Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[gautama]

Oh, W obviously did. We will be paying for that stupid decision for a long time.

JimH(alfwit),

Hey idiot, this crappola of blame Dubya has been exposed over, and over, and over....again. and again, and again ....ad infinitum.

ALL the Intelligence Agencies of the Major Countries of the World (except China) stated, on record......and on front pages of the newspapers of the World that they agreed with Clinton's...YES, CLINTON Administration's CIA that the Baghdad Psycho had WMDS.

Not only that the Overwhelming Majority of the the DEM Congressional Leadership, including the Crunt Pelosi, the Dem's Icon of Morality Teddy the Chappaquidick Murderer, Hanoi Fucking Kerry, KKK Byrd, etc, etc. etc., all YOWLED &HOWLED for the elimination of the Baghdad Monster..... Bush, using his own judgment CORRECTLY ousted the Baghdad Horror......using the IDENTICAL VERBIAGE of the aforementioned DEMS to do it !!!

History will correctly judge that the elimination of the Baghdad Psycho as the necessary thing to do by eliminating TWO MONSTERS in the Mid East: Saddam was CORRECTLY ousted by Bush.....and HOPEFULLY Ahhmadinejad will be thrown out on his arse , also. BOTH of these POS woulda wound up with NUKES. GEDDIT, you fucking idiot ????

 

[skookerasbil]

Sure it wasnt code named "SCREWBALL"??

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody gives a rats ass about George Bush anymore except the k00ks...........

 

[asterism]

Curve ball? Please! Bush was trying to figure out a way, any way, to invade Iraq and get Saddam in 1999. He was talking about then. He didn't need a curve ball to do it. All he needed was enough people to believe the half truths and lies, that he himself perpetuated, in order to make it happen. Still claiming it was the "Right" thing to do is, well, typical on his part. He's never admitted to making any of the monumental mistakes he made over 8 long years and he never will.

Not true.

Bush's Last Press Conference Monday (VIDEO)

 

[drsmith1072]

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.



Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You misinterpret your own definition. bipartisan means that there is cooporation and agreement between the parties as a whole. a minority of democrats does not represent the party as a whole. So therefore there was not "cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" or did you miss that??

What a bunch of bullshit, smitty. Please show where you found your definition of the word....please. Here's what I found and it doesn't sound anything like what your trying to pass off as a definition.
What your saying is that if a party is one vote short of a majority....it isn't bipartisan.
bi·par·ti·san
   /baɪˈpɑrtəzən/ Show Spelled[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy.
Bipartisan | Define Bipartisan at Dictionary.com


If you wanted to state your opinion....that would be one thing, but to chastize another poster because it doesn't represent what YOU think it should? oh brother....

Hey moron, learn to READ. I was using the definition provided by liability. It wasn't my defintion. So if you have a problem with the definition that he provided take it up with him.

In the mean time, learn to READ the thread and pay attention that way you have less of a chance of making a complete fool of yourself like you just did. LOL

 

[Wicked Jester]

Curve ball? Please! Bush was trying to figure out a way, any way, to invade Iraq and get Saddam in 1999. He was talking about then. He didn't need a curve ball to do it. All he needed was enough people to believe the half truths and lies, that he himself perpetuated, in order to make it happen. Still claiming it was the "Right" thing to do is, well, typical on his part. He's never admitted to making any of the monumental mistakes he made over 8 long years and he never will.

Pure, loony liberal bullshit!

There is one man responsible for "half truths and lies". One man responsible for making "monumental mistakes". That man is Sadaam Hussein himself. All he had to do was come clean. All he had to do was admit. Instead he chose to lie, and continue to give the impression that he had WMD'S. He chose to continue to rattle his sabre until enough was enough, and that sabre was RIGHTFULLY planted firmly in his crazy ass once and for all.

All of it is in the following link, from Sadaam's interrogator himself. Sadaam fullly confessed to his charade, and confessed as to his reasons why he chose to continue on with his charade.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Truth hurts lib's. Deal with it, and knock off your whiney liberal bullshit. You only make yourselves look like fools.

 

[Meister]

You misinterpret your own definition. bipartisan means that there is cooporation and agreement between the parties as a whole. a minority of democrats does not represent the party as a whole. So therefore there was not "cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" or did you miss that??

What a bunch of bullshit, smitty. Please show where you found your definition of the word....please. Here's what I found and it doesn't sound anything like what your trying to pass off as a definition.
What your saying is that if a party is one vote short of a majority....it isn't bipartisan.
bi·par·ti·san
   /baɪˈpɑrtəzən/ Show Spelled[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy.
Bipartisan | Define Bipartisan at Dictionary.com


If you wanted to state your opinion....that would be one thing, but to chastize another poster because it doesn't represent what YOU think it should? oh brother....

Hey moron, learn to READ. I was using the definition provided by liability. It was my defintion. So if you have a problem with the definition that he provided take it up with him.

In the mean time, learn to READ the thread and pay attention that way you have less of a chance of making a complete fool of yourself like you just did. LOL

My reading skills are just fine, and comprehending has never been an issue with me. Perhaps you just need to learn to comprehend......moron.

From his definition....no where does it say "as a whole".....moron.
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

 

[drsmith1072]

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

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

What is even funnier is what the right was saying about statements like back then.

"While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a prepared statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Washingtonpost.com: Iraq Special Report

Or did you forget all of the"wag the dog" arguments from the right as they said clinton was only making those statements to distract away from the impeachment? Funny how the right wishes to use what they once called lies FOUR years prior as a justification for W's choice to invade.

 

[drsmith1072]

This is even funnier:

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

Who cares? What's your point? Hillary Clinton would probably be president today if she hadn't stupidly voted for the war, and remained unrepentant.

Just pointing out the fullofshitedness of the claim that Bush made it all up. That's all.

That's funny because that is exactly what the right said about clinton when he made those statements.

 

[MarcATL]

Anyone else find it "interesting" this comes OUT NOW?

Yeah, the RW think thanks are pretty crafty with their tactics.

Putting out this DAMNING information while all the RWers are engrossed in their defacto hate of The Obama.

It doesn't fool the thinkers though.

The entire Bush Regime needs to be UNDER the jail.

 

[drsmith1072]

SNIP:

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read the rest here.
Democrat Quotes on WMD

Yep, people need to understand both parties are at fault for the Iraqi disaster and react accordingly.

Good post.

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

it's funny how the right was against it when a democrat was in office.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

consider 6 years of obstruction from republicans who controlled congress and the purse strings for the government. Furthermore how did intelligence GIVE us the cole being bombed but not sunk?? Oh and why blame clinton for something that occured on W's watch?? The planning continued on W's watch and some of the terrorists even left the country on W's watch and came back in before 9/11, so how can you blame clinton for W's failure??

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

But which party actually controlled said committee and what actual intelligence could be released from comittee meetings?

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

No, but keep telling yourself that as you ingore any and all facts that run counter to your blind partisan opinions and I am sure that one day even you will believe it. LOL

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

Actually that remains to be seen. Only time will tell if it was worth the cost that W was willing pay.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I just loving throwing up this link and watching as the liberal morons totally ignore the fact that it was Sadaam himself who caused it all to happen........The truth burns liberals and their stupidity to the core.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

 

[BlindBoo]

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

he chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army

Correct me if I am wrong but does not dropping bombs on the Iraqi Army kill them, literally and physically disband the Army.

Its kind of ridiculous to think we would as the people in the right, on the side of Freedom and Liberty would not disband the people or army we had to fight against.

The whole idea is to destroy the Military and the will to fight, force surrender.

I guess we should of kept those secret police so they could of kept the torture chjambers up and running, would of saved a bit of embrassment and would actually define torture.

The mitstakes of war, had only the Democrats fought the war we would of seen a perfect war fought. If we look at how Clinton attacked Serbia we see how Liberal's fight, they target women and children and force the population to submit and then turn over the conquered people's country to the Moslems. But that is another story of history.

Anyhow, Iraq was given to us by the Democrats, it was the Democrats war, while the Democrats controlled the White House they actually were at war in Iraq, dropping bombs and killing people, eight years worth of war which Clinton left unresolved.

For the Liberal, for the Marxist, for the Liberal-Marxist, for the Progressive, for the Anarchist history only begins on specific dates, Iraq's history began in 2000 when Bush Jr. took office, before that, Saddam was busy raising Camels, in peace.

Okay. You're wrong. The Iraqi military was defeated. Most of their soldiers were in barraks waiting to see if the US would pony up about 20 a month to keep them together. It was Gen. Garner(I think) who had the deal lined up when Rummy nixed the idea. That's when they install Bremmer. That's when the Civil war began in earnest.

Sure some of the top brass would have to go but the regular soldiers and regular police officers could have stayed on the job to help secure the occupied nation, which by the way, is an obligation of the occupying power. As it was chaos and anarchy ruled for years.

In reality we never declared war on Iraq. But fact of the matter is it was the first President Bush who started the mess by not telling Saddam that we would defend Kuwait as if it were our 51 state. Of course he was smart enough to go through the UN after Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait. But both the UN sanctions and the no fly zones imposed by France, the UK and the USA did little to protect Iraqis on the ground. But it did give the UN and the US eyes on the ground over there.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

What happened is in the recent past. So, nobody has to review 50 year old archival records to recall that the disbanded Iraqi Army kept their weapons when they went home to find themselves with no income to support their families while the crime rate in the streets was soaring and the availability of electricity and clean water was wholly unreliable.

