Young women in Fallujah in Iraq are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukaemias.

These deformities are now well documented, for example in television documentaries on SKY UK on September 1 2009, and on SKY UK June 2008. Our direct contact with doctors in Fallujah report that: In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed. This can be compared with data from the month of August in 2002 where there were 530 new born babies of whom six were dead within the first seven days and only one birth defect was reported. Doctors in Fallujah have specifically pointed out that not only are they witnessing unprecedented numbers of birth defects but premature births have also considerably increased after 2003.

But what is more alarming is that doctors in Fallujah have said, “ a significant number of babies that do survive begin to develop severe disabilities at a later stage”. As one of a number of doctors, scientists and those with deep concern for Iraq, Dr Chris Burns-Cox, a British hospital physician, wrote a letter to the Rt. Hon. Clare Short, M.P. asking about this situation. She wrote a letter to the Rt. Hon.Douglas Alexander, M.P. the Secretary of State of the Department for International Development (a post she had held before she resigned on a matter of principle in May 2003 ) asking for clarification of the position of deformed children in Fallujah. She received a reply dated 3rd September 2009 ( two days after the Sky TV broadcast of 1st September 2009 ) from a junior minister, deputy to The Secretary of State, Mr. Gareth Thomas MP, Duty Minister, Department for International Development.

In his reply he denies that there are more than two or three deformed babies in Fallujah in a year and asserts that there is, therefore, no problem. This is at wild variance with reports coming out of Fallujah. One grave digger of a single cemetery is burying four to five babies a day, most of which he says are deformed. Clare Short passed us a copy of this letter. It bears a remarkable similarity to three other written answers we have received over a four year period, in regard to child health and the use of depleted uranium. All these letters are based on lies and an aim to confuse the recipients.

In her autobiography “Honorable Deception?” Clare Short says “The first instinct of Number 10 (Downing Street) is to lie." We regard the mendacity of Mr. Thomas’s letter, and of the other letters we have received, as extremely serious. These letters do not deal with minor matters of corruption, or taxes, but do deal with the use of armed forces and deadly weapons. The use of certain weapons has tremendous repercussions.

Iraq will become a country, if it has not already done so, where it is advisable not to have children. Other countries will watch what has happened in Iraq, and imitate the Coalition Allies’ total disregard of the United Nations Charter, The Geneva, and Hague Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Some countries, such as Afghanistan, will also come to experience the very long term damage to the environment, measured in billions of years, and the devastating effect of depleted uranium and white phosphorous munitions. If, as we say in our letter to the Duty Minister of the Department for International Development, the UK Government clearly does not know the effects of the weapons it uses, nor, as a matter of policy, does “ it do body counts”, how can the UK Government judge whether it is conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan according to International Law, especially in terms of &ldquoroportionality” and long term damage to the natural environment?

How can the UK know about the illegality of the weapons systems it sells on the international market, such as the “Storm Shadow” missile, if the very Department of the Government that is supposed to assess the deaths and medical needs of children and adults in Iraq is not telling the truth.

We request from the United Nations General Assembly the following:

 1.To acknowledge that there is a serious problem regarding the unprecedented number of birth defects and cancer cases in Iraq specifically in Fallujah, Basra, Baghdad and Al - Najaf.

 2.To set up an independent committee to conduct a full investigation into the problem of the increased number of birth defects and cancers in Iraq.

 3.To implement the cleaning up of toxic materials used by the occupying forces including Depleted Uranium, and White Phosphorus.

 4.To prevent children and adults entering contaminated areas to minimize exposure to these hazards.

 5.To investigate whether war crimes, or crimes against humanity, have been committed, and thereby uphold the United Nations Charter, The Geneva and Hague Conventions, and The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court.

This is a newly posted story on Care2. I need to go back to it for the link with the photo. Extreme warning! The photo is very unpleasant.

Here is the link, as I said, yhe photo is not very pleasant.

http://www.iraqirabita.org/english/index.php?do=article&id=1237

So sad, very sad the horrible effects of war.

It's a war zone.....

everything is justified in the war zone...even those whom suppose to  have nothing to do with it must pay the price of being in that ZONE since the first moment of their genesis..

i think this is what is that  mean dear Katii ..so its a war zone, well then let's add those newborns to the " marginal victims"  or to the term of "Collateral damage" to the foes, or maybe to the clause of unintended victims... as long as its a war zone we will always have such consequences that could be perfect to be attached to these clauses !   

No people should have to live in these conditions. It is just so WRONG.

When the causes of the deformities are pinned on depleted uranium (used for armour-piercing rounds and not in high explosive rounds, which were the prepinderence of rounds used in Fallujah) and white phosphorous (used to mark targets) then the phrase "it's a war zone" springs to mind.  They'll probably find unexploded ordnance and weapons caches in the area as well... It's a WAR zone. 

It's just so wrong for the terrorists to have used Fallujah as a main base.  The fight goes to where the bad guys are.  That they used the civilian poopulation as shieldds is on them, not on us.  Heck, the US military would prefer to fight iot out on some neutral open ground...

Robert, that is a pack of nonsense. Those babies wouldn't have been deformed if not for Americans. Indeed, there would have been no battle of Fallujah at all if America and its allies had not invaded Iraq first! YOU CANNOT BLAME THIS ON TERRORISTS!

The truth is that they were Iraqis who dared to resist American designs on their country, so they "deserved" to die and for their children to be deformed, right? Yeah, why not simply kill all of them? The only people who should survive are those we virtually enslave.

Robert, that is a pack of nonsense. Those babies wouldn't have been deformed if not for Americans. Indeed, there would have been no battle of Fallujah at all if America and its allies had not invaded Iraq first! YOU CANNOT BLAME THIS ON TERRORISTS! ~Dale

Could not agree with that assessment more, Dale.

I second that, Dale and Katii.  How much sheer misery has the term collateral damage been used to justify...

It's a tragic disaster. How sad. We may have wanted to help but that isnt what is going on now.

That picture of the deformed baby is disturbing, but so is the article on honor killings that I read following a link on the page.

To recap: Saddam Hussein was our ally in the 1980s because we wanted someone who could fight against Iran, itself a former ally of ours turned enemy when the Shah we supported had been overthrown in 1979. The Shah had come to absolute power in the 1950s because we wanted a leadership that would let us keep control of Iran's oil fields. Then Saddam stopped doing our bidding and invaded Kuwait in 1990, so we declared him "Hitler revisited" and waged war against him. Then after 9-11, we attacked Afghanistan to avenge it (good and necessary), but then diverted our attention to Iraq again to settle our old political grudge, and justified it with "intelligence" which was later found to be nothing but LIES! That later led to the battle of Fallujah.

If we had not overthrown the democratic Iranian government in 1953, then most likely none of the things I mentioned just above would have happened (or at least, those things would not be our fault) and far fewer people would hate us now! We need to just GET THE FUK OUT OF TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD!

Absolutely Dale.

There's no way of knowing what would've happened in history - but one thing is for sure: The United States should not be involved where it shouldn't be involved.

In the battle of Fallujah the town was surrounded, all women and children that came out before the bombing started were turned back around and told go back into the city.  The cities water supplies were cut off and two hospitals were targeted in the opening waves of aerial bombing.  These actions were in no way symbolic of what I would say was proper U.S. military protocal.

In the long run the depleted urainium will circle the globe, it will also show up affecting U.S. troops that were deployed,  it is/was an atrocity and IMO a war crime.

Agreed Anthony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah#Iraq_War.2C_2003

Fallujah was one of the least affected areas of Iraq immediately after the 2003 invasion by the US-led Coalition. Iraqi Army units stationed in the area abandoned their positions and disappeared into the local population, leaving unsecured military equipment behind. Fallujah was also the site of a Ba'athist resort facility called 'Dreamland', located only a few kilometers outside the city proper.

