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

[SAYIT]

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?.

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

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.My belief is not vague at all. It corresponds with the reasons given at the time by those who were pleading that we not go in. If you really need me to list those reasons, let me know.

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. Yes, in any decision-making process there will typically be reasons for and against. I looked at both and saw clearly that it was a bad idea. I'm certainly not always right, but I'm pretty sure I was in this case.

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. You've never seen me type, "Bush lied". Perhaps you're thinking of someone else. Now, if you want to count cherry-picking evidence and ignoring contrary evidence as "lying", that's fair. I'm not one of those running about screaming that.

So the fact remains, the Commander in Chief makes the call, he did so, and what happened happened.

.

 

[Mac1958]

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?.

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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.My belief is not vague at all. It corresponds with the reasons given at the time by those who were pleading that we not go in. If you really need me to list those reasons, let me know.

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. Yes, in any decision-making process there will typically be reasons for and against. I looked at both and saw clearly that it was a bad idea. I'm certainly not always right, but I'm pretty sure I was in this case.

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. You've never seen me type, "Bush lied". Perhaps you're thinking of someone else. Now, if you want to count cherry-picking evidence and ignoring contrary evidence as "lying", that's fair. I'm not one of those running about screaming that.

So the fact remains, the Commander in Chief makes the call, he did so, and what happened happened.

.

you had access to all of the intel? You had access to the intel of our allys?

Wow.

You must be a very special person.

 

[Jarhead]

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?.

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

.

Congres did. Congress voted to enter Iraq. Both democrats and republicans.

 

[Jarhead]

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?.

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

.

But, of course, sequestration that was signed into law by the President is...ahem...the fault of the tea party.

Correct?

 

[Mac1958]

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

.

Congres did. Congress voted to enter Iraq. Both democrats and republicans.

Holy crap.

.

 

[Jarhead]

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

.

Congres did. Congress voted to enter Iraq. Both democrats and republicans.

Holy crap.

.

lol...
Dont be an ass.

 

[Mac1958]

Congres did. Congress voted to enter Iraq. Both democrats and republicans.

Holy crap.

.

lol...
Dont be an ass.

You wrote it, not me.

Own it.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

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.My belief is not vague at all. It corresponds with the reasons given at the time by those who were pleading that we not go in. If you really need me to list those reasons, let me know.

Your belief is indeed vague. There were reasons TO go in just as there were reasons not to do so. And?

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. Yes, in any decision-making process there will typically be reasons for and against. I looked at both and saw clearly that it was a bad idea. I'm certainly not always right, but I'm pretty sure I was in this case.

No. You looked at the pros and the cons and made your decision. And you were wrong. And when you now maintain that you were clearly right, you are wrong as to it being clear and you are wrong in your self-satisfied conclusion.

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. You've never seen me type, "Bush lied". Perhaps you're thinking of someone else. Now, if you want to count cherry-picking evidence and ignoring contrary evidence as "lying", that's fair. I'm not one of those running about screaming that.

So the fact remains, the Commander in Chief makes the call, he did so, and what happened happened.

.

The thrust of your entire dopey articulated position is to maintain that "Bush lied." Denying it now only makes you a confirmed lying imbecile. In any event, the TITLE of this thread is NOT "we were wrong to go into Saddam's Iraq." The title of the thread is about the Bush Administration "knew" that Saddam HAD WMDs. That is a not veiled suggestion that the Bush Administration lied. Now YOU pile on that horse shit by falsely claiming that they cherry picked.

Yet YOU are busy cherry picking. You SEE how the Bush team said we "knew" Saddam "had" WMDs, but you FAIL to note that so did the Democrats and the prior Administration. You suggest that Pres. Bush cherry picked the evidence to "justify" going in but you CHOOSE to IGNORE that the official policy of the US Government (prior to the Bush Administration and prior to 9/11/2001) was to impose REGIME CHANGE on Saddam.

If you have a "point," you truly suck at making it.

,

 

[Jarhead]

Holy crap.

.

lol...
Dont be an ass.

You wrote it, not me.

Own it.

.

I am 100% correct. Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong.
Congress gave Bush the authority, as CiC, to enter iraq with military intent.
It was a bi partisan vote.

Or are you saying that Bush did not address it to congress and congress had no say in the matter?

Is that what you are selling now?

 

[Mac1958]

lol...
Dont be an ass.

You wrote it, not me.

Own it.

.

I am 100% correct. Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong.
Congress gave Bush the authority, as CiC, to enter iraq with military intent.
It was a bi partisan vote.

Or are you saying that Bush did not address it to congress and congress had no say in the matter?

Is that what you are selling now?

On the off chance that you're being serious, I'll be happy to answer.

1. Bush lobbied Congress.
2. Congress gave Bush the authority. Not a requirement, the authority.
3. Bush acted on the authority given to him by Congress, which he had lobbied.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And that's why the buck stops with him.

I'm sure you agree.

.

 

[SAYIT]

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?.

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

Since everybody knows, what is your point? In case you missed it I don't subscribe to the notion that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war but if you need someone to blame, blame me. I made no effort to stop it and still believe it served its purpose.

