It wouldn't have mattered what the reason was the left and the main stream media will never give the right any credit. They want to see the republicans gone, which I also would like by the way except I want them gone also.
Obama and the democrats had total control for 2 years and couldn't get squat accomplished because they had their eye's on the up coming elections and didn't want to take a chance of losing control.
This current president has spent more money than all previous presidents and yet he may get voted back in. What do you think is going to happen if he gets back in and the democrats regain total control?
Part of me would like to see this happen because I think it would in the end cause enormous damage to the democratic party for years to come, the other part of me fears what will happen to this country.
I want both parties gone and a complete over haul of the system starting with privatization of many public sector jobs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually that just came up in a fast search so I posted it along with other links pointing out the lame attempt to discredit the republicans. Repeating it over and over won't work when there are facts that totally discredit the no WMD's argument.
Nice attempt at deflecting though....bump ;)

Which party perpetuated lies and still has followers believing them??????

"it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered a lie"

Your right I suppose they were willing to grasp any straw to smear the other party, both parties should hang their heads in shame and get back to doing what's right for the country not just their party of affiliation. We are all in the same boat and it is going down:(
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Involved in the discovery of wmd's?

And EZ, if the weapons were there, it is a free press with plenty of conservative outlets and a (there was a) Republican controlled government. It would have been front page news on the wall street journal for weeks. A limited # of mustard gas casings from 1991 does not match what was presented to the American people or congress. The thing that is crazy about this is that even the most staunch supporters of the war that I know, including active military people, one of which who was an army colonel at the time, say we were completely wrong about the state of wmd's. I guess they just didn't report it on msnbc for them to hear about it.

By the way, that contradicts what George Tenent and David Kay testified to the senate arms committee.

as a public service and because we're routinely told "they're all the same" I've been scouring "the internets" thinking I'd find, in an election year featuring overflowing hatred toward the current administration, plenty of examples of elected republicans and conservative blowhards attacking the President, the troops and the mission as a result of this incident. Surely this would have been the case from the ususal suspects if 'Miss Me Yet?" were still the Commander-in-Chief :uhuh: ...right? we have ample evidence

surprisingly.....there is precious little...I did find the likes of William Kristol(Ever hear of PNAC?) complaining about the over the top phony reactions of many administration officials and a wonder at the lack of response from Republicans, in particular, the candidates....

hard to know anymore whether this should be described as a "tragedy" an "atrocity" or simply "workplace violence" with a little college humor added or maybe even a "war crime"

I think it goes like this...if they kill us...it's a tragedy and in some cases merely workplace violence depending on what the Justice Department and Pentagon decide regarding state of mind and requisite intent....

if we pee on them(after we kill them )...and a democrat is President .....it's an "atrocity" and probably a "war crime"...only the offending soldiers should be held accountable

if mistreat them in any way...and Bush is President.... the entire Administration and the entire military should be held accountable and compared to the most ruthless regimes in history:uhuh:

crazy stuff

Well, it pretty much contradicts what anyone who's investigated the matter has reported...even Dulfer.

This issue has been beaten to death :deadhorse:

-spence

The entire frame of reference is different.

-spence

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not? Ok so it's not the lack of WMD's, now it's the type and amount didn't match what we were told...They had 6 months to hide/dispose them before we invaded.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

I agree with Spence on this...please don't:)

Credibility of the source isn't an issue. But I'd ask if you even read it?

If anything this should be classified as a Superfund site, not used as justification for a very long and costly war.

-spence

Were there WMD or not? The left simply will not admit there were WMD's because they are to concerned with deflecting and changing the parameters of their previous accusations.

They had 6 months to hide/dispose of the majority of WMD's before we invaded, could it be possible they moved them and perhaps even altered the areas that the inspectors weren't allowed to search after they knew it was imminent that we would invade?

If your answer to either of these questions is not a yes or no I am done with this discussion, I am not going to read through a bunch of BS...as they say "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS" please dazzle me with a simple yes or no with a minimum amount of BS..

To quote a defense official I remember reading about years ago...

"These were not the WMD we were looking for".

Use the search, there are dozens of posts on the subject.

-spene

A perfect example of why I don't like the left, they can't speak straight foward using their own words without some type of emergency exit. A fine example of the lack of decision making that drives me nuts.
I knew I should have asked you to respond in just three words. One last time because after all I am of limited intellect.

