« Proof: Democrats at Fault for the Recession | Main | Obama Administration: America violates human rights »

Remedial History 101 For Idiots

With Rick's article about Tony Blair and his opinions of George W. Bush, we once have again the bleating dolts shouting about how the US invaded Iraq for oil and because "ZOMG! Saddam might give his nukes to his bestest buddy Osama!"

Which, of course, is complete and utter bunk. Most of us lived through those events, and some of us haven't been engaging in certain memory-degrading forms of recreational pharmacology in the meantime.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "funny, that's not what I remember happening."

So, just for the enlightenment of the reality-impaired, below I'm reprinting the justifications for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, as passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

And just for fun, I'm going to list some of the more notable "Aye" votes.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Voting Aye: Joe Biden, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Fritz Hollings, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer, Dick Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Lantos, Ed Markey, Jack Murtha, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39996.

Comments (114)

Remedial History 101 for Id... (Below threshold)
914:

Remedial History 101 for Idiots like Dane and jim x

"Voting Aye: Joe Biden, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Fritz Hollings, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer, Dick Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Lantos, Ed Markey, Jack Murtha, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner."


Someone on that list voted for the 86 Billion before voting against, hoping to avoid the embarrassing defeat he got while trying to get him a hunting license.

Look at that list? A bunch of white elitist millionaires? These are your heroe's jim x and Dane, you can have em'.

Sure, let's have some remed... (Below threshold)

Sure, let's have some remedial history by all means.

Your reprinting of the Congressional resolution of course ignores:

a) how the Bush administration shaped, controlled and restricted the information that was actually released to Congress, before during and after this resolution -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

b) how the Bush administration ignored any outside reports that Saddam no longer had WMD or even a weapons program to speak of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

c) how the Bush administration specifically and repeatedly asserted there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda - when there was in fact less of such a connection than between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

So, when you state you were there and you remember - do you remember those specific things I'm mentioning?

Because they all happened, they're all documented - and if you don't remember them, it is probably because it doesn't fit with how you want things to have been.

Won't help JT. They are bl... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Won't help JT. They are blinded by the light of their Obamassiah. That and the Kool Aid.

And re: "elitist millionair... (Below threshold)

And re: "elitist millionaires" - 914, should I present to you a list of GOP millionaires in Congress and the Senate? It will be at least as long, I assure.

Although really, I expect nearly everyone in the Senate and a significant number in Congress of both parties are millionaires. Its just the way things roll - the upper classes run things.

"...they're all documented.... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...they're all documented."

What's the matter jim x, Jay Tea hit a nerve? Little strident there, aren't we. As for your "sources", hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Where's your NYT's articles? LA Times? Come on jim x, you're not trying! How about something from Eddie Shultz? Keith Olberman? Chris Matthews?

The members of Congress don... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The members of Congress don't actually read the bills they vote on so shouldn't be held responsible for how they vote.

As for your "sources", h... (Below threshold)

As for your "sources", hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

And your sources are....?

( crickets )

Since mine are so laughable, you should easily be able to prove me wrong, correct?

: ) I thought so. : )

Nobody has ever implied tha... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Nobody has ever implied that wikipedia is not politically biased or has ever been edited with an agenda...

SCSIWuzzy, many have implie... (Below threshold)

SCSIWuzzy, many have implied it.

If you want to disagree with any of those sources, feel free to post your own that disproves them, or proves me wrong in other ways.

Maybe jim x, but I dont see... (Below threshold)
914:

Maybe jim x, but I dont see repubs constantly hypocritically bitching about the wealthy paying thier fair share while they fly around on military transports at the tax payer's exspense.

"c) how the Bush administration specifically and repeatedly asserted there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda - when there was in fact less of such a connection than between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda."


The direct link is funding Hamas terrorists in the Gaza strip and god knows where else? You know, the same Hamas that was dancing in the streets in celebration on 911. The same scum that should have been surgically taken out right then. And by the way jim x, did not Saddam have his Nuculer dream's dashed in oh... About 1980?

He was just as damn guilty of mass murder and prospective mass murder as Al Quaeda. To deny it is tatamount to russian roulette.

Jay, I just sent a comment ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay, I just sent a comment on the Blair/Bush post but I'll repeat it here,

Sure the Democrats were victims of groupthink and the fear they would be thought weak, as future Presidential candidates, if they didn't go along with the administration. But the Bush administration over-hyped the intelligence for their case, and ruled out the caveats. As David Corn says that 80-90% of the argument was the wmd reason and particularly nuclear weapons for example, Condi Rice "the mushroom cloud". The second biggest reason was as Corn( of Mother Jones), writes ( he has studied this),

"On Nov. 7, 2002,(five months before the invasion) Bush said Saddam "is a threat because he's dealing with al-Qaeda."

I think all in all, the Iraqi invasion was simply payback for 9/11. "Afghanistan wasn't enough"- Kissinger. Sometimes we need cooler heads at the helm, and for all of his drawbacks, Obama is that.

Steve, "empty" is no... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Steve, "empty" is not a synonym for "cooler".

The direct link is fundi... (Below threshold)

The direct link is funding Hamas terrorists in the Gaza strip and god knows where else?

a) Saddam Hussein had far less of such funding than Saudia Arabia or Syria, **our allies** -

US military citation, 2003


Global security think thank link

b) more to the point, Hamas =/= Al Qaeda.

And Hamas didn't kill 3000+ of our people, Al Qaeda did. Therefore for the Bush Administration to suggest that going after Iraq will make the US safer by hurting Al Qaeda, was willfully ignorant **AT BEST**.

As to whether or not Saddam was a bad man - of course he was.

And he was one of many bad horrible men who we were **ALLIES** with - and whom our government **HELPED INTO POWER**.

In fact, when Saddam was masscreing his own people, the US **continued to support him**.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."
Jim-Lax: "feel free to... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Jim-Lax: "feel free to post your own that disproves them, or proves me wrong in other ways"

It's not possible to "disprove" a contention which ignores logic and evidence. There is, however, significant evidence that the sourecs cited have a clear and long-standing bias against conservatives in general, and President Bush in particular. As for Wikipedia, a user-generated source with no fact-check or academic peer review, there's a very good reason why any paper submitted using Wikpedia as a source will receive a failing grade.

As does Jim's most recent attempt.

Maybe jim x, but I dont ... (Below threshold)

Maybe jim x, but I dont see repubs constantly hypocritically bitching about the wealthy paying thier fair share while they fly around on military transports at the tax payer's exspense.

What I see is Repubs constantly bitching about the size of government programs, while their hands are out taking as much as they can. But that's just me.

However, I have yet to see a Republican actually refuse any portion of the Stimulus bill that would benefit their state. And it's also a fact that the red states are on Federal support - they take in more money than they send in terms of taxes.

I do wish the next time a conservative cashes their social security check, uses electricity in a rural area, collects unemployment or workmen's comp, or applies for medicare that they would thank a liberal. But I don't expect it.

Since mine are so laugha... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Since mine are so laughable, you should easily be able to prove me wrong, correct?
: ) I thought so. : )


What an ass. Only an idiot would say "prove me wrong" and then in the next line laugh that the other guy failed to do so.

So challenge accepted JimX. Will you read the following or ignore it because it doesn't fit the way you want things to be?

So, first off how about the first line of the Iraq Survey Group Final Report?

"In the years following Iraq's war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam's Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief through the appearance of cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). "

Or how about this from the Iraq Survey report?

"Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that he made a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.Saddam encouraged Iraqi officials to preserve the nation's scientific brain trust essential for WMD. Saddam told his advisors as early as 1991 that he wanted to keep Iraq's nuclear scientists fully employed."

or this?

"Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction."

or this?

"The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC's resolutions."

or how about this one? If Saddam's own senior staff was uncertain about the existence of WMD in Iraq, how is that Bush was certain that they DID NOT exist and lied about it?

"Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. "

Let's now talk about Saddam's ties to terrorism. Remember the report that came out that said there was no "smoking gun" relationship between Iraq and Al'qaeda? Everyone focused on that one line but conveniently left out the rest of the Executive Summary that starts off by saying..

"The Iraqi Persepective Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement."

Abandoning the topic alread... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Abandoning the topic already, Jim-Lax?

Weak, even for you!

It's not possible to "di... (Below threshold)

It's not possible to "disprove" a contention which ignores logic and evidence.

Sure it is. What you do is, you present logic and evidence that shows it wrong, from a source all parties can agree is impartial.

So if you think that Wikipedia is untrustworthy in this regard, please feel free to present another source. What would you like? The Washington Post? Christian Science Monitor? The Government Accounting Office?

Present your alternative source and I'll tell you if I agree. If you're truly interested in a logic-and-evidence-based discussion, I'm happy to start there.

Otherwise I give your comment a failing grade.

Assuming we're all adults h... (Below threshold)
Dane:

Assuming we're all adults here (and that's being generous with the commenters like Drummond) - we were all there - we all remember Dick Cheney telling is that Saddam and al Qaeda were conected.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k

and the evidence just goes on and on:

FACT: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: "CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: �Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.� [National Journal, 8/9/03]

FACT: Declassified documents �undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.� [LA Times, 7/19/03].

FACT: �The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.� [NY Times, 6/27/03]

FACT: "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

Asshats don't get to rewrite history, make laws in contravention to the Constitution, or lie to use about Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11.

But they keep trying, don't they? Even now, with Bush out of office, his legacy of lies lives in in the Republican operatives who will flat out lie to get back into power.

Wrong already so many times... (Below threshold)

Wrong already so many times, DJ? You're one for one so far. Way to go. ; )

Wow, I can smell the poop i... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Wow, I can smell the poop in Jim/Dane's pull-ups from here!

No wonder they're getting cranky!

LOL, the conservatives cite... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

LOL, the conservatives cite the official report from the men who found the documents and talked to the people concerned in Iraq, while Dane/Jim/Biden obsess with Wikipedia and the New York Times.

... and they wonder why they're headed for a train wreck in November .... :)

Dj Drummond calling Obama "... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Dj Drummond calling Obama "empty" is pretty weak. Is Obama empty or a ideologue? I think he is neither. Before and while he was in politics as a Illinois senator Obama was a constitutional lecturer/professor and a good one, at a conservative and highly rated law school. (I will spare you reading his excellent student reviews). But if that is empty, I guess Obama is empty.

Challenge accepted, Eric. O... (Below threshold)

Challenge accepted, Eric. Oh, I say **you're** an ass and an idiot. Nyah nyah.

Now that that's dispensed with - are you going to read my response? I hope so.

So, first off how about the first line of the Iraq Survey Group Final Report?

How about it? The question isn't whether or not Saddam ever had weapons, or wanted them; the question was whether or not he had them in 2003 - or was so close to getting them that we had to invade RIGHT AWAY.

And, from the same report you're quoting, which I found at:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm

"In the years following Iraq's war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam's Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief.... "

So, **right there in your own quote**, you show that Saddam did not have any WMD - he needed to "reconstitute" them.

And that he "needed to preserve the ability to reconstitute them while seeking sanctions relief" - means he didn't have a way to reconstitute them while sanctions and inspections were in place.

Or how about this from the Iraq Survey report?

"Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted."

How about it? thanks again for proving my point - Saddam "intending to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted" ALSO proves:

a) Saddam had no current WMD programs in action
b) was **unable** to make WMD's with the sanctions in place

So, thanks again for proving me right. And further:


Those around him at the time do not believe that he made a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.

...is maybe the source of where we're going off point from my statements.

The question is not if Saddam was a bad man, or if he wanted WMD.

The question is if there was even enough evidence that he had them to warrant an invasion right then - when we were currently in a war in Afghanistan, and trying to get Al Qaeda. Who have since gone unpunished and thumb their noses at us from around the world, after killing 3000 of our civilians.

The same objection applies to this:

"Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction."

...and all your other quotes.

They all prove that Saddam didn't have WMD's or a program that could make them, and furthermore at the time we invaded the Bush Administration **KNEW THIS**.

As for this,

"Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. "

"Senior military officials being uncertain" is not enough to risk our soldiers and open up a two-front war, when all inspections and other sources turn up absolutely no evidence AND other sources admit there is no WMD, not even a program, AND the sanctions are working.

I wouldn't bet $50 on that info, let alone a single soldier's life.

On to the terrorist ties in the next comment.

LOL, DJ talking about crapp... (Below threshold)

LOL, DJ talking about crappy pants when his panties are too soiled to directly respond to comments, is really funny.

DJ, sorry you can't delete comments which frighten you here. Don't worry. Try and read a little. Knowledge hurts but it's good for you.

As usual, the resident trol... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

As usual, the resident trolls miss the whole fricking point. The Senate was given the same NIE report that Bush was given, and yet, it still approved the IWR. From our beloved Wiki:

Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are . . . Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, and . . . John Edwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The question has to be viewed based on what Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Bush, and others knew at the time, based on the NIE -- which was that it appeared that Iraq had WMD.


Ah, now I recognize jimx. H... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Ah, now I recognize jimx. He likes to post on other conservative websites, masquerading as a Republican with impeccable credentials, so that he can criticize, ridicule and undermine the most effective Republicans on those websites, and throw people on those sites into disarray.

Fortunately for him, many of the people on those sites were stupid enough to believe that he was a Republican, and so they ganged up on anybody who disagreed with him, chasing away a lot of good people who became exasperated and disgusted with the stupidity of jerks who were gullible enough to be duped by that slippery, little weasel, jimx.

Smell's like Dane and jimmy... (Below threshold)
914:

Smell's like Dane and jimmyx have some WMD'S "Wet Mushy Diarrhea Shit" in thier drawer's.

I lived through this with a... (Below threshold)
epador:

I lived through this with an interesting perspective - stationed in Germany amidst NATO and SOF folks having to plan and execute the invasion. We certainly heard the rhetoric about WMD, but it was and remains obvious the driving factors in pushing for the war were as stated in the JT quoted Authorization for Use. Whether they justify the invasion and the subsequent turn of events is another issue.

I personally had great qualms about the invasion, but I was and am not a military or political planner - just a doc. We were prepared to handle 10-15,000 casualties from our side. That after a decade we've lost a third of that is amazing, though still a very grave sacrifice.

The whining about "Bush and Cheney lied" comes from folks that are looking for ANY reason to oppose war, period. It's an all too convenient lie to believe in. So much easier to deal with and stand firm on instead of a pacifist platform. At least in theory. Unfortunately its about as transparent as the CINC's ears.

Jim X, it is the insistence... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jim X, it is the insistence by those on the Left that Bush knowingly lied that I find appalling.

Why is it so hard to believe that the administration came its decision in good faith?

Despite everything you say and everything you linked, there was NOTHING that conclusively said in 2002 that Iraq did not have WMD. All of the leading intelligence agencies in the world believed he had WMD. UN Resolution 1441 which passed unanimously stated that he had WMD. There was lots of evidence that he had WMD.

Again it is easy to armchair quarterback that decision now. But the Iraq Survey Group concluded that he had every intention of resuming his WMD program once the sanctions lifted. Think back to 2001, back then there was a global movement to have the sanctions lifted. The sanctions would not have lasted until 2010. Where would we be right now if Saddam were still in power and the sanctions had lifted years ago?

How about a nuclear arms race between Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia?

Let's now talk about Saddam... (Below threshold)

Let's now talk about Saddam's ties to terrorism.

"The Iraqi Persepective Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.

And?

Is this evidence showing stronger links between Saddam and global terroism, than between Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, or our other allies?

The report doesn't seem to have such a comparison. To me that's a major problem - because once again, the question isn't whether Saddam was a bad man. It's whether or not it was worth turning from our known enemy who just killed 3000 of our people, to invade another country which was ***absolutely not a current threat to us***.

And I really want you to get that last sentence - Iraq was ***absolutely not a current threat to us***.

So I found the above report you're quoting from, here:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

And I looked through it. It mentions Saddam support for terrorist movements - but the most it mentions re: Al Qaeda specifically is this:

1.

Captured documents reveal that the
regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision.

2. An Iraqi terrorist group "The Army of Muhammad" may have worked with Al Qaeda, according to one lone intelligence report.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam "an infidel",

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/Harmony%20and%20Disharmony%20--%20CTC.pdf

...and Saddam labels Osama Bin Laden "a zealot".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1197051/Saddam-Hussein-called-Osama-bin-Laden-zealot-afraid-Iran-U-S--FBI-reveals.html

And also meanwhile, the 911 commission confirms that, contrary to the Bush/Cheney Administrations protests, there was no actual connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

So, to sum up: Saddam was a bad guy who wouldn't mind helping our enemy, if Saddam also got something out of it. Meanwhile our **actual enemy** is in Afghanistan, which we invaded to get him.

So, you tell me - was it a good idea to turn from our actual enemy, and invade another country which is currently no threat, thereby putting us into a two-front war and letting our actual enemy get away?

Ah, now I recogniz... (Below threshold)
Ah, now I recognize jimx. He likes to post on other conservative websites, masquerading as a Republican with impeccable credentials, so that he can criticize, ridicule and undermine the most effective Republicans on those websites, and throw people on those sites into disarray.

Um, what?

I have never masqueraded as a Republican, anywhere, ever. Seriously, not even for Halloween.

But hey, you believe what you like. :) Sounds like an interesting story you've got there.

Jim X, it is the insiste... (Below threshold)

Jim X, it is the insistence by those on the Left that Bush knowingly lied that I find appalling.

Why is it so hard to believe that the administration came its decision in good faith?

Eric, it's hard to believe that because any objective analysis of the available facts *at the time* would not have come to that conclusion.

Seriously.

The Downing Memo shows the Bush administration were massaging the intelligence any way they could, in order to point towards their predetermined desire: to invade Iraq. This ALSO shows the Bush administration was withholding information that didn't point this way from Congress, by the way.

The abundant information from all inspection groups shows that there was no evidence for any WMD - and most specifically no existing weapons program either.

So, it seems a pretty clear conclusion. If:

1. the facts point one way
2. someone says the facts point another way
3. they ignore or suppress facts that prove them wrong
4. in the face of contrary evidence and expert opinion, they continue to state that the facts point another way

...then that's lying.

Now, I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing in a larger sense. They probably thought that the ends justified the means; that it was 'alright' to shape or ignore the evidence if that's what it took to sell an invasion of Iraq.

Nevertheless, it's still lying - and it's led us into a disaster which we'll be repairing for decades and has caused literally hundreds of thousands of innocents, and 3000+ of our own soldiers to die.

While it may not have been ... (Below threshold)
epador:

While it may not have been intended that way, I read the "masquerade" comment as sarcasm. You certainly fit the description if you replace Democrat with Republican. And thanks for not scaring anyone on Halloween.

Ah, Jimmy me lad, you can c... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Ah, Jimmy me lad, you can change your name. But you can't change your syntax, and besides, I've repeatedly called you on on the same mistakes. You never learn or correct your blunders; the sign of a troll who is a rank amateur.

But hey, I don't have a problem with your silly, childish games. That's what defines you as a Democrat. What would you have if you didn't have your delusions? (And I mean that in the nicest way.):)

Uh oh, now we have the "hun... (Below threshold)
epador:

Uh oh, now we have the "hundreds of thousands of innocents" fake casualty numbers trotted out.

Where oh where are my hip waders?

Despite everything you s... (Below threshold)

Despite everything you say and everything you linked, there was NOTHING that conclusively said in 2002 that Iraq did not have WMD.

There was nothing conclusively proving he didn't have 50-foot laser-headed Amazon robots either.

I'm sure he would have wanted them. Hell, I would want them. They sound pretty awesome.

But if you're going to invade a country, you shouldn't say there **definitely is something** and we need to **act right now**, when you don't have any evidence that there definitely is something.

Saying something is definite when it is not, is a lie.

Powder cake, powder cake... (Below threshold)
914:

Powder cake, powder cake, Hussein fan

Bake me some nukes as fast as you can

Sorry jimxxxx, I think the military is capable of fighting multiple enemie's simultaneously and there was no turning from our actual enemy. Last time I checked we were still in Afghanistan looking over the border into another stan where Bin laden has taken a male bride.


YOU LIE!

So, you tell me - ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
So, you tell me - was it a good idea to turn from our actual enemy, and invade another country which is currently no threat, thereby putting us into a two-front war and letting our actual enemy get away?

Again, you miss the point. The "Bush Doctrine" was that we would use preemptive strikes after September 11. That's what he announced, and it was the Bush Doctrine that was approved by the IWR.

The NIE said that Saddam had WMD. British, Russian, and Israeli (among others) intelligence also concluded that Saddam had WMD. Bush shared the NIE with the Senate. The NIE also spoke to evidence contrary to its conclusion. The NIE hid nothing of substance. Hillary and Edwards (and others) admitted that they didn't read the NIE, so maybe it didn't matter. In any event, the IWR was passed.

That's the point.

Sorry jimxxxx, I think t... (Below threshold)

Sorry jimxxxx, I think the military is capable of fighting multiple enemie's simultaneously and there was no turning from our actual enemy.

Cool. So we captured Osama Bin Laden, right?

Jim, I believe the problem ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jim, I believe the problem that most on the Left have about this issue is that they live in a little fantasy world born out of Hollywood where the good guys are always given all the evidence and the decisions are always easy.

In the real world decision makers don't have the luxury of prescience. They have to make their decisions based on incomplete and often contradictory evidence.

You are will to concede that Saddam was a bad guy. Yes he was. That is an understatement. It is also a fact that the guy had WMD because we know for a fact that he used them.

Despite your protests there was evidence that he still had WMD in 2002. There was evidence in 2002 that he had ties to terrorism.

So Bush was wrong, that doesn't make him a liar. But what if you had been wrong and Saddam was in power today, building a nuke?

I would like to know exactl... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

I would like to know exactly what jim x has against the Iraqi people.

jim x obviously thinks the US should not have invaded and gotten rid of Saddam. This would mean Saddam's oppressive regime would still be in power.

So, jim x, what DO you have against the Iraqi people?

Frankly,iwogisdead, I think... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Frankly,iwogisdead, I think that Bush as Commander-in-chief and the ultimate decision maker had more responsibility to read the full NIE report than senators, Edwards, Hillary or McCain. Neither did Condi for that matter

The only person who actually seems to have read the full report, to his credit was Senator Chaffee (R) of Rhode Island.
Naturally, he paid for his actions and vote of no authorization, by getting turfed out by his electors.

Chafee's new book is tough on pro-war Democrats, Republicans, President Bush

Hell, I need SCBA now, we'v... (Below threshold)
epador:

Hell, I need SCBA now, we've got the "nanny nanny noo noo where is bin Laden" shiney being desperately tossed into the room.

Steve, thanks for supportin... (Below threshold)
epador:

Steve, thanks for supporting my comment in 29.

Iwogisdead, again you refus... (Below threshold)

Iwogisdead, again you refuse to get the point.

The point is not what the NIE said. The point is that the NIE was created by Bush and lacked key evidence and analyses - and it was deliberately misleading. All the information that pointed away from Saddam being a boogy-boogy threat was left out.

The Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed this:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Therefore, the Bush administration did NOT share all it's intel with Congress - if it had, Congress might not have approved.

And British Intelligence did NOT agree that Saddam had WMD's - hence the Downing Street Memo. Nor did Russia, who said so on the eve of our invasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/12/russia.politics

Vladimir Putin yesterday rejected Anglo-American claims that Saddam Hussein already possesses weapons of mass destruction and told Tony Blair that the best way to resolve the conflict of evidence is not war, but the return of UN inspectors to Iraq.

Nor did other nations with quite competent Intelligence agencies, such as Germany, France, and others.

I know you all want to believe this. I'm just telling you the facts prove you wrong.

Cool. So we captur... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Cool. So we captured Osama Bin Laden, right?

No, we didn't. It seems we've rendered him hapless, though.

In the meantime, we destroyed Saddam, who, according to the NIE, had the capability to destroy us.

I remember the coverage after September 11--"the next attack of this magnitude is a question of when, not if."

Maybe it really is a question of "if." That is, if you've got a President with the balls to defend you.

Back to the Downing Street ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Back to the Downing Street Memo and the great smoking gun of the word FIXED.

"[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

American slang uses the word fixed as a way for cheating. But this isn't an American writer, he is a British writer. To the Brits the word "fixed" has other meanings, such as attach.

So if we change that sentence this way,

"[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being attached around the policy."

It still makes sense and yet doesn't mean they were cheating. It means they haven't firmed up all of the intelligence.

If you are going to accept the Downing Street Memo as proof, then you need to accept that the principles in the memo believed that Saddam had WMD.

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Jim, I believe the probl... (Below threshold)

Jim, I believe the problem that most on the Left have about this issue is that they live in a little fantasy world born out of Hollywood where the good guys are always given all the evidence and the decisions are always easy.

Eric, I believe the problem that most on the right have about this, is they don't want to admit that Right-wing leaders can do things terribly wrong also.

In the real world decision makers don't have the luxury of prescience. They have to make their decisions based on incomplete and often contradictory evidence.

Yes. But that's different from taking evidence that points **very clearly away** in one direction, and shifting and shaping it so it points into another in order to sell a decision that's **already been made**.

You are will to concede that Saddam was a bad guy. Yes he was. That is an understatement.

Sure. He was also just as bad when he was our ally. In fact, we had no problem with him murdering his own people as long as he did what we told him. It was only when he stopped following our orders that we went against him.

It is also a fact that the guy had WMD because we know for a fact that he used them.

True with one important difference: it was a fact that the guy ONCE had WMD. It was just as much a known fact in 2001-2003, that he no longer had those weapons.

Despite your protests there was evidence that he still had WMD in 2002.

Ok. Show me that evidence. Because your other citations have been disproven.

There was evidence in 2002 that he had ties to terrorism.

And? Why are you refusing to get these points:

a) **our allies** had stronger ties to terrorism
b) none of the groups Saddam had ties to were Al Qaeda - the **number one threat against us**.

You can see that, right?

So Bush was wrong, that doesn't make him a liar.

No, what makes him and his administration liars is that the **evidence they had** pointed one way, and they selectively presented it and twisted it to **point another**.

Isn't that lying? yes or no?

But what if you had been wrong and Saddam was in power today, building a nuke?

Then we'd have to take him out now - after we would almost certainly have captured Al Qaeda, eliminated the Taliban, almost certainly resolved Afghanistan peacefully- and would have a more stable Pakistan and a large amount of Middle East support to boot.

In the meantime, we dest... (Below threshold)

In the meantime, we destroyed Saddam, who, according to the NIE, had the capability to destroy us.

Did you see the above link, from the US Select Committe on Intelligence, which shows the NIE was deliberately misleading?

Here it is again:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

So if we change that sen... (Below threshold)

So if we change that sentence this way,

"[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being attached around the policy."

It still makes sense and yet doesn't mean they were cheating.

No, actually it still means they were cheating - in fact this interpretation also matches what I'm saying: the facts and intelligence were being shaped and shifted to point towards a predetermined conclusion.

If you are going to accept the Downing Street Memo as proof, then you need to accept that the principles in the memo believed that Saddam had WMD.

I'm accepting the Downing Street memo as proof that a) the Bush admin was being deliberately misleading, and b) that British Intelligence didn't really think that Saddam had WMD.

With that in mind, look at the following quote again:

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

So, in essence:

- Bush had already made up his mind, regardless of the actual evidence

- the case was thin that Saddam was any threat at all

- so Britain was going to help Bush by trying to find a justification to invade.

It's all right there, in that quote you just showed me.

Ah, Jimmy me lad, you ca... (Below threshold)

Ah, Jimmy me lad, you can change your name. But you can't change your syntax, and besides, I've repeatedly called you on on the same mistakes. You never learn or correct your blunders; the sign of a troll who is a rank amateur.

OK! Sure. You found me! lol.

Where do you think I've been posting as a conservative? This is interesting.

It doesn't matter.Fa... (Below threshold)
Maddox:

It doesn't matter.
Facts do not lie, liberals do.

jim x obviously th... (Below threshold)
jim x obviously thinks the US should not have invaded and gotten rid of Saddam. This would mean Saddam's oppressive regime would still be in power.

So, jim x, what DO you have against the Iraqi people?

Nothing. I just like Americans more. Is there some reason you think Iraqis are more important than what's in the best interest of America?

But even if I loved the Iraqis more than Americans, I wouldn't have supported the invasion of the US - because we have done far more damage to the Iraqis than Saddam would have done in the same period.

And as a side note - this implication that we invaded to help out the iraqis is total nonsense. If our government actually cared about the Iraqi people, we would have never put Saddam into power in the first place.

Steve,You say that... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Steve,

You say that: "I think all in all, the Iraqi invasion was simply payback for 9/11"
But you also contend that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda.
Don´t you see the fallacy in your logic if the Bush administration (along with almost all the security services in the world) didn´t really believe that their was a definite connection?
Why would you pay back something to someone who hadn´t done anything to you?
You can´t have it both ways.

Statements made by CIA Dire... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Statements made by CIA Director George Tenet [a Clinton holdover, if I remember correctly, and who famously told W "slam dunk" when questioned about the strength of evidence that Saddam had WMDs], under oath, to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 11, 2003, after he had produced, on 10/01/02 an NIE to the Senate at the request of Sen. Dick Durbin:

"We see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq."


"Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. We know Zarqawi's network was behind the poison plots in Europe, and we discussed earlier as well -- Secretary Powell, the assassination of a U.S. State Department employee in Jordan. Iraq has in the past provided training and document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It also has provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with an Iraqi official as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources. And it is consistent with the pattern of denial and deception exhibited by Saddam Hussein over the past 12 years."

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R.-VA.): In the event that force is used, and after the dust settles and the world press and others can go in and assess the situation, is it your judgment that there will be clearly weapons of mass destruction which will dispel any doubt with regard to the fair and objective analysis that the United States and other nations have joined in the use of force did the right thing at the right time?

TENET: Sir, I think we will find caches of weapons of mass destruction, absolutely.
"Part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda -- operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May. Now whether there is a base or whether there is not a base they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there."

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R.-VA.): Mr. Tenet, you say, frankly, you don't know whether Saddam Hussein would or would not employ weapons of mass destruction.....

TENET: Sir, I think you have to plan on the fact that he would use these weapons.....Do I know what's in his head? I don't know. Do I know whether his subordinates will take the orders? I don't know. There are some unknowables, but you must plan as if he will use these weapons.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D.-MICH.): Would you say, Mr. Tenet that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?

TENET: I don't know that, sir, but I now that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D.-MICH.): So you're not -- well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support -- that they are under the control or direction?

TENET: Yes, sir. We have said -- what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is unconceivable to use that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they are doing."

m x obviously thinks the US... (Below threshold)
warchild:

m x obviously thinks the US should not have invaded and gotten rid of Saddam. This would mean Saddam's oppressive regime would still be in power.
--------

Why would you care baout that? I thought all Muslims were eviil. iraq is full of muslims, if you haven't noticed.

JIM X,By your comm... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

JIM X,

By your comment:
"after we would almost certainly have captured Al Qaeda, eliminated the Taliban, almost certainly resolved Afghanistan peacefully- and would have a more stable Pakistan and a large amount of Middle East support to boot."
That´s why we´re doing so well right now in Afganistan in spite of the help of the Nato allies, etc.
I can see that you live in a dream world. If only you had been President you wouldn´t have made the same mistakes.
I think that´s what Obama thought until he became president and now doesn´t know what to do with the responsibility.
Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands for voluntary blogging.

Edward Reality - LOL... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Edward Reality - LOL

So, just for the ... (Below threshold)
warchild:
So, just for the enlightenment of the reality-impaired, below I'm reprinting the justifications for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, as passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

And just for fun, I'm going to list some of the more notable "Aye" votes.

Any discussion of the reality challenged really should include yourself Jaytea.

Those weren't the reasons the administration went on meet the press with. those are the reasons the president gave in his speeches to the nation. These aren't the reasons that the white House press secretary gave when the press bothered to ask a question on the motivation for invasion. It was all "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" So please your revisionist history is frankly embarrassing.

Jim x: "Cool. So we capture... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x: "Cool. So we captured Osama Bin Laden, right?"

Hilarious!!

It's really strange, since sheriff joe biden told us that we know where bin laden is, Pakistan. And we all remember that obambi said during the campaign that he would be willing to send ground forces into Pakistan without Pakistani permission.

So again, lefties, why haven't we captured bin laden yet?

What the hell are sheriff-field marshall and grand strategist biden and his li'l pal obambi doing?

Has anyone else noticed that there has been a surprising lack of anti-war rallies lately......hmmmm

warchild: "Those weren't th... (Below threshold)
Drago:

warchild: "Those weren't the reasons the administration went on meet the press with. those are the reasons the president gave in his speeches to the nation. These aren't the reasons that the white House press secretary gave when the press bothered to ask a question on the motivation for invasion. It was all "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" So please your revisionist history is frankly embarrassing."

Uh, actually they are the reasons given many times over including being the basis for the resolution passed by Congress....oh, wait, now I understand.

Since it was the language actually used in the resolution voted on, then of course the libs had no idea what they were voting on. The libs only read "stuff they pass" out of Congress AFTER they have passed.

To paraphrase granny botox, I guess we just needed to pass the resolution to see what was in it.

And we all know that there is not a single lefty alive who disaproves of that process.

Not a single one.

BTW, whats the unemployment rate today? Surely it's not above 8%........

Isn't it nice that folks ca... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Isn't it nice that folks can rehash this again and again, always managing to find things that support their interpretation? That the confirmations occurred well AFTER the event in question doesn't matter.

You NEVER go to war with all the information you want or need. It just doesn't happen - it never did and never will. And with todays' ability to gather information, it makes it even more difficult because there's even MORE information to fog up the whole issue.

Was Saddam trouble in the area? Certainly - there doesn't seem to be any dispute about that. Should he have been taken out?

I'd say... yes. He was a nasty bastard, and by all accounts his sons were the same. The people of Iraq would have had no chance at all to free themselves, and the only thing we would have seen through there for decades would have been more misery in his people, more attempts at evading the sanctions, more attempts to circumvent the process.

We left him in place in the '90s at the UN's request. After all, we don't want to go taking out dictators willy-nilly - that might make them afraid of the consequences of their actions and their people more confident, and we can't have that. So we (IE the US and UN) set the stage for the later acts. Saddam got away with it once - he was sure there'd be someone to save his ass when it got in a crack again.

Me? I'm starting to think we did the wrong thing in attempting to rebuild the country the way we did. We should have gone in, trashed the place, and then left. At the border of Iraq and Kuwait, we leave a sign.

We will leave $500 billion in an account for your rebuilding. Meet the following criteria.

1. Create a representative government with members of all sects, made up of men and women.

2. Any dictatorship, or semi-dictatorship, or strong man rising to the top, or even a WHIFF of one party trying to lord it over the other is not allowed.

3. Figure it out for yourselves how to do it. Here's a copy of our Constitution, use that as a model.

4. You have 6 months to do this. Better get to work.

You figure it out, you'll get the money and aid. Look what we did to Germany and Japan after WW2. We'll help rebuild and provide aid - but you're going to have to stabilize yourselves. We don't want that job, we won't do that job, and it's your country - so do it.

Don't make us come back here again. We won't be so gentle next time.
It would have been nice if the folks in that area would have been amenable to rational, reasoned discourse - but no such luck.

As it was - it could have been worse. A lot worse. Better, certainly - but leaving the State Department in charge of the rebuild was a big mistake.

jim x wrote (among other vo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote (among other voluminous garbage):

The Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed this:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

How clever of you, to claim something and cite a 172 page report that does not say anything at all like you claim it does. I skimmed it. It says, among other things, that Bush's speeches about nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons were accurate, that statements about Iraq's support for terrorist groups were substantiated, and that statements that Iraq had contact with, and provided safe haven to alqaeda terrorists were substantiated.

It does not say, in any fashion, that the NIE was misleading. Thus, you are a liar.

However, I particularly liked the portions of the report by minority Sens. Chambliss, Hatch and Burr entitled "Cover up for democrats," "Cherry picking intelligence," "Unsubstantiated claims/distorting intelligence," and "Refusal of Opportunity to be heard."

I'll try to get back to the rest of the crap you posted later. If I have time.

Re: # 56 - yes, George Tene... (Below threshold)

Re: # 56 - yes, George Tenet said those things in 2003.

You'll notice that:

a) not one of those things link Saddam to any existing threat

b) not one of those things show Saddam as having WMD's

The most he says is that someone linked to Al Qaeda is also in Iraq, where other people in Iraq appear to not be killing them.

Excuse me if I don't think that's worth a US soldier's life - while we already have one war we need to win, against the scum who actually attacked us and are actually a current threat.

#19"FACT: A... (Below threshold)
914:

#19


"FACT: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]
FACT: "CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: �Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.� [National Journal, 8/9/03]

FACT: Declassified documents �undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.� [LA Times, 7/19/03].

FACT: �The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.� [NY Times, 6/27/03]

FACT: "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

Asshats don't get to rewrite history, make laws"

zz

FACT: Dane or jim x could'nt win an argument if Barry's job depended on it.


Good post JT. I know you pr... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Good post JT. I know you presented the facts then the trolls go nuts trying disprove them.

According to Jim X, we didn't beat Germany cause we didn't capture Hitler. What a putz.

According to Jim X., the senators didn't have time to read the intel before their yes vote. Stupid either way.

Now for the grown ups that actually know how government works: The president is the commander and chief of all the armed forces. But if Congress does not fund a military move, it ain't going to happen. So, why are we still in Iraq? Why Afghanistan? Because the democrats want us to be.

Liberals have so many psycho/social issues. ww

Not an "existing threat"? ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Not an "existing threat"? "Not one of those things shows Saddam as having WMDs?" Tenet testified that we will "absolutely" find caches of WMD and "you must plan that he will use these weapons." And it's not "someone linked to Al Qaeada is in Iraq" , it's: ""Part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda -- operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May. Now whether there is a base or whether there is not a base they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there."
Furthermore, on 2/12/03, Tenet testified: "We see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq."

"Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of Osama bin Laden."

"Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. IT has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."

Iwogisdead, how not-clever ... (Below threshold)

Iwogisdead, how not-clever of you to skim a document and then accuse me of lying.

What's the first conclusion of the report? Page 15 (page 16 in Acrobat:)

Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by the intelligence community, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed within the intelligence community.

I.e.: the Bush Administration took all the stuff they liked, and ignored all the stuff they did not, and pretended that there was a 100% consensus about the stuff they liked. Which is lying.

What's this say, on page 71 (72 if you go by Acrobat reader's page count) ?

Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and the Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa-ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by intelligence.

And then what's this on page 82? (page 83 if you go by Acrobat Reader)

Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Finally, for only one example of this report showing some of the shoddy analysis going into the NIE, read from page 22 on.

So, you're either a liar or a bad skimmer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Amusing FACT: 914, it appea... (Below threshold)

Amusing FACT: 914, it appears all your quotes actually support my position. Am I missing something?

According to ww, facts are ... (Below threshold)

According to ww, facts are successfully countered with unsourced opinions.

You have a nice world there, ww.

Re: # 68 - yes, Tenet said ... (Below threshold)

Re: # 68 - yes, Tenet said those things in public. And he presented no evidence for them. And a later analysis of the same intelligence and a review with other US intelligence organizations found a strong disagreement, where Tenet instead claimed a "slam dunk".

Does that mean Tenet lied, or was that stupid? Neither view is comfortable. However, since "stupid" means he'd have to have been stupid only in ways that **supported** invading Iraq, it seems much clearer that he lied.

Jimmy, shut up and sit down... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jimmy, shut up and sit down.

You've made it evident that you're a bratty, little kid who gets obnoxious just to get attention.

Go dry hump your Teddy bear, or somethin'.

You're so tedious that you would try the patience of a saint.

I think the Kurds may have ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I think the Kurds may have something to say about Saddam and WMDs... the ones he didn't kill and that survive the Turks, that is.

Why in the hell would he ha... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Why in the hell would he have lied? What evidence do you have to slander him? And more importantly, what evidence do you have that he told W anything different? Did he lie to President Clinton when Billy Boy said the same things that W said, only 4 years earlier?

You know, if you set the co... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

You know, if you set the comment threshold correctly, you miss all of the liberal spew around here. :-)
This is a good thing.

I gotta agree with #67 - outstanding post Jay Tea.
Anything that makes the liberal trolls go as apeshit as this must be far too close to the truth for their comfort.

Re # 43 - I agree, Steve, t... (Below threshold)

Re # 43 - I agree, Steve, that more people should have read the evidence. It was clear to me, on the outside and just reading the papers, that Saddam didn't have any WMD's worth invading for.

But the fact that Congress and the Senate were too-easily duped, doesn't excuse the Bush Administration for succeeding in the fraud.

Re # 76 - wow.You ... (Below threshold)

Re # 76 - wow.

You know what also will make liberals go apeshit? If you say the world is flat, and try to sail the country off the edge of the world.

That means the world must be flat, hoo boy!

Sigh.

Jimmy, remember when your p... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jimmy, remember when your parents took you for a ride and dropped you off way, way out in the country?

Well, they won't be coming back for you.

SPQR, no. You don't have to... (Below threshold)

SPQR, no. You don't have to make it obvious that you can't handle strong argument. I believe that you can. Prove me right, and actually engage with the facts or arguments of what I'm saying.

Or, admit that I may actually have a point.

SPQR, remember when you mad... (Below threshold)

SPQR, remember when you made tiresome threats like an internet tough guy?

It didn't have any effect then, and it doesn't have any now.

Not only was the retarded G... (Below threshold)
howcome:

Not only was the retarded GWB able to carry out the 9/11 attacks without any of the brilliant Democrats catching him. The oh so stupid GWB was able to trick all of the Democrats into voting for a war they would not have otherwise supported. In fact the moronic GWB was so dumb he had Democrats making statements about WMD's before he even was selected. I don't know about you but I think that GWB dude sure was a moron, while the Democrats are the dictionary definition of brilliant.

Re: # 75 - the evidence I h... (Below threshold)

Re: # 75 - the evidence I have that he lied is,

1. he made statements at the time

2. those statements don't fit what we now know the intelligence community understood **at that time**

Oh SPQR, I get it now. That... (Below threshold)

Oh SPQR, I get it now. That was something about me being abandoned or something. Right back at you, whatev...if you have nothing else to say, good day.

jimx"Re # 43 - ... (Below threshold)
914:

jimx

"Re # 43 - I agree, Steve, that more people should have read the evidence. It was clear to me, on the outside and just reading the papers, that Saddam didn't have any WMD's worth invading for."


You are so right toadstool. Ricin or vx gas in the hands of a peaceful tyrant like Saddam could never harm a village of innocents in his own country let alone be funneled to terrorists for a grander blackmail scheme or mass murder.

Time for nigh' nigh' now, Barney and friends will be on in the a.m.

Did Tenet lie to W? Did he... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Did Tenet lie to W? Did he lie to President Clinton? Did he lie to Congress when it passed the Iraq Liberation Act? That's a heap o'lyin'. Why hasn't Holder prosecuted him?

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

So, you're either a liar or a bad skimmer. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Not quite, honeybun. All of those references are to speeches. Please remember, you claimed that the report proved that the NIE was forged by Bush, yet nothing supports that outlandish claim. You are a liar.

Resolved: the NIE was accepted by the White House and the Congress, and the NIE supported the IWR. Just ask Secretary Clinton. Oh, wait. She didn't read the thing.

You lose. As usual.

Jimmy, I don't argue with f... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jimmy, I don't argue with fools, loonies or morons.

It's a waste of time.

Tipsarevic vs Roddick is mu... (Below threshold)
epador:

Tipsarevic vs Roddick is much more interesting than the forced errors I see hitting the net from jim x.

You are so right toadsto... (Below threshold)

You are so right toadstool. Ricin or vx gas in the hands of a peaceful tyrant like Saddam could never harm a village of innocents in his own country let alone be funneled to terrorists for a grander blackmail scheme or mass murder.

you are so right, 914. Saddam had all those things even though no intelligence could find any sign of them. That was totally worth letting Osama Bin Laden get away, letting the Taliban regroup, and putting us on the brink of losing Afghanistan.

Woo.

Re: # 87 - Nope, sorry. You... (Below threshold)

Re: # 87 - Nope, sorry. You need to read on from page # 22 also. Go ahead, it will be good for you.

Re: # 86 - I can't speculat... (Below threshold)

Re: # 86 - I can't speculate as to why he hasn't been prosecuted. I can only note that he said things were one way, when reality was actually another.

SPQR, still waiting for tho... (Below threshold)

SPQR, still waiting for those conservative sites that you say I post on. I'm genuinely curious.

Well, I've asked this quest... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Well, I've asked this question twice, maybe three times will be a charm. Did Tenet tell the same lies to W? Did he tell the same lies to President Clinton, who said the same things as W, only 4 years earlier, and who originally appointed Tenet as Director of the CIA?

Re: # 87 - Nope, s... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Re: # 87 - Nope, sorry. You need to read on from page # 22 also.

I did; you're wrong. Page 22 is only about speeches.

Please cite one page number of the report claiming that Bush forged the NIE.

You can't; you're a phony.

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, you're... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, you're not even rational enough or well enough informed on the issues to give anyone here a contest.

Without even working up a sweat, so to speak, people here have been making you look foolish all day, but you're too dense to realize it.

Why don't you give it a rest for tonight, and give it another try someday when you can be at least marginally lucid?

I realize that you're lonely, and so I feel badly that I was mean to you, but hey, enough is enough already.

iwogisdead - Since Tenet ha... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

iwogisdead - Since Tenet has written that he [the CIA] authored the NIE produced to Congress at the request of Sen. Durbin, D. Ill., just before Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, I don't think W forged it. Unless, of course, Tenet lied about that, too.

Saddam buried MiGs out in t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Saddam buried MiGs out in the desert - and if there's one thing (aside from oil) that Iraq's got in quantity it's desert.

Bury a few cargo containers, bulldoze the entire area, and you're golden. Hell, Marine recruits are taught the basics of camoflage and emplacements - you think that the folks Saddam had working for him couldn't figure out how to hide stuff?

Plus, there were (by many reports) lots of convoys (supposedly containing WMD) headed from Iraq into Syria.

Now, if the police were about to bust down your door, wouldn't you (if you weren't Paris Hilton) want to flush the evidence?

Also, during the war there were reports of ammo depots being found with caches of barrels of 'insecticide' and empty shells. Now, unless they had a hell of a problem with camel spiders, I'm not sure why you'd keep ag chemicals near live munitions.

(Makes you wonder - was he sold the stuff, ord did his chemists tell him that Malathion was the nerve gas he so badly wanted?)

Did he actually have WMDs? At this point, I'd say 75% yes. It really doesn't take much space (or massive security) to store enough to take out a lot of people. But - it doesn't matter whether he did or not, it's whether he could convince other countries that he did... whether he did or not.

And at this point, all that's left is the arguing about it.

Good night, Jimmy. Bad drea... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Good night, Jimmy. Bad dreams.

JLawson, you're absolutley ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

JLawson, you're absolutley right. The only one who possibly lied about Saddam having WMDs, was Saddam. Even some of his military leaders believed he had WMDs. Assuming Saddam didn't have WMDs, he tried to bluff the wrong cowboy into believing he did. Miss that cowboy - wish he hadn't been replaced by Peewee Herman.

Walter Cronanty wrote:... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Walter Cronanty wrote:

iwogisdead - Since Tenet has written that he [the CIA] authored the NIE produced to Congress at the request of Sen. Durbin, D. Ill., just before Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, I don't think W forged it. Unless, of course, Tenet lied about that, too.

Yeah, that's a very good point. Tenet's paper presented an even stronger assessment of WMD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

Not that jim x and the libs want to address it. They won't--keep pushing sticks at them through their bars.

You're playing right into t... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

You're playing right into their hands whenever you get into a debate with them about GW.

GW is history.

But they still want to talk about him, because they aren't willing to talk about the sleaziness and the screw-ups of the Obama Administration.

Jimx was so boorish that I resisted a temptation to ask him to justify the sleaziness of this administration's despicable decision to involve the UN in their dispute with Arizona, and I couldn't be bothered with raising other issues with him, too, such as who was in control of Congress when the economy began to nosedive, and who was president when unemployment began to skyrocket, etc., etc..

Well, you get my drift. When I discuss issues with liberals, it's on my terms, not on their terms.

Thanks Jay Tea.The... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Thanks Jay Tea.

The left needs lots of history lessons. They still think they get to write all of this stuff, and as Congresswoman Sanchez once said, "It's true, the Democrats don't control the media like they used to."

SPQR, remember when you mad... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

SPQR, remember when you made tiresome threats like an internet tough guy?

It didn't have any effect then, and it doesn't have any now.

81. Posted by jim x | September 1, 2010 9:06 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast

It's simple: Cut them and paste them, Jimmy, or be a man and admit that you lied. That will be a first for you.

Threatened you? Internet tough guy? That's bullshit, and you know it.

You're one sick, little guy. And a whiny, little crybaby, too.

Jimmy x...time to go in...y... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Jimmy x...time to go in...your mommy is calling.

little jimmy x....the poste... (Below threshold)
Michael:

little jimmy x....the poster child for todays typical DimoRat.

YOU LIE! jim x and you are ... (Below threshold)
914:

YOU LIE! jim x and you are also going to lose the bet in November. Maybe you and Dane can get a room and cry on each others shoulders.

According to jimmy, when Ob... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

According to jimmy, when Obama said we have to have the stimulus or the employment rate will exceed 8%, he lied. Even if he believed it then the facts support Obama as a liar after the fact. Logic kills liberals. ww

The US went into Iraq not b... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

The US went into Iraq not because Saddam was a f-ed up dictator (which he had been for decades), but because he stopped toeing the line. Notice that we didn't invade Iraq in the 1980s. We only went in when he stopped doing things according to plan--and our motives for invading had less to do with the fact that he was a murderous, authoritarian dictator, and more to do with regional and global politics. We let all sorts of authoritarian regimes slide (Somoza, anyone), and we have done that for a long time (for pragmatic and often very political reasons).

So to characterize the war in Iraq as some kind of purely noble military mission is pretty naive. But go ahead and tell yourselves that it was all about democracy and saving the people of Iraq.

It was all about strategy, a certain ideological stance about the global role of the US, politics, and economics. But saying that doesn't really go over very well for politicians, whether on the left or the right. So then we get to hear all of this whitewashed stuff about freedom, liberty, democracy, and such.

Democracy surely wasn't a big concern when the US decided to get involved in Nicaragua, was it? (and yes, the Sandinistas were absolutely radicalized--that's what happens when people live under repressive regimes for decades. Maybe we'll learn that lesson at some point) And there was also Guatemala. In both cases our foreign policy folks were perfectly happy to side with authoritarian leadership rather than allow any sort of representative government that might be problematic politically or economically for the US. And the pattern continued with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We knew what he was all about in the 1980s, but gave him a break since we hoped he might be able to decimate Iran and be a good authoritarian point man in the ME. Well, then he rolled into Kuwait and we went for Plan B.

Jim x,You say, <br... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Jim x,

You say,
Re: # 75 - the evidence I have that he lied is,

1. he made statements at the time

2. those statements don't fit what we now know the intelligence community understood **at that time**

That is not true. The intelligence communities were nearly all saying the same thing. France and Russia seemed to be the only two that differed, and that only in degree. Bush din´t lie since he got his information from all of the worldwide intelligence services. You need to accuse the secret intelligence people of either lying or making mistakes, but not accuse the government leaders when they acted on that information. You just want to blame Bush cause you don´t like him.
Saddam´s propaganda campaign to bluff the Iranians worked so well that it was bought all over the world. He lived and died to regret doing such a good job.
Also, remember that hard evidence confirmed that Iraq had quite a few weapons of mass distruction in 1993 and later, and there was no evidence that those had ever been destroyed.

By the way, Jimmy, what´s your day job?

The nub of this debate as K... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The nub of this debate as Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor states,

"Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it," he writes. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq's horrendous human rights violations."

And by W.M.D. he means a nuclear weapon, since probably half the countries in the world have stockpiles of nerve gas, mustard gas etc. Iraq must one of the few significant countries who no longer had a stockpile, courtesy of UN resolutions, the weapon inspectors.

Yes, Iraq did use poisonous gas on the Kurds in 1988 killing three thousand, gas purchased from the US, in series agreements initiated by Donald Rumsfeld when he was a civilian who went to Baghdad in 1982 to shake Saddam`s hand and assure Saddam of US material support, including the shipments of poisonous gas, authorized by the US Department of Commerce. Rumsfeld twenty years later said he was shocked Iraq could have poisonous gas.

So the heart of the issue is whether Iraq had a nuclear bomb, an impossible feat considering the time frame needed and huge nuclear engineering operation and plant need, and with hundreds of UN inspectors wandering around a country, and with US reconaissance satellite photos in a country, which barely has a military airplane.

Yet, still Bush got away with his unbelievable assertion,

At a December 31, 2002, press conference, Bush asserted, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon." But there was no intelligence at the time suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might already possess nuclear weapons. The faulty national intelligence estimate produced in October 2002 had errantly declared that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program but it had also concluded Iraq had no nuclear weapons and would not be able to produce one for years. Bush had no basis for suggesting Saddam could already be nuclear-armed. Yet he did so.

It is to bad that Bush didn`t consult with Scott Ritter who had been US`s main weapons inspector in Iraq. Hey, that would have upset Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld and their manufactured justification for the invasion.

The hyper-links for the a... (Below threshold)
Streve Crickmore:

The hyper-links for the above: Rove and the
Bush assertion

What truly amazes me is how... (Below threshold)
warchild:

What truly amazes me is how conservatives are truly hateful to facts they dislike. I mean to take the document and actually show what it says and they become enraged and start calling you names. find links to the press conferecnes where the admin was making their case for war, a case they fully echoed back and claimed was true themselves and they pretend it happened a completely different way. wow. I mean,just wow. And these people think they should govern something?

warchild, I think you meant... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

warchild, I think you meant to post -"What truly amazes me is how LIBERALS are truly hateful to facts they dislike. ... I mean,just wow. And these people think they should govern something? "

I mention this because as I look back through this thread, it is the liberals who have the panties in a wad, not the conservatives.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy