Do You Miss Him Yet?

[TooTall]

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

Bush went into Iraq because the intel community said Saddam Hussein had not disclosed the destruction or location of all of the WMD's that he had. The United Nations agreed and stated that he was in material breach of the previous cease fire. So can the BS about going to get Al Queda.

 

[bornright]

Do you have one shred of evidence to back up your crazy claims? So the Iraq war was "illegal" and "unnecessary" lets hear you back up those claims. Any actual examples of Bush shredding the constitution or are you just blowing smoke? What specifically did Bush do to bring about the economic disaster?

I have found most of the dimwit libs out there foaming at the mouth with hatred of Bush but can't provide a substantiated example of what they accuse him of doing. They were told to hate Bush and complied like a mindless drone.

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Bush was "the decider"

It was Bush, and Bush alone, who ordered the invasion
Even after the UN urged him to wait

Those of us with an accurate memory recall the media pushing so hard to get it started. I like nearly everyone else felt he was waiting too long. We were hammered every day how horrible things were and we had to do something.

 

[nuhuh]

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Bush was "the decider"

It was Bush, and Bush alone, who ordered the invasion
Even after the UN urged him to wait

Those of us with an accurate memory recall the media pushing so hard to get it started. I like nearly everyone else felt he was waiting too long. We were hammered every day how horrible things were and we had to do something.

Absolutely correct. The media didn't care about truth, the corporate media cared about ratings.

 

[bornright]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

I don't miss this:

I'm not at all surprised you do.

You do realize that they are still dying but are not showing it like they did with Bush.

 

[nuhuh]

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

Bush went into Iraq because the intel community said Saddam Hussein had not disclosed the destruction or location of all of the WMD's that he had. The United Nations agreed and stated that he was in material breach of the previous cease fire. So can the BS about going to get Al Queda.

Not quite. Bush lied about all of that. The U.N. had placed inspectors back in Iraq and were finding that WMD had been destroyed in 1991. But Bush had an agenda and he went ahead and tied 9/11 to Iraq and went to war on that.

"(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the -
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." AUMF Section (2)
The Iraq-9/11 connection was always untrue and Bush knew it.

 

[TooTall]

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

Bush went into Iraq because the intel community said Saddam Hussein had not disclosed the destruction or location of all of the WMD's that he had. The United Nations agreed and stated that he was in material breach of the previous cease fire. So can the BS about going to get Al Queda.

Not quite. Bush lied about all of that. The U.N. had placed inspectors back in Iraq and were finding that WMD had been destroyed in 1991. But Bush had an agenda and he went ahead and tied 9/11 to Iraq and went to war on that.

"(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the -
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." AUMF Section (2)
The Iraq-9/11 connection was always untrue and Bush knew it.

Bush didn't lie about anything. The UN passed resolution 1441 that clearly stated that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of the cease fire. I won't post it because then I would have to explain it to the uninformed. I don't see Al Queda mentioned in the AUMF you posted. Did you just grab that out of your imagination as well?

 

[nuhuh]

Please. Bush lied about WMD, he lied about the aluminum tubes, Colin Powell lied before the U.N. Cheney was on "Meet the Press" saying they had reconstituted nuclear weapons, a month before the vote the threat level went to orange and stayed there, in March of 03 Hans Blix testified that there was no mobile lab, El Baradei of the IAEA testified that after a three month search they found no evidence of nuclear activity yet here they were week after week denying it on national TV.
The AUMF I sourced says the terrorists that caused 9/11. Those people were in Afghanistan, no where near where they attacked.

 

[TooTall]

Please. Bush lied about WMD, he lied about the aluminum tubes, Colin Powell lied before the U.N. Cheney was on "Meet the Press" saying they had reconstituted nuclear weapons, a month before the vote the threat level went to orange and stayed there, in March of 03 Hans Blix testified that there was no mobile lab, El Baradei of the IAEA testified that after a three month search they found no evidence of nuclear activity yet here they were week after week denying it on national TV.
The AUMF I sourced says the terrorists that caused 9/11. Those people were in Afghanistan, no where near where they attacked.

Bush and Powell quoted information they got from the intelligence community. They fact that it was bad info doesn't mean they lied.

If you insist that Bush lied, you will certainly agree that these three leading Demcrats lied as well:

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

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

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

 

[kaz]

You really don't read the arguments of the people you're debating, do you? Be honest

Yes I do, but usually there is so much historical rubbish I sometimes separate too much.

Separate from reality? If you can't respond to what people say, you aren't actually reading their arguments

When the writer is quoting fiction what other options become available? I spend too much time already debunking facts that have a life of their own and seem indestructible.

How do you debunk a point by not addressing what was actually said? That doesn't even make sense. You're debunking points in your head

Well let's recap. WMD was not in Iraq yet we had to discuss an already debunked and dis-proven point. We also discussed Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq previous to the war and we had to rehash this debunked and dis-proven point.It helps if you come to the table with actual facts and not decades old disproven allegations don't you think?

Thank you for demonstrating my point on your not addressing what's said. Let's try it again. I was against the Iraq invasion...

 

[nuhuh]

Please. Bush lied about WMD, he lied about the aluminum tubes, Colin Powell lied before the U.N. Cheney was on "Meet the Press" saying they had reconstituted nuclear weapons, a month before the vote the threat level went to orange and stayed there, in March of 03 Hans Blix testified that there was no mobile lab, El Baradei of the IAEA testified that after a three month search they found no evidence of nuclear activity yet here they were week after week denying it on national TV.
The AUMF I sourced says the terrorists that caused 9/11. Those people were in Afghanistan, no where near where they attacked.

Bush and Powell quoted information they got from the intelligence community. They fact that it was bad info doesn't mean they lied.

If you insist that Bush lied, you will certainly agree that these three leading Demcrats lied as well:

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

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

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

Sure. Bad info is bad info and George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom for it.

An August 2006 report prepared at the direction of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. found that “members of the Bush Administration misstated, overstated, and manipulated intelligence with regards to linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq; the acquisition of aluminum tubes to be used as uranium centrifuges; and the acquisition of uranium from Niger.” The report also noted that “eyond making false and misleading statements about Iraq’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, the record shows the Bush Administration must have known these statements conflicted with known international and domestic intelligence at the time.” Finding that the administration had also misstated or overstated intelligence information regarding chemical and biological weapons, the report concluded that “these misstatements were in contradiction of known countervailing intelligence information, and were the result of political pressure and manipulation.” In short, the Bush gang misrepresented the WMD threat to justify its planned invasion of Iraq.

Commonly known as "a day late and a dollar short" it was still instructive as to the real agenda by the administration.

 

[kaz]

Actually, I supported attacking Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban. They actually attacked us. I don't differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they were in it together. It was nation building there I opposed.

Also, he's clearly not against sending troops anywhere. He's signing off on Obama's murdering troops for 18 months by letting them continue to fight a war he'd already decided to lose

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

Yes, I did in fact know it. You didn't, you keep claiming that you know that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq,a point you have provided zero evidence of. I agreed we did not go in to fight Al Qaeda, I agreed we don't know they were there.

You, however, went way beyond that and claimed you know, for a fact, they were not there. Again, you are devoid of backup of that claim.

We both oppose the Iraq war. Here's the difference between us. I am comfortable enough to argue the Iraq war with facts. You think since you oppose it you can make any argument that supports your position without any reason to believe what you said is true

 

[nuhuh]

Speculation.

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

Yes, I did in fact know it. You didn't, you keep claiming that you know that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq,a point you have provided zero evidence of. I agreed we did not go in to fight Al Qaeda, I agreed we don't know they were there.

You, however, went way beyond that and claimed you know, for a fact, they were not there. Again, you are devoid of backup of that claim.

We both oppose the Iraq war. Here's the difference between us. I am comfortable enough to argue the Iraq war with facts. You think since you oppose it you can make any argument that supports your position without any reason to believe what you said is true

You are dishonest. You argue from a slanted view and have not presented a single fact of your own and then call me on not sourcing when I clearly have.When you come up with a single source to establish your veracity and willingness to discuss the truth, I might have some respect for you. That you don't offer a single thing to back up your words makes you a simple partisan hack.

