I'm Pretty sure I said GentleMEN....Plural

And I dont (I'll leave that misspelled for Scott) think the Dems. are any better than the Repubs. at "politicing".

Paul, some guy saying that things were made up, is not proof. Again. I can find guys who say Obama was born in Kenya, I can find guys who say 09/11 was an inside job.

Paul, for every report you cite saying the tubes were for conventional weapons, I can cite one that says they were likely for nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

"The C.I.A agents said the tubes were destined to become the rotors in a gas centrifuge program to create enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The CIA agents acknowledged there was another possible use for the tubes "

"
Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke on Fox News Sunday, saying "And as we saw in reporting just this morning, he is still trying to acquire, for example, some of the specialized aluminum tubing one needs to develop centrifuges that would give you an enrichment capability"

"
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[8] "

Again, I have zero doubt you can make a case (especially with the benefit of hindsight) that Bush was wrong. Being wrong, i snot th esame as lying. To prove Bush lied, you need to show me that he knew the tubes could not have been used for nukes, but he claimed that they were. That's lying.


And one last time, if Bush wanted to go to war so bad that he was willing to lie, why did he give Saddam dozens of chances to avoid war by complying with the UN Sanctions? It doesn't pass the common sense smell test Paul, it just doesn't. If you can take off your tin foil hat for a moment, you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever, to give Saddam literally dozens on chances to avoid war, if your desire is to launch war.

Paul, analyzing intelligence is almost always an inexact science. The fact is this...back before the invasion, very few people were denying the claims of Bush (and Bill Clinton) that Saddam had WMDs.

Paul, did Bush mislead Bill Clinton as well?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction..."...Nancy Pelosi, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on weapons of mass destruction..." Clinton SecState Madeline Albright, 1999

So Paul, how do you explain the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Maedline Albright made these statements BEFORE Bush became president? Wait, I know...Bush kidnapped them, and replaced them with exact replicas, which were actually #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney in disguise?

"he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons"...Al Gore, 2002

read the quotes in that thread...Bill Clinton, Terd Kennedy, John Kerry, Robert Byrd...all stating with no ambiguity, that they believed Saddam either had, or was developing, WMDs.

Paul, sometimes the evidence leads rational people to the wrong conclusion.

At least Bush admitted he was wrong. That's more than Obama will do regarding Benghazi, where 4 Americans died, in large part due to the administration's refusal to grant Stevens' obviously legitimate request for extra security. Rather than admit he made a mistake, Obama concocts a cockamamie fantasy abouta youtube video. God forbid Obama admit that he got caught with his pants around his ankles, when there was a ton of evidence suggesting that terrorists were increasing activity in that area. That's precisely why they are bending over backwards to convince us that it wasn't terrorists. If it wasn't a terrorist plot that Stevens was afraid of when asking for extra security, then this administration didn't put Stevens at risk by rejecting his claim.

Bush admits he was wrong when he concluded that there were no WMDs. Obama admits no culpability for the fact that on his watch, an ambassador was murdered for the first time since Carter (coincidence?) was president.

Obama can't be responsible for random, unforseeable acts of violence. In this case, everyone on the ground in Libya thought imminent terrorist activity warranted extra security. The Obama administration figured they knew better. We all know how that worked out.

I'd note that much of PaulS' most recent posts are "unattributed cut and paste"....albeit..."easily found"? unattributed cut and paste..yes.....located from MOTHERJONES and in an interview with Ed Schultz on MSNBC...just sayin', great sources .....we can figure out which is from Wiki by the little numbers Paul but thanks for mentioning it:)

Lawrence Wilkerson is great...Google him...talk about hate and anger and painting a group of people with a broad brush....he went on MSNBC with Ed Schultz and stated quite vociferously that the Republican party is mostly racists...Lawrence Wilkerson: 'My Party Is Full Of Racists' - YouTube

made a nice commercial for Obama prior to making that statement too
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, speaking on racism in the Republican party. - YouTube

sounds like a bit of a hack...just my opinion...I guess if you are doing the Ed show...you are most likely a hack:uhuh:

pretty good article on the original subject...

"In the real world, portraying the smart, tough, and strong-willed Susan Rice as an “easy” target would be humorous -- except for what the president was implying: If Rice’s critics were not going after her on the merits, why were they doing so?

