Ray McGovern is an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist

[Montgomery Burns]

Here's a photo of Ray McGovern sitting next to the loathsome Cindy Sheehan at an event sponsored by the Communist organization World Can't Wait. And where was this event held? Yep, you guessed it; Cal-Berkeley.

And here is McGovern at an all-star moonbat tribunal:

An unprecedented series of indictments alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity, in five separate areas, on moral, political, and legal grounds, will be delivered by a citizens' tribunal to President Bush at the front gate of the White House this Tuesday, January 10th.

Named in the indictments are: President of the United States George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, U.S. Army Major General Geoffrey Miller, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, et al.

The indictments will be delivered to the White House by: Retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern, authors William Blum and Larry Everest, Code Pink, Mike Hersh (Progressive Democrats of America/After Downing Street), Kevin Zeese (Director, Democracy Rising; candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland), Travis Morales (World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the Bush Regime) and others TBA.

Nice company that McGovern keeps. *gag*

WaPo reports on John Conyer's kangaroo court impeachment hearings:

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration “neocons” so “the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.” He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. “The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.”

This anti-semitism was so far over the line that even Howard Dean condemned it:

WASHINGTON - A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday.

[...]

One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to “dominate that part of the world,” a statement Dean also condemned.

“As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could ‘dominate’ the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric,” Dean said.

Ouch! When a wacko like Howard Dean thinks you've gone too far...

More from Jacob Laskin at Front Page Magazine:

McGovern was not above retailing anti-Israel conspiracy theories. Hence he claimed, inter alia, that an Israeli company had advanced warning of the 9/11 attacks—an accusation echoed in literature passed out by Democratic activists at the hearing.

[...]

That Israel pulls the strings of American foreign policy is not the only conspiracy theory propounded by McGovern. While maintaining that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence information to justify the war against Iraq, McGovern has allowed for the possibility that WMD may be found in Iraq. But he hastens to add that any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq will likely have been “planted” by American forces. “Some of my colleagues are virtually certain that there will be some weapons of mass destruction found, even though they might have to be planted,” he told Agence French Presse in April of 2003, darkly insisting that “that would justify the charge of a threat against the U.S. or anyone else.”

Additionally, McGovern belongs to a group of ex-intelligence officials known as Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS. VIPS is infamous for - get this - encouraging intelligence operatives to undermine the Bush administration by breaking their confidentiality agreements and leaking information. Indeed, McGovern himself wrote in a Sept 2004 op-ed that "leaking can be patriotic".

Gerryhatrick, I have even more dirt on McGovern - including a pic of him speaking at Camp Casey last year - but I think I have made my point.

As for the so-called smackdown McGovern gave to Rummy, here is a smackdown courtesy of Rummy:

"You may find people who will contend that patriotism is something to be a little bit embarrassed about or that honor is somewhat outdated as a notion and that concentrating on America's imperfection makes you a realist. Not so. That's the sign of a cynic. Being a cynic is easy. You can just sit back, heckle from the cheap seats, while others serve, storm beaches, build nations, meet their destinies. Idealists write history's stirring chapters; cynics read those chapters and seem not to understand. Choose to be an idealist. There have always been those who contend that what's wrong with the world is America. Don't believe it."

Well said Mr Rumsfeld.

[GostHacked]

Nice to see you back Monty.

However your last quote. Rummy still did not address his issues at all. Just rhetoric saying in a nutshell YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOT!!!.

McGovern :So where are the WMDS? Did you lie?

Rummy : You hate freedom.

[Black Dog]

The prosecution without trial of all these "new" anti-semites is very reminiscint of the old McCartyhism. There are millions of Jews in the world who are not Israeli. There are milllions who are not Zionists. To equate Israel with all Jews is nothing more than a cynical attempt to use one of mankind's blackest marks (the legacy and continuation of ant-semetism) for political gain. It's a disgusting affront to the memories of the millions of victims of real anti-semetism.