The damage the city had avoided during the initial invasion was negated by damage from looters, who took advantage of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. The looters targeted former government sites, the Dreamland compound, and the nearby military bases. Aggravating this situation was the proximity of Fallujah to the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, from which Saddam, in one of his last acts, had released all prisoners.

The new mayor of the city—Taha Bidaywi Hamed, selected by local tribal leaders—was strongly pro-American^{[citation needed]}. When the US Army entered the town in April 2003, they positioned themselves at the vacated Ba'ath Party headquarters. A Fallujah Protection Force composed of local Iraqis was set up by the US-led occupants to help fight the rising resistance.

On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building fired upon the crowd, resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians and the wounding of over 70.^[10] The events leading up to the event are disputed. American forces claim they were responding to gunfire from the crowd, while the Iraqis involved deny this version, although conceding rocks were thrown at the troops. A protest against the killings two days later was also fired upon by US troops resulting in two more deaths.

<snip>

The U.S. military first denied that it has used white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon in Fallujah, but later retracted that denial, and admitted to using the incendiary in the city as an offensive weapon.^[17] Reports following the events of November 2004 have alleged war crimes, human rights abuses, and a massacre by U.S. personnel, including indiscriminate violence against civilians and children.^[18] This point of view is presented in the 2005 anti-American documentary film, Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre.

Thank you for that, Dale.

The use of white phosphurus as a weapon has been out-lawed by international law.

The Israelis also used it in the last assault against Gaza in which hundreds of Palestinian civilians were massacured (sp).

I recently watched Apocalypse Now with the extra hour of footage.  Still got creeped out by RObert Duval's line..."I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

We were never asked by the Iranian people to overthrow the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953, we were not asked by the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam in 2003, and our interfering in both nations in those years were ploys as cynical as anything the Soviet Union or any other tyrannical power might have done in past eras. Sure, we are a democratic and constitutional republic, with guarantees of civil rights for all. But belief in freedom for ourselves is meaningless if we also do not beleive in freedom for all other nations. That includes the right of the people to elect and support socialist or even Communist governments that they truly beleive is in their best interests. That's what made the whole Vietnam situation so rediculous: The people of that nation WANTED a Communist government because that was the only movement that sought to free them from French domination! After defeating France in the 1950s, they could have united and by the early 1960s become a peaceful and prosperous state. We were the ones who prolonged the agony of war there, because we were more anti-Communist than pro-democracy throughout the Cold War! Hell, look at what we did to Chile in 1973!

We need to institute the notion of POPULAR SOVERIGNTY for all nations, not just our own, and stop telling the rest of the world to adopt the American way of life. That's cultural imperialism and it is as evil as any other kind.

<<Indeed, there would have been no battle of Fallujah at all if America and its allies had not invaded Iraq first! YOU CANNOT BLAME THIS ON TERRORISTS!>>

Yeah, and there would be no Iraq War if columbus hadn't discovered America.  Your point is absurd.

<<The truth is that they were Iraqis who dared to resist American designs on their country, so they "deserved" to die and for their children to be deformed, right? Yeah, why not simply kill all of them? The only people who should survive are those we virtually enslave.>>

The truth is that they were foreign fighters who have been and continue to kill Iraqis indiscriminately with homicide bombings and IEDs.

Answers about white phosphorus

November 17, 2005

I am sorry to be rude BUT "The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians or against military targets amid concentrations of civilians. The United States did not sign convention protocols."  Does the United States EVER sign up to anything the rest of the world does and if it does, does it ever actually stick to it? I get very angry about this attitude of "everyone else should sort it out, but WE are AMERICA".

And incidentally, Robert, I think you are talking rubbish.

http://judicial-inc.biz/falluhah_payback_2.htm From the second battle of Fallujah! Some snippets from this site. Red Cross not allowed in The military stopped the Red Crescent at the gates of the city and is not allowing them in. They allowed some bodies to be buried, but others are being eaten by dogs and cats in the streets, as reported by refugees just out of the city, as well as residents still trapped there. The military said it saw no need for the IRC to deliver aid to people inside Fallujah because it did not think any civilians were still inside the city. WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military promised a thorough investigation into the killing of a wounded and apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner by a US marine in Fallujah -- an act filmed by a journalist and now beamed around the world. NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said he saw the marine raise his rifle and fire point blank at the head of the man, who was slumped against a wall in a mosque 'Hospital Massacre' Speaking to Aljazeera, a doctor in Falluja gave an emotional plea for an end to the fighting. "I'm one of the few medical cadres that survived last Monday from the massacre," said Dr. Abbas Ali. IDF advisors ordered the massacre "It's a center of propaganda," a senior American officer said Sunday. The hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy casualties. Anthony here, I have to run. I would've preferred to have the time to find the BBC sources on the second attack. As some of the material here is overstated in this link. Example in one section they claim the second hospital was hit and everyone killed, this is not true. The point being we targeted hospitals in the first place.

Well, Lynn, thanks for the editorial comment, but the US does not have to kow-tow to the rest of the world.  We won't sign Kyoto, we won't sign any treaty that puts us ata disadvantage to the rest of the world.  Wille Peter has been used for decades as a means of marking a target for a period of time.  Smoke dissipates soon after the canisters are ignited.  WP is the choice of most nations... What is it's exact contribution to birth defects?

How can white phosphorus affect my health?

Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused by white phosphorus. Most of what is known about the effects of breathing white phosphorus is from studies of workers. Most of what is known about the effects of eating white phosphorus is from reports of people eating rat poison or fireworks that contained it.

Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.

Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart, or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time. Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage.

We do not know whether or not white phosphorus can affect the ability to have children or cause birth defects in people.

The red herring of WP causing birth defects is also being thrown about regarding Gaza.

"We do not know whether or not white phosphorus can affect the ability to have children or cause birth defects in people."--Robert

I'll bet white phosphorus doesn't help babies.  But I never preach about "culture of life" either.

Were these deformed babies some of the foreign fighters? They hardly look like they were a threat to attack America. But then I tend to be less easily frightened.

"I get very angry about this attitude of "everyone else should sort it out, but WE are AMERICA"."--Lynn

God bless America, and we want to keep using white phosphorus.  Imagine the pictures we would see if Saddam had used it!

Hello, I just read the article of children in Iraq and the effects and destruction done to a country due to weapons.

There are no proper words to express the horrific nature of what is going on. To deny that great destruction comes from our weapons of mass destruction is to keep your head in the sand. We are suppose to be America, the country that stands for freedom and humanity. How can anyone really believe that is what we are doing in Iraq and other countries when we go in with war? As a world community how can we say that is what we stand for when we are the largest part of the death and destruction to thier country. The death, torture and in-humanity that has gone on during our involvement in this war is criminal and should be investigated and put on trial as such.

We say we want to help this country become a free democracy. Well one, if you take a close look at America we do not have that here anymore. Look closely at our history we never really have. Look at most wars, most wars are fought for the elite 2% for the purpose of power, financial gain and control. America was suppose to break that mold, evolve beyond the need to kill, torture and destroy the earth in the process. We were suppose to stand by the Geneva Convention not make up are own rules as we go.

What have we done and are doing in this war? The people of these countries have asked us to leave, that we are making things worse. I have to ask some hard questions. Who is really benefiting from the continuation of these wars. American big business that gets the contracts, the American business that makes and sells arms etc. Let us remember we are in a recession and who will employ the soldiers coming home.

America standing for humanity? This war has the highest suicide rate, domestic abuse rate and just plan people so damaged coming home. What are we teaching our soldiers that they can not live with when they get home from war?

America is the largest part of the massive destruction of this war. We as a nation voted for change, we were so happy and cried when Obama was elected. What does it say about how our American government is really runs when the people we put in office do not carry out the best interests of the country/world as a whole. They turn and carry out what is in the best interest of the top 2%.

I want to be proud of this COUNTRY!!! That can never happen until we the people turn the ship around. The government in my opinion does not behave or speak for what most of American citizens want !!! When is this going to start to happen? How do we as citizens turn this ship around? Barbara H.

