Go check out 60 Minutes. You obviously did not look too hard.

Of course I checked out 60 Minutes; in fact, I listened to Bradley's interview when it was first broadcast.

Drumheller says Tenet told GWB, Cheney and Rice that the CIA had a high level Iraqi source (presumably, Sabri). He says the WH was enthusiastic at the news. And that's all he says.

Drumheller never says that anyone told the WH what Sabri told the CIA.

I was going to mention that but I've never followed those events in detail, so I didn't bother.

Still, Larry's trying to defend the organization he's worked with all his life to a bunch of clowns with even less comprehension of what's going on. I got his point - even if he's ultimately wrong on the real issues about the CIA.

Defending an organization doesn't excuse misstating the facts and generating red herrings.

While Babbin's silly scenario is not to be taken seriously, Larry spends a lengthy paragraph explaining why Valerie Plame didn't/couldn't "set up" the WH with the Niger trip gambit. But Babbin never mentions her or claims she was involved or makes any accusation against her at all.

And of course Drumheller never said that he (or anyone else, for that matter) "warned the President directly about false intelligence being used to justify war planning" as Larry asserts.

From the
Drumheller transcript
(found via Google in about 2 seconds using "Drumheller transcript")

It's fairly clear that Drumheller gave the intelligence to the President that debunked the prevailing story that Iraq was actively seeking WMDs. Which part of Larry's statement are you contesting? "Warned the President?" "False intelligence"? "Being used to justify war planning"? Drumheller says clearly _true_ intelligence was being actively discarded as part of the war planning. If you want to actively engage your mind into parsing, I suppose you could construe that to be somehow different from a warning about false intelligence. But my eyes are rolling at this kind of logic twisting, and I certainly think it's silly to criticize Larry about this point.

BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?

DRUMHELLER: Yes.

BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?

DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

DRUMHELLER: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.

BRADLEY: Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister. He was taken aback by what happened.

DRUMHELLER: The group that was dealing with preparations for the Iraq war came back and said they’re no longer interested. And we said, “Well, what about the intel?” And they said, “Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.”

BRADLEY: And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that.

DRUMHELLER: The first we heard, they were. Yes.

BRADLEY: But when they learned what it was that he had to say, that Saddam did not have the capability to wage nuclear war, weapons of mass destruction…?

DRUMHELLER: They stopped being interested in the intelligence.

Ellen-

If you have a point about this lay it out in plain English. Hairsplitting and cryptic hints do not make for a compelling argument, though they do give you a lot of latitude to shift the terms of the discussion and 'win' if that's your thing.

I am in the middle of Cobra II. It looks more like Rumsfeld and presumably Cheney was very interested in making a high tech fast and flexible military that would both shock and awe enemies and potential enemies and would not do nation building. It is very much the views of Andrew Marshall the long time military theorist inside the Pentagon.

Thus when Eaton first brief Rumsfeld on the plan to invade Iraq in December 2001 the plan called for 385,000 troops going up to 500,000 to hold the country. Rumsfeld objected and when asked by General Meyers how many troops should be used Rumsfeld pulled the number 125,000 out of thin air.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

It's also worth noting Risen's story about Iraqi-Americans who are relatives of Iraqi weapons scientists. In State of War he describes the recruitment of thirty Iraqi Americans who visited their relatives to determine the state of Iraq's wmd programs. Chapter 4 describes one woman's story about visiting her brother who was "a key figure in Saddam Hussein's clandestine nuclear weapons program."

There was no program, she learned. So did everyone else.

All of them--some thirty--had said the same thing. They all reported to the CIA that the scientists had said that Iraq's program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons had long been abandoned.

(p106 emphasis in the original)

The following chapter contains support for Drumheller's attempts to get Curveball's claims out of the intelligence reporting (pp115-116).

There is absolutely no doubt at this point that they didn't merely cherry-pick. They actively, with both eyes open, did precisely what the Downing Street memo said they were going to do--"the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

I'm pleased you recognized Drumheller's style.  Oh, and did you notice, as well, how he always looked down and away when answering Bradley's questions?

There was no program, she learned. So did everyone else.

Too bad the information didn't make its way into the NIE, isn't it. Well; that's the CIA for you -- $40+ billion a year for dreck.

