See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.
No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war, How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.
When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.
If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.
Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
Saddam was a little more than a scary looking person.
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war[?]
I most likely call it paranoid bullshit.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.
How about you explain exactly what logic both Bill & Bush used. Your canned accusation doesn't ring true in my ears. It's a republican line repeated ad nauseam, and some people believe it.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
Most likely they do, but it depends on which side of the lie they stood. If they were given fabricated proof of a threat, then the guilt lies with those that created the fabrication.
How about you explain exactly what logic both Bill & Bush used. Your canned accusation doesn't ring true in my ears. It's a republican line repeated ad nauseam, and some people believe it.
I thought he was just trying to deflect attention from the impeachment process. Or have conservatives changed their mind about making that argument these days?
I thought he was just trying to deflect attention from the impeachment process. Or have conservatives changed their mind about making that argument these days?
Well they may have but I have not. I am not a Republican as I stated before.
Well they may have but I have not. I am not a Republican as I stated before.
I didn't say you were a Republican.
I'm pointing out that when Clinton made that argument, lots and lots of people said that the timing was suspicious and that SH, presumably, wasn't that much of a threat. And now many people want to trot that same speech that they'd questioned so vigorously out again as a means of justifying Bush's action vis a vis Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was right and those who questioned him were wrong, or Clinton lied, in which case, Bush's claims are even more suspect.
I'm pointing out that when Clinton made that argument, lots and lots of people said that the timing was suspicious and that SH, presumably, wasn't that much of a threat. And now many people want to trot that same speech that they'd questioned so vigorously out again as a means of justifying Bush's action vis a vis Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was right and those who questioned him were wrong, or Clinton lied, in which case, Bush's claims are even more suspect.
Oh yes you can. Who's to say that he was right and just chose that time to follow though. Nice added bonus that it was a diversion also.
Either way he lied also didn't he? At least according to your logic.
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
6. US wages war and wins.
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
6. US wages war and wins.
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
Have I left anything out?
Yes. I'm glad you asked. You left out the part where Bush was elected in the first place only after many African-Americans were deliberately and often erroneously disqualified from voting in Florida in 2000 through a sweep of supposed felons. This was one among so many clear electoral abuses. Land of freedom, equality and democracy.
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
I don't know whether or not he's an idiot, but he is, like his father, not the most articulate human being the world has ever seen. I must admit, however, that his father's intelligence was never in question.
Quote:
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
You assume that he runs the show. Try this scenario on for size: sometime near the end of Clinton's first term, the RNC decides to begin grooming Bush to run for president. Clinton is most likely going to be unbeatable in '96, and so they wheel out poor Bob Dole to take the hit. The RNC hands Bush their star players: Rove and Cheney. His presidency is largely made up of people from his father's administration, and most of them with a promotion. Condi Rice, I believe, is the only new player in a high profile position (but hey, she had an oil tanker named after her).
Quote:
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
I don't know that they led him. I'd argue that he went willingly. But yes. This is a neo-con administration: all foreign policy, all the time. No real domestic policy beyond the mantra of tax cuts.
Quote:
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
The last one, yes, which I should point out still waits to be seen. The others? I don't know. I don't remember anyone claiming that there would be massive deaths from chemical weapons. Besides, even the military (as Rummy pointed out today to Wolf Blitzer) was expecting SH to use chemical weapons.
Quote:
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
"Somehow." There's a Tom Tomorrow cartoon that tracks the headlines during the run-up to war. I can't find it at the moment, but I'll post a link when I do. Nevertheless. You could make the argument that he only barely convinced the public, did NOT convince the rest of the world, and lied to congress to get their support.
Quote:
6. US wages war and wins.
Was that ever in question? Seriously. We might have haggled over what kind of conflict it was going to be (urban vs desert) or how long it might take, but did anyone seriously think that we would LOSE?
Quote:
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
Invading Iraq, removing SH, and installing a (pro-American) democracy is one of the central obsessions of neo-conservatives, PNAC and the AEI.
Quote:
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
The oil is a perk. The idea is that a democratic Iraq will have a domino effect on the rest of the middle east.
Quote:
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
Passive voice there suggests that you're attacking someone but don't want to say who. The argument, again, is that we were fed a line of bull about SH's weapons and their capacities. There was a pretty systematic logic to it, and I remember hearing pundits comment on how the admin was trying out new lines of argument when the polls didn't tell them what they wanted. The up-shot (and this is where Rove and Cheney are brilliant political strategists) is that this rolling deployment of arguments can be claimed to have been the plan all along.
Quote:
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
No. This is not the argument at all. The argument is that the admin, because it has an ideological obsession with Iraq, was willing to exaggerate the intel it did have if it meant they could justify invading.
Quote:
Have I left anything out?
Yes. Lots. Straw men aren't your cup of tea, I see.
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
He certainly can't complete sentences. There are books of his 'wisdom.'
Quote:
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
Well, the Republicans / daddy would have put the cabinet together for him.
Quote:
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
Yes. Absolutely.
Quote:
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
I got one thing wrong; I thought that Baghdad would be a much bloodier battle then it was. The rest I was absolutely right. The right-wingers on this board's response was "Lalalalalalalallalanotlistening."
Quote:
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
Glad to point out that the world community was never convinced. Before you spout the "coalition of the willing" crap, can I point out that 90% of Spain thought it was stupid? We did not want this war.
Quote:
6. US wages war and wins.
It was a toss-up, I'll give you that. What with Iraq not having a navy or a working air-force or any radar or any modern weapons or a command structure or cruise missiles or night-vision goggles or satellites or anything.
Quote:
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
Yes. Well, Washington. They published essays about it. They had a practical battle-plan for it before 9/11.
Quote:
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
Yep. I thought they may have had WMD, I now think they didn't. The neo-cons used war because oil is of fundamental strategic importance to US interests and this was supposed to increase stability of the middle east. Iraq has the world's second-largest reserves of oil and a leader who hated the US who was profoundly unstable.
Quote:
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
We were told this war was about WMD. We were told this was about terrorism.
Quote:
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
Bush didn't even know who ran India or Pakistan until someone put it in a script for him (not conjecture, documentary fact). Bush makes decisions based on gut feeling (that's why many like him). The entire administration suffered from terrifying obsessional group-think based on a pre-formed ideology and plan. Bush is actually a numb-nut; Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheyne and that sick bastard Rumsfeld are much more clever then him and are the real villains.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
Don't diss Finland now.
I have "I LOVE FINLAND" nail clippers, bought on the Viking Line. I don't diss Finland.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I guess it was OK when a democrat did it.
See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.
No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.
Originally posted by bunge
See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.
No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war, How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
Originally posted by bunge
See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.
No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.
How about voluntarily giving NK nuclear technology....in a way delibrately structured to avoid the hassles of Congressional approval? Hmmmm.
Originally posted by bunge
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.
When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.
If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.
Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
Saddam was a little more than a scary looking person.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war[?]
I most likely call it paranoid bullshit.
Originally posted by NaplesX
How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.
How about you explain exactly what logic both Bill & Bush used. Your canned accusation doesn't ring true in my ears. It's a republican line repeated ad nauseam, and some people believe it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
Most likely they do, but it depends on which side of the lie they stood. If they were given fabricated proof of a threat, then the guilt lies with those that created the fabrication.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Saddam was a little more than a scary looking person.
By the time we attacked:
Saddam was little more than a scary looking person.
Originally posted by bunge
By the time we attacked:
Saddam was little more than a scary looking person.
See, that proves that inspections were not working... er...what was Naples' point?
Originally posted by bunge
How about you explain exactly what logic both Bill & Bush used. Your canned accusation doesn't ring true in my ears. It's a republican line repeated ad nauseam, and some people believe it.
Ok then hear it from the horses mouth:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
Sound a little familiar?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok then hear it from the horses mouth:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
Sound a little familiar?
I thought he was just trying to deflect attention from the impeachment process. Or have conservatives changed their mind about making that argument these days?
Originally posted by midwinter
I thought he was just trying to deflect attention from the impeachment process. Or have conservatives changed their mind about making that argument these days?
Well they may have but I have not. I am not a Republican as I stated before.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok then hear it from the horses mouth:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
Sound a little familiar?
Boy is that flimsy. You really compare that to what Bush has done and why? I'm sorry but you're 100% biased.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well they may have but I have not. I am not a Republican as I stated before.
I didn't say you were a Republican.
I'm pointing out that when Clinton made that argument, lots and lots of people said that the timing was suspicious and that SH, presumably, wasn't that much of a threat. And now many people want to trot that same speech that they'd questioned so vigorously out again as a means of justifying Bush's action vis a vis Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was right and those who questioned him were wrong, or Clinton lied, in which case, Bush's claims are even more suspect.
Originally posted by midwinter
I didn't say you were a Republican.
I'm pointing out that when Clinton made that argument, lots and lots of people said that the timing was suspicious and that SH, presumably, wasn't that much of a threat. And now many people want to trot that same speech that they'd questioned so vigorously out again as a means of justifying Bush's action vis a vis Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was right and those who questioned him were wrong, or Clinton lied, in which case, Bush's claims are even more suspect.
Oh yes you can. Who's to say that he was right and just chose that time to follow though. Nice added bonus that it was a diversion also.
Either way he lied also didn't he? At least according to your logic.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yes you can. Who's to say that he was right and just chose that time to follow though. Nice added bonus that it was a diversion also.
Either way he lied also didn't he?
Perhaps. As for lying: not about starting a war. Perhaps Bush started his war as a diversion from an otherwise disastrous domestic policy?
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
6. US wages war and wins.
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
Have I left anything out?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I just want to recap this thread:
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
6. US wages war and wins.
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
Have I left anything out?
Yes. I'm glad you asked. You left out the part where Bush was elected in the first place only after many African-Americans were deliberately and often erroneously disqualified from voting in Florida in 2000 through a sweep of supposed felons. This was one among so many clear electoral abuses. Land of freedom, equality and democracy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I just want to recap this thread:
Why?
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
I don't know whether or not he's an idiot, but he is, like his father, not the most articulate human being the world has ever seen. I must admit, however, that his father's intelligence was never in question.
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
You assume that he runs the show. Try this scenario on for size: sometime near the end of Clinton's first term, the RNC decides to begin grooming Bush to run for president. Clinton is most likely going to be unbeatable in '96, and so they wheel out poor Bob Dole to take the hit. The RNC hands Bush their star players: Rove and Cheney. His presidency is largely made up of people from his father's administration, and most of them with a promotion. Condi Rice, I believe, is the only new player in a high profile position (but hey, she had an oil tanker named after her).
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
I don't know that they led him. I'd argue that he went willingly. But yes. This is a neo-con administration: all foreign policy, all the time. No real domestic policy beyond the mantra of tax cuts.
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
The last one, yes, which I should point out still waits to be seen. The others? I don't know. I don't remember anyone claiming that there would be massive deaths from chemical weapons. Besides, even the military (as Rummy pointed out today to Wolf Blitzer) was expecting SH to use chemical weapons.
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
"Somehow." There's a Tom Tomorrow cartoon that tracks the headlines during the run-up to war. I can't find it at the moment, but I'll post a link when I do. Nevertheless. You could make the argument that he only barely convinced the public, did NOT convince the rest of the world, and lied to congress to get their support.
6. US wages war and wins.
Was that ever in question? Seriously. We might have haggled over what kind of conflict it was going to be (urban vs desert) or how long it might take, but did anyone seriously think that we would LOSE?
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
Invading Iraq, removing SH, and installing a (pro-American) democracy is one of the central obsessions of neo-conservatives, PNAC and the AEI.
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
The oil is a perk. The idea is that a democratic Iraq will have a domino effect on the rest of the middle east.
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
Passive voice there suggests that you're attacking someone but don't want to say who. The argument, again, is that we were fed a line of bull about SH's weapons and their capacities. There was a pretty systematic logic to it, and I remember hearing pundits comment on how the admin was trying out new lines of argument when the polls didn't tell them what they wanted. The up-shot (and this is where Rove and Cheney are brilliant political strategists) is that this rolling deployment of arguments can be claimed to have been the plan all along.
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
No. This is not the argument at all. The argument is that the admin, because it has an ideological obsession with Iraq, was willing to exaggerate the intel it did have if it meant they could justify invading.
Have I left anything out?
Yes. Lots. Straw men aren't your cup of tea, I see.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I just want to recap this thread:
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
He certainly can't complete sentences. There are books of his 'wisdom.'
Quote:
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
Well, the Republicans / daddy would have put the cabinet together for him.
Quote:
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
Yes. Absolutely.
Quote:
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
I got one thing wrong; I thought that Baghdad would be a much bloodier battle then it was. The rest I was absolutely right. The right-wingers on this board's response was "Lalalalalalalallalanotlistening."
Quote:
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
Glad to point out that the world community was never convinced. Before you spout the "coalition of the willing" crap, can I point out that 90% of Spain thought it was stupid? We did not want this war.
Quote:
6. US wages war and wins.
It was a toss-up, I'll give you that. What with Iraq not having a navy or a working air-force or any radar or any modern weapons or a command structure or cruise missiles or night-vision goggles or satellites or anything.
Quote:
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
Yes. Well, Washington. They published essays about it. They had a practical battle-plan for it before 9/11.
Quote:
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
Yep. I thought they may have had WMD, I now think they didn't. The neo-cons used war because oil is of fundamental strategic importance to US interests and this was supposed to increase stability of the middle east. Iraq has the world's second-largest reserves of oil and a leader who hated the US who was profoundly unstable.
Quote:
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
We were told this war was about WMD. We were told this was about terrorism.
Quote:
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
Bush didn't even know who ran India or Pakistan until someone put it in a script for him (not conjecture, documentary fact). Bush makes decisions based on gut feeling (that's why many like him). The entire administration suffered from terrifying obsessional group-think based on a pre-formed ideology and plan. Bush is actually a numb-nut; Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheyne and that sick bastard Rumsfeld are much more clever then him and are the real villains.
Originally posted by bunge
By the time we attacked:
Saddam was little more than a scary looking person.
Wow. Oh right, because "the inspections worked". Saddam was harmless.