[geoffrey]

The prosecution without trial of all these "new" anti-semites is very reminiscint of the old McCartyhism. There are millions of Jews in the world who are not Israeli. There are milllions who are not Zionists. To equate Israel with all Jews is nothing more than a cynical attempt to use one of mankind's blackest marks (the legacy and continuation of ant-semetism) for political gain. It's a disgusting affront to the memories of the millions of victims of real anti-semetism.

True... you can attack Israeli policy without being anti-semetic. I don't agree with this Israel is off limits just because they are Jewish, kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

[Argus]

The prosecution without trial of all these "new" anti-semites is very reminiscint of the old McCartyhism. There are millions of Jews in the world who are not Israeli. There are milllions who are not Zionists. To equate Israel with all Jews is nothing more than a cynical attempt to use one of mankind's blackest marks (the legacy and continuation of ant-semetism) for political gain. It's a disgusting affront to the memories of the millions of victims of real anti-semetism.

Nobly and self-righteously put. But it leaves out the absolutely undeniable fact that vast numbers of those who despise Israel make no bones about their loathing for Jews, and often use the words "Israeli" and "Jew" interchangeably. How does one take a conspiracy theorist who claims that the Mossad was behind 911 and that all the Jews who worked there stayed home because they were warned? And all the morons who believe such drivel? Plus all the sneering statements about the "Israeli lobby" in the United States, which is nothing more than code for "Jewish lobby"?

I have said it before and I repeat it: Not all Israeli-haters are anti-semites, but ALL anti-semites hate Israel. And when I see people spewing anti-Israel rhetoric again and again without logic or reason, and yet saying nothing against other more brutal regimes, I have to wonder at their motivation. As with the last unlamented United Nations Human Rights Commision, which rarely bothered to issue demands to the world's worst human rights violators, but spent over a third of their time passing resolutions condemning Israel, I can see only one difference between Israel and other states - the Jews who live there.

[Argus]

"You may find people who will contend that patriotism is something to be a little bit embarrassed about or that honor is somewhat outdated as a notion and that concentrating on America's imperfection makes you a realist. Not so. That's the sign of a cynic. Being a cynic is easy. You can just sit back, heckle from the cheap seats, while others serve, storm beaches, build nations, meet their destinies. Idealists write history's stirring chapters; cynics read those chapters and seem not to understand. Choose to be an idealist. There have always been those who contend that what's wrong with the world is America. Don't believe it."

Well said Mr Rumsfeld.

Yes. Now if only Rumsfeld wasn't a lying, arrogant weaselly incompetent who ignored the advise of his generals and screwed up the war.

But ahh, he knew better. After all, he was ..... around... during Vietnam, though he, like Cheney, like Bush, made sure they never had to serve.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

True... you can attack Israeli policy without being anti-semetic. I don't agree with this Israel is off limits just because they are Jewish, kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Glad to see you are open-minded on this point. I am an anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic. I just don't think religion should give the legal right to establish borders.

The trouble is, too many people cry 'anti-semite' the second Israel, or the US' unquestioning support of Israeli policy, is criticized.

[Argus]

Dear geoffrey,

True... you can attack Israeli policy without being anti-semetic. I don't agree with this Israel is off limits just because they are Jewish, kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Glad to see you are open-minded on this point. I am an anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic. I just don't think religion should give the legal right to establish borders.

The trouble is, too many people cry 'anti-semite' the second Israel, or the US' unquestioning support of Israeli policy, is criticized.

Gee, Flea, do ya think that could be because so many of the main suspects in the anti-Israel parade ARE virulent anti-semites?

Anti-Semitism deleted from resolution by UN Human Rights Commission

United Nations Human Rights Commision....

A resolution put forward by South Africa and the African group of UN states with the support of 28 members of the commission, as a follow up to the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, resulted in the deletion of "anti-Semitism" from the resolution on racism, xenophobia and related intolerance.

The U.S. delegation did move to mention "anti-Semitism" in the preamble of a resolution on religious intolerance which was approved, but only after 27 member states had registered their opposition by either voting against or abstaining. The debate featured Ireland prominently standing in the way of including anti-Semitism; Pakistan stating that anti-Semitism had nothing to do with religious intolerance and Cuba accusing the U.S. of acting under intimidation from Jews.

.... Deeply concerned that, despite continuing efforts, contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, any form of discrimination against, inter alia, Blacks, Arabs and Muslims, xenophobia, Negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance persist and are even growing in magnitude, incessantly adopting new forms, including tendencies to establish policies based on racial, religious, ethnic, cultural and national superiority or exclusivity,

[KrustyKidd]

I guess that I am nuetral on Jewish and pro Zionist as I find that Israeli Arab chicks and Israeli Jewish gals the hottest girls on the planet. For that reason only, the entire nation of Israel should be allowed to live. Furthermore, it makes all political arguments against Israel null and void (providing I get some). Then again, maybe it's the present mood I'm in and, if I get some from anywhere, my political opinion may change.

[geoffrey]

Dear geoffrey,

True... you can attack Israeli policy without being anti-semetic. I don't agree with this Israel is off limits just because they are Jewish, kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Glad to see you are open-minded on this point. I am an anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic. I just don't think religion should give the legal right to establish borders.

The trouble is, too many people cry 'anti-semite' the second Israel, or the US' unquestioning support of Israeli policy, is criticized.

I'm open-minded on all points.

It's funny that those on my side (the right-wingers out there) decry political correctness but call for it when people speak of Israel.

I'm just not politically correct with anyone, if Israel is doing something wrong, like blocking off hospitals for Palestinians so they have to travel hours further, sometimes on foot, I'll say it.

It's not anti-Semetic, I don't hate Jews. I don't like human rights abuses by anyone, anytime.

That goes for Palestine too. I'm not impressed with their fighting violence with violence attitude.

Neither side has my favour in that conflict. Both are equally guilty of all the blood spilt there.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

from the Anti-Defamation League report on this conference...

http://www.adl.org/durban/

Durban Update: Final Declaration Recognizes Palestinian Right of Return; Omits Language Critical of Israel

Here is the link to the UN document to which you refer,

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.ns...69?Opendocument

but I can't find the one with 'anti-semitism' stricken out. Mind you, I don't have a lot of time, must be off to work. I will look further upon my return.

[Black Dog]

Nobly and self-righteously put. But it leaves out the absolutely undeniable fact that vast numbers of those who despise Israel make no bones about their loathing for Jews, and often use the words "Israeli" and "Jew" interchangeably. How does one take a conspiracy theorist who claims that the Mossad was behind 911 and that all the Jews who worked there stayed home because they were warned? And all the morons who believe such drivel? Plus all the sneering statements about the "Israeli lobby" in the United States, which is nothing more than code for "Jewish lobby"?

The conspiracy theories that seek to pin blame Israel for 9-11, for example, are no doubt tinged with anti-semetism. But there's also a historical basis, with Mossad's record of subversive/terrorist activities abroad. One doesn't necessarily have to hate Jews to think Mossad could do the dirty. But I agree, anti-semites seize on those sorts of things. Where I will call bullshit though is the idea that talking about the "Israel lobby" or the "Jewish lobby" is, in and of itself, anti-semetic, given the fact that there is a Israel lobby and a Jewish lobby. We're not talking talking shadowy cabals out of the "Portocols of the Elders of Zion", but prominent, public organizations like AIPAC. Surely the question of why such an organization has such a significant inluence on American policy can be asked without the questioner being accussed of Jew-hatred. Basically, too often are trumped uop charges of anti-semetism hurled about without sufficient examination of the accussed's motivation.

[Montgomery Burns]

The prosecution without trial of all these "new" anti-semites is very reminiscint of the old McCartyhism. There are millions of Jews in the world who are not Israeli. There are milllions who are not Zionists. To equate Israel with all Jews is nothing more than a cynical attempt to use one of mankind's blackest marks (the legacy and continuation of ant-semetism) for political gain. It's a disgusting affront to the memories of the millions of victims of real anti-semetism.

What about Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan - both rightwingers - attacking Israel and taking the side of the Arabs, but the left has labelled them anti-semitic.

Sounds like a double standard.

A lot of people on the left cried foul when Jonathan Pollard - the America convicted for spying for Israel - and accused the Reagan administration of being anti-semitic, especially Secretary of State Casper Weinberger - who was pro-Arab

When someone on the right critisizes Israel, they are labelled anti-Semitic. When someone on the left critisizes Israel, they claim they are not anti-semitic.

This is a double standard.

Also, why do you think the state of Israel was created? Might it have something to do with the rampant anti-semitism in Europe?

Many in Israel today are descendants of the people who escaped the Holocaust. There's even some alive today who were liberated from the Nazi death camps.

[Montgomery Burns]

"You may find people who will contend that patriotism is something to be a little bit embarrassed about or that honor is somewhat outdated as a notion and that concentrating on America's imperfection makes you a realist. Not so. That's the sign of a cynic. Being a cynic is easy. You can just sit back, heckle from the cheap seats, while others serve, storm beaches, build nations, meet their destinies. Idealists write history's stirring chapters; cynics read those chapters and seem not to understand. Choose to be an idealist. There have always been those who contend that what's wrong with the world is America. Don't believe it."

Well said Mr Rumsfeld.

Yes. Now if only Rumsfeld wasn't a lying, arrogant weaselly incompetent who ignored the advise of his generals and screwed up the war.

But ahh, he knew better. After all, he was ..... around... during Vietnam, though he, like Cheney, like Bush, made sure they never had to serve.

Long on insults towards Rumsfeld but short on specifics, except that Rumsfeld did not serve in Vietnam - because one is incapable of leading the military, being a President, or even Vice President, unless one:

1) served in Vietnam, (being a pilot in the military is not good enough), or

2) fled to England and helped organize anti-war marches like William Jefferson Clinton. (Sorry for forgetting the MLW leftist rule: Clinton is off limits to critisism)

FYI:

Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975.

But Rumsfeld has no experience as Secretary of Defense!

He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

What military experience did former Minister of National Defence Bill Graham have?

Rumsfeld is arguably the best Secretary of Defense in the last 40 years.

- Rummy reorganized the defense strategy for the US, replacing the old model for sizing forces with a newer approach more relevant to the 21st century.

- Rummy helped plan to remove about 60,000 to 70,000 US troops from Europe and Asia in a sweeping reorganization that he said - correctly - would better prepare the military to handle crises.

What has Rumsfeld accomplished since then:

In less than a month, about 25 million Afghanis were freed from one of the most repressive evil regimes in world history - the Taliban - in Afghanistan...all while the cynics claimed there would be thousands of US casualties, bloody urban combat, terrorist attacks against America, uprisings throughout the "Arab Street", humanitarian catastrophes, the dreaded "Afghan winter", and inter-ethnic warfare shattering the country in a violent civil war.

In less than a month, about 25 million Iraqis were freed from one of the most sadistic mass-murders of our time...all while the cynics claimed there would be a slide into violent anarchy, Iraq would spiral into a massive humanitarian disaster, mass wide-spread demonstrations in Iraq demanding that the US leave, mass wide-spread support for the "Iraqi resistance", America would "lose the peace", the US is going to steal Iraq's oil, and the ever popular Vietnam Quagmire.

Free elections in Afghanistan (the first Afghani to drop a vote in the ballot box was a 19 y/o female, a great human rights story since the Taliban had forbidden women from attending school). No more public arena executions and a democratically elected parliament.

Three free elections in Iraq, the 3rd election held less than 33 months after the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. No more rape rooms, no more mass graves, democratically elected parliament, and unprecedented economic growth.

All of this accomplished with very low military and civilian casualties - although the cynics think all this could've been accomplished with zero military and civilian casualties.

Plus:

- The light shining on the cockroaches at the UN for their massive corruption in Oil For Food program--although unless you read conservative news sources (or have the Fox News Channel), you are likely in the dark about this.

- About 75% of Al Qaeda's leaders captured or killed.

- Saddam Hussein on trial in Iraq.

- Zarqawi writing letters lamenting that he can only amass 110 fighters in Iraq.

- A sworn enemy of the US is now an ally of the US in the War on Terror--or as our state-run news station calls it, the "so-called War on Terror".

But ahh, Argus knows better. After all, he.....uh......appears to be inflicted with BDS.

Plus several retired generals throwing their support behind Rumsfeld.