"On September 21, 2001, Bush was told in the President’s Daily Brief that the intelligence community had no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein’s regime to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with al Qaeda. This was no surprise. Al Qaeda is a consortium of intensely religious Islamic fundamentalists, whereas Hussein ran a secular government that repressed religious activity in Iraq.

Undeterred, Bush and his people continued to tout the connection. Although the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined in February 2002 that “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical or biological weapons] knowledge or assistance,” Bush proclaimed one year later, “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” And although the CIA concluded in a classified January 2003 report that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat,” Cheney claimed the next day that the Iraqi government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

To support their claims that Iraq was training al-Qaeda members, Bush, Cheney, and Colin Powell repeatedly cited information provided by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured shortly after 9/11. An ex-FBI official told Newsweek that the CIA “duct-taped [al-Libi's] mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo” for some “more-fearsome Egyptian interrogations” in violation of U.S. law prohibiting extraordinary rendition. Al-Libi’s account proved worthless. The February 2002 DIA memo reveals al-Libi provided his American interrogators with false material suggesting Iraq had trained al-Qaeda to use weapons of mass destruction. Even though U.S. intelligence thought the information was untrue as early as 2002 because it was obtained by torture, al-Libi’s information provided the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s now thoroughly discredited February 2003 claim before the United Nations that Iraq had developed WMD programs." Iraq A War of Aggression. No WMDs No Connection to Al Qaeda Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

 

[TooTall]

Please. Bush lied about WMD, he lied about the aluminum tubes, Colin Powell lied before the U.N. Cheney was on "Meet the Press" saying they had reconstituted nuclear weapons, a month before the vote the threat level went to orange and stayed there, in March of 03 Hans Blix testified that there was no mobile lab, El Baradei of the IAEA testified that after a three month search they found no evidence of nuclear activity yet here they were week after week denying it on national TV.
The AUMF I sourced says the terrorists that caused 9/11. Those people were in Afghanistan, no where near where they attacked.

Bush and Powell quoted information they got from the intelligence community. They fact that it was bad info doesn't mean they lied.

If you insist that Bush lied, you will certainly agree that these three leading Demcrats lied as well:

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

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

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

Sure. Bad info is bad info and George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom for it.

An August 2006 report prepared at the direction of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. found that “members of the Bush Administration misstated, overstated, and manipulated intelligence with regards to linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq; the acquisition of aluminum tubes to be used as uranium centrifuges; and the acquisition of uranium from Niger.” The report also noted that “eyond making false and misleading statements about Iraq’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, the record shows the Bush Administration must have known these statements conflicted with known international and domestic intelligence at the time.” Finding that the administration had also misstated or overstated intelligence information regarding chemical and biological weapons, the report concluded that “these misstatements were in contradiction of known countervailing intelligence information, and were the result of political pressure and manipulation.” In short, the Bush gang misrepresented the WMD threat to justify its planned invasion of Iraq.

Commonly known as "a day late and a dollar short" it was still instructive as to the real agenda by the administration.

Tenet was a Clinton appointee that Bush didn't replace. And just exactly what did you expect John Conyers to find? Did he comment on Hillary's and Kerry's statements? They,along with the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war.

 

[nuhuh]

Please. Bush lied about WMD, he lied about the aluminum tubes, Colin Powell lied before the U.N. Cheney was on "Meet the Press" saying they had reconstituted nuclear weapons, a month before the vote the threat level went to orange and stayed there, in March of 03 Hans Blix testified that there was no mobile lab, El Baradei of the IAEA testified that after a three month search they found no evidence of nuclear activity yet here they were week after week denying it on national TV.
The AUMF I sourced says the terrorists that caused 9/11. Those people were in Afghanistan, no where near where they attacked.

Bush and Powell quoted information they got from the intelligence community. They fact that it was bad info doesn't mean they lied.

If you insist that Bush lied, you will certainly agree that these three leading Demcrats lied as well:

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

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

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

Sure. Bad info is bad info and George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom for it.

