:)
rock on.

Nice, Roger!!! I do 'skin the cat', most every day. I will try to add one more, every day.

"Really need to get some rings..." The little voice in my head continuely sings.

How are things up north Skip?

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/peacefulwarrior.html;_ylt=Aqc61UEderEVqWs_ojsrQmtfVXcA

In accordance with all that we crossfiters do:
After 20 years of following a path: a movie comes to
help explain that which otherwise would elude most of
us..

This is the book , handed to me some 20 years ago by a
guide,martial teacher,life long friend and brother,that
forever changed my life and has helped me through so
many of life's never ending struggles, enlightened my
view to all the wonder, and to feel all the joy that
comes in so many different forms. I cannot express my
gratitude to Dan Millman (author), and to my close
friends and family that have supported me in search of
the peacefull warrior that lies within all of us.
special thanks E.R.!, M.O., V.P., C.C. , J.S., and to CROSSFIT for their warrior support!! These are the workouts that bring mind,body and soul together in one accord.This is what we as humans seek in life...health,fitness and harmony with self and with others..

Please see clips and especially reviews/comments!!

Nice Rog.

Got an idea on what a crossfitter should shoot for in consecutive skin the cats? How many could say a JO boy do? More than likely, any collegiate male gymnast would be doing levers through the skin the cat. Got an idea on numbers. These numbers are always neat to here until I compare the real world results. Still it's a benchmark.

Yeah, Daniel. I came across on Fandango a month ago after " Stick It " came out. Dan's a pretty cool guy to talk to and watch bounce tramp.
Probably best to post it to the forum.

THESIS STATEMENT: Saddam was an evil dictator and his removal from power was a very, very good thing.

1. People who agreed and want to explore further through this new "Black Book" will most likely be Bush-Supporters.

2. People who agree and do not want to acknowledge or focus on anything other than "NO WMDs", will ignore the book. To them, its moot.

So it changes nothing. I'm not aware of anyone (other than the current defendants in Baghdad) who don't agree that Saddam was a 1st order tyrant. The democrats like to think of themselves as intellectuals. But it seems their rhetoric of late has been reduced to sound bites and bumper stickers; BUSH LIED, NO BLOOD FOR OIL.

NEO-CONs vs NEO-HIPPIES how fashionably retro for both of them.

Yesterday, Hillary said that we need to get behind "a real plan" for the Iraqis to be responsible for their own security. Does she have such a plan? Will she share? Or do we have to wait and "buy" the plan from her with our votes. My guess is she either doesn't have one, she just wants to bash, or she doen't want to "expose" her plan to the harsh light of criticism and analysis. Becasue its not about helping, its about getting elected. The counter I suppose is that Bush just wants oil for his rich buddies, and to save his legacy. By the way, the Clinton's rich buddies are in entertainment, real estate and agri-futures, so there isn't much high ground. I don't need anybody telling me that they are for the little guy. I am the little guy, and I don't see much positive forward momentum from either camp. I am an NCO in Iraq, and I don't care how we got here, what seems important right now is that we ARE HERE NOW. Maybe I will care later, right now we are to busy bailing water to worry about why we are in the boat. What we could use is some more buckets, not more BS about why we tried to cross the lake.

Is this going anywhere? Yes, I have a point and a plan, not so much a plan as a "good start", and one that will save you good taxpayers a bunch of coin. First, we need to get lean. 90% of the personnel and resources, go toward sustainment. There are more civilian contractors and TCNs than troops. Send them ALL Home. An Army corps (3 divisions) about 45,000 troops and a Special Ops task force for another 1500. I think USAF could get by with 5,000, but go ahead and double it 10,000. Thats 56, 500. Less than half of what you have here now in uniformed troops. And reduce the sustainment by shortening the tour to 6 months. Get rid of all the PXs, cafes, education centers, gyms, ping-pong tables, freakin Toby Keith concerts, et all. and you would have more combat power and more security for us and for the Iraqis. What about morale? Short tours. What about college? Short tours.

And we would get the job done and be out of here sooner. I love Toby Keith, but he brought a guitar...he should have brought a bucket.

Good article, but an even better post by sgt feather (#6). Intelligent, proactive, and unquestionably brave--what our military should be. I salute you, sir.

I agree with you 100% SGT (#6). I actually know one of the civilians that gets the civilian contractors over here and he said that they can't even keep track of how many are over here and don't even know how many are really here. That goes to show you how many civilian workers are over here and just the terrible waste going on.

By the way, my legs are in PAIN! Thank God for a day of rest. 1st full week of CF and am hooked for life.

Stay Army!

I am new to crossfit so I have a couple questions.

I have read comments to the effect that someone did the Crossfit Warm-up times 3 and then the workout. Does this mean they did 9 Samson stretches, 9 sets of pull-ups, dips, etc? Seems like a workout and not a warm-up.

What is (are) the disadvantage(s) to wearing gloves?

sgt feather, nice comment, I agree and feel your pain, the long deployments are the reason I got out... I thank you for your service.

SC:

The warmup is:
Samson stretch (I do about 20-30 per leg)
15 overhead squats
15 situps
15 back extension
15 pullups
15 dips

So if you do that circuit three times you will do total of 3 samson stretch (or 6 if you do each leg forward) and 45 reps of the other exercises total as 3 sets of 15.

Gloves are personal preference but I feel if you wear gloves to prevent calluses or improve grip you will always need to wear them. It's much like a weight belt you will become reliant on it to lift.

Hope that helps.

Sgt feather I like your comments! Good stuff!

Sgt. Feather, I can't agree more. WRT the article, there's no dispute Saddam was an evil #@$%. I can't help but note the contrasts between the represented "rule of law" in Iraq as evidenced by Saddam's trial compared with the reception he'd get in a world court/Nuremburg setting. In short, he deserves worse, a setting where his rants and claims to the presidency of Iraq would result in a strait jacket and ball gag.

Did last Friday's workout (4 rounds of run 400m, 50 squats). 13:45

love the workouts, hate the politics

Latch's Jacket o' Pain
100p/press w 35kg
Row 500m
75 p/press w 35kg
Row 500m
50 p/press w 35kg
Row 500m
25 p/press w 35kg
Row 500m

22:20 as Rx-ed

Cheers, kempie

Rested yesterday, did Hang squat cleans.
BW-165#

165,175,185(F),185,185,190,195,200(F),200(F)135,135,135,135

It is odd how no one points the finger @ the UN for Iraq. If the UN had any balls they would have placed more pressure on Saddam. We would not have had to take the initiative. Saddam knew the UN (especially the larger member countries) would not do anything. So the US had to make the decision to be proactive instead of reactive. On the other hand if the US did nothing and we got attacked the Administration would be lambasted anyway.

While the book may seem moot or irrelevant to the folks like the Sgt. on the ground in Iraq, it is far from irrelevant in the larger scheme.

There is a political and intellectual war in the US and in the West over the conduct of the Iraq war and the WOT. We are defeating the enemy on the ground, but we are in grave danger of losing the intellectual and political war over the war, and if we lose that then we will lose the shooting war. if that happens the achievements and sacrifices of the Sgt. and his comrades at arms will have been wasted, and our enemies will have won an undeserved victory that they could not, in a million years, have gained on the battlefied. For the record, that would be a bad thing.

The book is a precision guided munition aimed at the perversity of the moral pretensions of the anti-war left. It lays out undeniable and compelling truths that the opponents of the war cannot comfortably admit while claiming the moral high ground. This book puts the antiwar chorus in the impossible position of defending the perpetuation of Saddam's evil savagery.

The claim is frequently made by opponents of the war that Iraq is worse off now than under Saddam. The authors of this book, and the ghosts of the millions slaughtered by the Butcher of Baghdad would disagree.

I have no doubt that Iraq will be better off without Saddam. That having been said, if America wants a "regime change" in every country with poor human rights records, Iraq would have been down the list behind North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and a huge number of African countries.

I would be happy to hear our govenment (not just Bush, but our congress as well - they OK'd the use of force) say something like:

"We went in because we really believed Saddam had WMD's, we were wrong. We made a mess, we need to stay until it's cleaned up. In the end Iraq, the middle east, and the rest of the world will be better for it."

No more trying to tie Iraq to 9/11, or making up other excuses.

No more partisan finger pointing or politicization (sp?).

Thank you troops, your efforts are hugely appreciated. I was just teaching my 3 year old about you guys and how you keep us safe from bad guys.

45 minute run today in the Mile High City, I couldn't think of a better way to spend a rest day.

Had to make up Monday's WOD, which as has already been said was and uber-buttkicker.

Dan - age 37, bwt - 245

3 rounds for time: Run 800M, 115# thrusters, 15 reps, 21 L pullups.

800M Run = 4:02
115# thrusters 6/3/3/3 = 4:35/8:37
Gravitron Pullups (95 assist) 9/7/5 = 2:27/11:04
GHD Situps (10) = 1:21/12:25
Transition downstairs to run - 12:54

800M Run = 5:29
95# thrusters 9/6 = 5:49/11:18
Gravitron Pullups (110 assist) 12/9 = 2:37/13:55
GHD Situps (10) = 1:19/15:14
Transition downstairs to run - 15:59

800M Run = 5:43
95# thrusters 6/5/4 = 6:09/11:52
Gravitron Pullups (110 assist) 9/7/5 = 3:27/15:19
GHD Situps (10) = 1:13/16:32

TOTAL TIME = 44:56

Pathetic, I know. The 80 degree/80% humidity didn't help, but basically, you guys in the twenties amaze me. Thanks, CF!

Hi jared b.

Just so we're clear, the Bush Administration has said, repeatedly, what you would like to hear. And they have never asserted that Iraq was behind 9/11. What they have said repeatedly, because it is undeniably true, is that Iraq was a terrorist sponsoring state. After 9/11, the Bush admin decided, and Congress concurred, that we would not accept the risk of a terrorist sponsoring state run by a madman acquiring WMD and then giving them to the terrorists to attack us. That was not expressed in secret code - it was in the State of the Union speech in Jan 2003 ("Trusting in the sanity and restraint of a madman is not a strategy and is not an option." GWB), and in the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Additionally, the benefits of better government in Iraq and the Middle East were also clearly articulated rationales *before* the war.

I'm not putting this on you, but many criticisms of the Bush admin's policy in Iraq can be refuted by reference to the major speeches of the President's and his senior advisors on the subject. The substance of these speeches is simply not fairly or adequately reported by MSM, so a lot of people don't know about them.

As for politicization, it is indeed regrettable, especially from those who were for the war before they were against it.

Regards,

Yes,Saddam was a very evil man. Lets take him out in the alley and shoot him in the face. Once that happen lets move on to the end game of getting order in Iraq and your people home. Lets finish it,now

Hi all,
Yesterday's fun
{Ride (Airdyne) 2 miles- 5:00; (Ring dipx15 & Pull-upx15)x2; Sit-upx30 (+10 kilos); and Rope jumpx300}.
duration 15:15.
Today's rest: Hand stand practice (against wall; 1:00 interval- :30x3 and :20x10).

Active rest tonight with a kali workout. Ran across another somewhat humorous/interesting article:

Killer Workout
Are gyms, not mosques, the main breeding ground for Islamic terrorists?

http://www.slate.com/id/2142772/

In response to #23, stating that Iraq was a terrorist sponsoring state IS in fact a subtle way of subconsciously relating 9/11 to Iraq. It is a pretty simple correlation, considering that the Bush administration has specifically stated that Iraq has harbored and assisted members of Al Qaeda.