Shockingly - - these generals didn't get invited to the talk show circuit, the MSM morning talk shows, or get an invite to appear on 60 Minutes.

[Montgomery Burns]

Thanks for the "welcome back", Gosthacked. It's been quite busy at work the last while.

YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOT!!!.

DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!!!

SITTING BEHIND YOUR COMPUTER AND BITCHING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING THAT DOES NOT GO 100% RIGHT - AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THINGS ALWAYS ALWAYS GO 100% RIGHT IN WARS - IS PATRIOTIC!!!

IT'S IDEALISM, NOT CYNICISM!!!

McGovern :So where are the WMDS?

They were found.

In Libya.

Close enough for me.

The Man Whose Name Is Spelled 100 Different Ways™ suddenly got a shrivelled nutsack when he saw a dirty dishevelled Saddam pulled out of a tiny underground hole.

[Montgomery Burns]

Geoffrey:

It's funny that those on my side (the right-wingers out there) decry political correctness but call for it when people speak of Israel.

When one is spinning wild conspiracy theories, hanging out with people who take to the streets protesting for the destruction of Israel, I think it is reasonable to call them anti-semitic. Can I call Iran's PM anti-semitic?

...if Israel is doing something wrong, like blocking off hospitals for Palestinians so they have to travel hours further, sometimes on foot, I'll say it.

Do you have any idea how many suicide bombers attacks kill innocent Israelis? There was yet another one the other day. The #1 duty of a govt - in my opinion - is to protect its own citizens from its enemies.

If the "Palestinians" do not have enough hospitals, then perhaps they should spend the billions of dollars they receive in foreign aid - on hospitals, instead of weapons. I have zero sympathy for them.

That goes for Palestine too. I'm not impressed with their fighting violence with violence attitude.

Glad to hear that you are not "impressed" with them.

Neither side has my favour in that conflict. Both are equally guilty of all the blood spilt there.

Wow.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

It's a disgusting affront to the memories of the millions of victims of real anti-semetism.

Does that also apply to the people who refer to Bush as Hitler?

[Montgomery Burns]

Thelionusfleabag:

I am an anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic.

Why are you against the Jewish people returning to their homeland?

Why are you against them having the right to a national home?

[GostHacked]

They were found

In Libya.

Close enough for me..

Close enough for you? By that we should have invaded Lybia instead of Iraq. Obviously the inspection team was clearly looking in the wrong country for those WMDs. Again that is all speculation about where those WMDs are. They speculated they were in the area around the caplitol and Tikrit. So far nothing. Now since they have not found them, they are going on the notion that, 'well just cause we's ain't found them yet, does not mean theys ain't there'. And since none have been found to this date within the Iraq borders, more speculation was needed to avoid the backlash from the public when they found out that the US government lied about the weapons.

Hayden in his testimony and hearings for the appointed position of CIA head, showed that they had cooked the books on Iraqs WMD programs. (still looking for the article, it read an article on 3 websites that were listed on google news, but soon after they dissapeared. washingtonpost.com was one of the sites I read that article.)

Even back in 2002, the US Government told us they had no reliable information on any WMD programme in Iraq. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/07/...ain557473.shtml

Despite searches at some 300 sites, and the capture of several high-ranking Iraqis, no evidence has turned up. Two suspected mobile biological weapons factories were found, but showed no sign of having been used to create weapons.

But they kept telling us, NO WORRIES, it will all turn up we WILL find them, just you wait.

UPDATE : STILL WAITING !!!

Hans Blix said it correctly

Blix said he was surprised by that because, "we had been told that they would give the best intelligence they had, so I thought: 'My God, if this is the best intelligence they had and we find nothing, what about the rest?'"

What about the rest indeed? I also had not found any credible article for your claim that Lybia had anything to do with the Iraqi WMDs. Nothing. But the weapsons survey team was given access to only a few sites, and they had to bitch and compain to have more time for the inspections. Out of the 300 suposed sites that the US had on their list, only a few were checked out and turned up nothing. SFA.

Powell later admitting that they were wrong on the subject. Like come on Monty.

Before the war.

