Thursday, November 17, 2005

This is what happens

for the past two weeks i have been busy writing papers for my end of term. i saw the hutch email a few days ago though and thought ken made a correct assessment of phil r. ...i have seen the attacks on vincent and now know why our party is currently in the state it is in right now. i am a conservative, i am pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and believe in keeping taxes and spending to a minimum. i still support the President and the war in Iraq. however, some of you may remember a few months ago i was accused of being a squish for not supporting the marriage amendment and saying that it was rally cry. i was sebsequently atacked and accused of endorsing perversion. when attacks like this happen within our own party, when we call each other stupid names, when we send out mail pieces attacking our own candidates, it makes it much easier for the dems to win, hence governor-elect tim kaine. i would like to dedicate this post to the jerry kilgore for governor campaign. it was not lackluster campaign. and i witnessed their field operatives working late hours into the night, every night. what was lackluster was the turnout by republicans who will undoubtedly be criticizing kaine at every turn, and forget that they are the ones who helped him get his place in the governor's mansion.


At 11/17/2005 03:27:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I love the way some people misrepresent conservative criticism of vacuous argument as "attack." You were not "accused of being a squish for not supporting the marriage amendment and saying that it was rally cry," or "sebsequently atacked and accused of endorsing perversion,"; you wrongly asserted that "marriage is one of the inherent rights we are all entitled to under the Constitution," that "one cannot make a valid arguement about the legality of gay marriage in the context of scripture," and said we should not talk ... er, "rant and rave about perversion." You were criticized for it, at least by me, and perhaps others.

The way to avoid such "attacks" is to keep your mouth shut, or to turn off the comment function. Otherwise, stop bitching when someone criticizes your comments.

Suggesting that government should somehow legitimize relationships condemned by more than five millenia of civilized societies is neither "conservative," nor "libertarian." It is an extreme positivist view of the law which is, at its root, nihilistic towards the fundamental building block of human society.

And, of course, decrying "attacks" and "name-calling" is so much easier than justifying and/or defending your radical and ill-informed position.

At 11/17/2005 03:50:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

jim young is now imploding before our very eyes. is the fact that virginia is not a union state keeping your workday slow, or do you sit at your computer and wait for vincent and i to write posts?

you have just made my very point about people like you in our party who are fracturing it. you do name-call, and you do attack.

you are rude and cannot allow anyone else to have an opinion outside of your own without trying to make them feel two inches tall.

for this very reason, people are turned off from our party right now. so thank jim young, for helping the dems by you dividing and then letting the dems conquer.

At 11/17/2005 04:05:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...


For the record, did you support the statewide Republican ticket this November?


I see nothing of a personal attack in James' post above. Heated commentary, yes, but not personal invective. However you do accuse him of being "rude". This does appear to me to be a personal attack. I for one believe there is enough personal invective going around on both sides. can we not debate issues even heatedly without getting personal? I think this is a great forum for discussion and debate. Let's use it and not get personal about it.

At 11/17/2005 04:07:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

No, neocon, but responding to tripe doesn't take that much time.

So, I "name-call" and "attack," and I am "rude."

Hmmmmm. Yet you call me "rude," and fail to address the fact that I refute your misrepresentations, instead starting off with "jim young is now imploding before our very eyes," and questioning my work ethic (60 hours in each of the last five weeks, including six in a poll on Election Day, thank you, so I'm pretty sure I don't have to answer to you).

And if you "feel two inches tall" after your statements are exposed to rigorous scrutiny, then: (a) you have problems I am not professionally qualified to treat; and (b) you're in the wrong line.

And it would be rather difficult to blame me for Kilgore's, Craddock's, and Black's losses, since I had nothing to do with the latters' campaigns. My contributions were only to the Kilgore campaign (I was a poll watcher, and had a bumper sticker), and I never said a word against our nominees, unlike some here. My only offense, apparently, was to give my analysis of the outcome, noting how those (like you) joining the Dem attack on the family and traditional values hurt the GOP cause.

At 11/17/2005 04:33:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

People who are contributers to blogs should not have a thin skin. And people who offer opinions should not consider responses to those opinions as personal attacks.

Jim correctly recounts the incident in question, in order to counter the "revisionist" history posted by the author.

And while a blogger might be silly enough to blame the voters for a loss, I am pretty sure the candidates know whose fault it is when the voters to not show up on election day.

The candidates that blame the voters for their losses are usually the ones who are thereafter named "former candidates".

There can only be two reasons for Kilgore's loss. Either Kaine was simply too good a pick for anybody to overcome, or Kilgore did not project a message to the voters that made him preferable to Kaine.

I think the truth is the latter, not the former, but I can't prove that point. But it certainly wasn't the voters that let Kilgore down.

As to who is "dividing us" and making it easy for us to be "conquered", we have lots of different people who call themselves republicans, with different views.

Some decided to express these different views in the primary, and in two cases put candidates we liked into the general election.

In the general election, Steve Chapman was out pushing for ALL of the chosen republican candidates, including his primary opponent. That is what the "right-wing" conservative republicans did. I did phone calls, put up signs, did poll-watching and worked in front of the polls -- and talked my wife into sitting at the polls as well.

Meanwhile, what did those "moderate republicans" do who didn't make it to the general election? Two of them endorsed DEMOCRATS in the general election against the republican party CHOSEN candidates.

Another "moderate" republican took aim at our governor pick (Potts) and yet ANOTHER republican went independent to take out a republican incumbent delegate.

So we had two moderate incumbent republicans endorsing democrats, and two moderate republicans running in the general election AGAINST republicans.

Funny how it is that the far-right of the party are blamed for disloyalty.

I'm not playing the "who is splitting us up" game. It is silly.

At 11/17/2005 04:35:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Don't forget Dave Albo's attack on the traditional family. He tried to turn child molestation into a simple fine.

At 11/17/2005 05:13:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Rtwng Extrmst, thanks for your defense, as for yours, Charles (I still think I should have your space;-)). The answer to your question is an unqualified "Yes." Bumper sticker; worked the polls (poll watcher) at Henderson Precinct, Dumfries District, PWC.

