Until we establish *any* set of principles for use of our military, we will continue to capriciously jump in and out of whatever situation captures out governments limited brainpower and short attention span.

Until we establish a *rational* set of principles for use of our military, we will continue to waste lives and treasure for no benefit to ourselves.

Obama is a fraud. He is Bush2. I admit I was bamboozled by him during the last election, but I won't be bamboozled again. (Not that I'll be casting a vote for anyone the Republicans are likely to come up with either.)

People need to wake up and start calling him on his hypocrisy, and complain like hell, over and over and over again, to their Reps & Senators. Yes, I know we're between a rock and a hard place, I know they rarely pay any attention to what we say, given that they're cowardly and craven and bought & paid for anyway, but we have to at least go on record as saying that we oppose this war. And the never-ending excuses by our govt to exercise its power simply because it can. Our foreign policy is nothing but Might Makes Right. And it ain't right.

"Why do 'they' hate us?" This is why.

People need to wake up and start calling him on his hypocrisy, and complain like hell, over and over and over again, to their Reps & Senators.

Racist.

Sorry, I don't mean that personally, but you need to understand that to oppose The Won is to be considered a racist by his supporters.

On the other hand, if the Senate and House don't raise holy hell about being cut of the whole debate surrounding our lastest war, they don't deserve to be there.

IRA Darth Aggie,

Ha, ha, I know! But they don't bother me. I was a supporter (to my eternal regret) during his campaign. I voted for him. They can call me whatever they want. That's not to deny that there's plenty of racism in this country, including towards Obama; but I know when the claim of racism is being used as a straw man. Obama's actions speak for themselves. And they speak of hypocrisy.

(And yes about Congress.)

Where next? North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuala? There are any number of unfriendly nations out there.

A president who thinks his stimulus created jobs probably thinks bombing them will win us friends.

They told me if I voted for McCain we'd have more wars. They were right. I was not fooled for a second by Mr Glib. I once hired a dude who talked a good game, and I learned from my mistake.

Does anyone remember Oil for Food? Does anyone care to argue the current UN crowd is less corrupt? How do you fix an unelected and unaccountable organization? Get rid of it.

It's going to get ugly for somebody if Ghadaffi survives. He doesn't strike me as the sort to turn the other cheek.

Being in an another country, I don't get to vote in Presidential elections. But Lisa, you couldn't see the man was an empty shell, just saying whatever people wanted to hear? It was obvious all along. Nothing he ever said had any substance or a real plan behind it. "Hope and change" was a house of cards from the start.

From your comments, it sounds like you really wanted him to be different, i.e. you're not a reluctant GOP switchover voter but a Democrat who really wanted him to keep his promises. Good luck with that. You should have voted for McCain, the RINO would probably have made you happier.

Personally, I'm not surprised he's reverted to the Clinton model of getting into an war with ill-defined objectives to distract from his failed domestic policies. What really scares me is he most likely thinks he's doing the right thing. Although he has no idea where to take it from here.

I'm just waiting for the intern.

Oh, and he's definitely not Bush2. Bush understood the need to get Congressional approval for a major war, and got it. Then he didn't get UN approval, and said, in effect, "screw you, didn't read that in the Constitution", and went ahead with a clear objective and won. Obama has done the exact opposite. He's Clinton2.

you couldn't see the man was an empty shell

Most of the people who'd voted for Obama couldn't see past the fact that he has dark skin. They were enraptured by the idea of voting for a black man. Though he isn't actually black. Which is fitting in hindsight.

Where next? North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuala? There are any number of unfriendly nations out there.

But this is not about 'unfriendly' MarkD. It's about "this has got in the news and we have to be seen to be doing something about it". Bosnia syndrome all over again.

And unfortunately our Foreign Minister (ex-Prime Minister) has been running around encouraging intervention - shamefully, not by Australia, but by you guys. Not that there would be much we could do. But he's reportedly looking for a UN job, so it's a feather in his cap to get it off the ground. Sorry about that. I didn't vote for him either.

