Blair's trying to give us a clue before it's too late. Anyone listening?

[AP]

Blair says that the US has evidence of WMD. Bremner denies it at first. Concedes slightly:

In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service on December 16, Blair said: "The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles."

Blair did not go into detail, but a spokesman for the prime minister said that the findings were part of the interim report produced by the survey group several months ago.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031228/pl_afp/britain_us_iraq_blair&cid=1521&ncid=1480

What's Blair doing?

I've said this before, this is why Blair got involved in the first place, and this is why Bush wasn't happy abut it. And why's he doing this? So that Dems get a clue and don't nominate an anti-war Dem upon whom this info will be sprung next October.

Of course, many DU'ers will stike to the idea that it's all lies.

[worldgonekrazy]

1. So Saddam had some Sarin gas

Ooh...in a world full of nuclear weapons and other horrific weapons we don't even know about, Sarin Gas with no means of delivery really scares me. A lot. Hell I would just shit my pants and vote for Bush.

[AP]

3. You think the Republicans haven't found anything at all?

I think they've found lots of shit, and they're not going to say anything about it until after Dean gets nominated. And you think the average Americans is going to think if it ain't nuclear it's shit? I don't. I think even a sarin gas program is going to make some of the stuff Dean has said make him look pretty stupid.

[worldgonekrazy]

7. It isn't justification for Iraqnam

I guess I have a little more faith in the people. I think they are smart enough to know that some WWII era weapons don't hold a candle to other legitimate dangers in the world.

[Progressive420]

29. "...WWII era weapons

don't hold a candle to other legitimate dangers in the world."

Your right but I don't have the same amount of faith in the people mostly because if they were smart enough they would have realized we didnt need to go to Iraq in the first place.

[AP]

39. Well, I guess America's lucky if these are the biggest threats, however,

it's still the case that (as even Clinton-Gore believed) OBL and SH were biggest threats to America's nat'l security.

And no Democrat is going to win running on the idea that it would have been a better idea to vote against the IWR, unless they're willing to go as far left as DK (but even that's a major long shot).

[Scott Lee]

9. Um, Sarin gas needs a delivery system to be a threat.

So sarin on its face won't be enough to rise the hair on a toads ass. So far, they've found nothing to deliver it, let alone any other type of gas or WMD.

[Monte Carlo]

12. A single determined individual is a delivery system...

... in the right spot, say a crowded station or at a sports game, could cause quite a bit of damage.

[worldgonekrazy]

15. That is true for ANY WEAPON in ANY COUNTRY

Even if you were to be able to eradicate the possibility, Iraq is certainly not the place you would start.

[Monte Carlo]

18. But not with the potential of a vial of sarin or VX...

... which could thousands over a period of years. It is not just any weapon. And why not start with Iraq?

[AP]

19. Both Clinton and Gore thought Hussein and OBL were two top threats to US

security.

Why would anyone want to run AGAINST that theory?

[TLM]

27. When has Dean said OBL is not a threat?

What Dean is running against is the idea that's Bush's polices are best for keeping us safe from those threats.

Why would any real dem claim otherwise?

[Monte Carlo]

31. He didn't, but that's not the issue.

He's going to be running hampered with the perception that he doesn't consider OBL or Saddam is a threat, which is going to be reinforced by the GOP media at every opportunity.

[TLM]

47. Oh no well then we have to find a dem that the republcans won't attack...

Like say a nice smart fellow who was VP and has the record of a boyscout. Yeah, there's no way the republicans could smear a guy like that.

Oh wait, yeah they can.


You know half the crap I hear around here directed at Dean is about how awful he is running such a vicious campaign against the other dems... then the other half is about how we have to run somebody immune to repuke smears.

Here's little history less, think back to 1992... when there was a draft dodging womanizing land swindling country hick with a barrel legged lesbian wife running for president. All the nay sayers where on, like they are now, about how he had no chance and no hope because the pukes would attack this or that and he's fail.

Yet he won, and you know why he won. Because Clinton connected with the people. That's it. You can argue about spin and response time and message focus all you want but in the end it boils down to that simple fact... he connected with the people. His flaws made him human and the people felt like he was one of them.

