NationStates Jolt Archive

It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! Were their words just that words or did their words mean something else? (read through to the bottom!)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sen... Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on b building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop p longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen.... Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen.... Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept.. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power" - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen... Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Not interested in the truth again, eh? Not too surprising. :rolleyes:

No one ever said that Saddam shouldn't have been removed, it is the method that Democrats object to. By implying that Saddam had connections to Al-Queda and by lumping the war in Iraq into the War on Terror, rather than being up front about their intents and motivations the Bush Administration angered many people who would otherwise have supported the war. Unfortunately, as a result of a series of mistaken statements or lies (we can't really say either way) the Administration has little or no credibility with the majority of Democrats, so even when they agree on a certain policy the Democrats feel that they cannot voice their agreement. This is all without saying anything about the polarization that we can see between the two major parties despite Bush's claim to be "a uniter." Democrats are being put in a position to either entirely agree or entirely disagree with Bush which is why many who would otherwise have supported the war are speaking against it.

No one ever said that Saddam shouldn't have been removed, it is the method that Democrats object to. By implying that Saddam had connections to Al-Queda and by lumping the war in Iraq into the War on Terror, rather than being up front about their intents and motivations the Bush Administration angered many people who would otherwise have supported the war. Unfortunately, as a result of a series of mistaken statements or lies (we can't really say either way) the Administration has little or no credibility with the majority of Democrats, so even when they agree on a certain policy the Democrats feel that they cannot voice their agreement. This is all without saying anything about the polarization that we can see between the two major parties despite Bush's claim to be "a uniter." Democrats are being put in a position to either entirely agree or entirely disagree with Bush which is why many who would otherwise have supported the war are speaking against it.

Truthfully, did you read the quotes in the first post? I'm admittedly not a fan of Kerry's, so you may consider my opinions suspect, but it seems to me that most of those quoted were pretty firm in their expressions of wanting Saddam out, and one of the primary reasons was that he had weapons of mass destruction. I just think it's interesting that President Bush is accused of lying when he said virtually the same things as many leaders of the Democratic Party.

I'll give you truth, Eutrusca. In 1998, Bill Clinton and his administration started a bombing campaign to take out those weapons facilities once Hussein tossed the inspectors out. The bombings worked, although the intelligence on just how well it worked was a little hazy.

Fast forward to 2001. The Bush administration starts selectively editing intelligence to make it look like they know Hussein is restarting stuff when they don't have anything new. They were using intel from 1998. You might not realize that because Newsmax wasn't exactly all over that story. :rolleyes:

Members of Congress are briefed with that selective intelligence, much of which was stuff CIA or DoE or the State Department had earlier run to ground as unreliable. Congressional leaders, not aware that this has happened, take the briefings provided by the DoD as accurate, and so they make the statements you think are exculpatory.

Fact is, Eutrusca, Congress was lied to, and if they'd had the whole case laid before them, well, the vote might have passed, but it would have been a whole lot closer than it was. Your "truth" is nothing more than a selective look at a set of quotes with no context or historical background included. Why should I be surprised, though? It's what your President has been doing for the last 4 years.

I'm going to throw one more thing at you, Eutrusca, even though it's off topic and even though I don't expect you to stop doing it.

It's not the Democrat party--even though I know Newt told you guys to start calling it that back in 1992. It's the Democratic party, and the leaders of the party are therefore called Democratic leaders. Just figured I'd call you out on it now instead of later.

Truthfully, did you read the quotes in the first post? I'm admittedly not a fan of Kerry's, so you may consider my opinions suspect, but it seems to me that most of those quoted were pretty firm in their expressions of wanting Saddam out, and one of the primary reasons was that he had weapons of mass destruction. I just think it's interesting that President Bush is accused of lying when he said virtually the same things as many leaders of the Democratic Party.

Partisanship is a sad sad thing. It is difficult, however, in the face of overwhelming evidence against the current existence of WMD in Iraq to trust that Bush had proper intelligence before he made the decision to invade. I think it could be strongly argued that Saddam is as bad as any WMD, but like I said before, it wasn't his removal that people objected to, it was the method. Along with the issue of Saddam's current threat (current at the time of the invasion) there is the alientation of many of our closest allies and the UN on top of the fact that the war in Iraq marks the end to the U.S.'s no first strike policy (of course I'm not counting the CIA's "secret wars" or wars where we declared aligience with a nation just so that we could fight there [Vietnam, Korea]).

The short and long of the issue is that, even if there isn't sufficient reason for the polarization of the parties it has happened and we need to deal with it before it tears us apart.

I'll give you truth, Eutrusca. In 1998, Bill Clinton and his administration started a bombing campaign to take out those weapons facilities once Hussein tossed the inspectors out. The bombings worked, although the intelligence on just how well it worked was a little hazy.

