The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[Mac1958]

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

^ False premise. I'm not surprised. That's not even a part of what I'm doing.

The Iraq war IS the responsibility of Pres. Bush, the GOP Congressmen and Senators who voted to authorize it AND the Democrat Congressmen and Senators who voted for it. Plenty of shared responsibility to go around.

No.

What I am doing is exposing how fraudulent you strident liberals are.

You urgently try to make the Bush Administration justification for going into Iraq a "lie" while you IGNORE that the very things he maintained about WMD had already been maintained by the Democrats when THEY were large and in charge. You ALSO try to pretend that the only reason to go into Iraq was the WMD matter. That's not true, either, as all the WHEREAS clauses in the Authorization make abundantly clear.

By the way, I don't want to be guilty of painting with too large a brush. Not all liberals are as dishonest as you have shown yourself to be. I am limiting the commentary to the ones who are as dishonest about these matters as you are.

,

Please point out where I have been dishonest. Specifically.

My point is, and always has been, that we should not have gone into Iraq. Yet I see the neocons on one hand "blaming" the Dems for going into the war, and on the other hand defending the very same war. I've been consistent.

Call others liars all you wish. I don't have to defend that tragedy.

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Were any of the WMDs Iraq had moved prior to the invasion of Iraq?

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam’s lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items – with UN inspection tags still on them — as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq’s western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam’s and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam’s WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world’s foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it’s gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven’t heard about it, have you?

You probably haven’t heard about Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin either — a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don’t know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned.



It’s not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world — French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it — agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today

UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? UPDATED

 

[longknife]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

 

[DiamondDave]

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

The responsibility for the decision is on everyone on both sides of the aisle at that time... everyone saw the intel, everyone accepted it, and everyone made the agreement to finally finish the job after Saddam was non-compliant for YEARS... it was just a shame it took so long to finally finish the job that should have been done in the early 90's

Also, as I recalled the Bush Administration spent quite a bit of time trying to convince the United Nations to act, and making the threat the United States would act if need be, all while the world AND Iraq watched. With such threats from the United States, and it's past history of already going into Iraq once before already, what makes you even think Saddam would keep those weapons in the open ..... right where intel might have already found them? So the left wants us to believe, with other Arab nations that would love to get a hold of such weapons (like Syria), that this dictator would allow them to be found? He just sat on his ass and would make no attempt to try and smuggle them out if the country? The left is just counting on him to be that stupid as to just sit and wait for the United States to finally go in and invade. That's what the left is trying to argue, counting on Saddam's intelligence to finally give them up for these WMDs to be later discovered.

There should have been no convincing the very first time Saddam violated terms of cease fire.. not to mention the UN is not some world government over everyone...

What the left is trying to do (not argue) is distance themselves from things they were right in the middle of

/end thread

 

[expatriate]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

let me get this straight... we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there. THEN.... before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Yeah.... that makes sense. NOT!

 

[Jarhead]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

let me get this straight... we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there. THEN.... before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Yeah.... that makes sense. NOT!

Seems you are leaving out some important facts. And it is irresponsible to make a determoination of what took place without using all of the facts.....

Now....you started off with facts.....you said....

"we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there"

And yes, you are correct.

However, you then said....

"before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq."

What you left out is the following...

"while we were doing our best to eliminate the al-quaeda threat to our lifestyle, Sadaam Hussein opted to test our strength by backtracking on the treaty he signed with us 10 years earlier and refused to allow inspectors FULL access to his government operations inclduing, but not limited to, any chemical weaponry he may be involved in developing. We warned him multiple times to abide by the terms of the treaty and whereas he gave an inch here and there, he refused to allow inspectors full access as he promised in the treaty. This concerned us as it concerned many other countries of the world....and seeing as he was a man that used chemical weapons on his own people, the fear of him using them on coalition forces that were spread throughtout the region prompted us, as well as many other countries to examine the intel of many countries and determine that an attack on his operations was necessary. We were not only going after the WMD's...we were going to put a stop to the threat of WMD production."

I wonder how you would have reacted if there were WMD's and they were used on our forces in the region...killing 10's of thousands of our soldiers...and finding out that our intel showed such WMD's existed and Hussein was in breach of his treaty ...and Bush opted to NOT put a stop to it?