Thanks Daniel, I think the whole war plan was laid out as photo-ops for the American public to be covered by the media. My opinion is based on the "What did they know" and "When did they know it."

The administration wanted the greatest photo-op a war could bring. Everything this administration has done has been done for photo-ops and not for effective management or leadership, but for the image of being competent judged on the photo-op. Every opportunity available has been exploited to max for the Public Relation image of the administration. Every person where the president goes is checked out before he shows up. Every step is plan. The photo-op on the pile of Dead at ground-zero was staged down to being told stand on that pile, who the fireman with the blow horn is and where he will be, and to take the blow horn from the fireman. But back to the war plan based on the information that is coming out now the whole thing was a stage for Bush to play Commander-in-Chief with the whole invasion force as a backdrop.

Having been told that there was no WMD why was their use played up so much? Why did we handicap our military by forcing them to wear the Chem suits? The wearing of the Chem suits got lots of coverage. How many men and women died in combat because they were under orders to wear the chem suits while the administration knew there were no WMDs? Unneeded Chem suits are provided and are ordered to be worn, while the needed body armor, armored Humvees,. replacing combat troops with military police units, or retraining tank crews to be military police, and other needed equipment is not provided.

Everything this administration has done is for photo-ops, not national security or the security of our men and women in the military.

Demand the Truth for America

I wonder how Mrs. David Bloom and NBC feels about finding out that the Chem suit that everyone was ordered to wear was not necessary and was known to the White House administration. Was their lost, and ours, another wrongful death?

Demand the Truth for America

I don't believe anyone has psychic access to Drumheller's subjectivity. But it would seem that you do when you make reference to where Grumheller is looking.

Do you believe you're phychic?

I don't believe anyone has psychic access to Drumheller's subjectivity.

Then, I guess you and I will have to rely on what mcolgan refers to quaintly as Drumheller's "word choices," won't we. 

Ellen, the bush campaign for war began with cheney's vfw speech in august, 2002, where he said that "we know that saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons" (he undoubtedly meant to say "program," but to the best of my knowledge, the ovp never issued a correction).

that's not something he got from the cia.

what our intel agencies believed was that it was likely that saddam had chemical and biological materials, perhaps in a weaponized form, although they had no certain new evidence since the inspectors had withdrawn in '98.

the only people who believed that saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program were in the bush administration.

PS. if you read or listened to the 60 minutes interview as you claimed, you would know that the turning of sadri took place in october, 2002. what's your problem - it's right there in your link?

I love a good conspiracy theory!

With respect to Babbin's claim that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was set up to "produce publicity adverse to the Bush Administration", that is sheer utter nonsense.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? You're right. There was most likely another reason why Wilson got sent to Niger twice for the CIA to look into uranium. What that is, I cannot be so sure. Using it as a dagger against Bush later popped up as a wonderful secondary alternative.

Sy Hersh once wrote in the New Yorker that a group of CIA officers were rumored to have been involved in the creation of the Niger forgeries - a counter-intelligence operation meant to embarrass the Bush administration. Boy, that sure worked out didn't it. If true, one wonders if Plame had any role.... If so, then she wouldn't have had to be quite so clairvoyant. Mr. Johnson, your rebuttal to this theory seems to imply that Plame had to have done it all on her own. Let's be honest here, there's more than one CIA officer at the CIA who wanted to embarrass Bush.

While I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Valerie Wilson (the former Valerie Plame), I have never known her to be a clairvoyant. Jed asks us to believe that Valerie Wilson, a GS-13 intelligence officer (who was in a non-official cover capacity at the time) convinced Dick Cheney to ask his briefers for additional information about an intelligence report claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger.

GS-13 huh? Hm, haven't heard that before. You're not dropping "classified information" here are you? Sure hope not.

Convince Cheney to ask about uranium in Niger? Hmmm. How about getting someone to forge documents purporting to show Niger selling 500 tons of uranium to Iraq. Think that would get Cheney's attention? Nah. Probably not.

Using her magical powers, she anticipated in February of 2002 that George W. Bush would be on the verge of going to war in Iraq in January of 2003 and would use the claim of Iraq's uranium buying spree as one of the key justifications for starting the war.