Dean is the only guy running right now who is doing that... and he's doing it better than Clinton ever did. Dean will win, and he will beat Bush, of that I have no doubt.

[Monte Carlo]

76. No, let's not do that, but let us take a look at possible weaknesses.

No one reasonable would demand a pure-white candidate; nobody's perfect.

Dean has not run an especially negative campaign, no, but he is not innocent participant in this process, either. Someone who campaigns as being from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party... them's fighting words to primary voters. Just because the GOP can't say enough garbage about the Democrats doesn't mean we can't have our own problems.

Clinton was a suprise in the primary in 1992, but that does not tell me that Dean will beat Bush in 2004. I've seen Dean speak, and in my own opinion, Dean has a fraction of Clinton's charisma and public speaking ability. I just don't think that Dean's appeal can be made as broad as Clinton's was in 1992 to beat Bush in 2004, and this time there's no Perot.

[okieinpain]

85. that is exactly how I feel, kerry, liberman, kunich, and gephardt

are all now presently in congress. and they have gotten their asses kicked by the bush machine. hell even edwards isn't a lock-in for his seat and he's the incumbent.

so in my gut I feel like that if you can't get your base people interested in what you have to say. then the general public isn't going to be much interested in what you have to say either. sorry cry all you want about dean getting beat by bush, but if bush can clubber dean, then none of the others stand a chance either. the only one that might have a chance agaist bush other than dean is clark.

[Monte Carlo]

86. The primaries and the general election are two different sets of criteria.

It's judging candidates by two seperate standards. I'll tell you right now, the big worry about Dean's candidacy is that he will do well in the Democratic primary, but what causes him to do well in that will cause him to do poorly against Bush in the general election.

[On the Road]

102. You Got It, TLM

I don't know why more people can't see that.

There will many opportunites for defining moments during this campaign and Dean is set to capitalize on them.

[HFishbine]

99. "And why not start with Iraq?"

Why not indeed? It's just what these guys have in mind: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[polpilot]

98. Dean can handle it. Ask Kerry, Gep, or Lieb. He's made believers of 'em

Dean '04...He can handle it!!!

[bearfartinthewoods]

95. when did they find sarin?

i have seen reports of war heads with nozzles and filler valves but heard no mention of sarin. is this true?

[SayitAintSo]

14. Why would Dean be the ONLY one at risk here ?

What about Clark ?

[AP]

21. Dean's risk is that he is the easiest to cast as being foolish

about underestimating the threat and not being willing to go far enough soon enough.

Clark's problem is that 90% of his identity is tied up in terror and Iraq and if he ran, the danger isn't that Bush would release the good evidence, but that he'd turn over Iraq to the UN, sit pretty until he won in November, and then invade Syria in December.

[madfloridian]

22. That is outrageous.

.

[AP]

24. I don't think so.

However, I wrote it, so I'm probably biased.

[Donna Zen]

52. True...however

Clark's problem is that 90% of his identity is tied up in terror and Iraq and if he ran, the danger isn't that Bush would release the good evidence, but that he'd turn over Iraq to the UN, sit pretty until he won in November, and then invade Syria in December.

The more Clark pushes, the more the regime has had to bend to Clark's plan. Why? Because although they will not admit it publically, he didn't hold J-5 because they like people who talk back. He's really one of the best, and they know it.

Check out Clark's plan on their website, then listen carefully to what the administration is up to. BTW, they will fail unless power trumps greed, because they are trying to hold on to the resources. Clark's plan gives it up.

BTW, I'm unsure about Blair's statement. We know that they did find tunnels...and we know, that they have found "old" evidence of programs. Very old. Of course, the corporate media would be more than willing to spin this as an immanent threat if told to. They will also connect it to Dean's position, without really stating Dean's position, in an endless cycle. Even before Blair's current remarks, I figured they would do this.

No...I'm thinking that they will produce Osama...or a resonable facsimile before the election.

[AP]

56. Someone at DU posted about meeting a soldier on leave who said that

they found a chemical weapons program. The response was, "these, poor stupid soldeirs. They don't even know what they're looking at."

I say, "poor stupid us. We can't see how we're peing played by Bush and the media."

[Donna Zen]

65. MTP

Clark said on MTP last May or June, that everyone figured Saddam had saved something. He said that it is a ruff neighborhood, and everyone has them..chem and bio--poor man's nukes.

[mouse7]

78. Dean looked real "foolish" when Ridge upped alert level

The opposition immediate shut the hell up because Dean looked so right.

Dean again looked like the only one thinking when he said we weren't safer after catching Saddam. Dean said it and Ridge proved it.

[Donna Zen]

38. Clark testimony more than covers this.

Clark testified that he thought Saddam had some WMD. He said it was a 5-10 window on Iraq before Saddam reached anything near a threat. He also said that there were other ways to go about Saddam, and that time was on our side.

Clark was thinking and recommending to the Congress that the stragetic call needed to be Afghanistan. He felt that disturbing the Iraq at this time would make the actual fight against terrorism more difficult.

This evidence doesn't negate any of that testimony.

[Vote2004]

34. Hello, AP, All

First of all, I want to say hello to all of you. I finally got here thanks to EG, DU Admin's help.

I have a question for AP or whoever is interested.
AP, if they did really find a lot of stuff, then, why won't they make the media release it? How come they haven't used it to "justify" the war, Dean or not?

I see that you have been here a long time and not trying to challenge you, just curious and trying to figure things out.

[AP]

36. Because, as Nixon did, they want to make Americans suspicious of the war,

so that Dems nominate and anti-war Dem, and then they'll spring the info on the public as an October surpise.

[Vote2004]

44. I see...........

Hmmmmm......
So what can be done about this then?
(I am always optimistic!)

[AP]

45. Nominate a candidate who doesn't define him or herself as a reaction to

the Republicans.

It's not that complicated.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

63. All of the candidates are running as a reaction to the Repubs (nt)

[AP]

89. Yes. But some would be better for America no matter who the Repub was.

[caledesi]

74. Don't forget the mass graves. Don't forget that Rummy was doing

business w/ SH when the dictator was still murdering and torturing his own people.

[Capn Sunshine]

2. TOO LATE

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME Blair's urgency in urging the attack was that the WMD's "would surely be used on our troops and could be deployed in 15 minutes to attack our cities" That would leave them exposed and available, "ready for deployment"

The fact no one found them by NOW makes all the rest just BS spin, my friend. BS Spin.

[Cocoa]

58. exactly

why do we let them move the bar, reframe their WMD arguments?

Every candidate can point to the fact that they're not fucking there, where they said they were certain they were.

[Bill of Rights]

4. Thanks for the heads up

It may be true that they want this kind of information to come out closer to the election. What B@st@rds. They hope to lead the electorate to vote for good ole Bush again.

[madfloridian]

5. Order the Uncovered video from MoveOn.

Watch it. Take a deep breath. Read some of the posts about the Iraq lies that have been posted here at DU.

Do not let the GOP define the issues.

[AP]

8. Don't get me wrong. Nothing they will find will justify what Bush did.

However, they will find enough to make any Democrat who criticized the IWR look like they don't care about naitonal security.

[Scott Lee]

11. Then it is the DEMOCRAT'S job to educate the public on this

why must we always be hostage to American stupidity and laziness? Hows about we take the initiative and not LET the GOPers use any water weenie they find in Iraq as a tool of fear to steal yet another election?

EDUCATE - DON'T EVACUATE.

[worldgonekrazy]

17. Dems are always determined to let the GOP frame the debate

But you see, that is what Dean does: he frames the debate. No Democrat, not even Clinton, has done that since Kennedy.

[AP]

23. Clinton framed the debate better than anyone: "it's the economy stupid"

They wrote that on the wall in Little Rock to remind everyone not to get distracted by Republicans trying to reframe the election on issues on which Bush was strong.

Dean is, in my mind, not good at all about framing the debate. He started off running on health care, and was pro-IWR. The media started to sell him as the anti-war candidate, and he rode the wave. I don't see that he's at all in control of the debate. If he were, we'd be talking about health care today.

[TLM]

33. Dean is, in my mind.... nuff said

Because we all know what comes next.

[TLM]

30. No we can't put faith in the people and trust the people

look how bad it is hurting Howard Dean to put faith in the people...

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Progressive420]

80. All of Dean Supporters

are Democrats there for I would include them among the smart people in this country. But most moderate republicans and independents I would not put my faith is because most people in this country are ignorant they are all easily manipulated. If the people in the country werent so easily manipulated then we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.

[Scott Lee]

6. Oh that is FUNNY!

So Tony cares so deeply for us Yank Democrats that he's slipping us clues, eh?

Just when you've thought you've heard it all....

[cally]

10. I thinkt they will 'find" wmds in October

It will get a huge splash, everyone will gush how Georgie saved the US from the heathens (the idea will be there but they won't use that word) and then next December we'll find out it's all a lie.

I think Clark's position and statements can withstand this. Another reason I support him.

[AP]

13. How does Clark win if nobody knows the truth until December?

How 'bout running a candidate who defines themselves according to things Republicans can't control and define?

[cally]

32. In his stump speech, he's careful to clarify

that none of us have the intelligence. He states if they have wmd's that there is a better way to deal with Iraq.

[AP]

35. Right. That's the intelligent strategy.

And that's why Bush's strategy if Clark gets nominated will be to take America's mind of Iraq and terror. If Clark wants to win, he better have an alternative idenity that doesn't require Iraq for victory.

You have to ask yourself, if not for Iraq, would I have ever thought Clark was my kind of president?

I think too many people would say no.

That's why the person who gets nominated can't be someone whose identiy is defined by ANYTHING Bush does. It has to be someone who, in and of themselves, is a president.

Do you think Lincoln was defined by Douglas? Truman by Dewey? Kennedy by Nixon? I don't think so. I think each of them compared and contrasted extremely well to their opponents. However, I also think that each of them was, in and of themselves, was right for America in their times and capable to beating just about anyone.

[cally]

46. We disagree about Clark

He has much more to offer than anti-war. I don't see him only as the anti-Bush but as a man who stepped up to run out of true patriotism. I see him turning around politics as we know it.

I'll leave my reasons to another thread. Thanks for your ideas.

[AP]

53. If we agreed, I probably wouldn't have the Edwards pictures in my sig.

But that's cool. This is a debate I'm willing to save for later. And I'm not going to be nasty about it if it dawns on me that I'm wrong.

(I too think Edwards could change politics.)

[Monte Carlo]

16. How do we know Saddam had WMD's?

... Because we have the receipts.

It's an industry joke.

[AP]

26. That's what Gregg Pallast says in TBDMCB.

He also says Saudi Arabia gave Hussein millions to develop a nuclear weapons program.

[Scoopie]

81. Hee

And I get that joke... because it's accurate.

*student of the 80s... which would be the Ronald Reagan era... and I don't forget a trick*

[madfloridian]

20. Now this thinking really scares me about our party. We are cowards!

That is why I have said that my husband and I, our friends, and much of our family, would rather see Dean crash and burn telling the truth than to start cowering in fear of the bad ole Republicans.

Shame on this party for self-destructing and being so afraid of the GOP that we are afraid to run a candidate with guts.

[AP]

28. "Cowards" how?

And how is Dean telling the truth? No Democrat would have done what Bush did on the evidence that existed. But that's not the point. The point is that it's inevitable for all the reasons mentioned in this thread that there will be enough evidence to make anyone who said SH wasn't a threat a GE failure.

It's not "telling the truth" to be so tone deaf to this inevitable situation that you campaign stupidly.

[TLM]

41. Cowards because some think that we should

support the folks who bent over and voted for this unjust war in Iraq because they lacked the spine to stand up and say NO to Bush. Cowards think that we have to support folks like Edwards only because of their having gone along with the WMD lie makes them less susceptible to attacks based on the WMD lie.

In other words your position is "if we can't beat them, join them." That's what Edwards did by voting for the war. Same as Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman... they couldn't beat the republicans, so they joined them.

And now you want us to support Edwards because he can beat Bush since he gave up on the IWR fight and instead of saying no to something that was so obviously wrong, he bent over and went along with the lie.

[Scoopie]

82. Shame on you

for running a candidate who couldn't tell the truth if he was forced - until Trippi get's a hold of him.
Honestly! Don't you know how often he changes his mind?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

94. Loosing is ok

as long as we're right?

That's what scares me, Democrats who would rather be right than be in office.

How does that help the country pray tell?

[TLM]

25. We already know they had labs and PLANS

that was pretty much backed up by the inspectors.

The question is did they have WEAPONS!

Did they pose an immanent threat which demanded immediate unilateral action without the support of the UN... and if so why wasn't the evidence presented to the American people and the UN to GET SUPPORT for a massive UN action?

[caledesi]

49. Thank you TLM for adding a little clarity. Where are the WMDs?

Not PROGRAMS! SH was never a threat to us. This was all BS to sell the war. If he had them, then why didn't he use them KNOWING he was going to attacked? No one can answer that. "So, you don't use your weapons when being attacked?" Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[AP]

57. Why would Clinton lie? Clinton said OBL and Iraq were US's biggest threats

[caledesi]

68. Link please?

I heard Clinton speak in person almost a year ago. He was great. He said he really did think that Iraq had WMDs, but that's all he said, but he never said anything about Iraq threatening the US with WMDs.

He also said that "terrorism" was basically a construct, and you can't try to track down all terrorists because it is a mindset and more and more generations are growing up w/ this concept, which is very scary. Terrorists are all of the world, even in this country.

He gave a brilliant speech as usual.

[AP]

70. He says it hear:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/jdrive/smil/clint052303.smi

This is very long, but he says it in here somewhere.

[caledesi]

71. I work on facts. See Bush lie here:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Where are they Mr. Bush? Why have almost 500 of our troops died in Iraq because Iraq was a gathering threat, "we cannot wait one minute longer." Remember that? And Condi with the "mushrood cloud"....so now we have captured SH - BFD and how many troops were killed this week? 8? 10? Stopped counting. 2 days after his capture and we told how much "safer" we were, the color code alert goes to Orange.




link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

[AP]

73. I suspect that if Dems started cataloguing all the good evidence, it would

freak people out so much that they might end up voting for Bush out of fear.

It's just a feeling I have, based only on intuition.

I bet the Republicans know they have the Democrats in this rhetorical bind.

[MoonRiver]

37. I think Blair's just trying to save his own sorry political skin.

I hope Brit voters clean his clock real good. They probably still have honest elections.

[AP]

40. Yes. Exactly. He saves his skin if Bush loses in 2004.

[MoonRiver]

42. He also saves himself by insisting he went to war for a valid reason.

Personally, I believe Blair was lying all the way to the bank (wanna bet he has mega stock options in Halliburton). He's been bought and sold.

[AP]

48. Yeah. I'll take that bet. Google Cairn Energy and ask yourself

if Blair is such a sellout, why isn't there a British equivalent of Halliburton and Becthel making millions off this.

I would bet you a ton of money there is no Carlyly parternship in Blair's stars.

Can't you tell? Bush hates Blair. They tried to use the Niger stuff to destroy him.

[TeacherCreature]

43. in what alternative world is that true?

Blair saves his ass if he can continue to gaslight the british people and Bush wins next election.
We didn't go to war over plans for WMD.

[AP]

50. Either Bremner or Blair is lying. It isn't both of them.

And you think Bremner is telling the truth?

OK.

[MoonRiver]

55. I don't know what Bremmer's agenda is. Maybe he figures Blair's

desperate and/or over the edge. If so and bushistas* know that no WMD will be found, why would the sleaziest criminals on the face of this earth want to go along with Blair's attempt to redeem himself in Britain? After all the majority in America seem to be totally bamboozled with the "capture" of Saddam, and probably don't give a flying f why we went to war anymore (sheeple will be sheeple).

P.S. I'm not disputing that Blair may be lying. Stranger things have happened after all.

[AP]

59. I'm going to guess Blair is telling the truth. He just gave Dems a big...

...gift by removing Libya as a tool to sell fear in 2004. I'm seeing a pattern.

[MoonRiver]

61. OK I give up. Truth is I don't really know what's going on with Blair.

If there are weapons at least I wouldn't have to think so many innocent people died for NOTHING. Bottom line though is that I think we have the same mission, which is defeating *. More power to US!!!

:grouphug:

[MoonRiver]

51. Can you grasp the concept that Blair needs to be seen as

a leader who didn't lead his country to war on the basis of LIES?? What about this concept is so difficult to understand?

[AP]

54. Clinton says it wasn't ALL lies. He says there were lots of good reasons

the press never mentions. And whose side is the press usually on?

I think we'll hear all the good reasons if the anti-war candidate gets nominated.

[Cocoa]

60. all the candidates are the same

like a whole lot of people, they all said before the war that they believed Bush about WMD.

And like everyone on the planet, by late April they all knew it was all lies.

Only one candidate was the one doing the lying, and that's Bush.

[AP]

64. Not entirely accurate.

My interpretaion (which I've stated throughout) is that Clinton, Edwards and Clark have all said that there was good evidence and bad evidence. The believed the good evidence. Didn't believe the bad evidence. Only had an up or down vote. And voted up based on the good evidence.

Why do people find it so hard to believe that the Republicans probably planted the bad evidence to encourage protests and the nomination of an anti-war Dem, and that they will spring the good evidence on America as an October surprise to make the anti-war Dem look dumb.

To me, that's the unfiying theory which makes sense of everythign that's happened with Iraq. Furthermore it has historical precedent: Nixon and Vietnam.

[Donna Zen]

62. Who pulls what strings?

There are some factors involved with this scenario that even the "masters of the universe" may find themselves unable to control. While the American people are suspendended in a state of ignorance, there are opposing forces who will often disobey them, including but not limited to, the Sunnis. There is more than one way for this to play out.

Nevertheless, I hold fast to my belief that the regime is somewhat neutralized by a candidate with foreign policy experience. The public is far too conditioned to fear, to suddenly turn around and whew.

All of the Democratic candidates must be able to present a coherent domestic platform. However, they are assumed to be better than repubs on those issues. And thanks to Clinton, we have even edged up on "who does a better job with the economy." A "D" after your name goes far in this regard. Our weakness is defense and foreign policy...plugging that hole will take more than mere name dropping and rhetoric.

[shivaji]

66. Why did Madeline Albright say Osama may be in US captivity?

I remember reading something to this regard. She is afraid they may be holding him in a secret location until October 2004. Hope this is not true, and she was just hypothesizing.

[MoonRiver]

67. She was kidding.

But I would like to think he was in captivity. I have developed a fear of flying that I think might be somewhat alleviated if OBL were out of commission.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

69. Blair's trying to send the American Dems a message?

I don't see it that way at all.

Blair is trying to save his ass. Or maybe he's telling the truth. Whatever. If they pull WMD out of their ass or even for real out of the ground in Iraq, this helps BUSH and only BUSH (well, also Blair, but that's the point).

Those of us who believe that this war is based on lies and manipulation aren't going to suddenly change our minds, or stay home from the polls.

And people are unhappy with GWB for a lot more than Iraq.

[Donna Zen]

75. I've seen tunnels on tv

Sure they're old and dumpy...but with a few placed planning books, it's a piece of cake for the junta to make a case that bush cares about your safety and dean is naive.

Accept that they probably have some shit stashed to use at a later date, and assume that the media, who has never let them down yet, will spin it together with the pictures of 911, and Saddam's delousing.

I have yet to see a majority of Americans call bush a liar.

They are not going down without a fight! I want to give them as good a fight as we can. AP seems to want to do the same. And while we may disagree over our rationales, after all we are backing different candidates, I respect his point in this thread.

[caledesi]

72. Blair talked about WMD programmes and laboratories...

Blair said this month the Iraq Survey Group had found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories" in Iraq.


Bremer said the group had found "clear evidence of biological and chemical programmes, ongoing.

I am so sick of the lies. Even Kay is resigning or has resigned.

[mouse7]

77. With friends like these in the party...

who needs the neo-cons.

There is no evidence of WoMD programs. None. Trying to puff up BS to puff up Edwards serves the dual purpose of puffing up Dumbya's ridiculous claims. Looks like some don't care how much damage they do to the country and the Democratic Party as long as they get to be on a winning side in the primary.

[Scoopie]

83. And, lastly I give you...

The Republicans framing the debate...
Pssshawww.
We're wasting verbage.

America NEEDS Wes Clark.

[MoonRiver]

84. Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!!!

We need the General desperately!

[stickdog]

87. Blair is saying this to save his ass.

So you can continue to kiss it just as he kisses the Chimp's.

[T_i_B]

88. Don't get your hopes up folks

Blair is as much of a neo-con as anyone on Washington and he will be more than happy to see Bush stay in the whitehouse. Blair is batting for the other side, as can be seen by his policies of immigrant bashing, PFI, foundation hospitals etc. A strong Democrat would be a threat to Blair as he has his nose too far up the PNAC's arse.

Here is Sidney Blumenthal with an article that shows more of what is really going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1094052,00.html

Blair has grown to see Bush as something of a soulmate. Blair's rhetoric during the visit sounded trumpet notes as though it was still the call to the war in Iraq and the postwar realities had not intruded. Riddell reports that Blair in retrospect regards Bush's predecessor as "weird". That fact or factoid, true or not, may be interpreted as perhaps another gesture of ingratiation - demeaning Clinton is always deeply appreciated by Bush.

I recall being present at meetings between Blair and Clinton where, in 10 minutes, apparently difficult problems, including trade, were resolved to Britain's advantage. How weird was that? Now Blair has equated the long-term interests aligning the US and the UK with adamantine support for the short-term strategies of the Bush administration. Yet the tighter the embrace, the weaker the influence.

[farmbo]

90. Blair, like Bush, has discovered the secret of political eternal life:

...Market yourself as a "War President" (or PM) in a time of perpetual war.
And if the rationale for does not exist...invent it.

[sweetheart]

91. blair is a liar

I don't trust a word he says anymore.

How come "I" knew the war was a sham and he did not?.. because he is a liar.

Though i am certainly no fan of labour, it is their responsibility to put their poodle down now that he has gone rabid.

[AP]

92. Clinton says there was good evidence and he would have voted up on IWR

Is Clinton a liar? Is he stupid?

Clearly the problem with Iraq isn't that there was no good reason to think of Iraq as a threat to the US. The question is whether there was an appropriate proportionality between the evidence and Bush's execution.

Unfortunately, the IWR doesn't capture the nuances in porportionality.

That's why the President is the commander-in-chief, and not the Senate.

[Cheswick2.0]

97. is Clinton stupid?

well I think he has proven that for a smart man he is very capable of stupidity.

[sweetheart]

105. Yep, clinton is a liar... a very smart one.

... too smart to leave a legacy or do his party any good.

oh well. The new labour stain will come out with carpet cleaner just like the clinton stain did.

[JNelson6563]

93. Headline: Julie finds proof of WMD!!!

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.


<snip>

The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.

Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:

* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.


* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.


* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC


* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).

The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH

Of course there are no delivery systems in Iraq that would make any of this outdated stuff a danger to us anyhow.

What next AP? Bush is the right guy to be our President?

Julie

[CWebster]

96. hope not

Look what they got for listening to him before.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

100. Interesting

we can pretty much count on this happening.

[Ficus]

101. I like Tony Blair

sometimes I think that he'd be a great Democrat if he were over here across the big lake. Is he trying to give us a warning? Naw, probably not. He's having a hard enough time saving his own butt to worry about the Democrats over here.

[blm]

103. I think you're right. Bush's timing has been suspect from the start

and every step of the way. They played this thing out to make CERTAIN that they got the gaffe-prone Dean who has trouble controlling his dumbass remarks.

That will work for them just enough to make fools out of the entire Dem party for allowing Dean to be the nominee.

[killbotfactory]

104. This is exactly what they've said they've found...

"programs and plans" don't constitute an imminent threat.

It's all horseshit.