If the U.S./Bush administration wants to go out and occupy every country in the world that has harbored/is harboring/has assisted terrorists in some way, I think it has it's work cut out for itself.

Hey All,
Jsut wanted to give a hearty hello and say its good to be back crossfitting again in the US, after a year away in Iraq. Thanks for an ever changing picture and awesome workout to keep in shape. I have a small request, does anyone have a full list of the "girls" I used them with my platoon for PT often and can't find the list anymore, any help would be awesome. Thanks a ton and to all my brother in arms out there in crossfit land, God Bless, Strike!

This article ties nicely to Eric Raymond's essay posted here a few weeks back: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260. If we defend ourselves, it is we who are the savages; suicide by the west is the only acceptable outcome for the liberal intelligentsia: "The world will be a much better place once America becomes France."

See: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/05/restarting-clock-of-history.html
for more supporting evidence.

Harry MacD,

"Trusting in the sanity and restraint of a madman is not a strategy and is not an option." GWB

What about Kim Jong Il? He may not gas his people, but he does starve them systematically. He has WMD's. Let's get him (oh wait, we don't want to do anything to upset China).

W went into Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his pappy.

No rest for the wicked...
Went to the archives and found a run/bench workout. Modified it for row:
Row 1000M
Bench 75%BW (115#)21 Reps
Row 750 M
Bnech 15 Reps
Row 500M
Bench 9 Reps

18:16

We'll see how the shoulder likes it!

D.

I liked the article, for me it was the main reason to go into Iraq: Saddam had to go. Yes, others need to go too. We can't get them all at once; I don't feel that's an excuse, it's a fact, largely due to our politics. To me, WMD's would have been icing on the cake. I really don't care if we found them or not. Saddam used them before, if he had them or could have got them again, does anyone really doubt whether or not he would use them.

No one points the finger at the UN because the UN and much of Europe was an ally of Saddam up to the bitter end. Their leaders were enriched and their countries benefitted from the relationship. I don't pass judgement on that, the US has its share of allies we'd rather not advertise. Just the way it is/was. The UN had ample chance to deal with Saddam (1991-2003) but chose not to, in spite of him breaking all their resolutions. How much longer should we have waited?

This article points out how pointless groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are. They scream that Saddam is a butcher, but as soon as we go in, they come right behind and scream that we're putting panties on prisoner's heads and that now we're the butchers. Well, did you want Saddam gone or not? I file them with the media and academics- Love to write reports and bitch, absolutely unwilling to do anything beyond that.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle screamed for Saddam's head until it became politically useful to scream for Bush's instead. From the Clinton's down, they swore he had WMD's and demanded we do something. When we did, they quickly jumped sides as soon as possible. To be fair, I don't have any doubt that the republicans would have done the same if a lib was in office. Politics as usual.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism long before 9/11. It's not a trick to link Iraq to 9/11, it's a term the USG uses to label states who support terrorism and treat them accordingly. Personally, I don't care either way. Saddam was a bad guy and he had to go.

As for the folks who squeal against the war, mainly from the left, since they offer nothing else, it only leads me to believe they would rather have Saddam back in power. This is a particularly disgusting lack of morality to me. Hate Bush and the US all you want, but why would you want to return someone like that to power, or never remove him in the first place? What would you have done instead, or what would you do now? I'd love to see the pro-Saddam, get-the-hell-out-now crowd fly over to Iraq and explain to the average Iraqi how we should have left Saddam alone and we should leave now. Much safer in the faculty lounge.

Bottom line for me is Saddam going away is good for the world. Mistakes have been made in Iraq, like every conflict in the world. We're there now, we need to finish the job and get the hell out.

Cue the cut and paste links from the lefties.

Patrick #28

Look in the FAQ. There's a section with all of the named workouts. Welcome home!

Darrell

On N. Korea: "Different threats require different strategies." GWB.

For those who think GWB is a cretinous illiterate (when they don't think he's the master maniupulator for Halliburton), this is an instance in which Chimpy is attentive to the "nuanced" differences between the problems posed by Iraq under Saddam and those of N. Korea under Kim Jong Il.

Among the salient nuances (oxymoron): Saddam did not then have nuclear weapons and 3 stage rockets, or 22,000 artillery tubes in range of Seoul. N. Korea has all of that, and it makes a difference. Nobody else was going to solve the problem of Saddam but us. OTOH, N. Korea has powerful neighbors whose vital national security interests demand their close attention to N. Korea, namely China, S. Korea and Japan. Therefore, a different approach is required.

N. Korea is for sure on GWB's sh*t list, though, if that makes you feel any better.

Hi, first time posting.
I've been following Crossfit for about 6 months now, and it has totally changed my life.
It has allowed me to re-embrace my passion for gymnastics and my new found passion of plyometric conditioning, plus so much more.

I love the support from all the members, and how enthusiastic everyone is about this remarkable system.

I've been trying to share it with everyone I know who is is a sports enthusiast, weight lifter, or sport hobbyist. The changes my friends have made from undertaking the system have also been... AWESOME. Especially in one case, where the subject was very reluctant to begin the new training, only to find himself breaking every personal lifting record after only 2 months of crossfit reconditioning.

Comment # 4 by Daniel - A friend of mine once told me about the book, I can't wait to read it!

Today I did a little cardio:

100 jump ropes
20 yard wind sprint, touch at 5, 10, 15, 20
30 seconds rest
80 jump ropes
20 yard wind sprint, touch at 5, 10, 15, 20
45 sec rest
60 jump ropes
20 yard wind sprint, touch at 5, 10, 15, 20
1 min rest
40 jump ropes
60 yard sprint

Looking forward to more!

- Dan T.

Just got back to the shack after a long hot day in the dust. WOW, good stuff while I was gone.

