The US, UN & Iraq III

Blatham - Well done, you figured out how to copy and paste.

not only does Blatham know how to cut and paste, he can read and write as well. Must be one of those "intellectuals." and quite probably a radical socialist.

You guys are all wrong; he's what's called a "Canuck." ci

I am really merely a sex object

that he is

And if you'll excuse the little side trip, Dys is a sex object too

And c.i. as well.

and I am REALLY hot for scrat

sometimes, at night, I dream of the dew settling on his thighs

but Blatham, that does not qualify him as a sex object, you know

ROFLMFAO!

Blatham - Thanks for a genuinely good laugh. I've had a rough week, and needed one!

Regards, (your dream squirrel,)
Scrat

I'm just really HOT, but in a cool sorta way

well, I see him on one of those southern porch swings....a dim lightbulb above next to the strip of flypaper hanging ripe and full...cricketss chirping off....moon wishing the two of us the very best

a
Listen, is that the fat lady tuning up


Last Updated: Tuesday, 3 June, 2003, 02:33 GMT 03:33 UK
Email this to a friend Printable version
US Senate opens WMD probe


By Justin Webb
BBC correspondent in Washington

This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration
In the United States, a full-scale Congressional inquiry has been ordered on the use and possible abuse of intelligence information on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The inquiry will include public hearings which will be televised live.

The CIA is reported to be prepared to co-operate fully.

This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration to give a detailed explanation of its pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction.

The inquiries are being conducted by the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.

They are to hold a joint public hearing later in the month.

Official testimony

It is likely that senior officials such as the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, will be asked to attend.

Senator John Warner, the chairman of the armed services panel, said he had ordered the inquiry because of the depth and seriousness of the issue.

Mr Warner said he had been assured by the CIA director, George Tenet, that all the statements made by the administration on the subject and all the underlying intelligence supporting those statements would be supplied to the committee.

Oh good! A dog and pony show!

I predict that regardless of what the investigation finds, Democrats will attempt to ride this issue for political advantage. If they find that someone lies, they'll be filled with glee, but if they don't, they'll simply feign outrage that they "weren't allowed to get to the bottom of this important question..."

Hell, I'd welcome this if I thought people on the left would respect the process and abide by the findings, but we all learned in 2000 that that is simply not how you folks play the game.

The Berkshire Eagle

Congress finds its voice

It was encouraging last week to discover that some congressional Democrats, specifically the minority members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had found their voices and were asking tough questions about the White House's Iraqi policy, or lack of same. Many of these questions would have been more welcome last year, when the Democrats erroneously decided the path to electoral success was timid me-tooism on Iraq, but better late than never, and there are many answers about Iraq Americans deserve to receive that only the Democrats have a chance of dislodging.

But first, credit goes to Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, for pointing out that the "planning for peace was much less developed than the planning for war." Basic services have not been restored in most of the country, establishment of a government is not on the horizon, "liberated" Iraqis continue to work around the clock looting the country of its archaeological treasures, and Islamic fundamentalists are quickly moving into the vacuum created by the Bush administration. Senator Lugar thinks the United States will be stuck in Iraq for five years, while the panel's senior Democrat, Joseph Biden of Delaware, believes it will be as long as 10 years.

While the number of years can be debated, it is apparent that the United States will be committed to Iraq through much of this decade if not longer, unless it bails out and hands over control of the country to the United Nations. If the White House is determined to stay the course, it must be straightforward with Americans that this will mean the commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of troops to Iraq. President Bush must explain where the money is coming from at a time when tax cuts are increasing a mammoth deficit and he must defend spending this money in Iraq when education, health care and social programs are being decimated.

The White House must account for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was its main argument for invading the country before it began scrambling for others. The administration assured Americans that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and was prepared to use them against U.S. troops, and the failure to find them will make it impossible for the White House to make a similar case against Syria, North Korea or other rogue nations. Americans need to know if this prediction was the result of the latest intelligence failure on the part of the CIA. If it wasn't, than the alternative conclusion is that the White House trumped up the weapons of mass destruction to sell its pre-emptive strike.

The administration no longer bothers to deny that the case it made before the United Nations that Iraq had restarted its program to develop nuclear weapons was based upon forged documents. It has not explained, however, how this was allowed to happen, nor has it addressed the allegations made by journalist Seymour Hersh that the White House decided to maintain its baseless argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program as part of the effort to scare up support for an invasion it was determined to launch.

The White House has much to answer for. It is the obligation of Congress to get those answers for concerned Americans.

Gelis, I'm not saying that the money isn't well spent, but Bush just "gave" 15 billion to Africa for HIV/AIDS. His tax cuts will probably end up costing more than the $350 billion in this year's tax package, because all the supposed sunset legislation is most often meaningless - atleast that's been the history on tax cuts. Also, within the next 10 to 15 years, the baby-boomers will begin to retire, and we will have more retirees than workers paying into the tax coffers. It's gonna be interesting to watch how the feds plan to keep paying for all the federal programs, social security benefits, medicare, the huge federal deficit, and the military based in all parts of this world - and not only in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Iraq. Maybe, then, the historians and the people now supporting this president will see how dangerous and irresponsible this administration was in this new century. They might just realize it when the feds stop sending their social security checks, and the hospitals and doctors stop seeing medicare patients for lack of payments. c.i.

... do you know that the most sexiest men have just a little bit to none hair at all? LIKE ME??? Dah Dee Dah, Me Sexy Thing, Yeah


re. trucks:

Scrat, It's not going to be a "dog and pony show." It's gonna be a circus with the world tuned in to enjoy the magic acts. c.i.

Gelis, my main comment about that last article you posted would be that Senator Lugar (likely from being a Republican) has been too kind by half in saying that the "planning for peace was much less developed than the planning for war." The "planning" which was done before war for the fighting of the war seems to have been on the order of war gamers pusing cardboard around, and parroting shock and awe at one another. This was badly mismanaged in the war phase, and it was only the great professionalism of GI's and Marines, and their willingness to give up their lives for their comrades that has made it a military success--because it is obvious to me that Rumsfeld, in military matters, couldn't find his ass with both hands and a wall chart. And Rumsfeld has been the decision maker here. His arrogance and disdain in dealing with the officer corps of all the services is well-known to pundits and observers, and the manner in which the United States has conducted its portion of operations gives evidence of his ignorance and lack of ability to judge forces and consequences. Had the Iraqis put up anything like a tenacious defense, it would have been a blood bath for us. Consider An Nasiriyah and then ask yourself what it would have cost us to take Baghdad if we had encountered that kind of resistance there.

And as for planning for the peace, beyond giving Cheney's Halliburton cronies a fat contract with no competetive bidding, i suggest that anyone who speaks as if any planning for the peace was done is playing fast and loose with the truth.