From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
U.S. gave up searching for WMD in Iraq

January 12, 2005 7:55 AM

They came home shortly before Christmas. Last September's Duelfer report will stand as the final word.

Wonder why they didn't just pack up shop in September?

Oh right. The election.

Nearly a dozen people lost their life looking for the non-existent weapons, including two in November.

More from the archive in Intelligence.

U.S. gave up searching for WMD in Iraq (01.12.2005)

Next Entry: The Rice of Life (01.13.2005)
Previous Entry: Armstrong Williams: "This happens all the time" (01.11.2005)

Read the 41 comments.


Its good to give links and all, but you might want to read them first. According to your own link Saddam was in violation of several parts of the UN cease fire agreement from the 1991 war. With just a few minutes of breezing through I found these interesting sections:

Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.

Iraq built a new and larger liquid-rocket engine test stand capable, with some modification, of supporting engines or engine clusters larger than the single SA-2 engine used in the Al Samud II.

Iraq built or refurbished solid-propellant facilities and equipment, including a large propellant mixer, an aging oven, and a casting pit that could support large diameter motors.

Iraq’s investing in studies into new propellants and manufacturing technologies demonstrated its desire for more capable or effective delivery systems.


With the influx of funds from the Oil For Food (OFF) Program and later the suspension of cooperation with UNSCOM, Saddam’s attention began to return to the former employees of the Iraqi Nuclear Program. In the late 1990s, raises in salaries were given to the employees of both the MIC and the IAEC. New programs were initiated, which would employ the talent of former Iraqi Nuclear Program employees, and both the MIC and IAEC expanded. Joint programs with universities were started not only to support a deteriorating university system but also to encourage involvement in MIC and IAEC efforts, offering the opportunity to pass knowledge on to new generations of scientists.

After 1998, interest by Saddam in air defense stimulated projects involving a former nuclear researcher—including one project that had the prospect of supporting a renewed nuclear weapons effort. The IAEC started a rail gun project in 1999, and the MIC was sponsoring a rail gun project at Al Tahadi in 2000. Both projects, and other air defense projects at IAEC, had poor prospects for success as weapons. The IAEC rail gun effort—led by the former head of the pre-1991 nuclear weapons design and development effort, Khalid Ibrahim Sa’id—could, with significant further development, be useful for future nuclear weapons design and development research.

New departments were established in the Physics Department of the IAEC. While primarily supporting the IAEC rail gun project, a Technical Research Branch—with laboratories for high-speed imaging, flash X-ray, impact studies, electronics, and computing—was established in 2001 in newly created laboratories outside the gates of Tuwaitha. A new laser division was created in 1999, and other departments were modernized through purchases of new equipment. Efforts were made to expand ties to universities and train more students at IAEC. Procurements were made through MIC to improve the equipment at IAEC’s machine tool workshop.

and this:

Key Findings

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:

Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the Iran-Iraq war—and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.

Wed Jan 12 2005 9:18 AM

raging red:

Haaaaahaaaaa! How many different blogs have you pasted this comment to, dhermesc? (By the way, what the hell does your name mean?)

Wed Jan 12 2005 11:11 AM


1. This is the only site to receive that pearl of wisdom, feel privileged.

2. It is the misspelling of my grandfather’s name, assigned to him when he was placed in a Nazi work camp in Poland

Wed Jan 12 2005 11:24 AM

Paul Stone:

The WMD's are a non-issue for Bush voters. 9/11 "proved" that we can't allow dictators like Saddam Hussein to thumb their noses at us.

With the exception of Kim Jong Il. See, I can start to understand how Bush voters think, right up to the point where they hold a double standard for North Korea. But, I think the answer is simply that Bush has built a reputation for toughness among his supporters by invading Iraq. Because they believe him to be tough, they refuse to believe that he's being negligent with regard to North Korea.

Bush says that we can't attack North Korea, but it's OK - we can contain it, just like we did to the Soviets. But, how are we containing North Korea by draining military assets from the Korean peninsula? We didn't "contain" the Soviets by abandoning western Europe.