Fast forward to 2001. The Bush administration starts selectively editing intelligence to make it look like they know Hussein is restarting stuff when they don't have anything new. They were using intel from 1998. You might not realize that because Newsmax wasn't exactly all over that story. :rolleyes:

Members of Congress are briefed with that selective intelligence, much of which was stuff CIA or DoE or the State Department had earlier run to ground as unreliable. Congressional leaders, not aware that this has happened, take the briefings provided by the DoD as accurate, and so they make the statements you think are exculpatory.

Fact is, Eutrusca, Congress was lied to, and if they'd had the whole case laid before them, well, the vote might have passed, but it would have been a whole lot closer than it was. Your "truth" is nothing more than a selective look at a set of quotes with no context or historical background included. Why should I be surprised, though? It's what your President has been doing for the last 4 years.

So let me get this straight ... it's President Bush's fault that all those Democratic leaders were saying that Saddam should be taken out? One of two things must be true if this is the case: 1. all of them, including President Bush must have been relying on faulty intelligence; 2. Democrats cannot think for themselves.

I'm going to throw one more thing at you, Eutrusca, even though it's off topic and even though I don't expect you to stop doing it.

It's not the Democrat party--even though I know Newt told you guys to start calling it that back in 1992. It's the Democratic party, and the leaders of the party are therefore called Democratic leaders. Just figured I'd call you out on it now instead of later.

Thank you. I often use them interchangeably. :)

So let me get this straight ... it's President Bush's fault that all those Democratic leaders were saying that Saddam should be taken out? One of two things must be true if this is the case: 1. all of them, including President Bush must have been relying on faulty intelligence; 2. Democrats cannot think for themselves.

What he said is that the Bush Administration presented Congress with outdated intelligence. The majority of your quotes are from before Bush took office at which time the intelligence may have been accurate, but Bush continued to use the same statistics even after they became too old to be reliable and the intelligence agencies said so.

So let me get this straight ... it's President Bush's fault that all those Democratic leaders were saying that Saddam should be taken out? One of two things must be true if this is the case: 1. all of them, including President Bush must have been relying on faulty intelligence; 2. Democrats cannot think for themselves.
False options. Try again.

Bush did not have the same intel that the Congress did. Bush's DoD controlled what intel the Congress was able to see. Congress made a decision based on faulty information.

Bush has no such excuse. Either he made a bad decision after seeing everything, or he had bad intel--if the latter is the case, why hasn't anyone involved been fired? Answer: because either A: Bush wanted only intel that would support his determination to go to war in Iraq, i.e. he wanted bad intel, or B: he's an incompetent idiot.

Not interested in the truth again, eh? Not too surprising. :rolleyes:
yes, Bush's fans are indeed not interested in the truth

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
"However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in 'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.'"

I'm going to throw one more thing at you, Eutrusca, even though it's off topic and even though I don't expect you to stop doing it.

It's not the Democrat party--even though I know Newt told you guys to start calling it that back in 1992. It's the Democratic party, and the leaders of the party are therefore called Democratic leaders. Just figured I'd call you out on it now instead of later.

Per your request, I changed this, but changes to the title of a thread apparently don't show up on the General list of threads. Sorry about that.

yes, Bush's fans are indeed not interested in the truth

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
"However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in 'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.'"

Well, I'm not a "Bush fan," although I am interested in the truth. And "degrading Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver" is a far cry from eliminating their existence. At the time of the airstrikes to which you refer, an alleged pharmaceutical plant was damaged and little else. This seriously calls into question the allegation of "degrading" anything other than pharmaceuticals.

As to "taken out of context," that's true, but only because the post was a long one to begin with. Placing them all "in context" would have required a post at least three times as long.

Well, I'm not a "Bush fan," although I am interested in the truth. And "degrading Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver" is a far cry from eliminating their existence. At the time of the airstrikes to which you refer, an alleged pharmaceutical plant was damaged and little else. This seriously calls into question the allegation of "degrading" anything other than pharmaceuticals.

As to "taken out of context," that's true, but only because the post was a long one to begin with. Placing them all "in context" would have required a post at least three times as long.
Due to the sanctions on Iraq, the country was incapable of developing WMD. However, it was believed that Hussein would try to restart his weapons programs, if sanctions had been dropped.

