cuttin heads off

“If we are going to make the decision to engage, will showing the world we are "civilized" at warfare really going to make a difference.

Is there really a polite way to kill someone?"
chili36
12:06:15 PM
05/14/04

Not killing women and children or killing people indisciminately goes a long way toward keeping the average muslim from being a terrorist supporter as opposed to just an America hater.”

“One for the conspiracy theorists.

Connect the rumors -

Beck was (or was not) in US custody after being released by the Iraqui police ?

The US wanted to distract domestic attention from the Prison abuses, the Beck beheading being seen as so much worse probably has defused public outrage to a large extent as "they" (the eternal anonymous they) are far worse with "our" people.

The beheader is Id'ed by his accent as infamous (whoever) a Jordanian.
Rumors that the accent is NOT Jordanian and/or (whoever) was claimed as dead.
So, who wielded the knife ??

The time gap between the announcement of terms, and the beheading. What sort of swap was proposed ?

My opinion is that John Paul Getty was correct here, never negotiate with terrorists. When he refused to pay ransom for his kidnapped nephew on the basis that paying would put every other member of his family at risk. No reward is protection for all potential hostages.
Also typically the terrorists want 20 for one released.

If such a swap was requested it would at least identify among the thousands of detainees, which ones the terrorists wanted back.

This conspiracy can be added to those that said that GWB planned 9/11 with Israeli help to "wag the dog".

I mean everything else in the World is GW's fault, why not this ?? but of course the plot does not jell with those who think GW an idiot and stupid, so I guess it has to be Cheyney's fault, or Rumsfeld's, ... never mind it was SOMEONE in the "Administration" (of evil ??).

C'mon, we have all Friday afternoon to let our imaginations run riot.”

“Who the hell is Beck?”

“It's humorous to see the blissninnies wring their hands and cry about how everything is going so awfully wrong because of Iraq. To be sure, Bush's strategy is on the edge of the knife, and it's quite likely that the resolution of the tactical situation in Iraq will cause it to cut one way or the other, but it *still remains to be seen.*”

“Cutting Edge??? WTF are you smoking?

Even bacpac thinks it a gigantic Charlie Foxtrot.”

“Phaedrus

"Nicholas Berg"”

“Cutting Edge??? WTF are you smoking?

So you no clue as to what positive things have come from the WOI?”

“Things that offset the many previously listed global disadvantages and tragedies? Do tell.”

“I've already spelled them out, Phaedrus. Don't pretend like they're not valid. What I'd like to hear are some conclusive failures that have negated the successes thus far.”

“1) Dr. Laura wasn't a bad score for a 57 year old dude. Nice bod . . .28 . .willing to pose .. .nicely done.


2) Phaedrus (or someone)referenced the bombing of German cities as an instance where the US was simply trying to overwhelm a population civilian/military be damned.

Someone then refuted that, saying that civilians were not targeted, the Hiroshima and Nagaski make better examples.

It is my understanding that the firebombing of Dresden was as devastating as the destruction of Hiroshima. Except for the lingering consquences of nuclear fallout. The destruction of a civilian, city center was a deliberate strategy to break the will of the german population.

After Vietnam and the intense media coverage we (the US) lost our will be be killed . . . and to kill.

7000 marines died on Iwo Jima. One battle alone to clear one pacific island. 25,000 Japanese died. They simply didn't surrender . . .they fought to, literally, the last man.

ANd now we are raising all sorts of hulaballoo when the dead are still under 1,000 in Iraq.

I still don't undertand what the hue and cry was over 50,000 dead in Vietnam . ..(i do . . .i guess . . .if you don't belive in the objective, you aren't going to accept the death toll).

I don't think you can fight a war half-way. Either you go in, kill every enemy you find, or otherwise disarm and comprimise them, or you don't go in at all.

That is why war should be the last resort . . .not a foray in nation building.

I think we should be prepared to loose many many more lives. We are in there now. Backing out will just create more breeding ground for terrorists. We should wage an intense, punishing war against anyone who so much as looks at weapon or RPG.

If they hide in mosques we should drop a fuel air bomb on them.”

“Conclusive?

Anything you or I come up with can be discounted with one phrase:

"wait and see".

We're in speculation mode about what the total outcome will be from this strategy of preemption. I've laid out a number of negative which are readily apparent today, including the loss of American credibility, the over-extendedness of the American army, the lives lost, and the money being spent.

Forgive me for being ignorant, but I don't recall seeing your recent take on the positives from the conflict. I recall your support before the war, and your assertions about covert ops and the diplomatic advantages of having a force in the ME, but I don't see real progress from those at this point. Do you?”

“and with regard to civilian casualities (berg) . .It s a shame . . .it stinks .. but, to use WWII again . ..how many AMericans were waltzing aroud in Germany rebuilding radio towers during the war??? Let alone Jewish Americans??

Again . . .instead of being treated as a black and white war zone . ..Iraq is being muddied with these shades of grey . . .with baptist evangelizers, entrepreneurs, aid workers, civilian contracters all thrown into the mix.

It is a war zone and should be treated as one.

Until the death rate/resitance drops to near zero.”

“Lee's right about the dresden bombings I hadn't remembered that when I typed before. Mea culpa.

I doubt, in restrospect, however that we accomplished military goals any faster for the bombing of dresden.”

“I don't see real progress from those at this point. Do you?

AQ goals thwarted:

* no mass Islamic uprising
* no Arab government has collapsed
* no growth of support for AQ by Arab nations - indeed just the opposite has happened

US successes:

* by refusing to continue to guarantee SA security and putting troops in Iraq, SA has actively gone after AQ - the recent AQ bombings in SA reflect this fact.

* Iran has significantly altered its behavior - from its nuclear program, to providing intel on terrorists, to working closely with the Americans on the rebuilding of Iraq.

* Syria is now very quiet and helped the US with capturing Baathist leaders and with terrorist intel.

* the US has established and strengthened military connections with governments throughout the world, using them as proxy forces to root out AQ (perhaps this is the biggest success thus far).

* meaningful Chinese influence has effectively been eradicated from the ME

* and of course, terrorist bases were destroyed in Afghanistan, SE Asia, and Africa - and some terrorist leadership has been successfully isolated”

“so let me get this straight...she was 28 while boffing the 80 yo guy 23 years ago...hmm so that puts him round about 57 or somewheres there....hmm musta been one of the early test subject for viagra...any of the 50+ crowd of men here got a problem with a situation like that then i couldnt see why...”

“Mutt, Many of your points are indicative of the progress made in the overall WOT, but not specific to the Iraq invasion.

AQ goals thwarted:

* no mass Islamic uprising
* no Arab government has collapsed
* no growth of support for AQ by Arab nations - indeed just the opposite has happened


The invasion of Afghanistan coupled with diplomatic efforts can account for a majority of our success in avoiding these events.

* by refusing to continue to guarantee SA security and putting troops in Iraq, SA has actively gone after AQ - the recent AQ bombings in SA reflect this fact.


If you can tie this directly to Iraq, I'd be more convinced. As it stands, I tend to believe the same could have beenaccomplished with a greater military presence at the bases in SA.

I'll get to Iran and Syria in a sec.

* the US has established and strengthened military connections with governments throughout the world, using them as proxy forces to root out AQ (perhaps this is the biggest success thus far).


Granted. This is a common-sense way to run the WOT, and I don't see the significance of Iraq specifcally on this aspect of the WOT. The closest I can see in justifying this is that the US would not have access to portions of Iraq that weren't completely under the thumb of Saddam either. These might have been areas for AQ to flee to, but we still had the ability to blow up any camps that sprung up there.

* meaningful Chinese influence has effectively been eradicated from the ME


Your strongest point, IMO.

* and of course, terrorist bases were destroyed in Afghanistan, SE Asia, and Africa - and some terrorist leadership has been successfully isolated

Nothing to do with Iraq.

* Iran has significantly altered its behavior - from its nuclear program, to providing intel on terrorists, to working closely with the Americans on the rebuilding of Iraq.

Mmmm.. could you give me some source for this? I hate to be contrary (right!), but everything I read about Iran lately goes something like this.

* Syria is now very quiet and helped the US with capturing Baathist leaders and with terrorist intel.

We just issued sanctions against Syria for its failure to cooperate. I must be reading different news sources than you. Help a brother out!”

“My point was that people see the tactical situation in Iraq deteriorating, and they go all Chicken Little with their "THE WAR ON TERROR IS BEING LOST!!!!", of course they're completely ignorant of the strategic landscape. It's at once amusing and sad.”

“Not the WOT necessarily, but the war for democracy in Iraq.”

“I tend to believe the same could have beenaccomplished with a greater military presence at the bases in SA

As the guarantor of Saudi security? Not likely. Besides, it's not like they would have allowed a massive buildup for the sole purpose of intimidating them into cooperating.

Regarding Iran, I'll look to see if I can find a nice summary of that front somewhere. That article was more than a little ridiculous in its alarmist tone. We've known all along Iran has a tremendous influence over the shiites in Iraq - that's why we've been using backdoor diplomatic channels in Iran to ensure cooperation from the shiites (at least as much as we can bargain for). The U.S. wins in that it gets a chance at stability, Iran wins by gaining huge influence over the future of Iraq.”

“Not the WOT necessarily

Oh but they are - the Chicken Littles insist that droves of Islamic peasants are being recruited into the ranks of AQ and present a global strategic threat to America - all due to our involvement in Iraq. Guffaw!”

“I love this point:

* by refusing to continue to guarantee SA security and putting troops in Iraq, SA has actively gone after AQ - the recent AQ bombings in SA reflect this fact.

I can just see the PR folks for Saudi Arabia patterning their speeches after the doublespeak coming out of Washington: "Look how effective we have been in our war against terror. Before, we had peace. Now we have Al Quaeda bombing us! Praise Allah, we are winning the war on terror!”

“Oh but they are - the Chicken Littles insist that droves of Islamic peasants are being recruited into the ranks of AQ and present a global strategic threat to America - all due to our involvement in Iraq. Guffaw!"
Mutt
04:00:27 PM
05/14/04

It's not just the recruits, man! It's the guys who don't want to be martyrs but who don't mind giving a few hundred dollars in cash to the local (the base) charity after watching the latest footage of civilian casualies in Iraq that worry me. I don't have any hard numbers, but it would seem to me that we're tele-evangelizing for AQ just by being where we are without a good plan.

The degree of things like this is hard to measure, and you and I obviously see things differently in this area.”

“Before, we had peace.

Are you kidding?!!?? Can you really be that misinformed? The monarchy has only had peace through brutal dictatorial beatdowns. They've been terrified of their own people for decades. AQ wanted SA to fall due to a revolt of Islamists. Since that failed, they've resorted to direct action. You make it sound like SA never had trouble like this before. LOL!!!”

“I guess I should have put in a disclaimer for you, sorry. That wasn't a REAL press release. I hope that clears it up for you!”

“You were ambiguous, as I interpreted your "press release" as being an attempt to discredit the validity of my point. I guess you need to spell things out slowly and clearly; I'm a literal sort of person.”

“So the bombing of the headquarters of a major US company in Riyadh is a success in the WOT? Interesting theory.”

“Violin: No, that's not what I said. What I said was SA has, for the first time, cracked down on Islamofascists. The proof of this is that AQ retaliated. SA had *never* done this until perhaps a month before the Iraq war began.”

“BTW, Phaedrus, you a have a point regarding the $$$. That's an unfortunate consequence, but since it's hard to imagine Arab sentiment being any worse towards us than it has been for years, that anything would drastically alter the amount of $$$ flowing to terrorist groups.”

“So threatening Iraq was a good thing. We agree on that. It got real inspections started again and let everyone in the area know we were serious about terro and WMD, as if they could have had doubts after afghanistan.”

“The monarchy has only had peace through brutal dictatorial beatdowns. They've been terrified of their own people for decades.

Replace "The monarchy" with "Saddam" in the above sentence. Pisser, ain't it?”

“But they retaliated against the Vinnell Corp.”

“The WOT without Iraq could have done a lot to keep money from increasing to terror orgs, IMO.”

“Not only money but popular support, mutt. No guerrilla movement can exist without popular support. Don’t you think a few moderates were swayed to the AQ line?”

“We're talking terrorists, Violin, not guerrillas.”

“The line is definitely blurred in the insurgency in Iraq.

Either way, though, popular support definitely increases their chances of success at attacking American targets.”

“We have 2 choices now.

1.) Pull out of the entire region (including Isreal), and take away all financial aide going to any Mid-Eastern country.

2.) Let the Middle Eastern countries go into civil war and kill each other.”

“I don't know the exact source on this, but it seems accurate enough.

------------

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have gone to war with them.

One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.

Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using those criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives.

Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years,and 55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an averageof 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam. That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000 American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and capturedSadaam Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN COMPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME THAN IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally... IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....”

“See, and we had a good discussion going. Then along comes Buck with the same inflammatory nonsense.”

“Look girlz and boyz, there are icky people in this world. They are from all countries and from all walks of life. What do we do to our icky soldiers misbehaving in Iraq? We investigate and court martial them. Criminal charges are brought upon them. They were bad and need to be punished and the behavoir exposed and stopped. Obviously the great vast majority of our soldiers are doing great things there, including helping build schools for children and heartwarming stuff and they often go above and beyond their call of duty. A few obviously don't.

Contrast our relatively limited misbehaving to those of the terrorists. Who is going after them? Who is decrying their acts and trying to capture them and bring them to justice? Certainly not the populace. Yet WE'RE considered the icky guys? What a joke. They hang charred bodies over bridges and cut off our heads. That's not huge news. We have a female military sodier pointing at naked Iraqi soldiers and it's headlines all over the world for weeks. It was wrong, but in comparison something is skewed here. Hmmm. I wonder why. Forget the soldiers surrounding by smiling Iraqi children, let's show only our soldiers at their worst. It plays into the whole international anti-U.S. propaganda. The United Nations is sitting on one of the worst international scandals to ever hit this planet, bilking billions of dollars from the Food for Oil program and being bought-off by Saddam and having huge contracts promised with certain countries (who, ahem, were against this war... funny how that works). Where's the news reporters? Hmmm. A blurb here and there. What a crazy place, this planet. Oh yes.

Economic news is strong, even stronger than anticipated, everywhere you turn. Yet what does Violin continually do? Search ever so hard for one bit of icky bad negative pessimistic biased downbeat depressing gloomy news to share. Oh, the economy is doing so good and business is strong and jobs are being created, BUT YIKES, INTERESTS RATES might go up a quarter percent basedon such strong economic reports... AHHHHHHHH! NOOOOooOOOooooOOOOoo! PLEASE, NOOOO! NOT A QUARTER PERCENT RISE IN INTEREST RATES!!! DEAR GOD! NOOOOooOOO! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! WE'RE GOING DOWN! WILL SOMEONE STOP THIS #@$%#@@# WORLD, I WANNA GET OFF!!! NOOOOO! AHHHHHhhhhhhh...”

“Pheadrus, nonsense? Are those statements untrue?”

“where's my friggin' maid!?”

“the news is still showing the prisinors with underwear on their heads 3 times more than talking about nick berg. that's freekin stupid as he11. if they never showed those pics, berg would be alive today..”

“*sigh*

”

“That at least the pressure is off of the 9-11 investigation. out of the frying pan and into the fire. And the meaning of terrorists has changed several times. And nobody cares about the ethnic cleansing in Salon or Jordon. The Kurds in Iraq are fairly secure now, but the southern Iraq region is peppered with all kinds of islamist extremists that are fighting for power, and because they want Islam to be THE major religious law in Iraq, they won't give up until the last one is hunted down and killed. Which is kinda like looking for a Baptist among other Christians- they all look alike. US won't leave, because we don't want to lose our precious investment in the oil pipelines, and we need to keep a bases there, since Saudi Arabia and Turkey are unreliable. The economy is good because=duh= a war economy is operating= Thousands of troops are not in the US. That means thousands of jobs are available for someone else, that means thousands of government jobs are also increased. Greenspan will raise the interest rates, just in time for the election, and make all the stockholders happy. Bush will find a way to lower the gas prices in September, and all will be right in the world.....JIHAD SCHRUB!!!!! and you can pay good money for a snuff film- you get this one free.”

“go back to france...”

“"if they never showed those pics, berg would be alive today.."
- stratdewd
08:50:11 PM
05/14/04


So a free press is a danger to democracy?

Actually, it appears that if the Bush administration were more concerned with attacking terrorists before they strike than invading and occupying an oil rich nation, Nick Berg and at least 700 others would still be alive today:


Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

[...]
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.”

“Nick Berg and Abu Ghraib
Marvin Olasky
May 13, 2004

For a good example of what's wrong with liberal journalism, see the top front page headline on yesterday (Wednesday) morning's USA Today: "Brutality intensifies in Iraq. " From that headline two stories descended, one on the murder of Nick Berg and the other on the day's Abu Ghraib hearings.

Hmmm ... are sexual humiliation and beheading morally equivalent? Following a week-long frenzy of coverage, was the Abu Ghraib story journalistically equivalent to the new story of Nick Berg's horrific death? A headline like, "Muslim extremists behead an American," would have been much better in conveying the news of the day than "Brutality intensifies in Iraq."

USA Today's generic headline assigned no responsibility and was not even accurate. The Abu Ghraib story concerned continuing testimony about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, but the "brutality" itself was not increasing and had probably ceased upon full exposure. Other newspapers had similar headlines expressing shock that war is hell. I'd prefer Dante-like surveys of the underworld's levels.

Yes, Iraqi prisoners should not have been subject to cruel and unusual punishments, but perspective is important. The photo of an Iraqi man with a leash around his neck showed shameful perversity, but at least the man still had a neck. The United States during the initial phase of the Iraq War used "smart bombs" in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties: compare that to Islamic fascists sawing off Nick Berg's head.

Liberalism these days is a mix of multiculturalism and belief in man's perfectibility, and both aspects of the faith lead reporters astray. War is an evil, but cultures that respect the Bible try to reduce the evil within that evil by following commands from Mount Sinai and conventions from Geneva. Those with biblical understanding also know that we often mess up. Add wartime pressures to man's sinfulness, and some bad incidents should be no surprise.

Journalists should not be surprised about the mess-ups: Our questions should concern how often and how badly. Since some of the Abu Ghraib prison guards will say, honestly or maliciously, that they were just following orders, we do need to know more about what exactly their orders were. We need to know whether the prisoners were run-of-the-mill captives or vicious terrorists caught in the act of killing others or making bombs that would murder civilians.

Instead of asking deeper questions, many journalists will stay at the surface and keep the Abu Ghraib story bubbling because of its ugly reality, because it reduces both a key GOP strength (pride in our soldiers) and a key Democratic weakness (John Kerry's Vietnam-era maligning of our soldiers), and because hearings are easy to cover. But the rest of us, even as we ask authorities to punish those guilty of unnatural acts and natural cover-ups, should demand more.

We should debate the contention of some international organizations that no prisoners should be subjected to sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. I'd suggest that if those practices can ferret out from terrorists information that could save lives, guards should receive a flashing yellow light. But we won't have that debate if reporters lump together tough information-gathering practices and forced participation in pornography.

We also need to debate the larger questions: Is Iraq better or worse off than it was under Saddam Hussein? Because of the war, are residents of New York and Washington more or less likely to be victims of terrorist attacks? We should look straight-on at Abu Ghraib, photos and all, without seeing it as the tip of an iceberg that may not exist, or as an opportunity to create a political earthquake. We should also steel ourselves to look at the Nick Berg snuff video, and then not lose track of those who have now added his name to a long list of terrorism's victims.”

“SORRY, MR.. BERG. BUT YOU'RE OUT OF LINE

There is just no imaginable way to understand the grief of Michael Berg. His 26-year-old son was brutally murdered -- his head sawed off -- by Islamic monsters, and the whole thing was videotaped and not appears on the internet for all the world to see. Michael Berg is and was against the war in Iraq, and, by all accounts, has never been a fan of George Bush. Nick Berg, on the other hand, was a supporter of George Bush and the war effort.

From the very time Nick Berg's body was found on a roadside in Iraq, Michael Berg has been making statements blaming the Bush administration for his son's fate. Now Michael Berg is telling the world that his son "died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."

Sins? Does Michael Berg mean the sin of liberating over 10 million Iraqis from the brutality of Saddam Hussein? Saddam had rape rooms. In these rooms people weren't stripped naked and arranged in piles. They were raped, they were electrocuted, and they were murdered .. and no small number of them suffered deaths unlike that suffered by Nick Berg. Or maybe Michael Berg is talking about the sin of making sure that Saddam would never again use biological or chemical weapons against his own people, Iranians or anyone else, and that he would never succeed in his long-term goal of developing nuclear weapons. Perhaps Berg is referring to the sin of making sure that Saddam is never again capable of launching missiles into civilian areas Tel Aviv.

Quite a sinful guy, this George Bush. He stepped in where much of the rest of the world would not. He stepped in where the much-vaunted United Nations would not. He removed one of history's bloodiest dictators from power, and quite possibly saved the lives of untold thousands of people -- maybe tens of thousands of Americans or Israelis -- who were destined to become the victims of a terrorist attack with weapons too horrible to imagine; weapons supplied by Saddam Hussein.

After a decade of inaction by the United Nations ... which actually par for the course for the United Nations ... and in the face of the reluctance of our European "allies" to do anything (after all, they were getting big bucks from Saddam), George Bush acted. After 9/11 he was determined that no rogue nation, no nation that cooperated with terrorists, was going to be permitted to produce chemical, biological or nuclear weapons that could make their way into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. A bold policy? You bet. And thank God we had a president who was strong enough to take that stand.

Look ... there were only two ways to go here. Ignore Saddam, and let him continue with whatever his plans were. Maybe he would behave. But, again, maybe not. We would be taking that chance. We would be betting the lives of tens of thousands of Americans on the idea that Saddam wasn't going to proceed with his weapons plans, and wasn't going to continue his flirtation and cooperation with terrorists. Or .. the second choice .. we could remove the potential threat by removing Saddam from power. The world community gave him every opportunity to cooperate -- to play nice. He refused. Now he's gone. It took guts. Bush had guts.

As for Michael Berg. The last time I checked, Mr. Berg, the evidence was that your son traveled to Iraq on his one ... looking for work. He wasn't drafted. He wasn't conscripted. He wasn't forced. He made the decision, and unfortunately paid with his life. There are Islamic terrorists throughout the world, Mr. Berg. Your son could have gone to the Philippines instead of Iraq. Islamic terrorists have decapitated Americans there, too. Would you have also blamed that on Bush and Rumsfeld?

Wouldn't it be a travesty if Michael Berg were using the death of his son as an excuse to assign blame to a president he hasn't liked from the beginning? For now, we'll just chalk it up to grief. A few more words out of Michael Berg and we're going to start thinking otherwise.”

“Have you read the report, strat? People were raped and murdered under US authorities.”

“http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

strat... your cut & paste from a former Communist Party member talks of assigning responsibility.

If the White House killed several Pentagon plans to kill Zarqawi because it would undermine the case for attacking Iraq, who is ultimately responsible for Berg's death (and at least 700 others)?”