Yeah, and there would be no Iraq War if columbus hadn't discovered America.  Your point is absurd.

Pointless argument.

The truth is that they were foreign fighters who have been and continue to kill Iraqis indiscriminately with homicide bombings and IEDs.

All of them? Do you really think all Iraqis liked their country being invaded and occupied by Americans? That's delusional.

Well, Lynn, thanks for the editorial comment, but the US does not have to kow-tow to the rest of the world.

The Germans, Italians, and Japanese had a simular attitude during World War II, of course.

We won't sign Kyoto, we won't sign any treaty that puts us ata disadvantage to the rest of the world.

What disadvantage would there be for all nations, including ours, to give up chemical weapons? Isn't that one of the stated reasons we invaded Iraq? 

The red herring of WP causing birth defects is also being thrown about regarding Gaza.

Chemicals DO cause birth defects by damaging DNA sequences after they are absorbed by bodies. Get over it! Being in denial won't help you.

Sure, if you want to promote the idea of America being the supreme power in the world, go for it. Just don't expect most non-Americans to take that lying down.

Robert:  "Well, Lynn, thanks for the editorial comment, but the US does not have to kow-tow to the rest of the world.  We won't sign Kyoto, we won't sign any treaty that puts us ata disadvantage to the rest of the world."

But the rest of the world has to kow-tow to America? 

What disadvantage would there be for all nations, including ours, to give up chemical weapons? Isn't that one of the stated reasons we invaded Iraq?

Thank you, Dale for pointing out that clear contradiction and hypocrisy of the American offensive invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the rest of the world has to kow-tow to America? 

It certainly seems so, Lynn, America and the UK both, "big brother" to the world - or else.

That said, I am not in favor of any country signing any agreements that diminishes their sovereign power.

I don't care if the rest of the world loves us, kow-tows to us or ignores us.  I do want the rest of the world to respect our sovereignty and know that if they fukk with us they will suffer.

Dale, is there anything that America has done since 1776 that you DO like?

That's all well and good, Robert, but unborn babies didn't fukk with us.  Iraq didn't 'fukk' with us.  Afghanistan didn't fukk with us.  Korea and Vietnam didn't 'fukk' with us either.

Japan fukked with us. 

The 2003 Iraq war was a continuation of the Gulf War, which didn't end, but was stopped  when the Iraqi government announced acceptance of the UN resolution.  It was halted as long as Iraq adhered to the terms of the truce.  Iraq didn't, and 12 years later the war was continued.  Afghanistan harbored al Kidah, officially backing terrorism.  South Korea was invaded by communist North Korea and later by Red China.  The Korean War was a UN war.  VietNam was also invaded by communist North Viet Nam after a partitioning of ther country pending final settlement of the borders.

How short our memories.

Japan paid the price for fukking with us.  That should be remembered.

I do want the rest of the world to respect our sovereignty and know that if they fukk with us they will suffer.

But it is perfectly OK for America to fukk with other parts of the world and deny their soverignty, eh?

The 2003 Iraq war was a continuation of the Gulf War, which didn't end, but was stopped  when the Iraqi government announced acceptance of the UN resolution.  It was halted as long as Iraq adhered to the terms of the truce.  Iraq didn't, and 12 years later the war was continued.

Nice rewriting of history! Please specify what nations Iraq had invaded or threatened to invade in 2002. And Saddam DID allow UN weapons inspectors into the country months before the invasion. That should have been enough to end Bush Jr's threats. But instead, he clearly WANTED war. And any President who regards war as anything less than a last resort is a threat to peace everywhere.

Dale, is there anything that America has done since 1776 that you DO like?

Please try asking a meaningful question.

"Japan paid the price for fukking with us.  That should be remembered."--Robert

And let's not conveniently forget that Iraq did not %#&!*% with us-- we %#&!*% with them. 

We have been %#&!*% with Iraq for a long time, but there wasn't a single Iraqi in the 9-11 attack and despite what the howling liars of the right said Iraq was not behind the attacks.

Oh how inconvenient history can be.

The Iraq War was not a "continuation" of the 1991 Gulf War.

G. H.W. Bush specifically said he was just getting Saddam out of Kuwait, not taking over Iraq.

If it was a continuation of the Gulf War instead of a new war, then G. W. Bush should have said during the 2000 election that he would re-start his father's war.

The G.W. Bush administration repeatedly cited the Iraq War as part of the "Global War on Terror" which was not part of the Gulf War.

The invasion of Iraq was a radical departure from past policies, envisioned by the neo-conservative advisors prior to the 9-11 attacks, which were cynically used as grounds for the invasion.  

Good Lord! Robert, I can honestly say I find your attitude VERY scary! So, I am out of here.

I have the flu and did not intend to argue with anyone today, but...I agree with  Lynn, Katii, Dale, and Kevin P.

Robert, people who have your attitude ARE what has happened to ruin our beloved Land of the Free. It is time for us to lead a plan for Peace, to work with other Nations and expand consciousness in this world. Unless we all work together...I fear that before another hundred years have passed, we will all have become extinct.

PEACE

Japan paid the price for fukking with us.  That should be remembered.

Obviously I remembered because I pointed it out.  I pointed out that Japan is the only country that has attacked the United States in an act of war, and that was 70 years ago.  Yet, the U.S. attacks other countries, and has just about non-stop since WWII, without ever having been attacked.  

An no, I don't buy that a handful of hijackers flying planes into to two buildings is an "act of war" in any national or military sense of the term.  That bozo the president declared the 9/11 attack an 'act of war' does not make it so.

–noun

an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

Well, Katii, we CAN say that by the Taliban rulers harboring Al-Quida, they were aiding and abetting the terrorist attacks, and thus deserved us waging war against them. But that's as far as we should ever have gone. Once the Taliban was defeated and Afghanistan had a new functioning government, we should have left immediatly to let the Afghan people mind their own business. And we should NEVER have invaded Iraq.

I don't draw the line between "war" and "terrorism" so sharply.

"Dale, we can SAY anything, but to equate the Taliban with a standing army, belonging to the state of Afghanistan, attacking our country, which it's not of course, just doesn't cut it.  Vengeance doesn't cut it for me."--Katii

I agree with that point, with the addition that not only didn't the Taliban really have a standing army belonging to anything resembling a state of Afghanistan, it was Al Qaeda from within Afghanistan that orchestrated the attacks. 

While the Taliban is bad enough on its own and deserves no sympathy, it's not even clear that the Taliban could have pushed Bin Ladin out of those mountains if they had wanted to. We haven't been able to and we have a modern state and the best military in the world.

And of course I agree with you and Dale that Iraq was a total distraction.  Neither the Iraqis nor the Afghanis attacked us on 9-11.

it's not even clear that the Taliban could have pushed Bin Ladin out of those mountains if they had wanted to. We haven't been able to and we have a modern state and the best military in the world. ~Kevin

True enough - it is questionable that the Taliban could have pushed Al Qaeda out - and if they did, to where?  To another country we'd bomb to hell too?

And thank you for bringing up the point about the mightiest military in the world (by faaarrr) not being able to do what was expected of another muuuuch smaller and poorer country to do under threat of being bombed to hell.  That very important and valid point seems to escape most people.

Maybe we should bring our troops home. How much would we hate another Country that occupied OUR Nation? There has to be a reason for Al Qaeda to desire the demise of the USA. We should communicate with them. The oil in their Countries belongs to them, not us. We are in these Countries because that is where Corporate America desires us to be. We even help to pay for the private armies to guard the CEO's of those oil companies. WHY?

We should bring the resources that we are wasteing in Iraq and Afghanistan home. We need to spend this money to restore the manufacturing base of Main Street...enough has been spent on the restoration of Wall Street. We elected Barack Obama because he promised real change. Now is the time to demand that OUR government fix OUR Country. We must become more vigilant over the men and women whom we elect to public office. If they do not follow the will of the people...vote them out!

Our Country is on the brink of demise. This may be our last chance to save her. It is up to people like us to demand the direction our Country is to go, we must not fail!

"Maybe we should bring our troops home. How much would we hate another Country that occupied OUR Nation? There has to be a reason for Al Qaeda to desire the demise of the USA."--Beverly

How much would we hate an occupier?  Look at how much hate flies around after one of us simply wins an elected officer for 2 or 4 years and that gives you an indication of how much we would hate an occupier.

As with your point about Al Qaeda, I think it is far too easy to write them off as simply people who irrationally hate as has been done.  No doubt they hate and they act irrationally, but their motives are far more complex, and leaders mislead when they cast it as some oversimplified battle of the good guys against crazy haters.

No matter whether this is just good guys vs. crazy haters, or that the crazy haters have a conplex set of reasons for hating us, we are at war and the whole point of war is to defeat/destroy the enemy's ability to inflict harm on the other belligerent...us.                                                                  Beverly, do you agree that 9/11 was our fault?

If the purpose of war is to destroy the enemy's capacity to inflict harm upon us, then we lost the Iraq War when we invaded Iraq.

Prior to the invasion, it was virtually impossible for Iraqis, whether you are talking about Saddam or any of the people who have taken up arms against us now, to harm Americans in any meaningful way.  We were already victorious in that they had no significant way to inflict harm on Americans.

However, once we invaded, we dramatically increased their ability to harm us by placing Americans within reach of their weapons, IEDs and suicide bombers.  In other words, we created and enabled their ability to kill Americans. 

Your definition of the point of war only further demonstrates the foolishness of the the Iraq War.

But, I still don't quite get how these deformed babies are a threat or how doing anything that may have caused deformations in babies changes the ability of Al Qaeda to hurt us. 

"we are at war and the whole point of war is to defeat/destroy the enemy's ability to inflict harm on the other belligerent...us." 

So Robert, there is no such thing as war crimes? A country can simply use any means, regardless of the effect on the civilian population?

And ya, it's funny how the Bush adm never mentioned the Iraq war was just a continuation of the Gulf War. And if there was this "continuation" mechanism in place, one would wonder why the US tried to get a UN Security Council resolution that would permit an invasion. This was of course rejected and that's where the whole "preemptive strike" thing was used as justification, NOT any continuation.

And of course this was bogus since there was no evidence that Iraq might attack.

Also, there are still kids being born deformed in Vietnam due to the millions of gallons of toxins dumped on that country. But lessons are never learned, or cared about.

Good point, Bryan, not even the Bush administration made the case that it was a continuation of the Gulf War.

A rhetorical question, Kevin:

What case did the Cheney-Bush Administration make for the War on Iraq?

To avenge 9-11? No, we did that within a year after the attacks happened.

To make the world safe for Americans? Then why have we lost so many troops over there, year after year after year? If we had not sent those troops over there, most of them would still be alive. We could have used them right here at home to make America more secure, not to terrorize others on the other side of the world. We weren't even asked to be over there this time, unlike the last time (1990-1991)! We just used force to get our way.

To liberate the Middle East from Islamist tyranny? PLEASE! Then we should have overthrown the Saudi Arabian government long before we targeted Iraq. But Saudi Arabia bribes us with their oil, which Afganistan lacks. But Iraq has plenty, doesn't it? We also had no problem with Saddam when he fought against Iran in the 1980s, even though he was also a bloodthirsty tyrant then too.

IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL, PEOPLE! AND POWER!!!!

And, Dale, I know you probably think the same thing:

All this warfare so we now can have less power and less influence over our sources for oil.

Mmmmm.  Something doesn't seem to make sense.

The Swine Flu Vaccine was given to Goldman & Sachs, while pregnant ladies waited for hours in line.

The entire firm is now deceased.

Pre-1953: British and American oil companies set up and run oil fields in Iran. They had the technology and money beforehand to do so; the Iranians didn't.

1953: The democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran nationalizes the oil field so the profits from them will go to the Iranian people. Then the CIA has him overthrown and the Shah takes absolute power in exchange for letting the British and American oil companies continue to run the oil fields.

1979-1980: After ruling Iran with an iron fist for decades, the Shah is overthrown. The USA takes him in. In response, the Iranians take hostage American embassy workers and hold them for 444 days. The Shah dies and the hostages are released the same day Ronald Reagan becomes President. Later, a term will be invented in reference to what happened and to simular such incidents: "blowback". Meanwhile, the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan and we begin supporting rebels there. Also supporting them is......Osama Bin Ladin.

1980-1988:  Under President Reagan, the USA allies with Saddam Hussien, another tyrant, in his own war against Iran. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians. America does not object.

1990-1991: Iraq invades Kuwait without American permission. President Bush Sr lables Saddam "Hitler revisited" and wages war against him.

1991-2001: Iraq remains under stict economic sanctions and "no-fly" zones, and there are no further wars. Osama Bin Ladin, now freed from having to oppose the Soviet Union, starts attacking Americans too.

2001: The 9-11 attacks occur and we avenge it by overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan.

2002-2003:  Bush Jr claims that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (never mind that we didn't object to him having them in the 1980s, plus we ourselves have had them since at least World War II). Saddam responds to the threat to invade it by allowing UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Bush Jr invades Iraq anyway. Gee, I thought only the mob did such dishonorable things to their rivals. Among the battles fought there are the one at Fallujah.

2009: Reports of deformed babies at Fallujah show why the battle should never have been fought and by extention why the Iraq War was and is worthless.

Mixing Iraq and 9/11 is not a good thing.  The Iraq war was a continuation of the UN sanctioned Gulf War.  It had nothing to do with keeping us safe from attack by the Iraqis.  That our military may be under attack when we are at war is a given.  But the 'homeland' is safe.

The war in the Afghan is a response to state-sponsored terrorism which brought us 9/11...and a few other attacks on American troops, ships and embassies which were ignored by the administration between 1992 and 2000.

There have been no tests or autopsies to determine the reasons for the deformations or deaths.

There is soooo much bad history above that I'm not even going to try atraightening you guys out.  Just one example:

And ya, it's funny how the Bush adm never mentioned the Iraq war was just a continuation of the Gulf War.

It did.  And the UN DID pass a resolution to use force against Saddam.  And a coalition of UN member states DID invade Iraq.

And the Taliban would not have needed to go to Tora Bora in the mountains to get OBL as he was happily living in the open in Afghanistan.

“Mixing Iraq and 9/11 is not a good thing.  The Iraq war was a continuation of the UN sanctioned Gulf War.  It had nothing to do with keeping us safe from attack by the Iraqis.  That our military may be under attack when we are at war is a given.  But the 'homeland' is safe.”—Robert

Funny, but I never heard the argument about not mixing Iraq and 9/11 from the pro-war crowd between 2002-2008.  Bush wasn’t shy about doing so.

If Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War and is not related to 9/11 in any way, then why didn’t Bush mention that he intended  to re-start the Gulf War.  What other changes occurred between Bush’s statement that he wasn’t going to engage in nation-building and his decision to invade Iraq?

And if keeping us safe from Iraqis has nothing to do with invading Iraq, then why are you mentioning that the homeland is safe?

“The war in the Afghan is a response to state-sponsored terrorism which brought us 9/11...and a few other attacks on American troops, ships and embassies which were ignored by the administration between 1992 and 2000.”—Robert

Ignored like Bush ignored the Presidential Daily Briefing that said Bin Ladin was going to attack was ignored, or ignored like warmongers ignored that there were no Iraqis in the 9/11 attack?

(Clinton did not actually ignore the attacks, but he was limited in his ability to respond other than start a foolish war.  At least, though, his administration thwarted the plots that followed the initial WTC attack, such as the Y2K plot)

“There have been no tests or autopsies to determine the reasons for the deformations or deaths.”—Robert

It’s probably a total coincidence like the fact that we invaded Iraq and it has massive supplies of oil.  We would have invaded Iraq even if there was no oil, and these babies would have been born with birth defects even if they were in New Hampshire.

Mixing Iraq and 9/11 is not a good thing.

Thank you for finally admitting that!  And with that, the whole rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 falls apart! LOL!!!!

And the UN DID pass a resolution to use force against Saddam.  And a coalition of UN member states DID invade Iraq.

What resolution? Please specify it and when it was passed. Thank you!

 I never heard the argument about not mixing Iraq and 9/11 from the pro-war crowd between 2002-2008.  Bush wasn’t shy about doing so.

Bush didn't use 9/11 as a reason to go into Iraq.  He didn't have to.  UN resolution 1441 authorized the invasion.  UN nations took part, not just the US.

If Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War and is not related to 9/11 in any way, then why didn’t Bush mention that he intended  to re-start the Gulf War. 

Everybody on the left from CommonDreams to the HuffAnPuff Post knows and has printed that GWBush made plans to invade Iraq as soon as he took office, months before 9/11.   Your question is based on an erroneous assumption that GWBush had to make such a declaration, which he did not have to make.  The UN was the body that found Iraq in breach of the truce and authorized force against Saddam.  Your kerfuffle is with the UN, not GWBush.

Ignored like Bush ignored the Presidential Daily Briefing that said Bin Ladin was going to attack was ignored, or ignored like warmongers ignored that there were no Iraqis in the 9/11 attack?

So how long have you been a 9/11 TRUTHER?  Conspiracy, anyone?

 At least, though, his administration thwarted the plots that followed the initial WTC attack, such as the Y2K plot)

Oh, really...which attacks were those that the Clinton administration thwarted?  The Y2K plot?  The one where a sharp-eyed Border Guard caught Ahmed Ressam trying to smuggle explosives into the US through Seattle on December 14, 1999?  Clinton had no hand in that apprehension.  So what other plots were thwarted?  (BTW, Ressam received his explosives training in Afghanistan.)

Dale....    

UN resolution 1441 authorized the invasion. 

No, it didn't. You are distorting history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them.^{[citation needed]}

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case.

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

Looks like someone lied!

Everybody on the left from CommonDreams to the HuffAnPuff Post knows and has printed that GWBush made plans to invade Iraq as soon as he took office, months before 9/11.   Your question is based on an erroneous assumption that GWBush had to make such a declaration, which he did not have to make.

My G_d, have you any idea how contemptible you just made Bush Jr look?! LOL!

The babies are still being born deformed...............do they care why?

White phosphorous is not illegal if used in a purely military context. There have been allegations of it's use in Afghanistan by American troops. I don't know if that is true. It is not actually defined as a chemical weapon as such.

Talking of chemical weapons..................this is interesting:

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons:

Between its formation in 1997, and 2002, the OPCW was widely seen as a highly effective organisation under its first Director-General José Bustani, so much so that he was unanimously re-elected in 2000 a year early.[2]

Then in the beginning of 2002 the mood changed, and the United States government, both behind the scenes and in public, organised to have the Director-General ousted before his second term had expired.^[2] The related event at the time was the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its official pretext of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, which were taken to include chemical weapons. The OPCW was known to have been actively pursuing its mandate by negotiating with Iraq's leaders for their cooperation with the Chemical Weapons Convention, and this would have included inspections that could have verified their compliance with disarmament obligations, and jeopardised the US case for war.

The public campaign calling for the removal of Director-General cited mismanagement and financial issues that threatened the existence of the organization.[3]. The method of his ousting was highly irregular and could only be done outside the constitution of the organization.[4] On 21 April 2002, a special session was called, at which Jose Bustani presented his defence[5] before being voted out of office 48 to 7 with 43 abstentions.[6] Three weeks later, the United States paid its 2002 contribution to the Organization[7].

It has been reported in many places that the behind-the-scenes campaign was orchestrated by the US Undersecretary for Arms Control, John Bolton, who made threats to other nations that if they did not vote for the resolution to remove the Director-General, he would arrange for the United States to destroy the organisation completely.^[3] The United States has accounted for the vast majority of the weapons destroyed under the CWC as well as providing material support and funding for the reduction efforts of several other countries.

The United Kingdom, the major partner in the United States' invasion of Iraq, also provided valuable assistance in the US' campaign. Repeated questions in the United Kingdom Parliament from MPs failed to obtain any specific allegations against the Director-General beyond the fact that there had been a vote by members against him.[8][9] After the event, all the official allegations evaporated. The following year the Int

Dale....sheesh...

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the U.S. and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq).

The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.

So sue us.

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

They were lying, of course. Iraq had already complied with the UN demands by allowing the weapons inspectors back in to continue their work some months earlier. That should have been enough. You also omitted that no weapons of mass destruction of any kind were ever found in Iraq after it was invaded, nor were any ever used to oppose the invasion. The evidence is clear that the whole thing was a setup because the Bush Administration was determined to go to war, no matter what, and kept moving the goalposts to make it happen. And it manipulated the UN to go along with that. In the future, I would hope the UN will have more backbone and tell warmongers of any nation to FUK OFF!

Dale...................couldn't agree more. Same goes for the UK, it suited Blair's political ends to go to war with Iraq so he lied to the British people, in cahoots with Bush.

"Bush didn't use 9/11 as a reason to go into Iraq."--Robert

" So, you're going with that claim?  So you think Bush only used U.N. Resolution 1441 violations and never 9-11 to justify invading Iraq.

Here's a few statements where Bush administration officials connected the Al Qaeda attacks and 9-11 to the Iraq War:

Bush: Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country.

Bush: And they're really high, particularly on what happened on September the 11th. You see, a cold reality came—my job, by the way, is to see the world the way it is, not the way we hope—hope it is. And there's a cold reality. Oceans no longer protect us from threats. Oceans no longer protect us from gathering dangers across the—in other parts of the world. It used to be we could pick or choose. We learned a lesson that the battlefield is here at home. And we've got to be realistic about that. And that's why I started the debate on Iraq.

Bush: The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again.

Bush: Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.

Bush: We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Rice: “The president has made very clear that this (Iraq War) is a broad war on terrorism; that you cannot be supportive of Al Qaeda and continue to harbor other terrorists. We're sending that message very clearly. Now, as to Iraq, we didn't need September 11 to tell us that Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous man.”

Bush: Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned.

Wolfowitz: Whereas there's been a lot of arguing back and forth about how much Iraq is involved in terrorism. At the end of the day, it's actually the connection between the two that was seen as completely different in the light of September 11th.

McClellan: One of the reasons—one of the primary reasons that we had to take action in Iraq was because of that danger that is posed by a regime like Saddam Hussein's that possesses weapons of mass destruction and has supported terrorists in the past.

Wolfowitz: We don't know what price we would have paid if it had gone on, and he had given weapons of mass destruction to the hands of terrorists. But that was, of course, the real risk that we were running. And the president decided, and I think he was right—it is not a risk we could afford to continue to run, not after September 11.

Bush: In Iraq, our coalition has now removed an ally of terrorists and a producer of weapons of mass destruction. In other nations we're hunting and capturing members of Al Qaeda, disrupting their plans before they can strike.

President Bush: By our actions in this war, we serve a great and just cause. Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another September the 11th—this time, perhaps, with chemical, biological, or nuclear terror. We'll remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of mass murderers.

Fleischer: That is the fear, that Saddam Hussein will indeed unleash these weapons, if he is able to, or link up with terrorists who will do it for him. It is not an idle fear; it is a real fear, particularly since we went through what we've gone through as a country since September 11th. That is the core of it.

Bush: “But we can't, for the good of our children and for the sake of our future, allow them (Iraq) ever to team up with an Al Qaeda organization, and try to hold us hostage or hold the free world hostage.”

Bush: The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

Rumsfeld: The danger in that is real, and it is that they have active biological, chemical and nuclear programs. They have weapons that are biological and chemical. They have relationships, as Secretary Powell said, with terrorist networks. And we just suffered 3,000 dead in the September 11th.

Bush: It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

Fleischer: “As the president has said, America's worst nightmare is that a regime led by somebody like Saddam Hussein will link up with terrorists like Al Qaeda, who have already demonstrated a willingness to attack the United States, using whatever means they can get their hands on.”

Rumsfeld: When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat? When was it sufficiently dangerous to our country that had we known about it that we could have stepped up and stopped it and saved 3,000 lives? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the Al Qaeda, and somehow the Al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you’re not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 of human beings.

Rice: The president has made very clear that this is a broad war on terrorism; that you cannot be supportive of Al Qaeda and continue to harbor other terrorists. We're sending that message very clearly. Now, as to Iraq, we didn't need September 11 to tell us that Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous man

Rice: “Well, there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism, and there are Al Qaeda personnel that have been spotted in Baghdad. There are some evidence that there have been various meetings concerning Iraqi personnel and Al Qaeda personnel.

Wolfowitz: (Question: What's the relevance of Iraq to 9/11?) Go back to what the president said. If you think about what weapons of mass destruction would mean for a future 9/11, not for what happened in September but what could happen next September or in July or whenever, that the lesson of 9/11 is that we probably should have been more active before 9/11 in preventing 9/11.

Bush: This war requires us to understand that terror is broader than one international network, that these terrorist networks have got connections—in some cases, to countries run by outlaw dictators. And that's the issue with Iraq. When I speak about the war on terror, I not only talk about Al Qaeda, I talk about Iraq—because, after all, Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction and he's used them.

Wolfowitz: But, as I said in the fuller quote, the real thing that has concerned the president from the beginning and which I think is even the "axis" that's referred to in the "Axis of Evil" is the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Fleischer: Well, obviously, the president is very worried about—and he says this in every speech—the worst thing he thinks could happen would be for the world's worst dictators, as he puts it, including Saddam Hussein&mdashrincipally Saddam Hussein—to join up with a group like Al Qaeda and to provide any weapons that then the terrorist groups would use against the United States. It is a clear worry that we have.

Wolfowitz: I think that what 9/11 has demonstrated is that it is fundamentally intolerable and that is particularly intolerable when it is linked to the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction.

Bush: Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with.

Wolfowitz: (Question: Is there any, have you seen any convincing evidence to link Iraq to Al Qaeda or its international network?) A lot of this stuff is classified and I really can't get into discussing it. But you know the use of the word evidence there are, I think people shouldn't be under the impression that we have this perfect picture of what's out there and we've got 90–95 percent situational awareness of what Al Qaeda is. If we had, they would have never been able to obviously pull off Sept. 11, and for all that we have been after them since them, and learned a great deal since then.

Bush: The war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is—I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

Wolfowitz: Yes, plus the fact which seems to go unremarked in most places, that Saddam Hussein was the only international figure other than Osama bin Laden who praised the attacks of September 11th.

Mr. Fleischer: I will be happy to provide you with transcripts where the administration claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, that the administration does have proof that they have weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld: (Question: Many months ago you were asked whether—right after September 11th, whether you thought there might have been state assistance or state sponsorship to the people who perpetrated 9/11. What do you think now, 11 months later, whatever it is?) There's no question but that there was state assistance. How in the world could Al Qaeda have trained thousands of people in Afghanistan absent state assistance?

Bush: And, not only that, he (Saddam Hussein)  is—would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action.

Rice: Well, the real question is, why should you wait to attack later? This has been a long history now with Iraq of defiance, since '98—since 1998, the United States has had a regime-change policy. So we have to do this sooner or later. And we believe, given the growing threat, given the vivid images from September 11th that show us what happens when people who want to do you ill do you ill, we think it's best to act sooner, not later.

Bush: I want you to think about a scenario in which he (Saddam Hussein) becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody he hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat.

Rice: So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some Al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.

Bush: He's had contacts with Al Qaeda. Imagine a scenario where an Al Qaeda-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.

Bush: Prior to September the 11th, we had the comfort of realizing or looking back in history and saying that we're pretty safe here in America. Others may be threatened—after all, he attacked two in his neighborhood, he gassed his own people—but not us. September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking.

Bush: The man (Saddam Hussein) is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with what he has, he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda.

Bush: After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace, for the sake of our children's peace.

Bush: In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint. That is a threat. And we're going to deal with it.

Bush: After September the 11th, 2001, geography doesn't keep us safe. And, therefore, in my judgment, we've got to be cold-eyed realists about threats as they emerge and deal with each one of them according to the level of threat. There is a threat to the United States and our close friends and allies in Iraq.

Cheney: His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists. And as the president has said, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists"

Rice: If you think about the many fronts in the war on terrorism in which we have to fight—Iraq, Afghanistan, the law enforcement fronts on which we're fighting—and you go back to the president's September 20 speech to the Congress shortly after the attack on September 11, he talked about a long and different kind of war. Iraq is one of those fronts in dealing with a regime that dealt with terrorists.

Powell: The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again.

Bush: Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner.

Wolfowitz: It's very clear that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, that we are dealing with terrorist networks that are connected in part to Baghdad.

Rice: I've been the subject of some stories that say, "Well, you know, you should have connected the dots that 19 men were going to drive airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th." I can tell you, very few dots for that; thousands of dots about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the threat that they posed going back over three administrations, the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration.

Mr. Fleischer: Just as I indicated earlier, it gives great concern about the fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda are working together.

Bush: Before September the 11th, 2001, there's a lot of good folks who believe that Saddam Hussein can be contained. Before September the 11th, 2001, we thought oceans would protect us forever; that if we saw a gathering threat somewhere else in the world, we could respond to it if we chose—so chose to do so. But that all changed on that fateful day.

"Everybody on the left from CommonDreams to the HuffAnPuff Post knows and has printed that GWBush made plans to invade Iraq as soon as he took office, months before 9/11.   Your question is based on an erroneous assumption that GWBush had to make such a declaration, which he did not have to make.  The UN was the body that found Iraq in breach of the truce and authorized force against Saddam.  Your kerfuffle is with the UN, not GWBush."--Robert

You want to try that again but with the truth and facts? 

And have you ever considered that you might want to choose a smaller non-bold font because it only draws attention to how off base your statements are?

I don't like the use of these weapons that produce these results. Even the more conventional cluster bomb that Isreal (U.S. Backed) used in the 2006 Bierut conflict. That is an residential urban target, that weapon shouldn't be used there.

Some of the U.S. soldiers that returned after Gulf War I/Desert Storm complained of a strange sickness. They would or could not be diagnosed by the V.A. of their ailment. What I find most disturbing is the disease the soldiers have is communicable to their families. Whole families have since died. Some sources have attributed the cause to depleted uranium rounds that are used against amored vehicles (tanks).

I thought that white phosphorus/WP was used to illuminate a target area, by floating it over the target. I've read reports that Isreal(U.S. Backed) used WP as a anti personnel weapon in last years destruction of the people of Gaza. I don't approve of this type of weapon to be used in a residential urban area either. I don't know if the U.S. military has used this WP weapon in Iraq.

Iraq is now FUBAR, that is an acronym used by soldiers of WWII. F--ked Up Beyond All Recognition. The puppet government of Iraq installed by the invading forces will not even consider war crimes. Well that most certianly does not make it a correct thing to do.

Saddam's WMD have yet to be found after years of search. But the U.S. military uses WMD's with total disregard of human life. Even the lively hood of their own soldiers! This is wrong, very wrong.

Thank you so much Barbara for your post about these types of weapons being used.

My post on WMD's was lost. I'll try again later. 

I try to post, but cannot.

"What case did the Cheney-Bush Administration make for the War on Iraq?"--Knate

It seems to me that the case was generally that Iraq had WMD, may have been behind 9-11, supported terrorism, had worked with Al Qaeda and might give WMD to Al Qaeda.

