Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 381 To 390 Of 397 Comments
I've said this for a long time to anyone who would listen. You are correct to point out that this is no "smoking gun." Also it may turn out that the conventional wisdom that says Saddam did not have WMD prior to the invasion may yet turn out to be correct. At a minimum, the investigation into what was transferred into Syria will need to be completed. Please stay on this story.
Btw, I hope this Iraqi general has very thick skin. Generally the main stream media will viciously attack people who publically deviate from their talking points.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 26.01.2006 @ 09:59
Even had we focused all of our forces in Tora Bora, perhaps we would have gotten Osama perhaps not. Had we have focused all of our resources there and gotten Osama we would have had less resources to use elsewhere in fighting the GWOT. This may have ensured the terror network would have grown stronger elsewhere, perhaps in Iraq or elsewhere. What some folks either can't or won't grasp is the GWOT is far bigger than Osama Bin Laden. It would be nice to get Osama but, even if we do this, it will not end the War on Terror, as Al Qaeda and Islamic Extremists terrorism is far bigger than simply Osama Bin Laden.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 21.01.2006 @ 15:08
A BAD DAY FOR THE AMERICAN LEFT
I think Osama releasd this tape now because some evidence indicates that the missle strike in Pakistan that happened recently took out some top Al Qaeda operatives. He needed to save face somehow and since he has been unable to attack the American homeland directly he releases a tape. Lets pray Al Qaeda continues to be unsuccessful in their attempts to attack the American home land.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 20.01.2006 @ 12:21
JACK BAUER: A PERFECT POST 9/11 HERO
Interesting article. I have not watched the show but I must say if this Jack Bauer were a real person he would have been fired from his government position long ago and probably would have been jailed. Its to bad more people in the real world do not have the moral clarity this tv character has.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.01.2006 @ 10:08
Kmeson
Murtha declared "unwinnable" about a year ago. This did not get any coverage. We still probably would not know about this, if not for alternative media. If you think it is unwinnable, it seems logical you would support a redeploy over the horizion position. I think the reason he gets attention now and not a year ago for his stance is because the Democrats think they can score political points with it. They may be correct. Personally I think we need to be sending more troops and looking for ways to remain in Iraq rather than talking about when we are going to withdraw and talking about drawing down troops. If we are to win the Global war against Islamic Extremists Terrorists, at a minimum, the regimes in control of Iran and Syria will either need to be removed or they will need to change course. Having a presence in Iraq helps us to be able to put some pressure on them. Without a presence in Iraq, while pressuring them may not be impossible, it will likely be much more difficult.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 2.12.2005 @ 17:40
Kmeson
I don't think Murtha's position is anything new. As I recall, he declared Iraq "unwinnable" about a year ago. The main stream news media seems to have spun this as being a new position.
Theway2K
Your analysis is spot on. I think it was a former Chinese Communist leader who said if you shout a lie long enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it. It may not have been a Chinese Communinst leader but it was a Communist leader.
Rick
Very good post. I do hope it is not to late for the President to rally public opinion. We really are in a fight for our survival. He needs to do a better job of communicating. I'm not sure how often he can do press conferences or State of the Union addresses, furthermore I'm unsure how to get around the fact that the main stream media will spin everything he says or does. For the forseeable future I might suggest a State of the Union adress every evening or at least four or five a week. It really is a pity that we must fight both Islamic Extremist Terrorists who wish to destroy us and the main stream news media at the same time but this is how it is.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 1.12.2005 @ 17:19
INDIANA JONES AND THE CASE OF THE MISSING WMD PAPERS
I'm glad you are considering the possibility that Saddam's WMD may have been moved to Syria or elsewhere. It is neither a pro-Bush nor an anti-Bush argument to question the conventional wisdom regarding Saddam's WMD, the conventional wisdom being that Saddam destroyed his WMD after the Gulf War.
Perhaps the Bush administration and the military commanders in Iraq do not want to address this issue because if the WMD were moved and they failed to stop it this could call into question their competence as leaders. Clearly Bush did not lie about Saddam's WMD. Perhaps they decided early on that they would allow the Democrats to make this an issue about the Administration's integrity because it draws attention away from the competence issue. I certainly hope they are not thinking this way and did not think this way but I think it possible.
Finding out what happened to the former Iraqi regime's WMD is a matter of national security for us and our allies. In this investigation, no stone should be left unturned and we should consider the possibility that the former regime's WMD were moved to Syria or elsewhere.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 17.11.2005 @ 15:07
Any analysis on Saddam's WMD will need to focus on what was transferred to Syria prior to the war. There were reports that large truck convoys were transferred to Syria prior to the war. The Iraq Survey Group acknowledges this. According to Charles Duelfer, due to the securtiy situation, they were never able to complete this investigation. Mr. Duelfer has said they would like to complete that investigation. David Kay said these convoys contained "Iraqi equipment" or something to this effect. It was the judgement of the ISG that these did not contain the stockpiles of WMD. This is the conventional wisdom and I hope it is correct. Clearly the WMD is not "there." At least not where we thought it was. Before we can conclude that Saddam's Iraq did not contain the stockpiles of WMD that we thought were there, at a minimum, the question as to what was transferred to Syria needs to be resolved. To those who would arrogantly claim that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD I would simply say "not so fast. The investigations need to be completed." Unfortunately, if my hunch is correct, not only did Saddam have the stockpiles of WMD but the stockpiles have gone missing!! Where are they? Answering these questions is not a pro-Bush argument. It is a matter of American national security. Depending upon where the facts lead it could be the best argument against our president that can be made.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 9.11.2005 @ 10:15
ITALIAN TV TO SHOW MARINE'S USE OF PHOSPHORUS IN TAKING FALLUJAH
Criticism of the United States is reasonable. We need to be held to account where our actions are wrong or unethical. I would suggest the Italian journalists do a follow up story to this one. The follow up story would discuss the nature of Islamic Jihad and what their goals are. It would also discuss the nature of how Islamic Extremists use the Koran to justify their acts. I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen. In other words the main stream media needs to stop shilling for Islamic Extremists. If the media would present a fair and balanced picture of this war, people could reach a conclusion based on all of the relevant facts. As it is we only get one side from the main stream news media, the side of that says America is evil. Finally it needs to be understood that the Islamic Extremists are very very powerful. This is not a case of poor little Arabs against the big bad USA.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 8.11.2005 @ 16:04
Mark
I think the Democrats had the better hand here. Harry Reid knew that all of the potential nominees talked up in Conservative circles would not pass a fillibuster. Bush knows this too. If we are going to have justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, they will have to be stealth nominees, such as John Roberts and Harriet Miers. The solution to this problem is to elect more Conservatives to office. If we do this, Conservatives with a track record as such can get confirmed to the SCOTUS. Btw, George W. Bush is no conservative. Had Conservatives been diligent, perhaps we could have prevented him from getting the nomination in 2000.
I think whether or not we support the nomination of Harriet Miers hinges on whether or not we trust the president. Personally I have my doubts.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 5.10.2005 @ 21:28