TC --- Your editorial choice, of course, but I hope you'll delete Anon 4:35 scurrilous and cowardly attack on Dave Albo. As I've said elsewhere, I don't have much use for him because of some of his associations, but that comment is beyond the pale.

At 11/17/2005 06:54:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I agree PERFECTLY with you neocon.

At 11/17/2005 07:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Criticallythinking!

At 11/17/2005 07:04:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

critically thinking-
It seems like you've sprung out of air.

At 11/17/2005 07:13:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Umm, is it good or bad to be "sprung out of air".

At 11/17/2005 08:11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scurrilous? Cowardly? Are you kidding me???

Since introducing H.B. 1054 in early 2004, Del. Dave Albo appears to have successfully quashed many inquiries into the Albo bill—through bluster, legal obfuscation and misdirection. He has also enlisted the support of legislative and Crime Commission attorneys to defend him. Since Albo was Chairman of the Crime Commission—and there are persistent rumors that these drastic penalty reductions were proposed at the behest of some Commonwealth's Attorneys—we urge you to treat claims from these sources with some scrutiny. We believe that even a lay person can, with reasonable diligence, understand the obvious, undeniable intent and effects of the Albo bill.
Questions and Answers about the Albo Record

1. Did Albo really try to drastically lower penalties for child rape?

Yes, without a doubt. The Northern Virginia Journal (2/11/04) said that Albo’s bill “would have been a molester’s dream come true.” In the simplest terms, Albo’s bill took one of the weakest child sex crimes on the books in Virginia—Taking indecent liberties with a child by a person in custodial or supervisory relationship (§18.2-370.1)—and tried to shoehorn other crimes, rape, sodomy and other abuse, into its definition (without raising the penalty). Before the Albo bill, “custodial indecent liberties” was a Class 6 felony that covered things such as propositioning a child or indecent exposure to a child. By slipping rape and sodomy into this law, Albo would have made it possible to get probation or a fine for the most extreme forms of sexual abuse too.

This would be similar to taking a minor law against marijuana possession and slipping heroin trafficking in… without raising the penalty!

2. Can you show me technically how his bill worked, in simple terms?

Yes, click here for diagram.

3. Can you go into more detail about the Albo bill?

See further Questions and Answers here.

4. How do the Albo penalties compare to other crimes?

Dave Albo tried to make these crimes: “sexual intercourse,” “any act of carnal knowledge,” having a “child engage in sexual intercourse, sodomy or fondling of sexual or genital parts with another person”…

the same punishment as this crime: larceny of any poultry of the value of $5 dollars or more (§18.2-97)

5. What is Albo’s side of the story?

Albo Alibi #1: Just Another Option! Albo first claimed (very creatively) that his attempt to downgrade penalties for child rape would not actually be a reduction in punishment, because he left the originial, much tougher Rape law on the books as well. This is little different than if Albo had introduced a bill to make bank robbery a misdemeanor, then denied he had done anything wrong because felony bank robbery was still on the books as well.

Albo Alibi #2: What Are They Talking About? Albo next claimed that he could not understand PROTECT's objections at all, that they simply made no sense to any of his Richmond cronies. Yet he managed to remove every last word that we opposed under pressure from PROTECT and Virginia citizens.

Albo Alibi #3: Saving Sodomy… Albo has also claimed that his bill was an attempt to make sure laws against sodomizing children would still be on the books if the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s sodomy laws for adults as unconstitutional (under the Lawrence v. Texas decision). This tortured argument ignores the fact that if Albo really believed the Supreme Court was addressing child sexual assault (and not just adult consensual sex) and he wanted to make sure he kept sodomy against children a crime, he should have made it a real crime, requiring mandatory prison time. But he didn’t. It also does not explain why he also included sexual intercourse and other acts in his expanded definition of “custodial indecent liberties.”

Albo Alibi #4: Protecting Teens… Albo also claims that House Bill 1054 would have been a new tool that actually increased penalties for sex with teens. They say that if an adult has sex with an older teenager who is in the adult's custody or under his supervision, it could be considered a misdemeanor (contributing to the delinquency of a minor). But the truth is, the Albo bill applies to babies and young children, not just teens.

6. Did PROTECT try to work with Albo in good faith?

Yes. In early December of 2003, PROTECT approached Dave Albo in his capacity as Chairman of the Crime Commission. We provided him with detailed spreadsheets, showing that in Virginia, punishment for sex crimes against children in the home or by adults in a custodial or supervisory relationship were outrageously low. Delegate Albo dismissed our concerns outright.

Within a few weeks, PROTECT heard a troubling rumor that the the Crime Commission might propose to lower penalties for sodomy against a child, but only in cases where the perpetrator was in a custodial or supervisory relationship with his vicitm. Alarmed, we had an Albo acquaintance (now a member of the Virginia state Task Force on Sex Offenders) contact Albo and ask if this could be true. Albo, in an email, dismissed it as absurd.

Then, in mid January, PROTECT attended a meeting with Albo at the Virginia Capitol, where he introduced his Albo bill. Albo had not only reduced the penalties for sodomy within the family, he had downgraded a whole range of other sex crimes as well. At this meeting, PROTECT asked him not to weaken the laws that protect children. Again, Albo dismissed our concerns, insisting that tougher penalties were still on the books. Only then did PROTECT go public in a successful campaign to stop the Albo bill.

Once the Virginia news media began investigating the Albo bill, Delegate Albo, through legislative staff, asked PROTECT to temporarily remove content from our website critical of the legislation. This request was made as a “good faith” request, to give the legislative staff time to “fix” the problems with Albo’s bill. PROTECT, in an attempt to be reasonable, complied. Within days, reporters and others told us that Delegate Albo was telling them that PROTECT removed information from our website because we “knew” we were wrong. We immediately posted the information again.

Despite the many changing excuses Dave Albo has offered for trying to gut punishments for child rape and molestation, there is one he has never offered. Dave Albo has never claimed to have made a mistake. Knowing that Albo is a former prosecutor and currently a criminal defense lawyer, we believe he always knew exactly what he was doing.

7. Why on earth would anyone want to lower penalties for child rape?

We know of only three reasons:
a. Lighter penalties benefit criminals and criminal defense lawyers.

b. Some prosecutors—wanting unfettered discretion to plea bargain away even the most serious sex crimes (and those with physical evidence)—might have wanted a minor “catch-all” crime, allowing probation for virtually any and every child sexual abuse crime.

c. Some people believe that incest and sexual abuse in the home should not be treated as a criminal problem, but rather a family problem, best dealt with through counseling and family reunification. The vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by adults the victim knows—such as parents, step-parents, mother's boyfriends and others in position of authority. Those who view these circle of trust crimes as minor are treating most abuse as minor.
[back to the top]

8. Is it true that Albo helped kill a modest bill to require clergy to report certain child sex abuse?

Yes. In 2003, following a national scandal about priests sexually abusing children, Senator Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) and Jay O’Brien (R-Fairfax) introduced legislation to require members of the clergy, under certain circumstances, to report child abuse and neglect. The bill was very modest: making an exception for “information required by the doctrine of the religious organization or denomination to be kept in a confidential manner.”

The Howell-O’Brien bill passed the Virginia Senate by a vote of 38-1.

Then it ran into Dave Albo’s committee, House Courts of Justice. Despite the support of a broad coalition of religious groups for the Clergy Reporting bill, Albo fought it, in public and behind the scenes. “They’re not licensed,” he said, trying to explain why they should not be subject to the law. “They’re not licensed by any state organization.” As victims of clergy abuse were joined by religious leaders, pressure on Albo built. He began to talk about a flip-flop: “If the lietenant governor is going to come up here and produce a whole lot of leaders of different churches saying they want it,” Albo said, he might vote for it. But while waiting for the clergy, he never stepped up to do the right thing for children. Child crime victims were sold out in a quiet, committee room deal.

9. Is PROTECT politically-motivated?

Protecting children from abuse should not be a partisan issue. PROTECT’s record shows that we work closely with both Republicans and Democrats. Our members include Americans from all walks of life, and span the spectrum from strong social conservatives to Hollywood liberals. But they all agree on one thing: politicians, judges, prosecutors and other public servants must be held accountable when they refuse to protect children. We hope you’ll hold Dave Albo accountable on November 8th.

At 11/17/2005 09:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So neocon22, since you are so gung-ho on the war, what is your military service record like?

This war is pretty clearly the biggest strategic blunder the US has made since... Vietnam. There is one place in the Middle East where there were no Al Quada guys prior to the spring of 2003 and that was Iraq. Now they are creating more new ones each day than we can kill. Oh, and meanwhile our President is threatening to use his first veto to protect the legal authorization of the executive branch to torture foreigners in US captivity. Not to mention the absolutely disasterous low world opinion now holds us in simply because of the Iraq war.

On the domestic front, you can make a serious case that the Administration cherry-picked intelligence that fit their pre-conceived notion on Iraqi WMD. Given all the reporting of questionable origin (as noted by the intelligence agencies) that the Administration choose to believe; given the smear campaign against Ambassador Wilson who pointed out some of those caveats; given the "special" wording ("British intelligence believes..." because our intelligence didn't...) I think there is little doubt why the American people don't think that the President was straight with them.

There are a lot of dead guys out gone now. Whatever decisions we make now isn't going to change that.

At 11/17/2005 10:38:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

anon 9:01:

There were al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the spring of 2003. DOn't believe everything you read either in left-wing blogs, e-mails from democrat elected leaders, or the newspapers who refuse to actually do their jobs anymore.

Before the democrats jumped on the "bush lied us into war" excuse, they had another attack -- that Bush had the information necessary to get Al Qaeda leader Zarqawi while he was in Iraq in 2002, but failed to do so.

We ALREADY know that, when Afghanistan fell, Al Qaeda fled to several neighboring countries, including Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq.

Further, we know that some Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda "affiliate" groups were already in Iraq, mostly in the north, supported by Iran.

Probably in the next month or so, information will be made available which will include records from Saddam's government detailing multiple Al Qaeda/Iraq connections, some going back years. The career people in government are dragging their feet freeing up this information for our consumption, and for obvious reasons the democrats are not pushing their civil service friends to expedite the request.

You can't make a case, serious or otherwise, that the administration "cherry-picked" intelligence. I've heard report from the CIA employee that briefed Jay Rockefeller about the 2002 NIE report BEFORE his vote, and he is steamed because he KNOWS he verbally presented the facts, including the dissenting intelligence.

Meanwhile, if you listen carefully to democrats complaining that they didn't have the "same intelligence" that the administration had, you will find out that there are two parts to this. First, there is a large amount of intelligence that NOBODY saw outside the agencies. So the congress didn't have it, but neither did the president. The democrats are not "technically" lying because the "administration" includes the intelligence agencies.

The other part is specific briefings to the president. If you hear them DESCRIBE the briefings though, or read the 9/11 report, you find that these briefings were decidedly MORE alarmist than what they congress got. And because these were the briefings given directly to the president, the more accurate statement would be that the CIA and other agencies "cherry-picked" what they told the President, and that the President, not Congress, was given the more dire and "absolutist" assessments of what was going on.

Remember that while CIA briefers were meeting with congressional committees giving percentages and possibilities, Tenet himself was in the office with Bush telling him the case for WMD was a "slam dunk". Of course, Tenet was a democrat so we don't accuse him of "cherry-picking" or "lying about" the intelligence.

Ambassador Joe Wilson lied about his trip in public, lied about his wife's involvement, lied about the VP office sending him, lied about briefing the VP, and lied about the conclusions reached based on his trip. And he lied about having seen the forged documents.

This is all part of the public record, and documented in newspapers and in the intelligence committee reports.

When a person working for the democrat presidential candidate claims to the nation that the Vice President sent him to get information, that he provided it to the VP, and then the VP ignored it -- and when that is completely false -- it is not only expected, but REQUIRED, that the VP correct the record. Explaining who exactly GOT him the job is part of that explanation.

If you want to hide a "secret" operative, you take her advice to send her husband on a trip he isn't qualified for -- it raises too many questions.

Wilson came back and verified that Saddam had attempted to by Uranium from Niger in 1999 -- which mirrors the claims Bush made in his State of the Union speech.

