Y'all Chickenhawks to Me - by Elmo (MP3)

(If you have trouble with the link right click and "save target as")

But wait!

Didn't Cole remember that Saddam had NO WMDS? I mean, that's the mantra of the Soros MoveOn/Code Pink/DNC crowd. That there were no WMDs and the UN weapons inspectors had found nothing to prove that Saddam had a WMD program.

Get with it Juan! If you don't keep up with the old Dem talking points, you'll never get that Secretary of State appointment from Hillary.

I gotta take issue with this
Juan Cole, The Dumbest Ph.D. in History

There's some pretty stiff competition for that title.
He obviously isn't that stupid. I mean, to be wrong so much and to misrepresent stuff so much, you have to know what you're doing.

He just figured out that you could make more money by being a full-of-crap lefty than by being an academic. And you get all the props that used to be reserved for Noam Chomsky (who I think would win (Lose?) the dumbest PHD contest).

IMO this document or tape just proves Saddam had WMDs. They had been moved by the time we got there. Leave it to the media to shape the facts to fit their bias.

Hey, Barney is convinced.

That alone should be evidence enough that Cole is a clown.

I just love it. I counterattacked Barney's cite of Juan Cole by calling him a loon, with only the slightest idea what he was talking about and without reading the link. Sure enough, I was right. I've formed my opinion of geopolitics from a wide variety of sources, but have studiously, rigourously, avoided Juan Cole. What ever standing he has a scholar, he undermines with ideology. It's almost a slam-dunk to read him for what's not the truth, but truly the spin.
====================================

elmo murmurs dhimmitude to the assembled flock.
===============================================

I'm not downloading that mp3 unless I get to tickle/tase elmo.

While I don't think these revelations point to any impeachable offenses necessarily, you still get a few things wrong.

Bush already had the needed resolution by the time this meeting took place.

Despite what the President says, the Security Council maintains the authority to determine how its resolutions will be enforced. 1441 did not authorize the United States, or any members of the council, to engage in military action without at the very least a second meeting of the council.

he wanted to abscond with ALL the information on his Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Which BTW the left says he never had)

Never? Really? Who says he never had WMD?

To the left, every war is unnecessary...

Except the ones that aren't, like say, Afghanistan.

Despite what the President says, the Security Council maintains the authority to determine how its resolutions will be enforced. 1441 did not authorize the United States, or any members of the council, to engage in military action

It didn't prevent them, either. And it did promise serious consequences for failure to comply. Saddam failed to comply, and suffered serious consequences.

And the U.N. Security Counsel has failed to issue any kind of formal censure to the Coalition, let alone the U.S.

Sure, they can't, not with the U.S. having a veto on the UNSC, but that's the way the UN works, now, isn't it?

Ta da, all clear and legal.

He would have been perfect at Duke U! Number 89 of the stupid professoriat.

>Never? Really? Who says he never had WMD?

mantis, you're not even trying.

¡Oh mi, qué bullshit!

He's not dumb... he's a liar.

"he wanted to abscond with ALL the information on his Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Which BTW the left says he never had)" - Paul. Certainly, that was worded incorrectly. I would suggest that he meant "Which BTW the left says he "didn't have"".

"Never? Really? Who says he never had WMD?" - mantis. He was talking about documentation; not WMD.

The clear statement here is that if he indeed intended to abscond to Egypt (or any country that would take him) with a billion dollars and WMD documentation, it puts the lie to the contention that he surrendered such documents, which was one of the demands made by the IAEA. Everytime this was brought up, many on the left argued that the IAEA was in possession of the documents. As if copy machines and compact disks and removable hard-drives were non-existant. Saddam needed an ace up his sleeve. What better ace?

That brings us to a whole 'nother discussion of how he was curring favor with certain vetoing nations (particularly France thru OFF and his separated-at-birth-twin, Chirac, not to mention UN officials and officials in other nations) with an eye toward lifting sanctions so those documents could serve to revive his programs should he still be Iraq's President.

But this is about Juan Cole's idiocy, isn't?

The Clinton(D) administration, the UN, the UN's inspectors... all found lots of WMDs until they were tossed out of Iraq in 1998.

An adult might ask about the scientists behind the WMD programs. Where are they?

Answer? Syria and Iran.

So the programs still exist... they were just outsourced.

Remember... our liberation of Iraq exposed France, Russia and the UN for undermining the UN sanctions which is the true cause of the war.

Libya panicked and surrendered it's Nuclear-Chemical-Biological weapons programs for free and revealed they were a customer of the proliferation business run by AQKhan of Pakistan and further exposing North Korea as a nuclear proliferator.

History should remember that the USA, and Bush, postponed a nuclear arms race for many years by disarming, and exposing, so many WMD programs around the world.

WMD programs the Clinton(D) administration ignored, or in the case of the NorKs... actually subsidized and enabled.

mantis doesn't remember the left on Afghanistan, evidently. MoveOn and the rest were against it, claiming our soldiers would be coming home in "tens of thousands of body bags" because Afghanistan was "where empires go to die." Remember now? Then, about three weeks in, the "quagmire" talk began, but was suddenly scuttled when Kabul fell unexpectedly (to the left and media).