Read on the Iraq War and the justifications:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_justification_and_goals



The Iraq Survey Group under Bush-appointed inspector David Kay in October reported discovering the following key points: "We have not yet found stocks of weapons", difficulty in explaining why, clandestine laboratories suitable for "preserving BW expertise" which contained equipment subject to UN monitoring, a prison laboratory complex which Kay describes as "possibly used in human testing of BW agents", strains of bacteria kept in one scientists home (including a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B), 12-year old documents and small parts concerning uranium enrichment kept found in a scientist's home [15] (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21314/newsDate/27-Jun-2003/story.htm), partially declared UAVs, capability to produce a type of fuel useful for SCUD missiles, a scientist who had drawn plans for how to make longer-range missiles [16] (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/7648377.htm), and attempts to acquire missile technology from North Korea, and destroyed documents of unknown significance. [17] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html). Most topics concerning biological agents are discussed as "BW-applicable" or "BW-capable"; the report mentions nothing that was being used in such a context. Chemical weapons are referred to in a similar fashion. The nuclear program, according to the report, had not done any work since 1991, but had attempted to retain scientists and documentation from it in case sanctions were ever dropped.

However, Kay himself has since stated (concerning Iraqi WMDs): "We were almost all wrong - and I certainly include myself here", and has since been in the media trying to explain why the US believed Iraq was a threat when it actually had minimal to no programs (let alone weapons) concerning weapons of mass destruction. He has stated that many intelligence analysts have come to him "in apology that the world we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed" [18] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm). He has also directly contradicted since then much of the October report. David Kay is a Republican who donated money to both the RNC and the campaign of president George W. Bush. Before David Kay came out about this, many of his scientists had already done so. [19] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/iraq/main592164.shtml).

Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his oral report the following though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

Dr. Kay's team has established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce a great deal more chemical and biological weaponry when international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by France, Germany and Russia.

The current situation concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction seems similar to that portrayed by Hussein Kamel in 1995 and that of Imad Khadduri [20] (http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/), that Iraq had almost completely destroyed its programs, but sought to retain as much knowledge and information that, should sanctions ever end, the programs would not have to start over from scratch.

Lesson being - the senate was misled, the US public was misled, Iraq was and is no threat, but could have rebuilt to the degree of again becoming one, should sanctions have been lifted, which did not happen.

Lesson being - the senate was misled, the US public was misled, Iraq was and is no threat, but could have rebuilt to the degree of again becoming one, should sanctions have been lifted, which did not happen.And wasn't going to happen any time soon.

Due to the sanctions on Iraq, the country was incapable of developing WMD. However, it was believed that Hussein would try to restart his weapons programs, if sanctions had been dropped.

Read on the Iraq War and the justifications:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_justification_and_goals

Lesson being - the senate was misled, the US public was misled, Iraq was and is no threat, but could have rebuilt to the degree of again becoming one, should sanctions have been lifted, which did not happen.

I strongly recommend that you choose something other than the "open source" Wikipedia as reference material. "Open source" means that anyone can post anything they like, at any time.

If Saddam was "incapable of developing WMD" then how was he able to gas the Kurds after the first Gulf War? It has been rather conclusively shown that German and French companies supplied Saddam with the ingredients and equipment needed to manufacture chemical and biological agents ( which may go a long way toward explaining the two countries' strenuous objections to Gulf War II ).

As to everyone being misled, Washington DC is like a sieve. Even the most closely kept "secrets" leak out ( a la Woodward and Bernstien ). If Clinton was unable to hide Monica, and Nixon was unable to hide Watergate, how on earth would Bush have been able to hide a plot to fool everyone in America, including the Democratic leadership? This just does not compute.

If Saddam was "incapable of developing WMD" then how was he able to gas the Kurds after the first Gulf War? It has been rather conclusively shown that German and French companies supplied Saddam with the ingredients and equipment needed to manufacture chemical and biological agents ( which may go a long way toward explaining the two countries' strenuous objections to Gulf War II ).
I'm going to call you on something here, and ask you to back it up, because a quick search of my own makes me question my own assumption. Did Hussein gas the Kurds post Gulf War I? And can you prove it?

This article from the History News Network (http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html) by Professor Juan Cole dates the gassing of the Kurds to 1988, pre-Gulf War I. I know there was a Kurdish slaughter after the Gulf War hostilities ceased, but did they involve gas or where they helicopter attacks? This article from the Daily Telegraoh (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/16/wirq16.xml) recounts the attacks as being from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, but makes no mention of chemical weapons being used.

Now I'm willing to admit that I thought the post-war Kurdish attack was a chemical attack, but I could have been wrong. If Hussein didn't gas his people after Gulf War I, would that cause you to rethink your position?

As to everyone being misled, Washington DC is like a sieve. Even the most closely kept "secrets" leak out ( a la Woodward and Bernstien ). If Clinton was unable to hide Monica, and Nixon was unable to hide Watergate, how on earth would Bush have been able to both hide a plot to fool everyone in America, including the Democratic leadership? This just does not compute.
He wasn't able to hide it for long. The intel that was used to convince Congress started unraveling not long after we were in Iraq. The forged documents from Italy, the mistranslated radio intercepts that Powell used at the UN, the unreliablity of Chalabi and the INC--it all came out in the months following the invasion. Nothing has been hidden--it just hasn't gotten the play it should have in the media.

Also consider that for a long time after GW1, many UN weapons inspectors *did* destroy weapons. They did not sit in Iraq the whole time doing nothing.

I'm going to call you on something here, and ask you to back it up, because a quick search of my own makes me question my own assumption. Did Hussein gas the Kurds post Gulf War I? And can you prove it?

This article from the History News Network (http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html) by Professor Juan Cole dates the gassing of the Kurds to 1988, pre-Gulf War I. I know there was a Kurdish slaughter after the Gulf War hostilities ceased, but did they involve gas or where they helicopter attacks? This article from the Daily Telegraoh (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/16/wirq16.xml) recounts the attacks as being from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, but makes no mention of chemical weapons being used.

Now I'm willing to admit that I thought the post-war Kurdish attack was a chemical attack, but I could have been wrong. If Hussein didn't gas his people after Gulf War I, would that cause you to rethink your position?


He wasn't able to hide it for long. The intel that was used to convince Congress started unraveling not long after we were in Iraq. The forged documents from Italy, the mistranslated radio intercepts that Powell used at the UN, the unreliablity of Chalabi and the INC--it all came out in the months following the invasion. Nothing has been hidden--it just hasn't gotten the play it should have in the media.


I just did a brief search myself and you may be correct about the gas attack on the Kurds having taken place in 1988. My mistake.

I just did a brief search myself and you may be correct about the gas attack on the Kurds having taken place in 1988. My mistake.I think it's a common misconception. I was under that impression myself. Strangely enough, it was remembering a speech by Howard Dean that made me question it. He said in a statement once that Hussein hadn't gassed his own people since before the first Gulf War, but it never really hit me, because I knew Hussein had gone after the Kurds after the Gulf War. He just used conventional weapons to do it.

False options. Try again.

Bush did not have the same intel that the Congress did. Bush's DoD controlled what intel the Congress was able to see. Congress made a decision based on faulty information.

Bush has no such excuse. Either he made a bad decision after seeing everything, or he had bad intel--if the latter is the case, why hasn't anyone involved been fired? Answer: because either A: Bush wanted only intel that would support his determination to go to war in Iraq, i.e. he wanted bad intel, or B: he's an incompetent idiot.

Option A? You presume Bush to be disposed toward making determinations. Saying, "Yep, we're gonna smoke 'em out," in a sociopathologically-influenced effort to be seen as some sort of macho Texan/Yalie/'Murrican by the gun-toting Immoral Majority who elected him... and then forgetting there ever WAS a Bin-Laden... well, if you want to call that "determination", we can discuss the relative merits of differing lexicological interpretations.

Option B? "Idiot" just doesn't really capture the essence of his mental condition, does it? While he's quite excellent at blithering and blathering -- although not quite the champion Dan Quayle is/was -- not all who blither are idiots. Semantically challenged, yes, but I'm sure the man at least knows the difference between T-Bone steak and pork rinds, even if neither he nor anyone in his bloodline knows what a bar code reader is for. As for "incompetent", certainly anyone who bends the American backside over for BP/Amoco must certainly be seen as ineffably competent -- by BP/Amoco, which is really the only opinion poll that matters to those of Bush's... what shall we call it?... Bush's ilk? Yes, ilk.

(Over a hundred years ago, the pre-petrodollar U.S. economy was dictated by wealthy American ranchers who were backed by the White House in the Range Wars against poorly-represented homesteaders and sheepherders. Bush I and II would therefore be of the same "ilk" as Taft and McKinley and all those others who ran the U.S. executive branch with utter disdain for the rule of any law but the law of selfish expedience -- never mind the philosophy of Adam Smith, who forewarned us all in his preface to his exposition on capitalism that the system could never and would never succeed unless it were to be tempered in practice by Christian charity.)

(Incidentally, what makes "liberals" appear so "wishy-washy" and to "flip-flop" on issues of the day is that we "liberals" are in fact mentally capable of processing new information and acting accordingly in the face of it... even when it differs from what our pappies beat into our heads out back in the woodshed or the boathouse or wherever. Relatedly, it would be interesting to see a longitudinal study in which the neural patterns of rabid present-day Republicans were to be compared with the patterns of those of all other political persuasions. Overall, would the Republicans turn out to be closer, I wonder, to the neural patterns of Christ or Cro-Magnon? With heroic intellects like John McCain and Warren Rudman nullifying the bare-oak neural patterns of B-1 Bob Dornan and the Newt, I think I'll just have to wait and ask Lee Atwater what he thinks about all this when I get to the afterlife.)