Yeah. Alex.
Since Iraq had NOTHINFG to threaten us with, and was invaded using lies as excuses, and more lies to keep us there, I can imagine lots of good things would be available as a benefit.

I can imagine this.
We'd be a few trillion less in debt, and maybe still have our Constitution.
We'd still have our international reputation.
We'd still be the moral leaders of the free world.
4000 American and who knows how many Iraqis would still be alive.

That is the short list.

If Iraq had nothing to threaten us with JOhn. Then why did the world have sanctions on him? Why did he invade Kuwait? Why was he murdering 100s of thousands of his own people? Why was he placing bounties on heads of states? Why was he funding and training terrorists? The list of Whys go on and on John. I know you have no answers because your mind is closed. You forget the US has and had UN sanction. You forget the World Court gave permission for the conflict. You forget Congress authorized it. You forget we had the largest coalition with us in history. You forget all of that.

As to the Constitution it is fighting for its life because of the current Liberal Congress and a Supreme Court that wants to write law instead of interpret.

But then you don't see that either.

Alex,,"Removing dictators and establishing, defending and spreading democracy is indeed very expensive."
It's amazing that you still think that's what Bushco is doing!

John Bradford,
you're right!

Ah but rich you forget that the original use of force authorization was for going into Afghanistan. And our forces were diverted to make profits for "Oil" and Halliburton/>>KBR.
Iraq was contained as you pointed out, and Bushco is treasonous!
And you support them?

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

When did the USA change from being a non-imperialistic nation who only involved themselves in defensive military actions, to an aggressive, expansionistic, military invader. We have become the conquistadors of democracy.

How can we justify forcefully exporting democracy when this is contrary to our national imperative? George Bush and his ego-maniacal Vice President have altered the American perception in the world from being a partner and assistant in development to an aggressive imperialistic war machine.

At this point we can be thankful his term is expiring. Alex you might want to think of the savings if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

richsteele
SHOW ME!
Just one nuke.
Just one mobile lab.
Just one VIABLE unreported WMD.
Just one bit of REAL proof that there was any substantial contact between Al Qaeda and Saddam, except for him to tell them to get out.
Just one bit of evidence that any of Bushco's claims had substance.

Don't tell me what others said. The UN was misled intentionally by Bushco with its "alternative assessments", and lied to by Powell. They were then ignored when Bush invaded anyway, as Saddam hadn't stopped the inspections, Bushco withdrew the inspectors 6 months early and invaded because he wasn't getting the answers he wanted to hear, and he was afraid the world would get it before he could act out his wet dream.

The Congress was lied to in the 2003 State of the Union address in which only the words 'the' and "and' were true.
The reality is that nothing turned out true.
Bushco KNEW IT. We have it documented from many sources.
They LIED, they are sytill lying, and you are still buying.

The largest coalition?
Please richsteele, don't emabrrass yourself. Many of them had to be threatened for cooperation. And out of 49 only 4 sent troops for the invasion. 98% of the military came from England and the US. So calling it a coalition to begin with is as big a reach as the rest of Bushco's phony claims

mk - The following statement from Sen Clinton sums up the feelings of every Democratic Official you sited:

TILTON (2/10/07): I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all, without nuance, you can say that that war authorization vote was a mistake...The reason I ask personally is because I, and I think a lot of other Democratic primary voters, until we hear you say that, we’re not going to hear all these other great things you’re saying.

CLINTON: Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. [audience applause] But I also—and, I mean, obviously you have to weigh everything as you make your decision. I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.

Mistaken original votes do not support George Bush continuing his failed and falsely created policy.

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003

Good for you quoting Clinton. What a shame that
the Obama campaign went after her only during the primary, and surrounded himself with all others who voted the same as she did.

Today, an article you might
want to read: Oamba's Iraq Problem by Byline, NewYorker.
Quote:
In Feb 2007, when Barak declared that he was running for president, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy in part on a bold promise to begin a rapid with drawal of American forces upon taking office.....

Read the whole article.

Does 9/11 mean anything to you?

quote away , mk. You can quote anyone you like, bit it doesn't make it any more true.
Kerry was wrong, but he didn't alter the intel. He didn't lie.
Bushco DID.
They are still lying and you are still an excuse maker for liars and traitors.
Kerry made his statements based on the intel which was altered under D--- Cheney's supervision by Doug Feith, who "alternatively assessed" rumor and innuendo, and then declared it as gospel truth.

We have PROOF that they did so. Documented and public record.

To whoever is in charge of this forum. You cannot censor someone's NAME.
A box of rocks could figure this one out.

You can claim the democrats were too stupid to have a grasp of reality, or you can get a clue yourself.

They all said the same things about Saddam and WMD's.

From President Clinton's administration up to the day the war started.

Your irrational hatred for President Bush has clouded your view of history.

Or you're just a lying partisan political hack.

mk
Stick it. I'd rather be a hack than an apologist for liars and traitors.

When aren't we going after the leaders of North Korea, and China? Using Alex's logic, we should do that, and soon. Oh, thats right, no oil.

When aren't we going after the leaders of North Korea, and China? Using Alex's logic, we should do that, and soon. Oh, thats right, no oil.

Darn, I was afraid that might happen.

Alex Landis states...

"Removing dictators and establishing, defending and spreading democracy is indeed very expensive. But think of the costs if we didn't do it!"

And what is the cost if we don't do it right?

"In 1947, General Douglas MacArthur invited him (Roger Nash Baldwin, co-founder of the ACLU) to Japan to foster the growth of civil liberties in that country. In Japan, he founded the Japan Civil Liberties Union, and the Japanese government awarded him the Order of the Rising Sun. In 1948, Germany and Austria invited him for similar purposes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin

We sent what's his name to Iraq.
It's now an Islamic Republic.

Alex Landi,
You make the assumption everyone wants a democracy, and that is untrue. Some are and were better off without democracy.

Alex

Peace is always cheaper when done right.

You can spend a fraction of the money spent on war and build secure and comfortable places for talking.
As long as sides are talking, nobody is dying and more gets done.

The war is necessary and inexcapable mentality is insanity.

If you can go one hour, one day, one month, without war, then you can go forever. Because war is contrived.

He also makes the assumption that you can force a democracy on a sovereign country, and that somehow we have the right to do so.

All you have to do mk, is show me where the things Bushco said which others didn't are true.
Like Nigerian Yellow Cake, or mobile labs, or a nuclear program which were presented to both Congress and the UN as stone cold fact, when they had been told by our own intel weren't worth a look.
How about the phony drones which you claimed were a threat and turned out to be balsa wood and duct tape?

The list of lies which are particular to Bushco and not things said by others are a very long list.

John

We've spent eight years with an invisable puppet.
when Obama goes to Europe he will have a bigger reception than Kennedy, and that was big.
It will probably stop everything wherever he goes. Then he will be known everywhere.

rich won't be back. He's a drive-by and doesn't comment more than once on a story.

John P. Schafer, you are either incredibly clever or not very well versed in literature. Are you referring to "The Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison? Senator Obama is not the invisible man here or not the one portrayed in the book or is he?

George

A major Bush lie.

"My fellow citizens," he began, "at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." We were entering Iraq, he insisted, "with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

We then bombed them into the stone age, looted the country while protecting the oil ministry, and we now have no electricity and a lake of sewage in downtown Baghdad.

Alex

We could have bought Saddam out for a billion dollars or less.
Iraq will cost our children's children TRILLIONS, thanks to the Village Idiot's use of the national credit card, so war was far more expensive than peace.

Fact: Saddam Hussein's own republic guard commanders were atually still waiting for deployment of WMD's (gasses) right up untill the US took them over. His own people believed the threat yet the liberal yahoos on this site keep lying about how the supposed "greatest coverup in history" was a complete scam or something. Keep lying though because it just makes you all look just as bad as the next lyer.

yogi, if you knew how to comprehend, I was mearly going after the myth that going into Iraq was under complete lies that you cannot even proove. I'm not saying we should be in Iraq but, anyone can monday morning quarterback.

Obama didn't participate in the Iraq planning because he wasn't in position to do so. He is still just as much of a lyer as the rest of them. Your just so gullible to believe his lies like the rest of the Dem puppets. I'm personally disgusted with both parties and candidates.

Fairly pathetic when the old men dream up names such as "Shock and Awe" while the young men do the dirty work.

HV, were there any weaponized gases found in Iraq post invasion?

John
Seriously man. Why don't you move to Cuba or Russia. You hate this country so much. Do us all a favor and leave. Do you need some help for an airline ticket?

They were going to load them up on the balsa wood and duct tape drones.

And HV, if that's your best shot at Obama, you'd have been better served remaining quiet, since you are reaching so desperately.

Obama spoke against the war from the beginning.
Public Record.

But since you are disgusted with liars, I can reasonably assume you are disgusted with Buhsco?
We can prove they lied.
Repeatedly, and still.

High Voltage, I am not as literate as you are: What is a 'lyer'?

George

"What is a 'lyer'?"

It's someone who makes hominy, I guess.

The usual monday morning quarterbacks coming out to analyze the aftermath. Like I have said, ANYONE can do that.
Raoul, whatever was found in Iraq post invasion does not have any affect on what was known before we got there.
yogi, your just pathetic.
The absolute proof john, not just your usual pathetic rhetoric partisan lies.
As for george, mabe I was too busy serving this great country of ours instead of getting literature education as you. Go back to your books now.

d212...
Seriously man. Why don't YOU move to Cuba or Russia. You hate the free speech of thinking people so much. Do us all a favor and leave. Do you need some help for an airline ticket?

Wise people review and critique the results of their actions. Fools and buffoons insist the righteousness of their failed stratagems. The Iraq invasion was a failure of epic proportion, intelligence, impetus, cost, results, prestige, non-existent wmd, benefits to America, loss of life, on and on and on. Decreased resources for the Afganistan conflict against the true enemy.

Now let's look at the benefits, an autocratically supported mock Democracy. Increased stock values for Bush/Cheney specified corporations and Pentagon sponsered Defense Industries. Oh yeah increased oil prices benefiting the Saudis.

This isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, it is constructive critique of Bush's failed policies.

My question of you is what is your rational for defending this group of lying warmongers?

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

My point to you would be that I'm not defending the Commander-In-Chief nor am I on a mission to trash talk the US mission as you are. We do have a positive mission there and can stableize the country as we so owe upon removing their terrorist previous leader. The more you and your type keep feeding the enemy over their, the longer this stableization will take & the more American lives lost.

You are just totally lost in the ozone HV. The minute we stop paying off both the Shia and the Sunni's your prized stablization will be like tuna and milk in a blender. The best way to save American lives is get them out of there.
Of course you and yours who are willing to sacrifice American lives to protect the oil interests can't see that.

-Concerning the honesty of the Bush Administration, and Iraq.
***
Paul O'Neill, GW Bush's first Secretary of The Treasury has reported that GW was holding cabinet meetings beginning 10 days after his inaguration in January 2001, and that the main subject at these meetings were plans to invade Iraq. Secretary O'Neill produced 19,000 internal documents that substantiated his claims against GW Bush, and VP Cheney. They were looking for "excuses" to invade Iraq, and they were discussing how to "divvy" up Saddam's oil eight months before the terror attacks of 9-11-01.
***
After 9-11 GW Bush & Co. had their "justification" for invading Iraq.
***
I find Paul O'Neill's testimony incredibly credible, and he received NO MONEY from the book that was written about his story.
***
The Iraqi invasion was steeped in lies, and obfuscation from day one.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

The Guardian
February 6, 1999

Saddam link to Bin Laden

By Julian Borger

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#tO6tWImvU6

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,314700,00.html

I serve this country and have time for books for an educated citizen is one who is a better citizen than one who does not know anything.

George

P.S. A quote you might not have come across: "To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which the customs of the day esteem. It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object."

Henry David Thoreau

A library card does not cost anything

lgeorgealexander, As I respect your intulecturalness (as long as I spell it right as to not affend you), I work my a$$ off, make a very good living, pay tons of taxes & really don't read much nor have time to. Sorry if I don't live up to your ideal person to have the capability to have an opinion but I believe my opinion should stand on record at least as much as anyone on these pages.

So, mk, your defense continues to be, "It's okay, because Clinton/Clinton/Kerry/whomever did it too!!"? Nice. Guess what? I don't like any of 'em, but a change sure will be good!

And really, HV, does it behoove your cause to represent (your fellow?) soldiers as unread and uneducated? Surely, many are not, and for you to imply that only the ignorant do such a job is disrespectful, at best.

Betcha have time for TV.

It is not 'my' defense.

I provided some quotes above to remind everyone what reality is.

Are you denying that removing Saddam was policy initiated by the previous president?

Are you denying that during President Clinton's administration virtually all the 'lies' about Iraq were put forward as facts also?

This idiocy that President Bush created the accusations about Saddam and WMD's is beyond me, when you can find quotes from just about every politician at that time saying the same thing.

Don't post your revisionist, partisan, whiny accusations if they're not true.

You're a fool if you think either one of these politicians is going to make your life better.

Taxpayers are going to pay more and people on the government payroll will not get increases large enough to offset the increased costs of living.

How is that change?

mk - has replaced RLF as the cut and paste space waster of the R/S postings. No original statements just pointless cut & pastes on and on. Just like with RLF I see mk as the poster and simply skip to the next post that begins with someone else's name/identifier.

President Clinton told the President Elect George W. Bush that Osama Bin Laden was the number one threat to America, Bush said no I don't agree with you Saddam Hussein is my priority. As stated Osama Bin Laden proved to be the number one threat to America. After 9/11 unable to accept being wrong Bush pointed the finger away from Osama Bin Laden and attacked Saddam Hussein.

Bush ignored the intelligence correctly passed on to him by President Clinton.

That is the real transfer of intelligence and the revisionism comes from neo-con right wing apologists, who like Bush, can't admit their error.

you got my comment wrong. I was shown as illiterate and was mearly speaking my case if you were to have read earlier comments.

and you were the 3rd person in this so-called conversation?

See, those kinds of lies are exactly what I'm talking about.

This is a transcript of an interview with Richard Clarke, the head of the National Security Administration terrorism wing for both administrations.

"And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent."

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

This from a man that was in the room, involved in the transition between administrations.

Unless you can prove that Mr. Clarke is a liar about this, you are.

There are enough things to complain about that making up lies to make yourself look better is just pathetic.

The truth shall set you free.

-mk

You are correct that the demos were complicit in the war effort, but what about Paul O'Neill's testimony that the Bush team was discussing the invasion of Iraq in January-February of 2001?
***
I do not agree with the self-righteous demos but their answer to (the bulk of) the Democratic pro-war quotes that you have posted today is that they were made in response to faulty intelligence filtered through the white house.
***
And another thing that you conveiniently "omit" when you cite UN Resolution violations as a justification for invading Iraq is that the war effort is not "sanctioned" by the UN.
***
For the record, I DO NOT believe that the USA needs any UN authorization to take military action. I believe if America decides to fight a MORAL war based on the TRUTH it does not need the approval of the UN. But, the reason I bring it up is to encourage you to be consistent, and balanced in your postings.
***
But all in all, I find your democratic pro-war quotes quite relevant.
But then again, just because the demos are up to their eyeballs in it too, does not excuse the many documented lies and obfuscations of the Bush Team.
***
This war is an immoral war based on lies.
And,
This war is the responsibility of GW Bush.
GW Bush's legacy will be the immoral war, and the assault on the constitution through the patriot act.

You must have missed the dates of the quotes on the 9:50 posts, 1998 & 1999. These 'lies' are lies that had been common knowledge for the better part of a decade.

I agree intelligence was marginal at best, but we didn't have assets inside Iraq to really know much of anything.

History will judge president Bush by what Iraq & Afghanistan end up like 10 or 15 years down the road, not by how it started out.

And right now it's not looking real good for the Bush haters.

I think Harry Reid said it as plainly and succinctly as I have ever heard.

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

When you read the words of Dr. Hans Blix in a report to the U.N. just a few months before the war started he agrees with Mr Reid.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

Alex Landi, everything you say is relative. Would you feel the same if Canada decided to invade this country because they felt George W. Bush was a war criminal and needed to removed?

George

Hey mk
Same old tired Blix story.
WE have reduced that to the compost that is previously. But that doesn't matter to your sorry excuse making little self.

Blix Jim Lehrer show, March 17, 2004

Assessing the case for the Iraq war
HANS BLIX: Well, they certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time. We had heard in the autumn of 2002 that the alleged aluminum tubes, for instance, which were thought, alleged to be for making the centrifuges, were probably more likely to be for making a rocket. And in January 2003, we had performed quite a lot of inspections to sites which were given by intelligence and they had not shown any weapons of mass destruction, so we began to be doubtful.

And among the 700 inspections that we performed, none brought us any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I warned the Security Council about that. Yet, there might have been other evidence and Colin Powell came before the Security Council and he brought some evidence, which we could not check. And I think that by now most of the evidence has fallen apart."

FALLEN APART. NONE brought us evidence.

What a tiresome aplogist you are.

Mr Schaffer:

Life will be joyous when the "Invisble Man" is sworn in on January 20th to end the most disastrous presidency of our country's history. Hail President Obama!!! Si Se Puede!

The conversation was about what was known before the war, not what you pitiful Monday morning experts want to claim was known.

Blix's statement before the war added justification for removing Saddam and finding out for sure what he had or didn't have.

You and your pathetic neo-comrades need to get over President Bush, he can't run again and you have nothing to bring him up on charges for.

Quit taking sides with terrorists against America, you're a disgrace.

Great job john. We need real Americans to restore truth and honor instead of the mean, nasty apologists for the current regime.
Heres a nice link mediachannel.org where Walter Cronkite shows his endorsements.
We need some real news and this is going to be an important source I use to find some facts and less rantings.

mk, john, I find it somewhat tragic that almost 8 years later the same old rhetoric is being passed around.

mk, Bush et al. lied to the public and got the real war they wanted when they went to office. I would direct you to their site where it is stated in the policy; however that site is now defunct. Here are the folks I speak of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac.

John, where were all of the democrats on the Iraq invasion congressional vote? My guess the night before the vote they got some calls from a certain Zionist group: American Israel Public Affairs Committee and went right along.

I know you guys and many others that frequent these pages served this country and feel strongly about each issue, however everyday one can log in and see names tossed around like moron, liberal, neocon, etc. Really, mk is john taking the side of terrorists? Give me a break. I side with the many arguments that john gives, however mk, you and others give new insights to certain areas that I appreciate and I’d probably read more if I could get around all of the name calling. The terrorists would certainly be excited by the distain that they have indirectly provoked between good US citizens with the help of our own elected officials and bad choices.

-mk

I understand what you are saying.
The demos were on board with the war, as far back as 1998.
***
But once again, what about Paul O'Neill?
For me his indictment of the Bush Team is HUGE. O'Neill says that from day #1 the Bush Team was looking for a "justification" to invade Iraq.
***
This was eight months before 9-11.
After the terror attack on 9-11, we were told that Iraq posed an immenent threat to America, and then after no WMD were found the mission MORPHED into "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
***
Do you believe that the Bush Team was right to want to invade Iraq, and remove Hussein from power back in January of 2001?
Do you believe that their (The Bush Team) intentions were good, and that their intentions were also in the best interests of America?
***
Just wondering.
Cuz, I understand that those who believe in the "war against terror" believe that we are making the world a better place, and protecting America from terror attacks.
But, if GW was looking to invade Iraq before 9-11?

Cool site Mike! Here are a some others:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
and of course:
http://www.npr.org/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ -Nader's back with the look at me, look at me b.s. again~and who knows what his message is~

Saddam needed to go for reasons too numerous to list here.

Check out this page.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

When John declares that Saddam was just some bad dictator, and there was no reason for this war to remove him from power, he is taking the side of terrorism.

In my opinion, if something turns out to be a lie, the person that originated the misstatement is the liar, not the last person to repeat it.

mk, I'm not debating the Saddam thing on this page as I am more interested in something different.

You say:
"When John declares that Saddam was just some bad dictator, and there was no reason for this war to remove him from power, he is taking the side of terrorism."

Yep, we all agree he was a bad dictator, however he was not in the terroist network that hit our soil on 9-11.

mk, don't take it the wrong way, but this is what I read from the above statement (excuse the names and food reference as I'm after the premise of the statement more than anything else):

"When Sean declares that Billy was just some bad cook, and there was no reason for this casserole to remove him from restaurant, he is taking the side of vegitarism."

I just do not understand how we'll get anywhere without polite, civic communication.

I didn't say we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam at all, mk.

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. You do that whenever you feel like it, so I doubt it will stop.

I have always agreed the was a bad guy. But I also said he was Cheney, Bush, and Rummy's bad guy.
They enabled him. They encourgaed him, and they ARMED him.
And then they decided to vilify him for what they put him up to when he decided to switch Iraqi oil trade to EUROs.
You didn't think this was ever REALLY about Saddam being a bad guy did you? It was about OIl and MONEY.
Always.
How naive can you be?

The world is certainly better off without Saddam, just as it will be better off without Bush as President. Only 202 days of that disaster to go. At least we have a timeline for that withdrawal.

But we could have easily done it without an invasion. And without all the lies.
But then, you wouldn't have anyhting to do if you weren't kept busy making excuses for those lies and the liars who tell them.

Your accusations about my loyalty are nothing but present day McCarthyism.

If Al Gore had been President for the last 8 years we would have a budget surplus, no war, the terrorists would have been caught with the help of our allies including France, Russia, and all the world who was angry at 9/11.
GM might have been making hybrid and electric cars due to the tax credit for hybrids and no breaks for buying Hummers. Global warming would have been worked on since we would have been in with the world on the Kyoto treaty. New technologies for energy instead of drilling would have been funded. Spinal cord injuries, diabetes and other diseases would have been closer to being solved due to stem cell research advances. No Americans would have killed, injured or damaged mentally, emotionally and physically due to war. And Americans would be less divided and more compassionate to the unfortunate. Also the euro and oil wouldn't have been so high since the dollar would be stronger and the world would be looking up to America.
I hope some sense comes back to these angry right wingers but they have only themselves to blame. You reap what you sow.

Mike, John, mk, this is where my attention is:
http://www.jcpa.org/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

I hope others are contacting representatives about this drumbeat to invade another nation. I feel cheated every time at the pump and I can barely imagine how much it would spike to if America and/or Israel went to Iran for anything but diplomacy.
Just as our children will pay for our mistakes we are paying for our forefarthers mistakes.

Yea right,that was funny as all hell Mike.And don't think I'm a republican just because I laugh at that fairy tale of yours.

razor, where do you get your gas? I would like to patronize the station you go to also.

Not all of Mike's post was "Fairy Tale".

Will Obama (the savor) take the troops out of Irag, and send them all to Afganistan ?.. Or, will he let Irag and Afganistan both fall?. If the Taliban test Obama and invade Afganistan will Obama bring back the draft?...when the mid east falls Gas will be rationed...how will you get to work?...Will the progessive thinkers on the left take care of you and your family.

LMAO, hermit~

Where are the Taliban invading Afganistan from?

Fight the Smears my.barackobam.com/pag/conten/fightthesmearshome/ exposes the right wing lies(Rush Limbaugh; the guy using OxyContin who can't hear well). Perhaps Republican Congressman Larry Craig will write Obama smears in the mens rooms :)

posted with error its:
my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

What part isn't.?

What do you mean(prove it),it was hypothectical garbage.

The price of gas razor. Now that is not a "Fairy Tale", is it?
Or maybe it is for some on the advantageous dividend side of this fiasco.

Raoul...Pakistan...They are training at this time in camps in Pakistan...Obama will have to draft you to fight them...or pull all our troops out of Irag...what will he do when he is tested?...have fun.

Bush and Cheney spreading democracy in the middle East?...How utterly absurd that sounds! The only thing they are spreading is lies, wars, death and destruction..and misery for thousands of people..

Those of you...who are still defending the decision to attack Iraq.. should be preparing a defense for the brand new war they are getting ready to launch...Iran is the new target..and we all know it is for their own good..and is only about spreading democracy...

Just look at our democracy and how we are thriving as a nation...They have done wonders for us...and it is time they spread it around...After all we are setting an example for the rest of the world , on how wonderful living in a democracy ( Bush style) can be..

A democracy that includes spying on innocent Americans, detaining people indefinetly without protections under the law..controlling information and gagging our media...torturing, murdering, and raping our captives...rigging elections...robbing the middle class...making the poor..disabled and elderly invisable..selling out the future of our children , by leaving them a massive debt to pay off...all while turning the government into a functioning corporate/militarist complex.

A real money making war machine...and with all that..who needs social security ( lets privatize it) it is only an intitlement for those too lazy to work...Even a 90 year old can pick lettuce for god's sake! Why do we need all that anyway...when we have a huge war chest filled for the privileged and chosen? You might even say the more deserving among us! That is progress..and the new world order...so everyone get in step! Get on the bus or be left behind...Gee... where have I heard that before?????

Of course all this preparation is for our own protection from "terrorists" whomever they may be..since there is no particular country we can bomb..to get rid of them???...We collectively must be prepared for anything..at anytime..all while watching our neighbors very carefully..especially if they look like they might be Muslim! It is a daunting task.. controlling and protecting us..at the same time...from ourselves...Great job Bushy... well done!

Oh wait a minute...the aforementioned isn't representitive of a democracy at all...It sounds more like fascist rule...but whatever...Lets spread it around the world anyway..after all... few will notice until it is too late! We all know how well it worked for Hitler..don't we?

On the bright side looking back...we did help save some of Hitlers victims..Of course on the negative side..looking forward...I wonder who will save us...since we no longer have any allies??? Just asking????