Wow! That didn't answer my question at all, did it? Your still being controlled by your CDS I see. Can you or can you not point to an actual terrorist group Saddam worked with? Yes or no?

Bet he thought Bush's 51% was a "mandate".

I went back over your entire post and not once did you name a single terrorist group. You did, however, give another good example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. YOUR the one who used links to terrorist groups to make excuses for invading Iraq. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Instead you want to turn everything into how horrible Clinton is. This may come as a shock to you, but we on the left are actually allowed to disagree with OUR leaders. I know that talk radio has conditioned you guys not to ask questions of yours but you might want to try it some time. I didn't agree with Clinton bombing Iraq in 1998 anymore then I supported Shrubs little invasion five years later (actually, I can't think of anyone who supported the Clinton bombing even on the right yet they had no problem with Bush doing it. What a shock!). If the main argument for the invasion of Iraq was links to terrorist groups and fear of Saddam turning the non-existant WMDs over to said groups, then perhaps someone should be able to name said groups and point to the evidence of a connection. To date, no one ever has. Yet even after Bush himself has admitted that Iraq had no hand in 9/11, many of his worshippers still claim he did.

Name one that was right about it. Bush said there was WMDs, Bush was wrong. Now, are you people ever going to take any of that "personal responsibiilty" you all like to talk about so much and admit your messiah was wrong or are you just going to keep wetting your diapers about Clinton? Most of his cabinet belonged to PNAC, an organization that was dedicated to the overthrouw of Saddam since the early nineties. This had nothing to do with protecting America from terrorists. Meanwhile the guy who really attakced our country is still at large making Bush no better then your hated Clinton at protecting the country.

Let's see the little apologist coward worm his way out of that one (they always try you know!)!

Why did the people of SC send him to the senate in the first place? Here's a crazy thought, how about you do your REAL job and fix the countries problems! This is just another whinny repub crying sour grapes about the election. "WAAAAAAAAAH! KARL ROVE PROMISED US A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY! WAAAAAAH!" Next time some con bitches about Obama I'll point this stupid incident out and see how they defend their tax dollars going to this man. They want to cut back on wasteful spending they need to start at home! Like cracking down on senators who want to waste tax payer time on distraction issues.

Show me in the constitution where it says we have a "limited government", thanks!

Care to guess who GAVE Saddam all those weapons? You want to talk useful idiots, how about how Saddam was OUR useful idiot during the 1980's. At best Bush I & II were cleaning up the messes their own party had made. Funny how Reagan overlooked all that gassing back in 1988. Oh, that wasn't the one you were refering to? Too bad. I guess if it happened on Saint Reagan's watch it doesn't count huh?

That's the REAL reason thier doing this (of course their even worse winners so I guess we shouldn't complain too much). Sounds to me like most of these losers don't have any real jobs to begin with anyway. I'm just waiting for the Law and Order episode where a defendent claims he can't be charged with a crime on the grounds that Obama isn't really eligible to be president. Ripped from the headlines!

Yet they all turned out to be wrong and we who opposed the war from the start turned out to be right. Got that? Now, are you or are you not ever going to take responsibility for that? While your contemplating that answer, you can also explain why Bush hired most of his cabinet from a "think" tank dedicated to the overthrow of Saddam even before Bush took office thus discrediting the argument that Saddam posed an "immediate" threat.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! MCCAIN LOST!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! KARL ROVE PROMISED US A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! I NEED TO CHANGE MY DIAPER!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! WE'RE ENTITLED TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

1) Your own damn party didn't challenge the outcome of the election because of this! Care to guess why that is? (I know cons aren't prone to questioning their leaders but if your really serious about this, now might be a good time to start)

2) His mother is a full American citizen, therefore, he is an American citizen. End. Of. Discussion. Read up on the law.

If I understand your post correctly, what your trying to say is:

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! MCCAIN LOST!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! KARL ROVE PROMISED US A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! WE'RE ENTITLED TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

If I understand correctly, what your trying to say is:

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! MCCAIN LOST!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! KARL ROVE PROMISED US A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! WE'RE ENTITLED TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! SOMEBODY CHANGE MY DIAPERS!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

What part of "your own damn party didn't challenge the outcome of the election" did you idiots not understand?

Anything else I can help you with?

So what your saying is:

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!! MCCAIN LOST!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! KARL ROVE PROMISED US A PERMANENT REPULBICAN MAJORITY!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! WE'RE ENTITLED TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

Your own party didn't challenge the outcome of the election, you lost, get over it.

And yet the republicans still didn't challenge the outcome. You lose, get over it.