And I'm quite sure that people can remember that key industries, museums, and armories were left unguarded and were subsequently looted.

Who made the decisions about how many (how few) troops to send to Iraq? Who was in charge of post war Iraq? Who was in charge of the reconstruction? It was the administration.

No sir. We do not need to review 50 year old archived records.
We need to be open minded and not guided by ideology and love of party to interpret what happened.
First of all...Bush and his closest advisors were not war mongers. They did not WANT to go to war. They beleved they had to. Only partisan losers who look to knock the other party would think otherwsie. There is nothing in Bush's history to say he enjoys death.
Second....we had a history of war with Iraq a mere 10 years earlier. They rolled over and surrendered in a matter of hours. There was valid reason to believe the same would happen again.
Third...we were faced with an enemy that employed acts of warfare never imagined. They used hospitals and schools as protection. They used innocent civilians of their own land as decoys.
Fourth....our Presidents insistance to do whatever is necessary to minimize collateral damage made things even more difficult...especially in light of my third item.
Fifth...The President got approval from congress to take the action. Only partisan losers believe the "cherry picked intel" excuse that politicians used as an excuse on the campaign trail
Last.....Thr CiC is adivsed by people on the ground. He is rarely if ever at the front itself.

Get off it already.

Bush did what he believed needed to be done. He did not do just for the sake of doing.

This is George "How can I pin 9-11 on Iraq" Bush you're talking about, right?

Cheney, Rumsfeld not war mongers?

In his run for Governor of Texas he was caught on tape mocking death row inmate Carla Tucker plea for stay.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me"
Houston Chronicle 08/10/1999

Our modern involvement with Iraq offically began during Rayguns first term when Ronnie took them off the nations who supported terrorist list.....

The process by which they(the Bush administration officals) cherry pick intel and bypassed CIA vetting vprotocols has been released.

The US Congress abdicated it's constitutional responsibility and all members who voted to give President the power to determine if military action was necessary are disgraced and should have resigned when it was determined that Iraq had no WMD and was not a serious theat to the worlds remaining super power, and was not involved in attacking us on 9-11.

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

Actually it was the unholy union of the ACLU and the Republicans that blocked most of Clintons Anti-terrorist bill of 1995. Many of the provision he ask for were implemented after 9-11.

Better check your intel, the USS Cole was not sunk. 17 sailors died in an attack on her and Clinton should have damn well dropped the whole Israeli/Palestine peace BS and taken care of business. But then again Bush had nearly 8 months to do something about the Taliban's guests too. But they opened negociations for the pipeline with the Taliban.

It was President GHW Bush that gave us Iraq. Had he told Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if it were our 51st, Saddam would not have dared invade.

Al Queda gave us 9-11. Not Bush, not Clinton. Americas interventionist policies however can be questioned when the motive of these sick fucks come up.

I think the democracy in Iraq is going to vote for us to leave, post haste.

England quit it's Mandate for Palestine because they were tired of fighting a three way battle. Tired of its' ambassadors being assassinated and tired of its' soldier being kidnaped and killed, yeah they quit. Soon after, the Jewish settlers declared themselves to be an independent state. Then they defended their independence with weapons.

The USS Cole was not sunk, your right, I better check my facts.

Clinton would of saved us if only the Republicans would of not stopped Clinton,

Yea, that is why Sandy Berger, United States National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 stole Top Secret documents from the National Archives. I am sure those were the documents that showed Clinton did all he could, right or is it you think wire tapping could of stopped 9/11.

Just think, after the Federal Building was blown up in Oklahoma, after the Word Trade Center was attacked in 1993, after our embassies were blown up in Africa, after Black Hawk Down, after the USS Cole was sunk, Bill Clinton could of stopped it all if only he could of tapped a phone?

You are right about the USS Cole, that boat did not even come close to sinking.

WOW you post one lie get called out for it then follow it up with another.

Berger took only COPIES of documents which in of itself is still illegal but he did not take anything original. BTW, what does that have to do with the FACT that you were dead wrong about the cole??
1. federal building in OKC: DOMESTIC TERRORISM
2. WTC 1993: caught and prosecuated most behind said attack.
3. embassies attacked over seas: yeah but according to right wingers when embassies were attacked on W's watch they don't count anymore. If embassies did count rightwingers wouldn't be able to claim "W kept us safe."
4. black hawk down: what is the point? are you just through out random references to try and blame clinton in order to take the focus off of W's failures??
5: The USS cole: which only succeded as well as it did because some sailors let the boat get close enough to do the damage.

 

[drsmith1072]

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

And this baseless, insult laced rant is what is considered debate as far as the right is concerned. Notice how jarhead attacks the poster, says that they are wrong as he tries desperately to discredit the poster even as jarhead fails to provide even the slightest attempt to actually show how the poster was wrong?
Jarhead appears to believe that mustang is wrong merely because jarhead insults mustang and says that mustang is wrong. Now that is disturbing.

 

[drsmith1072]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza.... Questions about why we were not and still are not putting more effort into our clandestine services. Had we had a decent clandestine network, we would have been in a better position to verify information, develop further information and generally would not have made such a fucking mess of things.

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

Here is a question.

Wasn't Bush suppsoed to fix all of that??

No.

Seems only the left expected Bush to be the ideal leader and were disappointed that he couldnt do more.
The rest of us were aware that the President can do "just so much"

LOL and yet you morons on the right voted him in TWICE because of the things he said he would do but failed miserably at doing.

Oh well I guess bush and the right lied when they said he was going to fix the problems with the intelligence community.

 

[drsmith1072]

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

What happened is in the recent past. So, nobody has to review 50 year old archival records to recall that the disbanded Iraqi Army kept their weapons when they went home to find themselves with no income to support their families while the crime rate in the streets was soaring and the availability of electricity and clean water was wholly unreliable.

And I'm quite sure that people can remember that key industries, museums, and armories were left unguarded and were subsequently looted.

Who made the decisions about how many (how few) troops to send to Iraq? Who was in charge of post war Iraq? Who was in charge of the reconstruction? It was the administration.

No sir. We do not need to review 50 year old archived records.
We need to be open minded and not guided by ideology and love of party to interpret what happened.
First of all...Bush and his closest advisors were not war mongers. They did not WANT to go to war. They beleved they had to. Only partisan losers who look to knock the other party would think otherwsie. There is nothing in Bush's history to say he enjoys death.
Second....we had a history of war with Iraq a mere 10 years earlier. They rolled over and surrendered in a matter of hours. There was valid reason to believe the same would happen again.
Third...we were faced with an enemy that employed acts of warfare never imagined. They used hospitals and schools as protection. They used innocent civilians of their own land as decoys.
Fourth....our Presidents insistance to do whatever is necessary to minimize collateral damage made things even more difficult...especially in light of my third item.
Fifth...The President got approval from congress to take the action. Only partisan losers believe the "cherry picked intel" excuse that politicians used as an excuse on the campaign trail
Last.....Thr CiC is adivsed by people on the ground. He is rarely if ever at the front itself.

Get off it already.

Bush did what he believed needed to be done. He did not do just for the sake of doing.

LOL says the bush apologist. LOL Your first point that is laced with partisan insults shows that you are NOT open minded and completely guided by ideology and love of party as you interpret what happened.

as to your second point there was no valid reason to believe the iraqi people would rollover as we occupied their country which is not even remotely comparable to the first gulf war. In the first gulf war saddam was driven back into iraq and we did not choose to invade and occupy iraq.

third For the most part we knew the type of enemy that we were facing and we knew what they were capable of to pretend otherwise is sheer dishonesty.

fourth WTF are you babbling about?? He was told it would be difficult and he chose the course of action. whatever happened to that personal responsibility that you right wingers are always preaching to everyone else about??

fifth, he got authorization to procede if necessary based on a set of conditions. It was W's call to make so he is the one to blame. Only partisan loser's would try to blame the dems for W's choice.

 

[drsmith1072]

This is even funnier:

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

How quickly & conveniently you folks forget-about what he actually did.....

Gee.....no mention of War!!

You've gotta quit relying on Porky Limbaugh for your "quotes".

Yup, I remember... Bill Clinton Attacked Iraq. He bombed the piss out of Bagdad.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIOtn1wk5g&feature=player_embedded"]President WMDs Attack[/ame]

WOW nice video full of pop up video lies. So clinton bombed the hell out of iraq WMDs in 1998 and W still thought they were there in 2002 but couldn't let the inspectors finish their job to find out they weren't and you guys are so desperate that you are using what you called lies and "waggind the dog" in a lame and desperate attempt to try can claim that W is not responsibile for his choice to invade iraq. LOL

Now that is hilarious

 

[drsmith1072]

I just loving throwing up this link and watching as the liberal morons totally ignore the fact that it was Sadaam himself who caused it all to happen........The truth burns liberals and their stupidity to the core.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Thanks for showing that iraq had no WMDs.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

If only W had let the inspectors finish the job they were sent there ro do and chose not to go against the UN to enforce UN resolutions.

What is it that you think you accomplish by providing this link??

W made the final choice to invade so the responsibility lies with him. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? LOL