Powell, Bush, Rummy Rice all told us they had WMDs ( trust us we WILL ABSOLUTLEY FIND THEM)

After the war

They all told us that there are none and they give up the search. (uhh SORRY !! MY BAD!!)

But yet you hang on to that falsality that they did and STILL DO have WMDs.

[Montgomery Burns]

GostHacked:

By that we should have invaded Lybia instead of Iraq.

You don't think it was important that Khaddafi gave up his WMD program? The US and other countries had no idea his WMD program was that advanced. You should read some books about intelligence, GH. In the murky world of intelligence and counter-intelligence, it is difficult to be 100% sure about anything. That's the nature of intelligence.

Obviously the inspection team was clearly looking in the wrong country for those WMDs.

Really? You are sure about this?

Again that is all speculation about where those WMDs are.

I'll grant you that.

...the US government lied about the weapons.

Did the intelligence agencies of the UK, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France (yes - France!) also "lie"? Or does that term only apply to the Bush administration - but not the Democrats in Congress who also claimed that Saddam had not come clean?

Hayden in his testimony and hearings for the appointed position of CIA head, showed that they had cooked the books on Iraqs WMD programs. (still looking for the article, it read an article on 3 websites that were listed on google news, but soon after they dissapeared. washingtonpost.com was one of the sites I read that article.)

I hope you can find this article about Hayden "cooking the books"; I'd like to read it.

Even back in 2002, the US Government told us they had no reliable information on any WMD programme in Iraq. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/07/...ain557473.shtml

Even your link to the far-left CBS is titled "No Hard WMD Proof". Like I said previously, it is difficult to have "hard proof" in the murky intelligence and counter-intelligence world. Some other quotes from your link:

- A White House spokesman says a small portion of the still-classified report is being taken out of context. He says the entire document's conclusions support the Bush administration's position.

- The briefing paper said Iraq "probably" had illegal chemical stockpiles, and also reported that Iraq was thought to have biological weapons, but said the amount and condition of the weaponized germs was uncertain.

Sneer quotes around the word probably. I'm impressed. Just like the CBC and their "so-called War on Terror" sneer quotes. Fair and balanced, unlike that ultra-rightwing Faux News Channel.

But they kept telling us, NO WORRIES, it will all turn up we WILL find them, just you wait.

Ever seen this? Unless you read conservative websites or have access to the Fox News Channel, I doubt it.

UPDATE : STILL WAITING !!!

Not sure what you mean here. If you are insinuating I am running and refusing to reply to you, that is untrue. I am not here everyday, but if you strongly want me to reply to something you wrote, just send me a quick email with a link to your MLW post. I will reply; I promise.

Hans Blix said it correctly

Indeed he did. January 23, 2003:

How does Iraq account for 6,500 missing bombs which could carry up to a thousand tonnes of chemical agent?

What is Saddam’s answer to Dr Blix’s suggestion that he may have retained anthrax and weaponized VX and that the inspectors have found mustard gas precursor?

Why has he been testing missiles with a range beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the UN Resolutions?

How will Saddam address Dr Blix’s concerns that the chemical rocket warheads unearthed by inspectors could be 'the tip of a submerged iceberg'?

[Montgomery Burns]

Cont'd to Gosthacked (my computer froze during my last post):

More from Hans Blix dated from his March 6, 2003 report--two weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Based on all the available evidence, the strong assumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.

I understand that you are unaware of these statements by Hans Blix. From your previous postings on this forum, I can tell that you solely rely on the liberal MSM for your news. You cannot retort that I live in a bubble and only see/read right-leaning news sources, because I am constantly assailed by the MSN - with the exception of the FNC. I am skeptical about the MSM reporting regarding Iraq because there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the liberal MSM has a political agenda in its Iraq reporting. Cripes, the vast majority of Iraqi blogs paint an entirely different picture of Iraq compared to the MSM.

Indeed, Bill Roggio - whose is embedded with US troops - tells a completely different story about Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the MSM. His article yesterday mentioned that the MSM is exaggerating the strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and notes that it is propaganda meant to weaken the West's resolve. He noted - in yesterday's report - about Harper's slim 149 to 145 win for committing our troops to fight the ppl who harbored the ppl who killed 24 Canadians on 9-11.

NOTE: Roggio is going to be imbedded with Canadian troops next week. Can't wait to read his reports. According to him, the Taliban is taking a drubbing (but still are dangerous).

But yet you hang on to that falsality that they did and STILL DO have WMDs.

Whoa. You are denying all the reports that Iraq's WMD were moved to Syria's Bekka valley? Iraqi military personnel - and Israeli intelligence...and if anyone has good intelligence in the ME, it would be them - have reported that Iraq's WMD were spiritied to Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom...with the help of the country who supplied 57% of Iraq's arms - Russia.

To finish off:

1) WMD have been found in Iraq. However the MSM has perpetuated the "no WMD have been found" because the WMD that was found was small amounts (not a huge warehouse filled with warheads stamped "WMD--Next Stop the Great Satan America") or "old WMD" from the Iran War. Apparently the ceasefire and UN resolutions allowed for old WMD and small amounts of WMD.

The terrorist-supporting MSM has morphed this into "no WMD have been found", just like they refer to the Swift Boat Vets as "the discredited Swift Boat Veterans" even though they were never discredited. Indeed, it was Kerry's campaign who backed down from his claim of being on a Sooper Seekrit Mission in Cambodia under orders of President Nixon--who was not even president at that time. And it was Kerry's campaign who admitted that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts *might* have come from a self-inflicted wound.

2) For the 1132nd time on this forum, I am going to post The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq , passed by both the House and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities on October 2, 2002. It has 23 short clauses and only 2 mention stockpiles of WMD. However 12 of the clauses mention the 17 UN resolutions Saddam ignored and defied. If you had access to the Fox News Channel, or were willing to look at conservative news sources, you would be aware of this. I can't help it if the MSM put a blackout on this resolution.

3) Do you think Operation Iraqi Freedom was "illegal and immoral"? I'm not trying to lay a tap for you here... No, no I am not....heh.

4) Type something like "10,000 litres of anthrax Iraq" into Google if you think I am bullshitting about the MSM blackout about Blix's report 2 weeks before OIF. Like Judge Harold Baer's legal ruling that Iraq was involved with 9-11, there is a virutal MSM blackout. They are not telling you everything.

I've said it before and I will say it again: The MSM is on the side of the enemy. Even though the Islamonazis have little in common with leftwingers, with the exception of totalitairianism, the left's fanatical hatred of Bush - its Bush Derangement Syndrome - has moved them to take the side of the enemy.

I've said it before and I will say it again: The left is far too partisan. They march in lockstep more than the right does. I've argued/debated with Shoop - who claims to be rightwing (he's actually a centrist) and Argus (who is rightwing unless you bring up Bush), but the left would take to the streets protesting the rise in unemployment rates of laboratory rats if Bush found a cure for cancer.

[Montgomery Burns]

Hmmm. Just after I posted a reply to Gosthacked about Libya's Ghaddafi giving up his WMD, who appears on Fox News' Journal Editorial Report? Judith Miller from the liberal (and their editor has admitted it is a liberal rag--like it was a ha-yuge secret) NY Times. What was Miller talking about? Ghaddafi giving up his nukes.

Her opinion--from talking to Libyan sources?

He got nervous when the US kicked the shit out of the Taliban, and the kicker was when a dishevelled Saddam was pulled out of a hole in the ground.

[Black Dog]

What about Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan - both rightwingers - attacking Israel and taking the side of the Arabs, but the left has labelled them anti-semitic.

Sounds like a double standard.

A lot of people on the left cried foul when Jonathan Pollard - the America convicted for spying for Israel - and accused the Reagan administration of being anti-semitic, especially Secretary of State Casper Weinberger - who was pro-Arab

When someone on the right critisizes Israel, they are labelled anti-Semitic. When someone on the left critisizes Israel, they claim they are not anti-semitic.

Funny: searches for "Bob Novak+antisemetism" turned up publications like Newsmax and TownHall.com: hardlly "the left". Buchanan is regarded as a xenophobe and a bit of a crackpot by people from all sides of the spectrum.

Fact remains, though, accusations of anti-semetism stemming from criticism of Israel is most often weilded against the left.

Also, why do you think the state of Israel was created? Might it have something to do with the rampant anti-semitism in Europe?

It also has a lot to do with the antisemetism of western nations who didn't want to take in a bunch of Jews. It was easier to fob them off on the Arabs (and also politically expedient for a Democratic president in an election year who told advisers "I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.")

Hmmm. Just after I posted a reply to Gosthacked about Libya's Ghaddafi giving up his WMD, who appears on Fox News' Journal Editorial Report? Judith Miller from the liberal (and their editor has admitted it is a liberal rag--like it was a ha-yuge secret) NY Times. What was Miller talking about? Ghaddafi giving up his nukes.

Her opinion--from talking to Libyan sources?

He got nervous when the US kicked the shit out of the Taliban, and the kicker was when a dishevelled Saddam was pulled out of a hole in the ground.

Gee and after she was so bang on about Iraq's WMD, who could doubt her (BTW, since you've been stuck in your spider hole for a while, you don't seem to be aware that Miller was shitcanned by the NYT and is now plying her trade with the ultraconservative Wall Street Journal. And leaving a trail of slime behind her, no doubt). All that to say: I trust her and her "sources" about as far as I can spit.

Fact is, Qadhafi was working towards reconcilliation with the west long before the "war on terror". The first overtures on their WMD program were made prior to the Iraq invasion and followed the Lockerbie settlement.

What's especially telling is that right-wingers are now so eager to embrace a vicious despot like Qadhafi as long as he plays ball. Plus ca change....

[GostHacked]

Whoa. You are denying all the reports that Iraq's WMD were moved to Syria's Bekka valley? Iraqi military personnel - and Israeli intelligence...and if anyone has good intelligence in the ME, it would be them - have reported that Iraq's WMD were spiritied to Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom...with the help of the country who supplied 57% of Iraq's arms - Russia.

Yeah yah, and the US gave 43% of the arms there. So what. And yes I am deniying it untill there is more solid evidence, which there is none at this time. Syria would be in alot more shit if it could be proven that they had Iraq's WMDs. Invasion or sanctions would have happened right away. Or you think SOMETHING would have been done about that.

As for Libya, I recall one time in the 80s when Saddam was on the 'good friends list' for the US. So things change. Hell even Russia the LONG TERM COLD WAR ENEMY is now one of the 'good guys' Things change and not because the US says so or makes an influence enough to promote change (other than military intervention).

If Lybia had granted safe haven for Iraq's WMDs again there would be more proof of it. And yes even in the MSM that would be present.

And my statement of UPDATE : STILL WAITING was that I mean I am still waiting for the report on WMDs.

I doubt the MSM is on the side of the Enemy, if that is the case then all MSM is run my Islamofacist fundies. So terrorists, so take all MSM out then.

OH FFS that is one of the most rediculous things I have heard on here yet Monty. Simply put and you might want to do more research than just what the MSM throws at you. It's almost like you think that the MSM is in bed with the enemy. I know you did not mean it like that but, it's ok.

Apparently the ceasefire and UN resolutions allowed for old WMD and small amounts of WMD. rolleyes.gif

And that would be whos fault? Not Iraq, if that is what the resolutions allowed, that would be the UN and those who ever threw Iraq to the Security Council.

Regardless of how many times you listed and told us, those were not the reasons the US government toted on when going to war with Iraq. If it was presented to the public in the real terms of what the situation was there may have not been as much support for the war. So sex it up and over estimate everything to pad those numbers to make him look bad. YES HE WAS A BAD MOFO, we all know that, and even the US knew that when backing him up in the 80's.

We must take him out cause he has WMDs (throw in a coupld 9-11 references to drive an image home)

He supports terrorism (a few more 9-11 references)

He houses memberd of Al Queda ( more 9-11 references , mention they hate freedom and democracy)

If Bush and Co. had just told us the truth of the reasons for war and not the bullshit that they did shovel in our faces, they all might have a bit more credibility today. But that did not happen, they just plain and simple messed up.

Bush's speech writers can spin the propaganda better than any MSM outlet.