Senator Richard Durbin’s sniveling apology Tuesday for his remarks on US torture at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp was entirely predictable, another of the “profiles in cowardice” that the Democratic Party serves up on a regular basis. The pattern is all too familiar. A prominent Democrat commits the unpardonable sin of stating an unpleasant truth about crimes that are being carried out by the White House and the Pentagon in the name of the “global war on terrorism.” He is subjected to a torrent of denunciations from the extreme right-wing elements that control the Republican Party. Accusations of treason and “stabbing our troops in the back” are echoed and amplified by the mass media. The Republicans demand a retraction and apology, and the Democrats demonstratively distance themselves from whomever in their midst made the offending remark.

"Yesterday I talked with a 2nd Lt and West Point grad who has just come back from Iraq. He says flat out that the war is lost, that "we" only control territory when the troops are there in massive numbers and that "they" take over as soon as the troops leave, that the army is over-extended and morale is terrible -- drug use is escalating -- that there still isn't enough armor, that the Iraqi army and police are worse than useless, and that senior officers are convinced that it is Vietnam redux. One of his classmates a 23-year old was killed last week -- for nothing. There are signs that this story is belatedly beginning to sink in across the country, but he, and I, fears that it is too late."

. Among Abizaid's other concerns was the danger of a civil war in Iraq. . . Abizaid . . . was told that the U.S. war effort would likely stretch into the indefinite future. "It is like running a marathon. You hit the wall at 21 miles or 22 miles," he said Friday. "If you give up, then you lose the prospect for victory or success. We're not at the 21-mile mark yet, but we are heading for the wall. "We need to work our way and fight our way through the wall. It is not going to be done without work and without sacrifice. And it is not going to be done without cost in blood and treasure."

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen.Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Kennedy, along with every other politican in Washington and other parts of the world, believed that Saddam had WMD's.

Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound “daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

That is false. All representatives of the Socialist Equality Party and the Fourth International were well aware that George W. Bush and his ilk were lying to be able to wage an illegal war against Iraq.

kdog - It is a tough call, but the fact is that after a war starts, the politics should be put aside

So says the leading light on ethics, Chappaquidick boy.

actually I don't consider you folks to be representatives of a viable organization(s).

Senator, I’ve offered my resignation to the president twice, and he’s decided that he would prefer that he not accept it, and that’s his call.

viable - having a reasonable chance of succeeding

I suspect you think that to be liberal one must be antiwar, 100% Demo and willing to attack the administration even when it hurts our efforts in the ME

I hope you're not a police detctive because your suspicions probably have nabbed many an innocent person. I am no pacifist. I do, however, take issue with an illegal war based on lies that is executed by someone who is much closer to our primate relatives than most. Also, I am no Democrat, in many cases I believe both sides of the aisle are on the same team, and it's not ours.

You also claim:

"You are probably not of an age to remember..."

Where are you PPJ?

You aren't practicing hit and run tactics are you? That's what our enemies, the insurgents, do.

Look,up in the sky!

It's a bird

It's a plane

You claim