Magical powers? Larry, seriously, there were many people who thought that Bush was going to go after Saddam at this time. In fact, Bush said himself early on in 2002 that he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, to ITV I believe. With the Clinton-administration's policy of regime-change in place, then 9/11, I don't think you're doing anything other than being disingenuous here by implying Plame would have to be psychic to know that something might be going down in Iraq some time in the future.

Also, let's carry on my lovely conspiracy theory. What if Plame knew of these forged documents before 2002? Would she need magical powers to foresee that the US would seize upon supposed uranium dealings between Iraq and Niger?

Blessed with this advance knowledge, the blond Mata Hari aka Wilson manipulated her bosses at the CIA to ask her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to go to Niger and come back with news that the intel was bogus.

What if her boss was in on it? Guess we never thought of that one. Plame exists in a vacuum, apparently. I don't think it would have taken much convincing from Plame to tell her husband to come back with a report saying that the report was "crazy". Hell, she was there when he was debriefed. The two officers who debriefed him - in on it too? Certainly is possible, isn't it?

Then, she controlled the CIA reports officers and kept the information secret waiting to strike until Bush announced at the State of the Union that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger (even though CIA kept telling him no).

Heh. Funny you should say that. She wouldn't have had to "control" anyone who was in on the conspiracy. Keeping information secret? You mean how the DO kept the Niger forgeries locked away in a safe? You mean how WINPAC didn't even get the Niger forgeries from DO, but had to ask INR for them right before Bush's speech? My, my, my isn't that interesting.

The CIA did not keep telling him no, Mr. Johnson. They told him they were unsure of it in October 2002. After that point, they got the documents from Rome, they got intelligence information from the French, and other intelligence reports on the matter - all indicating that Iraq had sought uranium.

I might want to recycle something Colbert said about Bush the other night: Johnson wants us to believe that the CIA thought Wednesday what they thought Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.

You guys could not sell this crap to a B movie producer in Hollywood.

I haven't seen American Dreamz, but I'm guessing the plot line of this conspiracy theory would be much more entertaining.

What actually happened is becoming clearer with every passing day. George W. Bush was told repeatedly by intelligence analysts, including the Deputy Director of the CIA (i.e., John McLaughlin) and the National Intelligence Officer for Africa (Ambassador Robert G. Houdek).

Told what? When? Proof?

We also have learned that the Chief of the Directorate of Operations European Division, Ty Drumheller, warned the President directly about false intelligence being used to justify war planning.

Oh my, Mr. Johnson. You're not recycling the same falsehoods you did back in your other post, the one to which you have fans awaiting your detailed response to me fisking you... are you?

Ty Drumheller did not warn Bush directly - false. Drumheller also knows perfectly well that Sabri did not tell the CIA that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. He said precisely the opposite, as NBC News, CNN, and many others reported over a month ago. Of course, CBS knows this as well, but we all know that CBS isn't particularly interested in providing their viewers with details that ruin the predetermined storyline.

I already challenged you on this, pointing to numerous news accounts that Sabri told the CIA that Iraq had chemical weapons, and were researching biological weapons. The CBS-Drumheller team tried to evade this by using a clever qualifier, and never mentioned what everyone who can use Google already knew.

You never refuted this, you just repeated it. Why's that?

Like him, you ignore history, you butcher facts, and you have a healthy fantasy life. God Save the United States of America.

I've shown you doing the exact same thing Mr. Johnson, so if I were you, I'd keep my voice down. God can't save the USA from you, Mr. Johnson, in continuing to mislead the American public.

However, I can. 

The NIE . . . was assembled with the full knowledge that the policy had already been fixed.

Love it. Not only does the CIA produce dreck but selfish keep-my-job-at-all-costs traitorous dreck, at that.

Ellen, it is the standard talking point on the right that Valerie Plame sent her husband on a boondoggle, so when a right-wing publication uses "set up" in this context, it's clear that that's what they are referencing, and it's legitimate for larry to make fun of them.

i repeat: what do you think the spectator reference means? that nick kristoff did the "set up?"

i have a standard rule of thumb: whenever someone uses the term "fisking," they can generally be ignored.

seixon's comments here support that rule....

Ellen:

"While Babbin's silly scenario is not to be taken seriously, Larry spends a lengthy paragraph explaining why Valerie Plame didn't/couldn't "set up" the WH with the Niger trip gambit. But Babbin never mentions her or claims she was involved or makes any accusation against her at all."

I think the reason why Larry explained why it wouldn't make sense for Valerie Wilson to know a priori that Bush would misuse information from Joe Wilson's Niger trip to justify War is simply that that reasoning would also apply to anyone else inside the CIA.

The Administration cherry-picked its facts to justify going to war. However, the idea that someone, -Valerie Plame or otherwise- could have predicted in advance that Wilson's Niger report would be turned on its head, and then used the fact that it was turned on it head as an anti-Bush propaganda tool, is absurd.

-Dave Adams-

Ah, but you will waste your time trying to quash my voice. Why is that exactly? You and a few others have rated my comments a 1 on several posts now. I'd say that's a systematic effort to silence me. You running scared? Try actually responding to what I wrote next time instead of resorting to the "you're just a liar so I don't have to respond" antics.

Not you, but EasyRider and others. Paranoid and empty rant? I wrote several hundred words with links and all, you respond with a troll post, and my post was empty? Please. You guys are so transparent it is disgusting. You're just like Larry Johnson - all talk, no game. Johnson used the same excuse you just did, "oh, well it would take too much time to refute the depth of the lies in this post." Give me a break. It took me a few minutes to write the post, refuting it shouldn't take you much longer - if you actually knew what you were talking about.

As for saying that it was "paranoid" - it was meant to be a conspiracy theory, as I said from the beginning. However, as I have shown, this conspiracy theory isn't all that far-fetched if you just look at the facts - something Johnson avoided entirely. Just like you and your 1-rating trigger-happy buddies.

As my mom always used to say, if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all. Apply that to rating posts. If you don't feel like refuting my post, why rate it a 1 so that it disappears? Why not let someone else have a crack at it if it's obviously so dishonest?

I've seen this at so many progressive sites, and I really can't understand this need to silence your opponents in a debate through misuse of the rating system.

PS- Does anyone else see the irony of conservatives falling back on the whole "Bush is the victim here" narrative? I mean, either...

(1) Intelligence that didn't buttress the pre-determination to go war was ignored.

or...

(2) Bush presided over the worst intelligence gathering operation in modern history.

Ellen, Seixon, feel free to pick your poison. Although deep down you both know (1) is the right answer. Can you look me in the eye and tell me you honestly believe, in your heart, that Bush would've called off his dogs had he been presented with a smoking gun that there were no WMD? Of course not. Now go pick up your paycheck from David Addington.

Uh, I already said it was a conspiracy theory. That wasn't all I wrote, either. Obviously I can't independently verify most of the stuff I was talking about, because if I could, I would.

I sought to demonstrate that it seems that Johnson protests too much, and that this theory isn't all as crazy as he wants to make it out to be. In fact, it is plausible - if you don't suppress facts like Johnson does all the time. That's all I set out to demonstrate, and I wish you would have commented on that.

I think 1s do suppress a comment, since that is what got one of my other comments disappearing from view earlier. Rating with 0s isn't even available is it?? Not for me anyways.

Take my comment for what it is instead of pretending I sought to do something entirely different.

I hope others are not have the problems I have been having all day posting or even opening these websites. One blog after another. First this site, then Rawstory, C&L, ThinkProssive, and now Larry's Blog. But all seems to get straigthen out after a while.

This site is now back to normal. I now bring it up just fine. No more Servier not found messages.

Go figure!

Demand the Truth for America

Occam's razor my friend. The CIA didn't know in 2002 that a GOP administration would be scapegoating them in the near future to justify it's mistakes to posterity.

Gabriel, I'm sorry, but Johnson and his political operatives have gotten you so fooled you don't know down from up. You have no evidence that Drumheller told Bush anything, other than him claiming so on CBS 60 Minutes.

The same episode of 60 Minutes failed to acknowledge the fact that several news organizations reported the direct opposite of what Drumheller was implying on the program. He said that they were told there were no "active" programs by Naji Sabri. NBC, CNN, and other sources reported over a month ago that Sabri told the CIA the direct opposite: that Iraq had chemical weapons, that they were researching biological weapons, and that Saddam was obsessed with getting a nuclear weapon.

So shall we think about this reasonably?

One the one hand, we have several news sources reporting the same thing, that Sabri told them Iraq had CW, was researching BW, and desperately wanted nukes.

On the other hand, we have CBS featuring Drumheller, claiming the exact opposite a month later - without even mentioning the fact that there exists conflicting information on the record.

Now, which one sounds more credible? It's also amazing to me that the CIA, if they knew for a fact that Iraq had no WMDs (proving a negative... interesting...) would write in the NIE, along with all the other intelligence agencies in the USA, that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and that they had a nuclear program going.

Now we have ex-CIA people like Johnson defending the CIA for all their money, claiming that the CIA didn't fail, but Bush is at fault for everything. I mean, it gets to a point when you hear "Bush did it" for the millionth time that you start to think that maybe it is a gimmick and a lie perpetrated by CIA officers conducting a CYA operation.

Lastly you said: The ONLY way to to lose your job in this administration is to tell the president what he doesn't want to hear, which is precisely what Drumheller did.

So how was Drumheller able to keep his job for so long? Didn't he retire of his own will? Oooops.

Oh, make sure to get Drumheller's book coming out soon. It seems the "truth" has impeccable timing for Drumheller's economic interests. Apparently Drumheller telling Bush personally that Iraq's foreign minister had told the CIA that Iraq had no WMDs could wait for almost 4 years in his head, and one year after he stepped down. By mere coincidence, he has a book coming out.

Or maybe, just maybe, Drumheller is cutting some corners with CBS giving him a helping hand. Do some research. I'll be glad to hear you report back that NBC, CNN, the Telegraph and all the rest are a bunch of liars while Drumheller and CBS are the soothsayers of our age.

"Blamed for what is essentially their fault". This is profoundly stupid. Wilson was a lifelong Republican and a friend of GHW Bush. Why would they have set out to embarrass Bush if we wasn't attempting to scapegoat them for this montrous war?

Unless you're saying the war itself was "essentially" the CIA's fault, in which case I'll repeat what I said earlier. "Can you look me in the eye and tell me you honestly believe, in your heart, that Bush would've called off his dogs had he been presented with a smoking gun that there were no WMD?"

Bush wanted war, the decision was not made in good faith. Get over it.

PS- "concocted". Good word choice.

You talk too much, I'm only going to address one point you made.

I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the CIA saw that taking out Saddam Hussein was in the USA's long term interests.

How can you say something so wrong as if it were self-evident? Taking out Saddam was in the President and the GOPs' short term political interests. I've never heard one warmonger honestly address the opportunity costs involved in this wholly unneccesary debacle.

Saddam Hussein was an old man. He'd have been lucky to outlive Castro had we not given him bodyguards and doctors. His sons were incompetent and crazy, respectively. What would have happened when he died? A violent upheaval, some religious strife, disruption of oil supplies, and then eventually a strongman takes over. Christ it would have been terrible if something like that had happened. And don't think we wouldn't have dirtied our hands in that fight, but it would've been much, much cheaper, and a metric shitload more moral.

Well, it's the end of my post, so I guess this is where I falsely accuse you of erecting strawmen arguments on every point where we disagree.

Oh, and people did try to overthrow Saddam. Somehow I don't remember it being this bad.

The point was that neither Uday or Qusay ever would have been able to maintain power in the off chance that they'd have been able to seize it in the first place.

Because... you say so?

I was pointing out that Bush's political vanity opened a pandora's box that is much worse than the "natural course of events" would have been.

Really? You think a situation where there was no USA to usher them into a democratic process would have been more peaceful than now? You think a situation where the US was not providing a large amount of security for Iraq would have been more peaceful than now? If so, I've got some Norwegian bananas to sell you. 

And yes, when you approach 100's of billions of tax dollars I am concerned; that's not immoral.

So the freedom of 25 million people isn't worth that? We've spent more for less. 

Save me your concern for Iraqi people while you're at it, the country is worse off.

Not according to Iraqis, 77% of whom say ousting Saddam was worth it, 64% of whom think Iraq is headed in the right direction (January 2006, Brookings Institute Iraq Index). Of course, I've long given up on progressives caring about the Iraqis' own opinions on their country. Obviously they don't know their own life and country as well as you guys. ;)

Womens' rights are in the toilet, nearly every quality of life measure is down

That is quite a broad brush you've got yourself. In some places, women's rights have become an issue, most notably in the Shiite areas, although this is incredibly hard to gauge since we weren't exactly privy to how things were under Saddam. As for quality of life measures - Iraqis themselves feel the war has been worth it. Who the hell are you to say different? Besides, what you said isn't even true.

Electricity megawattage is hovering around pre-war level, average hours per day has almost doubled outside of Baghdad, demand for electricity has shot up (guess what that means), number of registered cars has doubled, telephone suscribers has gone up by a factor of 8, internet subscribers has gone up by a factor of 30, commercial TV stations has gone from 0 to 44, radio stations from 0 to 72, independent newspapers from 0 to over 100...

It doesn't seem to me that "nearly every" quality of life measure is down... but hey, what do I know?

But Bush didn't care, because he wanted war.

Yes, because Bush is evil. Yawn. 

Real debt of gratitude the Iraqis owe us, huh?

Well, according to them, they think it was worth it. Again, who the hell are you? An Iraqi? Yeah, didn't think so.

PS- If your mediocre rich-kid leader wasn't a "war president", he'd have been laughed out of office in 2004.

Uh huh, and Kerry wasn't a mediocre rich-kid? You speculation can be what it is. Invading Iraq wasn't exactly a low-risk political move, if that's what it was. This is what Bush will be remembered for, not just some ploy to win an election. 

PPS- Bush no more believes in "freedom" than the Klan believes in affirmative action. His flowery rhetoric is transparently hollow.

OMG? Bush is a politician? You must be joking! Nice reference to the Klan by the way, love how you worked that in there. Tying Bush to racists is always a good move. If you're a hopeless partisan with BDS.

In fact, you are categorically wrong. Bush believes in freedom because he knows that freedom opens up the economy to capitalism and free enterprise. Surely you must agree that these are things Bush enjoys. Freedom is pristine for exactly this reason. An oppressed Iraq can't buy cellphones - but they are now, by the millions. Let freedom ring. 

Bush believes in freedom because he knows that freedom opens up the economy to capitalism and free enterprise.

Huh? Singapore? Political and economic freedom are distant cousins. To him, it's just a pretty word. Say what you will about Kerry, I'm no fan. But he did lead Vietnam Veterans Against the War and did lots of other things in life that didn't involve trading on Daddy's last name.

You're a fan of Iraqi opinion polls, most Iraqis also think we're occupiers who should leave

I've got to go to bed, but I'm looking forward to future threads.

-gabe

Apparently the Far, Far Right hasn't quite collapsed yet. Now they're going to the "he was betrayed by a secret cabal inside the guvamint" meme. Kinda reminds you of the old "the Kaiser was betrayed from within" argument, doesn't it?

We'll know when the collapse really comes when they start blaming Bush for "not being Conservative enough". I think we're due for that one in about seven months or so...

-Dave Adams-

You're right, it's not the situation we've unleashed in Iraq. It's much, much worse.

So your basic choices for Iraq were:

1. Do what we did, invade Iraq and topple Saddam.
2. Leave Saddam there and do nothing.
3. Support opposition groups to topple Saddam.

We know what #1 wrought. #2 wouldn't have changed the status quo, and would have Saddam Hussein eagerly building long-range missiles and developing WMDs right about now - no change for the Iraqi people at all. #3 would have been much worse than #1 due to the obvious massive civil war it would have caused.

So, taking that into consideration, #1 was the best option.

And yes, I am of fighting age. Call me a chickenhawk and be done with it. Yawn.

Except that he died from a blood clot that formed behind his knee; kept himself in one position too long.

Wrongful death? I would SAY so, since everyone who has died in this war for Bush's cronies has died wrongfully.

Jan Knaus

If you're moderate and I can dunk Seixon. I can't believe you kept replying to that thread.

Having said that, I do appreciate the challenge. People here won't give you a hard time if you stop being so confrontational. Well, some won't, some will. But you get the point.