 

[Mac1958]

You just conveniently changed your tune.
Had you been posting the culpability of both dems and repubs (and not whining that others are trying to shift the blame to the dems) I would have had no reason to respond to you at all. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war - and I don't subscribe to that notion - we now seem to agree it would fall on members of both parties.

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

Since everybody knows, what is your point? In case you missed it I don't subscribe to the notion that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war but if you need someone to blame, blame me. I made no effort to stop it and still believe it served its purpose.

My goodness, you folks just can't say it, can you?

Why is that?

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

Since everybody knows, what is your point? In case you missed it I don't subscribe to the notion that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war but if you need someone to blame, blame me. I made no effort to stop it and still believe it served its purpose.

My goodness, you folks just can't say it, can you?

Why is that?

.

I can say it:

Your opinion is pretty ignorant of you. And we all already know why your opinion is so ignorant.

,

 

[Jarhead]

You wrote it, not me.

Own it.

.

I am 100% correct. Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong.
Congress gave Bush the authority, as CiC, to enter iraq with military intent.
It was a bi partisan vote.

Or are you saying that Bush did not address it to congress and congress had no say in the matter?

Is that what you are selling now?

On the off chance that you're being serious, I'll be happy to answer.

1. Bush lobbied Congress.
2. Congress gave Bush the authority. Not a requirement, the authority.
3. Bush acted on the authority given to him by Congress, which he had lobbied.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And that's why the buck stops with him.

I'm sure you agree.

.

Oh...you opted to play word games. I dont play word games when I debate. I find it childish and non productive.

I said "Bush addressed congress"...you said, (paraphrased) 'wrong, he lobbied congress'
I said "congress gave Bush the authority to enter Iraq with military intent"....you said (paraphrased) 'wrong, Congress gave Bush authority to enter Iraq with military intent'

You see Mac...those are childish word games.

I do not wish to play.

 

[SAYIT]

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

Since everybody knows, what is your point? In case you missed it I don't subscribe to the notion that there is blame to be apportioned for the Iraq war but if you need someone to blame, blame me. I made no effort to stop it and still believe it served its purpose.

My goodness, you folks just can't say it, can you?

Why is that?.

Say what? That Bush was the President who lead us into Iraq? You said so yourself ... everybody knows that.

 

[Mac1958]

I am 100% correct. Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong.
Congress gave Bush the authority, as CiC, to enter iraq with military intent.
It was a bi partisan vote.

Or are you saying that Bush did not address it to congress and congress had no say in the matter?

Is that what you are selling now?

On the off chance that you're being serious, I'll be happy to answer.

1. Bush lobbied Congress.
2. Congress gave Bush the authority. Not a requirement, the authority.
3. Bush acted on the authority given to him by Congress, which he had lobbied.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And that's why the buck stops with him.

I'm sure you agree.

.

Oh...you opted to play word games. I dont play word games when I debate. I find it childish and non productive.

I said "Bush addressed congress"...you said, (paraphrased) 'wrong, he lobbied congress'
I said "congress gave Bush the authority to enter Iraq with military intent"....you said (paraphrased) 'wrong, Congress gave Bush authority to enter Iraq with military intent'

You see Mac...those are childish word games.

I do not wish to play.

Word games, indeed. Parsing to avoid the point.

So you're going to pretend that Bush didn't lobby Congress. You're going to pretend that Congress somehow forced Bush to go to war.

Okay. None of this is exactly a surprise. You win. This is silly.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If Congress did not give the President the authority to go into Iraq, then the President is unlikely to have made the military move against Saddam.

Hac1968 wants it to be a one-way street. He wants it to be "Congress gave the authority but the President didn't have to act on it. He chose to."

But Hac1968 doesn't care to acknowledge the flip side of that coin: "If Congress had not given the President the authority to do so, then the President probably could not have moved against Saddam."

So, let's educate poor deluded old Hac: Responsibility is STILL shared.

 

[SAYIT]

On the off chance that you're being serious, I'll be happy to answer.

1. Bush lobbied Congress.
2. Congress gave Bush the authority. Not a requirement, the authority.
3. Bush acted on the authority given to him by Congress, which he had lobbied.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And that's why the buck stops with him.

I'm sure you agree.

Oh...you opted to play word games. I dont play word games when I debate. I find it childish and non productive.

I said "Bush addressed congress"...you said, (paraphrased) 'wrong, he lobbied congress'
I said "congress gave Bush the authority to enter Iraq with military intent"....you said (paraphrased) 'wrong, Congress gave Bush authority to enter Iraq with military intent'

You see Mac...those are childish word games.

I do not wish to play.

Word games, indeed. Parsing to avoid the point.

So you're going to pretend that Bush didn't lobby Congress. You're going to pretend that Congress somehow forced Bush to go to war.

Okay. None of this is exactly a surprise. You win. This is silly.

I am certain he shared with members what info he had and pressed them for support but Congress doesn't always give a Pres what he wants and would likely be especially careful about approving a war.