by finding a quote that supports your freudian projection of blaming the people who protested the idea of preemptive attack in the first place

"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. … [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

What must be understood about the escalating debate in official Washington is that it is a conflict with the ruling elite over how best to safeguard the interests of American imperialism. Bush’s Democratic critics are not “antiwar” in any serious sense of the word. They largely backed the Iraq war to begin with and, as the statements of Clinton, Kerry and others demonstrate, they still support the goal of the intervention, which was to seize control of a key oil-producing country and transform it into a US client state. The Democrats have become more vocal in their criticism, not because of US casualties or the horrors visited upon the Iraqi people, but because of the evident failure of the enterprise, evidenced not only in the ongoing resistance to the US occupation in Iraq, but even more so in the growing hostility to the war among the American people.

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

ppj- I see that you have made a trophy for yourself

That he is no longer an expert in military affairs is a given.

The increasingly partisan demeanor over Iraq was starting to detract from other ongoing business.

Man, am I getting tired of shaking little humping Leftist puppies from my ankle.

Thanks for your comment, it's nice to see someone elevate the discourse (here or in congress), even tho we disagree. I yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from Texas.

this vote will keep the posturing on Iraq on the back burner for a while.

“He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months.”

“They know that they have indeed misled the public – this has been proven, so I think they use “deliberately” incase of impeachment.”

..al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

But he said that the low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

The Energy Department said that in addition to 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources . . . [that] could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device [or dirty bomb]" were also transported..

(Former Niger PM ) Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(deleted ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

The IAEA was monitoring the munitions because HMX is a "dual use" substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.

Jim, I was explaining to you why the Democrats did not vote for that resolution Friday night. It was not their resolution.

What does Rockefeller believe, really? I know what Bush believes: He thought Saddam should go in 2002 and today he's glad he's gone, as am I. I know what, say, Michael Moore believes: He wanted to leave Saddam in power in 2002, and today he thinks the "insurgents" are the Iraqi version of America's Minutemen. But what do Rockefeller and Reid and Kerry believe deep down? That voting for the war seemed the politically expedient thing to do in 2002 but that they've since done the math and figured that pandering to the moveon.org crowd is where the big bucks are? If Bush is the new Hitler, these small hollow men are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis whose whining defense was, "I was only obeying orders. I didn't really mean all that strutting tough-guy stuff." And, before they huff, "How dare you question my patriotism?", well, yes, I am questioning your patriotism -- because you're failing to meet the challenge of the times. Thanks to you, Iraq is a quagmire -- not in the Sunni Triangle, where U.S. armed forces are confident and effective, but on the home front, where soft-spined national legislators have turned the war into one almighty Linguini Triangle.

But you don't make it as far as W. has without some psychological defenses of your own, especially when it comes to insulating yourself against your own fears and insecurities. Raised in a family steeped in privilege and secrecy, and prone to the intense aversion to introspection and denial of responsibility that are the hallmarks of a so-called dry drunk, one who has kicked the bottle without dealing with the root causes of the addiction. Bush has become a master of the psychological jiu-jitsu known as Freudian Projection. For those of you who bailed on Psych 101, Freudian Projection is, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a defense mechanism in which "the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by falsely attributing to another his or her own unacceptable feelings, impulses or thoughts." In layman's terms, it's the soot-stained pot calling the kettle "black."

Try and tell me with a straight face that a decade from now you and I could tell the difference between an Iraq where the US pulled troops over the next month and one where the US pulled troops over the next six.

There was a secret intelligence project called "Venona." A single document, dated March 30, 1945, referred to an agent code-named "Ales," a State Department official who had flown from the Yalta Conference to Moscow. An anonymous footnote, dated more than 20 years later, suggested "Ales" was "probably Alger Hiss."

As proven time and again, McCarthy's claims about communist spies in government were and are true and correct.

Democrats did not vote for that resolution Friday night.

If I remember correctly you made a typical Left wing claim that Saddam was the salt of the earth, couldn’t spell Weapons of Mass Destruction and had never, never, never heard of al-Qaeda.

…a country which never ONCE attacked or in any way threatened the United States...

A clean report from Mr. Ekeus's inspectors would have been vital in lifting sanctions against Saddam's regime. But the inspectors never established what had happened to the regime's illicit weapons and never gave Iraq a clean bill of health.

Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

In this new century the injunction to prevent the emergence of a new rival "that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union" can apply only to China, as no other potential adversary possesses a credible capacity to "generate global power." Hence the preservation of American supremacy into "the far realm of the future," as then-Governor George W. Bush put it in a 1999 campaign speech, required the permanent containment of China--and this is what Rice, Rumsfeld and their associates set out to do when they assumed office in early 2001. This project was well under way when the 9/11 attacks occurred. As noted by many analysts on the left, 9/11 gave the neoconservatives a green light to implement their ambitious plans to extend US power around the world. ... For at least some US strategists, not to mention giant military contractors, then, the "war on terror" was seen as a distraction that had to be endured until the time was ripe for a resumption of the anti-Chinese initiatives begun in February 2001. That moment seems to have arrived. Why now? Several factors explain the timing of this shift. The first, no doubt, is public fatigue with the "war on terror" and a growing sense among the military that the war in Iraq has ground to a stalemate. So long as public attention is focused on the daily setbacks and loss of life in Iraq--and, since late August, on the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina--support for the President's military policies will decline.... MORE...

The attacks went from 150 to 700 a week when we said we were staying. "Redoubling" would be an improvement over that!

The remainder of your comment is a defense of Saddam and a denial of what is obvious.

The bribe wasn't a bribe, just an attempt to make sure nothing happened. Uh-huh. Sure.

As for your snearing comment about Bush's SOTU, 16 words, you can't accept what is in the Senate Intelligen Committee report because it would destroy your world view.

That the Brits still stand by their position, as confirmed in the Butler report, means nothing.

And you ignore the two tons of yellowcake found, and the trigger explosive material and the rocets and the Kay Report.

And the indictment was trumped up.

Ho hum, nothing new here. Typical leftie denial of reality and logic.

Your whole premise is that Saddam is as pure as the driven snow, never had WMD's and never had any ill intentions against the US.

Your ability to try and deny the bribe calling Iraq corrupt is breath taking.... Come on, Clay. Try. Repeat after me. Why. Would. A. Bribe. Be. Offerred. If. Their. Is. Nothing. To. Hide. ?????

And the NewsMax story, if you cared to read it, was based on an AP story. Are you calling AP a lair?

As for Lennon, I'm sure tou are convinced that he was never shot and is living in peace and love somewhere in the Middle East.

All the yellowcake in the world won't make a nuke until the percentage of the U-235 isotope is increased

They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels.

“I can't tell whether PW favored a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not based on context.”