Nary a word that the cost of Bush’s Iraq war (now $12 billion a month) will cost our children and grandchildren much more as he put it all on the nation’s credit card

You may not like the truth of the matter but Lincoln did many things which either directly violated the Constitution or dwell in that lovely grey area between Legal and Illegal. This is made obvious when you look at the actions of the Congress who went out of their way to pass legislation, after Lincoln had acted, to make some of his deeds legal. Keep in mind, many of these laws were passed AFTER Lincoln had acted on a few specific issues.

—myth buster: —Lincoln only had to WIN THE CIVIL WAR! Whatever people say that he was doing to “shred the Constitution” was a legitimate Act of War.—

You need to rephrase this statement: the Founding Fathers did not intend for the US Constitution to be a suicide pact and Lincoln knew this. This means that, at times, Lincoln either cast aside or ignored the Constitution (or, Shredded for a time) to accomplish a greater good: the preservation of the Union.

I did not mean to impugn Lincoln’s motives or honor but merely point out the historical truth of the matter.

—myth buster: —Suspending Habeus Corpus? The Constitution specifically allows it in the case of rebellion.—

I never mentioned the suspension of the Writ of Liberty but that does not mean there were not issues here (as the Supreme Court Ruled after the fact).

While the suspension of Writ of Liberty is in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9), the Constitution does not spell out which party actually has the authority to do so. Of course, this became a moot issue soon after the proclamation with Congressional law specifically addressing the issue but the Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan did have some harsh things to say about Lincoln’s actions; particularly the fact he basically removed the courts from areas not in open sedition against the United States and in areas where the courts still operated.

The act of creating or removing courts (basically what he did) is a power SPECIFICALLY enumerated to the Congress; not the President. Lincoln used military tribunals to try anybody and everybody doing anything he or his military commanders disapproved of. While the act of suspending the writ of Liberty in and of itself is not Unconstitutional, the extreme scope and nature in which Lincoln acted following the suspension was in direct conflict with the Constitution (BoR, Amendments 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10).

The most famous count is probably that of Congressman (former at the time) Clement L. Vallandigham who was forcibly arrested, detained, tried by military tribunal (by General Burnside no less, the incompetent fool responsible for the Fredericksburg massacre; although to be fair, he knew he was incompetent and only took the job out of some misplaced sense of duty) and banished from the United States. And to think, people railed against Bush for imprisoning murderers and terrorists; Lincoln had a man, a former Congressman no less BANISHED from the USA simply because he offended one of Lincoln’s incompetent Generals after a quick SHOW TRIAL by men who had an axe to grind against the man.

—myth buster: —Controlling the press? Sedition is illegal.—

Lincoln went beyond sedition with his acts when it came to the press but you are quite right; sedition is illegal.

—myth buster: —Printing currency without backing? Contrary to what many people say, the Constitution does not forbid the Federal Government from issuing unbacked currency. It forbids states from issuing their own currencies or declaring anything but silver or gold to be legal tender currency, but the Federal Government does not have any such restriction.—

I did not mention the currency issue because, as you say, it is not unconstitutional. However, now that we are on the subject of money:

How about a President appropriating and spending money himself (with out the Congress)? This is illegal and unconstitutional.

How about a President increasing the size of the US military and US navy with out the Congress? This is illegal and unconstitutional.

Out of curiosity, which part of the Constitution allows the President to forcibly conscript citizens into an army (prior to Congressional law)?

—myth buster: —The one legitimate argument is that a compulsory income tax was a violation of the Constitution prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment.—

That is not the only legitimate argument. How about sending soldiers into a state that had not been yet seceded from the Union? What gave him this authority (yes I understand why he did so, having D.C. surrounded on ALL SIDES by Confederate States would have been somewhat problematic)? Oh and contrary to what my fellow Marylanders would say today, Maryland WOULD have seceded had Lincoln not intervened. However, the point stands: what gave him the right BEFORE the act had taken place (or even after the fact for the matter)?

What about Lincoln using federal troops to influence state elections (Maryland) through force? What gave him this authority?

