Canadian Sub Sends out Distress Signal

[BadCompany]

Fire on board, off the coast of Ireland.

British Navy responded, and everyone seems to be safe and sound.

This is one of those new subs, that the Liberal government in its infinite wisdom decided to buy off the British Government, at a reduced rate, first cancelling the Mulroney-ordered subs we all know of. Since being handed over, the "budget" subs have been plagued with problems and calamaties, including an inability to actually dive for some of them.

This sub, the HMCS Chicoutimi, was one of the last to be delivered to Canada, just last Saturday. In fact, it was on its "maiden Canadian" voyage, coming home from England to Canada, when it caught fire. Four days in Canadian hands, and already sending out a distress signal.

That deal just looks better and better, don't it? How long before Canadian Military personelle start dying, not because of combat, but because their "budget" equipment fails them?? Good on ya, Mr. Chretien. Personally, if one Canadian soldier/sailor dies because of a Sea King malfunction, or a sub accident, their family should sue the Canadian government for criminal negligence.

Don't get me started.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3717906.stm

[roke]

Did the Government have people inspect the subs before they bought them? Surely a competent person would inspect used merchandise that they purchase to make sure it's in working order but with the way these subs are acting up, I believe that the government surely did not inspect them which is pure idiocy.

[duster]

I could be wrong but my understanding is that it is a lease-to-own situation. The U.K. was supposed to make them seaworthy and ready to make the trip to Halifax. So far, all four of them have had issues during their Atlantic transit. Is it negligence or perhaps the Upholder type was initially retired and mothballed for reasons other than bugdetary?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Canadian submarines on fire in North Sea!
Canadian HumVees flooded in Iraq desert!
Good thing we're not in engaged in combat.
Next issue "Liberal procured submarine attacked by amorous whale."
News at 11:00..............

[PTH]

BadCompany said:

How long before Canadian Military personelle start dying, not because of combat, but because their "budget" equipment fails them?? Good on ya, Mr. Chretien. Personally, if one Canadian soldier/sailor dies because of a Sea King malfunction, or a sub accident, their family should sue the Canadian government for criminal negligence.

The problem is that we have a small budget but big ambitions. Given the role and size of our armed forces, we should concentrate on the basics - subs are an expensive luxury we just don't need.

[Cranky]

The most complicated piece of equipment in our navy and we buy the one made from Spam cans.

Gee, I wonder WHY those Brits sold them? Could it be that they are PIECE OF CRAP less then the best design?

[Montrealer]

PTH said:

The problem is that we have a small budget but big ambitions. Given the role and size of our armed forces, we should concentrate on the basics - subs are an expensive luxury we just don't need.

I'd beg to differ - any country with as much territorial water as Canada has needs submarines to be able to effectively patrol those waters. Land based aircraft are fine for everyday patrolling, but are only one component of a competent multi-element approach to ensuring the integrity of Canadian waters.

This might sound stupid - why would anyone want to place claims on Canadian waters - but we have had many more disputes in regards to our territorial waters in the past fifty years than land disputes (which we only have with the U.S. - and most of those were settled [albeit badly] 75-150 years ago).

For example, Denmark is making noise now about claiming the north pole as well as it's surrounding area, if they can somehow prove that Greenland's shelf extends that far north. They wish to use the claim as a basis of starting oil exploitation in the area. At the moment much of these waters (and ice) in the Arctic Ocean are considered Canadian claims.

Denmark also enjoys planting Danish flags on Canadian islands near Greenland, just to see how we react.

I would say that if you need to keep a small budget, I would emphasize air and sea resources and de-emphasize land forces (we are much less likely to use tanks for self-defense than we are likely to use submarines, for example - but that doesn't take peacekeeping into account).

As for the option of using surface vessels exclusively instead of submarines - submarines are far better equipped to handle North Atlantic storm activity, seeing as how they are able to submerge during those storms; they are also capable of far northern operations that surface vessels would require icebreakers to accomplish.

Other northerly nations have decent submarine fleets. Norway has six submarines, Sweden nine and Denmark four currently, and they have a new class they are jointly designing/building (Viking class) that will be another fine diesel submarine.

