.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Uncommonly Sensible

Keeping the "anal" in analytical... (While trying to remain civilized)

My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

Saturday, June 04, 2005

This weekend in history...


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Battle of Midway, fought in World War II, took place on June 5, 1942 (June 4-7 in US time zones). The United States Navy defeated a Japanese attack against Midway Atoll, marking a turning point in the war in the Pacific theatre.

Fought just a month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway was the turning point of the Pacific Campaign. Skill, daring, and luck all played a part. The attack on the island of Midway, which also included a feint to Alaska by a smaller fleet, was a ploy by the Japanese to draw the American carrier fleet into a trap. With the remaining American ships destroyed, the Japanese hoped to avenge the bombing of the Japanese home islands two months earlier during the Tokyo Air Raid, plug the hole in their Eastern defensive perimeter formed by U.S. control of Midway, finish off the US Pacific Fleet, and perhaps even invade and take Hawaii.

Samuel Eliot Morison, a 20th century American historian, wrote the following in "The Two-Ocean War":
"Think of them, reader, every Fourth of June. They and their comrades who survived changed the whole course of the Pacific War."

The "official" synopsis of Battle of Midway is as follows:

"The Battle of Midway, fought near the Central Pacific island of Midway, is considered the decisive battle of the war in the Pacific. Before this battle the Japanese were on the offensive, capturing territory throughout Asia and the Pacific. By their attack, the Japanese had planned to capture Midway to use as an advance base, as well as to entrap and destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Because of communication intelligence successes, the U.S. Pacific Fleet surprised the Japanese forces, sinking the four Japanese carriers, that had attacked Pearl Harbor only six months before, while only losing of one carrier. After Midway, the Americans and their Allies took the offensive in the Pacific."

I would encourage everyone who appreciates their freedom to (re?)familiarize themselves with this important chapter in history...clicking on the links would be a good place to begin.

31 Comments:

Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Well camo... it appears that with thee, history is no mystery.

June 04, 2005 10:04 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Hawkeye®:
All too (painfully) true...the better to not repeat it.

June 04, 2005 10:08 AM  
Blogger Kajun said...

I had lots of cousins and uncles involved in the Pacific portion of WWII.

One of my cousins was the only one to get his fighter plane headed down the runway at Pearl Harbor during the attack. The Japs got him just as he became airborne.

Another cousin was hidden by natives on Borneo where he had Malaria so bad, the natives chewed his food for him...this old 86 year-old vet is still a-kickin', out in Fremont California!

June 04, 2005 10:22 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Kajun News:
A lot of people seem to forget the Pacific theater of operations. I was stationed in Hawaii decades ago, where there is still visible evidence of the attack at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere.

June 04, 2005 11:29 AM  
Blogger Barb said...

My husband was stationed in Manilla during the Koren war,so we have always been very aware of the Pacific part of the war. The US pulled off a couple of miracles : The raid on Tokyo,and Midway. God was on our side.

June 04, 2005 2:45 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

Barb:
May God bless all who serve, now and in the past...

June 05, 2005 5:14 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

Great grammar.

I'm fascinated by your modus operandi.

First you tried to limit freedom of expression by only allowing blogger IDs to post. Your next move was to delete comments. Now you're disabling them after you post your own?
Didn't I see you tell someone here that all you were concerned about was foul language?
And that it's *not* a cosy little club for neocons?

June 07, 2005 4:45 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom:
Grammar?! I'm not interested in your critiqué of my syntax. I'll delete whatever I find offensive; you can be insulting without using foul language...and by erroneously sniping about grammar, you are. In the post I deleted, that's all you did. It certainly does nothing to add to the discussion, and it's not on topic, therefore superfluous.

Regarding the disabling of comments, after a certain amount of time has passed, I do that on all of the threads.

FWIW, I even left up your asinine comment about "the blind leading the blind".

This is my blog, consequently I can run it howsoever I see fit, without having to explain myself to you or anyone else. Start your own blog and run it any way you choose.

As for limiting freedom of expression, it's certainly not difficult to become a registered blogger, so spare me your straw man arguments. Anyway, if all you plan to do is post spurious copy & paste "news" items, you're really just wasting your time...

June 07, 2005 7:05 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

"As for limiting freedom of expression, it's certainly not difficult to become a registered blogger"

Why have you comments enabled at all? To get congratulatory remarks from your pals?

Explain "spurious" please?? What was spurious?

"erroneously sniping about grammar"

I thought it was funny using the present tense, "serve", and then saying "in the past".

"It certainly does nothing to add to the discussion, and it's not on topic, therefore superfluous"

(discussion?) However, I agree with you. So I'm wondering why you engaged in all sorts of references to "anal" on another blog.

"Regarding the disabling of comments, after a certain amount of time has passed, I do that on all of the threads"

OIC. But only after you've had the last word. Cute. You don't like comments here that are 'a dissenting voice' that you might have to respond to, do you.

"Anyway, if all you plan to do is post spurious copy & paste "news" items"

What was spurious and how? Can you back up "spurious" please - with sources?



Here's another item for you. And before you tell me that it's not germane to the thread, you've shut my other ones down. And if this is "spurious", please show me how.

"... early congressional support has made a difference. Rep. John Conyers gathered 88 signatures on a letter to the White House demanding that the president explain the memo. That letter was rebuffed by the White House but it was enough to get CNN and the LATimes on the case. A few days later, the Washington Post filed its own story.

On Thursday, Senator John Kerry announced he would be raising the Downing Street Memo in Congress upon his return from recess. That, predictably, led to a reaction from the conservative media machine.

In today's National Review Online, the conservatives reveal their concern and unease. In their opening salvo, James S. Robbins attempts to argue that the memo is "old news." He argues that the three major pieces of information contained in the memo were all previously known and where necessary, previously discredited.

Robbins treats the Downing Street memo as a series of new accusations. This is wrong. The Downing Street Memo is a new source document that is evidence, not accusation. It is evidence that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq by April 2002. It is evidence that the Bush administration acted on that decision and was using Operations Northern and Southern Watch to hit Iraqi command and control targets to prepare the battlefield in advance of a declaration of war and Congressional authorzation. It is evidence that the Bush administration had decided to "fix the facts" around the policy they could not otherwise justify to the American people.

So, when Robbins says, for example, that the "The charge of intelligence fraud (if it is such a charge) has already been investigated and found baseless," his statement relies on an investigation (the Silberman-Robb Commission) that was not only unable to look at the political use of intelligence, it relies on an investigation that did not have in hand the evidence he is attempting to refute.

What Robbins does not do, however, is provide a refutation that deceiving the American people and Congress is not an impeachable offense. If the evidence in the Downing Street Memo can be further corroborated—which will most likely require more high-level leaks—the Downing Street Memo could be the equivalent of the Watergate break-in.

And now John Kerry is stepping into the fray. Perhaps Senator Kerry can expand the protective umbrella around the media and enable a new generation of Woodwards and Bernsteins to dig into this story. It will take time and patience, but there must be a few officials left in office who—for whatever reason—are willing to reveal the truth.

In the meantime, we've learned from Rep. Conyers' office that he has opened up his letter to the American people and has received 100,000 signatures already."


As for copy and paste, I seem to remember you "pasted" a comment on another blog which referred to the "Orwellian" Kyoto Treaty. When asked what that meant, you had no idea.

You clearly had not even read your 'copy and paste' before you posted it.

June 07, 2005 10:36 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom...
spu·ri·ous (adjective):
1 : of illegitimate birth : BASTARD
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED b : of a deceitful nature or quality


As in personal notes/observations (read: opinions) such as:
The "Downing Street Memo"

"When the document was published, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed."
(Something I already addressed in a prior thread)

As for comments that represent a "dissenting voice", there are many of them in various threads. I'll respond to them if they are not presented in a condescending or insulting/offensive manner.

Regarding topics discussed elsewhere? They were already addressed...elsewhere. How is that pertinent to the topic here?!

You asked about the copy & paste. You either misrepresent, or simply misunderstand what I've said about it previously. What I said was "if all you plan to do is post spurious copy & paste "news" items, you're really just wasting your time" (note emphasis); if you want to use said references as a catalyst for further discussion, on the other hand, that is perfectly acceptable. Just be advised that I have little or no interest in such spurious sources as Amnesty International, the A.C.L.U., or the "mainstream" media...

June 08, 2005 12:49 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

Cop-out.
Tony Blair was *trying* to defend UK policy. (A policy that cut his majority in the House of Commons by more than half. So why did the Conservatives not win the election? Because nobody wanted that fool Howard. The people had little option.)

I already pointed out that I was talking about US policy -- and what Bush had decided (and done) before he put it to Congress.

You're clearly not capable of dealing with this issue at all. The above is not from Amnesty, nor the ACLU, nor the MSM, either in the US or otherwise.

You're not a worthy opponent in any debate, and all of your above answers highlight that. And by refusing to address any of the issues you just prove that all you want here are little "waves" from your friends. You are totally unable to defend Bush in any way whatsoever. What a wuss.

Now delete this, Camojack, I know you want to. Or just disable comments after some silly response.

June 08, 2005 5:30 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Well, since I'm "clearly not capable of dealing with this issue at all"...why are you wasting your valuable time here? You brought up the dreaded "Downing Street Memo", and I responded to same. So then, how am I "refusing to address any of the issues"? I'm not impressed by someone's personal journal entry, which many people such as yourself want to treat as if it were some horrendous "smoking gun". You keep contradicting yourself, yet you say that I'm "not a worthy opponent in any debate". Since you insist on being condescending, please explain why I should even bother with you.

As for deleting your most recent comment, I feel no need to do so; your asinine remarks serve me well. Let's recap. You said, in your most recent comment that I'm...
...clearly not capable of dealing with this issue at all;
...not a worthy opponent in any debate;
...a wuss.
Things you would undoubtedly NEVER say to me in person.

Such eloquence leaves me at a loss for words. Consequently, I'll repeat the question, since your attention span appears somewhat attenuated:
Why are you wasting your valuable time here?!

Also, I'm certainly not planning to disable comments on the current thread.

Now, unless and until you learn how to be civil, you can spare me the pathetic Psych 101 attempts at reverse psychology. Give it up...

June 08, 2005 7:18 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

"Give it up..."

That would suit you just fine. :)
But I don't run. I walk.
If/when I want to.

June 08, 2005 9:24 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom said:
"Give it up..."


That would suit you just fine. :)
Six o' one, ½ dozen of t'other.

But I don't run. I walk.
I prefer riding my Harley; it gets me places faster, and it's fun.

If/when I want to.
Listen, you can come or stay, lay or play...it's OK.

FWIW, I suspect we're not as diametrically opposed as you seem to think. If you'll be nice, I'm perfectly willing to reciprocate...it's the adult thing to do.

June 08, 2005 10:40 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

I think we are diametrically opposed. But you're too busy posting definitions and talking about 'nice' to get to the heart of things. Serious stalling! How can you possibly call the memo or reports of it "spurious" when Blair has verified its authenticity??

However, water under the bridge.
Things to see and people to do.

smile!

June 08, 2005 12:12 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom said:
How can you possibly call the memo or reports of it "spurious" when Blair has verified its authenticity??


But that's just it; I'm not calling the memo or reports of it spurious...only the interpretation thereof.

I've already addressed the "Downing Street memo" in a prior thread, but I will attempt to clarify my position on it one last time.

When the document was published, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed. So, obviously there is a memo, actually written by a staffer at a meeting. Fine. We can agree on that much.

It isn't the same as the fraudulent memo circulated by Dan Rather and CBS, which purported to be composed on an IBM Selectric™ typewriter, yet used a Times New Roman font and Word® document "superscript". But I digress...

The line in the "Downing Street memo" that has certain parties all worked up is as follows:
"...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Fixed. Well, the word has a multiplicity of definitions; one of which is synonymous with "rigged"...and it is that one that some people have seized upon as "proof positive" of their assertions. BUT: Another, more commonly used meaning of fixed is "firmly set", and it is this that I choose to believe was the intent.

All the debate in the world won't resolve this difference of opinion, in the absence of the author thereof stating precisely what was intended when it was written. Consequently, until such time as an explanation is forthcoming from "the horse's mouth" as it were, continued bickering about it is quite pointless.

June 09, 2005 12:21 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

"Fixed" is not the only word in the document, Camo.
And I find your decision to interpret it as "firmly set" -- and then state that this is the "more commonly used meaning" -- to be disingenuous at best.

My understanding of the sentence is that the intelligence and facts were being "manipulated to fit" the policy. And it's the meaning journalists took when questioning Blair and Bush only two days ago. Not to mention just about everyone on the internet. But you choose to take entirely your own interpretation.

And what the heck else would you expect Blair to do (on the eve of an election too) other than deny that anything in the memo indicated misconduct????

Note:

The White House has always insisted that Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Colin Powell presented the administration's case to the Security Council in Feb 2003, a case which relied heavily on claims - now discredited - that Iraq had WMD.

BUT the Downing St memo dates from July 2002.

You're right. This place is a complete waste of time.

June 09, 2005 5:37 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Disingenuous? Hardly. If you look up the various meanings, "to make firm" is in 1ST PLACE, whereas "to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods" comes in a distant 7th. Ergo, yes, more commonly used.

Check for yourself:
Fix

Oh, "and it's the meaning journalists took"? Knock me over with a feather; who'd have thunk it?!

"All the debate in the world won't resolve this difference of opinion, in the absence of the author thereof stating precisely what was intended when it was written."

But since "this place is a complete waste of time", wherefore dost thou return, repeatedly...just to insult me? I'm not impressed by such behavior...

June 09, 2005 7:07 AM  
Blogger Pat'sRick© said...

Wow! I was busily crafting my own post for today and commenting on Scrappleface and therefore missed the party.

The memo clearly states that "facts" were "fixed" around a policy. To me, that means that facts which support the policy were arranged in a coherent argument (also consistent with the dictionary definition). The operative word being facts. Remember my prediction a few weeks back that the Democrats and their propaganda are, the MSM, would try to "Watergate" the current administration? They want desperately for the Republican administration to have accomplished nothing. Remember their outrage at Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union? "Iran/Contra", "Gorby saved the day", "It would have collapsed anyway". That last is particularly telling since the left wants to move our society to where the Soviet Union was before it collapsed.

But what did all that have to do with the Battle of Midway? My dad served in the Pacific durring WWII. Thanks for bringing the history up.

June 09, 2005 8:29 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

And I'm not impressed by your answer! Not at all. I said that the word "fixed" is not the only word in the memo. So taking it out of context and then offering a definition is ridiculous.

Richard Dearlove, (then) head of Britain's MI-6, was in London after talks in Washington. Dearlove briefed Blair and his top officials on July 23, 2002, on Bush's plans to attack Iraq.

As we have established, Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document. I saw him interviewed, live, on TV, and FAR from saying that the memo was not an accurate account, he simply said there was "nothing new in it". He was concerned with his own skin at the time, not Bush's. You want me to find that video clip?

Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw notes that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less (? try nonexistent) than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

In the following months "the case" was made by the US/UK propaganda-machine. The argument was made "solid" enough to get endorsement from Congress and Parliament by conjuring up:

Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear-related

Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa

Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories

Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so

Dodgy dossiers created in London

A US "National Intelligence Estimate".

All this, as Dearlove says, despite the fact that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

And as I said, this place is a waste of time. So you'll be happy to know that I'm not wasting any more of mine here. :)

PS: you ignored this:

The White House has always insisted that Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Colin Powell presented the administration's case to the Security Council in Feb 2003, a case which relied heavily on claims - now discredited - that Iraq had WMD.

BUT the Downing St memo dates from July 2002.

June 09, 2005 8:31 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Pat'sRick said:
The memo clearly states that "facts" were "fixed" around a policy. To me, that means that facts which support the policy were arranged in a coherent argument (also consistent with the dictionary definition). The operative word being facts. Remember my prediction a few weeks back that the Democrats and their propaganda are, the MSM, would try to "Watergate" the current administration? They want desperately for the Republican administration to have accomplished nothing. Remember their outrage at Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union? "Iran/Contra", "Gorby saved the day", "It would have collapsed anyway". That last is particularly telling since the left wants to move our society to where the Soviet Union was before it collapsed.
But what did all that have to do with the Battle of Midway? My dad served in the Pacific durring WWII. Thanks for bringing the history up.


Quite so. Anyway, I'm done talking about the "Downing Street memo", but thanks for a fresh perspective. Maybe the person who keeps saying they're wasting time (mine!) here will stop doing so. Promises, promises. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

Speaking ON topic, your father and his fellows have my everlasting gratitude...

June 09, 2005 3:12 PM  
Blogger SGT USMC 1ea said...

Wow camojack,
You have yourself your very own troll..kewl
It actually bleeds red and disgorges anectdotal liberal *facts*.
Is there some sort of trick to making it change subjects so quickly when it cannot answer logic?
I had a troll once but it died because I did not feed it enough since I was off in Uganda tracking down a certain widow with a massive fortune.
Can you make it do more tricks like the one where it couldn't defend it's position so made personal attacks or the one where it posted worthless articles from an ultra-lib source?
Ya' know you have a valuable commodity here. Don't waste it. Liberal Trolls are excellent at generating traffic and cost slightly more than a dime a dozen.

Deus est Semper Fidelis

June 10, 2005 8:10 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

SGT USMC 1ea:
I think I've had more than one troll, although it could have been the same one, just using different blog "handles".

So, does having one or more trolls mean that I've "arrived"? Hee hee.

It is rather amusing when they say this blog o' mine is a waste of time, and that they won't be back...then keep returning.

June 10, 2005 9:56 PM  
Blogger SGT USMC 1ea said...

You have arrived!

Maybe you can make it admit when it inevitably returns that WMD has been found in Iraq to the tune of enough to poison twice the number of people killed during 9/11. No telling where the rest of the stuff is hiding. I doubt it...Even you couldn't logic this lib troll into giving up his favorite mantra. I am surprised that they continue lying about it instead of stating no "significant" or "substantial" (as defined by themselves) amounts of WMD have been found. Do you think it will complain about me referring to it in the third person? One nerve agent artillery round in Times Square on New Years Eve could potentially kill thousands. If BushRove were the evil geniuses they are made out to be they would have just planted some Substantial American WMD's and Who'd have been the wiser?

Deus est Semper Fidelis

June 10, 2005 11:20 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

SGT USMC 1ea said:
You have arrived!
Maybe you can make it admit when it inevitably returns that WMD has been found in Iraq to the tune of enough to poison twice the number of people killed during 9/11. No telling where the rest of the stuff is hiding.


Quite so. That Sarin is virulent stuff. Certainly lots of sand in which to bury things over there, and there was well over a year to do it. Or ship/truck it elsewhere, like Syria or some such place. The conspiracy whackos abound; I'm not buying into their delusional paranoia. I do like to visit the Blame Bush! site on occasion, where the satire is fast and furious, if a bit "off color" sometimes..it's also one of the links I have posted here. It does a great job of lampooning the loony left.
(I just love alliteration...)

June 11, 2005 12:44 AM  
Blogger mk77 said...

"WMD has been found in Iraq to the tune of enough to poison twice the number of people killed during 9/11."

Do you have a reputable source please?

June 12, 2005 7:23 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

mk77:
They found mustard gas and sarin; this was over a year ago.

I have no clue as to what you consider a "reputable source", but if you use your search engine of choice, there are numerous places you can read about it...from various perspectives.

June 12, 2005 7:29 PM  
Blogger mk77 said...

This??

On May 18, the Associated Press reported that American experts were not interpreting the discovery of an artillery shell with traces of sarin -- which exploded in Baghdad the previous weekend -- as evidence that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been hording stockpiles of banned weapons prior to the war in Iraq:

The discovery of an artillery shell apparently filled with a deadly nerve agent has raised fears among U.S. officials that insurgents may have more -- and will learn how to use them to greater effect.

But officials stopped short of claiming the munition was definite evidence of a large weapons stockpile in prewar Iraq or evidence of recent production by Saddam's regime -- the Bush administration's chief stated reason for invasion.

[...]

David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq, said it's possible the sarin shell was an old one, overlooked when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.

Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a surviving hidden stockpile, but didn't rule out that possibility.

"It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked -- and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that -- or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile," Kay said. "I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."

The 155-millimeter artillery shell, which was converted into a roadside bomb, bore no special markings indicating it contained a chemical agent, so officials speculate that the bombers may have believed they were using a conventional artillery round.

A similar interpretation of the sarin shells discovered in May is probably what led British Prime Minister Tony Blair to concede on July 6 that coalition forces have yet to uncover WMD in Iraq: "I have to accept that we have not found them [Iraqi WMD], that we may not find them," Blair said before the House of Commons Liaison Committee.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I suppose Saddam buried the rest so he couldn't use them against an imminent US attack?

Are you all really bonkers?

June 12, 2005 8:47 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

mk77 asked:
Are you all really bonkers?


No. Apparently you are, however.

Your copy & paste of some unidentified source's "spin" on the A.P. report is not the least bit impressive; it merely proves that you believe what you wish to.

You asked if I have a reputable source, to which I responded that I have no clue as to what you consider to be such...and your most recent post demonstrates why I said that.

A different source had this to say at the time:

Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More

Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies. It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes."

"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

If you merely wish to be insulting, Mr. "Are you all really bonkers?", don't expect much of a response in the future. I have better things to do than educate the unappreciative...

June 13, 2005 12:59 AM  
Blogger mk77 said...

You failed to answer my point about why Saddam would not have used them against the US forces.

And a recent US investigation said there was no indication they had been sent to Syria.

If Bush and Blair thought there was the slightest chance of finding them (and thereby somewhat dispelling the criticism of their invasion) they wouldn't have given up by now.

Since 77% of Americans still thought in November 2004 that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I'm not a bit surprised at what you believe!!

It's all junk. You live in a dream world.

And I see you've never answered the point that the Downing Street memo refers to July 2002, while the White House claimed Bush hadn't decided to attack Iraq until after Colin Powell went to the UN -- so hold your horses on criticizing others who you percieve not to be answering your points.


Byeeeee.

June 13, 2005 5:18 AM  
Blogger mk77 said...

"George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons."

That's funny. You'd think the rebels would be using them by now.

Sorry, Camo, but I have to go. :(

June 13, 2005 5:21 AM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free Site Counters
hit Counter