An August 2006 report prepared at the direction of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. found that “members of the Bush Administration misstated, overstated, and manipulated intelligence with regards to linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq; the acquisition of aluminum tubes to be used as uranium centrifuges; and the acquisition of uranium from Niger.” The report also noted that “eyond making false and misleading statements about Iraq’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, the record shows the Bush Administration must have known these statements conflicted with known international and domestic intelligence at the time.” Finding that the administration had also misstated or overstated intelligence information regarding chemical and biological weapons, the report concluded that “these misstatements were in contradiction of known countervailing intelligence information, and were the result of political pressure and manipulation.” In short, the Bush gang misrepresented the WMD threat to justify its planned invasion of Iraq.

Commonly known as "a day late and a dollar short" it was still instructive as to the real agenda by the administration.

Tenet was a Clinton appointee that Bush didn't replace. And just exactly what did you expect John Conyers to find? Did he comment on Hillary's and Kerry's statements? They,along with the majority in Congress voted for the Iraq war.

Tenet was a dangerous fool and that is the best way to classify him. John Conyers found the truth and it's too bad that it took 3 years to uncover it. The majority of Congress voted for the AUMF because W ran the vote three weeks before the election, so Democrats who voted against the measure knew Bush was going to war regardless and they would be seen by voters as unpatriotic and unsupportive of American soldiers, regardless of how the war turned out they would appear weak and wrong.

 

[MaryL]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

Not anymore than Jefferson Davis.

 

[The Rabbi]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

I don't miss this:

I'm not at all surprised you do.

Are those coffins from Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan that totally failed and killed American soldiers needlessly?

Probably are Obama's. If you remember photography was outlawed by Bush and he hated coffins so badly he refused to go to a single soldier's funeral.

Really really sucks to be you, doesnt it?
snopes.com Funeral Rights

 

[Liminal]

I'm glad they are

Beats wide scale bombing and boots on the ground.

We see how well that's done against ISIS, which Obama created.

Beats boots on the ground

You prefer losing?

I prefer not losing 7000 American lives in a senseless invasion

So you prefer terrorist attacks, hideous slaughter, and a radical Islamic state.
You're pathetic.

And of course you can demonstrate exactly how the invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped to defeat Islamic terrorism.

 

[Liminal]

Helping his President to start illegal, unnecessary wars; to shred the constitution; to bring about the worst economic disaster in 75 years. Yeah, he did help with all of those.

Do you have one shred of evidence to back up your crazy claims? So the Iraq war was "illegal" and "unnecessary" lets hear you back up those claims. Any actual examples of Bush shredding the constitution or are you just blowing smoke? What specifically did Bush do to bring about the economic disaster?

I have found most of the dimwit libs out there foaming at the mouth with hatred of Bush but can't provide a substantiated example of what they accuse him of doing. They were told to hate Bush and complied like a mindless drone.

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

 

[nuhuh]

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

The kindness and humility of Bush. It is just refreshing to be reminded of a time when a president was a decent human being who cared about people and wasnt full of himself.
President Bush s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 High Quality - YouTube

I don't miss this:

I'm not at all surprised you do.

Are those coffins from Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan that totally failed and killed American soldiers needlessly?

Probably are Obama's. If you remember photography was outlawed by Bush and he hated coffins so badly he refused to go to a single soldier's funeral.

Really really sucks to be you, doesnt it?
snopes.com Funeral Rights

So you use Snopes judgment of a joke to debunk my claim? Try this instead, from July 5, 2006, 3 years after the war started:
"
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Bush has met hundreds of families of fallen soldiers, but he has yet to attend a servicemember’s funeral, he said Tuesday.

“Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?” he said."President Bush answers questions from downrange - News - Stripes

 

[BlindBoo]

You want to talk about pointless deaths, you merely need to look at a war started where all the terrorists were 1200 miles away from the fighting.

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Um, you understand we invaded Afghanistan FIRST and THEN invaded Iraq, right?

Yes I do and the effort was milquetoast. There were no terrorists in Iraq period. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan early on and stayed there instead of reducing our effort so they could go after Saddam Hussein.

You are so full of shit. Saddam was a terrorist and he armed and funded terrorists

How many billions did Saint Raygun give him? Not to mention all the goodies Saddam was able to buy after the saint took Iraq off the list of Nations who Supported terrorist. Birds of a feather I guess, Ronnie armed and funded terrorist too.

How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein