Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers -- apparently including Rep. Jim McDermott -- during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said today.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 26, 2008 06:15 PM | Email This
If the fellow in question is acquitted, I'm sure SP will be the first to tell us, right? (*Snort*)
'As Michelle Malkin would say: "Yes, question their patriotism..."'
Oh, she's just bitter that her attacks upon him, back when she was an affirmative-action hire at the Times editorial page, were met with his continued re-election. Being publicly shown as powerless against him just feels bad, as this post exists to admit.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 07:08 PMAnyone find those WMD yet? How about the Nigerian yellowcake? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? BUELLER?
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 07:10 PMMembers of Congress like Baghdad Jimmy remind me again how important it is to work hard to help elect John McCain.
SIDEBAR encouraging news:
See (VERY long wrap):
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/26/gallup-poll-shows-many-democratic-voters-ready-to-vote-mccain-if-their-first-choice-doesnt-make-it-to-november/
Gist of above:
The March Gallop poll daily tracking survey found that among people who identified themselves as Hillary supporters, 28 percent said they would vote for McCain if Obama is the (D). Same poll found 19 percent of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if Clinton is the (D) candidate.
Here's hoping that the (D)s continue their good fight for the nomination to the very last Superdelegate..... ;-]
Posted by: Methow Ken on March 26, 2008 07:13 PMSo tensor, you're saying that Michelle Malkin isn't good enough to get hired anywhere on her own except through affirmative action???
Posted by: Michele on March 26, 2008 07:53 PMThat is still the main point. If the war wasn't "proper" -- i.e., justified -- then everyone responsible for it is a war criminal, and should be tried under the international laws the United States helped to establish. Jim accurately predicted exactly what that gang of rubes and fools in the Bush Administration would do, and the people who fell for the lies will never, ever forgive McDermott for being entirely right when they were totally wrong.
If anyone had, um, read the article, they would have learned how it took federal investigators many years to find this evidence, implying that the organizers of the trip -- the church group which invited the Congressmen -- could not have known it at the time. Given the unpalatable choice between leaving an evil -- but safely contained-- dictator in place, or unleashing chaos and bloodshed upon an already unstable region, Jim McDermott chose the former. (Note: this was NOT the same as sending some dumb-bulb messenger-boy to Baghdad, to shake said evil dictator's hand.) And nothing which has happened there since has shown Jim's judgement to have been wrong.
But hey, keep on calling him "Baghdad Jim". It's a very good short form for "he was totally right, and I was a dupe for war criminals." Say it loud, 'cause you can't say it proud.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 08:40 PMI really don't know why the Times hired her, but she did fill at least two slots: female, and non-white. (I would say they might have hired her for her writing talent, or for her knowledge of something, but even I'm not willing to mock them that nastily.) She also fit the very liberal caricature of a foolish right-winger: mean, vicious, degrading to our civic values, and blissfully unaware that her entire career (i.e. outside the home, in a good-paying job) exists because of past work by liberals. (Little wonder she's now a staple on liberal parody websites, like Sadly, No! and the NW's own Jesus General.)
Her main attack on McDermott in the Times was labeled "a slanderous piece of garbage", and even drew protests from medical professionals! Now, that takes (wacko) talent.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 08:49 PMNever mind the fact that the damned liberals were knocking each other down to get to microphones:
Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998:
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998:
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998:
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats October 9th, 1999
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999:
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002:
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore September 23rd, 2002:
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002:
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Bob Graham December 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
The only question remaining is whether our little liberal friends have glaringly short memories or are willfully ignorant.
The problem with your postulation is that McDermott was wrong, he is still wrong.
So was George Galloway. When you have the responsibility as an elected official of the United States you owe it to not allow yourself to be used as a useful idiot as McDermott here and Galloway did in England. They were bought. Plain and simple. The fact that there was overwhelming evidence before the invasion supported with fact today is not in question what is in question is McDermott's patriotism. And the thought that he was such a dupe.
Forrest Gump's Momma had it right when she said "stupid is, as stupid does"......afterall, Jim McDermott is living proof.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 09:11 PMand even drew protests from medical professionals! Oh! how shocking!!!
McDermott himself is a (medical professional), so your point that medical professionals are smarter is foolish at best.
Even my dog is smart enough not to get booted off an ethics committee.
Posted by: Moondoggie on March 26, 2008 09:12 PMBut who the heck wants a dupe representing them in Congress?
Oh. Seattle.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 26, 2008 09:23 PMUm, the original article states they did not know. The length of time it took federal investigators to find any evidence confirms this. And none of these allegations have yet gone to trial. (How did all of that oil get shipped?)
"McDermott himself is a (medical professional), so your point that medical professionals are smarter is foolish at best."
The protest against Malkin's garbage came from her abuse of a serious medical tool -- a psychiatric diagnostic guide -- to accuse McDermott of mental illness. While Malkin was stupid enough to think this was clever, her critics noted it was really unethical, since she had no standing to use such a tool. I was commenting on the superior ethics of her critics, but, yes, they are a whole lot smarter than her, too. (McDermott most definitely included.)
"Even my dog is smart enough not to get booted off an ethics committee."
McDermott had repeatedly asked to leave the committee, but that might have allowed Gingrich to pack it with yes-men, so the Democratic leadership refused to let McDermott resign. (Your dog probably gives you grief when you keep him locked in a place he wants to leave, too.)
"I'm willing to allow that Saddam and assorted evil thugs used McDimwit and his pals as dupes."
And the church organization which paid for the trip. But then, the case has yet to go to trial.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 09:48 PMWhether said in Baghdad or Belltown, it remains the truth, because the president in question made it so. No amount of name-calling will ever erase the catastrophic damage caused by this needless war, or blacken the character of we who rightly opposed it.
Anyone got an autographed picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam? It should be worth a lot of money. (Talk about a dupe...)
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 09:53 PMJim McDermott, a better man, saw through the deceptions earlier. That's why he was completely right all along.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 10:01 PMAs one who used to practice loading them on Navy planes in the 60s', we were not allowed to come close to the real deal, but used worn out belly fuel tanks instead.
Posted by: barracks lawyer on March 26, 2008 10:25 PMLet's forget for just a moment what you think of Jim McDermott and chat about the underlying issue. How the war in Iraq going? We've spent five years, $500 billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Are we better off? Will all those mourners bless the current administration for their ironclad determination to see this through to the end? Are you satisfied the taxpayer got their money's worth?
Tell us Rag, we really need someone to explain why this apparent national tragedy was the right thing to do.
We know you can cut and paste, but can you think and articulate your own login on this issue.
Or are you content to just call us names?
This guy makes Kennedy look like a girl scout!
Posted by: GS on March 26, 2008 10:28 PMTo answer you question to Tensor, et al: Yes, I have; transport, load, arm, delivery, detonation, aftermath. It's not a pretty picture.
Sorry you were deprived of the experience by having to deal with "used worn out belly fuel tanks".
Now perhaps you can enlighten us as to the relavance of your post??
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 26, 2008 10:47 PMThe GOP's continued money woes
by kos
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM PDT
February Cash on Hand Debts
DCCC 6.2 38.0 0.763
NRCC 4.6 5.1 1.9
DSCC 4.8 32.8 0.5
NRSC 3.9 15.2 0
DNC 6.3 4.8 0.25
RNC 10.6 25.0 0
The NRCC actually lost ground. They had $6.4 million on hand at the end of January, but they clearly got drained in their futile effort to keep IL-14 in their hands. So House Dems have over a seven-fold lead over their hapless Republican counterparts.
In the Senate, Democrats have a 2-1 advantage (and growing), and the GOP caucus, some obviously seeing themselves as vulnerable, are refusing to pay their caucus dues.
Fewer than 10 Senate Republicans met goals they received for an NRSC fundraiser with President Bush in McLean, Va., Tuesday evening. GOP senators were asked to contribute $100,000 from their campaign accounts or recruit four major donors for the event [...]
Republican Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.), Jim Bunning (Ky.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Tom Coburn (Okla.), and Larry Craig (Idaho) have given nothing to the NRSC, according to campaign finance data collected by the Federal Election Commission and CQ Money Line, a website that tracks fundraising.
These lawmakers have kept their wallets shut despite having millions and not facing reelection this year. Specter, for example, reported $4.2 million in his war chest. Lugar has $2.2 million in his account. Domenici has $840,000 and has announced his retirement.
Only at the RNC do Republicans enjoy an advantage. But remember this -- the national committees will focus on the presidential race this year, so let's see how that's looking:
February fundraising:
Obama: $55 million
McCain: $11 million
The RNC-McCain will be blown out by Obama's fundraising prowess. It won't even be close. Even Clinton raised $35 million in February in her doomed effort.
It's clear that Republicans will face an unprecedented money deficit at every level. Given their traditional use of big dollar advantages to bamboozle voters, their inability to do so this year doesn't bode well for their electoral chances.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 26, 2008 10:55 PMAt least you realize the "meltdown" is nothing more than your wishful thinking and not anything based in reality.
By the way, isn't this the "free marketplace of ideas" in action????
Cheers,
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 26, 2008 11:06 PMThe way the democraps prez wannabes are imploding and castrating each other, there will be little left for McCain to do but repeat their accusations about their current opponents.
As far as congressional money. Yep, we aren't raising much... yet. But again, with the Hillorama train wreck constantly in peoples faces for another month (at least) their coat tails will drag other candidates through the same mud... and that's in addition to the mud of Spitzer/Paterson/McGreevey/Kilpatrick scandals... and that's in addition to the mud of McDimwit and his merry band of Saddam ass-kissers back on the front pages... and that's in addition to the mud of a current congress with the lowest ratings ... ever... AND lower than the President you love to mock.
Yeah, the democraps have loads to cheer over.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 26, 2008 11:25 PMBush's flat-out lie about Nigerian yellowcake came from a document the British had disavowed as a fake. It did NOT arrive during Clinton's time. The Bush cabal used it because reality wouldn't support their claims. (We all know about reality's liberal bias.)
"And if that is not enough, you liberals always want to claim that George Bush is stupid, well then what would that say about the members of Congress that were (as you put it) duped by George Bush?"
Quote from where I claimed he was stupid. I called him a liar because that's what the facts showed. His entire Administration lied repeatedly and loudly about Saddam's regime, and the non-existent weapons it supposedly had. Then they refused to take responsibility for sending Americans to die for these lies. (Ask Donald Rumsfeld why no weapons were found "in the area around Tikrit"; he said that's where Saddam was keeping them.) Goering said it best: just keep lying to your people about how they're threatened, and eventually they'll go to war for you.
Jim McDermott saw through the lies. His detractors, who can never beat him in an honest election, won't ever stop hating him for telling it to them straight. Too bad.
Posted by: tensor on March 27, 2008 01:49 AMWhat did DEMOCRATS say on this topic???
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
As for the Yellow cake uranium it has been proven that yes Iraq DID try to purchase it, but the Nigerian government decided not to sell it. It has also been proven that Joe Wilson's claim that all this never happened has also been proven false due to his claiming to have gotten his information from a document he had never seen and thereore could not have reported on it.
So back to the WMD "lie" will you admit that the CLinton's and a good chunk of the Liberals in Congress are liars too for cliaming that Saddam had WMD's prior to the Bush Administration taking over? After all if Bush lied so did they.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 27, 2008 05:56 AMnone of these turds ever move to Brussels; they seem to stay at the very country they loathe; his constituents are equally to blame--enablers all; a disgrace;
Someday, and I fear it's after this older generation of republicans dies off, we'll realize that pointing at democrats for everything is a pathetic cop-out and actually work to be a BETTER option than the democrats instead of just trying to make them look worse every chance we get.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 27, 2008 06:02 AMI understand people are anti-war, and it is their right to do so. With that stance comes serious consequences. Take vietnam for example. The left finally got their wish when we withdrew from SE Asia. The effect was the death of two million Cambodians at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. The vaunted Bill Clinton said repeatedly he didn't know anything about Rwhanda. To which I reply: BS, I was on a boat off the coast of Africa preparing to do peace keeping missions. just waiting for "someone" to authorize. Speaking of the "I didn't know" defense, didn't Hillary just come out and say she begged him to intervene? The net result was 700,000 dead, many of which were children. Saddam has killed more than 250,000 civilians during his 24 years of power. The genocide in Bosnia resulted in the death of 200,000 people.
Those that think war is unreasonable are the true bigots in all of this. Here we are with people protesting at the funerals of our fallen because 4000 of our troops gave their lives to help others. You are right, how aweful of us. The audacity of our men and women willing to go in and use to force to end genocide, end tyrrany, to allow people to be free. I guess they don't deserve the same freedoms we do. As long as it is THEM that go home in body bags who cares.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mills (oddly enough wrote many books that became the foundation for modern liberalism)
http://fremontseattle.com/myths/lenin_frameset.htm
Posted by: JDH on March 27, 2008 07:15 AMBut why should I be surprised now.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 07:18 AMBRAVO-sir.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 08:05 AMWhen you said re: WMDs
"To answer you question to Tensor, et al: Yes, I have; transport, load, arm, delivery, detonation, aftermath. It's not a pretty picture."
I am sure we would all be fascinated to know about your WMD experience, especially the detonation part. Perhaps it was on a runway in the Balkans...
Posted by: Dbltap on March 27, 2008 08:34 AM"The only persons more despicable than Jim McDerMUTT today are the lemmings in the 7th district that have voted him in time and time again."
You are wrong. More despicable are those who hold fundraisers to pony up money for this scumbag so that he can avoid personal responsibility for his misdeeds. I was recently panhandled by one of these organizations. I wrote them a letter telling them, in no uncertain terms, that I will no longer do business with them. I live in the 7th, and my wife and I regret that we are surrounded by so many fools.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 27, 2008 08:36 AMThank you so much!
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 27, 2008 08:49 AMBullshit.
Posted by: REBEL on March 27, 2008 08:55 AM"Evil thrives when good men do nothing."
Posted by: Silkworm on March 27, 2008 08:56 AMO-yeah, Mc Dummy is a Doc alright. Hell as a Medic I have more medical experience than he will ever have.
PS don't ask him to take your BP.
Thanks for the laugh. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 08:56 AMThe Pravda-Intelligentsia will always cover for their fellow "useful idiot" McDerMUTT.
If this burgh had a real newspaper, perhaps people would put down the jug of ideological kool-aid and start thinking for themselves for a change....yeah, I know, not likely.
Did Jim McDermott vote for the Iraq War? Nope.
Looks like all the liberals tripping over each other to please Bush were wrong and McDemott was right.
Looks like the entire Republican party was also wrong as well.
McDermott 1, GOP 0.
Now those countries take American textile jobs and become some of our biggest trading partners. Millions died so that their children could live in economic prosperity by making cheap goods for their former occupiers. Kind of ironic.
Didn't Bush go there just two years ago to praise them for for their "amazing" economy.
The net result was 700,000 dead, many of which were children.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN...I thought that was a "democrat" excuse.
Saddam has killed more than 250,000 civilians during his 24 years of power.
Are you saying we went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons? Funny how concervatives always accuse liberals of revisionist history.
Ok then, how about we go and free Somalia and Darfur? Millions of people are dying in those countries because of war...why are we not helping there? Do tell.
Here we are with people protesting at the funerals of our fallen because 4000 of our troops gave their lives to help others.
1) The only people protesting funerals is a Conservative loon.
2) I have no doubt they are helping others, but they gave their lives under false pretense that Iraq had WMD's and Saddam was a eminent threat to the USA. Sounds like you've conveniently forgot the idea of "Preemptive Strike".
I guess they don't deserve the same freedoms we do.
I don't hear anyone talk about bringing freedom to Cuba/China/Russia. Heck, Cuba is in our backyard, we already have a staging ground on the eastern side of the island. Why don't we bring freedom to Cuba? Oh yeah, your full of crap.
The audacity of our men and women willing to go in and use to force to end genocide, end tyrrany, to allow people to be free.
More like the audacity of "patriots" like you to rewrite history to somehow justify a morally unjust war.
Well, we took over a year to get to Iraq.(thank you dems) Saddam knew we were coming. One of his top Generals said Saddam had WMD and had them moved out.
So was Mc Dermott right or wrong?
I guess we may never know.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 10:07 AM" So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country? McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN's Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine. "If being used means that we're highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don't mind being used." "
Once again? "We don't mind being used."
We all know what the issue is. What that congressional communist/terrorist sympathizer said and when he said it is irrelevant. He knowingly allowed himself to be used in this manner.
In some countries (say, pre-war Iraq?) doing such a thing would get you and your family taken out and shot. But that's OK for the leftists, who really have no shame when treason is involved... as long as it sticks to the agenda.
Right, Dickie Durbin?
Posted by: hinton on March 27, 2008 10:14 AMAhh did you forget. The Dems & MSN push Mr.Bush into Somalia to feed them. Then Billy boy wanted to be know as fighting comander. Which cost the lives of our boys, then he pulled them out and you buddy dems said zip after that. What about all them poor people no longer getting food.
Yes your party has been screaming about Darfur too. Not to worry, if Obama get's in well be there too.
Which one was that? The one paid off by the Bush Administration? Like that Curveball guy who said he knew where the biological weapons labs were? Maybe he moved those out too. No wait, Gen. Powell had satellite photos of those.
So was Mc Dermott right or wrong?
Depends on what your talking about...
Right on the war, Yes.
Right on faulty intelligence, Yes.
Right on lack of WMD's, Yes.
And if you want to point to the SOTU address regarding yellowcake as a lie, you might want to look into the words "The British government has learned."
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2008 10:46 AM"Ok then, how about we go and free Somalia and Darfur? Millions of people are dying in those countries because of war...why are we not helping there? Do tell."
I seem to remember that we had troops in Somalia as part of the UN peacekeeping force, but your boy Slick Willy turned tail and ran the minute trouble started.
"1) The only people protesting funerals is a Conservative loon."
Hmm...when did Code Pink turn conservative?
"2) I have no doubt they are helping others, but they gave their lives under false pretense that Iraq had WMD's and Saddam was a eminent threat to the USA. Sounds like you've conveniently forgot the idea of "Preemptive Strike"."
False pretenses? Oh, you mean the false pretenses promoted by the UN, Clinton, and Dems. Sounds like you have conveniently forgotten how to read.
"I don't hear anyone talk about bringing freedom to Cuba/China/Russia. Heck, Cuba is in our backyard, we already have a staging ground on the eastern side of the island. Why don't we bring freedom to Cuba? Oh yeah, your full of crap."
Excuse me, but who is full of crap? Your boy John "No Air Support" Kennedy had his chance at freeing Cuba, and not only did he cut and run when the going got tough, he and damn near got America incinerated in the process. Besides, you being a liberal, I imagine you would be more interested in Cuba/China/Russia taking over America, so why bring it up? Ever since Roosevelt, Democrats have developed a yellow streak a mile wide.
"More like the audacity of "patriots" like you to rewrite history to somehow justify a morally unjust war."
LOL. When did liberals ever care about morality?
The reasoning you give is that because the British lied that makes Bush's lie OK. Joseph Wilson gave the CIA a report saying that Saddam's attempt to purchase yellowcake was false. Did President Bush conveniently ignore the results of the report he commissioned? Looks like it.
In order for Bush to have lied about the WMD and reasons for going to war, he would have had to have conclusive evidence that Saddam did not possess WMD before the war.
Six years later one can make a strong argument that the Bush Administration had all the information, they just choose to ignore the certain parts of them (see Joseph Wilson/Scott Ritter) while embellishing the ones that served to make the case for going to war with Iraq.
I wonder whether the omission of McDermott's party affiliation earlier in the article was quickly addressed with the poorly worded association above. Since all three are Democrats, at a minimum the article neglects to identify Bonior and Thompson as Democrats.
Headline could have read, "Prosecutors say Saddam financed Democrats' Iraq trip, including Seattle's McDermott." But that would have conveyed too direct a message to readers, wouldn't it?
Posted by: MJC on March 27, 2008 11:34 AMI see, those eighteen soldiers lives lost in pursuit of bringing Freedom in Somalia mean nothing to you? Funny how that works when the tables are turned.
Hmm...when did Code Pink turn conservative?
I was thinking Fred Phelps. Code Pink sucks too. =)
Your boy John "No Air Support" Kennedy had his chance at freeing Cuba
Haha, and five Republican Presidents later the people of Cuba are still oppressed. To quote Guinness02: "I guess they don't deserve the same freedoms we do."
When did liberals ever care about morality?
When it's convenient of course. =)
Big Jim's (He really should go see Jenny Craig)supporters have, in true form, stuck up for him.
I'll bet he just booked some top dollar speaking engagments and received some invites to the most highly sought after parties.
Is it true that Big Jin can down a 15 piece bucket in one sitting? Just wondering.........
Posted by: Sam Adams on March 27, 2008 12:01 PM"I see, those eighteen soldiers lives lost in pursuit of bringing Freedom in Somalia mean nothing to you? Funny how that works when the tables are turned."
Huh? How do you draw this conclusion? You don't even know me so don't put words in my mouth.
"Haha, and five Republican Presidents later the people of Cuba are still oppressed."
Right, and if we had troops fighting in Cuba, you would be bitching about that too. Hey IKON, I don't see you bitching about Clinton sending troops to Bosnia. Playing the party line?
"I was thinking Fred Phelps. Code Pink sucks too. =)"
If Fred Phelps calls himself a conservative, he needs to have his head examined. His church is akin to Jeramiah Wright's in my opinion. Equally nuts.
"When it's convenient of course. =)"
Thanks for your honesty.
If you believe that the Iraq war is all about lies told by the Bush administration, how do you explain that those "lies" go back 10 years before Bush ever ran for president? It started with the UN, was promoted by Bill Clinton, and many leading Dems. Blair and Putin supported the "lies". The "lies" were then passed on to the Bush administration. It's not about lies, it's about WHAT WAS BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. I am still not convinced that it was inaccurate and just because something is inaccurate does not automatically make it a lie. If you just want to Bush bash, go ahead and be my guest, but you are deluding yourself. Believe Joe Wilson if you want, but ask yourself the following question. If Valerie Lame was so deeply under cover that revealing her identity would have put her and her family in mortal jeopardy, then why was she doing photo ops for Vanity Fair? Does this woman sound like a phony to you?
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 27, 2008 12:15 PM
What are you 18yrs old?
Billy boy was the reason these good men died. Get over you smugness. (remember we were there for FOOD)and food only!
And Cuba. Man I have to remember back, but one the of the things JFK agreed in order to remove the missiles from cuba by RUSSIA, was to not ever attack Cuba and move out missiles out of Europe.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 12:25 PMWrong.
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.
So again, this was not a lie.
Six years later one can make a strong argument that the Bush Administration had all the information
He had lots of information, and the overwhelming majority of it, believed by both Democrats and Republicans, was that Saddam had WMD. So again, his reasoning for going to war (Saddam had WMD) was not based on a lie.
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2008 12:29 PMEighteen US soldiers lost their lives in Somalia. You disgrace their memories by saying that Clinton turned tail. In fact Clinton tried to broker a peace settlement that failed. =)
You don't even know me so don't put words in my mouth.
Haha, you don't know me either. Yet you said "your boy Slick Willy turned tail". Hypocrite. =P
If Fred Phelps calls himself a conservative, he needs to have his head examined.
He is a conservative, he's like an extreme Huckabee.
