jamiroguy1

Yeah.. I went an got a 55inch phillips.

I think it will be the browns vs. the packers.

We should've supported the popular shiite uprising after Saddam was fought back out of Kuwait but we let Saddam crush the uprising.

No. I still believed that he knew Iraq wasn't a god damn imment threat. The CIA knew that as well but the decision was already made to invade iraq. Even bush admin officials have admited this, along with others in his own fucking cabinet. It's really pitiful every time Bush is caught lying whether it's the uranium in africa claim, knowledge beforehand of 9/11, or the false "imminent threat" of Iraq, the neocons seem to blame the CIA. Bush is a coward.

"If the weapons programs existed on the scale we anticipated," Kay said, "we would have found something that leads to that conclusion. Instead, we found other evidence that points to something else."

"Based on the intelligence given..." but in actuality there was no threat. Bush was wrong.

Yeah.. Lotta power on posting on stupid message board. Wake up, loser!

lol...nice. I'm not a pussy whipped little bitch, and I'm also not affraid to engage with someone that might have a difference of opinion. And by the way... you leave your mother out of this.

See...we can agree sometimes.

You don't believe in rights, jerkoff.

Uh-huh... You know what you should learn to love. You should to love the english language then you wouldn't have some many fucking gramatical mistakes, fucking amature. That's nazi tactics to say i hate this country. I actually love this country and the people that are in it unlike you with your racist bullshit that you pump out. You uneducated troll.

I think David Kay has testified already that Iraq was not an immenent threat.

riiiiiiiiiight. Eat shit, cock smoker. Why don't you quit swinging on dubya nuts for a change, ball licker. I believe I've proven my point of what an assfuck you are and that you're so petrified to admit that you're wrong. Fucking nazi, boot licker.

Cable on demand is my new addiction. It has officially taken over my life in the past month. I love the "quickies" on comedy central on demand that you can watch in between commercial breaks. I hear the "on demand" thingy is going to expand to all shows that come on throughout the day. Who needs tivo when that happens. I wish they're were more HD channels though.

Back pedaling

An End to Evil Seeks Expansionist Role for U.S. Foreign Policy The Rambo Solution to the War on Terror by Allan H. Ryskind Posted Jan 26, 2004 An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum reads more like an extremist political tract than sober advice on how to win the war on terrorism. More's the pity. Why Perle, a highly respected foreign policy expert and Cold War hero, would put his name to such an undertaking is unclear. Frum is a bright fellow who wrote an insightful book about Bush, The Right Man, but he is more neocon polemicist than policy guru. The mudballs he hurled at Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan—he accused them of being "unpatriotic"—still stick in the craw of even those conservatives who don't buy into the Novak-Buchanan line on the Middle East. (The charge was the height of impudence coming from the Canadian-born Frum, who has been a U.S. citizen for approximately two of his 43 years.) Perle's choice of Frum as co-author is thus unlikely to enhance his well-deserved reputation as a brilliant foreign policy strategist and national security expert. More to the point, the book's prescriptions for ending terrorism appear dangerously ambitious at best. The overall thrust of the book's advice (although the authors, because of contradictory comments, may object) is: The United States government—without much need for allies or even the backing of American public opinion—should forthwith impose on foes, near-foes and possibly friends a laundry list of sometimes impossible demands. The U.S. should not only require that certain nations stop directly aiding terrorist groups—not a bad Perle-Frum recommendation, obviously—but also insist that these nations become democracies, free trade enthusiasts, women's rights champions, practitioners of religious freedom, and so forth. Full article http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2907

WMD/Bad intelligence, but more Published 01/28/2004 Now unburdened of his official duties, David Kay has also unburdened his mind. The resigned head of the American search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq offers this short, pithy conclusion: They don't exist; Iraq got rid of them in the 1990s. Iraq did maintain an interest in the poison ricin, in missiles and in nuclear weapons. But its nuclear program wasn't nearly as advanced as Libya's or Iran's, both of which were rudimentary. Thus evaporates the central justification for going to war with Iraq: that its WMD stockpiles and programs posed an imminent threat to the United States and the world. Kay paints a picture of Iraq falling apart from 1998 onward: Saddam Hussein was in la la land, writing bad novels even as the nation was on the eve of war. Corrupt Iraqi weapons scientists would go to Saddam with WMD schemes, get a big bankroll, then spend it on other things. Most of Iraq's WMD materials had been destroyed because Iraq believed U.N. weapons inspectors would find them and because they feared disclosures by Saddam's son-in-law following his defection in 1995. The large question is why American and British intelligence didn't know these things. Kay says it was because intelligence officials grew complacent during the years of U.N. weapons inspections. They could evaluate a satellite image, then ask inspectors to check out anything suspicious. But when the inspectors left in 1998, there were few indigenous sources to fill the gap. That sounds plausible, but there is more to the story. The Clinton administration was getting the same intelligence, yet it, reasonably, did not head off to the United Nations to warn that Iraq needed to be invaded yesterday. It wanted to take out Osama bin Laden; Saddam was a secondary concern. That suggests someone in the Bush administration made an early decision to put the most dangerous possible spin on what Iraq intelligence was available. Information that was tentative became certain; equipment that might have numerous uses became certified WMD material; rumors became fact. Recall what was happening at the U.N. Security Council prior to the war. France, Russia and Germany weren't denying that Saddam might pose a risk; they disputed that the risk was imminent; they disputed that war -- especially immediate war -- was the only alternative. The Bush administration was having none of it; Saddam had 12 years to comply with U.N. demands and had not; years of inspections had failed. Iraq needed to be invaded. Adopting that unyielding line was a political decision, not an intelligence judgment. It came from the neoconservatives in the administration and was pushed most actively by Vice President Dick Cheney. He's still at it. Last week, Cheney continued to assert that the United States had discovered two mobile biological weapons labs. That is simply false. Ask Kay; he'll tell you the two mobile trailers were just what the Iraqis said they were: hydrogen generators for weather balloons. Cheney also continues to spread the tale that "there's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al-Qaida and the Iraqi government." That, too, is false. There is no such evidence, as Secretary of State Colin Powell and others have acknowledged. What the American people are hearing from Cheney now is just what the world heard from other prominent administration officials before the war. It's all wrong, and Cheney's responsibility for that can't be neatly off-loaded onto intelligence agency scapegoats. Link to article (click here)

Sounds like buck passing to me.

Next time, instead hurling insults, try coming back with an intelligent arguement. You only prove your ignorance when you do that. Also, try not shit your pants every time someone shoots down your shitty lies and propaganda. It only proves the other person right.

Funny how Bush never mentions the role we played in killing innocent Iraqi's. But the better question is "where were the so called 'liberators of iraq' when Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people and Iran, almost the same group of neocons were helping him do this. We quietly continued to assist him and his country. Face it, this administration is losing it's footing fast as they're arguement are falling apart in front of the world.

The fact still remains that France, Germany, and Russia's threatening a veto for the invasion for whatever reason you believe that their motivation was, was the right thing to do. That's been proven and Bush's rationale for going in was false. You cannot deny that. You act like our government was taking the moral high ground, by invading a country under false pretenses. Over 10,000 innocent people were killed, and counting!!! What are we supposed say now, "oops! Our bad!!" Our government was the one that invaded for monetary reasons. I love it how conservative assholes like yourself like to accuse people of being un-american to criticize horrible decisions that resulted in the deaths of thousands. You're really sad dude.

France, Germany, and Russia all were planning to veto a resolution to go to war with Iraq. They believed more time was needed and that Iraq did not pose a direct and immediate threat.

This is something I'm in favor of...Privatization of the US postal service.

Not everyone was fooled as you have pointed out. It became apparent very early that the wmd claim was bullshit as opposed to you and the other fools.