They just folded up their jargon and transferred it to opposing the Iraq invasion instead. But let's not the selective memory of the left fool us there, either: remember WHY they argued our troops would return in "tens of thousands of body bags" from Iraq? Because Saddam would use his WMDs on them.

The left always hates trips down Memory Lane . . .

>I would suggest that he meant "Which BTW the left says he "didn't have"".

yeah it was a parenthetical, but still a reword was in order I guess. thanks

I hate to piss in Jim A's Champagne, but it's easy to find some moron on a political "side" who believed in those things - the trick is to find individuals who did those same about-faces.
You're right of course, but not about everybody on the left - just about the media hivemind version of it.

So Juan is afflicted with "Rather Syndrome" since he is relying on FRAUDULENT documents to prove a non-existent story!

WHATEVER a fraudulent documents says is irrelevant and even a lefty loon should know THAT! Whatever the translation - it doesn't MATTER. It's all a fraud in the first place.

My goodness, these people are un-freaking-believable: Saddam came out of his gopher hole STILL claiming he was President of Iraq - he never intended to go ANYWHERE.

mantis doesn't remember the left on Afghanistan, evidently. MoveOn and the rest were against it, claiming our soldiers would be coming home in "tens of thousands of body bags" because Afghanistan was "where empires go to die."

Bullshit, MoveOn did not oppose the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban. But it won't matter to you, as the definition of "the left" is so conveniently nebulous. It doesn't really matter if there were millions of protesters in the streets and at least some opposition in the Congress (as with Iraq), or if there were a couple of Ward Churchill/Chomsky-esque yahoos opposing an invasion that had full support from the Democrats in Congress (not to mention everybody else in world), either way "the left" opposed it.

Good, let's use that logic. I oppose abortion. Now you can say the left opposes abortion! FTW!

Dumbass.

>Bullshit, MoveOn did not oppose the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban.

It's not so easy to say mantis...

Moveone did have a petition on line that sounded and like a duck, moved like a duck and even quacked just like a duck....

They took it down after the right started beating them on the head with it and they said it was a "personal petition" and not an "official" petition.

Frankly, both sides have a point but (in my book) the side that disappeared the petition down the memory hole declared themselves the loser. YMMV

and there where plenty of lefties saying exactly what he says they where ie Afghanistan and the quagmire.

and there where plenty of lefties saying exactly what he says they where ie Afghanistan and the quagmire.

Plenty of isolationist righties said the same things. Does that mean "the right" opposed the invasion of Afghanistan?

Juan Cole, The Dumbest Ph.D. in History?

Well, I suppose, for now.

He can carry that "honor" until Gore receives his honorary doctorate.

Does that mean "the right" opposed the invasion of Afghanistan?

No, it means a cetain small segment of the Pat- Buchananist-Right opposed the invasion. A small minority of the Right who are not leading the party. Unlike the Sheehan/Soros/MoveOn segment of the Left, who are leading the Lefties specifically and the Dems generally.

Hey, Afghanistan is hot, again. Look at the American Thinker for an article about the Taliban and al-Qaeda, largely Uzbek, having a falling out on the order of the Anbar Awakening. Let's talk about Tora Bora, updated.
======================

Unlike the Sheehan/Soros/MoveOn segment of the Left, who are leading the Lefties specifically and the Dems generally.

Did you notice at the last debate the leading candidates all said they wouldn't promise to be out of Iraq by 2013? Wow, they sure are beholden to Sheehan and MoveOn, aren't they?

Mantis, I did note that Mr. Edwards thinks all black men will soon be in jail, or dead.

I had a hard time getting past that one to whatever other bullshit they were spreading.

Why do you suppose that big sea change there, mantis? And what ho Richardson on the matter?
==================================

Wow, they sure are beholden to Sheehan and MoveOn, aren't they?

I would only argue with thense of your verb, Mantis. They were until Abar, Betrayus and in the indisputable messages arriving in their home offices that their constituents opposed surrender.

that should read the tense

Just FYI, the last Democratic debate shows that they have no shame or conscience

Mitchell
For a trial lawyer, Edwards feet find his mouth more often than my fat fingers find the wrong keys.

Hugh,
The dem presidential candidates either didn't vote or voted NO on a resolution condemning MoveOn attack on the commander of our forces in Iraq. They dared not publicly renounce MoveOn (and the real boss George Soro). Columbia fiasco also shows that the left that we are at war and Ahm is a bad guy, but the left we rather America lose while George Bush is the president. That 's why American thinker pointed out that they have no shame nor conscience.

I know, HughS. I started out in trial work and migrated to transactional stuff. You have to be real careful what you say in a trial.

However, when you have no guiding principles, or a playbook like in the trial setting, and you are an unserious person, as Johnny is, then you will have bouts of mouth diarrhea for us all to enjoy like this.

He must really hate being a trial lawyer if he's so determined to make a fool of himself in the political arena.

Mitchell
I knew you practiced....your exchange with the famous "second year law school" expert is bookmarked...hilarious!