The reason the people don't believe Bush now is that the people can't imagine that a political party would deliberately and repeatedly lie to regain power. But the democrats are doing exactly that. Wilson purposely lied to get Kerry elected, but it failed because he was bad at it.

The people also incorrectly assume that, if the democrats were lying, the press would explain it. They don't understand that most of the press reports "quotes" as the news, rather than actually finding the truth. But that is how it works. "Democrats say", "Republicans counter", that's almost all we get any more. When they do try to get more basic, they usually just repeaat mistakes from the past.

We didn't create terrorists in 2003. There were plenty around in 2001, although some have forgotten that. There were plenty around in the 70s, in the 80s, and in the 90s as well. What we have created is a place where our military can confront the enemy on the field of battle, so our civilians don't die in horrific attacks.

The democrats would rather hide the military away, and let the citizens of our country fend for themselves in the hopes that the terrorists would now "leave us alone".

At 11/17/2005 10:40:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

I assume that was 'sprung out of thin air'.

Lets just say I've rested up from the election season. I hate writing during elections anyway, because I like to talk about issues, not politicians.

I hope my "springing" is seen as something positive, but that will be for others to decide.

I've been around a while.

Charles R.

At 11/17/2005 10:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Suggesting that government should somehow legitimize relationships condemned by more than five millenia of civilized societies is neither "conservative," nor "libertarian." It is an extreme positivist view of the law which is, at its root, nihilistic towards the fundamental building block of human society."


Are people really under the illusion that someone can accuse their opponents of holding deplorable philosophies and then whine about they aren't engaging in personal attacks? It's like, oh, I dunno, calling someone's philosophy Nazism and then saying "who me?" when someone points out how despicably low that sort of rhetoric is, and how it simply exists to smear a person by tarring them with a political view they do not hold and never claimed to hold.

At 11/17/2005 11:16:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Anon 10:51pm:

I'm here, so I'll take this.

It is clear from the context that Jim intends this meaning of the word "nihilistic": The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

"nihilistic" is NOT equal to "nihilism", which is the philosophy. And further, those who hold to that philosophy probably would not take kindly to your calling their belief "deplorable".

The philosophy in your analogy would be "facism", unless you wanted to be obtuse. And if someone was actually being fascist, or was espousing a fascist opinion, saying that their opinion was fascist would not be a personal attack, or despicably low.

In short, your complaint is wholely without merit, and your resulting opinion is both moot and worthless.

And lest you consider this a personal attack, I have to advise you that a careful reading shows I faulted your "complaint" and your "opinion", without making any statement about you as a person. Just as Jim did in the quoted part of your post.

And for the record, I've never seen Jim whine, either in person or in print.

At 11/18/2005 09:08:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

i would like to point out that ansar al-islam, a faction of al qaeda, that is funded by al qaeda had been safely harbored in Iraq under saddam since 1999.

critically thinking, you have not read this blog long enough to know all of jim youngs posts. read the archives

At 11/18/2005 09:09:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Wow! Thanks, Charles. Couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe even not as well. But since when does the Left let facts or intellectual rigor get in the way of their rants? I guess it's now become a "personal attack" to refute nonsensical assertions.

At 11/18/2005 09:13:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

At Tue Oct 11, 10:22:24 AM EDT, James Young said...

"Second, I didn't "suggest that Neoconn22 represents the majority of contributors at Too Conservative"; at most, I "suggested" that you were lowering standards (standards which, I believe, elevated over time) by permitting him to participate as a contributor. That's a judgment (or "opinion") that I'm certainly entitled to, as well."

this is a personal attack based on ONE dissenting opinion i hold. I have never in my life been spoken of lowering the standards of anything.

At 11/18/2005 09:24:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

"nonsensical assertions" jim young? i see there is no room for any opinion other than your own

At 11/18/2005 11:06:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

neoncon22 9:08 --- Nothing like a broad, baseless assertion as the basis for a personal attack. In fact, and I'm sure Charles can speak to this himself, he has been a long time reader.

neocon22 9:13 --- Again, you confuse attack upon your argument with attack upon you. And quite clearly, such ill-informed argument "lowers standards," such as they are anywhere in the blogosphere.

neocon22 9:24 --- Of course there is room for opinions other than my own. You obviously hold one. That you cannot defend it is why you are whining about "personal attacks" when the basis for your ill-informed opinion is refuted (and I wasn't the only one to do so; Jim Riley did, too). As noted above, you asserted that "marriage is one of the inherent rights we are all entitled to under the Constitution." News flash: "marriage" is not a word that currently appears in the Constitution and, as I said before, it has long been subject to state regulation, subject to other constitutional protections (equal protection to strike down misceganation laws, for example, a protection that does not apply to redefine "marriage" to allow one to marry another of the same sex). Your assertion was nonsensical.

It strikes me that those who obviously reject Conservative values are attempting to hijack the label "conservative," all the while complaining about "labeling" (though I don't know if you have specifically, neocon22, and I'm not about to delve through the archives to prove the point), because it is finally politically useful to be called a "conservative" as a path to political power and influence. The sainted William F. Buckley, Jr., long ago observed that "Sadly, junk thought remains as popular as junk food." Don't be surprised, or whine about "personal attacks," when someone characterizes your junk thought for what it is. Perhaps you and I would agree on any number of other things. Perhaps you could make an argument to sustain your position. But you seem to take it quite personally when the premises for your argument are utterly refuted.

Indeed, the only "personal attack" here is the one that you launched against me when I dared to do so.

At 11/18/2005 12:30:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Critically Thinking hit the nail right on the head with:

Meanwhile, what did those "moderate republicans" do who didn't make it to the general election? Two of them endorsed DEMOCRATS in the general election against the republican party CHOSEN candidates.

Another "moderate" republican took aim at our governor pick (Potts) and yet ANOTHER republican went independent to take out a republican incumbent delegate.

So we had two moderate incumbent republicans endorsing democrats, and two moderate republicans running in the general election AGAINST republicans.