Canada's decision to purchase these HMS Upholder class submarines wasn't a horrible one, really - they are also excellent diesel submarines that the Royal Navy decided were extraneous due to the end of the Cold War (even though they were very new, built in the 1990s) - Britain has decided to go with an exclusively nuclear submarine fleet. These Upholder class submarines had a good reputation as extremely quiet subs that would fit in with Canada's (well, the Liberal Party's) decision to continue with a non-nuclear submarine fleet.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the Royal Navy's attitude is to spend as little money as possible to get these submarines seaworthy before handing them over to Canada on an eight-year lease. I seriously doubt we would have seen these issues had these boats been commissioned to be used by the Royal Navy itself - and it's a stupid, stupid move because it is looking more and more likely that

-Canada will not extend the lease*
-Canada will take action to recoup at least part of the money spent due to the continuing problems

Now, it looks like Canada will be in a very difficult position soon - either start developing a design for a diesel powered submarine; lease a current design (i.e. the Viking design); extend the lease (for what have been snakebitten submarines); or purchase/design nuclear submarines (which opens up a can of worms in and of itself).

These are the only choices - the Canadian navy cannot function properly without submarines, like it or not.

*EDIT: Apparently the subs are lease-to-buy - in other words we will assume full ownership at the end of the eight years, unless of course we back out of the lease earlier.

[franko]

Montrealer said:

For example, Denmark is making noise now about claiming the north pole as well as it's surrounding area, if they can somehow prove that Greenland's shelf extends that far north. They wish to use the claim as a basis of starting oil exploitation in the area. At the moment much of these waters (and ice) in the Arctic Ocean are considered Canadian claims.

Joining with the US' continuing claims of the North Pole due to Alaska's proximity. Same reason.

There is also an ongoing battle discussion about the NorthWest Passage being international waters (Canada disagrees), thereby allowing oil freighters to traverse (who'd have thought that name would come into a non-hockey discussion?) through from Alaska to Florida.

[BadCompany]

Lt. Chris Saunders.

Rest in peace.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HabsAddict said:

The most complicated piece of equipment in our navy and we buy the one made from Spam cans.

Gee, I wonder WHY those Brits sold them? Could it be that they are PIECE OF CRAP less then the best design?

Is it sub standard?

[franko]

Totally embarrassing. Another Liberal military fiasco; this one resulted in the needless death of one of our underpaid military men. As BC noted Lt. Chris Saunders, the answer to his own question: one day.

The jokes about Canada's sad military state come sadly true.

[BadCompany]

Tragic. Absolutely tragic. We'll have to see what caused the fire, and whether or not it was because the subs themselves are faulty, but given their track record, its hard not to assume the worst. Especially since the Canadian government was so quick to insist it was "just a minor fire, with only minor injuries."

Well, now we hear its not just a major fire, but two separate fires, and one sailor is dead, and the rest are still stranded. Did they know, and tried to minimize the damage for political reasons? You hate to ask questions like that, but again, given our government's track record with regards to the military, one can't help but assume the worst.

I do think Canada needs a strong Navy, and I do think submarines should be a part of that. You can add the Spanish and Portugese plundering our fish stocks to the list of reasons why. But PTH is right, when he states that the government insists on a small budget, and yet still acts like a major player. Two years ago a Senate committee recommended that ALL Canadian military units currently overseas be pulled back to Canada immediately and $4 billion be injected into National Defense. Of course, that didn't happen. Now, the military is underfunded, over-stretched, and committed to operations that it really shouldn't be committed to. The fact that we don't hear about more of these tragedies is a testament to the will, character and strength of the individual soldiers who make up our army. We can't keep sending troops into desert warfare with forest camoflauge, because we can't afford to buy two sets of uniforms (as they did in Afghanistan).

Canada needs to decide what it wants from its military, and fund it accordingly. I have nothing against a small army, IF that's what Canada, as a nation, decides it needs. But you can't have a small army, and continue to act like a major world power. It doesn't work that way, and its only going to get worse in the future.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; these deaths (if, in fact, its because we bought cheap submarines), are the result of criminal negligence. What does it say when the Prime Minister of Canada forces his military personelle to fly in aging Sea King helicopters, because it bought him some political points, but then refuses himself to fly in them, because they are too dangerous (true story, Chretien, or his handlers, once refused to let him board a Sea King to fly out to a Canadian Navy ship, and they had to ask for American help/helicopters to get him there). Do you think he will be taking any rides in these "new" submarines any time soon? Do you think, President Bush for example, would ever get into a Sea King or Canadian submarine? What does that say?

