Brad Farrow wrote on January 31, 2008 06:06 AM: J.C. Watts is very well thought of by all Social Conservatives. I would love to see him run again. We need more men of character in public office.

Mark Wilson wrote on January 28, 2008 01:43 AM: Wow! The best David Johann can come up to rebuff my points is the Washington post! Great bias news source (I say that in tongue-n-cheek, of course).

Then there's the almighty 9/11 commission, whose credibility has been tarnished for keeping former Clinton Administration Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick on the commission after Attorney General John Ashcroft told investigators the document by Gorelick [pdf file] helped establish the "single greatest structural cause" for Sept. 11, which was "the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents."

Really, David. Can't you come up with something better?

Granted, the anti American media are on your side; but history will prove me correct -- just as sure as history proved Senator Joe McCarthy justified in exposing communist spies in our federal government.

Mark Wilson

Mike B wrote on January 27, 2008 10:50 PM: Success in Iraq? Hold your horses JC. When the walls of the Green Zone start coming down and the Iraqi Government meets 80% of the political benchmarks required to sustain a stable democracy, then we can talk about “success.” And, before you’re overcome by the revisionist history impulse, please note that your contention that Americans weren’t morally against the Iraq War, just its execution, is another Rovian fiction of Bush world. The American people were sold WMDs and imminent attack in the form of “mushroom clouds” remember? And the oil revenues would pay for this venture, remember? If the American people were asked upfront to undertake a two trillion dollar nation-building quagmire, they would have balked much more from the start.

David Johann wrote on January 27, 2008 01:41 PM: Mark Wilson speaks of " . . numerous indications that Saddam supported the 9/11 conspiracy specifically and al-Qaeda broadly, among other Islamic terrorists."

"The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

"By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

"Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was 'overwhelming.'

"But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Mark Wilson also states "The Palestinians who were filmed by CNN dancing in celebration in the streets at the news of 9/11 were not al-Qaeda or tied to al-Qaeda either."

Shall we also invade Palestine or go to war with entire Arab and Muslim world because they are not wild about us?

Mark's sneering tone doesn't make his argument any more credible.

BOTTOM LINE: NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF AL-QUEDA - SADDAM CONNECTION.

Larry wrote on January 27, 2008 11:01 AM: allswell: in Logical Reasoning 101, you will learn that character assassination is not a legitimate form of argumentation.

tom: why were the severe human-rights abuses that Saddam committed more worthy of our attention, billions of tax dollars, and thousands of lives than the severe human rights abuses being committed in dozens of other countries around the planet? Why did our government care so little about Saddam's human rights record (and provide Saddam with so much support)when the bulk of these abuses in Iraq were committed in the 1980s?

Mark Wilson wrote on January 27, 2008 10:51 AM: That's what I just love about Libs like David Johann...they are so predictable.

All this because of vague, politically motivated declassified Pentagon documents that suggest there was no substantial link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

These documents overlook numerous indications that Saddam supported the 9/11 conspiracy specifically and al-Qaeda broadly, among other Islamic terrorists. Consider:

The May 7, 2003, decision of U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr., a Clinton appointee , awarding $104 million in damages to families of two killed at the W.T.C based on proof, albeit barely, but satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

The fact that 1993 WTC attack architect Ramzi Yousef - nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed - landed in America on an Iraqi passport. Nor does it mention Indiana-born, Iraqi-bred Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al-Qaeda operative who built the 1993 WTC bomb that killed six and injured 1,040, fled to Iraq and, documents show, received a house and salary from Saddam’s regime.

The documents forget that the Clinton State Department designated Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism as early as 1993. Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999, State later declared. Baghdad continued to provide safe haven and support to various terrorist groups.

There’s an old Arab proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Just because Saddam was too secular for radical extremist doesn’t exclude the possibility that he did support terrorism, motivated by hate for his greater enemy: America.

In Closing, The Palestinians who were filmed by CNN dancing in celebration in the streets at the news of 9/11 were not al-Qaeda or tied to al-Qaeda either.

Mark Wilson

Larry wrote on January 27, 2008 10:29 AM: allswell: name-calling is not a legitimate form of rebuttal. Pay attention next time in Debate 101 class.

tom: Stopping human rights abuse is important and noble work. However,if the prevention or cessation of slaughter is sufficient justification for the USA unilaterally invading and occupying other nations, when will we be sending troops to the dozens of other countries around the world where atrocities are being committed. Come on. USA as world policeman is as hollow a justification for imperialist behavior as the "white man's burden" of earlier European colonial powers.

Avanti wrote on January 27, 2008 10:10 AM: Thanks, Mark, for citing the following Clinton quote:

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Guess who failed to respond? (Hint: His name started with Bill Clinton).

As I said earlier, rhetoric and meaningless resolutions as a way to feel good do not substitute for actions and accomplishments.

Keep that in mind before you vote for his enabler and liar in wait. She has accomplished nothing without Bill and is a master at lies, propaganda, manipulation and the politics of personal destruction. If she is running on her 35 years of accomplishments, why does she not insist her White House records be released so we can all see the evidence? Perhaps there are only assertions and no evidence. Gosh, would the Clinton's do such a thing?

Willard Roker wrote on January 27, 2008 10:06 AM: If Iraq was the only bad judgement of this administration Watts might have a case but it is just one of many blunders which have hurt the people of America.

Oh, and the only reason JC Watts was able to win an election in Oklahoma was because he was a former OU Football Player.

David Johann wrote on January 27, 2008 10:05 AM: Mark Wilson wrote:

"Has anyone forgotten who carried out the 9/11 attacks?"

I remember. It was Al-Qaeda with no ties to Saddam Hussein.

Read All Comments