Likely, your reaction would have been "Bush acted stupidly"

Just as folks like you would have said the Boston police acted stupidly if they did NOT insist on seeing ID of the man who broke into the houise and claimed to be the owner when, in fact, the owner was tied up in a chair behind the front door...and later found dead.

 

[DiamondDave]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

let me get this straight... we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there. THEN.... before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Yeah.... that makes sense. NOT!

See violations of cease fire.. and get back to us

 

[Oldstyle]

Now "I'm" to blame? This gets more amusing by the post, Loinboy!

Are you an American citizen? Then you're to blame. We all are. We're responsible for the government we elect and everything they do, is done in our name.

However, since you support the war, I think you're a little more to blame than I am.

I'm curious...you apparently abhor how W. supposedly bombed the shit out of some Middle Eastern countries...but you don't seem to be upset about Barry using drones to bomb the shit out countries in the Middle East, in Africa and in Asia. Why is that?

What makes you think that?

I'm the one who started the "Drone warfare is terrorism" thread.

I've said on many occasions I withdrew my support for Obama Administration policies almost 4 years ago when it was clear he was still persuing the neocon foreign policy agenda.

I want all these wars to end, all the troops brought back home, the over 800 bases around the world closed (unless a country wants it there, then we'll send them a bill for the operating costs).

You know how I said earlier that I was trying to figure out how naive you really were? Well, statements like the above highlighted one tip me off to the fact that you're dangerously naive. You may not LIKE the fact that we're in the midst of an undeclared but very real war with Muslim extremists and that war zone is over a vast area but that doesn't lessen the threats we face.

So what is your answer to that? Bring all the troops home? To say that's at best a "simplistic" response to a difficult situation would be an understatement.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The progressive neo-communist kiddies cling to this like the 9/11 was an insde job conspirazoid freaks cling to that bit of absurdity.......Lets hear more about pnacs "new world order".......lol

Imbeciles

 

[Oldstyle]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

let me get this straight... we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there. THEN.... before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Yeah.... that makes sense. NOT!

Seems you are leaving out some important facts. And it is irresponsible to make a determoination of what took place without using all of the facts.....

Now....you started off with facts.....you said....

"we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there"

And yes, you are correct.

However, you then said....

"before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq."

What you left out is the following...

"while we were doing our best to eliminate the al-quaeda threat to our lifestyle, Sadaam Hussein opted to test our strength by backtracking on the treaty he signed with us 10 years earlier and refused to allow inspectors FULL access to his government operations inclduing, but not limited to, any chemical weaponry he may be involved in developing. We warned him multiple times to abide by the terms of the treaty and whereas he gave an inch here and there, he refused to allow inspectors full access as he promised in the treaty. This concerned us as it concerned many other countries of the world....and seeing as he was a man that used chemical weapons on his own people, the fear of him using them on coalition forces that were spread throughtout the region prompted us, as well as many other countries to examine the intel of many countries and determine that an attack on his operations was necessary. We were not only going after the WMD's...we were going to put a stop to the threat of WMD production."

I wonder how you would have reacted if there were WMD's and they were used on our forces in the region...killing 10's of thousands of our soldiers...and finding out that our intel showed such WMD's existed and Hussein was in breach of his treaty ...and Bush opted to NOT put a stop to it?

Likely, your reaction would have been "Bush acted stupidly"

Just as folks like you would have said the Boston police acted stupidly if they did NOT insist on seeing ID of the man who broke into the houise and claimed to be the owner when, in fact, the owner was tied up in a chair behind the front door...and later found dead.

The amount of "Monday morning quarterbacking" on what we should or shouldn't have done in Iraq never ceases to amuse me, Jar...some of the very same people who looked at the intel from back then and agreed that UN santions were not working are the ones pointing fingers and saying that should have never been done. Sorry folks but you can't have "do-overs".

The truth of the matter is that when the son of the Secretary General of the United Nations is one of the people who is brokering under the table deals to sell Iraqi oil for arms...in direct violation of the UN sanctions...then the writing is on the wall that the UN sanctions were becoming a joke. Countries like France and Russia were more interested in getting cheap oil than they were in keeping a despot like Saddam Hussein from rearming. Naive individuals like Loinboy seem convinced that Saddam would have behaved himself. Where they get that idea baffles me given his history but they are convinced none the less!

 

[SAYIT]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

let me get this straight... we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there. THEN.... before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Yeah.... that makes sense. NOT!

Seems you are leaving out some important facts. And it is irresponsible to make a determoination of what took place without using all of the facts.....

Now....you started off with facts.....you said....

"we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there"

And yes, you are correct.

However, you then said....

"before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq."

What you left out is the following...

"while we were doing our best to eliminate the al-quaeda threat to our lifestyle, Sadaam Hussein opted to test our strength by backtracking on the treaty he signed with us 10 years earlier and refused to allow inspectors FULL access to his government operations inclduing, but not limited to, any chemical weaponry he may be involved in developing. We warned him multiple times to abide by the terms of the treaty and whereas he gave an inch here and there, he refused to allow inspectors full access as he promised in the treaty. This concerned us as it concerned many other countries of the world....and seeing as he was a man that used chemical weapons on his own people, the fear of him using them on coalition forces that were spread throughtout the region prompted us, as well as many other countries to examine the intel of many countries and determine that an attack on his operations was necessary. We were not only going after the WMD's...we were going to put a stop to the threat of WMD production."

I wonder how you would have reacted if there were WMD's and they were used on our forces in the region...killing 10's of thousands of our soldiers...and finding out that our intel showed such WMD's existed and Hussein was in breach of his treaty ...and Bush opted to NOT put a stop to it?

Likely, your reaction would have been "Bush acted stupidly".

Or he would have passed out candy.

 

[SAYIT]

An offer that was justifiably unacceptable to the US and you still haven't the courage to admit your original claim was bogus. The Taliban did not offer to turn him over to the US, an act which could have saved them and the Afghans much grief. The choice was theirs and they chose wrongly. End of story.

You're splitting hairs.

They offered to turn him over to a 3rd party, which would turn him over to us.

In fact, they offered to turn him over to a 3rd country which would not succumb to US pressure and if you don't want your BS challenged, don't post it.

 

[SAYIT]

An offer that was justifiably unacceptable to the US and you still haven't the courage to admit your original claim was bogus. The Taliban did not offer to turn him over to the US, an act which could have saved them and the Afghans much grief. The choice was theirs and they chose wrongly. End of story.

You're splitting hairs.

They offered to turn him over to a 3rd party, which would turn him over to us.

The offer to turn him over to a third party was contingent on that party NOT turning him over to the US. Once again, Loinboy...you've shown yourself to be extremely uninformed about what REALLY took place.

Not in this particular case. He's just fabricating facts as he goes because the truth just doesn't support his lame arguments.

 

[SAYIT]

The offer to turn him over to a third party was contingent on that party NOT turning him over to the US. Once again, Loinboy...you've shown yourself to be extremely uninformed about what REALLY took place.

I'm pretty confident that once he was turned over to a third party, we could get him after that.

Oh, you're "pretty confident?"
Well that should have been good enough to use as the basis of American policy.
Unfortunately for Iraq we don't base them on your "personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulders." (Crimson Tide)

 

[SAYIT]

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

The United States brought its case before the United Nations using the intelligence that was brought to them at that time (sounds very similar to the left saying it wasn't Obama's fault for Benghazi and the "misinformation" it was presented about a demonstration...... yet let's just BLAME Bush anyways for Iraq because we didn't agree with his policies..... not that he lied).

The point against your argument is that key members of the United Nations were profiting from Iraq, they weren't going to listen to the United States or take further action against Saddam no matter WHAT was presented to them. France was profiting from Iraq by selling them French Marauder fighter aircraft to help rebuild Saddam's Air Force. Russia was also profiting from Iraq by sending them supplies... it's called the Oil for Food United Nations scandal, you should look it up sometime. The United Nations was in bed with Iraq and was going with Saddam's interests if dragging this out for as long as it takes without serious enforcement or pursuit of any interest of further consequences of any more violations. You people on the left are real idiots if you think the United Nations was going to actually "do its job of enforcement" of the cease fire agreement and sanctions they already passed against Iraq. The U.N. was worthless and uninterested with what Iraq may, or may not, be doing.

Cheney cooked the intelligence and that's been proven.

Are you claiming key members of the UN were not profiting from the sanctions and that they were not motivated by those profits?

 

[SAYIT]

Look up "Commander in Chief".

Then keep spinning.

Poor Bush, he's the victim in all this.

.

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?.

I read no intent to evade republican responsibility. Just your effort to evade democrat responsibility.

 

[Mac1958]

NICE non sequitor. But you do not successfully evade the force of the facts that way. Your application is formally rejected.

Speaking of spinning, you may proceed to sit on it and spin to your heart's content.

When the Commander in Chief was Bill Clinton and HE said that Saddam had WMDs, and when -- under Bill Clinton's signature -- the public policy of the United States became to impose "regime change" on Iraq,* did you cry and moan and carry on like the bed wetter you now act like?

Nah.
_____________________
* Oh and since you liberals hate actual facts, you might as well READ ALL ABOUT IT: Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.R.4655 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
And you might find some of the TEXT of that law to be of interest: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hr4655enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr4655enr.pdf

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?.

I read no intent to evade republican responsibility. Just your effort to evade democrat responsibility.

Anyone who supported this horror has fingerprints on it, so you can give up on that one.

Do you agree with me that the Commander in Chief is where the buck has to stop?

.

 

[theHawk]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...


With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

Don't forget all the other infractions the Hussein administration (Saddam, not Obama) commited in all the years after the first Gulf War.

I guess you'd rather still have us patrolling the No-Fly zone and putting up with him violating it every week.

As for the WMD, virtually every ally we had concured, Dems all saw the same intel and agreed with it as well.

How does Hillary reconcile this? What's your response?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

.

^ False premise. I'm not surprised. That's not even a part of what I'm doing.

The Iraq war IS the responsibility of Pres. Bush, the GOP Congressmen and Senators who voted to authorize it AND the Democrat Congressmen and Senators who voted for it. Plenty of shared responsibility to go around.

No.

What I am doing is exposing how fraudulent you strident liberals are.

You urgently try to make the Bush Administration justification for going into Iraq a "lie" while you IGNORE that the very things he maintained about WMD had already been maintained by the Democrats when THEY were large and in charge. You ALSO try to pretend that the only reason to go into Iraq was the WMD matter. That's not true, either, as all the WHEREAS clauses in the Authorization make abundantly clear.

By the way, I don't want to be guilty of painting with too large a brush. Not all liberals are as dishonest as you have shown yourself to be. I am limiting the commentary to the ones who are as dishonest about these matters as you are.

,

Please point out where I have been dishonest. Specifically.

My point is, and always has been, that we should not have gone into Iraq. Yet I see the neocons on one hand "blaming" the Dems for going into the war, and on the other hand defending the very same war. I've been consistent.

Call others liars all you wish. I don't have to defend that tragedy.

.

Specifically when you claimed I was even attempting to seek to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats.

That is nothing I did.

As for your "point," you are perfectly well entitled to contend that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. But you have not supported that vague belief of yours.

By the way, just because YOU don't see it does NOT mean that there was not a very good set of reasons to take on Saddam.

But the main point has never been to argue the wisdom or the lack of wisdom of going into Iraq. The main point has been that YOUR claims that "Bush lied" is a bunch of horse shit.

 

[Jarhead]

This is interesting.

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?

It's almost as if you're admitting that the Iraq war was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, material and money. I'd think you'd be singing from the mountain tops about what a great idea it was. So again:

Why are you so desperate to put the Iraq war on the backs of the Democrats?.

I read no intent to evade republican responsibility. Just your effort to evade democrat responsibility.

Anyone who supported this horror has fingerprints on it, so you can give up on that one.

Do you agree with me that the Commander in Chief is where the buck has to stop?

.

Sure...for those that have nothing better to do than try to find a scapegoat.

The bottom line is this....

When a truly bipartisan decision is made, and the decision is a failure...there is no one to blame for there is no doubt that our leaders, together, beleived the action was in the best interest of the country...and as opposed to "blaming", we should all be looking for solutions to correct what was done wrong.

If a decision is a partisan decision...such as the ACA.....and it fails...as the ACA is proving to be doing.....the party who pushed it is to blame and they should allow the opposing party to apply themselves to correct it