Thanks for your honesty.
Anytime.
I am still not convinced that it was inaccurate and just because something is inaccurate does not automatically make it a lie.
True...but purposeful dismissal of facts to justify a "Preemptive" invasion against a sovereign nation that poses little threat to your country seems like it should be a crime. Imagine if Chavez decided to launch a preemptive attack on Angola because he claimed they were going to attack Venezuela to steal his oil resources, he gave proof in the form of a group of Angolan exiles (who are funded by Venezuela) claiming that Angolan are training terrorists to be blow up Venezuela oil wells and Govt. buildings in preparation for the coming invasion. Most people would find this claim ludicrous. Yet anyone who questions these claims is quickly branded a traitor by Chavez's followers. That's pretty much what happened in Iraq.
When Bush Sr. went to war and had the worlds backing (and solid evidence).
Does this woman sound like a phony to you?
Only when you put it in the context that her cover was blown (by VP Cheney via Lewis "Scooter" Libby) and she would no longer be going on secret op's missions. Nor will anybody in the CIA front company she worked for. Tax records from the front company destroyed their lives as well as they were listed as employees.
Gezzz CATO. STOP being a fool about this.
We already knew who blew her so-called cover and you know damn well it wasn't libby!
Don't be so dense.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 01:09 PM Fred Waldron Phelps
November 13, 1929 (1929-11-13) (age 78)
Meridian, Mississippi
Residence Topeka, Kansas
Title Pastor
Term November 27, 1955 - Present
Predecessor None (position created)
Successor Incumbent
Political party Democrat
Saddam was IN CONTROL all the time. He could've said "Golly, I read the fine print on these 14 Resolutions and I'm wrong! Come on in and inspect to your hearts content! Including my golden pooper deep inside my palace! In fact, feel free to use it! Then, when I get a clean bill of health, lift the sanctions, give me back my airspace, and leave me be. For I have learned my lesson."
Instead, he ACTED like a guy who was hiding something that the (ballyhooed) UN agreed he should not.
Your rewrites are getting kicked back by the studio, as we say in LA.
Go KOOOOOOOGS
Bryan
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 27, 2008 01:18 PMYeah, it was VP Cheney speaking to reporter Robert Novak. It's a crime to disclose an classified CIA operatives name...even to the press.
Since he's clearly a (Presidentialy pardoned) traitor maybe we can call start calling Cheney "Tokyo Dick". =P
People violate UN resolutions all the time. That's not justification to invade. How many UN Resolutions do you think Chavez's Venezuela is violating right now?
Instead, he ACTED like a guy who was hiding something that the (ballyhooed) UN agreed he should not.
Yeah, what happens when Iran finds out Saddam is full of crap? Oh yeah, they bring back the Iran-Iraq war. =)
Your rewrites are getting kicked back by the studio, as we say in LA.
Looks to me like your rewriting the scale of the issue. There were UN Weapons Inspectors on the ground....Bush Administration willfully choose to ignore their findings as well.
Per The SEA Times:
"McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. "The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That's the only reason we went."
Butbutbut:
"During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration's claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction."
Here's the video of those with a short memory that the media does not call out.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 27, 2008 01:35 PMI see why people laugh at who
June 1997 - Joseph Wilson returns to Washington DC as Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. At about the same time, Plame also moves back to the United States (Wilson, Politics 240), in part because the CIA suspects her name was leaked to the Russians in 1994. (Vanity Fair, Jan. '04).
WHAT cover... cato??
PS his name was Richard Armitage.
Mark Foley penned the "Child Modeling Exploitation prevention Act of 2002", he claimed it was "for the children" as well. That didn't stop him from wanting/trying to have gay sex with children.
HA ha! Have 6 feet of rope murderer!
Baghdad Jim probably held a wake for Saddam at Blair Butterworth's mansion on Queen Anne. $10 a head, make it out to "McDermott Defense Fund"
You are such a homophobe!
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 01:42 PMRussia is one country, there are 189 other countries she could have been deployed to. The CIA are specialists in creating fake companies/identities. =)
Unless of course you think our nations intelligence operations have somehow lost their touch.
What's ....snow?
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 27, 2008 01:45 PMWhat Cato didn't say about Mark Foley.
He NEVER touched these childern, unlike a two dem's we all know.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 01:48 PMROFL, and you're a Shoteh and a שקרן too. =)
True, the GOP left the touching to their Catholic Priests.
You talk about revisionist history, you are deleting history from your memory just becuase it doesn't suit your political views. It is a fact that 700000 people died in Rhwanda. It is a fact that Clinton knew. It is a fact that he did NOTHING. Even his wife admits it.
You say the absence of WMD's means we shouldn't have gone to war. What would you say to those that were truely tortured under Saddam? I don't mean panties on the head torture. I mean REAL torture. Heads cut-off, tongues cut out (the punishment for the crime of speaking against Saddam), suffering rapes at the hands of his son's. I would like to hear you GetAClue, tell them to find someone who cares. We don't want to see our men come home in body bags.
Gosh, I had completely forgotten about JFK's missile deal with the Russians. Your post also brings to mind the fawning praise often given to JFK for his solution to the Cuban missile crisis...a crisis that he himself caused. LOL
Catholic
++++++++++++++++++++++ Last time I saw any info on who they vote for it's DEM's.
Can you say JFK (both ) and so many more, but you already knew this.
You just love to throw out stupid statements and see if you get any bites.
Dupe.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 27, 2008 02:05 PMYa gotta love it. Plame in her scarf and sunglasses trying to maintain her "covert" identity. ROFLMFAO : )
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 27, 2008 02:23 PMLet's make it so the F-111 can land on a carrier.
YEAH that's thinking smart "not"
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 02:23 PMHaha, I'm not the one calling Iraq a humanitarian mission while completely ignoring a poor poverty stricken people that occupy a country 90 miles due south of Florida. How many soldiers did we send to Haiti in 2004 to stop the massive genocide there? Maybe it was just enough to get President Aristide out safely. By your rationale Bush doesn't cares about other eight million plus potential victims of this genocide/revolution.
What would you say to those that were truely tortured under Saddam?
What about those who are currently being imprisoned and tortured by Fidel/Raul Castro? What about the thousands of Chinese political prisoners being tortured? So it's OK to save Iraq's while completely ignoring the people who's relatives occupy Miami and consistency vote Republican?
I mean REAL torture.
I'm sure people who've escaped from Chinese prisons can attest to the real torture you speak of. Of course you don't care about them.
It is a fact that he did NOTHING.
It's a fact that SEVEN US Presidents have done nothing to save the oppressed people of Cuba. To quote you ""I guess they don't deserve the same freedoms we do."
We don't want to see our men come home in body bags.
Exactly, that's why we send highly trained individuals armed with guns/body armor/night vision goggles/tanks/unmanned drones/fighter jets armed with GPS equipped missiles, not to mention the latest in satellite technology to fight in Iraq...this way they don't end up in those body bags.
"Massive genocide" in Haiti in 2004? Hmmm. I'm IN the news biz....I read the paper one day or two in 1994. How did I miss "massive genocide?" I know (firsthand) about it in Bosnia.....But not Haiti....Are we, in reality, learning something about your own Truthi-osity-ness? Some might say you're a Lying Liar who Lies.
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 27, 2008 02:33 PMWe miss you up here. Cheers.
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2008 02:41 PMOuch. Touche. =P
covert agents do not drive to Langley!
Her identity as a spy was still classified. Revealing classified information to the press is a crime. =)
I suggest you log on and view one of the beheading videos to find out what we are up against.
Gosh, no one has ever thought of beheading people before.
NW Denzien, are you suggesting I watch terrorist propaganda? In fact why are you watching terrorist propaganda?
My yesteryear recollections of Ought-Two are that many of us immediately posited that McD had taken a fabulous Saddam-paid vacation to fabulous downtown Baghdad. And didn't Big Mc confirm our suppositions by promptly dipping into his "defense" fund slush fund to pay back some of the dirty dollars he'd taken via Church Council of Greater Seattle?
Anyway, this is worth another 5% to McD in November. The only way he can go higher is to take LBJ's advice and get caught with a dead girl or a live boy. Seattle will then elect him God by acclamation.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury on March 27, 2008 02:48 PM"Let's make it so the F-111 can land on a carrier."
Easily doable, but only once. LOL : )
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 27, 2008 02:52 PMWhat kind of drugs are you on, man, and where can I get some?
Posted by: Sgt. Rock on March 27, 2008 02:53 PMEvery time you look in the mirror you are watching terrorist propaganda. Every time I read your posts I am looking at terrorist propaganda. BTW, are you still trying to psyc out the Kleagle? ROFL : )
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 27, 2008 03:01 PMDo elaborate...I do want to hear your theory of how politely disagreeing (with the exception of pbj) with you and your colleagues here at SP is equivalent to terrorist propaganda.
Understood, and justifiable
Just not true in this case, otherwise Fitzgerald would have thrown not-such-a-fan-of-Bush Armitage in jail. He had nothin' on him, thus her identity and knowledge of a mid-level bureaucrat with a desk at Langley was not classified. Merely a weak case against Libby because he didn't have as good of memory as Russert had.
Case closed. Please, no-one bring this canard up again, EVER.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 27, 2008 03:17 PMNo, they were all gotten to by Gerry Studds.
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 03:39 PMHe's a master of one thing, the word 'ass.' As in kick ass, kiss ass, suck ass. I'm neither easily shocked nor easily amused, so maybe I missed the subtle humor of the fifth or sixth iteration of 'suck ass' when Landfill Phil was given 25+ hours/week on KTTH. Then Bonneville moved him to KIRO, a move in the right direction. Next move puts him outside on Eastlake, in the gutter, where he belongs.
Posted by: Sgt. Hillary on March 27, 2008 04:09 PMPlease do some studying on who has classification authority, and how the classification system works. I'm not sure if you really have ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER about the subject which you are speaking so authoritively.
Posted by: Aaron on March 27, 2008 09:43 PM1) The perosn who wrote the law pertaining to the outing of CIA agents testified before Congress that Valerie Plame did not fall under that classification.
2) As stated earlier Richard Armitage was the leaker and why has he not been prosecuted if it was a crime (and dont even say he is part of the Bush Cabal as he has been an outspoken critic of Bush for some time)
3) Joe Wilson's report has been deemed inaccurate in the infromation in it. He claimed to have dervied his information from areport that he had never seen (this has all been proven).
4) I have spoken to some of the members of 170 SOAR (special operations air regiment,they were the ones who flew in the "Black Hawk Down" incident)when I was stationed at Ft Campbell shortly after SOmalia took place. They felt they could have still done good in SOmalia, but SLick WIlly pulled the plug do to the bad press he was getting over the incident. Slick WIlly's pulling of the plug led to Bin Laden making the statement that America had proven that it is only a paper target and if enough of our military were killed we would cave to terrorism.
5) We had multiple terrorist attacks under SLick Willy's regin as President; yet we have had no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11.
6) You brought up Mark Foley. What he did was disgusting and Republicans did not stand for it and ensured he did not stay. Democrats have Barny Frank and Gerry Studds. One actually had sex with an underage male page and the other had a prostitution ring running out of his appartment (of course he claimed he knew nothing about it). Neither was forced by the Democrats to resign and one of them was actually promoted. Barney Frank is still serving your party in COngress and I am sure that Studds would be too, but he died within the last couple of years.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 28, 2008 12:06 AMYou may not think McDermott is a traitor, but I think this proves the point.
Posted by: pbj on March 28, 2008 12:24 AMhttp://www.investigativeproject.org/article/628
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 08:09 AMDon't be so thin skinned. Did you not see the emotograms at the end of my post? If you can't see that I was poking a little fun at you, then perhaps you should remove "sense of humor" from your list of accomplishments. Besides, you're pretty good a slinging mud yourself.
Yes, I am well aware of the atrocities that the Japanese committed during WWII. Beheading is nothing new under the sun. In fact, along with the lynchings, I am sure that the Democrat sponsored KKK managed a beheading or two during its reign of terror.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 28, 2008 08:49 AMTune in and listen to the "Tokyo Rose of the Northwest"
Posted by: Rick D. on March 28, 2008 09:08 AMI did, but they were not attached to the sentence in which you called me a terrorist. =)
Yes, I am well aware of the atrocities that the Japanese committed during WWII.
So then why bring it up? The only real difference here is technology. They know how to use a video camera and YouTube.
I'm sure if the ease of access to these technologies had been around in WWII we would have seen YouTube videos of beheadings, videos shot from inside a plane during Kamikaze training, not to mention Emperor Hirohito's surrender (probably remixed by an anonymous tech savvy individual who would mix it in with a hip-hop beat). It's propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.
Of course it's propaganda, but to pass it off as nothing more, nothing less is at least a little flip. It is chilling propaganda that clearly depicts exactly what these Islamist nut jobs have in store for us if we don't knuckle down to their brand of bullsh*t. There is another difference. That picture of the Japanese officer beheading the Australian is historic, while the beheading videos are current news. The Japanese were defeated and are no longer a threat, but these Islamofacists are plying their trade today on a worldwide basis. In my opinion, your post is typical of people who have their heads stuck in the sand regarding this issue...i.e., it's no big deal.
I need to calm down and do my show now.
www.kfiam640.com
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 28, 2008 01:05 PMWhat are the odds of that happening? My money is on never. Maybe we should respond by posting videos of Water Boarding and Abu Ghraib, that's what happens to people who don't follow our brand of Democracy.
That picture of the Japanese officer beheading the Australian is historic, while the beheading videos are current news.
It wasn't historic at the time it was published. it was current news. Fifty years from now the behading and roadside bomb videos will be considered historic as well.
The Japanese were defeated and are no longer a threat
Good to see you have a good grasp on history. =P
In my opinion, your post is typical of people who have their heads stuck in the sand regarding this issue...i.e., it's no big deal.
People post propaganda...it's what you do to intimidate the other side. It's much more accessible to the individual due to modern technology.
Now tell me NW Denzien, have any Islamist nut jobs tried to remove you from your nice comfortable 50" plasma, two car, suburban islamofascist religion? Have these islamofascists attempted to cut the heads off any individuals living in your suburban cul-de-sac? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no.
I'm thinking your kids are more likely going to be approached by a drug dealer than an islamofascist.
The first world countries are pretty much united in the idea of defeating islamofascism. There will always be pockets where the idea exists and people who follow it (like all hate groups).
While I agree you that we need to fight them, I will pass off their propaganda as what it is, Propaganda. Isolated incidents designed for to propagate fear, propaganda only works if you choose to believe it or live in fear. I choose not to live in fear.
It looked like NW Denzien was living an posh Islamofascist lifestyle the other way. =P
Are you HIGH??!! The EU is busy relabeling "surrender" as "tolerance." Unless you don't consider murdering cartoonists as islamofascism.
Even the Canucks are discussing allowing Sharia to supersede Common Law.
The reason this hasn't happened here is because the average muslim immigrant EMBRACES the American values that the EU won't defend. i.e. Opportunity, Freedom (look it up), Tolerance, Small Government. In other words...anti-McDermottism.
I have never claimed my opinion is more valid than anyone else's, please stop trying to claim otherwise. I have a right to form my opinion and to disagree with you. Obviously KFIBryan's experience is very relevant to this discussion.
McDermott's treason had a cost and those of us who've visited the "Saddam Hussein Children's Hospital" under it's new management, know this.
Now I'm curious what did it cost you? Liberty? You still have liberty, pbj still has liberty. Would this have changed had we not gone to war with Iraq? Doubt it. In fact your experience would be quite different and arguably more pleasant.
It cost me nothing. I wasn't a dying child in a phony hospital. McDermott enabled and annointed a phony medicine-for-propaganda "children's hospital" on his visit to Baghdad. I suppose if it was 1939 he'd be shown Terezienstadt. (that's a historical reference)
My time in Iraq cost me hearing and neuro damage, but I can sleep at night. My time in Bosnia (courtesy of the "are we too late" Clinton deployment) still haunts me because we prevented nothing. BTW- why wasn't McD interested in Serbian kids before Clinton bombed a commuter train in 1999?
I see that's why France is sending MORE troops to Afgahinistan? Same with Canada apparently.
Unless you don't consider murdering cartoonists as islamofascism.
Seems like the publishing of cartoons is a direct challenge to the very threat of Islamosascism. It's saying...hey I don't agree with you and here us using our freedom of speech to say it. I fail to see how that's tolerance or surrender.
Even the Canucks are discussing allowing Sharia to supersede Common Law.
I personally do not agree with that. That's Canada's issue, I'm not Canadian. I would not support such a change here in the US.
The reason this hasn't happened here is because the average Muslim immigrant EMBRACES the American values
That's quite a claim, got any evidence to back that up? Can you speak for the average muslim?
This guy seems pretty set in his ways, same with these people, or even these folks.
In other words...anti-McDermottism.
You are claiming that average Muslims in America share the same values as Republicans. That would certainly explain why the fist "average Muslim" elected to national public office is a Democrat.
That's funny, one line later you say "My time in Iraq cost me hearing and neuro damage". So apparently it cost you something...you hearing and peace of mind.
McDermott enabled and annointed a phony medicine-for-propaganda "children's hospital" on his visit to Baghdad
The War still went on, and in the end McDermott was right, Iraq was not a threat to the US. His little visit didn't change squat. If people had listened to his propaganda stunt you would still have your hearing and not have neuro damage.
The Iraq War was not about human rights...it was about a perceived imminent threat from a country with WMD's that posed a threat to the USA. Since there were no WMD's or imminent threat and we were not "greeted as liberators".
Wrong, friend-o.
My peace of mind is intact in regards to Iraq. Bosnia will always be a source of guilt. Unlike most Americans (and talk show hosts) I know a secret: All war looks alike on the ground. I know this because I've been to a few. Not as an observer, but as a participant. Whether your President did it "for the kids" or self defense or whatever. It all looks alike.
"If people had listened to his propaganda stunt you would still have your hearing and not have neuro damage."
And if we'd listened to Lindbergh in 1938?
There are lots of 1st generation immigrants where I live, yet my neighborhood is solidly Democrat.
The model of assimilation is, ironically, Detroit.
You mean Detroit one of the most liberal cities in the US whose Democrat mayor was just charged with Perjury and Obstruction of Justice?
MY OWN TWO translators have been in Austin since November and they are house-shopping already.
Another Democrat city, in fact the only one in Texas. Seems like a (limited) pattern here that is contrary to the belief in Republican values you stated in your earlier post.
They'll educate you all about Iraq before and after Saddam. (they came to Seattle from Iraq in 1992)
I'm sure they could. Problem is Saddam was only one dictator of many that occupy the planet.
Cuba has horrible civil and human rights record, we could overrun it in a second. If you want to be consistent with your claim of supporting Human Rights abroad you should consider liberating the people in our own backyard first.
Why the red-herrings about immigration and political alignment. My point is, muslim assimilation isn't a problem here because of our belief in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
What's Qaddafi up to these days?
Cato, seriously, you have no perspective or knowledge of the profound evil that exists beyond our shores. For that, thank our ancestors. But perhaps a day in Sarajevo spent listening to.......anyone, would be worth a Masters Degree from Georgetown.
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 28, 2008 04:35 PMI'm going to assume you mean this in a general way and not a literal way. If that's the case I would agree.
Whether your President did it "for the kids" or self defense or whatever.
My President? Dubya? Clinton? Bush Sr.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? LBJ? JFK? etc. I believe they were all "my Presidents" as they occupied that office. Whether I voted for them or not is irrelevant.
And if we'd listened to Lindbergh in 1938?
We didn't even get involved until 1941...by then Hitler had conquered. Saddam invaded one small country in 1991 and the thirty-four nations lined up together to oppose him.
Saddam was not doing anything all that different from after he got his ass kicked in 1991 till we decided to invade in 2003 (with minimal troop commitment from few countries and a troop support from England). Do you see the difference?
Saddam invaded in 1991 (you know 12 years prior to the current war), paid the price for it. He wasn't developing nuclear weapons, he just claimed he was. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Islamofacism, and an equally horrible human rights record, yet they're our buddy.
My point is, Muslim assimilation isn't a problem here because of our belief in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
I pointed out several examples to the contrary at Post #144.
In the meantime Canada and Britain both have "INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY", and have lots of assimilated Muslims there. Heck, a good chunk of Britain's population is from India & Pakistan, those countries are home to plenty of Muslims.
Cato, seriously, you have no perspective or knowledge of the profound evil that exists beyond our shores.
I know exactly what lies beyond our shores, that does not mean I support pre-emtivley striking countries because they have Human Rights violations and they decided to invade a country 17 years ago and got their asses kicked.
Going to war with Afghanistan was most certainly justifiable, going back to Iraq in my own personal opinion was not.
And speaking of Cuba, come on, Cato, you know Fidel is a hero to most of the elite left public and Dem legislators in the U.S., as well as now Raul. Did you hear the news about Cuba today? They have made ownership and use of a cell phone legal for the lesser humans there. To date, only the rich and politicos could have them.
Posted by: katomar on March 28, 2008 05:11 PMSomebody jump in here! I didn't even do this crap when I was on k...V...i !
I hope you're all streaming... www.kfiam640.com
I'm back on at 7pm next week.
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 28, 2008 05:23 PMYou have succeeded in missing every one of my points. Or, you are a serial obfuscator. Either way, I am forced to declare you A Silly Person.
Cato is A Silly Person.
There, I've said my piece.
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 28, 2008 05:50 PMHow so? You claimed we went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. I pointed out there are plenty of other countries with humanitarian issues.
Then you gave me an argument about how the Danes are somehow surrendering to Islamofascism because they allow cartoonists to be murdered (I believe all are still alive). The cartoons were published and still are in papers and websites around the world.
Later you told me about your translators moving here. More power to them. You said the city political leanings were a red herring so I dropped it.
Then you pointed out the Human Rights line again but this time with nukes. I proceeded to point out the fallacy of this argument by using Afghanistan as an example. A country that meets all your supposed criteria for the Iraq War:
Dictator - Check
Islamofacism - Check
Nuclear Weapons Program - Check
Attacks neighboring countries - Check (see Kashmir)
Poor human rights record - Check
Meets all the criteria you gave yet we consider this consider this country our ally.
We talked about integration of Muslims into the American culture...I pointed out that Britain has far more culturally assimilated Muslims than we do, they are a democracy same as us.
I disagreed with you and you call me silly. Seems like you are unwilling to entertain the idea that going to Iraq a second time was wrong.
The way I see it Jim McDermott went to see the facts on the ground (paid for by an outlet cleared by the FBI), he was given a dog and pony show, he came back and voted against the war. I see no problems with that or how that would destroy your or anyone elses liberty.
If you think muslims in Britain are anywhere NEAR assimilated as muslims in America, you might be illiterate. Please go to www.bbc.co.uk and read ANY blog postings about the London bombings and it's after effects. It is a crisis in Europe. It brought Sarkozy to office.
The POINT you should acknowledge is that NO muslim in America has called for violence against infidels. They certainly haven't acted upon such impulses. That's because they have no barriers to assimilation. Why, do you suppose, that the Black- Muslim-Arabic speaking Somali community earns more than African Americans in only ten years of residence here? Cuz we're racist?
The EU is rolling over every time "youths" riot. "They're bored," is what the Police in Denmark were told to say.
Remind me again about Afghanistan's nuclear program? Am I to assume that I can use your criteria retroactively?
Posted by: KFI Bryan on March 28, 2008 08:10 PMHmmm, dunno why I typed Afghanistan, should be Pakistan.
The POINT you should acknowledge is that NO muslim in America has called for violence against infidels.
Not a whole lot of Muslims sneaking across the border. If Mexico or some South American country were Muslim we'd have the same problem.
Muslim-Arabic speaking Somali community earns more than African Americans in only ten years of residence here?
I have no idea why...Ethiopians too (though they tend to be Christian). Lot of Ethiopian restaurants where I live, only one Soul Food (it where all the gangs hang out). The main problem around my neighborhood is drugs, lot of people looking for a quick way to the top. Though I've never seen an Ethiopian drug dealer in my neighborhood. Interesting point.
"Now I'm curious what did it cost you? Liberty? You still have liberty, pbj still has liberty. Would this have changed had we not gone to war with Iraq? Doubt it. In fact your experience would be quite different and arguably more pleasant."
Well all have liberty, so there goes the talking point that Bush is talking our liberties. You ought to cross that one off you DNC supplied list of talking points because that post is going in the database to throw in your face the next time you repeat the DNC talking point that somehow Bush had taken away our freedoms blah blah blah.
Posted by: pbj on March 29, 2008 10:40 AMBS CATO! BS BS triple BS I SAY!
You show him EXTREME disrespect in ever god damned post! Until your candy ass has actually been in the military, you might want to show veterans some respect, especially one who was injured in a war to keep pukes like you free to spew your bullshit.
Liberals are fond of calling people ChickenHawks - you are just ChickenChickenAsshole.
And yes, I did serve Cato.
Posted by: pbj on March 29, 2008 10:52 AMBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!!!!!!
LIE DETECTOR JUST WENT OFF!
In fact, after the first Gulf War, the IAEA DID learn of Saddam's nuclear program - not because they were so great at it. In fact, they were all prepared to declare Saddam never had any program, but Saddam's brother in law betrayed him and told the IAEA where to look.
Here is a reference source for you:
The Washington Post
Date:
October 13, 1991
Author:
Glenn Frankel; R. Jeffrey Smith
Excerpt:
The U.N. inspection team was getting ready to quit after a particularly tense and unproductive interrogation session at a hotel in Baghdad last July, participants recall, when a previously silent, well-dressed Iraqi rose from his seat near the back of the room. He began speaking candidly, in perfect English, about equipment that was crucial to producing the enriched uranium necessary to make a nuclear bomb.
It wasn't until the following day that the astonished visitors learned the man's name: Jaffar Dhia Jaffar. And not until two months later did they unearth secret Iraqi documents identifying him as the lead administrator and scientist of Petrochemical Project 3 - the code name for the...
You have to pay to access the Washington Post Archives. Since no amount of fact ever penetrates the thick symian skull of the liberal, I will be damned if I'll pay good money to convince a moron like you!
Global security has a good bit on Saddam's 1991 nuclear weapons program:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/gulflink/cia/960424/65819_01.htm
Subject: IRAQI NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Not Finally Evaluated Intelligence
TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC ACCESS, THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN
REFORMATTED TO ELIMINATE INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN
TO GULF WAR ILLNESS ISSUES OR THAT IS CLASSIFIED. A COPY OF
THIS REDACTED DOCUMENT, IN ORIGINAL FORMAT, IS AVAILABLE ON
REQUEST.
COUNTRY: IRAQ
SUBJ: PROJECTS MANAGED BY THE IRAQI NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM
KNOWN AS PC-3
DOI: AUGUST 1991
NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROJECT KNOWN AS PETROCHEMICAL PROJECT 3
(PC-3) WAS SPLIT OFF FROM THE IAEC IN THE LATE 1980'S AND
PLACED UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF HUSAYN ((KAMIL)), THEN
MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND MILITARY INDUSTRIALIZATION.
ESTIMATED THE CURRENT SIZE OF THE COMBINED IAEC AND PC-3 AT
ABOUT 7000 PEOPLE. PC-3 IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE IAEC, WHICH
BEFORE PC-3 WAS FORMED NUMBERED ONLY ABOUT 2000 PEOPLE.@@@
THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF PROJECTS AND ORGANIZATIONS
MANAGED BY PC-3 AS OF LATE JULY 1991:
B. PROJECT 6000, ALSO KNOWN AS AL-ATHEER: THIS FACTORY
WAS DESIGNED TO FABRICATE THE URANIUM SHELLS FOR ATOMIC
BOMBS THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT BUILDINGS AT THE SITE,
ACCORDING TO CONTACTS OF
ARE THE MATERIAL HALLS IN BUILDING 6210 AND BUILDING 6220.
BUILDING 100 AT THE FACTORY IS INVOLVED WITH EXPLOSIVE
TESTS. SOMETIME PRIOR TO MAY 1990 THIS BUILDING WASTESTED
WITH A VERY LARGE EXPLOSIVE CHARGE. THE TEST WAS SUCCESSFUL
AND A CELEBRATION WAS HELD. ALONG THE ROAD TO BUILDING 100
ARE WAREHOUSES WHERE CAPACITORS INTENDED FOR USE IN ATOMIC
BOMBS ARE STORED. DURING THE GULF WAR, BUILDING 100
SUSTAINED A DIRECT HIT WHICH MOVED THE HEAVILY REINFORCED
BUILDING SLIGHTLY BUT OTHERWISE LEFT IT UNDAMAGED.
C. PROJECT 8119,,kLM KNOWN AS THE AL-FAJIR FACTORY NEAR ASH
SHARQAT: THIS FACTORY WAS BUILT USING THE YOGOSLAV DESIGN
DRAWINGS FOR PROJECT 411.
D. PROJECT 411, ALSO KNOWN AS THE AL-SAFA'FACTORY:
KNOWN TO YUGOSLAVIA AS PROJECT 946 FOR THE AQUBA BEN NAFFE
STATE ESTABLISHMENT, PROJECT 411 WAS THE ELECTROMAGNETIC
ENRICHMENT PLANT AT TARMIYA.
E. PROJECT 212, ALSO KNOWN AS THE AL-JAZIRA FACTORY: THIS
PROJECT IS LOCATED NEAR AL-MOSUL
THE FACTORY WAS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE YELLOW CAKE FROM URANIUM
ORE RECEIVED FROM AKASHAT,
F. AL-RABIYA FACTORY: THE FACTORY IS LOCATED IN BAGHDAD. IN
THE ZAAFARANIYA SECTION NORTH OF RASHID CAMP.
THE FACTORY CONSISTS MAINLY OF MECHANICAL WORKSHOPS WITH
COMPUTERIZED LATHE AND GRINDING MACHINES. THE FACTORY
PRODUCED THE ION SOURCES USED AT PROJECT 411. AFTER THE
TUWAITHA SITE WAS DESTROYED, THE 3Z GROUP WAS TRANSFERRED
WITH SOME OF THEIR EQUIPMENT TO THIS FACTORY.
K. PROJECT 7307, ALSO KNOWN AS THE AL-AMAL FACTORY:
THIS FACTORY PRODUCES LIQUID NITROGEN FOR THE
ELECTROMAGNETIC SEPERATERS OF PROJECT 411.
L. BAIJI PROJECT: THIS IS THE LIQUID NITROGEN PLANT FOR
PROJECT 8119.
M. AKASHAT GROUP: PROVIDED URANIUM ORE.
N. PROJECT 600: A PART OF THE AQUBA BIN NAFFE STATE
ESTABLISHMENT INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF COMPONENTS FOR
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SEPERATORS.
0. INSTALLATION GROUP: THIS GROUP IS LOCATED CLOSE TO
THE DIJLA FACTORY.
END OF MESSAGE
1.5 (c)
65819:65819
Here's more tolerance for you.
The Dutch are the most tolerant people on earth and even THEY'VE had it. (the movie that LiveLeak yanked was Dutch)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/28/liveleak-pulls-fitna-after-receiving-very-serious-threats/
Posted by: KFIBryan on March 29, 2008 02:58 PMNice hitting Bryan. Miss ya brother (57th medevac)
Back to working on the place.
Cato, quit. Your beat!!!!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 29, 2008 06:46 PM"Now tell me NW Denzien, have any Islamist nut jobs tried to remove you from your nice comfortable 50" plasma, two car, suburban islamofascist religion? Have these islamofascists attempted to cut the heads off any individuals living in your suburban cul-de-sac? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. I'm thinking your kids are more likely going to be approached by a drug dealer than an islamofascist."
Wrong on all counts...again! No car, no 50" plasma, no suburban cul-de-sac, no kids, no religion, and no fear. Once again, your prejudiced views have clouded your mind into placing someone you have never met into a negative stereotypical image of what you believe a conservative to be.
"Have these islamofascists attempted to cut the heads off any individuals living in your suburban cul-de-sac?" "What are the odds of that happening? My money is on never."
Really:
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/vo.wtc.2nd.plane.pax.med.html
That's as close as I am willing to come.
"Maybe we should respond by posting videos of Water Boarding and Abu Ghraib, that's what happens to people who don't follow our brand of Democracy."
Water boarding and panty hats are the equivalent to having one's head removed with a butcher knife while alive and fully conscious? American democracy is the equivalent of Islamofacism? Put your head back in the sand Cato. You're much more appealing that way.
I would argue that liberty is different than say arresting people who hold anti-Bush signs at Bush speeches, and wiretapping without a warrant.
Those two items are spelled out in the Bill of Rights...ie the 1st and 4th Amendments. Not to mention the suspension of Habeus Corpus in the 9th. (In case you forgot: the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.)
Do tell, I belive I am having a very civil argument KFI Bryan. I have no disrespect to him and his time in the military.
I have disrespect for you because you can't argue without shoving your foot in your mouth and calling people names. When you learn how to debate your point without being an ass we'll talk.
Liberals are fond of calling people ChickenHawks
See, this is why I don't debate with you. I continually claim to speak my own opinion and not for any organization or political party and yet you continue to label me and lump me in with the morons over at code pink.
n fact, they were all prepared to declare Saddam never had any program, but Saddam's brother in law betrayed him and told the IAEA where to look.
1991 is a far cry from 2003 when we went back.
The Dutch are the most tolerant people on earth and even THEY'VE had it.
I agree, that's what happens when you have lax immigration policies when dealing with former colonies (now countries). It used to be that anyone could immigrate to the Netherlands...people did including the radical Islamic individuals who integrate into the Muslim community and spread their message. Heck even this lady lied to get in...and she's an MP. Looks like they drifted too far left in their immigration polices and now they pay the consequences.
True, I should never lump you in the same role as a the typical NASCAR/Fox News Republican's I meet every time I go to the South. Like Liberals, Conservatives come in all shapes/sizes/backgrounds. I do apologize for labeling you.
Water boarding and panty hats are the equivalent to having one's head removed with a butcher knife while alive and fully conscious
Nope...I'm just making providing opposite to your point here: "It is chilling propaganda that clearly depicts exactly what these Islamist nut jobs have in store for us".
If we show them propaganda of what we have in store for them maybe they won't try to spread their bulls**t here. Clearly we're there regardless of the beheadings, I'm sure they would come regardless of our water boarding propaganda.
Wo when McDermott illegally wiretaps it isn't an erosion of liberty? Yeah. All stalinists feel that way too.
Posted by: pbj on March 31, 2008 11:51 AMThat isn't the point we were talking about. You are Obamaflecting - CHANGE the subject and HOPE no one notices.
You said:
"Saddam invaded in 1991 (you know 12 years prior to the current war), paid the price for it. He wasn't developing nuclear weapons, he just claimed he was. "
The point is in 1991 he WAS developing them. Given this fact and Saddam's history it is quite understandable how people were inclined to believe he was up to it again, even the Democrats.
Posted by: pbj on March 31, 2008 11:57 AMYou may believe it, but you totally discount his real life experience there, what he saw there. It shows in each of your posts. Somehow you think sitting in your mamma's basement in Seattle in a cloud of bong smoke somehow makes you more qualified to speak to than someone who saw Saddam's mass graves.
Posted by: pbj on March 31, 2008 12:04 PMThere you go making stuff up. Illegal wiretaps are done via the Govt without warrants, illegally recording a conversation floating in mid-air (not specifically targeting an individual) is a crime but not the crime McDermott was charged with since he didn't tape the call himself. The fact that you can't differentiate between the two says a lot about your intelligence level.
Given this fact and Saddam's history it is quite understandable how people were inclined to believe he was up to it again, even the Democrats.
Yup, and the egg is on their faces when they try to turn their backs on that vote. I didn't support '03 war because it looked like a bunch of jingoism BS, guess what...it was.
You may believe it, but you totally discount his real life experience there, what he saw there.
I'm sure KFI Bryan saw a lot of horrifying things there...I'm in no way discounting that.
Now if we went into the war in Iraq on a humanitarian mission then Jim McDermott would be in the wrong. I have no doubt Saddam painted a rosy picture for him (sort of like the US Military did when McCain strolled through a Baghdad market and let him hold a press conference claiming that Baghdad was safe).
Since we went to Iraq on the premise that it was a preemptive strike to stop this supposed growing threat to our country then McDermott is in the right. He correctly claimed that there we're no WMD's, and that Iraq was not a treat to America.
Even worse, he took posession of the illegal wiretapp when he KNEW it was illegal.
"Since we went to Iraq on the premise that it was a preemptive strike to stop this supposed growing threat to our country then McDermott is in the right. He correctly claimed that there we're no WMD's, and that Iraq was not a treat to America."
No, you're right. Iraq was not a "treat". ROFL!
Posted by: pbj on March 31, 2008 04:31 PMIt's NOT a wiretap. It's an illegally recorded conversation that was floating in the air that someone in FL stumbled on. The crime is not that he took the taped conversation, the crime is that he released it to the press.
No, you're right. Iraq was not a "treat".
It sure was a "treat" for the Bush Administration...they got to start a war to avenge Daddy's perceived failure.
So you agree he committed a crime, that's good. Now hopefully you will stop defending tis criminal.
Posted by: pbj on April 1, 2008 12:20 PMThat's your line of reasoning? ROFL!!
Yes, I think he committed a very minor crime. Now tell me PBJ will you stop defending President Bush because he was convicted of a DWI? How about Vice President Cheney and his two DWI convictions? Doubt it.
Personally I feel a DWI is a much more heinous crime that releasing an audio tape to the press featuring two members of Congress discussing how one of them is actively distributing Tobacco Company checks to House members in exchange for their votes (which is a violation of the House's ethics code).
I will defend Jim McDermott on his points about Iraq. McDermott's trip although certainly a last gasp by the Saddam's Govt. to avert the upcoming war does not in anyway discount his statements made after that trip which were eventually proven to be true.
I misspoke, they were discussing he GOP strategy to defend the individual (Gingrich) who distributed the funds in violation of the rules. Gingrich was going to try and organize a partisan strategy to defend his role as Speaker despite being under investigation for his ethical violations.
Here's what Gingrich did:
"On Dec. 21 Mr. Gingrich admitted guilt to charges that he had brought discredit upon the House by giving the committee untrue information and by failing to get adequate legal advice about using money from tax-exempt foundations for a televised college course he taught and televised town meetings with political overtones."
It looks like (then Speaker) Gingrich and others (GOP Majority Leader, etc) were discussing how he was going to lead a partisan strategy to subvert the ethics committee and keep the role as Speaker of the house. Gingrich later pleaded guilty to the ethics violations.
Looks like it was Rep. Boehner who handed out Lobbyist checks on the House floor (he was on the taped call)
Looks like I made a mistake, I've now corrected it.