A majority of voters now recognize that the Iraq invasion was not worth the grief. But, they don't recognize the opportunity cost of allowing North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, which can be sold to terrorists. This is the most disturbing thing for me to come to grips with. How can people not understand that the U.S. should not stand idly by and allow a madman to build nuclear weapons? After all, the bogus threat of Hussein building nuclear weapons was apparently justification for invading Iraq. Why is it not a justification for the U.S. to do everything in its power to prevent North Korea from producing and selling nuclear weapons to terrorists.

The argument that we can do nothing is preposterous. North Korea is in no position to use nuclear weapons. If they did, we would launch a full retaliatory response. If we wanted to, we could apply significant pressure toward making North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons program. But, we appear to be doing nothing at all.

I'd like to think that there are special forces teams scouting out the weapons sites and readying a covert operation to take them out, but honestly I really think that all is just as it appears. Bush is going to let the next president deal with North Korea.

There is a final argument from people who support Bush's negligent policy in the Korean peninsula. They say that if North Korea sold nukes to terrorists and used them against the United States, we would find out about it and retaliate against North Korea. This is a bad idea for two reasons:

1) There is very little evidence left behind by a nuclear explosion. It would be unlikely that we could tie a nuclear bomb detonation in the U.S. to North Korea.

2) The idea of retaliating against North Korea *after* the destruction of a major U.S. city and the deaths of millions is completely absurd.

Wed Jan 12 2005 12:31 PM

Paul Stone:

I guess I'm a hardliner with respect to North Korea. I just wish that Bush would demonstrate as much urgency toward a real, serious, and deepening nuclear threat, that he showed against a bogus one.

From my standpoint, it's pretty obvious that Bush's priorities are all screwed up. He doesn't seem to be very good at telling the difference between true threats to the American people and bogus ones.

A friend of mine is a Bush voter, and I argued with him that the U.S. should put more resources into funding programs in the former Soviet Union which secure fissionable material. He argued that it wasn't our job to do that. Since when is protecting our own hides not our job? What's the deal with having to explain the patently obvious to Bush voters?

I don't know. I start off trying to understand these folks, and it works at first, but the further down the path I go, the more I start to feel as if I have to go completely insane to think like they do. I swear they are just a bunch of sheep repeating what they've been told by their "trusted" authority, Rush Limbaugh.

Then I come full circle to my complete reverence for doubt. Bush can take his blind faith and shove it. I'll hang onto my doubt and my skepticism for as long as I live. Nobody is going to tell me how to think.

Wed Jan 12 2005 12:43 PM


One at a time Paul, one at a time.

Wed Jan 12 2005 1:01 PM


"But, they don't recognize the opportunity cost of allowing North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, which can be sold to terrorists."

The opportunity to show the world how diplomacy COULD work was squandered when Bill lost interest (maybe it was Monica’s thong). Using the stick and carrot method Bill HAD North Korea where State wanted it, but they took their eye off the ball. When Bush was elected North Korea was holding the stick and munching on the carrot. Now the US has to tread lightly as kicking the ass of a nuclear-armed country that is neighbors with the most populous nation on earth that is also armed with nukes can be quite hairy. Lay that blame on the Clinton Adm.

Wed Jan 12 2005 1:10 PM

Paul Stone:

Wait just a darn minute. When Bush came into office, there were IAEA inspectors in North Korea as well as monitoring equipment. It wasn't until Bush stopped negotiating with North Korea that they kicked out the inspectors, removed the monitoring equipment, and started processing fuel rods. It takes a special kind of tortured logic to blame that on Clinton.

Essentially, Bush took away both the carrot and the stick, and he's had his hands in his pockets ever since.

Never fails. Everything Bush screws up can always be blamed on Clinton or some other Democrat. These people have no shame, whatsoever.

Wed Jan 12 2005 5:42 PM

Jonathan Scott:

Not that I am a Bush lover, but I see a fallicy in some arguments here. If the North Koreans kicked out the IAEA inspectors, how is it that Bush it to blame? The one causing the inspectors to leave (who never had decent access to the sites anyway) was North Korea. Are we so anti-Bush that we blame him for the tsunami in the Indian Ocean as well?

Bush has been very much on spot with the North Korean issue. Bush has helped bring six nations from both sides of the issue to the negotiating table, unlike Clinton who preferred to cut a deal directly North Korea over their nuclear weapons, with a nod of approval from South Korea and Japan, who ended up paying the bulk of the agreed to framework.

By bringing China and Russia into it, any deal the six sign will bind North Korea to its word, which is exactly the reason North Korea has taken any necessary excuse possible to back out of talks.

Granted there is no carrot now for North Korea to chew on, but then again, how many do we have to give them before they finally keep their word? As a resident of Japan, and within striking distance of their mid-range missiles, I have to say thank God that Kerry was not voted in, as he was proposing almost the exact same thing Clinton did. And we've seen where that went.

Wed Jan 12 2005 10:16 PM

Tom from Madison:

This thread began discussing WMDs in Iraq. Somehow it led to North Korea. I agree there are many advantages to involving regional powers in making progress in Korea. The tradeoff has been time. While the US has been pre-occupied with Iraq, North Korea has become a secondary priority even though the danger to the US and the world is primary. Bush should be held accountable for misplaced priorities.

What if the same approach [working with neighboring countries] had been used, or at least tried, in Iraq? Diplomacy and economic leverage could have been used to work with Iran, Syria, Turkey and others to further isolate and bring pressure to bear on Iraq. Now the presence of US and British occupiers has become THE ISSUE.

For centuries, people in this area have been struggling to free themselves from colonial domination. Are the citizens of Iraq REALLY going to believe that now their former occupiers have suddenly become benevolent bestowers of democracy?

Thu Jan 13 2005 6:50 AM

Right Wing Robby:

Great idea Tom. What we should have done was pass a resolution with support from other countries to handle Iraq instead of going to war.

Oh Im sorry, we did?
We should have passed 2 then.
We did?

Thu Jan 13 2005 9:54 AM

Dave E.:

Hate to admit it Tom, but RWR has a point there.

From the way I read your post, and maybe I'm missing something, I arrived at the same conclusion he did. A salient point is a salient point. Even RWR is capable (but probably an accident).

The facts as I interpret them are that Saddam was simply recalcitrant and irrational, not giving a damn about the effect of sanctions on his people or state. He was getting his, and more than willing to watch his people die for lack of medicine and food. But, he was certainly no threat. Looks like the UN inspections were working, which technically were part of the sanctions.

How to deal with the irrational world actors and rogue states like N.Korea is the primary challenge in preventing nuclear proliferation. To Bush's credit, I think he sees this, but to the reasonable mind it's hard to deny that this is the big issue going forward. And unfortunately, his administration is dominated by chickenhawks with itchy trigger fingers, so there is no creativity in his managing of international relations. Example: am I the only one that cringed with his stupid Axis of Evil proclamation? Tact, you moron, tact. You can bet that N.Korea ramped up their nuke weaponry program after that irresponsible statement.

Finally, it would be nice to have leadership that doesn't carefully craft fear-mongering lies and duplicitous statements to convince people of false threats simply to advance a radical policy that would have no chance of popular endorsement should we deal with the truth or the facts. That is unforgivable in my eyes. Orwellian, even.

And the fact that people remained dazzled by Bush in light of news like this is proof of the effectiveness of his tough guy PR machine, skilled in the art of the bribe. Unfortunately for the W freaks now, just ask them how much they cost if they start getting long winded.

Thu Jan 13 2005 11:12 AM

Tom from Madison:


Please read what I wrote. You're arguing with a straw-man of your own making.

I don't think passing UN resolutions is the way to proceed. Working directly with powers in the region, as is now happening with regard to N Korea, is my suggestion. Bush didn't do that.

Instead he used violation of UN resolutions as a way of justifying a war he wanted all along. The problem is the other countries in the area and the Iraqi peoples now know that. Furthermore, they won't trust Bush's word now because he's been disingenuous in the past. This is why we need a foreign policy based on facts, not unsubstantiated suspicion or wishful thinking.

Thu Jan 13 2005 11:15 AM

Right Wing Robby:

"I don't think passing UN resolutions is the way to proceed. Working directly with powers in the region, as is now happening with regard to N Korea, is my suggestion. Bush didn't do that"

**Please note Tom's present tense use of the word "is" instead of "was." This happens twice.

Oh no Tom? You dont think UN resolutions are the way to go? How nice of you to come to that conclusion after Saddam ignored 17 of them. Any other historical events you would like to tell us how to handle?

This is typical of Tom and other like him. It is illustrated with his slip up using present tense language for something that happened years ago.
He does this all the time by constantly ignoring the democrats votes, quotes and countless other examples of the left's pre-war position and is now illustrated here again. For Tom, history started yesterday.

I can go back to WW2 win the war easily too. Knowing what I know now, I can get us through D-Day with little to no casualties. But, actually believing I am righteous and have a better plan then Eisenhower did is ridiculous, if not sick.

Tom tries this as well as other democrats when the re-define what their vote actually "meant."
Its ridiculous and Im not buying it.

BTW everyone, make sure and bet on the Red Sox last year. Thats what I would have done.

Thu Jan 13 2005 1:12 PM

Tom from Madison:


The issue isn't what Tom thinks, it's what Bush did and did not do. You''re avoiding the question.

I'd like to hear why Bush didn't try to involve Turkey, Syria, Iran, Jordan and other neighboring countries. After all, this is what he's doing on the Korean Peninsula. Why not in Mesopotamia?

Thu Jan 13 2005 1:28 PM

Tom from Madison:

Some of us were right [as in correct] all along. Rush Feingold was one who opposed the Iraq Invasion from the beginning:

This was from October 2002. it takes real courage to stand-up for your convictions in the midst of the military bandwagon hoopla orchestrated by the Bush Administration. Russ Feingold was re-elected Senator from Wisconsin in 2004. I was proud to vote for him!

Thu Jan 13 2005 1:58 PM

raging red:

An honest question - Doesn't the fact that Saddam did NOT have WMD (and was not close to obtaining WMD) mean that whatever this country and the UN were doing before we invaded was WORKING?

I know that this isn't exactly infallible logic. People claim that since we haven't been attacked by al Qaida again, that means our current anti-terrorism strategy must be working. Of course, that's not necessarily true.

Thu Jan 13 2005 2:52 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Tom Says about Feingold.

"Some of us were right [as in correct] all along."

Oct 9th 2002. Sen Feingold, whom you are proud to have voted for said the following:

"And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons."

Stop ignoring History Tom. Russ manufactured lies about Iraq to drive us into war. You are proud of that?

Thu Jan 13 2005 3:35 PM



Wrong again!

The conclusion that it was necessary to go war was wrong. The facts prove it.

That Iraq was "a threat" is certainly true. The threat was not serious enough to warrant going to war. That was Feingold's position and he was taking the President at his word. He gave the President the benefit of the doubt.

It turns out the President's word wasn't worth much. His reasons for going to war kept getting weaker not stronger.

The only ones ignoring history and the facts are the Bush supporters. There was little justification for war at the beginning. There is less now.

Bush now has a LOT of American and Iraqi blood on his hands, having gone to war under false pretenses. He needs to be held accountable.

Thu Jan 13 2005 4:00 PM

Tom from Madison:

The last post is mine.

Thu Jan 13 2005 4:01 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Your close to a break through Tom.

Now, since Feingold voted against the war and believed the WMD treat was genuine. He was right.
Thats what you believe as you just said.

Then how about the 29 democrats who voted for the War. Some have very similiar quotes that you have read. People like Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carnahan, Mo.; Carper, Del.; Cleland, Ga.; Clinton, N.Y.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.

How about them, they were all wrong, correct? Or were they also mis-led by the President? Did each of these 29 senators neglect to look into a single fact or at a single piece of intelligence before casting a life deciding vote, and just "take Bush's word."?

Being a senator for the democrats sounds like a great job. You never have to look into anything or research important votes like the decision to go to war or not. You just take people's word for it and then blame the President when it suits you.

They were either willfully ignorant, or wrong. Which is it?

Thu Jan 13 2005 6:19 PM

Dave E.:

Tisk tisk, RWR.

Didn't take long before once again obfuscating known facts and twisting the process as it happened. It must be hard to restrain yourself from even daring to think your precious assumptions might, in fact, be false.

The Bush administration cherrypicked low-grade, unreliable intell reports from low-grade, unreliable sources (Chalabi - still wanted in Jordan, due a 17 year sentence for bank fraud) and fashioned a slipshod case for an imminent threat. It was done willfully by the administration and distributed to those in Congress, left to form inaccurate opinions whilst being swept-up in the neurotic, pseudo-patriotic frenzy of "evildoers" and "freedom haters" and "seeking uranium" and "mushroom clouds" all perpetuated by Bush and Co.

Continually arguing that those on the Hill also voted for this miserable chapter in our history, therefore they are as complicit in being held accountable as the President, is quite the stretch. But it is heard over and over and over again. Reason begs to differ. Think dispassionately about the evidence and the truth shall set you free.

This truth is contained in the tragically under-reported Office of Special Plans, something which I've written extensively about here before. Review it again should anyone still disagree that the intell disbursed was willfully crafted to mislead the Hill and the American people:

Thu Jan 13 2005 6:44 PM

Tom from Madison:

Dave E said it well. I agree.

The point is simple. Truth matters. The President isn't credible. He is on record mis-stating many material facts.

If you can't trust the President on matters of War and Peace, what can you trust him on?

Democracy will only work as long as our leaders are held to a standard of truth. The biggest fools are not those who originally followed Bush, they are those that are STILL following him!

Thu Jan 13 2005 8:55 PM

Paul Stone:

I'm very unhappy with Congressional representatives who voted for the war, but I don't agree with the idea that we should hold Congress to a higher standard than the president.

Yes, Congress should not have approved Bush's adventure in Iraq, but he was the one who had the lame idea in the first place. He was the one who bullied them and threatend to hold them accountable for weakening American security in the next election.

The blame rests squarely with Bush. He should wear "Iraq War" branded on his forehead for the rest of his life. A lot of people had to die unnecessarily, because of his stupidity. A lot of money and lives flushed away for no purpose other than to reelect Dear Leader.

At least the torture rooms in Iraq are closed now. Now wait... they aren't.

Fri Jan 14 2005 11:41 AM


Lets face it Paul, you propose to hold the President to a standard that can't be met, while holding congress to no standard at all. No course the President took would have been satisfactory to you or the rest of the wailing left so, why bother trying. As long as you're in the minority and making impossible demands no attempt will be made to appease you and your crowd. You and the rest of the ankle biters have removed yourselves from the process until the next election where undoubtedly you will once again be reminded you are the minority, without taking stock to realize why.

Fri Jan 14 2005 2:37 PM


If someone commits a crime with a gun, then it’s found out that the gun had no bullets, is it any less a crime?

Fri Jan 14 2005 4:46 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

If someone is sleeping and you quietly put a gun to their head and kill them in their sleep, and then claim you killed him in self defence, pre-emptivly killing them because you thought he was going to shoot you 6 months from now, is it self-defence or murder?

Fri Jan 14 2005 9:31 PM


Notice how you have to contort and spin to get your point across

Mon Jan 17 2005 7:35 AM

Tom from Madison:

I'm not seeing any spin. Just truth the right wing won't acknowledge.

Attempting to dismiss someone else's thoughts by labelling them as "spin" is a shallow habit of O'Reilly viewers. If you have a point, please make it. Simply accusing someone else of spin reduces discussion and debate to playground taunting.

Mon Jan 17 2005 3:04 PM


"Mike of the Great White North:

If someone is sleeping and you quietly put a gun to their head and kill them in their sleep, and then claim you killed him in self defence, pre-emptivly killing them because you thought he was going to shoot you 6 months from now, is it self-defence or murder"

Did the person say they were going to kill you? (how death to America the Great Satan speaches do you want?).

Did the person make plans to shoot you? (you know those illegal weapon's programs in Jim's Link).

Did "Law enforcement" ignore these threats? (UN turns blind eye while accepting payoffs)

Had they shot someone else? (Ask Kuwait or the Kurds how it feels)

Anyone else act this way and then try to shoot you or your friends (ever read world history?)

Sound like you might have a pretty good case.

Mon Jan 17 2005 3:34 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Honestly, i expected no less of NJ. It'll be interesting for him to back up his claim of me 'spinning'. Or maybe he's just another pathological BS artist like so many of his species 'oreilius truthavoidis'.

"We Distort, You Comply... FAUX"

Mon Jan 17 2005 3:42 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Oh how the ignorant choose to go about their lives. OH PLEASE won't you just follow Darwins law correctly!