This was the dog whistle part, and it was both heard and heeded by Obama’s supporters in the Democratic Party and the media.

“It is a shame that anytime anything goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” said Rep. Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Democrat recently installed as the head of the Congressional Black Caucus. “There is a clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments being made by Sen. McCain and others.”

In USA Today, the headline over a column by DeWayne Wickham proclaimed, “McCain uses Susan Rice to re-launch war on women.”

Seizing on McCain’s contention that “this administration has either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a cover-up,” South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn maintained, “These are code words.”

“This is really down in the gutter,” MSNBC’s Ed Shultz added in a show stoking the “code words” angle. Richard Wolffe, another MSNBC commentator, called it a “witch hunt” against “people of color.” When asked point-blank if McCain was driven by racial prejudice, he replied that there “is no other way to look at it.”

There is, of course, another way to look at it: Republicans believe that Susan Rice’s excellent foreign policy qualifications were undermined by her hyper-partisanship. There was even a bit of presidential sleight of hand involved in singling out Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Those two men were joined in expressing reservations by two Republican senators whose names went unmentioned by Democrats: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Print Article

They say when a person falls in love there is are chemical reactions within their brain that alters the thought process. That is why people stay in abusive relationships. These chemical reactions of attraction block signals that would normally give the person reason to pause. They ignore the advice of others including family and friends who can see the person as they are without chemicals altering the thoughts.
I have a feeling it works the same for hate. How else can you explain the filters people have about Bush and the war.
I have defended Bush so I guess that makes me a guy who loves Bush.

this Curveball dude is pretty interesting...after locating the easily found wiki attribution I was reading about him....

apparently as late as June 26, 2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels."

and initially...Germany's intelligence service (BND) classified him as a "blue" source, meaning the Germans would not permit U.S. access to him (red sources were allowed American contact).[8] Later evidence indicated that he was in fact pro-American, and that the Germans were guarding their source.[9] The Germans, however, did pass on information to the American intelligence agencies and the informant was given the codename "Curveball".

The Germans listened to his claims and debriefed him starting in December 1999,[12] continuing to September 2001. Although the Americans did not have "direct access" to Curveball,[13][14] information collected by the BND debriefing team was later passed on in part to the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States.[15

the defector had shown up for medical tests with a "blistering hangover",[19] and he "might be an alcoholic".[20]

finally ...In February 2011, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted for the first time that he lied about his story regarding Iraq's secret biological weapons program.[6

Curveball is still living in Germany under strong protection of the German police. Danish TV filmed Rafid on the streets and recorded clips of conversation with him, before he surreptitiously called the police and had the TV-crew banned from his neighbourhood.

so this lying, sketchy, probably alcoholic, extortionist, manipualtive to the point that some of the largest intelligence agencies can't decipher truth from fiction taxi driver who caused a major conflict pretending to be someone that he couldn't possibly have been smart enough to have been is still living under the "strong protection of the German police" and apparently on the public dole and can simply make a call to the police and have inquiring minds banned from his neighborhood as recently as 2011.....very strange, he's practically a Kennedy but with a better driving record :uhuh:

shouldn't he be in jail or something????? :confused:

I think Paul Pillar said he best when he remarked that the intelligence community "bent in the wind" to provide the Iraqi intel, or perhaps better said directly by the Brits, the "facts were being fit around the policy".

I've never said Bush lied about Iraq and still believe he felt he was doing what was necessary to protect the American people...that's why he wasn't impeached...Bush's failure was to surround himself by ideologues hell bent on exploiting 9/11 to execute an agenda that politics had to date prevented.

We've discussed the opinions of Congress at length, there's no need to go into great detail there, but it's safe to say that Democratic members didn't support unilateral action and were heavily influenced by a "marketing" effort to support the policy.

The problem here is that the war machine is so big once it gets going there really is no stopping it...

It's interesting that as more info about Benghazi has been revealed the primary attack dogs are backing away. Let the investigation help determine a better security policy so we can prevent another tragedy, but now that the election is over there doesn't seem to be as much need for a scandal as there was a month ago :huh:

-spence

I'm sure to miss some, I'm traveling 3 days a week until X-Mas. The Obama recovery sure has me busy :hihi:

-spence

I'm curious as to why you feel that is 'safe to say', since none of the Democrats who voted for the war, were saying that, at the time. So you must have a deep, unique insight into what happened. Senators Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Diana Feinstein all voted for the war. To my knowledge, none of them claimed they were coerced, not until the war became politically popular.

When the public supported the war, those Democrats voted in favor of it. When the war became unpopular, those same folks, all of a sudden, claimed that they were never "really" in favor of the war.

Spence, if what you say is true, those senators are in gross deriliction of their duty, as they are supposed to lead. If they thought the war was wrong, they are supposed to vote that way, like Ted Kennedy did.

If what I say is true, they are a bunch of lying flip-flopers, who wuill say whatever happens to be opopular at the moment.

I think you are being very fair to Bush. As to the Democrats in the senate who voted for the war...how can you respect them, if they only voted for the war (sending kids to a horrible death) because of 'marketing pressure'? If what you say is true, how can you respect those folks? After all, there were plenty of Democrats who had sufficient conviction of their beliefs to oppose the war. Sounds to me like yuo are claiming that all of those folks I mentioned, showed a total lack of conviction and leadership.

I happen to agree with you. I'm just surprised to hear you say it.

Well, I simply read what they actually said...not the out of context snippets virally circling the web in people's inboxes.

Everybody thought Iraq was a problem but there certainly wasn't a Dem position favoring the near unilateral action that resulted. Clinton especially made this point very clear.

Bush had to show the threat as well as immediacy. When you have the Vice President on TV claiming al Qaeda connections, Rice talking about mushroom clouds and stories about nuke development being planted in the New York Times you're going to scare a lot of people.

Remember back then a vast majority of American's though Saddam was in on 9/11.

We now have access to pretty much everything Congress had and it's the same BS intel that a bias towards war produced. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy. I'm not aware of specific people and specific lies, but when you're looking to justify something it's a lot easier to lean a little one way vs the other.

Congress as well voted before the UN resolution which Bush abandoned after it was looking like the inspections wouldn't turn up sufficient evidence.

If anything, the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council.

Lie? Not so much...

-spence

"the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council."

When the public supported Bush, I didn't hear those senators speaking out against the war. When public opinion turned against the war - BINGO - all of a sudden, those folks never really supoprted the war, rather they were duped by Bush's lies. What a coincidence!

Maybe those folks didn't like the near-unilateral approach. Neither did Bush. That's why Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN.

Bush admits he was wrong. Most of the Democrats who voted for the war will never admit that...rather, they were misled by Bush's lies.

Again, I feel you're being 100% fair to Bush. I just think you're bending over backwards to paint the Democrats who supported the war, in a favorable light.

I can't say it any simpler than this...those Democrats I mentioned supported the war when it was popular. When public opinion turned against the war, all of a sudden those Senators changed their tune. Either the timing is a coincidence, or they are being less than honest about not originally supporting the war.

Spence, you keep harping on the fact that they didn't like the near-unilateral way we did it. Maybe they didn't like it, but they voted for it. And two of them (Biden and Hilary) got significant promotions after that, while Bush is demonized. Seems a wee bit inconsistent. Bush was president, and the responsibility lies with him, so he deserves much criticism. But if the war was fundamentally immoral (as many liberals claim), I don't see why the senators who authorized it, get a pass.

I don't think we're that far apart on this one.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971587

I don't think we're that far apart on this one.[/QUOTE]

there's harmony in the foxhole !!!!!! :love:

TDF and Scott, no surprise that I think Spence is incredibly wrong on just about everything, and I'm sure he feels the same. But Spence was fair (and not towing the liberal line) in his words about Bush. I give credit to him for not simply towing his party's line, I respect anyone who can demonstrate the ability to think for himself.

I have my opinions, obviously. But I'm fair-minded and consistent. I also likely agree with him on gay marriage and gun control. I'm not a parrot for the right-wing fringe.

You make me laugh.

Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.

I don't believe many in Bush's inner circle wanted to involve the UN as it would have been an impediment to removing Saddam. They had to know the case against him wasn't as good as they were making it out to be...even President Bush was reported as remarking (in Woodward's book) "that's all we've got?".

Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization.

From what I've read many have said given what they know now they wouldn't have voted for the authorization. This is a pretty rational position.

I think many have deep regret that they didn't push harder. Hindsight is a bitch...

Then you could say the same thing about the entire country. America was overwhelmingly behind the war when we believed the Administration's case and support eroded when it became clear that we were pushed into it.

If anything was immoral it was the hawks in the Administration vigorously trying to find a way to justify war rather than vigorously trying to work to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

There's a big difference between Moveon.org and Senators Clinton and Kerry. You can't lump them all together.

-spence

I don't believe Bush lied. Please convince me.
How many resolutions did Saddam break before we took action? How many places did the inspectors get barred from inspecting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:


UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990


•Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


•Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."



UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991


•Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


•Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


•Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.



UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991


•Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


•Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


•Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


•Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


•Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


•Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


•Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


•Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


•Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


•Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.



UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991


•"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


•Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


•Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.



UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991


•"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


•"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


•Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


•Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


•Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


•Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


•Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


•Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.



UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.



UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994


•"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


•Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


•Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.



UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996


•Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.



UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996


•"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.



UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997


•"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


•Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.



UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997


•"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


•Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.



UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997


•"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


•Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.



UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."



UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998


•"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.



UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998


•"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


•Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.



UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999


•Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


•Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


•Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


•Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination

"Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis. "

You can say that if you wish. But it's not what they said at the time. What they said at the time was, Saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped. In this same thread, I supplied quotes from those very same Democrats. Read them. But I must warn you, you won't like it.

Spence, if you have to ignore the actual facts and invent your own, doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is something flawed about what you believe?

"Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization."

Spence, are you feeling all right today? If Powell was seeking COngressional approval, why didn't he simply address Congress? Why go all the way to New York, instead of walking across the street to the Capital Building? Who did Powell address at the UN - Congress?

Iraq was not a unilateral situation, by the way. I worked with soldiers from many different countries.

Spence, this, right here, is a pivotal moment for you.

In the above statement, you are saying that prominent Democrats didn't genuinely believe that Saddam had WMDs. but rather, they were just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (as if they did that all the time, but we'll save that for another day).

Here is what those prominent Democrats actually said. you tell me if what they are saying is that they are just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, of if they really believe what they are saying...

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program" - Bill Clinton, 1998

"respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's WMD program" - Senator John Kerry, 1998 (before Bush was president)

"Saddam has been engaged in the development of WMDs..." - Nancy Pelosi, 1998 (before Bush was Presisdent)

"there is no doubt that Saddam has reinvigorated his weapons programs" - Sen Bob Graham, D-FL, 2001

"Saddam...is building WMDs and the means of delivering them..." - Sen Carl Levin, D-MI, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons..." - Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam is seeking and developing WMDs" - Ted Kennedy, 2002

"we are confident that Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and bioogical weapons..." - Sen Robert Byrd, 2002

"there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons..." Sen Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, 2002

"it is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam will continue to increase his capacity of biological and chemical weapons" - Hilary Clinton, 2002

and finally...

"we are in posession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam has a developing capacity for the production of WMDs...the threat of Saddam Hussein with WMDs is real" - John Kerry, 2003

OK Spence, you tell me. Does it sound to you like these prominent Democrats were merely giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (unusual, since some of those quotes are from before Bush was elected). Or, does it sound to you, like it sounds to everyone else here, that these folks are personally convinced that there was a threat?

Your response will be a defining moment for you. I'm rooting for you to put down the Kool Aid, and simply admit that these Democrats believed at the time, that Saddam had (or was pursuing) WMDs.

Jim, nobody doubts Saddam at one time had WMD. Nobody doubts that Saddam wanted to have WMD.

But that's not to say that that thought if he did have it it was such a threat to justify war.

On that they certainly gave Bush the benefit of doubt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) Those Dems voted in favor of war. Therefore, how can I possibly be mistaken to assume that they thought the threat was serious enough to justify war?

(2) did you read any of the quotes in the link? Here are some relevent ones...

"if we have to use force, our purpose is clear...we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program"- Bill Clinton

"we urge you to take necessary actions...including air and missile strikes...to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD program"- letter signed by John Kerry

"I will be voting to give the President the authority to use force to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands are a real and grave threat to our security".- John Kerry

OK, Spence. You're still going to say that the Dems didn't really feel that the use of force was justified, that they were just giving in to Bush's demands? That's what you infer from those quotes?

Come on, Spence.

The effects of loving a party more than a country.

I've read all of them and provided valuable context years ago, use the search button.

So many quotes attributed to Dems are from 1998 when we were talking about airstrikes. The post 9/11 quotes are based off of the same misinformation campaign presented to the public to justify the actions. Many of them when you read the full transcript are also taken out of context.

Use the search button.

Actually, I think my read on the situation is pretty nuts on.

No, it's called getting votes, this is how Congress works. You placate members of Congress who may be on the fence by telling them we're going to the UN and get a resolution, we're going to do this right etc...

I said nearly unilateral. The first Gulf war had a real coalition. The second was primarily a collaboration between the US and the UK who knew we didn't have a solid story. There were some other troops involved if I recally not substantial endorsements as they didn't have the public support.

Spence "The UK knew we didn't have a solid story" where did this come from?
You mention going to the UN for resolutions, well how many should Saddam have violated before action was taken if 16 weren't enough?

I just watched a Nov 26th clip from Morning Joe with Joe Klein who was on to provide the administration's talking points on Bengazi....it ends with an incredulous Joe Scarborough asking..."has the President invited you to play golf, because you are just gobbling up the talking points like a Thanksgiving Turkey"...what is sad is that they seem to find this all amusing...Spence's characterization that this is simply a contrived political attack by enemies(political) of Obama is not only inaccurate but completely dismissive of very serious issues not to mention the shameful way that anyone who has asks the questions has been characterized.... but that is the world that we live in currently....and for the next 4 years....

Time Magazine's Joe Klein Claims Susan Rice's Benghazi Talking Points 'Were Absolutely Accurate' | MRCTV

I watched the 27th as well where Scarborough asks aloud if Kelin was "on something" the day previous :uhuh:

Spence, you've more than earned a round of golf with the Prez. :)


Ecdu...you are just asking for more gobbling....

anyone paying attention to Egypt?..the guy that we graciously helped raise his stature over there in negotiating a cease fire because he apparently speaks terrorist, has just assumed dictatorial powers(which I don't think the Administration has condemned to date) ...good thing that Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate".....Hamas is being rearmed by Iran and I guess Israel is just waiting for the next attack....very "productive" :uhuh:

hey, this is a lot like the fiscal cliff negotiations, the Pres. and Sente assume more power, more money gets dumped on the problem and the Republicans sit around waiting for the next attack...nothing gets solved :) you just delay the inevitable...which will be really ugly:uhuh:

here's a question regarding Rice and Bengazi...noone seems to be sure why she was chosen to deliver the administration talking points on Bengazi as it's claimed she had little knowledge beyond what was written for her...is it possible that she was chosen specifically because she is black and a woman and any criticism could be easily dismissed as racist and sexist attacks?...as was and is being done....

That's my thinking too. Going on the Sunday morning talk shows and spreading cockamamie about an attack, is not something the ambassador to the UN usually does. So either it was to give the administration a reason to use the race card against anyone who dares to ask a question, or she is the only one who was willing to say it was because of the video, which everyone knew was false by that time.

It's very unlikely she'll be the next SecState. Even moderate Lindsay Graham (who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor) sald after meeting with Rice, he was more disturbed than before he met her. And he's not anyone's idea of a right-wing attack dog.

great article on Rice this morning in the WSJ...

Bayefsky and Mukasey: The Susan Rice Troubles Beyond Benghazi - WSJ.com


points out that the president demanded of his and Rice's critics , U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts."

but of course, he has a much lower standard for his supporters and appointees which is disturbingly common for this president on most issues...like...civility.....:uhuh:

"The president has said that Ms. Rice should not be criticized because she "had nothing to do with Benghazi" and so couldn't have known better when she gave her false account. According to Mr. Obama (and to her), she simply repeated talking points provided by an amorphous and anonymous "intelligence community."

But Ms. Rice did know at least a couple of things. She knew that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. She knew that after the attack the president insisted that U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts." She knew that the video story line was questionable, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and administration officials had already suggested publicly that the attack was al Qaeda-related. And she knew that the president had a political interest in asserting that al Qaeda wasn't successfully attacking senior American officials but was instead "on the run," as he maintained on the campaign trail.

Senators might therefore ask Ms. Rice why she was put forward to speak about Benghazi, and what part her personal ambition might have played in her willingness to assume the role known during the Cold War as "useful idiot." "

There's no shortage of useful idiots in this administration.

She has withdrawn!

Horseface is a shoe in then