Kelly,

I posted my last post once and it disappeared, so I posted it again.  Now, sometimes I see it as a duplicate and other times only once so I am hesitant to delete on of the posts.

"It seems to me that the case was generally that Iraq had WMD, may have been behind 9-11, supported terrorism, had worked with Al Qaeda and might give WMD to Al Qaeda" Oh..................and he wanted to win another election and it might have had just an insy winsy bit to do with oil or something. Ooops, sorry! That bit might be the truth as oppossed to the other things Bush thought were going on.

Well, I was talking about the public case, not necessarily the actual reasons they went to war.

Bush: Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country.

Says nothing about Iraq being connected to 9/11.  As do most of your other quotes by Bush.  Whta we understood after 9/11 is that terrorism is a world-wide problem, that countries who provide haven and material aid to terrorists are in fact terrorist countries, and that Iraq supplied aid and comfort (as well as $25,000 payments to homicide bombers' families in Israel and gaza and the west bank).  So September 11th did change our thinking.  The war on terror began against all terrorists, supporting nations that took action againts them.

The whole world made the case that Iraq had WMD.  And that they were ready to use them or to share them.

Action against Iraq was authorized by the UN in October of 2002, but was not acted upon until the end of March 2003.  In six months anyone  could effectively hide WMD in a country the size of California.  Or send them to their neighbours.

Says nothing about Iraq being connected to 9/11.  As do most of your other quotes by Bush.

The whole world made the case that Iraq had WMD.  And that they were ready to use them or to share them.

Action against Iraq was authorized by the UN in October of 2002, but was not acted upon until the end of March 2003.  In six months anyone  could effectively hide WMD in a country the size of California.  Or send them to their neighbours.

Robert, do you EVER tell the truth around here???

That is the truth.

That is the truth.

Why? Because YOU say so? You don't have that kind of authority, to tell others that and expect them to swallow it without question. People make up $#it all the time and call it "truth" to push some twisted political agenda.

Look it up.  Or counter the truth with whatever you believe.

If Iraq had WMDs in 2002, it would have used them to resist the invasion of 2003. It didn't. I am aware of the conspiracy theory that Saddam sent his WMDs to another country. No dictator wanting to maintain his power would have done such a rediculous thing, for then it would have made him more vulnerable to attack. He wouldn't have given them to Al-Quida terrorists because those terrorists would have been as likely to use them against him later as against Americans (Al-Quida and Baathism have SERIOUS ideological differences).

Nice theory.  Not based in facts, but still nice.  Thanks for sharing.

"Says nothing about Iraq being connected to 9/11.  As do most of your other quotes by Bush."--Robert

Those quotes address mixing 9-11 and Iraq, and your assertion that the Bush administration did not use 9-11 as a reason to go to war. 

Bush's administration was either mixing Iraq and 9-11 or using 9-11 as a reason to go to war every time that they said the attack by Al Qaeda, the threat of Saddam connecting with Al Qaeda terrorists, the changed strategic situation because of 9/11, or the changed mindset because of 9-11. 

Those quotes certainly indicate that they were not simply re-fighting the Gulf War or enforcing U.N. Resolution 1441 as you claimed. 

They used 9-11 as a reason for invading Iraq.  There are many other quotes besides those.  It is utterly ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Says nothing about Iraq being connected to 9/11.  As do most of your other quotes by Bush.  ~Robert

That many of the quotes Kevin provided DO connect Iraq and 9/11 in the oval idiot's twisted non-logic, whether or not someone chooses to ignore or gloss over them, rests Kevin's case.  The oval idiot did in fact use the events of 9/11 by connecting it to his bullshyt claims and imagined fears of Iraq's WMD, as a basis for invading Iraq. 

I sure remember Cheney-Bush and their people linking 9/11 with Saddam Hussein - and they did more than a few times. What they also did was offer contradictory statements, from time to time, but the image of Saddam Hussein being involved in the 9/11 attacks on the US was orchestrated by the White House - along with their insistance that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had many WMD.

“Action against Iraq was authorized by the UN in October of 2002, but was not acted upon until the end of March 2003.  In six months anyone  could effectively hide WMD in a country the size of California.  Or send them to their neighbours.”—Robert

You accused Dale of not having facts to base his conclusions on, but can your claims withstand even the most casual scrutiny? 

Can you even answer a few questions about your silly claim?

Perhaps they could hide them in six months, but do you think they could hide them so well that the entire U.S. military could not find them in six years? 

Do you think Bush was so incompetent that he could not find the weapons between 2003 and January 2009?

If they snuck them out of the country, how did they get them across hundreds of miles of open desert under the scrutiny of the USAF and our satellite network that can read license plates from space?

Why would Saddam Hussein get rid of his weapons on the verge of war when he needed them?

Which neighbor took the weapons, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? Even Syria had just voted against Iraq on the Security Council. 

If Iraq could have snuck his weapons out of Iraq, why couldn’t he sneak himself out of Iraq?  Did he want to die if he could have escaped?

Those questions all point to facts that your version of events can not explain. 

Merely the inclusion of "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same paragraph or statement dosen't mean squat.  Iraq was not accused of 9/11.  Iraq was guilty of aidiing, harbouring and supportin terrorists.

“Action against Iraq was authorized by the UN in October of 2002, but was not acted upon until the end of March 2003.  In six months anyone  could effectively hide WMD in a country the size of California.  Or send them to their neighbours.”—Robert

Exactly.  It wasn't the entire US military looking for WMDs, and they were kinda busy with other stuff as well.  Tell you what, Kevin...you figure out how many soldiers it would take to search all the possible hidey-holes, caves, and desert sand dunes in California.  As to Iraq

s neighbours, it's one thing to vote against Iraq, and another to not aid Iraq.  If Syria was so much against Iraq they would have done something to stop the flow of foreign fighters across the border into Iraq, but they didn't.   And....

Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon

According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.

"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.

"I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.

Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Moscow Paranoid About WMD

Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.

According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.

Goldberg noted that no country has "done more to rebuild" Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs or "been more aggressive in helping hide the truth" than Russia.

It is a fact that Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam was in debt to Moscow for over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia when he was captured by U.S. forces.

The primary Iraqi chemical weapons were VX nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, both obtained from Russia.

According to the book "Russian Military Power," published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents."

The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."

Russian Chemical Weapons in Iraq

Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.

Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.

Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122 mm rockets, 152 mm artillery and the M-1937 82 mm mortars. All the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design.

Iraqi forces were trained by Russians in the use of chemical weapons and equipped by Russia with anti-chemical suits. The Iraqi armed forces were trained, equipped and supplied with the proper logistics to perform chemical warfare by Russia.

Lebanon and Syria

The arming of Iraq with such weapons has a direct impact on events today in the Middle East. The presence of former Iraqi WMD systems in Lebanon raises serious questions surrounding the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Many blame Syria for Hariri's murder.

However, the possibility that Hariri discovered the location of the Iraqi WMD systems inside his country lends some credible backing to a Syrian assassination effort to silence him.

In addition, the sudden sale of advanced missile and other weapons to Damascus by Moscow also supports the allegation that Syria is hiding something for Russia.

Russian weapons makers have previously insisted on hard, cold cash payments for their missiles, especially after the fall of Saddam and the collapse of credit deals done with Baghdad. More importantly, the Syrian economy is in bad shape, making it difficult for Damascus to come up with the required money for advanced Russian weapons.

Instead, it now appears that Moscow has extended both very good terms and no down payment required to Syria for an extensive purchase of advanced missiles and weapons. This is in contrast to weapons sales to other "good" Russian customers such as China, which can afford to pay up front for weapon systems.

CIA Failed

There is no question that the Russian effort to remove Iraqi WMD systems was the most successful intelligence operation of the 21st century. The Russians were able to move hundreds of tons of chemical, biological and nuclear materials without being discovered by CIA satellites or NSA radio listening posts.

"There is a clear sense on how effective they were," noted Shaw.

"The fact that the CIA did not know shows just how successful the Russian operation was," he concluded.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

Dear Robert,

There were way more people in Saudi Arabia training, aiding and providing physical and significant financial support for terrorists - and there still are.

Under your logic we should be attacking and occupying Saudi Arabia.  And every other of over 100 countries in the world where someone, is providing aid and comfort to terrorists.

Maybe we should just declare war on the world and exterminate everyone?

That post has been repeated soooo many times.  But the journey of one thousand miles begins with the first step.

Again, and the facts and the history support it, Iraq was invaded and Saddam deposed because he was in material violation of the UN sanctions inposed at the close of Gulf War 1.

And Israel has also been in violations of numerous, numerous UN resolutions.

Should we bomb, invade and occupy Israel?

I find it interesting, Robert, that you - who so "hate" the United nations and conctantly rail against it - are speaking in favor of the UN because you selectively want to make excuses for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

<If Iraq could have snuck his weapons out of Iraq, why couldn’t he sneak himself out of Iraq?  Did he want to die if he could have escaped?>

Well, you'd have to ask Saddam about his judgment, eh?  Maybe he thought that he could come back as supreme dictator once the dust had settled.  Who knows?   But the question about Saddam is pretty stupid, given the timeline: the weapons were moved BEFORE the war began; Saddam was captured AFTER the war concluded.

And note that satellite surveillance confirmed the movement of large numbers of trucks into Syria during the six-month gap before the war began.

Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This post was modified from its original form on 10 Nov, 8:29

There were way more people in Saudi Arabia training, aiding and providing physical and significant financial support for terrorists - and there still are. ~Knate

Now now, Knate you know very well that Saudi was willing to strike an oil deal with the U.S. federal arm of the private oil industry which, according to Robert's logic, means Saudi is playing by U.S. government policy rules (that are "OK" merely because the policy exists), therefore they are safe from U.S. government policy:  Give us what we want and we won't bomb you to hell.

Oh, thank you, Katii.

How abysmally stupid of me!!!!       

And Israel has also been in violations of numerous, numerous UN resolutions.

Should we bomb, invade and occupy Israel?

Ummm...which truce ending fighting in what UN approved war is Israel violating? You compare apples and cumquats.

I can despise the UN for its stupidity and racism, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Yeah, it's that corporate/military/political/want to keep warm in winter and drive around in summer thing....

Robert..............cumquat is spelt with a K. Not being picky or anything.

You cannot currently send a star to Lynn because you have done so within the last week.

Not many would pick up on that, Lynn.

Dear Robert,

I want a Green Star.

The spelling "cumquat" and "kumquat" are both correct and in use.

I must say, this entire thread is quite familiar...no one is going to change anyone else's mind...

Merely the inclusion of "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same paragraph or statement dosen't mean squat.  Iraq was not accused of 9/11.  Iraq was guilty of aidiing, harbouring and supportin terrorists.

Wow! Can you be even more confusing and dishonest, please?

According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

How do we know the writer didn't make that all up? After all, it's Newsmax, a notorious right-wing extremist rag.

Again, and the facts and the history support it, Iraq was invaded and Saddam deposed because he was in material violation of the UN sanctions inposed at the close of Gulf War 1.

So you claim. However, better enforcement of the sanctions could have solved that problem.

But the question about Saddam is pretty stupid, given the timeline: the weapons were moved BEFORE the war began; Saddam was captured AFTER the war concluded.

Unfounded assumption in blue.

And note that satellite surveillance confirmed the movement of large numbers of trucks into Syria during the six-month gap before the war began.

Please specify what satellites, if any, can see trucks on a road from 100 kilometers up or more. Most satellites can see weather patterns, but nothing more detailed. Maybe if you had said, "And note that aircraft surveillance confirmed the movement of large numbers of trucks into Syria during the six-month gap before the war began." I would think that credible.

I can despise the UN for its stupidity and racism, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Racism of the UN? OK, that's just bogus. 

satellites can read a license plate from that high up...

I was just talking to my sister's boyfriend, who had a career in the military and was in special forces.  He confirmed that.

satellites can read a license plate from that high up...

Yet we never hear about such things in the media. I wonder why.

Still, movement of large trucks into Syria from Iraq does not prove that WMDs were moved there, though it could have happened......if Saddam was attempting suicide.

“Merely the inclusion of "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same paragraph or statement dosen't mean squat.  Iraq was not accused of 9/11.  Iraq was guilty of aidiing, harbouring and supportin terrorists.”—Robert

No, it’s true that inclusion in the same paragraph doesn’t necessarily mean 9-11 was being used as a reason for invading Iraq, but it is certainly mixing the two issues (something which you previously disapproved)—and not by accident by Bush and his people.

Furthermore, any normal person can see that quotes demonstrate a clear claim by Bush’s people that 9-11 changed our considerations about Al Qaeda and terrorism, with a clear claim that Saddam Hussein could possess W.M.D. and could get them to Al Qaeda to attack the U.S.  Those quotes demonstrate that 9-11, Al Qaeda and the threat of Iraq assisting terrorists—not just a U.N. Resolution were used as reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

How many soldiers would it take to search all Iraq for the WMD? 

I don’t know but combined with all the  other technology that they would have to help them (and let’s not forget that Rumsfeld claimed to know where the WMD were), the U.S. military decided long ago they had spent all the time and effort it would take if they existed.  They would know and they said enough is enough.

The U.S. military itself would know and it gave up looking a long time ago because they finally concluded they had looked everywhere.  Even that colossal idiot Bush conceded that they didn’t exist.  Do you think you know more about the military's capabilities than they do?

That leaves only a fringe element of abnormal people in denial of reality who still think Iraq possessed significant W.M.D. when Bush's people were calling for war.  

And Saddam didn’t ship them to Syria across open desserts to a country that had just stabbed him in the back with its vote in the U.N.  And Saddam wasn’t so stupid that he would have disarmed himself just before a war.  And he wasn’t so suicidal that he had a way to get his W.M.D. out of the country but didn’t go himself.

Citing a story by Newsmax supported by nonsense from a former Bush administration official (a group of people thoroughly discredited on the issue) does nothing to strengthen the insane claims, but only further demonstrates how ridiculous Newsmax is as a source.  The National Inquirer makes more reasonable claims about UFOs than Newsmax makes about politics. 

Well-said, Kevin.

oh sh--! lost the whole d-m- post! i've been away and trying to recover from my trip! it's hard catching up on this long thread.

probably there will be no resultion or  total agreement on interpretations of how history went down. i'm sure the desendance of native civilizations here would see things quite differently about columbus "discovering" america. i thought he got lost and thought he was in an entirely different part of the world and that he was not very gracious about his invasion. he kind of set the tone for the future.

i keep thinking that robert is playing "devil's advocate" and isn't just shouting because he is in a minority opinion. everyone has a right to their opinion...mine is at the other end of the spectrum and i will probably be considered a pollyanna or living in a dream world. i think that the united nations should and could be a much stronger and fairer advocate for peace and cooperation. fighting wars doesn't, in the end, benefit anyone...i keep telling my cats that! we SHOULD sit down with the "enemy", who doesn't need to be our enemy. then we could all be proud of our countries. as a community of nations, we could help each other without diminishing ourselves. we would all be stronger and better. this is an ideal, but not impossible and we can't even find that cooperation within our own countries. it's along way to go, but not a reason to not work toward it.

and the deformed chiuldren? maybe a coincidence; MAYBE not. something wrong is happening there as there are many wrong things happening all over our planet that very likely are being caused by the human inhabitants. rachel carson had a hard fight convincing those who thought they were benefitting from DDT. no one is benefiting from war...those inflicting the damage or the innocient.

the quote below popped into my mind while i was rewritting my last post...it just seems appropriate, though i don't think i have read it for years!

• 
  

•  

quotable quote

Pickerel, that's a wonderful quote from Walt Whitman.

i'd just like to post this to help bring a more peaceful feeling here: