That POS (part of the inheritance) Rockefeller then said this, regarding Saddam's connections:

"[Saddam] had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11, which he managed to mention three or four times and infer three or four more times."

LIAR!



I will wait with baited breath for the left media to pile on the Democrats and ask the hard-hitting questions...I would imagine the interview would be a bloodbath like when Dan Rather went after Sandy Bergler and Bill Clinton for defrauding the 9-11 investigation.

I have to ask what is the purpose of releasing the documents? Was this a result of the relentless pressure from the media to counter wild allegations? I’m not sure if this is some bizarre case of guilty until proven innocent, or wake up its election year. At any rate, I thought classified documents were not unclassified for like 50 years.

Are the Republicans really this desperate? They control the House, Senate, Executive and Judicial braches isn’t it time they start acting like the majority they are? America isn’t that stupid, at least I hope not. After all, remember in 2004 the media propaganda machine in full election tilt complete with polls suggesting the victory of their darling of the left. Were they right? No.

You have to ask?

Their stridency and sketchy, illogical arguments rise as their credibility falls.

That's propaganda, not reality. Of course who was it that said tell a lie, tell it often enough and people will believe you. Where's Michael Moore when you need him? -Probably at the bottom of the bargin bins.

You need to go back and actually read some of what I have had to say on this topic. Or maybe you have, and simply failed to understand any of it. It would not be the first (and certainly not the last) time. It appears you have made up your (rather narrow) mind concerning me and my opinions and are no longer able to read beyond what you want to read. I know it's tough, but try looking beyond your paradigm of Bush=bad and Jeff=Bush.

In your simple little world, it appears that the only reason our invasion of Iraq was wrong is because it happened on Bush's watch. Any amount of evidence could be presented at this point implicating Iraq in its manufacture of WMD's and in its support of terrorism. You will sumarily dismiss any and all of it, then sit back all confused and befuddled once again, searching your memory for what you perceive to be an adequate response. And, once again - wait, this is groundbreaking stuff - "Bush lied". There, that showed 'em.

Don't forgot my favorite one, the only reason Bush went war mongering was because he wanted to control the oil.

Isn't it amazing how you can just throw out any unsubstantiated statement when don't use your brain?

You'll be happy to know that I read that very carefully :)

But nowhere do I see an answer to this: Was Iraq an "imminent threat" to America in April of 2003?

Bonus points: Is Geroge Bush a "conservative?"

If you chose to actually state your positions on these issues, please keep it simple. As you know, I'm not that smart :) A simple yes or no, followed by an explanation if you wish, will do.

If you don't want to state your positions, I'll assume that your blathering on about how I think Bush is evil, etc. etc. is just a diversion.

I'm happy to both state and defend my positions on our president, which are not as simplistic as you make them to be. Will you do the same?

And just so you know:

There were far more serious and imminent threats to America in April of 2003 than Iraq. Like most strategic decisions made by this administration, they blew this one. We should have continued to hunt and kill ObL, while using the goodwill of the world, and the Trillion dollars, containing Iran and N. Korea, while securing America.

Had we done that, we would today have (1) a safer world, and (2) change left over.

No 2: Bush is not a conservative. Not even close.

No, they were not; at least not with any form of WMD. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now say that. They had, by that time, dismantled or shipped out all of their WMD's. We did not know that at the time. I do, however, believe that much of the dismantling and shipping was done in preperation for our invasion. We sure gave them plenty of time, and there is a great deal of evidence that points to this. Without the imminent threat of that invasion they never would have taken those measures. So technically, by the time we arrived, the threat was gone. I do not believe the U.N. inspections contributed in any way to reducing their capabilities in that regard. As far as their support for terrorism, yes they were a threat.

In the strictest sense of the word, no. In today's political spectrum as found in the U.S., yes. Is he holding to conservative policies? In many key areas, no he is not. Am I happy with him? No, I am not. Like I said before, however, I believe he was the lesser of two evils. I am saddened to have to vote that way, but that is the reality today. Are there far better men that probably should be President? Absolutely. None of them make themselves available, unfortunately. Kerry was not one of them, by the way.

Does that clear things up at all? I'm sorry my answers are not the requested simple "yes" or "no"; the answers are not that simple. Maybe in your world, but not in mine. Anyway, I tried to type real slow so you could understand. ;)

You still are saying he had them right up until we started threatening him in late 2002?

It appears so. And I think he is saying that Saddam posed an "imminent threat" because of links to terrorism: "As far as their support for terrorism, yes they were a threat."

Neither of those things are correct. Saddam had about as much in common with Al Queda as the United States did. And all available evidence is that any Iraqi weapons capable of posing a risk to America were destroyed in Gulf I.

Maybe we get at the core it this way, Jeff: Knowing what you know today, was invading Iraq a strategic mistake?

Magical thinking. WMDs without the facilties to produce them. WMDs the US provided that miraculously survived the maximum "shelf life" to still be a threat. Massive hidden herds of "WMD delivery camels" that Saddam was secretly training to fly.

Oh yes, there was a real threat there...

Maybe that's one of our chief differences, Rodeo. I refuse to second-guess the decision we made back then based upon information that has since come to light. I realize "Monday morning quarterbacking" is the refuge of those who cannot generate their own ideas. I realize it is far easier to just sit on your a$$, never doing a thing, never coming up with a plan, and chastise others after they have made a decision and taken action. I refuse to do that. You and your kind are way too busy pretending you "knew" Iraq had no WMD's at the time. No one "knew" that; that much is historical fact, in spite of your attempts at revisionism.

Your statement "Saddam had about as much in common with Al Queda as the United States did. " reinforces once again that you either did not read the material on which this thread is based, or did not understand it when you did. Or refuse to believe it, because it undermines you basic "Bush lied" core belief. I'm not sure which one of those contibutes the most to your ignorance, but I do see elements of all three. Try turning off the "Bush lied" filter for awhile and seeing if you can make heads or tails of what this materail actually says. I'm starting to think you can't.

I dont have a "Bush lied core belief." If I did, I would have a pretty thin "core." You have never inquired about the whole "Bush lied" thing, so I'll assume you just want to trot it out to dodge difficult issues, as you just did.

You sidestepped the issue, twice. Second guessing is one thing. Saying you would not shoot that guy in the heart all over again if you knew he was holding a hair dryer is another.

Apparently, that simple premise escapes you.

No, it does not escape me, Rodeo. I have not sidestepped anything. I simply refuse to play the "what would you have done if you had known this...?" game. I'm more grounded in reality than that. I'm able to look at what we knew at the time and tell you what I would have done with that knowledge. I would have attacked.

So you think we know better now. Based on what you choose to sift out of the information that has come to light since we attacked, you claim you would not have attacked. How incredibly disingenious. You are basing your arguments on what we should have done in light of information we did not have, and somehow you think that is valid. Stick to what we knew at the time. These recently released papers were available to our decision-makers at that time. They give further support for the decision they made. Continuing to ignore them and pretend they do not exist, refusing to discuss them, only further detracts from your credibility. Pressing the issue by continually asking what I would have done if I had known "X" is simply childish. It's a game of make-believe, no more.

I suspect this guy is paid for his ranting. Who's paying him will answer why all his bs is consistant even in the face of hard evidence.

I think he is either one of the gitmo gangster lawyers or is paid to write the screenplay. I watched the gitmo lawyer on TV a few months ago rant for 30min. These two are identical in delivery style and wording.

If our Gitmo lawyer here is mid age, below 50yrs, med to med-thin build it's an option that it's him. If I can hear this one in person rant I could confirm it. If I had a full pic of this one standing in a suit I would have more info. He is a good activist.

I don't have the hard info close but I believe the WSJ & Weekly Standard had a suit going to release document info for over a year. Bush did nothing to support its release as the speculation was that it would confuse his uncomplicated statements, whatever that means.

No other media sought its release afaik.

Jeff,
No, it is not just a game.
I was against our decision to go to war because there was no credible evidence to start with, because I could read through the hyperbole that the admin was putting out, because I could see they were playing on our fears, because we really have no clue how to deal with middle eastern countries, because we really do not have much in common with those people beyond the need for food and shelter, because the idea of uniting Arabs is beyond a possibility, and because the idea of uniting disparate groups, and particularily warring religious groups previously held together by a strong vicious dictator is unrealistic.

All this has been tried before, nothing new here, yet the President can browbeat everyone with fear to pursue a disastrous course of action.

Since Bush is a profound leftist, you are correct in that assessment. The Bush'ist house of straw is crumbling.

Quote:

they are being uncovered for the maliciously teasonous malfactors that they have always been.

Correct again, the Bush'ists are treasonous malefactors.

Quote:

Thankfully the new media is making the once easily duped and manipulated public aware of how dangerously deceptive they are and have been. The left media have long been complicit in shoving their lies down the nation's throat. This leftist culture of divisive politics centered in the reaquisition of power has ripped our country apart and poisoned the political process.

There's the new media, then there are Bush'ist e-rags such as NewsMax and what World Net Daily has become. The two are not synonymous.

Quote:

We could hope the teasonous left would apologize for this orchestrated undermining of a just and necessary policy, but getting these democrat swine to amend their dangerous ways would be like teaching a pig to sing.

The Bush'ist leftist should indeed apologize, for their costly harm they've brought to America and Americans everywhere; and to those in the several foreign countries they've decimated.