What about Lincoln seizing property from citizens who, as Lincoln himself claimed, had not left the union (to him, they could not) with out just compensation or due process? The Supreme Court ruled later on this one in particular and sided with land owners (ever heard the phrase “My 40 acres and a mule?” This is where it came from; thank Sherman for that).

—myth buster: —Emancipation Proclamation? Specifically limited to the Confederacy to avert the unconstitutionality of freeing slaves without compensating the masters.—

Correct; it was not unconstitutional; it was just a toothless ploy to incite the Confederacy and an attempt to play international games with certain foreign powers who were watching this little affair.

— myth buster: —It was unenforceable until the war was won, but it was the best Lincoln could do until the 13th Amendment was passed to free all the slaves and permanently ban the practice, except as punishment for a crime.—

…and to his credit, Lincoln pushed for the 13th Amendment (even after it failed in the HoR and even campaigned on it in 1864) even though he had once said that if he could preserve the Union with out freeing a slave, he would do so (paraphrased, his first Inaugural address). What irony that Georgia would be the last necessary ratification vote to pass the 13th Amendment some months after his incredibly tragic assassination.

I understand your defense of Lincoln. He was a complex and good man who did the impossible: he preserved the United States of America when any other nation would have fallen apart. More so he did so despite his wife’s excessive spending habits and bouts of insanity (to be fair, the deaths of her beloved Children did not help the matter nor did the assassination of her Husband). However this does not change history. He did what he did. I understand what he did and I understand why he did what he did. I did not say that Lincoln “shredded” the Constitution to poke a stick in his eye but merely to point out the history of the matter.

He made touch decisions. Furthermore, even the Founding Fathers would agree with me (and Lincoln) that the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. There are times when the Constitution must be bent a bit or put aside. Obviously, this is very, VERY dangerous territory for which I do not like to tread which endures to this day.

People with class make apologies when they make mistakes. So far, you have demonstrated plenty of mistakes and ZERO class.

—cedarford: —you might also apologize for your massive regurgitation of cut ‘n paste “Vast Secret Quantities of WMD Exist!” gruel—

Feel free to chime in with something real and tangible to add to the discussion any time now. No really; any time now.

While you are at it, feel free to post something, anything that disputes what is in the article. Or is logical discourse beyond your means?

—cedarford: —retrived from circa 2004.—

Information presented in 2004 and BURIED in 2004. Information which contradicts these last six years of lies and propaganda. I see you have not bothered to respond to the links posted from the UN website hosting UN documents which demonstrate what I and others have been saying all along.

Perhaps this is related to the fact that your incompetence leads you to red herring (among other fallacies of logic) rather than address the truth at hand. Perhaps.

—cedarford: —Why do you spew page after page of nearly 5-year old crap here?—

Try READING. I know the concept is difficult for somebody of your intellect but it is very important. What I wrote was in direct response to what others have written in this post (before me I might add).

I suppose a bit of comprehension is too tiring an effort for you to muster eh boyo?

—cedarford: —It was also rude in being completely off topic to the post—

No it was not. Perhaps you should READ before you post in the future so your posts may actually house kernels of TRUTH rather than fallacy and LIES.

If you are making apologies, you might also apologize for your massive regurgitation of cut ‘n paste “Vast Secret Quantities of WMD Exist!” gruel retrived from circa 2004. Why do you spew page after page of nearly 5-year old crap here?

It was also rude in being completely off topic to the post.

Well surprise, surprise! I point out pertinent facts and instead of refuting what I have said or, at the very least, asking for sources (I will get to this so don’t shoot in your pants kid) they (you and your ilk to come) resort to what they appear to think are pithy comebacks and logical fallacies (if not explicitly than implicitly).
How about some education from daz internets boyo (actually source information provided by ADULTS IN THE PAPER WORLD hosted on the Internet for purpose of record and dissemination):
Source documents from the United Nations hosted on UN sites:
The cease fire detailing the legal right the USA and her allies had in invading Iraq UNSCR 687:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
The UNSCR resolution finding Saddam in “material breach” of UNSCR 687, 1441 and almost a dozen in between (all noted in the text):
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm (the press release cites the resolution)
UN Documentation detailing Saddam’s weapons program and various states of discovery prior to OIF:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%2003.pdf
UN Documentation detailing Saaddam’s failures to comply in UNSCR 687 (from 1999) detailing both discovered and missing mutions (covered in UNSCR 687) of particular interest:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

Here is a particular quote:

—quote—550 Artillery shells filled with Mustard
33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been “lost” shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq’s other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.—/endquote—

Check the date.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

Having established your love affair with logical fallacies, allow me to save you the trouble of drudging out Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Belief or Consensus, StrawMan or any other of your long time favorites: these were provided by the United Nations and are hosted from United Nations servers (not CNN or Fox News).

Here is an interesting explanation of the situation in Iraq (I am almost certain you will fall on your sword of Logical Fallacy on this one boyo):

—quote–Pesticides, Precursors, and Petulance
April 2nd, 2004
It has become established conventional wisdom that “no stockpiles of WMD have been discovered in Iraq.” But this reading of the evidence uncovered to date is premature at best, and highly questionable. A closer look at the data, and at the uses made of it, is essential for those who wish to understand the genuine state of Iraq’s WMD threat at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Another Congressional committee hearing has come and gone for the head of the hapless Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). Charles Duelfer has testified that he did not know how much longer the weapons hunt might take, but that the “picture is much more complicated than I anticipated going in.” In addition, he also figured out that pinning hopes on getting information from frightened Iraqi scientists was probably not the best way to find the locations of all those WMD stockpiles. (see my previous article Cased Not Closed: Iraq’s WMDs).
Despite contracting out for assistance in document exploitation last October, only a small fraction of the seized documents have been analyzed. Keep in mind that the ISG is largely composed of personnel from the CIA, State Departmnet, such as Duelfer, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), such as the deputy, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton. These are the same organizations that are currently getting raked over the coals for bureaucratic bungling of intelligence prior to 9-11.
In turn, the beleaguered agencies are deflecting this criticism to the President and his national security advisors, by essentially complaining the “devil made me do it.” In other words, their technical and tactical incompetence and/or their motivation to embarrass the administration has allowed the ISG to make proclamations about WMD stockpiles that minimize the significance of their findings, or deliberately downplay and contradict the findings of Coalition forces in the field. Such is the case with chemical weapons (CW) precursors.
The anti-war left and the media continuously shift the goal posts about WMD stockpiles. But what does the term “stockpile” mean for WMDs? One nuclear bomb is not really a “stockpile,” but it would only take one, set off in an American city or dropped on US forces in the field, to make everybody wake up and smell the coffee.
What did we expect to find in Iraq, the equivalent of the Pantex Plant? In fact, we did find hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium. But I digress.
“Stockpiles” of biological weapons? A stockpile of bio-weapons can be kept in a fridge in a scientist’s house. Ricin and botulinum toxin have already been found in sufficient quantities to regenerate a biological weapon (BW) capability in short order. No, the standard established by the left and their allies in the media is that we must find chemical weapons (CW). That is, if the US has not found pallets of CW projectiles in ammo dumps or munitions factories or at Iraqi Army unit areas, well then that George Bush flat-out lied to us. In a fashion, the critics are correct concerning CW stockpiles. Here’s why.
Chemical weapons are very potent in small amounts in a sterile setting. Hence, the bit in movies where the leading man dips a pen into a glass of water and says something to the effect that “these few drops of nerve agent are enough to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people” is correct, but only if those people are crammed into the Silverdome. Chemical weapons have very important weaknesses: They can be destroyed by light, heat, water, and wind — that is, the weather — not to mention the heat from the explosive charge designed to disperse the agent. It is for this reason that CWs are employed en masse with strict targeting protocols, when attacking an army in the field.
Even if done properly, depending upon the equipment and training of your adversary, the killing and incapacitating effects may not be tactically significant. For these reasons, Saddam initially “tested” his CW on unsuspecting Kurd civilians to gain an accurate medical picture of chemical agent effects. Simply put, anyone contemplating use of CW needs a lot of it, and it must be delivered at the right time and place.
UNSCOM inspectors understood these factors when they concluded in 1995 that, at the time of Operation Desert Storm in January of 1991, Iraq had largely solved key technical issues. The problem of precursor storage and stabilization for VX, a powerful and persistent nerve agent was solved by Saddam’s scientists. In addition, UNSCOM noted the development of prototypes for binary sarin (non-persistent nerve agent) artillery shells and 122mm rockets. Binary rounds consist of two non-lethal substances that combine upon detonation to form a lethal agent.
The technically advanced binary nature of these projectiles was amazing enough, but they also had developed “quantities well beyond the prototype levels.” The DIA concurred with UNSCOM that Iraq had retained production equipment and chemical precursors to reconstitute a CW program absent an inspection regime.
Specifically, the DIA noted that Baghdad had rebuilt segments of its industrial chemical infrastructure under the “guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products.” Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical agent arena. In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the “grandfather” of modern day nerve agents. Pesticides are also precursors of many other chemical weapons including Mustard-Lewisite (HL), Phosgene (CG) a choking agent, and Hydrogen Cyanide (AC) a blood agent.
It was not surprising then, as Coalition forces attacked into Iraq, that huge warehouses and caches of “commercial and agricultural” chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists. What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces, and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches.
US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom had the latest chemical detection gear, including chemical detection paper, chemical agent detector kits, improved chemical agent monitors, and sophisticated Fox Chemical Recon Vehicles. Some American GIs remembered well the shortfalls of this equipment in Gulf War I. Now all of these older devices had been improved, and new and more accurate devices had been issued. In fact, some mobile Army labs had highly sensitive mass spectrometers to test for suspicious substances. Who could argue the results of repeated tests using these devices without explaining how DoD had apparently been ripped off by contractors for faulty products? Apparently, the ISG could and did.
One of the reported incidents occurred near Karbala where there appeared to be a very large “agricultural supply” area of 55-gallon drums of pesticide. In addition, there was also a camouflaged bunker complex full of these drums that some people entered with unpleasant results. More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve agent. A full day of tests on the drums resulted in one positive for nerve agent, and then one resulted in a negative. Later, an Army Fox NBC [nuclear, biological, chemical] Recon Vehicle confirmed the existence of Sarin. An officer from the 63d Chemical Company thought there might well be chemical weapons at the site.
But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into non-existence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers six feet underground. The “agricultural site” was also co-located with a military ammunition dump, evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG.
Another find occurred around the northern Iraqi town of Bai’ji, where elements of the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) discovered 55-gallon drums of a substance that mass spectrometer testing confirmed was cyclosarin and an unspecified blister agent. A mobile laboratory was also found nearby that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. And only yards away, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, as well as gas masks were found. Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up. It seems that Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping their ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that “no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.”
Coalition forces continued to find evidence of CW after major combat operations had concluded. The US unit around Taji, just north of Baghdad discovered pesticides in one of the largest ammo dumps in Iraq. The unit wanted to use the ammo dump for their own operations, when they discovered the pesticides in “non-standard” drums that were smaller in diameter but much longer than the standard 55-gallon drums.
Then in January of this year, Danish forces discovered 120mm mortar shells with a mysterious liquid inside that initially tested positive for blister agents. Further tests in Southern Iraq and in the US were, of course, negative. The Danish Army said, “It is unclear why the initial field tests were wrong.” This is the understatement of the year, and also points to a most basic question: If it wasn’t a chemical agent, what was it? More pesticides? Dishwashing detergent? From this old soldier’s perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy.
Virtually all agencies concerned with Iraq’s WMD programs have reached the conclusion that Saddam was an expert at delay, dispersion, and deception. His nuclear program had restarted as reported earlier this year by Dr. Kay, the previous head of the ISG. Also, “seed agents” and other bio-toxins had been dispersed throughout Baghdad and Iraq to form the basis for the regeneration of a full-fledged BW program. This modus operandi was no different for the regeneration of Saddam’s chemical weapons program. Operating under the guise of legitimate industrial and agricultural chemical production and storage, Iraq would have gone into full-scale conversion of its stockpile of chemical precursors into weaponized agents, had the Coalition not attacked and seized Iraq.
What is stunning is that the ISG seems incapable of connecting the dots to present to the American people the clear evidence of Saddam’s flouting of 12 years of UN resolutions, and the grave consequences if we had failed to act. The ISG also owes a detailed explanation to DoD as to how 12 years of research, development, and money has apparently gone down the drain in the effort to upgrade the military’s chemical detection capability and NBC training regimen. That the ISG can consistently contradict other technical specialists, while ignoring years of UNSCOM and US intelligence assessments, without accountability is unconscionable, and must be rectified as soon as possible.