I'd have the same problem if, say, a Republican who was conservative went rogue and ran as an independent against a more moderate candidate who won a Republican primary. I worked for Steve Forbes in '96 and there were some calling for him to run as an independent or a Libertarian in the general. But he was the good soldier who went ahead and did what he could for Dole that year.

I do have to agree that very rarely (if ever) do you see conservatives defecting when they don't win a primary nod. A big chunk of the problem would be solved if this type of party loyalty were a two-way street.

At 11/18/2005 01:23:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Come on Jim.

The conservative deflection goes back years. Even in big-time presidential years.

George Wallace, hard conservative, deflected against his party. Pat Buchanan later deflected from his party.

Also currently in California, for Chris Cox's open seat, we have a beaten hard conservative who lost in the primary who is running independent and will quite possibly swing the election to the democrats.

Does anyone also remember Michael Golden's independent run from the right?

I do not believe one "section" of the party can be blamed for deflecting.

Jim Dillard, and Gary Reese's endorsements had NOTHING to do with ideology.

Dillard was a long time friend with Marsden, and Reese was simply very bitter.

At 11/18/2005 01:58:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Thanks, RoR. I note for the record that I spoke of our official candidates for office, not the voters who might call themselves republican but vote for democrats. Voters are allowed to vote for whoever they want.

Neocon22: I cannot say I have read every post Jim has ever written hear, or read every one of his articles, or been next to him for every conversation he ever had.

I can only speak to what I have observed, and to the best of my recollection, I have never seen Jim "whine", by the dictionary definition of that word.

TC: Regarding the 48th district seat: The california special elections system has a primary, and a general election. THe primary is "open" but contains multiple parties. If any person in the primary got 50%, they would win the election without having a general election.

Gilchrist (the "beaten hard conservative") was not IN the republican primary, and has never before been an office-holder. He ran in the American Independent party. He got fewer votes than the 2nd-place Republican. If the 2nd-place republican had not run, Campbell would have gotten the seat without a general election. So it wasn't Gilchrist's fault alone.

Gilchrist goes on to the general election as one of 5 party representatives. You can't fault him any more than you can fault the liberatarian or green party candidates.

Regardless, Campbell got 41,000+ votes in the primary, to Gilchrist's 13,000+. The democrat got about 8,000 with the entire SLATE of demcorats getting about 14,000 votes.

SO there is little chance that Gilchrist will "throw the election" to the democrats. Gilchrist will likely come in second to Campbell.

Dillard and Reese both made statements attacking the ideology of the republicans as being "too extreme" for their districts. It doesn't matter to me what their excuses were for their endorsements. Republicans gave money and time to put these people into office, which gave them the platform they used to influence the elections to pick democrats.

I can't fathom why you defend them.

I certainly don't pretend "conservatives" don't do this, I was speaking of our 2005 elections.

Neocon22 (again): Regarding "no room for other opinions" -- I'll draw this back to a generality. I am ALWAYS right.

At least, at the time I make a statement, I always believe if is the most accurate and best representation of the facts as I know them.

If someone provides a more accurate thought, I will steal it for my own. That is the point of learning.

But I would be a fool if I were to post stuff, or believe stuff, that I didn't think was correct.

I hope that, at some level, all of us have the confidence to believe that we have done the best we can to shape our opinions to the facts -- subject to further instruction.

So if I ever sound arrogant, it's because I am. Please don't confuse that for close-mindedness. I believe I am one of the most open-minded people I know. I will read ANYBODY's argument -- I want only the truth, and have no love for ideology for ideology's sake.

At 11/18/2005 02:33:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

Jim, youre right that marriage is not a word that appears in the constitution, but neither are the words parental rights. i am sure you would not want the federal government interjecting regulations on how you would raise your children. its the same thing. this is a state issue. a state can ban gay marriage anytime it wants, i simply hold issue with the federal government taking it upon themselves to interfere with what is a STATE ISSUE.

At 11/18/2005 02:34:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

and for the record i am standing by my assertion that you personally attacked me per my post at 9:13.

At 11/18/2005 02:55:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Marraige has always been, is, and should remain a state issue. Historically states, and even some localities, have maintained their own legal provisions with regard to marriagge laws, and what legally constitutes marriage, based upon their respective regional culture. There were once states that allowed children as young as 12 years old to marry without parental consent; states where poligamy was legal; states where common law marriage existed as a legal, de facto state of marriage (VA was one of those); and many other examples. How often do we still hear in the media of a couple running off to Las Vegas for a "quicky" marriage and, more often than not, a "quicky" divorce? How often have we been entertained by movies which, as part of the plot, have a romantic couple running from NY to Baltimore, MD in order to avoid a waiting period?

This diversity is not merely a tradition, but a very distinctive element of state's rights, which we (meaning Republicans) have championed in the modern era. Are we giving up on State's Rights?

Just my opinion on an issue that was brought up.

At 11/18/2005 03:19:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Now you're making a respectable argument, state's rights, with which I disagree. Unfortunately, it is one already colored by your prior argument, as well as your assertion that there is some sort of "right" of an individual to "marry" a person of the same sex, which is a perversion in both concept and of the language.

And as I noted in a previous post, yours is an argument which must fail as a practical matter (and you self-styled "moderates" just love the practical, don't you?) because federal involvement is necessary and mandated as response to the synergy between those who wrongly claim that it is a federal question, and activist federal judges who buy into such arguments. The question, therefore, is why you would stand by and allow activist federal judges to twist both the Constitution and the word "marriage" beyond any reasonable understanding of its meaning....

Now, there are many reasons why you might keep repeating the same fallacious arguments. One (among many) might be that you think that the state should license perversion, and are casting your opposition to action to prevent that in facially objective, values-neutral terminology.

You know. Kind of like you try (unsuccessfully) to cast your criticisms of me.

And BTW, Anke, marriage became a federal issue when the Federal government required Utah to proscribe polygamy as a condition of statehood.

Diversity among state laws within a rational framework is certainly desirable. Twisting the concept of "marriage" beyond any reasonable definition or tradition --- based upon an equally unreasonable reading of the federal Constitution --- is little more than legal positivism of the most abhorrent sort.

At 11/18/2005 03:24:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I do not defend Reese, or Dillard, simply spew the true reasons for their endorsement.

Regardless of Gilchrist,I had other examples, the point being not just moderates endorse the opposite party

At 11/18/2005 04:24:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

awcheney, thank you and jim young, you began the attacks, and thats the last i will say about it.

back to the marriage issue. you never responded to my point about parental rights. how can you, as a true conservatve who believes in smaller government, possibly say that it is not constitutional to defer to the state on issues such as marriage? the federal government's only duty is to "protect and defend" the rights of its citizens.

this is why abortion is unconstitutional. becuase it takes away our most basic right, life, which is in the consitution.

At 11/18/2005 04:46:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Neocon, I truly was not attacking your position...on the contrary, I was just offering my own opinion on the marriage issue which seems to be in line with yours. I feel strongly that (as our Founders promised) issues as intimate as marriage and abortion should remain within the domain of State's Rights (and each state's own cultural retraints) and that the Federal Courts had no right, under the Constitution, to remove the issue to Federal domain, allowing our tax dollars to fund something which many of us find heinous. I'm hoping that a new, conservative Supreme Court will use it's powers to get these issues back where they belong. I'm of the opinion that we actually have common ground here.

At 11/18/2005 05:14:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

awcheney, no i was referring to another fellow bloggerabout the attacking, and i absolutely agree with you

At 11/18/2005 05:44:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Uh, neocon22, just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean I didn't respond to the point. And just because you repeat the same baseless point over and over again ("you began the attacks") doesn't make it true, either.

As to the former point, as I said above, federal invasion of the states' prerogatives "is necessary and mandated as response to the synergy between those who wrongly claim that it is a federal question, and activist federal judges who buy into such arguments. The question, therefore, is why you would stand by and allow activist federal judges to twist both the Constitution and the word "marriage" beyond any reasonable understanding of its meaning...." Post 3:19

And abortion is not a constitutional issue. Period. Not pro-choice; not pro-life. It is solely a matter for state legislation, and I support pro-life legislation at the state level. Your assertion that abortion is unconstitutional is no more legitimate than the far Left argument that abortion is constitutionally protected. If you want it to be a constitutional issue, amend the Constitution. I'll trade you one marriage amendment for one pro-life amendment.

At 11/18/2005 06:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did Jim Young get an abortion?

At 11/18/2005 07:57:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

neocon22 (well we've certainly hijacked THIS thread, haven't we?):

"Marriage rights" and "Parental Rights" are two different "types" of "rights", and do not have to be treated the same.

Parental rights is a philosophy that the government stays OUT of personal relationships which exist as a basic function of nature. The state (i use this in its general form of "the government, not specific state/federal) has to take no action to provide "parental rights" -- instead any action the state will intrude on the "rights" of the parents.

Marriage on the other hand, as we are debating it, is a contract dictated by the state. Without state action, there would be nothing that we call "marraige". Instead, there would simply be committed relationships.

And guess what -- gay people already can have committed relationships, just like heterosexuals. "Marriage", on the other hand, being a function of the state to "codify" certainy types of relationships between individuals, is not a "right" given by the constitution or otherwise. You have no natural "right" to a marriage license. Virginia could vote to remove state licensing of marriage, and you wouldn't be able to force them in court to re-instate the law.

I hope this explains the difference: Parental "rights" are natural and the state can only infringe upon them; "Marriage" is a contract dictated by the state, and is not a right but simply a service the state provides in exchange for commitments that they state deems to be helpful to the common good.

Now that we have clarified that, we see that a state can ban certain types of marriage because it only needs to allow those which contribute to some common good that the state wishes to promote.

Since we did not pass the equal rights amendment, women and men do not have "equal rights". So the state should be able, under federal law, to allow men to marry women, but not allow women to marry women.

In a state with an equal rights amendment, I am surprised that state could, under state law, prevent gay marriage, since anything a man has the right to do, a woman should have the same right to do.

BTW, I don't deny marriage to gays. A gay man can marry any woman he can talk into marrying him, just like I can. We have the SAME rights.

If you want to argue that he doesn't have the "right" to marry the person he is attracted to, I'll counter by saying that I didn't have that "right" either. Otherwise a few very attractive women would have thousands of husbands.

This is a lot like how people say we can't expect a teenager to refrain from Sex -- to which I say "Ok, what if it's a fat short ulgy guy with Body Odor, who no woman will come near? Don't we expect HIM to refrain from sex, or would it be OK if he forced himself on an unwilling partner?"

That is all.

Charles R.

At 11/18/2005 11:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Critically Thinking:

Ansar al-Islam, the now-linked-to-al Qaeda group was in the Kurdish zone prior to the invasion. That's the zone where Saddam wasn't in charge and protected by US air power. It has no ties to the Iraqi Government. In fact, their purpose was to overthrow Saddam's Iraqi Government. Was that lost on you? You mention that they were supported by Iran, so I suspect you do know.

Let's be clear - Saddam's regime was Baathist. It was a secular Arab regime. The sort of people they hate are the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. Why? Because those guys stand for Islamic states and hated Saddam just as much as they hate us. There is limited evidence that Saddam had WMD (all primarily based on audit numbers from what we thought he had prior to 1991); there is no evidence that Saddam's regime had any dealings with al Qaeda; even if the first two items are true, it seems unlikely that Saddam would give WMD to a group that wants him dead so that they might use it to attack the US. He wouldn't give up the control.

As for our President. He constantly makes the link between Saddam and September 11. There is no such link. However, his constant repetition of that line confused the issue and the American public. Iraq may well be the major front today in the war on terrorism, but it didn't have to be.

Let's do a pro-con on how things have worked out:

Pro: No Saddam, Iraq might become a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

Con: Most of the world resents us for acting unilaterly in Iraq. Those that don't hate us for that hate us for torturing people. The Iraqis like us a little better than Saddam, but they hate their security situation. Thousands of people who would normally have just hated us are now becoming terrorists, activated to action by our invasion of Iraq. 2050+ dead soldiers. $2.50/gallon gas. Stretched military that can't take on new assignments. Divided population at home. Loss of focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan. The Administration has no plan forward. Future administrations will be restrained from acting because this one bullied Congress into approving the war.

Oh yeah, and we paid $250 billion for the privilege (and still counting).

Oh, and I seriously doubt that you were privy to any of the intelligence even given to Congress. That isn't the sort of thing released to bloggers or in general conversation. Colin Powell has stated that he regrets his case for war speech at the UN because basically none of it was true. All the major humint reporting was false, and known to be false at the time. Do I really think that there is some secret report coming out "any day now" based on Saddam's Archives? No, I don't. Even if there were, maybe it would be for WMD, since this administration is so set against re-writing history. Oh yeah, they buried the ISG's report that said after two years of literally tearing the whole country apart, they couldn't find an ounce of WMD aside from a couple of old rotten shells from the Iran-Iraq war which were clearly overlooked during the UN destruction program.

On Tenet, who I blame for a lot of things, including the "slam dunk" line. However, to put that in context, he laid out what was known and not known and said there was no conclusive evidence. When asked his gut feeling, he said that there was WMD and it was a "slam dunk" - hence the famous line.

Still, has the US ever before gone to war on the basis of intelligence alone? The answer is clearly "no". There's a reason for it and the reason is that Congress shouldn't be support major war actions based on "trust me, I think we are at risk". The President was looking to show off his policy of pre-emption and he wanted to fix things that he felt his dad didn't get to finish. Iraq is what they wanted to do, so they cooked to justification. I think the policy of pre-emption is consigned to the dustbin of history now. The Congress shares blame for getting us into this mess, but make no mistake about it, history will lay this war clearly on the President's shoulders.

On Wilson, let's just say that Scooter Libby is looking at jail time for obstruction, perjury and lying to a federal office because of his role in the Wilson smear campaign. That isn't about "setting the record straight", that is all about score-settling. And the VP? Isn't he the one who was pushing the nuclear theory on Iraq? From what I've read, there might have been some disagreement in the intelligence agencies about chemical weapons, but everyone agreed that there was no nuclear program - I guess Cheney didn't get the message though.

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

"Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons." Chapter 10 - Memo to Bush 18 Sept 2001.

So we see that the President was advised that there was no al Qaeda-Iraq connection a week after 9/11.

From the SSCI Report:

"When the analytical judgments of the Intelligence Community did not conform to the more conclusive and dire Administration view on Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and specifically the notion that Iraq may have been involved in the September 11th terrorist plot, policymakers within the Pentagon denigrated the Intelligence Community's analysis
and sought to trump it by circumventing the CIA and briefing their own analysis directly to the White House."

So we have elements of the Administration shopping around for analysis that they like. Sounds like cherry-picking intelligence to me.

From the WMD Report:

"According to this report, the former Prime Minister of Niger said that he was not aware of any contracts for uranium that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states. He noted that if there had been such an agreement, he would have been aware of it. 200 He said, however, that in June 1999 he met with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq, which the Prime Minister interpreted as meaning the delegation wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. The Prime Minister let the matter drop, however, because of the United Nations sanctions on Iraq."


"The CIA had still not evaluated the authenticity of the documents when it coordinated on the State of the Union address, in which the President noted that the "British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 208 Although there is some disagreement about the details of the coordination process, no one in the Intelligence Community had asked that the line be removed. 209 At the time of the State of the Union speech, CIA analysts continued to believe that Iraq probably was seeking uranium from Africa, although there was growing concern among some CIA analysts that there were problems with the reporting."

This supports what Wilson told the press, specifically that Niger didn't sell yellowcake to the Iraqis (which was based on the falsified documents that the CIA rejected, but that the VP chose to believe.

Your posting bears a passing resemblance to the truth, but that is what I would expect. Read the 9-11 Report. Read the WMD Report. Read the SSCI Report. They do not paint a very nice picture of the decision-making process in this White House which falls well outside the normal national security policy process that has been established over 50+ years. Circumventing that process is probably a significant contributing factor for the development of this failed policy.

At 11/18/2005 11:32:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

criticalythinking, the ever ironically named... you spent several paragraphs trying to avoid the pretty obvious implication that accusing someone of being nihilistic (when they've espoused no such view) is a pretty nasty smear. You failed. Have a nice day.

At 11/19/2005 10:19:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

Saddam Hussein was a sunni muslim. i YOU read the deulfer report, you would see that saddam DID have the capabilities to produce wmds. also, why is that 8 of his top weapons scientists were murdered directly after the invasion? the world is a better place without saddam hussein. women are not raped by him, and fathers are not murdered by him.

the yellow cake uranium story has never been proven false.

At 11/19/2005 08:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the yellow cake uranium story has never been proven false."

And it has never been proven false that President Bush lied to the country about the reasons for the war.

It has also never been proven false that Dick Cheney is using his government position to help out his old pals at Halliburton. It certainly hasn't been proven false that he used his time in government to set up a nice, lucrative private job for himself when he left government.

It certainly hasn't been proven false that Tom Delay violated campaign finance laws in Texas.

What has been proven false is that Iraq had an established WMD program post-Gulf War 1. It has been proven false that they had a nuclear program post-Gulf War 1. It has yet to be proven that there is any yellowcake in Iraq. Since we have owned that country for over two years, you would think that maybe someone would have been able to prove something, since it was obviously the #1 priority of the USG that whole time. What that indicates to me (although it doesn't "prove" it) is that the judgement of this administration is pretty bad.

I noted that well over 100 civilians have died in Iraq in the last two days due to sectarian strife/insurgents. And I don't think they were al Qaeda.

At 11/19/2005 10:18:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Anon 11:04/8:10 (assuming you are the same anon

It hasn't been proven false that you are an Al Qaeda operative.

Meaning, that is a vacuous argument.

What is provably false are several assertions you made in these two posts. FOr example "What has been proven false is that Iraq had an established WMD program post-Gulf War 1" --Clinton bombed the factories making WMD in 1998. The inspectors found plenty of WMD during this period.
"It has been proven false that they had a nuclear program post-Gulf War 1" -- in fact, Iraq had an active nuclear program intil 1995 when an in-law turned Saddam in (he was later executed).
"It has yet to be proven that there is any yellowcake in Iraq" - we removed 1.7 metric TONS of uranium, including large quantities of enriched uranium, AFTER we took over the country in 2003.

"Thousands of people who would normally have just hated us are now becoming terrorists" - Anybody who would strap on a bomb and blow up his own people can never be considered "normal". Many people have made me mad, and I've even hated some, but I've never thought to go blow up a church because of it. The idea that normal, sane people are "driven" to acts of insane, cruel, evil is silly.

"In fact, their purpose (al qaeda in kurdish N. Iraq before war) was to overthrow Saddam's Iraqi Government." - Do you not read ANYTHING? Saddam was using these terrorists against the Kurds. Air power never controlled ANYTHING other than other airplanes. The Kurds were under assault from Iran and from Saddam's forces, and from terrorists working with Saddam against the Kurds. This is well-documented.

"President. He constantly makes the link between Saddam and September 11." - There is a link. Because of 9/11, Saddam's destabilizing presence and support of terrorism could no longer be tolerated. But Bush NEVER said Saddam had anything to DO with 9/11. If there was a quote even YOU would know about it.

"Oh, and I seriously doubt that you were privy to any of the intelligence even given to Congress" - Many pieces of intelligence were made public before the war. A lot MORE is public now. For example, you can read the NIE report, I have, although you probably have not.

"hated Saddam just as much as they hate us" - Attempting to apply logic to people who blow themselves up, and blow up their fellow muslims, is silly. Attempting to make a "logical" argument about who would work with who based on their "religion" ignores realitiy, facts, and history. Saddam WAS talking to, and working with Bin Laden. The 9/11 report makes this clear. They were wary of each other, and there was no "evidence" that they ran any joint operations, but they weren't mortal enemies, and there is no evidence that the two were at war. They both had bigger fish to fry, and were both working toward that end. Just like pro-abortion democrats will pick a pro-life senator in order to beat a republican.

I could go on, but when someone post anonymously and spouts so many obviously false claims, it is clear that person is not trying to have an intelligent discussion where he/she brings facts to the table.

Wilson has occasionally made truthful comments about his trip. But most of what he says is false. The unanimous conclusion of the Senate Intelligence committee report was that Wilson made false claims on many aspects of his trip, his report, and who sent him. The most obvious being that he wrote an op-ed (and talked to reporters telling them) that said he was sent by the VP to Niger, and that he reported back to the VP. Based on that, he said he KNEW the VP knew the claims were false and made them anyway.

Wilson has now confessed that the VP's office did NOT send him, that he did NOT brief them, that he did not actually WRITE a report, and that his oral presentation gave credence to the claim that Iraq sent people to Niger to buy uranium. And he said all these false things to damage the credibility of our country in a time of war, and while he was part of the campaign team for the opposing democrat Presidential candidate.

I may not get everything right, but I've read thousands of pages of documents, books, newspaper articles, and transcripts on all aspects of the war and its aftermath.

BTW, the list of WMDs which HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq would scare you if it was a list of WMDs in the hands of the terrorists. It is not a small list. We have no found huge stockpiles of WMD, even though we know Saddam had them in 1998 when we stopped inspecting.

If all you know is what you read in the papers, you will be quite ignorant discussing this subject. The newspapers aren't interested in the truth in this matter.

At 11/19/2005 10:33:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Anon 11:32pm (I wish you guys/girls could at LEAST show enough initiative to chose a fake name so we could keep you straight):

I didn't spend ANY time debating whether claiming someone was being "nihilistic" was a smear.

James Young claimed, about a person's argument regarding marriage, that "It is an extreme positivist view of the law which is, at its root, nihilistic towards the fundamental building block of human society."

A "view" was "at its root, nihilistic towards" society.

A respondent claimed that James was making a personal attack by accusing the original poster of the philosophy of "nihilism".

I argued (in much different words than this) that calling a person's approach to marriage 'nihilistic' had nothing to do with saying a person embraced "nihilism".

But for the record, I will not say that the use as cited was not "a nasty smear". It was simply an opinion about a position. Whether the original poster's views on marriage and the constitution were, at their root, nihilistic is a matter for debate, but it is not a smear, or a personal attack, for an opponent to opine that the argument was nihilistic.

To the degree that the name "critically thinking" has meaning, I use it because I like to look at arguments on multiple levels. In general most people argue past each other because they take different aspects of a position.

For illustrative purposes, in this matter we have FOUR levels of discussion:
1) Was a poster's view of marriage "nihilistic".
2) Is labelling the position of a poster on a subject 'nihilistic' a personal smear?
3) Is saying a position is "nihilistic" the same as accusing a person of holding to the philosophy of nihilism.
4) Does the constitution include the "right" to marriage (yea, that's where this started).

I will not that in another post I took that "right" to marriage and looked at it on several levels as well.

I also like to look at news reports, and find the hidden "kernel" of information that might not have been the main thrust, but is more important than the actual subject of the report.

For example, while the world now debates whether Jean Schmidt should have personally attacked a congressman on the floor, what I found fascinating was that the democrats objected to her reading a letter from an actual soldier, IN the field in Iraq, trying to use his freedom of speech to deliver a message to a person who just made his life harder.

But you won't see THAT headline in any newspaper.

At 11/19/2005 10:46:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

All. This will be my last post to this article. I've strayed far from the original post. If an owner of this blog want's to post a new article addressing any of the subjects we are talking about, I'll be happy to pick up off that new post.

I'll close with this partial list of WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion:
• 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
• Laboratories capable of manufacturing chemical weapons.
• Stashes of precursor chemicals which could be made into chemical weapons
• Plans and parts for centrifuge to make enriched uranium, found buried in scientist's back yard.

At 11/19/2005 11:17:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

OK, I lied. This will be my last post. After thinking more about a couple of the "anon" posters above regarding Iraq, I thought a quick perusal of the 9/11 report might yeild some good quotes to refute the lies above.

With credit to Mark Levin who posted this a few days ago:

Page 61:

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda — save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against 'Crusaders' during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Sudan's Islamic leader] Turabi, reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremist operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to his request. ... [T]he ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish common connections."

Page 66:

"... In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large are attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. ..."


Post a Comment

<< Home