Iraq 'war fixed'

Having sex and not having to pay for it.

Your utter lack of reading comprehension is showing again. The "liberals" now have absolute proof that Bush lied to the American people. There has been no "debate" regarding whether we should or should not invade Iraq, there is discussion of how disgusting it is that the POTUS lied ABOUT A WAR and how his apologists just turn away from that fact, much as Nixon's apologists did.

Yes, you really are.

Go ahead and debate yourself about anything. That is the only kind of debate you are capable of winning.

 

**The_Conquistador chuckles to himself.

 

Max, that's why you are not a neocon rightwing. I sure hope I never see the day that NW, Decker, ... act the way T_J does (just igore all the facts, what ever they may be).

 

As he amuses himself with typos rather than substance, per usual.

Difference is that I can edit my typos while you will always be unable to debate substance, rookie.

 

Max, you are correct. I do understand that it is dfficult to admit when we are wrong. I remember after the Iraq elections feeling very odd, because I was convinced that they should have been delayed. It was strange to find out that something I was so sure of, turned out to be wrong. It made me wonder if I had been wrong about other things as well. That is always uneasy when someone believes something deeply.

I don't mean to gloat, or taunt, but I'm just dismayed by people who are dismissing the fact that our president lied to us to start a war. It wasn't a war of necessity, but one that the President and others in our administration wanted. They were willing to skew, omit, and change things in order to get their way.

Yet people I don't normally dismiss them as light thinkers are content to ignore the elephant in the room and make silly jokes around it. Maybe it is too much for them to deal with right now, and so they are saying anything that will distract their minds from coming to grips with what happened. I understand that it can be a shock, and I guess I shouldn't dismiss their way of dealing with it.

I just keep coming back to the elephant in the room metaphor, because certain people's eyes seem to gloss over when their vision approaches any of these facts. This isn't flimsy evidence that drudge overheard someone saying either. These are actual minutes from govt. meetings that occurred.

I don't mean to gloat, because it doesn't make me happy that I was right, but I'm just so baffeled by some of the responses to this.

 

i understand entirely, FB. i really didn't perceive it as gloating...i was just trying to answer the baffled feeling you have and why the response may be as it is.

 

Hey impeaching Clinton was an attempt to protect American values right? W just wanted to go get some frontier justics on the guy who tried to whack his daddy. Seems sort of noble.

I don't think there are enough Dems in Congress to get an impeachment vote against W. Face it, W is president until the next election. I've gone into complete denial. How's the song go, don't worry, be happy.

 

Bush ensured he would never be impeached during the 2000 election, when he selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. I don't think there is a Democrat on earth that would want Junior thrown out of office, knowing that President Dick Cheney would replace him.

 

Please! Jr had no say so whatsoever about who his running mate would be. That was Rove's job.

 

I like the shoes.

 

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

So they thought he had WMD capability, just less than the other countries?

 

That is correct. I think almost everyone thought he had WMD's.

That isn't the issue here. The issue here, is that they doctored the intelligence to make it seem like it was a bigger threat than it was, because they wanted to go to war.

This shows that war wasn't the last resort, that war wasn't the only option. It was the option they wanted, and they were going to fix the intel to make sure they got their war. They lied about the threat, and they lied when they told congress that troop authorization was to keep the peace, and that they were still looking at other options, etc.

I look at Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and how bad many thought Saddam was to invade. He made up the excuses that they were slant oil drilling, and old claim to that area to excuse his invasion. Now Bush made up excuses for an invasion of his own. It is a dark day in our nation's history.

 

Oh you mean when they elected Bill Clinton for two terms?

 

Yes Bill Clinton was a liar as well, but wan't that after he was already elected to his second term? I don't really remember the dates of his perjury, but I thought the second term had already started.

GW Bush however, is also a liar. He was lying throughout his first term, and was re-elected. At that time some people thought he was just mistaken, and thought he was wrong rather than a liar. Now, however, the proof was in and GW Bush was indeed a liar. Not only was he a liar, he was someone who was willing to risk U.S. lives not out of necessity, but because it was a war he wanted to fight, and was willing to change the intel to whatever it needed to be, in order to get approval for the war he wanted.

Mission Accomplished, indeed.

 

Batman, could you please provide the proof of the president's mendacity you speak of? please, to prevent needless meanderings into the darker sides of the moveon mindset, only provide links to unimpeachable (forgive the pun) sources. memo-bombs dropped on the eve of the british elections, and clearly intended to influence them, do not qualify. you're a highly intelligent and well informed individual. i assume therefore providing this proof will not prove too burdensome. I look forward to you educating me, and the 62M others who voted for Mr. Bush last fall.

Thanks in advance!

 

they're ALL liars. so are most of us...if not all of us. power brings out the worst in people.

 

It must be nice to be able to disqualify any source, no matter how credible. So far, you (and people like you) have now called into question CIA agents, ambassadors, former Treasury officials, former generals, and the entire US media, save Faux News.

Now you are claiming that minutes of a British government meeting are somehow in question, a statement that is incredible in its audacity.

 

Basso,

First why don't you explain why an internal memo from the Bush's Administration's closest partner in Iraq, that clearly states that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made, at a time when Bush was blathering about war being a last resort, does not qualify as evidence that Bush was lying.

Oh, and while you're at it why don't you tell us why the timing and motivation of the British memo's leak has anything to do with anything. Are you disputing the memo's authenticity? Because if you're not this is "clearly" a pathetic smokescreen.