Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The McClatchy news organization exposed the misrepresentations and doubts about the intelligence and other arguments for war during the entire pre-war buildup. It's just that the NY Times and Washington Post and TV networks ignored it. Bush has lied from day one of his administration and there's no reason for Bubble Boy to change now.
Groenhagen: "Blair was the only one to join Bill Clinton's coalition of two against Iraq in December 1998, but it's not nice to call Clinton and Blair names. I'm sure they really believed Saddam had WMD when they launched the preemptive strike known as Operation Desert Fox. Unfortunately, they were busy do that and the illegal war of chouce in Kosovo at the very same time the 9/11 Commission report tells us that bin Laden and al Qaeda were planning 9/11."
Your point being what? And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq again?
Nobody is disputing that Saddam Hussein wasn't a huge thorn in everybody's side for quite some time.
They're disputing whether the Iraq war, as carried out by Bush and his team of half-wits, was a bad, corrupt and otherwise tragic decision. It was.
So what's your point again? That you're smarter than somebody else? Or that you can't be bothered to confront reality if it doesn't make you feel good about your political leaning?
Thanks for your trite history lessons. You really earned that award of yours.
While you were doing your research, what did you learn about how Saddam Hussein came into power to begin with? What did you learn about how he came into possession of WMD, and what the U.S.'s response was to his use of it?
What did you learn about Clinton's policy of containment, which, although flawed, proved to be 1,000 times preferable to Bush's policy of invasion and occupation?
When will you deserve another gold star?
"Manchild, what the hell is up with this manchild bullshit anyway? What do you mean? You are just another name calling, probably fat, white guy, maybe from Georgia, and your parents are obviously brother and sister."
As I noted above, I used name-calling as a way to fit in with the Salon crowd. "Salon," apparently, is an ironic name for this site.
A lot of us knew he was not competent when he ran in 2000! His track record in Texas spoke volumes. He was a snotty nosed rich boy playing games then!
Groenhagen: "I hope no one minds me calling the author of this dreadful and dishonest column "Horseface." It's just that after reading her column and the comments, I wanted to fit in with a little name-calling of my own."
You're in the wrong web site. Ann Coulter's columns are on some conservative blog somewhere.
As for Joan Walsh's column, if you can find something dishonest in it, please be sure to give an actual reason instead of the diversionary tactics you've used thus far. You might start by explaining how Bush's actions were right and warranted, especially in light of the revelations that his administration forged documents, cherry-picked evidence, and ignored anything that didn't fit with their WMD cover story.
Groenhagen: "As I noted above, I used name-calling as a way to fit in with the Salon crowd."
I see you're well-versed in rationalization. No wonder you support Bush.
"Regarding the WMD intelligence, etc., the fact that Democrats screwed up royally by voting to authorize war powers doesn't get Bush off the hook for actually starting a war. Sorry." -- Xrandadu Hutman
I think Bush deserves the bulk of the credit for removing a murderous dictator and state sponsor of terrorism from power.
Let's see, when Clinton became president in 1993, there were, according to the State Department, seven state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan). Those same seven nations were still on the list in 2001. Since 2001, three of those nations have been removed from the list.
Thank you, President Bush, for taking the state sponsors of terrorism seriously.
Could there possibly be a more disgusting, corrupt, incompetent, dishonorable psychopath who has 'served' TWO TERMS ("I'll retire to Bedlam!") as President of the United States!
Now his five-year-old attempt to LIE out of what HE knew to be false is clear to any objective view. The 'misinformation' was what he bullied out of the people who tried to tell him the truth.
I will be very disappointed in the US government if this clown escapes the justice which he should receive from the Hague Court!
I believe that some good old fashioned jail time would do him a world of good.
I agree and that is where Groenhagen will meet him, when he is letting him out of his cell for his once a day date with the gym.
Xrandadu Hutman:
"Your point being what? And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq again?"
Bin Laden in 1997 said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in response to Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq. That declaration was followed by the bombing of our embassies in Africa in August 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, and 9/11. It appears that Iraq was bin Laden's main "justification" for those messages with no words. Or do you think by "messages with no words" bin Laden meant he would blow kisses to Clinton?
"Or that you can't be bothered to confront reality if it doesn't make you feel good about your political leaning?"
I provided sources to confirm the reality. All you moonbats have is invective.
"While you were doing your research, what did you learn about how Saddam Hussein came into power to begin with?"
I believe he came to power when Carter was president.
"What did you learn about how he came into possession of WMD, and what the U.S.'s response was to his use of it?"
I've heard moonbats claim that we gave Saddam his WMD, but the record does not support that claim.
"What did you learn about Clinton's policy of containment, which, although flawed, proved to be 1,000 times preferable to Bush's policy of invasion and occupation?"
Actually, Clinton's top expert on Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, argued in "The Threatening Storm" that containment, while more successful in the past than expected, was beginning to fail by 2002. I assume, like most moonbats, you have never read that book.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
