Just in case anyone was thinking of voting for Hillary...

[Mayor McCheese]

The American people are being duped by the nightly anti war barrage by the liberal national news media who want us the wave the white flag of defeat and go back to the defensive mentality of the pre 9/11 era.

They are like the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin who trusted Hitler in 1937 and signed the Munich peace agreement with him-----then came back to Britain waving the agreement as he proclaimed "peace in our time"!

Like Hitler----the Jihadists are out to get anyone who stands in the way of their anilelating the Jews-----by confrontinting them now----the fewer the number of lives will be lost in the long run!

thats fine that there is anti-war barrage on the liberal national news media Murff, you just watch Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and Hannity, eat them up!

Hitler and Iraq are completely different matters.... how bout we look at Vietnam, another country that we tried to change their ways of government (sound like something we are trying to do?), but the people in Vietnam wanted otherwise and for 4 years we sat in there killing our American Troops.... hmmmm, sounds a little familiar, but thats ok, here comes Murff to save the Conservative viewpoint by saying that we HAD to go into Iraq RIGHT THEN, that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (still haven't found any, and that was the MAIN reason Bush and Powell gave the UN for going into Iraq), and that they were our immediate threat!

[Murffieus]

Hitler and Iraq might be different per se-----but the threat that Hitler posed in the 1930s which was met by apathy is very similar to the threat posed by Radical Islam in the new millenium that also is being met with apathy (McCheese is a good example of that) !

BTW----as I mentioned-----after the fall of Saddam----our arms inspector (Dulfer) in his report stated that Saddam maintained the capability to manufacture WMD at a momennts notice and indeed had plans to do just that after the UN "sanctions" were lifted "if not before"!

In other words the "intent" was still there regardless of the state of inventory at the time of invasion.!

[tower912]

  If you look at a young man on the street corner and decide he has the means and the intent at some time in the future to mug you, do you get to either pre-emptively shoot or incarcerate him?    Saddam was the thug ruler of a crumbling regime unable to project even regionally.   He probably still had madman fantasies for the future, maybe even as far as making friends with the US again so it would give him WMD's to use against those pesky Iranians, like Reagan/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did in the 80's.    Any good chemist with access to the internet can be viewed as a threat to be a future terrorist.   Look at McVeigh, that God-fearing right wing Christian.   He used simple, easily purchased chemicals in the right proportions.   
Bush tried to get Clarke to find a way to tie 9/11 to Saddam on 9/12, even though the intelligence community knew it was bin Laden.   Many of the neocons that held his ear wanted a war with Iraq and used this as a convenient excuse.   9/11 gave them the pretense to launch an illegal, pre-emptive war.   The fact that everything has gone so poorly since then is either karma or the proof of a vengeful God who does not like pre-emptive wars.

[Murffieus]

Well Tower----do you think shooting at our planes, and trying to assasinate George Bush SR-----ripping off billions from us through the oil for food program------and paying hefty stipends to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to kill Israeli's (the core problem)-----or retaining both the will and capability to build WMD once the UN sanctions are lifted (arms inspector Dilfer)-----and God only knows what else he was up to------that all this was reason to go to war?

Give GWB the benefit of the doubt----he's not in the business of doing this country in-------he's doing based on his info what he has to do to protect this country (long term) and also he has a legacy to protect!

[tower912]

His legacy is going to be one of the worst presidents ever.   That is already written.   

[Murffieus]

No way----you ignore the booming economy after inheriting an economis mess (a recession) from Clinton. You also take too short a viewpoint here-----history will look at GWB a lot differently than the contemporary media does------radical islam isn't going away----in fact the movement will accelerate if lose in Iraq or Afghanistan.

History will recognize GWB as being the first President to recognize what we are up against and doing something about it------prior to GWB, radical islam was treated as a "law enforcement" problem-------GWB pegged it for what it is (a military problem)----just like Churchill and Truman identified correctly the problems of their day and took the heat for it at the time----but whom have gone down in history as "great leaders!

[tower912]

History will judge GWB for his attack on civil liberties, the secrecy of his administration, lying his way into war.    The booming economy is an afterproduct of the fiscal sanity of the Clinton years, certainly not the road to bankruptcy he has put the nation on.   Eventually, the bills will have to be paid for this war and for the tax cuts in the face of all reason.    My 4 month old son and 12 year old daughter both owe over $30K to the federal debt because people who support this president's fiscal policies don't believe in paying their bills.   Once upon a time, R's stood for fiscal responsibility.   They will not be able to claim that with a straight face for a generation.
 A war on radical Islam?   By making it a war, or a crusade, if you like, you play into their martyr complex.   If we had simply taken down bin Laden like the criminal he is and tried him in a legitimate court, we would have been able to send a message to all of the moderate muslims that we don't hate them and that we simply punish criminals.   By making it a war in radical islam, we will rally impressionable young men without any other future to the cause and we will be fighting this war long after you and I are gone.    He have created the hydra that bin Laden wanted us to by invading a middle east country that had not attacked us.   To many in the world, we proved bin Laden right and made him a hero.    Well done.

[Murffieus]

You jump to a lot of conclusions so let me ask you ------- was Tony Blair complicit in "lying about the war" or was he dumb enough to be "duped"-?---was John Kerry who voted for the war dumb enough to be duped by supposed  GWB "lies"?----was Hilliary Clinton dumb enoght to be duped by supposed GWB "lies"?----was Bill Clinton duped too?----he supported the war and had said repeatedly that Saddam was a threat to national security?-----didn't these people do their due dilligence? Weren't they shown the same intelligence that GWB had access too?

If GWB lied and got away with it----there are an awful lot of dumb people running around Washington D.C. and running the British government!

BTW-----I gave you 6 or 7 reasons other than WMD why Iraq should have been attacked----and all the people listed above supported that decision lock, stock, and barrell!

[nathanziarek]

Murf --

No on is jumping to conclusions but you.

Congress never voted for the war. Never. Not once. They voted to authorize the use of force as a means of political pressure. This was to be used after every available resource was spent attempting to negotiate. We did not negotiate. We attacked.

You continue to mention the intelligence data that everyone and their uncle has seen. I assume you've been reading up on the Tenet situation, where he calls the use of the "slam-dunk" term misguided and misused by this administration. Then there was the report declassified last year that said the Senate Intelligence committee repeatedly questioned the ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda even while the administration was spinning the tale publically to garner support for the war.

The entire Congress does not get a copy of all security reports; typically only the committees get the entire thing. Is it that implausible to think that a congressperson would hear all of the distortions -- Tenet says its a slam dunk, al-Qaeda and Saddam are cohorts -- and then vote for, as the bill states, a threat of force?

Now, the question as to should have Iraq ben invaded. Some day, yes. But not in leiu of fighting the real war (the one that can't be fought with guns). Saddam repeatedly tried to capture Zarqawi. I am not and will not defend him (he deserved a fate worse than death), but in this instance, the devil you know was better than the devil you don't. There will never be a end to the war on terror (put it right next to the war on drugs), but had we actually maintained course and thouroughly disrupted the terrorist networks, we would have been able to use some of our 2 trillion dollar war time spending on building good will. There is no détente here. We're locked in an endless war now.

[tower912]

Tony Blair thought that removing Saddam was a worthy enough goal in itself.   The Downing Street memo's showed that British intelligence thought that the US was fixing intelligence around policy.   The British intelligence was more openly skeptical.   Blair chose to hitch his trailer to Bush.   He has paid the price ever since.   
Republicans using Democrats as proof their folly was ok always cracks me up.   I would say that many did fail at due diligence.   Also, some of them made purely political calculations in their vote to authorize the use of force. Some may have believed Cheney when he said he had additional proof.  And to paraphrase Kerry from his Rolling Stone interview, none of them thought GWB would f it up as bad as he did. 
But here we are.     

[Murffieus]

Well there is a minority position on everything (Downing Street Memos)----the majority position as presented was as Tenet said a "slam dunk"----it was a major Intelligence failing----80% of the Congress bought into it.

And as I say----you completely ignore the fact that according to our post invasion arms inspector (Dulfer) who concluded in his report that there was overwhelming evidence (documents) that Saddan retained the ability to make WMD on a moments notice and indeed fully intended to do so once the UN snactions were lifted. That in addition to all the other things like paying the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers hefty stipends (rewards)----trying to assasinate Bush Sr in Kuwait in 1993, shooting at our planes, etc. etc, etc,!

[nathanziarek]

You have read up on the Tenet "slam-dunk" statement, right? This wasn't a majority opinion. In fact, it wasn't even Tenet's opinion. It was the opinion of the administration who masterfully played the (liberal? where do we get that?) media.

For the last time, 80% of Congress bought into a misperception. How in Gods name does that make it right?

[Murffieus]

It was the correct decision based on the information at the time----that information was very compelling so it got 80% of the congress to buy in. Congress usually doesn't get anywhere near that sizeable a majority.

Now with hindsight you say that it wasn't the correct decision-----well maybe with hindsight one can say it wasn't----that is if existing MD was the only criteria-----but i have laid out other reasons as well!

[nathanziarek]

You still misrepresent what happened then. There was considerable dissent among experts and lay-politicos as this administration attempted to tie 9/11 to Iraq and Saddam. This is not just hindsight talking. The Downing St. Memo and the newly released information about the misuse of Tenet's "Slam dunk" go a long way to prove that even the administration didn't belive it to be the "correct decision." It was the decision that they wanted to make, and who could really blame them? I don't mourn Saddam's death...who would?

In the end, though, there is a right time for everything, and this was not the right time to get locked into a war that even Bush senior thought was a bad idea.

There was a great poll that asked American's if Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It broke straight across "party" lines. If you were a liberal, watching all that liberally-biased news, you got it right more often than not. You almost always got it wrong if you watched Fox News.

History will show if it ultimately was the right decision. If so, it was by blind luck, though. The evidence -- in hindsight or at the time the decision was made -- simply isn't there.

[Murffieus]

I wouldn't call a 20% minority "considerable dissent".

However it was MY opinion at the time that GWB was using WMD as an EXCUSE to invade Iraq eventhough the WMD issue was a sincere one on his part. IMO WMD by itself is not enough reason to invade another country----there has to be reasons that indicate that the country involved is likely to USE these WMD or sell them to 3rd parties for use  (in this case an arm of Radical Islam).

The more important reasons were to open a 2nd front against radical Islam----- to eliminate a guy who was supporting terrorism against Isreal by paying hefty stipends to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (in very public ceromonies I might add)----not to let a guy get away with attempting to assasinate a former US president (Bush SR. in Kuwait in 1993)----to stop this guy (Saddam) from ripping off the UN Oil for Food program to the tune of billions-----and also to retaliate for constantly shooting at our planes----and there are probably other reasons that are classified, which is another reason you have to give GWB the benefit of any doubt-----he has access to classified info you and I just don't have access to!

[ChicosBailBonds]

[SoCalwarrior]

The dems have requested equal time photoshopping...

[nathanziarek]

OK, the Bush Kitten eater made me laugh out loud. 

[nathanziarek]

I wouldn't call a 20% minority "considerable dissent".

Where is the 20% from. The vote in Congress, based on a time of unprecedented goodwill toward the president, to authorize the use of force in Iraq (after all other avenues had been exhausted) based on limited, biased information from the administration? Ok. Just checking.

and there are probably other reasons that are classified, which is another reason you have to give GWB the benefit of any doubt-----he has access to classified info you and I just don't have access to!

If you think your arguement is solid as is, don't make up other "classified reasons" that no one knows. It weakens your stance.
W has squandered the goodwill of "benefit of the doubt," so he won't be getting that from me. But, maybe he does have information that is not public. If I were him, I'd keep it that way. Everytime something becomes declassified it seems to validate his opposition.

Once again, been a pleasure Murf! I'm signing off before my blood pressure ... does what ever blood pressure shouldn't (what do I know about it?)

[Murffieus]

Nathan your painting over the situation with a brush that isn't factual. The congress voted 80-20 to authorize GWB to use force to remove Saddam-----for his part GWB gave Saddam umteen chances to let the weapons inspectors back in------Saddam refused time and time again-----GWB then used his overwhelming congressional mandate to invade.

I have not heard the argument that he exceeded his mandate anywhere------I would recheck your facts----if he had exceeded his mandate all hell would have broken loose over that-----and I haven't heard a word about THAT!

I'm not making up other reasons----but I do think it's safe to say that we don't know everything that GWB knows about the Saddam situation!

Well it's been nice talking with you!

[ChicosBailBonds]

I loved the Bush Kitten eater....that is exactly the kind of thing that would set liberals into a crying snit.

Love it.  Yummy kitty...yummy!!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

The dems have requested equal time photoshopping...
[img]

socal, I didn't know you went to those kinds of sites to get the bare chested fireman for the Rummy photo.      

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm guessing if a conservative put a photo up like that of a liberal guy getting it in the shorts.....well there wouldn't be a chuckle, let's put it that way.  Moral outrage...blah blah blah

 

[ChicosBailBonds]

His legacy is going to be one of the worst presidents ever.   That is already written.   

LOL


Say it together....JIMMAH CARTER   JIMMAH CARTER  JIMMAH CARTER

[tower912]

Jimmah Carter... George Bush can't hold Jimmy's jock.    The long term damage that GWB is doing to this country won't be undone for generations.   Jimmy was just a poor leader.   And don't think for a second I am defending his record as president.   Other than the Camp David accords (which didn't last), he did not have much to be proud of during his presidency.   But he wasn't a megalomaniac, merely not as competent as we needed at the time.
I don't think Hillary makes it out of the primaries.    She has the money and the name, but only a small number of people who are true devotees.     One of the drawbacks to having this many candidates working this hard this early on both parties is that a fair amount of partisans on both sides are going to sit on the sidelines for awhile and let them sort themselves out rather than committing whole-heartedly early.    Again, I have a feeling McCain gets the nomination from the R's by default.    I don't have a clear feeling yet for the D's, but I don't think it will be Hil.