There is blood on the hands of the Liberal government and somebody should be made to pay for that.

[Tankdriver]

As a member of the Canadian Forces (armoured) I agree with what is being said. The sad truth is that we are understaffed, under equipped to do what the government wants us to do. We are described as a peacekeaper nation, which we are, but if a country like Japan, China, U.S., Germany, or France attacked us, we would get our asses handed to us, not because of our skill but just numbers and equipment wise. Our navy is weak at best with a few boats and subs, we have no tanks....cougars (city vehicule 30 years old) and leopards (a main battle tank) not more than a 100 in Canada are shipped out west, with coyotes as reconnaissance (spy) vehicules in the east which are already 15 years old.

The vehicules we do have are minimally equiped, i.e. what we sell to other countries can upgrade the surveillance equipment, etc. For two years we have been waiting for Milcots -(Ford Silverado's) to enter the system to replace a beat up jeep that has been used for 25 years. A regular car doesn't even last 15 with normal driving.

Put this into perspective: I went to a U.S. base in Texas, they had over 300 tanks 1000 hummers and more members in the army than all of Canada's army put together living there(over 100,000 people) If we weren't buddies with the States, we would get our ass handed to us. Unfortunately we are only good for peacekeeping missions because of our size and equipment. Blame Government cutbacks over the lst 20 years, and the stupidity to buying 2 hand equipment from other countires that didn't work that well in the first place.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Since the problem seems to be that the Canadian Military is underfunded, what we need is for the Minister of Defense to end all communications with Canada's Military leaders and shut down all operations until a lasting decision is reached. This will remove our soldiers, sailors and fliers from danger and effectively lock them out. They can seek employment in the US or European militaries until a lasting solution is reached.

Seriously though, my sincere condolences go out to the families of the innocent hard working footsoldiers who are forced to struggle to do a necessary and unappreciated job without the tools or support.

[Cranky]

tankdriver said:

As a member of the Canadian Forces (armoured) I agree with what is being said. The sad truth is that we are understaffed, under equipped to do what the government wants us to do. We are described as a peacekeaper nation, which we are, but if a country like Japan, China, U.S., Germany, or France attacked us, we would get our asses handed to us, not because of our skill but just numbers and equipment wise. Our navy is weak at best with a few boats and subs, we have no tanks....cougars (city vehicule 30 years old) and leopards (a main battle tank) not more than a 100 in Canada are shipped out west, with coyotes as reconnaissance (spy) vehicules in the east which are already 15 years old.

The vehicules we do have are minimally equiped, i.e. what we sell to other countries can upgrade the surveillance equipment, etc. For two years we have been waiting for Milcots -(Ford Silverado's) to enter the system to replace a beat up jeep that has been used for 25 years. A regular car doesn't even last 15 with normal driving.

Put this into perspective: I went to a U.S. base in Texas, they had over 300 tanks 1000 hummers and more members in the army than all of Canada's army put together living there(over 100,000 people) If we weren't buddies with the States, we would get our ass handed to us. Unfortunately we are only good for peacekeeping missions because of our size and equipment. Blame Government cutbacks over the lst 20 years, and the stupidity to buying 2 hand equipment from other countires that didn't work that well in the first place.

We are selling our tanks, our "best"planes are almost two generations old and we are trying to sell them, there are NO procurement plans for a bew plane..........and the list goes on.

Bluntly put, we are a JOKE of a military in terms of equipment.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HabsAddict said:

We are selling our tanks, our "best"planes are almost two generations old and we are trying to sell them, there are NO procurement plans for a bew plane..........and the list goes on.

Bluntly put, we are a JOKE of a military in terms of equipment.

John Kerry has the nerve to say that Canada is not joining the US in Iraq. If Canada did join in, the US soldiers would be spending more time rescueing the broken down Canadian equipment than fighting the Iraqis. The suicide bombers would spend more on the bombs than on the equipment they destroy.
Canada does have the equipment to send a sternly worded UN sanction to Saddam threatening them that if he doesn't comply he can expect another UN resolution.
Sorry, I don't mean to demean the Canadian forces who struggle and do an admirable job with the resources available to them, but it is like a Nordiques team trying to compete with an Avalanche team on a rink that isn't level.

[Skilly]

During WWII German U-boats torpedoed the coast of Newfoundland, and they laid bombs along the ocean floor that are still being found. So yes we do need submarines in the Candian navy.

I agree with our country's stance on Iraq, (in hindsight) but I still would have gone over and helped the Americans. And I feel we should have a much stronger role in the "War on Terror". I liken it to a friend or a relative that shoots his mouth off in a bar. Do you let him get the crap kicked out of him? I know I usually end up helping him and then afterwards giving him a piece of my mind.

Mark my words. One of these days (within 10 years?) Canada will be the target for a terroristic event. It might not be on our soil, it may be on our soil. But when it happens we will have no one to turn to, because the States will be laughing saying "I told you so", and our own military will be in shambles.

But like it or not, as much as we try to distant ourselves from the Americans stance on Iraq, terror, and war, we are still regarded international as American allies. That in itself puts a target on our backs. So if we aren't going to help "Big Brother", then we need to build up our military before we get attacked. Personally, I think we should be looking at the Americans giving them money to take our troops and train them, and have one strong Can-Am military. But I know that won't happen any time soon, and we will have to start to pump more money and bodies into the military before the Americans would even entertain the idea.

The Canadian navy is 20% Newfoundlanders. So I have a vested interest in how it is regarded. This great country of ours is probably the only country to never lose a war it was in, so it sickens me to see what it has become, and how Canadians can be so too-faced about it.

Most everyone agrees the army/navy/marines/coast guard all need more money, newer equipment/and more personnel. But try to take some of the billions in surplus (that the Liberals say they have) and pump it into the military and see how fast all the bleeding hearts out there cry about the helath care needing more money, or education. We have been pumping money at those for years. They don't seem to be getting better. But if you placed a greater emphasis on the military for 3 years, then slack off for a couple of years then the military would be stronger within 10 years. Would Quebec come on board or view this as a "distinct difference" between the provinces? Of course they would opt out and want the money. This country needs to get unified. The west has their agenda, the east has their agenda, Quebec has everyone scared, and Ontario wants to be king. Until we become unified, god help our youngsters in the armed forces, navy, peace keeping units.

One of the few Harper promises I agreed with was strengthening our military. But like always, Canadians will finally see the light ..... when it is too late.

[BadCompany]

Skilly said:

But like always, Canadians will finally see the light ..... when it is too late.

I agree completely. Lets not forget that Chretien and buddies didn't cancel the helicopter and submarine deals on a whim - they did it because public opinion polls (the only way the Liberals know to govern, apparently) demanded that they do so. Never mind that it was the wrong thing to do, they did it anyways. Because thats what Canadians wanted.

As much as I harp on the Liberal government for what I perceive to be their failures, the truth is they gave Canadians exactly what they wanted. Just like funding for Olympic athletes, everyone says it should be done, just as long its somebody else's money. The Canadian public clamoured for years and years that money should be taken away from the military, so that is what the government did.

Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Nobody wants a war. Not George Bush, not John Kerry, not the soldiers in the front lines.

Nobody likes to have to stand up to the schoolyard bully. Sometimes you have to do something unpleasant for a long term goal.

Skilly doesn't want to shoot up Portugese fishing trawlers killing all aboard, but if the cod stocks are being depleted and they won't stop trawling all the fish, you need to do something to protect the livelihood of our fisherman and the stocks for their children.

Muslim fundalentalism is the greatest threat to our peace today. Nobody wants to go kill women and children, but if there is no alternative, you have to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself. When your threat is reduced to a level of frustration that causes them to kill themselves with bombs strapped to their stomachs, kill schoolchildren in their schools, and behead truckdrivers and teachers reasoning and sanctions are not viable options.

There are other threats in Iran, North Korea and Chechnya that have to be addressed in due time, but today the immediate threat to our continued existance is being addressed. It's not pleasant for anybody, but it's a job that must be done.

Protecting the coast of Newfoundland may not seem a high priority today, but you don't start building submarines the day you need them. Canada needs an Air Force and Navy that are trained and properly equipped to do the job as a deterrant before they are needed.

Sending boys underwater in tin cans is not the way to address Canada's budget problems.

[Montrealer]

BadCompany said:

Sometimes, you need to be careful what you wish for.

Too true.

People, individually, are usually pretty smart.

People, as a mob, can be very stupid.

The sad part is when you see the majority of people in surveys supporting two completely opposite points of view simply due to the wording of the question...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HabsAddict said:

We are selling our tanks, our "best"planes are almost two generations old and we are trying to sell them, there are NO procurement plans for a bew plane..........and the list goes on.

Bluntly put, we are a JOKE of a military in terms of equipment.

Compared to the Canadian government, Ghandi was a hawk! At least he could flick his enemies with his towel.

[seventeen]

BadCompany said:

I agree completely. Lets not forget that Chretien and buddies didn't cancel the helicopter and submarine deals on a whim - they did it because public opinion polls (the only way the Liberals know to govern, apparently) demanded that they do so. Never mind that it was the wrong thing to do, they did it anyways. Because thats what Canadians wanted.

I've detested JC for some time now, because in leadership terms he was great only for himself and close friends. Just look at the sleazes he put in charge of crown corporations. He rarely did what was right. Great leaders drag their followers down the right path, like it or not. Chretienesque leaders simply survive, to the detriment of their followers. He should be ashamed to look back on his record and his lack of achievements. In my mind, the only proper thing he did was not leading us into Iraq. An impotent shell of a man, who counts on his wife for protection from burglers. What a loser. And so lucky to not have any alternative that enough Canadians could realistically vote for during his tenure.

[duster]

I agree with your assessment of JC and his minions. It is my observation that this kind of attitude has also permeated the higher echelons of the Public Service over the years where ADMs and DMs run departments as personal fiefs catering to their own advancement, in certain cases, at the expense of operational requirements. Actor Nigel Hawthorne in a notorious TV show once expressed it as "The Public Service has nothing to do with the public". It makes me think of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in some ways.

Perhaps a tragedy of this sort is what was needed for our current government to finally address the paucity of our military. With the media on the warpath and the public demanding answers, I'm pretty sure that the government will now spare no expense to make sure the Upholders are fully serviceable.

[Toronthab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Nobody wants a war. Not George Bush, not John Kerry, not the soldiers in the front lines.

Nobody likes to have to stand up to the schoolyard bully. Sometimes you have to do something unpleasant for a long term goal.

Skilly doesn't want to shoot up Portugese fishing trawlers killing all aboard, but if the cod stocks are being depleted and they won't stop trawling all the fish, you need to do something to protect the livelihood of our fisherman and the stocks for their children.

Muslim fundalentalism is the greatest threat to our peace today. Nobody wants to go kill women and children, but if there is no alternative, you have to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself. When your threat is reduced to a level of frustration that causes them to kill themselves with bombs strapped to their stomachs, kill schoolchildren in their schools, and behead truckdrivers and teachers reasoning and sanctions are not viable options.

There are other threats in Iran, North Korea and Chechnya that have to be addressed in due time, but today the immediate threat to our continued existance is being addressed. It's not pleasant for anybody, but it's a job that must be done.

Protecting the coast of Newfoundland may not seem a high priority today, but you don't start building submarines the day you need them. Canada needs an Air Force and Navy that are trained and properly equipped to do the job as a deterrant before they are needed.

Sending boys underwater in tin cans is not the way to address Canada's budget problems.

I'm a little surprised to see you supporting this Iraq thing as a part of the so-called "war on terrorism". I see no evidence of this. I believe it is a massive fraud of stunning proportions and I continue to be amazed that so many keep buying it. I know that the advertisers..oops news media in the US sell a lot of product, but I stll can't quite believe my eyes and ears. Bush and his masters knew there were no WMD's and took you all for a hundreds of billions of dollar ride that we are all paying for at the pumps.

The US is very much an unreflective, fear-driven culture but this one amazes me. I suppose this Dubbya may very well be the archtypical citizen. Scary.

[PTH]

Toronthab said:

Bush and his masters knew there were no WMD's and took you all for a hundreds of billions of dollar ride that we are all paying for at the pumps.

Disagree on a detail here. Dubya probably really thought that the WMD were there, but all in all simply didn't actually care about them; they seemed a handy excuse to go in, and I think the Yanks were genuinely surprised not to find them. However, Bush only cared for the PR exercise.

The US is very much an unreflective, fear-driven culture but this one amazes me. I suppose this Dubbya may very well be the archtypical citizen. Scary.

Very much so. Americans are convinced they're right yet are woefully uninformed. I can't understand any kind of an informed voter being pro-Bush, yet he's up there at 50% of intended votes...

[Montrealer]

The worst of it is, there is another reason not to vote for Bush due to the Iraq question, and it doesn't even have to do with the questionable invasion in and of itself.

The ridiculous destruction of the entire government bureaucracy, the complete dismantling of the Iraqi army - both served the purpose of causing the greatest amount of chaos imaginable. You cannot simply remove both the government and the military of a state, you must usurp them and turn them to your advantage - this way you gain the confidence of the people of the state and you minimize disorder.

Look at Germany, 1945-1949; or Japan, 1945-1952: In both cases, the United States did a supreme job using the government infrastructures and remnants of the armies/police to maintain order while they rebuilt the top levels of both elements - in the end they created two democracies (one where democracy had been a weak post-WWI experiment; the other where democracy had never been tried).

In Iraq, the United States could have used the same game plan they had used sixty years prior - too bad this administration was too arrogant to even bother trying.

If I were an American, I would have voted Bush out of office simply for unilaterally invading Iraq without exhausting his other options first - but I would be actively campaigning against him for the ridiculous lack of any logical plan of action after the war was "over".

[BadCompany]

Why wouldn't you vote for Bush? I mean, Iran backs him...

www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=316095

Iran hopes for Bush re-election

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 07:51 JST

TEHRAN — The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of U.S. President George Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I think the most important single issue facing world democracies today is unchecked militant Islam. It wsn't just Ben laden or Saddam. A lot of bad guys invaded Kuwait, raped the citizens, stole anything of value and when allowed to surrender unharmed, set the oil wells on fire. There are a lot of bad guys or as "W" calls them "Evildooers". There are still a lot of bad guys running loose. They hate us. They don't build or improve, they destroy. We want to coexist but they don't. Spain, Chechnya, Russia, 9/11 and "The Satanic Verses" are a few examples.
Dubya is proactive, not reactive. We tried the UN, sanctions and petitions. We waited long enough. We want peace and if we can't get our enemies to coexist then we can't allow them to exist. The next phase will be to withdraw our troops and simply level the place. We can't continue to lose our soldiers in a police action.
Canada would feel differently if planes flew into the CN tower, PVM and the parlaiment buildings.

[Toronthab]

PTH said:

Disagree on a detail here. Dubya probably really thought that the WMD were there, but all in all simply didn't actually care about them; they seemed a handy excuse to go in, and I think the Yanks were genuinely surprised not to find them. However, Bush only cared for the PR exercise.




Very much so. Americans are convinced they're right yet are woefully uninformed. I can't understand any kind of an informed voter being pro-Bush, yet he's up there at 50% of intended votes...

I believed that too until I saw a recent documentary on "The Passionate Eye" Two CIA people both attested to the fact that Dubbya was informed prior to the infamous "State of the Union" address that there was mothing to his claims of supposed Iraqi arrangements to acquire WMD components, and his own man, sent to Iraq by Bush reported back that there was nothing going on. He knew this. He lied. Only a very dangerous type of fundamentalist would even consider perpetrating such a thing on his own people and bring two nations to war. The hallmark of the fundamentalist, whether Islamic, Christian or dogmatic agnostic materialist, is that they do not respect reason or repond to it.

[PTH]

Toronthab said:

I believed that too until I saw a recent documentary on "The Passionate Eye" Two CIA people both attested to the fact that Dubbya was informed prior to the infamous "State of the Union" address that there was mothing to his claims of supposed Iraqi arrangements to acquire WMD components, and his own man, sent to Iraq by Bush reported back that there was nothing going on. He knew this. He lied. Only a very dangerous type of fundamentalist would even consider perpetrating such a thing on his own people and bring two nations to war. The hallmark of the fundamentalist, whether Islamic, Christian or dogmatic agnostic materialist, is that they do not respect reason or repond to it.

Well, we're splitting hairs here, because I agree with everything you wrote, it's just what Bush is thinking that differs; to you he knowingly lied, to me he thought it was the truth, despite all evidence to the contrary.

However, it's all moot to me - his actions were very much incoherent all along, so I'd vote for a large rock rather than him. The rock would stop screwing up, which would be an immediate improvement...