Thanks to Harry MacD for setting me straight. Sometime we lose sight of the big picture down at my level. I did not mean to slight the valiant efforts of those who struggle along with us on the strategic, global, and more macro levels. Yes, the work is important for the reasons that you stated. And thanks from me and my team to those who struggle with us toward the same goal, albiet on different levels and with different tools.

To those who try to invalidate our efforts in Iraq by saying that there are other nations out there who are as bad or worse...it reminds me of the kind of logic used by the guy who gets arrested for drunk driving and asks the cop why he's not out catching drug dealers.

I am NOWHERE NEAR smart enough to battle wits with the good folks of CrossFit. I'm just glad for the chance to learn so much and get fit at the same time.

I love the workouts AND the politics. You guys rock.

w00t,

today rx'd, though I feel I could have done more.

sgt feather,

I am by no means trying to invalidate your efforts. Nor am I anti-Iraq war. On memorial day, I was trying to teach an almost three year old how you guys are far away in the desert keeping us safe from bad guys.

My only point is this:
Reason #1 for invading Iraq: WMDs. When that failed, the White House tried selling that Saddam was tied to 9/11, and even to Usama himself. That didn't even come close to flying. It was only then that the phrase "Regime Change" started appearing everywhere (not to say that it wasn't said before... it was only then that it became a "talking point" for administration officials everytime a camera was in front of them).

Regardless, we all agree that the world is better off now. It would be even better still if there was a regime change in North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, and every other country where the government imposes human suffering on it's people. But is it worth dead American soldiers to see that?

BTW... if regime changes are the way to go, I say we should take down Iran next. Those guys are really starting to tick me off.

Hello Kieran-
Yes, the DB is running, in fact the ABAP instance is running. Yes, it is listening on 1527 as per listener.ora.

Additonally, we see error messages displayed in the configtool.sh screen shows that the connection always looks for the overwrite settings ignoring the secure store all together.
Password is correct and proved by a direct connection to Oracle, as per reply in this note 24.05.2006 - 01:54:22 CET.
Changing password to an incorrect one does not change the error message as referenced in screen shot.
Regardless of secure store values, the error message stays the same.

Admin,
Please delete #39, bad cut and paste
Thanks

jared b I know that "it was only about WMD" is how most people remember it, but I think if you read back through the presidents speech, you will see that there were many compelling reasons to go into Iraq. WMD may have been the one that you focused on to the point of excluding the others (I know that's what the media did) and after that it was all you heard until, as you correctly say, "regime change" became the new catch phrase. Which seemed to me to be in response to the fact that all anybody heard was WMD. The administration was simply shoreing up the other points that it had already made, that everyone except Harry MacD seems to have forgotten.

Go back to the address after 9/11, when the President said that he would never again stand by while forces gathered against us. This was what I heard loud and clear. It was still ringing in my ears as I listened (a few months later)to the story of yellow cake and games with weapons inspectors.

Maybe in analog days gone by we could wait for a Pearl Harbor before we counter attack. No more. If WMD (which is not just nukes its also chem & bio)capability is 5 years away, or even 10, and a rogue state is on that path...then the time to act is now.

Just remember how we all felt on 9/12.

We can never again stand by while forces gather against us.

jared b #38
I know that "it was only about WMD" is how most people remember it, but I think if you read back through the presidents speech, you will see that there were many compelling reasons to go into Iraq. WMD may have been the one that you focused on to the point of excluding the others (I know that's what the media did) and after that it was all anybody heard until, as you correctly say, "regime change" became the new catch phrase. Which seemed to me to be in response to the fact that all anybody heard was WMD. The administration was simply shoreing up the other points that it had already made, that everyone except Harry MacD seems to have forgotten.

Go back to the address after 9/11, when the President said that he would never again stand by while forces gathered against us. This was what I heard loud and clear. It was still ringing in my ears as I listened (a few months later)to the story of yellow cake and games with weapons inspectors.

Maybe in analog days gone by we could wait for a Pearl Harbor before we counter attack. No more. If WMD (which is not just nukes its also chem & bio)capability is 5 years away, or even 10, and a rogue state is on that path...then the time to act is now.

Just remember how we all felt on 9/12.

We can never again stand by while forces gather against us.

is the hook grip used on yesterdays wod. Feels awkward. Thanks.

10 Mile bike ride.
Pondered Iraq and did not come up with any new revelations.
Sgt Feather, keep your head down and stay safe.

bench press
225x5
245x3 265x3 285x3
295x1 305x1 315x1 325x1 340x1 new pr
bwt 235

3 games of z-ball

jared:

The assertion that "When that failed, the White House tried selling that Saddam was tied to 9/11" is simply false. They have never made that claim, and have repeatedly and expressly stated that do not make that claim. The most they have ever said is one time Cheney said it was unknown.

Now, your answer to that is to attribute to them things which they have not said, and which are the opposite of what they have in fact said, on the grounds that they were speaking some sort of magic incantation under which their meaning is the opposite of what they actually are saying.

You know, I can win just about any argument when I am at complete liberty to attribute to the other side whatever meanings are most expedient, even if they are the opposite of what the other side is actually saying.

But it's not honest to do so.

Your claim that "regime change" was an afterthought is accompanied by the immediate acknowledgment that it was relied upon beforehand. Ay Caramba!

The President chooses his words in his major speeches very, very carefully because that is his method of communicating our policies, strategies and intentions to our friends, and most importantly to our enemies. It would save a lot of confusion if his critics treated them with equal dignity. Since these speeches frequently articulate rationales that his critics berate him for *not* using, his critics could enjoy both greater accuracy in their commentary and less dyspepsia when contemplating our 43rd president if they would occasionally read them. It's a win-win!

Executed yesterday's HSC WoD: 65, 85, 95, 105, 115, 125-Fail, 115, 115, 115, 120 lbs.
-5 sets of bench press up through 185
-Addtiional push-ups and assisted HSPUs.

Harry MacD,

I think you are the one trying to re-write history a bit here. Take a look at the February 28, 2006 poll of service members in Iraq.

Nearly nine of every 10 - 85% - said the U.S. mission is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," while 77% said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

So if the Bush Administration has been clear and consistent on the reason for invading Iraq, the message isn't getting to the people actually fighting the war.

Saddam idolized Hitler and Stalin, and tried to emulate them in many ways, including the torture and slaughter of his enemies. The Baathist Party, formerly in charge in Iraq, and still in charge in Syria, is a vestige of Nazi rule in that area during WWII. Saddam was evil, and he needed to go. I'm glad we got rid of him and his deranged and evil sons.

But I'm more glad that we are hanging in there trying to establish a liberal democracy. We are in a war of ideas that will last much longer than any test of arms, perhaps for generations. Bush's vision is that establishing a beach head of democracy in Iraq will eventually lead to wholesale changes in all the terror states that surround Iraq-Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran. He believes, and I agree, that every human soul hungers for freedom, and that having a democratic Iraq on their borders will give the people of those countries a whiff of what they too could have under a free and democratic government. This prospect is why Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, et al are working so damned hard to undermine our efforts and the efforts of so many Iraqis. We must stay the course. If we do we shall prevail, but as my learned brother has pointed out, the anti war left is going all out to turn victory into defeat.

Harry MacD,

The president never chooses his words, his speechwriters do. He then looks most of them up in a dictionary.

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002)

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002)

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003)

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003)

"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002)

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002)

"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003)

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

The problem is that there have NEVER been any ties made between Saddam and Al-Qaeda! Notice how many times 9/11 is mentionned! It's to get the emotions of that day flowing in people's minds whren they think about Iraq.

If you're worried about terrorists getting their hands on WMDs, look at Russia and their broken down military as the biggest problem.

Run: Alki-Fairmont Canyon 46min

5 Rounds Each:
5 Mil. Press/5 Push-press/5 Press Squat @ 115lbs
50 Sit-ups on Fitness Ball

Saddam was a very bad guy. Yes, we all agree. Is the world a better place without him? Time will tell. Frankly, one can easily imagine worse situations in his absence. Not while the US military is there, though, and that's why they need to stay, and probably for a lot longer than most in the nation will have the stomach for.

Be very, very cautious about talk of regime change in Saudi Arabia. Iraqi-style elections there could be disastrous. How? Think of the recent Palestinian voting results. Just because you give people a choice doesn't mean they will make a good one. Now imagine oil at $150 / barrel and the worldwide depression it would cause. Things go rapidly downhill from there.

Hmmm, "fools rush in...." etc., but here I go.

Sgt Feather, lay low, bro. Great posts. harry, I agree with you on some points, but I think Jared has the right of it on GWB's speeches -- he clearly was trying to make the connection to AQ, 9/11, and Iraq. HOWEVER, I STILL come to the same conclusion you do.

Let me draw an analogy. Let us suppose the police get a warrant to search a drug dealer's house. They have informants who say dude is a drug dealer. They have conflicting evidence, including past conviction for drug dealer as a drug dealer, but it meets probable cause. they go into house and discover... NO DRUGS. Not a single gram of coke, X, special K, or even weed. HOWEVER, in the basement is a pile of bodies. Turns out dude is a serial killer. Would we continue to jump up and down and yell that "He's not a drug dealer!! What a farce!! This is horrible! We should never have gone in there!!" (His lawyer might, unsuccessfully I might add.)

But the botom line is, a bad/wrong/even perhaps illegal justification for the original act won't nullify the moral propriety of removing that guy from circulation. For the lawyers who might want to argue about this, please, there's not enough room here for the debate -- I see the alternative view -- I'm a defense attorney by trade. This is an analogy and by necessity limited. But I hope it makes the point.

I don't like the taste in my mouth from how this administration went in there, but as Sgt F so eloquently put it, arguing about why we went in the lake while the boat sinks isn't going to help. We need more buckets for those people who are bailing to save the others on the boat.

Semper fi.

Good article. I liked the one on suicidalism someone posted too. The quote I liked from the article was: "To deny a person the capacity to initiate evil is to deny them the capacity to initiate good, or anything in between."

You know what? I can't make excuses for Palestinians blowing up pizza parlors. Under ANY circumstances. It's evil. And Saddam was paying $10,000 to the families of suicide bombers, or at any rate was offering. Israel may have intercepted that money. I don't know.

And that's another important point: details are the crux of any legitimate debate. Quotes from Bush speeches are good. They are details--taken out of context--but details. Details such as were published in the Black Book.

Let's agree that intel, by it's nature, is always going to be imperfect to some degree. It is not physically possible to be everywhere at all times. The demand for perfection is gratuitous and self-serving. Given that, it is perfectly possible both that Bush had every reason to believe in a connection and was wrong, or that he was RIGHT, and the evidence of proof is either lacking, or has not been shared due to conditions of operational security.

Going beyond that, it seems to me, Jared, that you are missing the point--which some of those quotes allude to directly--that the concern was not just with PRESENT ability, but with future ability. How precisely would we go about documenting that Saddam was GOING to produce WMD once Europe and the UN got us off his ass, and THEN give them to Al Quaida? How do you prove that? It seems to me, that, well, his track record and sociopathic personality could conceivably enter the discussion.

It seems to me as well that when you imply the President is really, really stupid, you are disregarding details which, frankly, put you in the same intellectual category you are attributing to him, in my view. Ad hominem is always a sign of contempt for facts, in my experience. He does mispronounce words at times, and is very impatient with intellectuals. This makes him an easy target. But when I look at the pattern of decisions he has made, especially in foreign policy, I see a pattern more oriented around action than talk. There are some people with whom you cannot negotiate. This is a historical fact, and if you doubt that, read history. For most of recorded history, this would involve flipping to a random page.

to #4: a professor of mine recommended that book to me. took me a while to find it, but it was well worth the hunt.

Barry,
To be honest with all of you, I respect Bush as a human being, and more than anything, as a Christian myself, I admire his open faith. It's very refreshing in a world where the MSM can be down on us evangelicals.

That having been said, there's plenty in the Bible about "wise council". His "look before you leap" mentality towards foreign policy (or as you would say, "pattern more oriented around action than talk") flies in the face of that. EVERYONE was saying there were no WMD, there was no capacity to create them, etc... but he didn't want to listen.

As for future risks, as I said before, terrorists were more likely to get their hands on an old CCCP WMD than any that Saddam had the capacity to create. The situation in Iran bothers me as well... I believe those idiots actually will fire a nuke at Isreal as soon as they get a chance.

One last thing... If implying someone is very, very, stupid in fact makes you very, very, stupid, where does this put you?

"It seems to me as well that when you imply the President is really, really stupid, you are disregarding details which, frankly, put you in the same intellectual category you are attributing to him, in my view."

You can come down here and keep W and I company.

6 jumping "Heisman" Muscle Ups

Did Hang Squat Clean WOD:

BW: 197

65, 75, 85, 95, 105, 115, 125, 135 (successful on third try), 145 (successful on second try), 125.

The implication of that is that if I call foul on an ad hominem attack, I'm guilty of something?

I believe the commentary I offered was substantive, and the intention behind that comment was to point to what I see as the persistent nature of Bush-detractors to consider insult as a full and complete argument. You see this in these debates constantly, and if you'll notice I concluded my comment with it. I didn't lead with it, because in point of fact it was not an aspect in my argument, which was otherwise complete.

When you say "everyone" was saying there were no WMD, I don't think that is a factual statement. It ought to be true, for your argument, but I don't think that can be supported. No capacity to create them? Look at what I said. FUTURE capacity mattered too. We looked in his brain in 1991.

Iran is a problem, and to be fully consistent (we don't want nukes in the hands of madmen) we will need to deal one way or another with that issue.

Russia we can't invade, obviously, and to my understanding we are taking measures in that regard. I don't think you or I are qualified to comment with any confidence at all on the full extent of what is going on.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald W. Reagan

Jared, you have littered this page with multiple assertions that are simply and absolutely false.

We've already covered the one about Bush claiming that Iraq was behind 9/11.

Your next whopper is "The problem is that there have NEVER been any ties made between Saddam and Al-Qaeda." In fact, the linkage goes back more than a decade from 2003 and is copiously documented. There was no doubt about it pre-war in the National Intelligence Estimate, and there has been no doubt about it in the post-hoc reviews by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Committee review, and the Robb-Silberman review. And there was no doubt about it among most of the democrats that voted for the war but are now against it.

Our third whopper is "EVERYONE was saying there were no WMD, there was no capacity to create them, etc... but he didn't want to listen." Good grief. Every intelligence agency that looked into it was convinced he had WMD - British, French, German, Russian, Jordanian, Egyptian, etc. In fact, Saddam's own generals thought there were WMD. George Tenet pounded his fist on GWB's desk and said it was a "slam dunk" that he had WMD. And it was proven by the ISG that there were prohibited weapons programs.

Like I said, if you got your facts straight, your arguments would be better, and you would be a lot happier with the President. It's a win-win all the way around.

Ok, so there are no WMD. Now, the justification is that Iraq had the capability to manufacture WMD and Saddam is a bad guy. Fine, but then why wasn't Saddam a bad guy in 1982, 1987, and 1991-1992 (post-desert storm, of which I'm a veteran) when Saddam killed many Iraqis and sometimes with WMDs? Why did Rumsfeld go to Iraq in the mid-80s, after Saddam had committed massacres, to strengthen US-Iraqi ties? Basically, our national security policy is we bomb people who are murderous tyrants.

I think we're forgetting that VP Cheney said on Meet the Press that there is no evidence of ties between Saddam and 9/11. I think we forget that Bush said at the beginning of his presidency that the US won't engage in nation building. We are definitely forgetting Condoleeza Rice's essay in the Journal of Foreign policy back in early 2000, stating that the US needs to stop trying to engage in humanitarian missions and nation building. Maybe I'm just being too nuanced, but the b.s. coming from this administration is ridiculous.

Another point, this administration is so dedicated to democracy, yet it won't consider the Kurds right to self determination. Who are we to say that the Kurds can't establish their own country? Iraq didn't even exist as a country until 1921 or so. The Kurds, due to US and British No Fly Zone protection, were able to establish a respectable market based economy in northern Iraq during the latter 90s and into 2003. If we're so dedicated to establishing democracy in Southwest Asia, then why has our administration been so adamant that the Kurds can't establish their own democracy? Oh, I know why, because our ally, Turkey (a bastion of democracy for sure, except when it comes to Kurds who the Turks consider subhuman) don't like the idea of Kurds having their own country. Puh-leaze, Iraq was such a threat that 2/3 of its airspace was controlled for over a decade by the US and Britain with no casualties, ever, in that time frame.

So why exactly are we in Iraq? Beats me. But just so people understand, criticism of the way the war is prosecuted is not a criticism of my brother and sister Marines or our other fighting family. Once you read comments from former Generals like Anthony Zinni and other four-stars who had expertise in southwest Asia, there is no doubt that criticisms leveled against this administration are justified.

I did 6 rounds of :

Max 65# Push Press
Max Push Ups

13/9
12/7
11/8
11/7
10/6
10/8

Why exactly is the US in Iraq? It is an attempt to change the power structure of the entire middle east and to accelerate the development of the region, thereby making the world a better place for everybody. President Bush couldn't say that, though, at the time because few would have accepted it (and rightly so). He may have had bad intel on WMD but the real lie was in mentioning them at all. It was a magician's misdirection.

The more important question is "Will it succeed?" Not likely, not unless the US and British military are there for a long, long time.

You know, I think it is worth often rereading--and indeed memorizing--the Gettysburg Address, which used to happen often in schools not suffering from liberal suicidalism. Here is a link: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Internationally, we are as close to a policeman as there is. If we fail, that policing function is not going to be taken up by anyone like us. There is no one like us. The Europeans would come closest, but they lack the resolution and the military wherewithal. They outsourced military preparedness to us a long time ago.

There are many cruel and evil men in this world, and many of them rule nations. We cannot remove all of them at once, and our strategy can only be the show the world the value of our approach, and watch as it is gradually adopted. But if we don't believe in it--and seemingly many extreme liberal commentators seem like they don't--then why should anyone else? And when we try and sell ourselves, we get people screaming about our use of propadanda. Like that screaming is not propaganda.

We have to cozy up with some ugly characters in the world, and this is a necessity brought about by the way the world works. During the 80's, it seemed to me our goal was roughly equal power distribution between Iran (which had declared their enmity in 1979, remember, and which if I'm not mistaken is larger and richer than Iraq) and Iraq. The war between them kept both busy for a long time, and prevented larger regional ambitions from going anywhere, despite substantial military capabilities. It may sound cruel, but that war was a good thing for us. It probably put Iran back 10 years, and took a lot of steam out of the "revolution". To the extent we took sides, in that case, at that time, Saddam was more helpful for us to support than Iran. He is often compared to Stalin. Well, Uncle Joe was on our side in WW2, right?

You do what you have to do, to protect yourself. Our first and primary goal has to be the preservation of our way of life, on our soil. Longer term, I believe that we do the world a favor doing what we can to create conditions conducive to our way of life in other nations. I'm not talking "pax americana". I'm talking life, liberty, and the ownership of property.

We do not need to apologize for who we are and what we stand for. If we make mistakes, we need to correct them, then keep moving. We are not, and never will be perfect, but our continued well-being is essential to the well-being of every nation on earth.

If we don't give the Kurds autonomy at this moment, that doesn't mean it won't happen 15 years from now. Everything in life takes time. We have grown accustomed to 30 second thoughts, and I don't think we could build another Notre Dame today. You can't play chess against a skilled player quickly. You take your time, you pick your moves, and adjust as needed. It's a long, long run, and we need to understand that.

Harry MacD,

In post # 50, Jared listed a series of quotes in which Bush and members of his Administration drew connections between Iraq and 9/11. In post #48, I showed statistics that 85% of service people now in Iraq believe we are there "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks."

Yet you continue to call these assertions a "whopper" and say it is absolutely false. You are not responding to the evidence. Obviously you can't prove a negative, but you need to work a little harder to win this argument.

As for your next alleged "whopper," the post hoc reviews of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda reveal a few meetings between the two that went no where. Not "ties" exactly, only meetings. One of the so-called "connections" sometimes mentioned is the presence of Al Qaeda members in parts of Iraq that weren't even under Saddam's control. They were hiding out in the territories of our Kurdish friends.

Arguably, the United States had greater "ties" to both Iraq and Al Qaeda: we supported Saddam in his war against Iran and ignored the WMDs used against his own people because he was our friend. We also funded and supported Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in their war against the Soviets in Afghantistan.

As for the third "whopper" you ignore Mohammed Al Baradei, the IAEA, Hans Blix, the UN inspectors, and many individuals within the CIA, the DIA, DTRA ... all of whom were expressing doubts about Saddam's weapons program. Bush tried to get Al Baradei fired; he just wont the Nobel Peace Prize. I personally know a number of American weapons inspectors who had spent time investigating biological weapons facilities in Iraq before the invasion and who were adamantly against the need for a war. Yes, Iraq had had a biological weapons program (they got the anthrax from the United States, but that's another story) but the weapons inspections were showing that those programs had been halted; the inpsections were working. Obviously, most of the United Nations and most people in most countries around the world decided a war against Saddam was not the best course of action, no matter how bad he was ... and in retrospect, they were right.

Jared might have overstated his case, but not nearly as much as you. On balance, he is correct and you are telling the whoppers.

Flog,

In your view, did Saddam Hussein comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire?

Flog:

The first false assertion in question is that the White House had claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11. It has never made any such claim, and has specifically repudiated any such claim.

There is a distinction between explaining how the experience of 9/11 changes our policy toward Iraq and other terrorist-suporting, WMD-pursuing states - which is in the quotes - and claiming that Iraq was behind 9/11 specifically - which is not in the quotes.

Opinion polls are not capable of contradicting objective historical facts. Citing them to do so is ridiculous.

On the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, Jared said "no connection." You agree that is false, because you admit the connection, but dispute it's nature and extent. The nature and extent of the connection may be debatable. It's existence is not. If you want to have that debate, bring it.

On pre-war assessments of Iraqi WMD, it is an irrefutable historical fact that multiple intelligence agencies reported that Iraq had them, including the CIA, which, by the way, is OUR intelligence agency. Therefore, Jared's assertion that "everyone" was reporting no WMD is proven false. That a bunch of limp-d*cked emissaries of the UN had a different opinion about a judgment affecting our national security interests does no make the advice of the other intelligence agencies cease to exist, and does not resuscitate Jared's whopper, or your endorsement thereof.

Q.E.D.

There is a good collection of links and information on Iraqi WMD and Al Qaeda connections here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/848341/posts?q=1&&page=101

Today, Freeper jveritas has translated a captured Iraqi document showing that a container of chemical material was buried by the Iraqis in Sep 2002 - the context derived from the document indicates a clear effort to hide prohibited weapons.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1642403/posts

Regards,

Harry MacD,

One of the so-called limp-d*cked emissaries was a former captain in the Marine Corps who was a combat veteran from Desert Storm. I doubt he lacked the intestinal fortitude or patriotic wherewithall to be honest about Iraq's WMD programs. He was and has been an ardent critic of this administrations reasonings for the war in Iraq.

Also, also this ridiculous liberal vs conservative nonsense is overdone. There are plenty of people who identify with either major party that are at odds in this war. Take for instance General Anthony Zinni (and read his book, co-authored with life long Republican, Tom Clancy). General Zinni is a life long Republican, former commander of Central Command (which was the US military command over Southwest Asia) and a huge critic of the Iraq war. He, along with four other former commanders of Central Command who have come out against the Iraq war, are reason enough to quit the false paradigm that one operates either from a liberal or conservative world view.

And Barry, I'm not understanding your arguments. It seems that if we accept your stance, there really are no bad guys, just political entities that from time to time are useful for our national needs. I don't think anyone is questioning that we should make our needs paramount, but the question is how did a war in Iraq (where 2/3 of its airspace was controlled by the US and Britain for over a decade) add to the safety and well-being of our country? Sure, the world is a better place without Saddam, but does that mean we say the world is a better place without Mugabe, or Charles Taylor or the Sudanese government and therefore start sending US forces into areas where genocide is occurring? I think everyone agrees that genocide is a horrible thing, so should that obligate us as much as the alleged presence of WMDs to act?

Finally, I think it needs to be stated that a lot of us who criticize the Iraq war do so on the basis of the prosecution of the war. I saw former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Myers attempt to explain away criticism regarding the current troop levels in Iraq. In response to a question regarding Gen Shinseki's statement regarding adequate troop strength, Gen Myers stated that the figure of several hundred thousand troops given by Gen Shinseki was stated after Shinseki was backed into a corner during congressional hearings. Ok, but what about the Army War College having released its own study prior to March 2003 that stated that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to police Iraq after the initial fall of Baghdad? What about General Zinni having also stated that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in order to maintain security in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad? These assessments were made prior to the war so this isn't about hindsight. When I read books like Battle Ready and Cobra II that are co-authored by former generals, I want to know why this administration was so hell bent on ignoring the professional war fighters that are tasked with waging a war. This is the issue that has myself and many other veterans pissed off. The actions taken by the administration, and Rumsfeld in particular, appear so contrary to what the military experts (i.e., generals) called for that it boggles the mind.

It's worth asking the question: OK, we built up our forces in the Persian Gulf, then decided to do as the UN said, and back down. As soon as our troop strength was reduced, Saddam started playing the same games. The whole world--but especially the Arab world--took note that when it really counts, when someone pushes us as far as we can go, we back down, so the bombers and armies and tanks, and precision guided munitions don't mean anything. That's the conclusion I would draw. You put me in Saddam's chair and almost anyone but George Bush as US President, and I win that one 100 times out of 100.

If our enemies believe that we are cowards, does that make violence more, or less likely? Arguably, if we had stayed in Somalia and rolled more heads, 9/11 would not have happened. You have to work backwards, and understand that peace is often not the result of peace, but the threat and actual carrying out of war.

If we didn't staff things properly, then shame on them. I'm not fawning over Bush like a 16 year old girl in love for the first time. If we screw up, it needs to be pointed out, and corrected, but WE NEED TO HONOR OUR COMMITMENTS.

With respect to my argument, all I'm saying is that what works one day and one decade may not work the next. Saddamn was making us and the West look like fools. We had a written cease-fire agreement he was ignoring completely. You don't have to enforce every law on the books. I've talked my way out of tickets, but sometimes cops need to arrest people. It's called judgement, and judgement involves many factors. In this case, it included his treaty violations, potential to develop weapons which if used would change our way of life radically, his human rights record, our need to show we actually had teeth, the potential to create a viable democracy in the Middle East, and our perception of his connections with Al Queda.

The beauty of all this discussion is that it can happen - in saddams iraq it could not....

Group Moffett

10 rounds for time of:

Run 100 meters, due 10 pushups
Run 100 meters, due 20 Squats

Total time 28:34:01
Total meters ran: 2000
Total pushups: 100
Total squats: 200

Everyone was hurtin after this workout.

Gen Shinseki was not a combatant commander...he was CSA...and not a very good one at that...Ranger Berets, less armor etc....I could give two shits what he thinks/thought...

God bless the troops but let's not pretend that they're keeping us safe from bad guys. They're making bad guys... yes, all the Islamic fanatics will capture the hearts and minds of the little boys whose mommies and daddies were bombed. We will see them again in 20 years when they're blowing up theme parks and buses.

I don't blame the troops, who are doing what they were ordered to do. I'm glad they don't question their order. I fault the government for giving the orders in the first place, and sending our men to die on a fools' errand. You'd have better luck asking the troops to enforce good manners in Alabama.

CCTJOEY,

Ok, but what about General Zinni and the other combat commanders that not only suggested more troops before Shinseki, but echoed that belief afterwards? Right now, Marines and soldiers are having to continually return to towns where they previously defeated insurgents. It's getting to be like the ridiculous hill battles in Vietnam that went back and forth. I'm still not understanding how anyone can think that the current troop levels are adequate to bring stability to Iraq.

It is unquestionable that one division could have probably taken Baghdad. The US superiority is evident when it comes to conventional conflict. What is questionable, however, is whether the current troop levels are adequate for the task at hand. But wait a minute, this begs the question of what is the task at hand. Is it to root out the insurgency? Support the formation of a fledgling democracy? Can we honestly come to the conclusion that we have enough troops to fight insurgents and stabilize Iraq? Based on what analysis? I don't want to cut and run but Jesus, we sure as hell need to get smarter about how to end this conflict. We will win every direct engagement with insurgents, no doubt. But it is obvious we are not winning the "war" in Iraq. We are at best maintaining a status quo. Think I'm wrong, then explain why our troops are going back to certain towns two and three times to battle insurgents. This is lunacy. We will not stabilize Iraq with our current troop levels. This is a harsh but very real truth that was understood by combat commanders before and after the fall of Baghdad.