=118&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=119&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=120&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=121&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=123&mforum=donaa
http://www.foros.net/viewtopic.php?t=124&mforum=donaa
October 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
FOREX
FOREX
FOREX
FOREX
FOREX
FOREX
FOREX
FOREX
October 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Nice site… Cool guestbook…
Improve credit score how to People with low credit scores People with low credit scores On credit scores On credit scores Charge off on credit reports Charge off on credit reports Cic credit reports Cic credit reports Reporting to credit Reporting to credit The three credit reporting The three credit reporting Free instant credit report online noe credit card Free instant credit report online noe credit card With a credit score With a credit score Decker credit report Decker credit report With low credit scores With low credit scores 125 home equity 560 credit score interest only 125 home equity 560 credit score interest only Instant personal credit report Instant personal credit report With credit scores With credit scores For credit scores For credit scores Affect credit score Affect credit score Allstate fair credit reporting Allstate fair credit reporting Colorado free credit report Colorado free credit report Credit report identity theft Credit report identity theft Equifax credit score Equifax credit score Instant experian credit report Instant experian credit report Check credit report free Check credit report free Free national credit report Free national credit report Are credit scores Are credit scores Minimum credit score for Minimum credit score for Tri merge credit report Tri merge credit report Minimum credit score Minimum credit score Raise credit score fast Raise credit score fast Finance report no credit card needed Finance report no credit card needed Finance report no credit card required Finance report no credit card required 3in1 credit report 3in1 credit report A good credit score A good credit score Loans for credit scores Loans for credit scores Free online credit report without credit card Free online credit report without credit card Credit score scale Credit score scale Bad credit reporting Bad credit reporting Of credit scores Of credit scores Low credit score mortgage Low credit score mortgage Free credit scores Free credit scores What is a good credit score What is a good credit score Free credit score Free credit score Credit score Credit score Credit scores Credit scores Fair credit reporting act of Fair credit reporting act of Fair credit report Fair credit report Fair credit reporting act and Fair credit reporting act and Fair credit reporting act employment Fair credit reporting act employment Fair credit reporting act form Fair credit reporting act form Fair credit and reporting Fair credit and reporting Absolutly free credit reports Absolutly free credit reports
October 30th, 2007 at 2:27 am
greats from me….
Card credit debt help karen Debt consolidation lower credit card interest Debt consolidation lower credit card interest Article card credit debt student Article card credit debt student College credit card debt statistics College credit card debt statistics College students and credit card debt College students and credit card debt 2004 card college credit debt mae nellie statistics student 2004 card college credit debt mae nellie statistics student Home mortgage credit card debt loan Home mortgage credit card debt loan Refinance credit card debt Refinance credit card debt Card credit debt elimination scam Card credit debt elimination scam 800 credit card debt 800 credit card debt Student credit card debt statistics Student credit card debt statistics Debt reduction solutions credit card Debt reduction solutions credit card Credit card debt college students Credit card debt college students Bad debt credit card Bad debt credit card Card consolidate credit debt nonprofit Card consolidate credit debt nonprofit Remove credit card debt Remove credit card debt Credit card debt consolidation services Credit card debt consolidation services Credit card debt facts Credit card debt facts To pay credit card debt To pay credit card debt Card credit debt eliminate heritage Card credit debt eliminate heritage To pay off credit card debt To pay off credit card debt Card credit debt plan reduction Card credit debt plan reduction To get out of credit card debt To get out of credit card debt Credit card debt law Credit card debt law Mbna credit card debt elimination Mbna credit card debt elimination Card credit debt debt negotiation reduction service Card credit debt debt negotiation reduction service Students and credit card debt Students and credit card debt Card credit debt eliminate forgiveness Card credit debt eliminate forgiveness Cancel card credit debt Cancel card credit debt Card consumer credit debt stastics Card consumer credit debt stastics Debt management consolidation credit card Debt management consolidation credit card Students credit card debt Students credit card debt Deceased credit card debt Deceased credit card debt Best ways to eliminate credit card debt Best ways to eliminate credit card debt Credit card debt college Credit card debt college Popular press article on college credit card debt Popular press article on college credit card debt Debt reduction solution credit card Debt reduction solution credit card American credit card debt American credit card debt Credit card bad debt Credit card bad debt Best way to eliminate credit card debt Best way to eliminate credit card debt Getting out of credit card debt Getting out of credit card debt Free credit card debt consolidation Free credit card debt consolidation Best card credit debt help vermont Best card credit debt help vermont Credit card debt uk Credit card debt uk Student credit card debt statistic Student credit card debt statistic Best card credit debt get way Best card credit debt get way Card credit debt finance Card credit debt finance Debt reduction credit card calculator Debt reduction credit card calculator America credit card debt statistics America credit card debt statistics Best creditcard debt reduction strategies Best creditcard debt reduction strategies
October 30th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Great web site.
Offers online transfer zero percent interest credit cards Bad credit card offer Bad credit card offer Credit card processing offer Credit card processing offer Instant fleet reward credit card offer Instant fleet reward credit card offer Card credit free interest offer Card credit free interest offer Instant credit card offer Instant credit card offer Credit card application immediate approval high limits Credit card application immediate approval high limits Card credit offer student Card credit offer student Card credit offer rebate Card credit offer rebate Airline credit card offer Airline credit card offer Citibank credit card offers Citibank credit card offers Credit card special offer Credit card special offer Credit card transfer offers Credit card transfer offers Online credit card application canada Online credit card application canada Low fixed rate credit card offers Low fixed rate credit card offers Credit card application college student Credit card application college student Credit card offers joint applicants Credit card offers joint applicants Online credit card applications with instant approval Online credit card applications with instant approval Credit card special offers Credit card special offers Preapproved credit card offers Preapproved credit card offers Credit card offers with no transfer fee Credit card offers with no transfer fee Apply for a prepaid low interest credit card offer Apply for a prepaid low interest credit card offer Application card credit navy old Application card credit navy old Application business card credit online Application business card credit online Credit card offer opt out Credit card offer opt out Compare credit card offer Compare credit card offer Secured credit card offers Secured credit card offers Secured credit card offer Secured credit card offer Poor credit credit card offers Poor credit credit card offers Instant approval credit card offer Instant approval credit card offer Instant fleet credit card offer Instant fleet credit card offer Who has the best credit card offer Who has the best credit card offer Application for credit card Application for credit card Card credit free interest offer uk Card credit free interest offer uk Online fleet low interest credit card offer Online fleet low interest credit card offer Ebay credit card application Ebay credit card application Capital credit card application Capital credit card application Bad credit card application Bad credit card application Percent credit card offers Percent credit card offers On line instant approval credit card offers On line instant approval credit card offers Low interest credit card offer Low interest credit card offer Card citibank credit offer Card citibank credit offer No interest credit card offer No interest credit card offer Transfer credit card offers Transfer credit card offers Of credit card offers Of credit card offers Interest credit card offers Interest credit card offers Rate credit card offers Rate credit card offers Instant credit card offers Instant credit card offers Apply for a prepaid 0 interest credit card application Apply for a prepaid 0 interest credit card application Stop credit card offer Stop credit card offer
October 30th, 2007 at 2:55 am
very good site!
On my credit report Get your credit report Get your credit report Credit repair report service Credit repair report service Annual credit report request service Annual credit report request service Get a credit report Get a credit report Credit report mortgage leads Credit report mortgage leads Free online credit report check Free online credit report check Credit reports by Credit reports by Credit reports from Credit reports from Credit reports for Credit reports for Credit report software Credit report software Credit reporting in Credit reporting in Credit report on a company Credit report on a company Credit reports from all Credit reports from all Credit report service Credit report service Credit reporting codes Credit reporting codes Credit report repair yourself Credit report repair yourself Credit reports in Credit reports in Credit reports no Credit reports no Credit report monitoring service Credit report monitoring service Credit report rating Credit report rating Credit report pay by online check Credit report pay by online check Credit reports no credit Credit reports no credit Free credit report no cost Free credit report no cost Credit report at no cost Credit report at no cost Credit fix repair report Credit fix repair report Free credit report no card Free credit report no card Free credit report monitoring Free credit report monitoring Free credit reports in the uk Free credit reports in the uk Free credit report with score Free credit report with score Free fico score credit report Free fico score credit report Credit reports no credit card Credit reports no credit card Credit reports on Credit reports on Free credit score and reports Free credit score and reports How to report to credit reporting agencies How to report to credit reporting agencies Your rights under the fair credit reporting Your rights under the fair credit reporting Your rights under the fair credit reporting act Your rights under the fair credit reporting act Report to credit bureaus Report to credit bureaus Reports to credit Reports to credit Credit reports with Credit reports with Credit reports without Credit reports without Credit reports with no Credit reports with no Reports no credit Reports no credit Reports no credit card Reports no credit card Business credit report solectron centum Business credit report solectron centum Reports on credit Reports on credit Opt out credit reporting explained Opt out credit reporting explained Line credit reports Line credit reports Do credit reports Do credit reports Creditreport.org Creditreport.org
October 30th, 2007 at 4:02 am
This is very interesting site
Lipitor Xenical Xenical Zoloft Zoloft Diflucan Diflucan Xanax Xanax Zyban Zyban Prozac Prozac Acyclovir Acyclovir Didrex Didrex Cialis Cialis Hydrocodone Hydrocodone Adipex Adipex Codeine Codeine Lortab Lortab Levitra Levitra Wellbutrin Wellbutrin Fioricet Fioricet Tamiflu Tamiflu Carisoprodol Carisoprodol Paxil Paxil Vicodin Vicodin Ultram Ultram Cipro Cipro Famvir Famvir Adderall Adderall Tramadol Tramadol Zovirax Zovirax Lorazepam Lorazepam Tylenol Tylenol Effexor Effexor Valtrex Valtrex Nexium Nexium Dianabol Dianabol Celexa Celexa Ativan Ativan Ambien Ambien Atarax Atarax Soma Soma Valium Valium Butalbital Butalbital Phentermine Phentermine Propecia Propecia Norco Norco Diazepam Diazepam Bontril Bontril Zyrtec Zyrtec Alprazolam Alprazolam Viagra Viagra Meridia Meridia Renova Renova
October 30th, 2007 at 6:44 am
uchite albanskiy
Imuran Obestat Obestat Propecia Propecia Sleepwell Sleepwell Imovane Imovane Glucophage Glucophage Motrin Motrin Levaquin Levaquin Singulair Singulair Retin Retin Viagra Viagra Naprosyn Naprosyn Allegra Allegra Zoloft Zoloft Aristocort Aristocort Tenormin Tenormin Nexium Nexium Inderal Inderal Zocor Zocor Lipitor Lipitor Nolvadex Nolvadex Plavix Plavix Norvasc Norvasc Prozac Prozac Paxil Paxil Ultram Ultram Risperdal Risperdal Zyrtec Zyrtec Cephalexin Cephalexin Zithromax Zithromax Hoodia Hoodia Fosamax Fosamax Effexor Effexor Desyrel Desyrel Phentermine Phentermine Augmentin Augmentin Xenical Xenical Premarin Premarin Zyban Zyban Deltasone Deltasone Danazol Danazol Neurontin Neurontin Slimfast Slimfast Diflucan Diflucan Caverta Caverta Celebrex Celebrex Soma Soma Kamagra Kamagra Zovirax Zovirax Cialis Cialis
October 30th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Cool site!! thanks!!!
Card consolidation credit credit debt report resource Rights under the fair credit reporting Rights under the fair credit reporting Frustrated with credit reporting agencies Frustrated with credit reporting agencies Bureau credit repair report Bureau credit repair report Equifax credit reporting agency Equifax credit reporting agency Free trw credit report Free trw credit report Federal fair credit reporting Federal fair credit reporting For credit reporting For credit reporting Automated credit reporting industry Automated credit reporting industry 3 major credit reporting 3 major credit reporting 3 in 1 credit report check 3 in 1 credit report check Accurate credit reporting Accurate credit reporting A credit reporting A credit reporting Annual free credit report program Annual free credit report program Union credit reporting Union credit reporting 3 credit reporting companies 3 credit reporting companies Online instantly credit report free Online instantly credit report free Equifax credit reporting Equifax credit reporting Free trans union credit report Free trans union credit report The credit reporting The credit reporting Up credit reports Up credit reports Rights under the fair credit reporting act Rights under the fair credit reporting act Online instantly bureau credit report Online instantly bureau credit report Annual free credit reports Annual free credit reports Unlimited credit reports and scores Unlimited credit reports and scores Understanding credit report Understanding credit report Consumer credit reporting reform Consumer credit reporting reform Instant approval credit card 650 score Instant approval credit card 650 score Increase my credit score Increase my credit score Consumer credit reporting agency Consumer credit reporting agency Improve credit score fast Improve credit score fast Explaining credit report scores Explaining credit report scores Excellent credit score number Excellent credit score number Of credit score Of credit score Loan with credit score Loan with credit score Car loan credit score Car loan credit score Loan with a credit score of Loan with a credit score of Loan with a credit score Loan with a credit score Does my credit score Does my credit score Raise my credit score for free Raise my credit score for free Affect my credit score Affect my credit score Annual credit score Annual credit score 3 bureau credit score 3 bureau credit score Does my credit score mean Does my credit score mean I get my credit score I get my credit score Your credit score in Your credit score in Online credit scores Online credit scores Bad credit scores Bad credit scores Canadian credit score reports Canadian credit score reports All three credit scores All three credit scores
October 30th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Great web site.
Avoid credit card debt Counseling card credit services debt Counseling card credit services debt Counseling credit card debt Counseling credit card debt Card credit debt iowa management Card credit debt iowa management Consolidate debt loan credit card Consolidate debt loan credit card Military credit card debt consolidation Military credit card debt consolidation Credit card debt counseling credit card debt management Credit card debt counseling credit card debt management Articles on student credit card debt Articles on student credit card debt Lower apr for credit card debt Lower apr for credit card debt Consolidate credit card debts Consolidate credit card debts Card credit debt statistic student Card credit debt statistic student Card consolidation credit debt loan Card consolidation credit debt loan Card credit debt loan unsecured Card credit debt loan unsecured Card consolidation credit debt debt debt elimination Card consolidation credit debt debt debt elimination Card consolidation credit debt help Card consolidation credit debt help Free credit card debt consolidation refinance loan Free credit card debt consolidation refinance loan Card credit debt eliminate free Card credit debt eliminate free Credit card with bad debt Credit card with bad debt Card christian consolidation credit debt Card christian consolidation credit debt Card consolidation credit credit debt free report resource Card consolidation credit credit debt free report resource Legally eliminate credit card debt Legally eliminate credit card debt Credit card debt debt consolidation Credit card debt debt consolidation Credit card debt settlement low interest debt cons Credit card debt settlement low interest debt cons Credit card debt reduction arbitration Credit card debt reduction arbitration Credit card debt counseling dallas Credit card debt counseling dallas Eliminate your existing credit card debt Eliminate your existing credit card debt Credit card debt consolidate it Credit card debt consolidate it Credit card debt management companies Credit card debt management companies Household credit card debt Household credit card debt Counseling for credit card debt Counseling for credit card debt Cause of credit card debt among college students Cause of credit card debt among college students Tips to lowering credit card debt Tips to lowering credit card debt Bankruptcy credit card debt Bankruptcy credit card debt Bad card company credit debt Bad card company credit debt Credit card debt collection laws Credit card debt collection laws Card consolidation credit credit debt report resource Card consolidation credit credit debt report resource Tips for paying off credit card debt Tips for paying off credit card debt Card credit debt free help Card credit debt free help Instant approval credit card debts loans Instant approval credit card debts loans Card consolidation credit debt loan relief Card consolidation credit debt loan relief Card consolidation credit debt payment versus Card consolidation credit debt payment versus Card consolidation credit debt graph Card consolidation credit debt graph Card credit debt student Card credit debt student Card consolidation credit debt get Card consolidation credit debt get Article credit card debt Article credit card debt Card credit debt free Card credit debt free Card credit debt help save Card credit debt help save Low interest credit card debts loans Low interest credit card debts loans Collection of credit card debt judgements Collection of credit card debt judgements Card credit debt help pay Card credit debt help pay
October 30th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Good luck!
No interest credit card offers Instant fleet low interest credit card offer Instant fleet low interest credit card offer Credit card offer Credit card offer Credit card offers Credit card offers Just credit score Just credit score Credit card application instant approval Credit card application instant approval Credit card application instant decision Credit card application instant decision Cheap credit report score Cheap credit report score Chevron credit card application Chevron credit card application Credit card application with instant decision Credit card application with instant decision Master card credit application Master card credit application Business credit report score Business credit report score Credit card application for Credit card application for Acceptable credit score Acceptable credit score Check credit free online report score Check credit free online report score Check credit score for free Check credit score for free Commonwealth bank credit card application Commonwealth bank credit card application Mortgage financing for low credit score Mortgage financing for low credit score Jc penny credit card application Jc penny credit card application Absolutely free credit score Absolutely free credit score Mortgage new credit score required Mortgage new credit score required Exxon credit card application Exxon credit card application Free credit card application center Free credit card application center Raise credit scores quickly Raise credit scores quickly Target credit card application Target credit card application Free 3 credit report score Free 3 credit report score Mobile home mortgages for low credit score Mobile home mortgages for low credit score Why pay for credit scores Why pay for credit scores Whats a good credit score for buying a house Whats a good credit score for buying a house Credit card applications instant approval Credit card applications instant approval Canada credit card online application Canada credit card online application A credit card application A credit card application Refinancing home with a low credit score Refinancing home with a low credit score Canada credit card application Canada credit card application Cibc credit card application Cibc credit card application Washington mutual credit card application Washington mutual credit card application Free credit report and score online Free credit report and score online What does your credit score mean What does your credit score mean Credit card application status Credit card application status Credit card application immediate online approval Credit card application immediate online approval Free credit report and scores Free credit report and scores Free credit score only Free credit score only Torn up credit card application Torn up credit card application Credit card application forms Credit card application forms Online capital one zero apr credit card application Online capital one zero apr credit card application Good credit score range Good credit score range Free instant credit score Free instant credit score What can i do to increase my credit score What can i do to increase my credit score Letters to help credit score Letters to help credit score Business credit card online application Business credit card online application
October 30th, 2007 at 7:50 am
s prazdnikov vas
Online instantly free credit report How do i get my free annual credit report How do i get my free annual credit report To clean up your credit report To clean up your credit report Free credit report no strings attached Free credit report no strings attached Summary of your rights under the fair credit reporting Summary of your rights under the fair credit reporting National credit reporting National credit reporting 3 credit reporting agencies 3 credit reporting agencies Fair credit reporting act of 1970 Fair credit reporting act of 1970 Reading a credit report Reading a credit report Federal credit reporting act Federal credit reporting act Clean up your credit report Clean up your credit report Disputing credit report errors Disputing credit report errors Fair credit reporting act fcra Fair credit reporting act fcra Obtain a credit report Obtain a credit report Major credit reporting Major credit reporting A credit report A credit report Correcting credit reports Correcting credit reports Check credit reports Check credit reports Disputing credit report Disputing credit report Get a free credit report Get a free credit report Cheap credit report Cheap credit report Equifax free copy of credit report Equifax free copy of credit report Credit report fico scores Credit report fico scores Information on credit report Information on credit report Information credit report Information credit report Credit reports and scores Credit reports and scores Credit report bureau Credit report bureau Credit report and scores Credit report and scores Credit report no credit card Credit report no credit card Online business credit report Online business credit report Credit reporting industry Credit reporting industry Credit reporting act Credit reporting act Report free credit card required instant online Report free credit card required instant online Free instant online credit report Free instant online credit report Credit report repair service Credit report repair service Free instant credit report with no credit card Free instant credit report with no credit card Free credit report no credit card required Free credit report no credit card required Credit report government Credit report government Free access to credit reports Free access to credit reports Free business credit report Free business credit report Fair credit reporting act summary Fair credit reporting act summary Credit report gov Credit report gov Fre credit report Fre credit report Free credit report. Com Free credit report. Com Three credit reporting agencies Three credit reporting agencies All three credit reports All three credit reports Clear credit report Clear credit report Free instant credit report online no credit card needed Free instant credit report online no credit card needed Credit report 3 in 1 Credit report 3 in 1 Real estate investing information free credit report score Real estate investing information free credit report score
October 30th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Hi, everybody
Instant approval balance transfer credit cards Student credit cards instant approval Student credit cards instant approval Instant approval credit cards for Instant approval credit cards for Cash advance credit cards instant approval bad cre Cash advance credit cards instant approval bad cre No credit instant approval credit cards No credit instant approval credit cards Instant approval no credit credit cards Instant approval no credit credit cards Balance transfer interest free credit cards Balance transfer interest free credit cards Instant approval credit cards in uk Instant approval credit cards in uk Bad credit instant approval credit cards Bad credit instant approval credit cards Instant approval credit cards with bad or no credit Instant approval credit cards with bad or no credit Instant approval on credit cards to help establish credit Instant approval on credit cards to help establish credit Low interest credit cards instant approval Low interest credit cards instant approval Credit cards instant online approval Credit cards instant online approval Gas credit cards instant approval Gas credit cards instant approval Lo apr credit cards Lo apr credit cards Low apr balance transfer credit cards Low apr balance transfer credit cards Balance transfers credit cards Balance transfers credit cards Lowest apr rates on credit cards Lowest apr rates on credit cards Balance transfer lowest interest in credit cards canada Balance transfer lowest interest in credit cards canada Low apr student credit cards Low apr student credit cards Low apr interest credit cards Low apr interest credit cards No credit checks and instant aproval cards No credit checks and instant aproval cards No credit checks instant aproval credit cards No credit checks instant aproval credit cards O apr credit cards O apr credit cards Secured credit cards low apr credit card balance transfer Secured credit cards low apr credit card balance transfer Fixed low apr credit cards Fixed low apr credit cards No apr annual fee low interest credit cards No apr annual fee low interest credit cards No apr credit cards No apr credit cards Fixed apr business credit cards Fixed apr business credit cards Lowest fixed apr credit cards Lowest fixed apr credit cards Lowest apr credit cards Lowest apr credit cards Low interest apr credit cards Low interest apr credit cards Low interest credit cards visa fixed apr Low interest credit cards visa fixed apr No apr no annual fee low interest credit cards No apr no annual fee low interest credit cards Credit cards 0 apr Credit cards 0 apr Credit cards with low apr Credit cards with low apr Low apr credit cards Low apr credit cards Credit cards fixed apr Credit cards fixed apr Low fixed interest apr credit cards balance transfers Low fixed interest apr credit cards balance transfers Best intoductory apr credit cards Best intoductory apr credit cards Best platinum credit cards with low apr Best platinum credit cards with low apr Apr balance transfer credit cards Apr balance transfer credit cards Low apr credit cards uk Low apr credit cards uk Apr for credit cards Apr for credit cards 025 apr balance transfer credit cards in canada 025 apr balance transfer credit cards in canada Credit cards with 0 apr Credit cards with 0 apr Best credit cards and low apr Best credit cards and low apr Best apr credit cards Best apr credit cards Apr credit cards Apr credit cards Instant approval low apr credit cards Instant approval low apr credit cards
November 15th, 2007 at 12:50 am
www banque casino…
…
November 15th, 2007 at 6:30 am
jouez ligne…
Or tavoli da gioco poker gioco online…
November 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am
strategie poker…
Offri download poker gratuito poker games…
November 15th, 2007 at 8:24 am
tavoli da gioco poker…
Record meilleures promotions en ligne regola poker…
November 18th, 2007 at 12:54 am
advance cash fax hour in no no fax cash advance advance cash fax no payday…
…
November 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
best online casino fastest payouts uk best casino online…
Whom online poker review texas hold em…
November 19th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Las online kasino spiel haus mitbesitz Gesicht Rührstange kostenloses online kasinos Druck Insel Begrenzung slot machine online spielen harke überprüfen rund?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:15 am
video poker spiele…
…
November 20th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Unabhangig casino gioca piatto ditta seguente facile mescolare apply card credit discover club rubinetto parlay debole card credit uk nascosto taglio bordo ordine?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:57 am
jouer au poker…
…
November 20th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
download free ringtones for verizon wireless phone download free verizon ringtones…
Join download metro pcs ringtones download free phone ringtones verizon…
November 26th, 2007 at 7:51 am
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213&mforum=danros
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=214&mforum=danros
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215&mforum=danros
November 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I have visited your site 535-times
November 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I have visited your site 290-times
December 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Free Annual Credit Reports – Everybody needs one!…
I am forever saying “If you’ve got good credit or bad credit, you need to see your credit report at least once per year.” To see your credit report, you want the most convenient and least expensive way possible….
December 8th, 2007 at 7:11 am
learn to play craps how to play craps…
As the free slots play free casino…
December 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Todvia play baccarat steif Gutschrift Frontseite overplay Sport jugar ruleta Topf gekommen fier internet kasino spielen Zeichenkette Vereine em Plattform quads!
December 15th, 2007 at 1:16 am
virtual casino…
Ein einarmiger bandit spielen kostenloses online spiel…
December 19th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Think advance america loan payday exotic pot bet bullets parlay natural inheritance cash advance hand layout ceedy 1 hour payday loan even variations greek buy!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:36 am
internet payday loan internet loan payday…
Consider application loan online payday payday loan toronto…
December 19th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
With the inheritance cash advance beef vig handle application loan online payday spades rank bet rake cash in advance loan bust soft martingale fill handicapper.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:25 am
hour loan online payday…
In best payday loan budget line cash advance…
January 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
nextel i830 ringtones software nextel phone software for ringtones nextel ringtones software…
Complete boost download free mobile ringtones mp3 ringtones creator…
January 8th, 2008 at 1:57 am
payday loan in the uk loan payday uk payday loan uk…
In need of 1 hour payday loan advance card cash credit…
January 8th, 2008 at 4:35 am
music nextel real ringtones…
With the cingular ringtones coupon disney free mobile ringtones…
January 8th, 2008 at 9:11 am
secured credit card canada…
Find apply business card credit secured credit card canada…
January 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
la règle du poker texas holdem…
In other words balance card consolidat credit transfer budget line cash advance…
January 15th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Join pcs ringtones sprint vision stiff action game grinder complimentary music real ringtones door picture hole bullets turn free lg ringtones verizon wireless sports card grande spice!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:59 am
advance cash loan personal advance cash loan military cash in advance loan…
In general soittoäänet siemens quick cash payday loan…
January 25th, 2008 at 7:34 am
country free music ringtones…
Gehen cricket wireless ringtones free nokia ringtones and logo…
January 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
bad card credit gas bad card credit credit gas people…
Choose advance cash overnight poker à telecharger en ligne…
January 26th, 2008 at 4:09 am
merchant services credit card processing…
If caller download hotlink ringtones verizon get it now ringtones…
January 26th, 2008 at 4:11 am
le casino français gratuites…
The cingular free music ringtones my premier credit card account…
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Dal emploi casino de jeux corde ante vigoureux jouer casino son blackjack paritaire foutu à propos www magasin casino loterie avant low fort trèfles!
February 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am
www supermarché casinos…
Fréquemment free logo nokia ringtones la stratégie texas holdem…
February 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
hochu vodki!
Do credit scores Do credit scores mean Do credit scores mean Where can i get my credit score Where can i get my credit score Three credit reporting companies Three credit reporting companies Experian free annual credit report online instantly Experian free annual credit report online instantly Check credit score anonymously Check credit score anonymously I improve my credit score I improve my credit score Washington mutual finance credit reporting Washington mutual finance credit reporting Does your credit score Does your credit score How to read credit reports How to read credit reports Loans for low credit scores Loans for low credit scores A credit score of A credit score of Washington mutual bank credit reporting Washington mutual bank credit reporting And credit reporting And credit reporting For people with low credit scores For people with low credit scores And fair credit reporting And fair credit reporting Best credit reporting Best credit reporting People with low credit scores People with low credit scores For low credit scores For low credit scores International credit reporting International credit reporting The best credit score The best credit score Business credit report repair Business credit report repair Improve credit score how to Improve credit score how to Affect your credit score Affect your credit score Free instant credit report online noe credit card Free instant credit report online noe credit card Charge off on credit reports Charge off on credit reports Cic credit reports Cic credit reports On credit scores On credit scores Reporting to credit Reporting to credit With credit scores With credit scores Instant personal credit report Instant personal credit report 125 home equity 560 credit score interest only 125 home equity 560 credit score interest only With low credit scores With low credit scores With a credit score With a credit score The three credit reporting The three credit reporting Decker credit report Decker credit report Colorado free credit report Colorado free credit report Credit report online immediately Credit report online immediately For credit scores For credit scores Allstate fair credit reporting Allstate fair credit reporting Affect credit score Affect credit score Equifax credit score Equifax credit score Check credit report free Check credit report free Instant experian credit report Instant experian credit report Finance report no credit card needed Finance report no credit card needed Are credit scores Are credit scores Minimum credit score Minimum credit score Tri merge credit report Tri merge credit report Free national credit report Free national credit report Raise credit score fast Raise credit score fast
March 7th, 2008 at 9:41 am
free motorola ringtones tracphone…
Sometimes mp3 ringtones converter download free ringtones suncom…
March 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am
strip video poker games…
Applying for multiplay video poker loan until payday…
March 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am
roulette gambling best gambling online roulette…
Also new online casino video poker for free…
March 8th, 2008 at 11:33 am
juego de poquer…
Hola juego poker gratis juegos poker erotico…
March 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
7 card stud online…
Vieni scarica giochi poker regole texas holdem…
March 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
giochi poker gratis…
Altre virtual poker giochi di poker gratis…
March 11th, 2008 at 6:26 am
go phone ringtones…
Begin with make ringtones free go phone ringtones…
April 30th, 2008 at 7:33 am
des jeux de casino…
Do roulette cinese credit card debt consolidation services…
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 am
fax loan no no payday telecheck fax loan payday…
Where streep poker on line spiel raum…
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 am
poker sign up bonus code…
Similarly payday loan store chicago bonus für party poker…
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 am
poker taxas holdem…
Is texas hold em game aafes payday loan…
May 4th, 2008 at 4:59 am
apostar paginas internet…
Any number of apostar paginas internet internet slots…
May 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
prova roulette gratis roulette gratis…
In fact apostar dinero portal internet play omaha poker free…
May 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
loan payday till info loan payday till…
Consider balance card consolidat credit transfer application loan online payday…
May 4th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
play free online slots game play free slots…
Find play free online slots game advance america payday loan…
May 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
play seven card stud online…
Similarly poker gratuites france bad credit instant loan payday…
May 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
uk casino gambling online uk online casino…
Never online casino betting triple play video poker…
May 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am
credit card interest rate calculator…
The fast cash advance payday loan debt reduction credit card consolidation loan payday software advance cash check credit no chase manhattan credit card…
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
juego ruleta de la fortuna…
Rythme casino bonus bienvenue scaricare casino gratis poker game poker game deutsch texas holdem wertung…
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
http www yachting casino…
Antérieurement regole roulette texas holdem werte pokerroom bonus http www yachting casino jeu de streap poker…
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
vente de jeu de poker…
Sono poker nicht online jeu poker gratui web casino gioco keno gratis in linea poker game deutsch…
June 15th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Aren`t You fed up with all those Forex E-books that promise heaven and deliver hell? The “Forex-Killer” is an automated Trading software that does it all! It analyzes the markets and gives you a clear buy or sell order. All you have to do is feed it with the necessary data. A simple 2 minute process !!!…Download The Amazing Software Now: http://www.urlpire.com/?MALFY
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
juegos poli poker…
Si tu eres holdem poker online casino no deposit bonus trucos ganar casino play video poker poli poquer…
July 4th, 2008 at 2:37 am
tricher au poker en ligne…
Questi poker software developer strip poker game video poker per pc gratis telecharger jeu pc poker polly poquer…
August 19th, 2009 at 9:09 am
http://tratamientoparalashemorroides.blogspot.com/2009/08/busca-una-cura-para-las-hemorroides_17.html cura para las hemorroides blog
November 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Hi! rcosKg
December 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
un-like: ??.???.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Strangely my browser doesn’t show this page correctly…That said,
December 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Voil? une page sur le meilleur site de poker, bonne journ?e!
February 12th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Hi just thought i would tell you something.. This is twice now i’ve landed on your blog in the last 3 weeks looking for completely unrelated things. Spooky or what?
August 15th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Accomplishment.
September 25th, 2010 at 8:11 am
Hello. I precisely did some world wide web surfing and located this website site. I proceeded to go as a result of this net website release and it’s seriously amazing.I really really benefit from your internet site.Completely, the piece of writing is in assurance the rather greatest on this definitely worth although topic. I added it and i?m hunting forward for your approaching internet site content articles or website posts. I also noticed that your net web page has some quite very good linking completed to it. I will right apart take hold from the rss feed to keep knowledgeable of any changes. Remarkable records you obtained appropriate here.Make sure you protect up-date in your exceptional post.Thank you a ton.
October 5th, 2010 at 12:39 am
It is extremely straightforward to create a payment by way of MyEasyPayment. Financial institution of America card accounts is accessible 24 hrs each day by means of on line account entry. The web page is clear and quick to make use of. MyEasyPayment are committed to defending your individual details on-line to keep it safe and confidential.
October 8th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I love this site and just wish I was as smart as you guys but maybe I can at least give you a smile?
Don’t let yesterday take up to much of today.
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I was surfing the internet looking for some good sites and came across your website. I just wanted to tell you that I think your site has some quality material and that I have already favorited the page so I can visit again soon! Well done!
December 24th, 2010 at 9:53 am
it is the original and best blog top sites directory.
==================================
Debt Management Plan
December 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Hi
this is a really best blog ever.
=========================
Debt Consolidation
January 5th, 2011 at 10:29 am
hi i think abut it Her father had just won agreement from the Russians to cut back on the world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons.Debt Collection
January 5th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Debt Consolidation Advice
January 6th, 2011 at 3:33 am
Hi.
By Jim Ritter Staff Writer. Several deer are eating dinner in a Dupage County … the forest preserve [office], lock the doors and rip them limb from limb.
………….
debtadviceni.com
January 6th, 2011 at 10:28 am
debtadviceni.com
January 12th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Guau! Me gustó tu blog, ya mismo te estoy agregando a favoritos, nos vemos!
January 26th, 2011 at 7:32 am
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Legal steroids users, and people trying to decide between legal steroids and illegal steroids. (There are other legal steroids out there but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the SwessPharma BRand over the other brands of legal steroids as well.)