RRKING , appalled . Walters has even less class than I do . Although she a betteour hairdo . ( Than I do ) .

I didn’t realize it’s Obama’s fault Libya had a populist uprising. I’m so sick of Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck calls out Obama for the dumbest things… get mad at him about the economy if you want… but trying to put blame on him about Libya? She does know we don’t have jurisdiction over there right? Sheesh.

He should apologize for being Donald. He is a disgrace to his people, a shame.

I think Joy should apologize for impersonating an intelligent person.

Snowspot said:
I didn’t realize it’s Obama’s fault Libya had a populist uprising. I’m so sick of Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck calls out Obama for the dumbest things… get mad at him about the economy if you want… but trying to put blame on him about Libya? She does know we don’t have jurisdiction over there right? Sheesh.

They want him to invade, just like Donald, Dick, W and the others did when they invaded Iraq. 8 yrs later, it’s the biggest foreign policy decision failure of all time.

skyfet said:
He should apologize for being Donald. He is a disgrace to his people, a shame.

Do the people of your village know that you have a computer machine ?

Reminds me of the guy who ambushed Sen. Inhofe and asked him to apologize to his daughter for not accepting the global warming/climate change nonsense.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-inhofe-deftly-handles-attempted-ambush-by-fake-politico-reporter/

Stupid question from the liberal harpies in the media. Rumsfield can feel empathy for the loss of soldiers, but doesn’t need to apologize to them. They are doing their job and they realize that. Why do you libs think a vast majority of soldier vote Republican?

In a more humorous exchange, conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck suggested that “the First Lady may have had a stronger stance on trans fats than Obama did on Gaddafi,”

So true! I think i know why though. I just heard an exchange that Gaddafi had with Larry King in 2009, where he said BO should be pres forever. I think BO didn’t want to reprimand an admirer.

Bobomatic says:
I think Joy should apologize for impersonating an intelligent person.

Worst impression evah!!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
So true! I think i know why though. I just heard an exchange that Gaddafi had with Larry King in 2009, where he said BO should be pres forever. I think BO didn’t want to reprimand an admirer.

http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-wonders-about-obama-and-gaddafi

skyfet said:
He should apologize for being Donald. He is a disgrace to his people, a shame.

You’re right, of course, but I think just BEING Donald Rumsfeld is a pretty harsh punishment in itself.

When can we expect Obama’s apology for the drone attacks on civilians in Afghanistan?
Remember, he condemned Bush for the same thing.

Like the violent rhetoric at the union riots – I mean, rallies – when Democrats do it, the Party and THEIR Leftstream Media is SILENT, but if nanny goes to a Tea Party, she’s a Violent Racist, Bigot, Homophobe!

How can any rational person ever vote for these scurrilous Democrats?

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Bobomatic says:
I think Joy should apologize for impersonating an intelligent person.

Worst impression evah!!

You would know.

Such a lowlife

I didn’t realize it’s Obama’s fault Libya had a populist uprising.
——-

Shocker!

ImJustThatDamnGood says:
Such a lowlife

Yeah, Joy-less really is. They don’t get much lower than her.

ImJustThatDamnGood said:
Such a lowlife

Take a look at this post . Look just above the three words . I agree !

Call me crazy, but I thought I saw a little twinkle in Joy’s eyes!

How does Mrs. Rumsfeld sound? Maybe they can double up with Keith and Laura.

LOL!

Meh. It was a cheap shot, but whoever ventures onto the View deserves what they get.

NORBIT Jr. said:
When can we expect Obama’s apology for the drone attacks on civilians in Afghanistan?
Remember, he condemned Bush for the same thing.

Like the violent rhetoric at the union riots – I mean, rallies – when Democrats do it, the Party and THEIR Leftstream Media is SILENT, but if nanny goes to a Tea Party, she’s a Violent Racist, Bigot, Homophobe!

How can any rational person ever vote for these scurrilous Democrats?

youve got to be the dumbest racist asswipe on this site

ProObamaAgenda said:
youve got to be the dumbest racist asswipe on this site

Given your screenname, you must not have much to say. :)

Obama abolished death. Nobody will ever die again, for any reason. All hail Obama.

Jim Treacher said:
Obama abolished death. Nobody will ever die again, for any reason. All hail Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4

ProObamaAgenda said:
youve got to be the dumbest racist asswipe on this site

No, that would be Mrs. Phibber.

Someone should ask WaWa if she ever apologized to Sen. Brooke’s wife?

The Lantern of Truth said:
Do the people of your village know that you have a computer machine ?

Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD.

There is a special place in hell for people like him, he can say hi to Hitler and Stalin in hell :)

Snowspot said:
I didn’t realize it’s Obama’s fault Libya had a populist uprising. I’m so sick of Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck calls out Obama for the dumbest things… get mad at him about the economy if you want… but trying to put blame on him about Libya? She does know we don’t have jurisdiction over there right? Sheesh.

We’re America. We have jurisdiction everywhere. And 1 American life is worth 1,000 lives of any other country, because we were born inherently superior.

Snowspot said:
Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD.

Then Obama is also a murderer and needs to burn in Hell, right?

he gave a good answer. that was a cheap, tacky shot by walters.

Snowspot said:
Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD. There is a special place in hell for people like him, he can say hi to Hitler and Stalin in hell :)

The Democrats voted for the WAR!

Rumsfield has nothing to for which to apologize for. It is what it is. Hasselbeckis ight, Obama is Libyas “friend”.

Hello America!

I guess you’ve all heard that King Obama and Lord Holder have deemed the DOMA unconstitutional, and will not enforce this duly enacted law.

Word is they’ll be deeming GUN OWNERSHIP unconstitutional soon!

Maybe when the GOP takes the White House next year they should Deem ABORTION unconstitutional.

THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PART OF HIS COUP AGAINST AMERICA!

Snowspot said:
Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD. There is a special place in hell for people like him, he can say hi to Hitler and Stalin in hell :)

Stalin? but he is a hero to the working man. He is in madison right now fighting for those poor……….wait…….oh im sorry i was thinking of richard trumka ……….they look so much alike, never mind.

It’s a grown up being interragated by little girls.

Republican=grown up
Democrat=Little girl

Pablo says:
Snowspot said:
Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD.

Then Obama is also a murderer and needs to burn in Hell, right?

I’m hearing nothing from crickets, is this thing on?

nothing but crickets, before I’m cited.

All the Marys in Poppins!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Pablo says:
Snowspot said:
Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD.

Then Obama is also a murderer and needs to burn in Hell, right?

I’m hearing nothing from crickets, is this thing on?

Obama didn’t start wars based on knowingly false intelligence.

You fools blame him for everything but it was people like Dick Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld who put us in debt. It cost us 2 billion a day to be in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, the truth seems inconvenient for you guys, You think I’m lying or something. What do you think they were doing the whole time? WE HAVENT F***ING WON EITHER WAR. We have been at a standstill for 10 years because of Bush!

You guys elected someone who basically put our country on hold for 10 years as it slowly accumulated debt.

Now you don’t want to admit it and you want to blame Obama? Err Obama has been the president for a little over 2 years now… there’s no way he put the entire country in debt, as much asyou guys wish..

Republicans ruined the economy, helped pass the agenda that killed thousands of innocent civilians, made excuses to Bush could try to legalize torture, made excuses about Abu Ghraib.. and basically you’re a bunch of cowards that can’t face their own actions.

You guys have RUINED this country with your lack of political prowess, you let the people in charge manipulate you and take your money.

Now look where you are, elections are irrelevant now as our country spirals down the shitter.

skyfet said:
They want him to invade, just like Donald, Dick, W and the others did when they invaded Iraq. 8 yrs later, it’s the biggest foreign policy decision failure of all time.

I would have thought the biggest foreign policy decision failure (sic) of all time might have been when President Carter lost Iran or President Clinton decided not to take out Osama Bin Laudin.

Apologize? Barbra must think that all military families are traitorous hacks like Cindy Sheehan.

Snowplow, you are really seething with rage. But in your defense, most libs seem to suffer from that.

Come on Rich, it’s not like Bin Laden was offered to Clinton on silver platter. Oh wait!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Pablo says:
Snowspot said:
Rumsfeld is a murderer, he ordered innocent civilians killed when there were no WMD.

Then Obama is also a murderer and needs to burn in Hell, right?

I’m hearing nothing from crickets, is this thing on?

It’s on just as the Patriot act is alive and well and Guantanamo is open. Still.

RichS said:
I would have thought the biggest foreign policy decision failure (sic) of all time might have been when President Carter lost Iran or President Clinton decided not to take out Osama Bin Laudin.

President Clinton not going after Osama Bin Laden was one of the smartest decisions he made. Bush did and look where we are now. Our civil liberties have been slashed, economy is floundering because of strange decisions our politicans made due to “9/11 fear”, and our country is nearing a civil war as the Tea Party picks fights with the rest of the working class in America.

Call me crazy but if we hadn’t “gone to war” with Al Qaeda, we would probably still be the #1 superpower in the world. Best thing we can do is not give the terrorists what they want, America made such a big deal out of Osama, they made him a martyr in the eyes of many in the middle east. America’s meddling there already made them very unliked but add the “war on terror” and Americans illegally invading countries and it’s no surprise the Middle East has become a hot-bed for anti-American hate.

Bush should have condemed the attacks, strengthened our security, and just made sure something like that didn’t happen again. Instead, he embarked on 2 wars and even to this day, casualties increase every hour.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Snowplow, you are really seething with rage. But in your defense, most libs seem to suffer from that.

I just had a cup of coffee and I’m ready for politics :O

ndanielson said:
Apologize? Barbra must think that all military families are traitorous hacks like Cindy Sheehan.

Or maybe she thinks that they are families with children that were sent to die for no reason.

Yes, a soldiers life can be wasted, thats just propaganda.

He just doesn’t want to admit a soldier died directly because of his actions. Rumsfeld is really a piece of shit coward.

Snowplow says:

Or maybe she thinks that they are families with children that were sent to die for no reason.

Well they are smarter than you libs, so they don’t think they went for no reason and are proud of their work. Again I ask, is it any wonder a vast majority of soldiers vote Republican?

Does Barbara wish to apologize to the women of America?!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Snowplow says:

Or maybe she thinks that they are families with children that were sent to die for no reason.

Well they are smarter than you libs, so they don’t think they went for no reason and are proud of their work. Again I ask, is it any wonder a vast majority of soldiers vote Republican?

Does it matter if soldiers vote Republican? We live in a Democracy where even if you don’t win, you still have to live with the results.

Why would the soldiers be smarter if they think they died for a reason? The soldiers serve us and listen to our intelligence. THey recieved the WRONG intelligence and were forced into a situation where there was almost no likelihood of a real victory. Soldiers are trained to fight armies, that’s what their job is.. When you send them out in the dessert, essentially chasing roving gangs of crazy muslim people, you denigrate the military.

I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistans were basically a slap in the face to soldiers. A war based on false intelligence, in which we are not really under direct attack, is a shameful war.

May I offer another example of little girls interogating a grown up?
http://tinyurl.com/4qlpe82

This is fabulous, really.

And then theres this from on of my favorite Grown ups: Michelle Malkin

“There Are No Adults In The Democrat Party. These People Are Still In Their Huggies”

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102230058

WHarropson

And then theres this from on of my favorite Grown ups: Michelle Malkin
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102230058

Favorite grown-ups? How old are you? lol.

Snowspot said:
Call me crazy

Don’t have to, you’re doing a great job all by your lonesome. Congrats!

Snowjob, I mean Paul says:

Why would the soldiers be smarter if they think they died for a reason? The soldiers serve us and listen to our intelligence. THey recieved the WRONG intelligence

Hey idiot, Sadam himself lied about having WMD’s!!! You are too ignorant for words, my friend.

Someone should ask WaWa if she ever apologized to Sen. Brooke’s wife?

That would be funny. But Rumsfeld has helped end thousands more marriages (soldiers) than she has.

To anger a Conservative, lie to him. To anger a Liberal, tell him the truth.

You are a very wise man, Dave!

Do we apologize to the families of cops who got killed by criminals? Do we apologize to the families of firemen who got burned? Then why soldiers? They died doing their duty, we have no draft, nobody’s forced to join, no apology is required. In fact, I’ve seen disabled soldiers on Fox tell Bill O’reilly how proud they were to serve their country and how they don’t regret it even if it cost them their limb(s). Now that’s patriotism!

http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

For those of you who choose to forget little details like facts, Rumsfeld told the country that Saddam had WMD in Tikrit with complete certainty.

The Senate Inteligence Report on Iraq’s WMD shows documented evidence that the intelligence reports were full of warnings and asterisks about their doubts that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake uranium from Niger, the veracity of British Intelligence reports, and a large number of other critical issues used by Bush and company to justify invading Iraq.

The worst thing about their manipulation of the intelligence was that according to the CIA in the 1998 NIE, Saddam had no WMD, no infrastructure and no resources with which to build them. They only had some scientists who could develop a program within 10 years, if left completely alone.

Bush’s appointed weapons inspector, David Kay testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee the exact same evidence in 2004. So the question is, why was reality so completely different during the run up to the Iraq invasion?

Rumsfeld disputed the 1998 NIE assertions that Saddam had no WMD by saying “the absence of evidence does not prove that the evidence is absent.” In other words, he turned all logic and legal thinking upside down. Just think about it, regardless of whether you have committed a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent. Except that you can’t prove the non existence of something, because someone can always say that the evidence was moved to Syria, or Iran, or surgically implanted in the same anatomical location as Rumsfeld’s head.

Did they lie, or did they cover themselves legally so their story wasn’t technically a lie? Does it matter? They presented a series of half truths and innuendo that only a lawyer could see through when reviewing court transcripts.

The bottom line is that Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney cherry picked the data and crafted a convenient story that would justify the invasion. If Congress or the people of this country knew the entire story, no one would have supported the war.

Besides the false information on WMD, they claimed the war would only take 6 months and it would not cost the taxpayers anything. They hid the war’s costs by not including it in the budget. And their no-bid contracts not only enriched their cronies, but they led to some horrendous conditions for our soldiers (there are documentaries about the lack of clear water and insufficient food service).

Does Rumsfeld owe an apology to the soldiers? No, for his incompetence, lies and complicity in the illegal Iraq invasion, he owes the entire world an apology.

However, he owes a direct apology to our soldiers because he allowed them to go into battle without proper armor, saying that you go to war with what you’ve got at the time. Considering we have the world’s best military and the largest budget of all the major powers combined, his actions in not supporting our soldiers and then telling them to deal with it are as callous and criminal as you can get.

Yes, if there is a God, this guy will burn in hell, right next to Bush and Cheney.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Snowjob, I mean Paul says:

Why would the soldiers be smarter if they think they died for a reason? The soldiers serve us and listen to our intelligence. THey recieved the WRONG intelligence

Hey idiot, Sadam himself lied about having WMD’s!!! You are too ignorant for words, my friend.

Why would we believe Saddam? I’m talking about our leaders. They said there were WMD’s when it was clear there were not. What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? It’s like I’m talking to retarded people.

They lied and knew there were no WMD’s there, then they fabricated aerial screenshots and had Colin Powell lie to congress.

For people that want big government out of their lives, you seem to all really trust it when it’s a Republican administration.

The point is, you don’t trust the government even when it is your side in control.

Not a hard concept to understand.

Why would we believe Saddam? I’m talking about our leaders. They said there were WMD’s when it was clear there were not. What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? It’s like I’m talking to retarded people.

Oh my gosh, you are complete moron, Paul! There were leaders ALL over the world, including Clinton and Gore that insisted they had them too.

Rumsfeld is one of the best interviewees ever. I don’t want to criticize programs like View or the questions asked because of the importance for all those “little girls” at home to hear an adult explain things for them. They won’t hear it at school, and rarely in the media, so thanks to the View staff, for asking those questions over and over just like a child would ask them. These remedial questions get asked and answered so young minds have that all important exposure to well developed logic and understanding. The View has an important place. Little girls running off stage when faced with tough realities is also very educational. We all benefit watching little girls in the ups and downs of the process of learning how to deal with the big world around them. God bless you little girls of the View! Just think of it as Mr. Rumsfelds neighborhood.

Dave Richards said:
To anger a Conservative, lie to him. To anger a Liberal, tell him the truth.

That is KILLER thanks for that.

WHarropson said:
That is KILLER thanks for that.

Haha got it backwards buddy. Your side basically killed over 100,000 people because of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

That’s what YOU can’t deal with.

What are you trying to tell liberals that they wont believe? Your stupid way of living your life? Who cares, you dont’ even realize Bush bankrupted our country and put us in debt. You’re a fool.

BruinAlum77 said:
The worst thing about their manipulation of the intelligence was that according to the CIA in the 1998 NIE, Saddam had no WMD, no infrastructure and no resources with which to build them.

mmmmmm….these guys must be lying too.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

BruinAlum77 said:
And their no-bid contracts not only enriched their cronies, but they led to some horrendous conditions for our soldiers (there are documentaries about the lack of clear water and insufficient food service).

It’s a bitch ain’t it? Try again.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/kbr-to-get-no-bid-army-work-as-u-s-alleges-kickbacks-update1-.html

Publius219 said:
We’re America. We have jurisdiction everywhere. And 1 American life is worth 1,000 lives of any other country, because we were born inherently superior.

Have you ever lived in a tough neighborhood? If you had you would know there is one rule, you try to do something against me and I’ll F**K YOU UP! The Earth is a tough neighborhood.

NORBIT Jr. said:
When can we expect Obama’s apology for the drone attacks on civilians in Afghanistan?

So, are you arguing that if Obama apologizes, then Rumsfeld should as well? Apologies aren’t going to bring back the dead, but they might help the living in dealing with the deaths of their loved ones. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely. Was our invasion worth the deaths of your sons or daughters? There is the million dollar question. Hard to argue that the Iraquis might have stood up to Hussein themselves and gotten the same results without us sticking our noses in.
Rumsfeld is not going to apologize, especially to those gab hags on the View, because he got what he desired and the fact that it cost the lives of other people’s sons and daughters sure doesn’t seem to be a big deal to him.

Snowspot said:
President Clinton not going after Osama Bin Laden was one of the smartest decisions he made. Bush did and look where we are now. Our civil liberties have been slashed, economy is floundering because of strange decisions our politicans made due to “9/11 fear”, and our country is nearing a civil war as the Tea Party picks fights with the rest of the working class in America. Call me crazy but if we hadn’t “gone to war” with Al Qaeda, we would probably still be the #1 superpower in the world. Best thing we can do is not give the terrorists what they want, America made such a big deal out of Osama, they made him a martyr in the eyes of many in the middle east. America’s meddling there already made them very unliked but add the “war on terror” and Americans illegally invading countries and it’s no surprise the Middle East has become a hot-bed for anti-American hate. Bush should have condemed the attacks, strengthened our security, and just made sure something like that didn’t happen again. Instead, he embarked on 2 wars and even to this day, casualties increase every hour. I just had a cup of coffee and I’m ready for politics :O

I guess that little thing that happened in lower Manhattan in the morning of September 11th, 2001 slipped your mind. Oh wait, you wanted us to issue a sternly worded statement. The world is a dangeroous neighborhood, if you turn the other cheek you wind up getting slapped every chance they get.

Snowspot said:
Haha got it backwards buddy. Your side basically killed over 100,000 people because of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

That’s what YOU can’t deal with.

What are you trying to tell liberals that they wont believe? Your stupid way of living your life? Who cares, you dont’ even realize Bush bankrupted our country and put us in debt. You’re a fool.

My dogs left snowspots all over the back yard this morning. All of them were twice as intelligent as you.

LarryB said:
So, are you arguing that if Obama apologizes, then Rumsfeld should as well? Apologies aren’t going to bring back the dead, but they might help the living in dealing with the deaths of their loved ones. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely. Was our invasion worth the deaths of your sons or daughters? There is the million dollar question. Hard to argue that the Iraquis might have stood up to Hussein themselves and gotten the same results without us sticking our noses in.Rumsfeld is not going to apologize, especially to those gab hags on the View, because he got what he desired and the fact that it cost the lives of other people’s sons and daughters sure doesn’t seem to be a big deal to him.

The decision to invade, supported by myriad and divergent sources – including an overwhelming majority of Democrats, many of whom had access to the same intel as Bush – was the logical one; Rumsfeld’s obstinance and intransigience in executing a “political” war strategy cost many lives.

LarryB said:
So, are you arguing that if Obama apologizes, then Rumsfeld should as well? Apologies aren’t going to bring back the dead, but they might help the living in dealing with the deaths of their loved ones. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely. Was our invasion worth the deaths of your sons or daughters? There is the million dollar question. Hard to argue that the Iraquis might have stood up to Hussein themselves and gotten the same results without us sticking our noses in.
Rumsfeld is not going to apologize, especially to those gab hags on the View, because he got what he desired and the fact that it cost the lives of other people’s sons and daughters sure doesn’t seem to be a big deal to him.

I wonder what kind of war liberals would conduct. Pipe in soaring renditions of kumbyah in 50 languages?

RioRatone said:
Someone should ask WaWa if she ever apologized to Sen. Brooke’s wife? That would be funny. But Rumsfeld has helped end thousands more marriages (soldiers) than she has.

We have a volunteer army. WaWa was not cheating on a volunteer wife.

I’m a little surprised that the all-knowing liberals on the View didn’t confront Rummy about his moronic answer when ManCow asked him why Building 7 fell. The stupid idiot answered “what building is that”.

Barbara is ridiculous here. An apology? Her point would be valid if there’d been a draft of some kind, but honestly, if you don’t want to die, there’s plenty of career options out there that don’t involve dying. No one forced them to sign up.

And that’s even if you buy the argument that the administration intentionally went to war under false pretenses, which is a pretty hard sell. At best you can say they went to war under mistaken, or misinformed pretenses.

I guess Rumsfeld could’ve said “I’m sorry that we made the best decision we felt we could make, given the available intelligence?”

Utterly intellectually dishonest.

He & the BushDrunk Gang left a bloodied world. A quivering lump of historic failure & misery & death. An administration that oversaw events that led to a meltdown of this nation. Poisonous. Toxic. 2 failed, impopssible wars. A healthcare system collapse. A gluttonous raping of the U.S. Treasury. The worst & most demeaning years in modern American history. Wound that will remain raw & open for decades to come. And this punk refuses to apologize for anything. Most especially the useless, needless slaughter of American troops & zillions of other people. It was all fun & games for that entire group of goose-stepping little goons. They functioned/function at the very highest levels of dishonor.

NORBIT Jr. said:
The decision to invade, supported by myriad and divergent sources – including an overwhelming majority of Democrats, many of whom had access to the same intel as Bush – was the logical one

I agree that there was support from both sides of the aisle, and both deserve criticism for allowing themselves to be rushed into a decision to invade. It may indeed have been a logical decision given the available intel, but I’m just not certain many of those supporting the war had the access to the same intel as Bush. Not all the intel that crossed Bush’s desk made it into the hands of Congressmen, and sadly some intel that did was ignored or missed completely by our elected officials who don’t take time to read everything at their disposal.

ndanielson said:
I wonder what kind of war liberals would conduct. Pipe in soaring renditions of kumbyah in 50 languages?

Is that an effort to show there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats? I believe the Afghanistan War is now being conducted under a liberal president. Obama has poured in 50,000 more troops, at a cost of about $100 billion a year. Half of the 1,400 American combat deaths in Afghanistan have occurred since Obama became president. Different party animals, same results.

Looks like Rumsfeld enjoyed Behar’s company, and vice versa. I thought it was a good episode, even though I don’t buy his explanation of the reasons for invading Iraq. He’s someone reminiscent of McNamara.

Penguin60 said:
mmmmmm….these guys must be lying too.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

The top quote from your link:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

1) Clinton’s response to Saddam kicking out the UN Inspectors (who you seem to forget were doing their job, as evidenced by the reality in Iraq) was to bomb some areas suspected of being a threat. This is a long way from lying to start a war.

2) There is a huge difference between saying “deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD” which is in line with the older NIE and David Kay’s Iraq findings and stating with absolute certainty “there are WMD in Tikrit.”

3) Most of the quotes in 1998 refer to the actions that needed to be taken in order to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

4) All of the quotes from 2001-2002 were based on the doctored intelligence reports supplied by the Bush administration, so your assertion is false. During those same hearings, both Bob Graham and Carl Levin talked about specific claims made by the Bush administration in the classified documents they were given in the run up to the war. Senator Graham testified that he was told by Bush administration people that Saddam had unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical weapons to our Eastern Seaboard in 45 minutes.

5) The Germans warned the US of the possibility that the Yellowcake claim was based on fraudulent documents. A number of other European nations refused to support the invasion of Iraq because they wanted to the UN Inspectors to go back into Iraq.

6) A majority of Congressional Democrats voted against giving Bush the unconstitutional power to start a war by himself.

So your argument that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are innocent because everyone believed their lies is not only illogical, but false. Please tell me you don’t believe that there are WMD hidden somewhere in Syria.

If you take the time to look up the Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s WMD, you will find that the CIA faxed the White House twice in the fall of 2002 to stop Bush from referring to Saddam attempting to get uranium from Africa in a speech planned for Cincinnati.

Their reasons? 1) Of the two uranium mines in Niger, one was innundated and the other was in French control; 2) they had serious doubts about the accuracy of British Intelligence. I know the media doesn’t usually cover these inconvenient details, but they are in the public records.

How is it possible that three months later, Bush brings up the same bogus claim in his SOTU address? All of the doubts and footnotes supplied by the CIA were conveniently ignored by Cheney in creating the 2002 NIE and Bush’s speech.

From a legal standpoint, one can see that Bush covered his lies in his famous 16 words. What he didn’t say was the full information supplied by the CIA:

The British government (whose intelligence we highly doubt) has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought (according to forged documents) significant quantities of uranium from Africa (except that the mines in Niger are either submerged or under French control).

If you’re smart enough to research the web to support your arguments, how about searching out the real facts instead of going to your favorite conservative blogs?

With regard to your link about no-bid contracts, the article stated that since 2008, Congress has insisted on bidding out contracts. How does that not support my point about the no bids contracts in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 until 2008? If you are saying that Democrats were trying to push through a no-bid contract, I’m totally against it. This is not about playing gotcha. It’s about understanding what is right and wrong, and stopping unethical or criminal behavior.

The Bush presidency was as crooked as any administration in the history of this country. It doesn’t matter what party you belong to. Just wake up and see reality. And if Obama commits crimes in office (real crimes, like torture, illegal wiretapping, doctoring information to start an unnecessary and illegal war ), then he should be prosecuted as well.

But only after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all their profiteering compatriots are all in prison. (In a REAL war, WWII, war profiteering was illegal – Bush and company made it a new national sport).

Thank you, come again.

I’m no Rumsfeld fan, but what the hell kind of headline is that?

Rumsfeld is the McNamara of our time.

BruinAlum77 said:
4) All of the quotes from 2001-2002 were based on the doctored intelligence reports supplied by the Bush administration,

BS

Bush was relying on the same intelligence that Clinton and the Dems relied on, son.

BruinAlum77 said:
2) There is a huge difference between saying “deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD” which is in line with the older NIE and David Kay’s Iraq findings and stating with absolute certainty “there are WMD in Tikrit.”

Did Iraq have WMD? Yes according to the Dims.

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

BruinAlum77 said:
6) A majority of Congressional Democrats voted against giving Bush the unconstitutional power to start a war by himself.

Not in the Senate, son!

Garth said:
Rumsfeld is the McNamara of our time.

And you are the George Wallace of our time, racist!

notsofast said:
BS

Bush was relying on the same intelligence that Clinton and the Dems relied on, son.

No, grandpa, try reading real documents, instead quoting your favorite right wing blog. Congress was given a more limited version of the Bush-Cheney document, which conveniently eliminated all the doubts, questions and asterisks supplied by the CIA. It’s all part of the public record. Just like the fact that the CIA told Bush not to talk about uranium before his Cincinnati speech in the fall of 2002. Then he goes on and tells a legally protected lie in the SOTU address.

Thank you, come again.

P.S.: When someone says “Congress” it means both houses. 147 out of 259 Democrats (I include independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Dems) in Congress voted against giving one man the power to start a war for no reason. (It’s so sad there was only one Republican with the guts to vote against the war.)

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up that little detail, in case you weren’t wearing your reading glasses, or just had one of those senior moments and forgot.

What I find most amazing about most ill-informed posters (the overwhelming majority of whom, unfortunately, are conservative) is that they ignore all the facts about a particular issue are ignored except the one trivial detail where they think they have some traction.

It’s like when Farenheit 9/11 came out. There were conservative bloggers going crazy and people putting up websites with the 247 lies told by Michael Moore. But after it is proven that there were no WMD, that the no-bid contracts were screwing the taxpayers and not providing our soldiers adequate supplies, and a host of other criminal issues, none of these people said a word or apologized. Their only rejoinder was “Michael Moore is a big fat drooling jerk.”

Really impressive logic there.

BruinAlum77 said:
The top quote from your link:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

1) Clinton’s response to Saddam kicking out the UN Inspectors (who you seem to forget were doing their job, as evidenced by the reality in Iraq) was to bomb some areas suspected of being a threat. This is a long way from lying to start a war.

2) There is a huge difference between saying “deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD” which is in line with the older NIE and David Kay’s Iraq findings and stating with absolute certainty “there are WMD in Tikrit.”

3) Most of the quotes in 1998 refer to the actions that needed to be taken in order to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

4) All of the quotes from 2001-2002 were based on the doctored intelligence reports supplied by the Bush administration, so your assertion is false. During those same hearings, both Bob Graham and Carl Levin talked about specific claims made by the Bush administration in the classified documents they were given in the run up to the war. Senator Graham testified that he was told by Bush administration people that Saddam had unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical weapons to our Eastern Seaboard in 45 minutes.

5) The Germans warned the US of the possibility that the Yellowcake claim was based on fraudulent documents. A number of other European nations refused to support the invasion of Iraq because they wanted to the UN Inspectors to go back into Iraq.

6) A majority of Congressional Democrats voted against giving Bush the unconstitutional power to start a war by himself.

So your argument that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are innocent because everyone believed their lies is not only illogical, but false. Please tell me you don’t believe that there are WMD hidden somewhere in Syria.

If you take the time to look up the Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s WMD, you will find that the CIA faxed the White House twice in the fall of 2002 to stop Bush from referring to Saddam attempting to get uranium from Africa in a speech planned for Cincinnati.

Their reasons? 1) Of the two uranium mines in Niger, one was innundated and the other was in French control; 2) they had serious doubts about the accuracy of British Intelligence. I know the media doesn’t usually cover these inconvenient details, but they are in the public records.

How is it possible that three months later, Bush brings up the same bogus claim in his SOTU address? All of the doubts and footnotes supplied by the CIA were conveniently ignored by Cheney in creating the 2002 NIE and Bush’s speech.

From a legal standpoint, one can see that Bush covered his lies in his famous 16 words. What he didn’t say was the full information supplied by the CIA:

The British government (whose intelligence we highly doubt) has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought (according to forged documents) significant quantities of uranium from Africa (except that the mines in Niger are either submerged or under French control).

If you’re smart enough to research the web to support your arguments, how about searching out the real facts instead of going to your favorite conservative blogs?

With regard to your link about no-bid contracts, the article stated that since 2008, Congress has insisted on bidding out contracts. How does that not support my point about the no bids contracts in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 until 2008? If you are saying that Democrats were trying to push through a no-bid contract, I’m totally against it. This is not about playing gotcha. It’s about understanding what is right and wrong, and stopping unethical or criminal behavior.

The Bush presidency was as crooked as any administration in the history of this country. It doesn’t matter what party you belong to. Just wake up and see reality. And if Obama commits crimes in office (real crimes, like torture, illegal wiretapping, doctoring information to start an unnecessary and illegal war ), then he should be prosecuted as well.

But only after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all their profiteering compatriots are all in prison. (In a REAL war, WWII, war profiteering was illegal – Bush and company made it a new national sport).

Thank you, come again.

Sorry, the most of the Left’s facts turned out to be wrong. We spent how long on the Plame mess? …only to find out that the claims were baseless. Even the Washington Post apologized

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

Some excerpts:
“But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame’s cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.”

“It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House — that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson — is untrue.”

“Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.”

This same apology could be reused by dozens of liberal attacks.
.

notsofast said:
BS

Bush was relying on the same intelligence that Clinton and the Dems relied on, son.

Did Iraq have WMD? Yes according to the Dims.

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Not in the Senate, son!

You are right, of course. But remember, these types of liberals cannot process logic like normal people. Normal people seek the truth. Not these Modern Liberals/Progressives. Their goal in life is to force everything to be “equal” so the truth gets in their way.

Alz said:
Even the Washington Post apologized

Actually, what you linked us to was an editorial on which the author’s name conveniently does not appear. It should come as no surprise that it was written by Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editor and (gasp) a long-time supporter of the Iraq war. No surprise that is the lame defense you offer.

LarryB said:
Actually, what you linked us to was an editorial on which the author’s name conveniently does not appear. It should come as no surprise that it was written by Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editor and (gasp) a long-time supporter of the Iraq war. No surprise that is the lame defense you offer.

So you have totally fallen for all of the Left wing misinformation and propaganda?

The Plame episode was a multi-year trek into liberal misinformation. Years of stories that were manufactured – all designed to change public opinion rather then lead to the truth.

“Plame” was one episode in the Left’s efforts to undermine the country.

Alz said:
So you have totally fallen for all of the Left wing misinformation and propaganda?

The Plame episode was a multi-year trek into liberal misinformation. Years of stories that were manufactured – all designed to change public opinion rather then lead to the truth.

“Plame” was one episode in the Left’s efforts to undermine the country.

Wow. Isn’t the whole reason we are even discussing the Valerie Plame scandal is that her husband wrote that Bush and Cheney made their case for the invasion of Iraq based on false information and forged documents? And isn’t it true that there were no WMD and that the documents were forged? And isn’t it also true that Novak was told by a number of sources, including Scooter Libby, under direction from Dick Cheney to attempt to discredit Joe Wilson?

And after all that, you still find a way to blame the left for undermining the country?

Your views are just beyond all rational thought.

BruinAlum77 said:
What I find most amazing about most ill-informed posters (the overwhelming majority of whom, unfortunately, are conservative) is that they ignore all the facts about a particular issue are ignored except the one trivial detail where they think they have some traction.

Even your own party knows that’s crap. if Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and presumably everyone NOT an anti-American Liberal were as guilty as your “thinkers” tell you, then their majority in the Congress and White House would have most certainly come up with at least ONE SINGLE INDICTMENT against at least ONE SINGLE PERSON. So, either you are parroting lies from YOUR favorite anti-American blogger, OR you have to believe that Pelosi, Reid, and Hussein were much too busy ramming CommiCare up America’s posterior against the will of the people to be bothered with prosecuting such “criminals” as the American patriots you rage against.

I do enjoy your UNINFORMED position that all your “innocent” DemoCrits were somehow duped by that “evil” Bush. But who “duped” them before Bush was President…………… “evil” Clinton?

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — ALL DEMOCRATS.

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Joe Biden, DEMOCRAT > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

Chuck Schumer, DEMOCRAT > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”

John Kerry, DEMOCRAT> January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”

Sandy Berger, DEMOCRAT > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”

Senator Carl Levin, DEMOCRAT > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Senator Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRAT > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Madeleine Albright, DEMOCRAT > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Robert Byrd, DEMOCRAT > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ’98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Al Gore, DRUG-FRIED DEMOCRAT > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Joe Biden, DEMOCRAT > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”

Bill Clinton, DEMOCRAT > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRAT > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”

Dick Gephardt, DEMOCRAT > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”

Russell Feingold, DEMOCRAT > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”

Johnny Edwards, DEMOCRAT > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”

John Kerry, DEMOCRAT > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.”

Bill Nelson, DEMOCRAT > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”

Al Gore, CRAZY DEMOCRAT > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Tom Daschle, DEMOCRAT > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”

Bill Richardson, DEMOCRAT > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”

Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRAT > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Al Gore, FOOL > December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”

Bill Clinton, DEMOCRAT > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Madeleine Albright, DEMOCRAT > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”

Nancy Pelosi, DEMOCRAT > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Al Gore. WELL, YOU KNOW….. > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

John Kerry, DEMOCRAT > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Ted Kennedy, DEMOCRAT> September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Jay Rockefeller, DEMOCRAT > October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Joe Biden, DEMOCRAT > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”

Madeline Albright , DEMOCRAT> February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”

Jane Harman, DEMOCRAT > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”

Dick Durbin, DEMOCRAT > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”

Bill Nelson, DEMOCRAT > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.”

Nancy Pelosi, DEMOCRAT> October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Evan Bayh, DEMOCRAT > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”

Bill Clinton, DEMOCRAT > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”

Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRAT > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”

Joe Biden, DEMOCRAT > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”

Johnny Edwards, DEMOCRAT > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”

Joe Biden, DEMOCRAT > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”

Senator Bob Graham, DEMOCRAT > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

John Kerry, DEMOCRAT > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”

So, then we will need a much larger prison to house all those GUILTY LIARS, or your heros would have to be the stupidest people on the face of the Earth to be so ignorant having been given the EXACT SAME intel furnished to the White House during BOTH administrations.

There’s a third possibility………………..YOU should find sources other than Anti-American Leftist blog sites.

BruinAlum77 said:
And their no-bid contracts not only enriched their cronies, but they led to some horrendous conditions for our soldiers (there are documentaries about the lack of clear water and insufficient food service).

BruinAlum77 said:
With regard to your link about no-bid contracts, the article stated that since 2008, Congress has insisted on bidding out contracts. How does that not support my point about the no bids contracts in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 until 2008? If you are saying that Democrats were trying to push through a no-bid contract, I’m totally against it. This is not about playing gotcha. It’s about understanding what is right and wrong, and stopping unethical or criminal behavior.

Oh, you’re against it?, great. But when when it’s in the middle of your spew against the Bush administration, it’s horrific.
No, it’s not about gotcha. How transparent and pathetic.
And your rebuttal to the quotes is clearly dealt with above. Try getting your talking points from somewhere other than The Kos.
Thank you, don’t come again.

Penguin and Davo,

I quoted the Senate Intelligence report on WMD in Iraq. Just look it up. Your pathetic “rebuttal” of supplying more quotes does nothing to further your argument, because the time and context for them is the same as before.

Also, you never respond to the core of the issue, which is that there were no WMD; there never were. The documents about yellowcake uranium were forged. The CIA had significant doubts about British intelligence and warned Bush not to talk about it in his Cincinnati speech.

So either your silence on the key issues means that you have no rebuttal, or you actually believe WMD are hidden somewhere in Syria, Jordan, or the same anatomical location as Rumsfeld’s head.

In either case, you guys win. Either you just ignore the facts like a 5 years covering his ears, saying “la la la la la,” or you actually believe there were WMD, Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, and anything that comes out of Glenn Beck’s mouth There is absolutely no point in trying to discuss facts with people who have no basis in reality.

Have a great weekend.

P.S.: Your brilliant argument that no one has been indicted as proof of the Bush crime family’s innocence is again completely illogical.

Before the 2006 elections, Nancy Pelosi said that “impeachment is off the table,” in her desire to reassure independents that the Democrats would work toward fixing the country, rather than engaging in a vendetta against Bush’s criminal actions.

In 2009, Obama, in his unwavering belief that he could find compromise with the Republicans said that the DOJ would not engage in investigations against the previous administration.

Are you that demented that you forgot what the Democrats promised? Or are you so incredibly filled with hate and lies that you would expect the Dems to do what you would want to do if the roles were reversed?

By the way, I love Clint Eastwood, so we actually share something in common. Or are progressives not allowed to love football, apple pie, and the 4th of July?

Finally, your “liberals are anti-America” rant is really pathetic, kind of like a shriveled up version of Ann Coulter, but without the blond hair and high heels (unless you’re a drag queen, but that’s okay, too. You’re American and if you want to wear lipstick and a bra while firing an AK-47, you’ve got the God given right to do so!)

Progressives don’t think Conservatives are anti-America. Hell, not even liburals and them pinko commie socialists don’t think you’re enemies of this country. You’re just a little confused.

You read the constitution and think that America is a Christian nation, even though it talks about separation of Church and State.

You talk about “State Rights” and pervert that to mean that each State can take away individual freedoms, even when they are protected by Federal laws and Supreme Court rulings.

You say “small government” but have no problem legislating on what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, or supporting interventionist wars based on lies.

You say “fiscal responsibility” but have no problem blowing holes in the budget with huge tax cuts for the rich and unnecessary wars.

It’s okay, we don’t think you’re trying to destroy America. You just want to return our great country to it roots, as in 1859.

You’re not anti-American when you support Tea Party lunatics talking about exercising their “Second Amendment rights” if the vote doesn’t go their way (Sharon Angle) or “iIf ballots don’t work, bullets will” (Alan West’s campaign manager during a 2010 election rally).

Yes, we know that you’re not trying to destroy America when Texas Republican governor like Rick Perry talks about secession.

it’s okay, you’re still American, and fortunately our great country has public health organizations that offer mental health services.

Don’t worry. Be happy. Just don’t play with matches, stick your fingers in an outlet, or play golf in thunderstorms. You’ll be okay someday! :)