Bush "won"?? Won what? Two wars that we're still involved in, with no end in sight? A worldwide torture regime of gulags (there's those "American values" in action), increasing surveillance in the Security States of America, passage of the odious Patriot Act that continues to shred our rights, increasing use of unchecked Executive power, handouts to the wealthiest of the wealthy, gutting the middle class -- all of which Obama is perpetuating -- that's "winning"?

As for McCain, no thanks. He would've nuked Iran by now. That man's mind is fried.

And I'm a registered Independent. As I've said on this site before, my politics in general are way left of what's considered "liberal" in this country. Amy and I don't agree on everything, but I appreciate her straight talking. And I don't go with the attitude that "it's bad if 'your' guy does it but okay if 'mine' does." That's the definition of hypocrisy. That's why I'm calling Obama on his actions, something too many of my liberal friends still won't do.

Obama supporters should take comfort that John Yoo, former legal advisor to GWB and notorious advocate of the Presidential prerogative to torture people, thinks that the Libya intervention is legal.

Amy, the War Powers Resolution has zero importance because it defines Presidential powers and duties. One congress (the 93rd), cannot define Presidential powers and duties. The Constitution of the United States of America lays out the powers and duties of the President and they can only be changed by an amendment to that document.

Hmm.

I am waiting for U.S. invasions of Upper Volta and Suriname before I get my gander up. I think we do not have compelling national interests in those two nations that would justify outlays in the billions of dollars, or loss of lives.

All previous U.S. occupations and invasions since WWII have been worth it--at least according to the military-foreign policy-VA-Congressional funding and campaign donor complex that has spring up around our ceaseless foreign entanglements.

Bush "won"?? Won what? Two wars that we're still involved in, with no end in sight?

The objective in Iraq was get rid of Saddam Hussein, and install a reasonable government. Job done.

In Afghanistan, get rid of terrorist training camps that were turning out thousands of people to disperse around the world. Most of whom ended up in Iraq - which is a good thing. They're not around anymore to bother the rest of the world. And despite the chaos there, they're not turning out terrorists anymore. Leave whenever you like. Maybe you should talk to Obama about it.

If you know what it is you're trying to do it helps. Define victory in Libya for me please?

And my point - that Bush sought Congressional approval for both wars - still stands. Obama made that point himself, but it doesn't seem to matter when it suits him. He's still Clinton2.

We're still involved in Iraq the same way we're still involved in Germany.

It's how we do it.

"The objective in Iraq was get rid of Saddam Hussein, and install a reasonable government. Job done."

No, the objective was to discover WMD which we never did because they weren't there because Bush & Co. fabricated evidence out of whole cloth. And "reasonable government"?? Christ almighty.

"In Afghanistan, get rid of terrorist training camps that were turning out thousands of people to disperse around the world. Most of whom ended up in Iraq - which is a good thing. They're not around anymore to bother the rest of the world. And despite the chaos there, they're not turning out terrorists anymore."

What a crock of shit. The U.S. is CREATING terrorists. All over the MIddle East. We are encouraging people who otherwise would be left alone on the other side of the world to become terrorists by our slaughtering their countrymen. No, of course not Every Single Person who straps a bomb on is created by US foreign policy (heading off at the pass another sure-to-appear straw man). But U.S. foreign policy is responsible for encouraging a helluva lot more people to take up arms against us, when we're raining death down on them through our drones and other highly sophisticated, highly destructive arsenal of weapons.

What do you think an Afghan farmer is likely to do when his family is wiped out by the American military? Just accept, "oops, sorry!" Or pick up a Kalashnikov? Or make an IED? Or what if his brother was murdered by someone like that psychopath Morlock who, with his buddies, went around killing Afghan civilians for "sport"? What would you do if somebody invaded your country and slaughtered your family?

Oh, but that's right -- once again, it's okay if "we" do it, it's just not okay if the "other" guy does it. And anyway, the "other" isn't human; only we are.

Take a look at what US military might has wrought:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0232760

Obama is a fraud. He is Bush2.

Not really. Bush had principles. When he wanted to declare war, he went to Congress. Obama just pretends he's not declaring war.

@Lisa,

Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union and now post S.U. Russia killed many, many more muslims than any U.S. policy, however misguided. Yet Osama did not target Moscow, but New York.

I think I'll keep my guns, my freedom, and my money. YOU can keep the CHANGE.

@Lisa - if the US is 'creating' terrorist please explain how some of them went back in time to 700 AD and began the muslim expansionist wars of the middle ages

We are encouraging people who otherwise would be left alone on the other side of the world to become terrorists by our slaughtering their countrymen.

Uh huh. Like when we saved the Muslims of Bosnia from destruction.

And what's this crap about our invasion of Afghanistan having caused terrorism? You're aware, I hope, that the invasion followed 9/11 and was our response to it?

No, the objective was to discover WMD which we never did...

Not true on many fronts. The WMD issue was one minor issue in a long list, among which were repeated UN resolutions that Saddam was violating.

However, the moment Bush administration mentioned WMDs, it was obvious that they were trying to find a way to make deposing Saddam more palitable. I thought it was a fair point, but the way it was stressed was a huge mistake.

That said, WMDs were found. Not in the quantities claimed, but nerve gases were recovered. (It's also true that UN inspectors found tons of Sarin gas in the 90s that went missing and still hasn't been accounted for.)

Having said all that, I believed then and believe now that for Afghanistan in particular, we should have gone in, destroyed the Taliban and left. No reason to do nation building. The message being; you attack us, you die. Simple.

One big problem with Libya is that we had pretty much brought Gaddaffi to heal. What's the message now to dictators? Cooperate with the west and you'll still get overthrown. That's not how diplomacy and reality works--in the real world, you hold your nose and deal with assholes. Whatever justification there is for attacking Libya is ten fold or more for Syria, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar/Burma, et al.

One thing I find horribly immoral is to kill thousands of people with the hope that part of the collateral damage will be the actual person we claim to be the problem. If Saddam Hussein was the problem, the solution was to kill HIM, not tens of thousands of others with him as a side effect. Likewise with Libya.

This falls into the absurd category of "we must kill civilians to save civilians."

(Oh, and the minute you pick up a gun and shoot, you aren't a civilian. You're now a rebel. Perhaps fully justified, but still a rebel.)

". . . but nerve gases were recovered."

And we sold Saddam that nerve gas, don't forget.

As for the other commenters, I'm not going to get involved in a discussion with people who believe Muslims are somehow inherently evil or warlike or whatever you wanna come up with. The stench of American Exceptionalism is too strong. Human beings are human beings -- good, bad, indifferent, noble, corrupt, generous, greedy, altruistic, murderous, you name it. So are governments, which, last time I checked, are made up of people.

Where's Crid these days?

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion with people who believe Muslims are somehow inherently evil or warlike or whatever you wanna come up with.

Its gonna be kinda hard never talking to people who tell the truth, but good luck with that. When youre ready for rational fact based historiclly accurate talks feel free to come back

that fact that you are using a rolling stone article to make your point only weakens your point ... this is precisely what is wrong with our system, uninformed people are allowed to vote, we get what we deserve

And we sold Saddam that nerve gas, don't forget.

No we didn't. They manufactured it themselves using equipment bought from the Germans and Russians.

Where's Crid these days?

Been wondering the same.

He is Bush2

Not really. At least when Bush told you something, you could be reasonably certain he believed it and was being straight with you. Even if you hated him or what he was saying.

Bush didn't need a teleprompter to tell you why he was doing something. A dictionary, yes. But a teleprompter, no.

As for the other commenters, I'm not going to get involved in a discussion with people who believe Muslims are somehow inherently evil or warlike or whatever you wanna come up with. The stench of American Exceptionalism is too strong.

Lisa, you keep telling yourself how exceptional you are and how much more intelligent you are than the flag-waving yahoos that disagree with you.

After all, they've only read history books and even served in the US military, but you've read Rolling Stone.

The U.S. is CREATING terrorists. All over the Middle East. We are encouraging people who otherwise would be left alone on the other side of the world to become terrorists by our slaughtering their countrymen.

So which relative of Muhammed Atta's did the US kill? How many relatives of Hani Hanjour or Abdulaziz al-Omari were killed by US bombs? How about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Or Richard Reid? Or Nidal Malik Hasan?

We didn't make those guys or anyone else become terrorists.

When he was in power, Saddam Hussein was offering $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel or the West.

Influential imams are preaching jihad against the West (and were doing so long before the US set foot in Afghanistan or Iraq).

Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic in Munich.

In June 1976, German and Palestinian terrorists hijacked an Air France flight with 248 passengers.

In December 1988, 254 people were killed when a plane was destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie Scotland - on the explicit orders of Muamar Gaddhafi.

The US is not CREATING terrorists. It is finally fighting them...and the people who do actually create them.

And we sold Saddam that nerve gas, don't forget.

As has already been pointed out, that's completely untrue Lisa, and demonstrates your deep ignorance on this issue. What actually happened was you sold Iraq some unarmed transport helicopters, which were used to dump locally manufactured chemical weapons on a Kurdish town. From that, certain people have tried to claim some sort of responsibility on the part of the US. Which is obviously bullshit. And the Kurds themselves are the most pro-American element there, so even the victims don't believe it.

The vast majority of weapons sales to Iraq came from France and Russia. The US accounted for, from memory, something like 1% at most.

And Congress signed off on 23 separate reasons for liberating (can't wait for you to scoff at that word) Iraq, including defying several UN resolutions, humanitarian concerns, support for terrorism, etc. As Joe said, it's a shame that the WMD thing got so over stressed - but that was mostly *after* Congress had agreed and was an attempt by Bush to give Tony Blair some political cover by convincing the UN Security Council. So they went with the thing that might actually matter to France, China, and Russia, rather than other concerns which they didn't give a shit about. (And France was basically bought off by Hussein so they never really had a chance. All they wanted was an "unreasonable veto" so they could give them finger. Chirac obliged.)

I'm still happy with it because I think Hussein would still have pursued WMDs and continued supporting terrorism if left in place. He was getting increasingly insane by that time. And skimming huge amounts of money off Oil for Food.

As a practical matter too, people don't just pick up a gun and become a terrorist. It requires knowledge and training - as evidenced by the increasingly less effective attacks over the years (e.g. Glasgow airport, stopped by a baggage handler, panty bomber, etc). Thousands of people went through the Afghan training camps during the 90s (at a time, I might point out, when the US was defending Muslims in Bosnia). Lots of those flocked to Iraq for the resistance and now, well, they're not around anymore. And the locals hate their guts. It may have been a very hard road, but Al Qaeda declared war on the US in Iraq, not the other way round, and despite the mess and suffering - they lost.

I admit it feels like whack-a-mole, but it was a real danger. And it's a lot lower now than it was.

Hitchens on the "Iraq Effect"

http://www.slate.com/id/2289587/?from=rss

Yeah, Rolling Stone -- they haven't done in-depth investigative reporting for the past 40 years. Right.

Hitchens, whom I've interviewed, is a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian. That's his raison d'être. So it was no surprise when he went off the rails ten years ago and suddenly decided to become a warmonger. Defending the indefensible -- invasion of Iraq and George Bush -- just became another gambit for him.

As for chemical weapons, which, yes, the U.S. did sell to Iraq, hundreds of newspapers reported on this. Here's just one, the Sunday Herald of Scotland (lemme guess -- you don't trust those shifty Scots):

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

. . . The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

. . . Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Bottom line: dictators are our friends, until they aren't. Pinochet, Suharto, Noriega, Trujillo, Hussein, Mubarak, Qaddafi -- the list goes on. I don't defend these dictators; the U.S. has, when it's been convenient. When it's no longer convenient, our government suddenly decides the people they've been coddling are evil incarnate and mounts a PR campaign to convince the American public that they have to go, by whatever means our overlords decide. It's the same old story.

Bottom line: dictators are our friends, until they aren't

So I suppose you were against having Stalin as an ally.

@Lisa:

BTW, what do you propose to do with dictators? Ignore them? Bomb them? Nuke them? Kill them? What is your alternative?

Yeah, Rolling Stone -- they haven't done in-depth investigative reporting for the past 40 years. Right.

Oh please. My son gets Rolling Stone. Every week another piece of hard-hitting trash about some "celebrity." It's about on the level of People mag right now.

Biff, it isn't simply a matter of bombing, nuking, killing them. For every one you bomb, nuke, or kill, another will rise in his place, or somewhere else. Bad shit happens in this world; we can't fix all of it. Millions are being killed in Congo and Sudan as we speak. Should the US be bombing there? North Korea is one of the most repressive regimes on earth, routinely torturing and murdering its own people. What are we going to do about it? (Nothing, because they have nukes.)

But bombing people to save them?? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. "Let's go over there and bomb some of the population so that Quaddafi can't do it -- that's righteous!"

One thing you could do about other people's dictators is stop making them rich. And then pontificating about how we have to "do something" -- like Boeing, Raytheon, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, Caterpillar, and Halliburton, for example, all of whom were perfectly happy to contribute to Qaddafi's kleptocracy when it suited them.

Financial titans and defense contractors run this country. You can be anywhere on the political spectrum -- right, left, center, on the moon -- and still see that.

Financial titans and defense contractors run this country.

Better financial titans and defense contractors than deranged lefty sob-sisters.

In case you're confused about why Obama's intervention is good while Bush's was bad, this will help clear things up:

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/when_dumb_wars_become_brillian.html

Bottom line: dictators are our friends, until they aren't.

Yes. When purusing bigger goals, sometimes you have to tolerate a lesser evil. It's unpleasant, but that's how it works sometimes.

<*>To bring down the Nazis, the US and Britain allied themselves with Stalin, one of histories greatest monsters.
<*>To stabilize Southeast Asia after the US withdrawal, the US reached out to Communist China.
<*>To counter the spread of communism, the US worked with dictators and fascists in the Third World.
<*>To help stabilize the Middle East after multiple wars, the US supported Hosni Mubarak, the House of Saud, and King Hussein.
<*>To counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and looming threat to the Middle East, the US armed the mujahadeen (some of whom later became the Taliban).
<*>To counter the Islamic Revolution after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the US tolerated and supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.
<*>To counter Saddam's attempt to wrest control of a greater portion of the world's oil supply and a larger portion of the Middle East, the US fought to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
<*>To counter the Taliban and respond to the attacks of September 11th, the US armed and supported the Northern Alliance.
<*>To instill an example of a representative government into the Middle East and eliminate an increasingly erratic madman, the US invaded Iraq.

Does that mean all these actions were right or proven correct in the long run? No. Many of them came back to bite us in the ass. Some didn't.

In the long run, the US has generally helped people move toward freedom. However, there are speedbumps along the way. Native Americans may have a different view on this subject ... or they may be too busy counting their casino and cigarette money to give it a second thought.

What I find interesting is that so many leftists are enthusiastic supporters of tyrants like Gaddhafi, Assad, Chavez, Guevara, and Castro while castigating right-leaning presidents who (often reluctantly) work with tyrants like Hussein, Mubarak, Pinochet et al.

Louis Farrakhan, Jeremy Wright, and Nelson Mandela, to name a few, have all made high-profile visits to Gaddhafi and sung his praises. Now, Wright protegee, Obama, under pressure from the Arab League and France, has initiated "kinetic military action" against his mentor's idol.

While the US under George W. Bush was generally supportive of Hosni Mubarak, Mubarak was reportedly upset because Bush kept publicly urging freedom for the people of the Middle East, including the people in Egypt. At one point Mubarak delivered a rebuke to the US ambassador, urging him to tell Bush to lay off.

"What I find interesting is that so many leftists are enthusiastic supporters of tyrants like Gaddhafi, Assad, Chavez, Guevara, and Castro while castigating right-leaning presidents who (often reluctantly) work with tyrants like Hussein, Mubarak, Pinochet et al."

Garbage. I don't know which "leftists" you hang out with.

"In the long run, the US has generally helped people move toward freedom. However, there are speedbumps along the way. Native Americans may have a different view on this subject ... or they may be too busy counting their casino and cigarette money to give it a second thought."

Christ, what a racist statement.

Here's another sweetheart for you -- Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast. But I guess he just another "lesser of two evils":

The west African nation of Ivory Coast has been in turmoil ever since incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo refused to step down after losing an internationally certified election in late November. As forces loyal to Gbagbo have killed civilians and been accused of crimes against humanity, and as the number of refugees from the country has ballooned to as many as 1 million, observers have described the situation as worse than the Libyan conflict.

While the crisis has gotten substantial press attention, one aspect of Gbagbo's past -- and present -- has flown under the radar: his longtime ties to the Christian right in the United States, a movement in which he still finds at least some support.

http://www.salon.com/news/africa/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/30/ivory_coast_christian_right_gbagbo

Garbage. I don't know which "leftists" you hang out with.

Castro's supporters on the left have included Diane Sawyer, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, and Mort Zuckerman.

Guevara's defenders include Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela, Carlos Santana, Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp, Robert Redford, Susan Sontag, and Stephen Soderbergh.

Gaddhafi's defenders include Jeremy Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Nelson Mandela.

Chavez's useful idiots include Jimmy Carter, Joseph Kennedy II, Christopher Dodd, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn,

Here's another sweetheart for you -- Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast. But I guess he just another "lesser of two evils"

Nope. We have no pressing reason to abide a "lesser evil" in the Ivory Coast.

Gbagbo lost the election and needs to go quietly.

I sure hope the French are as concerned about th situation in their former colony as they are about the situation in their oil supplier.

I went to school with a guy from the Cote d'Ivoire. Wonderful guy. Sure hope he's okay.

@Lisa,

This is your lucky day, since I know that even you don't believe the drivel you write. There are two kinds of leftists: the true believers, who truly want to destroy the current system, and the whiners, who benefit from the system, but cry how evil it is, like Danny Glover, who calls W. Bush a racist, yet takes the money of Hugo to make films and get rich.
Ghana next the Ivory Coast is a stable country, sort of a democratic republic.

It is always very difficult in a conflict like this to set out long-term goals. Just look at the situation in Iraq where the unintended consequences were the main cause of damaging the reputation of the Bush administration. At least Obama could heed the warnings from the past and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

For Lisa Simeone, who said, "No, the objective was to discover WMD which we never did because they weren't there because Bush & Co. fabricated evidence out of whole cloth."

This meme is endlessly repeated, and it is completely wrong.

Let us ignore for a moment that "Bush & Co" actually includes Hillary Clinton and a bunch of other people currently hiding from their voting record, because this isn't about those people right now.

I bet you don't remember the Israelis bombing an Iraqi reactor. After all, to most Americans, "history" is what was in last week's People Magazine.

So, look here.

Iraq is an industrialized nation. Materials used for common processes differ from WMD only in their use, not their identity. Go look on the shelf at Home Depot, and you will find materials any chemist can use to kill your neighborhood.

There are two kinds of liars about WMD in Iraq: one type says they are a nation of camel-riding shepherds, incapable of harming anyone; the other says that they are all savages who must be contained. I urge you to avoid being either, and to learn what a weapon is from someone other than a professional rabble-rouser.

Go look on the shelf at Home Depot, and you will find materials any chemist can use to kill your neighborhood. -Radwaste

I'd change that to

Go look on the shelf at Home Depot, and you will find materials any "one who payed attention in highschool chemistry" can use to kill your neighborhood.