Douglas Hanson was a US Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and is a Gulf War I combat veteran. He was an Atomic Demolitions Munitions (ADM) Security Officer, and a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense Officer. As a civilian analyst, he has worked on stability and support operations in Bosnia, and was initially an operations officer in the operations/intelligence cell of the Requirements Coordination Office of the CPA in Baghdad. He was later assigned as the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology.—quote—

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110254/posts

Well surprise, surprise! I point out pertinent facts and instead of refuting what I have said or, at the very least, asking for sources (I will get to this so don’t shoot in your pants kid) they (you and your ilk to come) resort to what they appear to think are pithy comebacks and logical fallacies (if not explicitly than implicitly).
How about some education from daz internets boyo (actually source information provided by ADULTS IN THE PAPER WORLD hosted on the Internet for purpose of record and dissemination):
Source documents from the United Nations hosted on UN sites:
The cease fire detailing the legal right the USA and her allies had in invading Iraq UNSCR 687:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
The UNSCR resolution finding Saddam in “material breach” of UNSCR 687, 1441 and almost a dozen in between (all noted in the text):
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm (the press release cites the resolution)
UN Documentation detailing Saddam’s weapons program and various states of discovery prior to OIF:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%2003.pdf
UN Documentation detailing Saaddam’s failures to comply in UNSCR 687 (from 1999) detailing both discovered and missing mutions (covered in UNSCR 687) of particular interest:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

Here is a particular quote:

—quote—550 Artillery shells filled with Mustard
33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been “lost” shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq’s other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.—/endquote—

Check the date.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s99-94.htm

Having established your love affair with logical fallacies, allow me to save you the trouble of drudging out Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Belief or Consensus, StrawMan or any other of your long time favorites: these were provided by the United Nations and are hosted from United Nations servers (not CNN or Fox News).

Here is an interesting explanation of the situation in Iraq (I am almost certain you will fall on your sword of Logical Fallacy on this one boyo):

—quote–Pesticides, Precursors, and Petulance
April 2nd, 2004
It has become established conventional wisdom that “no stockpiles of WMD have been discovered in Iraq.” But this reading of the evidence uncovered to date is premature at best, and highly questionable. A closer look at the data, and at the uses made of it, is essential for those who wish to understand the genuine state of Iraq’s WMD threat at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Another Congressional committee hearing has come and gone for the head of the hapless Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). Charles Duelfer has testified that he did not know how much longer the weapons hunt might take, but that the “picture is much more complicated than I anticipated going in.” In addition, he also figured out that pinning hopes on getting information from frightened Iraqi scientists was probably not the best way to find the locations of all those WMD stockpiles. (see my previous article Cased Not Closed: Iraq’s WMDs).
Despite contracting out for assistance in document exploitation last October, only a small fraction of the seized documents have been analyzed. Keep in mind that the ISG is largely composed of personnel from the CIA, State Departmnet, such as Duelfer, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), such as the deputy, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton. These are the same organizations that are currently getting raked over the coals for bureaucratic bungling of intelligence prior to 9-11.
In turn, the beleaguered agencies are deflecting this criticism to the President and his national security advisors, by essentially complaining the “devil made me do it.” In other words, their technical and tactical incompetence and/or their motivation to embarrass the administration has allowed the ISG to make proclamations about WMD stockpiles that minimize the significance of their findings, or deliberately downplay and contradict the findings of Coalition forces in the field. Such is the case with chemical weapons (CW) precursors.
The anti-war left and the media continuously shift the goal posts about WMD stockpiles. But what does the term “stockpile” mean for WMDs? One nuclear bomb is not really a “stockpile,” but it would only take one, set off in an American city or dropped on US forces in the field, to make everybody wake up and smell the coffee.
What did we expect to find in Iraq, the equivalent of the Pantex Plant? In fact, we did find hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium. But I digress.
“Stockpiles” of biological weapons? A stockpile of bio-weapons can be kept in a fridge in a scientist’s house. Ricin and botulinum toxin have already been found in sufficient quantities to regenerate a biological weapon (BW) capability in short order. No, the standard established by the left and their allies in the media is that we must find chemical weapons (CW). That is, if the US has not found pallets of CW projectiles in ammo dumps or munitions factories or at Iraqi Army unit areas, well then that George Bush flat-out lied to us. In a fashion, the critics are correct concerning CW stockpiles. Here’s why.
Chemical weapons are very potent in small amounts in a sterile setting. Hence, the bit in movies where the leading man dips a pen into a glass of water and says something to the effect that “these few drops of nerve agent are enough to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people” is correct, but only if those people are crammed into the Silverdome. Chemical weapons have very important weaknesses: They can be destroyed by light, heat, water, and wind — that is, the weather — not to mention the heat from the explosive charge designed to disperse the agent. It is for this reason that CWs are employed en masse with strict targeting protocols, when attacking an army in the field.
Even if done properly, depending upon the equipment and training of your adversary, the killing and incapacitating effects may not be tactically significant. For these reasons, Saddam initially “tested” his CW on unsuspecting Kurd civilians to gain an accurate medical picture of chemical agent effects. Simply put, anyone contemplating use of CW needs a lot of it, and it must be delivered at the right time and place.
UNSCOM inspectors understood these factors when they concluded in 1995 that, at the time of Operation Desert Storm in January of 1991, Iraq had largely solved key technical issues. The problem of precursor storage and stabilization for VX, a powerful and persistent nerve agent was solved by Saddam’s scientists. In addition, UNSCOM noted the development of prototypes for binary sarin (non-persistent nerve agent) artillery shells and 122mm rockets. Binary rounds consist of two non-lethal substances that combine upon detonation to form a lethal agent.
The technically advanced binary nature of these projectiles was amazing enough, but they also had developed “quantities well beyond the prototype levels.” The DIA concurred with UNSCOM that Iraq had retained production equipment and chemical precursors to reconstitute a CW program absent an inspection regime.
Specifically, the DIA noted that Baghdad had rebuilt segments of its industrial chemical infrastructure under the “guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products.” Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical agent arena. In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the “grandfather” of modern day nerve agents. Pesticides are also precursors of many other chemical weapons including Mustard-Lewisite (HL), Phosgene (CG) a choking agent, and Hydrogen Cyanide (AC) a blood agent.
It was not surprising then, as Coalition forces attacked into Iraq, that huge warehouses and caches of “commercial and agricultural” chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists. What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces, and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches.
US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom had the latest chemical detection gear, including chemical detection paper, chemical agent detector kits, improved chemical agent monitors, and sophisticated Fox Chemical Recon Vehicles. Some American GIs remembered well the shortfalls of this equipment in Gulf War I. Now all of these older devices had been improved, and new and more accurate devices had been issued. In fact, some mobile Army labs had highly sensitive mass spectrometers to test for suspicious substances. Who could argue the results of repeated tests using these devices without explaining how DoD had apparently been ripped off by contractors for faulty products? Apparently, the ISG could and did.
One of the reported incidents occurred near Karbala where there appeared to be a very large “agricultural supply” area of 55-gallon drums of pesticide. In addition, there was also a camouflaged bunker complex full of these drums that some people entered with unpleasant results. More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve agent. A full day of tests on the drums resulted in one positive for nerve agent, and then one resulted in a negative. Later, an Army Fox NBC [nuclear, biological, chemical] Recon Vehicle confirmed the existence of Sarin. An officer from the 63d Chemical Company thought there might well be chemical weapons at the site.
But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into non-existence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers six feet underground. The “agricultural site” was also co-located with a military ammunition dump, evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG.
Another find occurred around the northern Iraqi town of Bai’ji, where elements of the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) discovered 55-gallon drums of a substance that mass spectrometer testing confirmed was cyclosarin and an unspecified blister agent. A mobile laboratory was also found nearby that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. And only yards away, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, as well as gas masks were found. Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up. It seems that Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping their ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that “no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.”
Coalition forces continued to find evidence of CW after major combat operations had concluded. The US unit around Taji, just north of Baghdad discovered pesticides in one of the largest ammo dumps in Iraq. The unit wanted to use the ammo dump for their own operations, when they discovered the pesticides in “non-standard” drums that were smaller in diameter but much longer than the standard 55-gallon drums.
Then in January of this year, Danish forces discovered 120mm mortar shells with a mysterious liquid inside that initially tested positive for blister agents. Further tests in Southern Iraq and in the US were, of course, negative. The Danish Army said, “It is unclear why the initial field tests were wrong.” This is the understatement of the year, and also points to a most basic question: If it wasn’t a chemical agent, what was it? More pesticides? Dishwashing detergent? From this old soldier’s perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy.
Virtually all agencies concerned with Iraq’s WMD programs have reached the conclusion that Saddam was an expert at delay, dispersion, and deception. His nuclear program had restarted as reported earlier this year by Dr. Kay, the previous head of the ISG. Also, “seed agents” and other bio-toxins had been dispersed throughout Baghdad and Iraq to form the basis for the regeneration of a full-fledged BW program. This modus operandi was no different for the regeneration of Saddam’s chemical weapons program. Operating under the guise of legitimate industrial and agricultural chemical production and storage, Iraq would have gone into full-scale conversion of its stockpile of chemical precursors into weaponized agents, had the Coalition not attacked and seized Iraq.
What is stunning is that the ISG seems incapable of connecting the dots to present to the American people the clear evidence of Saddam’s flouting of 12 years of UN resolutions, and the grave consequences if we had failed to act. The ISG also owes a detailed explanation to DoD as to how 12 years of research, development, and money has apparently gone down the drain in the effort to upgrade the military’s chemical detection capability and NBC training regimen. That the ISG can consistently contradict other technical specialists, while ignoring years of UNSCOM and US intelligence assessments, without accountability is unconscionable, and must be rectified as soon as possible.

Douglas Hanson was a US Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and is a Gulf War I combat veteran. He was an Atomic Demolitions Munitions (ADM) Security Officer, and a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense Officer. As a civilian analyst, he has worked on stability and support operations in Bosnia, and was initially an operations officer in the operations/intelligence cell of the Requirements Coordination Office of the CPA in Baghdad. He was later assigned as the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology.—quote—

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110254/posts

I mentioned Saddam’s use of WMD against the Kurds in Northern Iraq in 1988 known as the Halabja poison gas attack.

How does the BBC rank with you for credibility amidst your Logical Fallacy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm

Here is one with pretty pictures:
http://www.kdp.se/old/chemical.html

—Chicago—As usual, a right wing mutilation of the facts…—

I presented the facts as they are in reality. You have presented nothing. In fact, you have presented LESS than nothing. If you even knew that you have presented nothing that would be something. But you don’t. So I will ask the same question of you that I asked of that other “unhappy fellow”: Why do you prefer propaganda and lies to the truth and reality?

—Chicago—and alot of whining going on from the “tough” & “stoic” repugs.—

Similar to the same “whining” I have suffered for EIGHT YEARS from incompetent children, such as yourself, and the irrational hatred, demonetization, and vile put forth against George Bush and Republicans. There are many good reasons to dislike George Bush and or Republicans and I have yet to see ONE GOOD reason put forth by people of your “quality.” This is probably due to your child-like love affair with lies and half truths.

It is much easier to say Bush LIED about Iraq when he merely followed A DECADE of written law (both UN and US), the policies of a previous President (Bill’s official policy was Saddam was making WMDs and should be removed from power, want to see the speeches on youtube and read them? How about his missile attacks on Iraqi territory or his 8 years of using American fighters to bomb Iraqi territory?) and the US Congress (as many if not more Democrats than Republicans) and damn near every intelligence agency on earth said than it is to acknowledge the truth of the matter.

Speaking of a mutilation of the facts boyo…. you fools have managed one hell of a job.

—Chicago—You also seem to suggest in your last sentence that the Democrats keep inheriting a steaming pile from the Republicans each time we take office. To paraphrase my grandmother: I hope the republicans wipe their butts better than they ran our country!—

What was the unemployment and where was the DOW again from 2001 – 2006? *Scratches head*

Furthermore, Bush came to office with a SLIM Republican Majority in Congress which he PROMPTLY LOST (Remember Jim Jeffords when he switched his party affiliation?) in the Senate and soon after in the House. It did not help that a good chunk of the Republicans were what are known as RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only); e.g. John McCain.

Let us take a look at the Congressional make up these
last 8 years:
Senate:
2001 – 2003: 50/50 (R/D); then Jeffords in May leaves 49 / 50 / 1 (R/D/I) Senate Majority: Democrat (Tom Daschalle) Tie until May, Democrats hold 1 more
2003 – 2005: 51/48/1 (R/D/I); Republicans hold 3 more seats.
2005 – 2007: 55/44/1 (R/D/I) Reblicans hold 11 more seats.
2007 – 2009: 49/50/1 (R/D/I) (Technically Joe Liberman is I but he remains loyal despite being kicked in the ass). Senate Majority: Democrat (Harry Reid)
2009: 41/55/2/2 (R/D/I/Vacent) Senate Majority: Democrat (Harry Reid) Democrats hold 14 more seats.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Notice Bush never had a clear super majority in the Senate and he certainly never had what Obama has now. Let us look at the house:

2001 – 2003: 221/212/2 (R/D/I); Speaker of the House: Republican; Republicans hold 9 more seats
2003 – 2005: 229/204/1/1 (R/D/I/Vacent); Speaker of the House: Rebpulican; Republicans hold 25 more seats
2005 – 2007: 232/202/1 (R/D/I) Speaker of the House: Republican; Republicans hold 30 more seats
2007 – 2009: 202/233/1 (R/D/Vacent) Speaker of the House: Democrat (Nancy Pelosi) Democrats hold 31 more seats
2009: 178/256/1 (R/D/Vacent) Speaker of the House: Democrat (Nancy Pelosi) Democrats hold 78 more seats
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html

You will notice that the ONLY TIME BUSH had a hold of the HOR and the Senate (and barely that of the Senate) at the SAME TIME was 2003 – 2007 and even that was made slimmer by the numerous RINOS (more so in the Senate than HOR) who obstructed his Appointments and the proposed Legislation he wanted passed.

That is 4 years or ONE TERM for Bush split between his first and second. You do not need a 2/3 majority to bring Congress to a GRINDING HALT.

Where the HELL is that Republican SUPER MAJORITY I have been hearing about; you know, the Republicans who ****ed everything up? Take a gander when Democrats expanded their leads in the Congress and plot that on the time line when things REALLY started to fall apart (2006 – 2008).

Now I mentioned two particular Democrats and their roles in the economic CLUSTER **** we had during this past election.

How about Chuck Schumer? Have you ever heard about something called IndyMac? Here is the LATimes for you:
—quote—Here’s from the press release issued by IndyMac’s regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: “The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.—endquote—
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/07/feds-cite-schum.html

In my day, we called that a RUN ON THE BANK!
How about Barney Frank? Her is the New York Times in 2003!!!:

—quote—”The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. “…..
…”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.”—endquote—

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%202003%20fannie%20freddie%20labaton&st=cse

Outrageous! And you have the BALLS to claim conservatives mutilate the facts? Un-freaking-believable!

Not to mention the 500 tons of yellowcake that was shipped over here to Canada that had been part of Saddams secret stash.

Fortunately its existence wasn’t leaked to the traitorous leftie media until after the fact because they would have undoubtably made sure that Iran had a chance to get their hands on it.