Choose one:
There were WMD's
or
There weren't WMD's

i still think they got moved to Syria
never ever! should our boots hit the ground there
nothin but a shell game

That song from Jeopardy is playing in my head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use the search, my opinion on the issue is well documented :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And now your lack of ability to make a decision is documented;)
I will now refer you to the last line below this post , thanks for playing.

There is no inability to make a decision, in fact the question has already been answered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm wrong and your right
 

See I can say your right, a fine example of straight forward communication.

It's your inability to follow directions that is documented now which I mistook for your inability to make a decision, oh wait it's both come to think of it.

Did you read it?

There were scattered chemical weapons made in the 1980's, prior to our 1990 invasion, which according to the article you posted "The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

That was not why we went to war. That is not what we were told they had. It was a current and imminent threat, including a false report of an attempt to buy nuclear materials that was presented to congress and via state of the union. Prior to the speeches by Bush and Powell, the report was deemed not credible, but went forward against the advice of the person who originated the report.

This is such old news it is ridiculous. Why the heck do followers of conservative talk radio keep spewing the childish cry of left wing liberal media bs. It is such horse manor. This isn't China, you can get your news from any source you like and it all concludes that there was no weapons program.

Nice reply see we are finding common ground there were indeed WMD's.
The rest of the reply shall we say leaves me baffled because you state this as facts without providing links which could reinforce your argument. For example who deemed it false and what proof did they have?
When it comes to weapon programs how on earth can anyone prove there were or were not any programs going on without being part of Saddam's regimen? This is a very long report:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association

Remember the inspectors were not allowed into the mosque and were not given total access to any where they wanted to go:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association


You say it is ridiculous and old news but consider the fact that I am no longer an avid talk radio fan, which when I was I listened to both sides all day long so I would be better prepared to discuss the issues knowing what both sides had to say. I don't watch foxnews or for that matter much news at all primarily because no matter how much I learned and presented to others they refused to listen and voted this guy into office. Lets just say I gave up on trying to sway anyones opinion after he was voted in. I sincerely hoped he would be a great president not only because I want what is best for this country but also because he was non-Caucasian and I hoped this would once and for all end the racial tensions. I have since realized the tensions will never go away and once again have almost given up hope.
I hope we are getting closer toward respecting each others opinion and look forward to your reply, if you chose to reply again.

I am happy to reply, but if my friend died because of spent 500 scattered non-functioning shells of mustard gas from the 1980's then f' that lying sob george bush and cheney. Hardly wmds if they can't even be used. They scared Americans with threats of imminent attack of actual usable wmds and nuclear materials, tied Saddam to 911 and Al Qaeda. They said there were functioning weapons manufactuirng facilities. They wanted the oil and to enact the plan of PNAC. A lot of American's paid with their lives and limbs. Nobody ever denied that Saddam used weapons on the Kurd's at the end of the war with Iran. We supported Iraq in that war, remember? We knew they had them. In fact, it is now declassified that the function of the Liberty ship my dad served on in the 1960's in the Pacific was to test those chemicals. He and the other sailors got to go up and clean the deck after the primates got gassed. He gets to go to the VA regularly for monitoring. Those non-functioning old weapons were not what was presented as reason for war and certainly do not fit the definition of functioning wmd's whether you want to spin it that way or not. I actually didn't know there was anyone out there still trying to spin that bs.

I can understand where your hostility comes from but if you take the time to read the links I provided perhaps you will clearly see through the bs. Once again when and if you calm down enough and open your mind you may see through the propaganda that has kept you stoked up or perhaps provide me some proof to back up what your saying, I have no problem seeing actual proof that the republicans also suck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have not given one ounce of real information that supports the reasons for the war were founded. My mind is open, I am just not someone who believes war should be taken lightly. It is a republican, democrat issue. It is an issue of morality. We can't agree on this. It really goes not much farther than that you feel we should behave as our enemies do, so we really aren't going to come to any sort of middle ground. Bush was going to Iraq whether there was a legit reason or not. His own people said it. If you don't believe that... oh well.

Just for fun... from your links

1991: Outstanding issues from UNSCOM "Iraq claimed it lost 550 shells filled with mustard gas, but no evidence was found of these weapons"

So they told us about these circa 1991 when we destroyed or oversaw the destruction of over 100,000 special munitions. Those 550 that we found in unusable ancient condition a decade later after we invaded again count as wmd's Bush spoke about?

"In a February 1999 report after leaving Iraq in December 1998, the IAEA declared that no evidence suggested Iraq had succeeded in producing nuclear weapons.
The same report concluded that IAEA activities 'have revealed no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.'

On top of that, at the time they used it, Bush new the yellowcake story was unfounded. Great way to go to war.

Now we are getting solmewhere but please bear with me.
You say Bush knew and yet provide no proof to back it up and get angry that I won't take your words as proof. Show me; the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements is all I'm saying. It is not up to me to search for your information in order to debate your supposed facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I think the burden of proof was on our government. I am not angry that you don't take my words as proof. If you read up on PNAC, you should be able to see the connections yourself. I am not here to prove anything to you, sorry.

I would think if it could be proven that Bush lied then he would have faced impeachment, thus I consider both the no WMD's and Bush lied as nothing more than propaganda from the left.

Over the years I feel the left has been more concerned with their power smearing the republicans than they are concerned for the overall welfare of the country. One of the reasons I would like to see elimination of party affiliation so that we elect people to get together and focus on the country and minimize pandering.

It is my opinion more people vote for the letter following the name and they don't care or know what the name preceding the letter has to offer.

For those who may not know the Democrats are left and the Republicans are right.

Even those Marines ARE acting on a higher standard than our enemies, and here's why. If our enemies laid down their weapons, so would those Marines. If those Marines laid down their weapons, our enemies would kidnap and decapitate the Marines.

I commanded young Marines, and I was in no-sh*t combat once. I'm not saying I personally condone what they did, but I sure wouldn't bring charges against them either.

When you're in war, particularly against an enemy is barbaric as these Islamic extremists are, you simply cannot win without doing some things that you would never otherwise consider doing. And unfortunately, the reality is we need people who are willing to be super-aggressive when the situation calls for it.

I lost 2 kids under my command, and I've stood over the bodies of those who helped kill those kids. I can't say it occurred to me to urinate on them, but I sure know where that rage comes from.

But to me earlier point...there is zero moral equivalence between the acts of our enemies, and the act of urinating on the body of someone who was just trying to kill you.

I don't condone urinating on the bodies. But don't tell me that urinating on the body of a murderer makes you no better than the murderer. That's stupid.

Good post...

...although I'm not sure there are many, outside of the Taliban, who would argue moral parity in this specific instance. Seems to more be a case of "outrage about the outrage" as Lewis Black likes to say.

Perhaps the strongest condemnation I've heard interestingly enough has actually come from members of Congress that are veterans.

Generally though I think most people are pretty rational on subjects like this...

Except for this guy, I'd give him the douche of the century award.

Ethan Casey: Marines Urinating on Dead Taliban: How Low Will We Go?

-spence

Impeachment is a difficult process, especially with the balance of congress. Are you aware of how many presidents have been impeached? So because he wasn't impeached, you disregard every piece of information that indicates he misrepresented the reality of the situation as propaganda? You haven't looked at the whole picture, or you are more biased than you are willing to admit. Again, have you read the information on PNAC?

Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

Don't underestimate yourself. Most Americans don't have even a small portion of interest in our political system that you're showing here. That you have the courage to express yourself, knowing there are other supposedly "wiser" people ready to rebut your opinions is the essence of the first ammendment, and if we don't use that freedom of speech to actually speak, we fall prey to the demagogues who think they know it all.

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved. And here we are, still arguing about whether Bush lied or not. Some might say that eventually Sadaam would have been removed as have other dictators in the area, but others might say that Iraqi freedom may well have been a motivating force or, at least, a catalyst behind the "Arab Spring." Who knows? It certainly is farther advanced down the road to democracy, and maybe with a better chance to be free of Islamist Fundamentalist rule. Who knows?

Don't be intimidated. Keep on expressing your opinion.

Thanks detbuch, I just look at myself in the mirror and know if a book was written about me it wouldn't cost more than 44 cents to send in the mail.

Ya Ecduzitgood, no one is ever going to change anybody's mind here and
it does seem like we just go round and round. But it's fun, I learn stuff from
both sides, and it can be a great frustration reliever. :D
There are a lot of guys who let their fingers do the walking through Google,
that's ok, but what's betta is some of the good common sense
you leave here.