Chanting 'death to america' and having the capability to produce 'death to america' are 2 completely opposite paradigmes. Considering what your country has put people in that part of the world through, i don't deny them their venting. But simple people voicing the rage in the streets doesn't alter the fact that Iraq could not harm you. And that's the point you dumb$&^% neocons seem to forget.

Did they plan to shoot you? Lemme ask you somthing. Are you just naturally stupid or do you work at it every day. Have you read Ritters, Kays or Duelfers reports. Lets look at the most recent. In it he SPECIFICALLY NOTES that any WMD procurment Saddam MAY have wanted was to keep regional powers in check, such as Iran and Israel. He had ZERO intention of "shooting" you. Hell, he even considered trying to get back into your good books. Its all there in the report, should you care to read it. Do you even know how to READ? or are you a typical Fox viewer. Rhetorical question, you need not bother to answer.

Law enforcement ignore WHAT? Let's look at the scoreboard shall we. UN-1, USA-BIG F(*&^ING ZERO! Scott Ritter, vindicated. Hans Blix, vindicated. David Kay, scratching his head. Rummy 'Tikrit north south east west' Rumsfield, Colin 'ghost mobile lab' Powell, Mushroom Condi and Slam Dunk Tenet all got it wrong. Remind me never to visit the state your in, local sheriff probably give me 25 to life for a suspected broken tailight.

Yeah, lemme ask the Kuwaitis how they felt, when the US gave Saddam the idea that it was ok for him to invade Kuwait. Oh, you didn't hear about that one? Sept 25. 1990, Saddam asks US ambassador to Iraq what the US position was on his future occupation of Kuwait. Response? The US had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" like the Kuwait border dispute, and Hussein understood this to mean US non-involvement should Iraq pursue military resolution of conflict.

Should i ask the Kurds? The same ones Bush 41 asked to rise up against Saddam? The same Kurds he left high and dry while allowing Saddam use of his helicopter gunships to put down the kurds as a part of the surrender agreement after Gulf War 1? Saddam inflicted those massive Kurd casualties because the US found it convenient then. Your Moral hypocracy knows no bounds. How can you talk about world history when you dont even have a cognisent understanding of the facts around you?

Pretty good case? I'd call it a 'Slam Dunk' for murder. Except i wont because 'Slam Dunk' is now slang for pulling a Tenet.

Slam Dunk - v. forcefully put a basketball through the hoop
2. to claim solid intelligence in the absence of intelligence (see G. Tenet)

Mon Jan 17 2005 4:20 PM



Tue Jan 18 2005 6:16 AM

Tom from Madison:

The real spinner throughout the entire Iraq War has been George W Bush. He lied about WMDs and changed his story on a weekly basis to try to stay ahead of the emerging truth.

His nameless would-be defender won't even come out of the shadows to his defense.

There was a great exchange on C-SPAN between Barack Obama and Condi today. He wanted to know what criteria determined when we went to war given that tyranny and terror had been so mixed up by this President. She couldn't answer.

Obama made the further point that Saudi Arabia has been both a tyrannical government and a breeding ground for terrorism. Yet we didn't invade, didn't even hint at it. This administration looks to have no policy, only an agenda of conquest in the Middle East serving a twisted neo-con agenda. This agenda is not worth American dollars and certainly not worth American lives.

Democrats need to stick to these very basic points. Public opinion has turned against this war, and rightly so. The House of Representatives would be a great place to focus energy in 2006.

Tue Jan 18 2005 8:46 PM


I thought the House was going to be the Democrat's Revenge in 2002 - actual result was MORE lost seats. The Democrats where supposed to make up ground in the House, and regain the Senate and the Whitehouse in 2004 - results where the exact opposite. In the mean time Democrat Govenors are working hard to distance themselves from the Washington "leadership" to keep the losing stink from rubbing off on them. Start making plans for 2006, but be sure to include your excuses.

As for the Bush lied bit, point 'em out. The "whopper" the democrats ranted about for over a year "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" has been proven true, Joe Wilson is a big fat liar (what Hell was he thinking?) and the British stand by their intellegence report to this day. As for the CIA screwup on the WMD assessment - even you St. Feingold told people Saddam had them. Line him up against the wall with Bush.

Wed Jan 19 2005 6:45 AM

Tom from Madison:

Both the results and the costs of the Iraq war are NOW coming home to roost: Big cost in terms of lives and dollars; No WMDs; big recruiting for Al Qaeda.

None of this was apparent in 2002. The problem the Dems had was that they went along too much with W early on. He has taken the whole country down an expensive path of death and destruction.

Bottom line: the President lied effectively. Some trusted him then. Some followed him, Others didn't. Smartest course now is to realize this guy lacks judgment, character, and honesty. He's killed thousands needlessly. Polls indicate a majority of Americans agree it hasn't been worth it.

Wed Jan 19 2005 10:03 AM


2002? Shit, that’s ancient history boy, you lost then and you lost in 2004. Get the car keys out of your ear and pay attention. The entire democrat party shouted:


for over a year with the press holding the megaphone for them. Ya’ll still lost seats in the House and Senate. The voters seem to have firmly rejected that arguement - but I know, they're all stupid and don't know any better.

What really ought to piss you off is that the BIGGEST LOSER of all is trying to grab the reins of the DNC. Howard Dean has a proven track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and he's seriously being considered chairman of the Democratic National Committee. With him securely in place get ready to welcome Jeb Bush to Whitehouse in 2008.

Wed Jan 19 2005 3:33 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

And 2+2=7! Thats pretty much what your saying you nameless twit. The only thing you can say over and over again like a spoiled little kid on the playground saying "my daddy can beat up your daddy" is the fact that Dubya won on the backs of the whoefully ignorant masses. You obviously can't defend his record and your not even trying. You can't counter claim what's said about him, only saying that he won. Whoopdie f'n doo.

You know what, be my guest. Populate your entire body politic with right wing redneck slackjawed yokels and be proud that you own the entire executive, legislative and judicial branch. I'm gonn grab some popcorn and watch the greatest tragedy of all time play out before my eyes. The fall of America. A country that was the greatest nation on the planet during my life between Reagan through Clinton is now becoming so ideologically driven off the cliff.

I've always been a great fan of American isolationism, Jefferson said it best "friend
with all, ally with none ..." but with Bush at the helm you will have no friend or ally except the despotic regimes you can by off. If your ultimate goal is to put the Scarlet Letter on the US of A and make yourself out to be the pariah of the world.... Vote Cheney in 08.

Wed Jan 19 2005 8:57 PM


You want to see an "American Tragedy", look at California. Liberal ideals have driven the 6th largest economy in the world to third world status. Brownouts, blackouts, riots, over burdened schools and healthcare, is it the west coast or Calcutta? To save themselves they put a Rhino in as governor. The liberals in SF and LA talk about succeeding from the US and the residents of northern California want to succeed from southern California. Defend that mess. I will take the great unknown over certain disaster anyday.

Tommy can't even respond when I ask for him to point out Bush's "lies", other then to say he lied effectively. I guess that means he must have told the truth - a word totally alien to democrats in national politics for the past 15 years.

Thu Jan 20 2005 6:47 AM


By the way, I'm sure Britian and Australia love being referred to as despotic regimes. France hadn't been an ally since WW1 - a full 90 years ago and that's only because they wanted fresh bodies to feed to their generals. WW2 does not count since they did not actually fight. The LA riots caused a bigger disturbance then the French Army. Germany has only been an ally since they have been OCCUPIED for 50+ years. As for Russia - there is a true despotic regime.

Thu Jan 20 2005 6:57 AM

Tom from Madison:

I'll keep saying it. Bush lied repeatedy about WMDs. There are numerous audio records, video records, and transcripts including State of the Union Messages. In addition there are numerous statements from Condi, Rummy, Wolfowitz and Cheney. The weapons inspectors were right all along, but Bush wasn't man enough to admit it.

In addition to direct evidence about WMDs, Bush never gave a full explanation about what happened on 9/11 to the American people. His cooperation with the 9/11 commission was delayed and minimal.

He opposed the establishment of the 9/11 commission itself.
He refused to discuss 9/11 under oath.
He allowed no electronic recording of his non-sworn testimony.
He wouldn't go without the VP by his side.

This is a man who is afraid of the truth and avoids accountability whenever possible. Republicans will pay for years to come for the mess he created. It will take genrations to pay back the $ he spent. We'll never get back the lives he wasted needlessly.

Fri Jan 21 2005 2:25 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart