"Idiot Liberals"

[Tiger Al 0]

VIDEO

[drewau02 0]

The only reason why the hard core libs in this country are so diametrically opposed to the Iraq war from day one is because George W. Bush is president.

I didn't hear these people screaming bloody murder when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia.

I'm tired of seeing all of these anti-war protests. Get a life and go to work.

The hard core libs don't realize that little can be done for their position, which includes pulling out of Iraq or setting a timetable for withdraw, while George Bush is president. Yes, Bush is at an abysmal 35% in approval rating but he is still the commander-in-chief. Also, he'll veto any funding cut off or timetable bill that Congress throws at him. That's exactly what the Congressman from Wisconsin was saying during his daitribe to that woman. If the Dems cut off funding for the war like the liberals want, then all of the political success they had in 2006 will be null and void because 2008 will be a Republican landslide. John Murtha is trying to get around this by imposing benchmarks for success and withdrawal in legislation. This won't see the light of day in the house now that it's been leaked.

In my opinion, the next president, whoever that may be, will pull most American forces out of Iraq, whether the Malachi government is ready to govern there or not. So, the libs may get their wish, but they won't get it until 2009.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The only reason why the hard core libs in this country are so diametrically opposed to the Iraq war from day one is because George W. Bush is president.

I didn't hear these people screaming bloody murder when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia.

Naw, that was these guys:

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

[drewau02 0]

The only reason why the hard core libs in this country are so diametrically opposed to the Iraq war from day one is because George W. Bush is president.

I didn't hear these people screaming bloody murder when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia.

Naw, that was these guys:

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

Actually, Conservatives like Pat Buchannan and Joe Scarbarough have said the exact same thing about the Iraq War. Even Michael Savage has expressed misgivings about the Iraq War. So, I'm not going to accuse them of being inconsistent.

I have no doubt that many prominent Republicans said these things during the Kosovo boming in 1998. I guess that most of them felt like Clinton was playing "Wag the Dog" with our military in an attempt to distract the American public from Monica. These Republicans were wrong and should have supported Clinton's actions in Bosnia. He's the Commander and Chief and he was elected to that position by the people of this country.

I agreed with Clinton's actions during 98. His bombing campaign stopped a genocide and Milosavic is now in prison. Other than that, Clinton was a lousy Commander and Chief.

Then again, Milosavic was not a threat to the United States like Sadaam. Sadaam invaded a sovereign nation, Kuwaiit, back in 1990. He was pushed back to Iraq and signed a cease fire agreement. Under the cease fire accord, Sadaam agreed to comply with the U.N Weapons Inspection Committee. He violated this agreement and violated 17 U.N Resolutions in the process. What were we to do? Talk a big game and not back it up, especially one year after 9-11? Sorry, but Bush had no other choice but to act. Iraq is not the same case as Bosnia, even though I supported Clinton in Bosnia.

Tex, you forgot to mention one essential point in this whole debate. All of these comments made by prominent Republicans were made before 9-11. A lot changed on that day, including how our leaders see our role in national policy and national security. Curtailing threats before they fully materialize became the name of the game, for better or for worse. That's why we're in Iraq right now. I guarantee you that if Bill Clinton were still president, he not only would have invaded Afghanistan, but he would have invaded Iraq as well, as did Bush. And I guarantee you that after 9-11, all of the Republicans you quoted, with the exception of Buchannan, and Scarbarough, would have supported him. Just my opinion.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

The only reason why the hard core libs in this country are so diametrically opposed to the Iraq war from day one is because George W. Bush is president.

I didn't hear these people screaming bloody murder when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia.

Naw, that was these guys:

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan ®

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

Actually, Conservatives like Pat Buchannan and Joe Scarbarough have said the exact same thing about the Iraq War. Even Michael Savage has expressed misgivings about the Iraq War. So, I'm not going to accuse them of being inconsistent.

I have no doubt that many prominent Republicans said these things during the Kosovo boming in 1998. I guess that most of them felt like Clinton was playing "Wag the Dog" with our military in an attempt to distract the American public from Monica. These Republicans were wrong and should have supported Clinton's actions in Bosnia. He's the Commander and Chief and he was elected to that position by the people of this country.

I agreed with Clinton's actions during 98. His bombing campaign stopped a genocide and Milosavic is now in prison. Other than that, Clinton was a lousy Commander and Chief.

Then again, Milosavic was not a threat to the United States like Sadaam. Sadaam invaded a sovereign nation, Kuwaiit, back in 1990. He was pushed back to Iraq and signed a cease fire agreement. Under the cease fire accord, Sadaam agreed to comply with the U.N Weapons Inspection Committee. He violated this agreement and violated 17 U.N Resolutions in the process. What were we to do? Talk a big game and not back it up, especially one year after 9-11? Sorry, but Bush had no other choice but to act. Iraq is not the same case as Bosnia, even though I supported Clinton in Bosnia.

Tex, you forgot to mention one essential point in this whole debate. All of these comments made by prominent Republicans were made before 9-11. A lot changed on that day, including how our leaders see our role in national policy and national security. Curtailing threats before they fully materialize became the name of the game, for better or for worse. That's why we're in Iraq right now. I guarantee you that if Bill Clinton were still president, he not only would have invaded Afghanistan, but he would have invaded Iraq as well, as did Bush. And I guarantee you that after 9-11, all of the Republicans you quoted, with the exception of Buchannan, and Scarbarough, would have supported him. Just my opinion.

Not sure how you guarantee such things, but you're wrong. Clinton would not have invaded Iraq. Clinton wouldn't have had a VP pressuring the intelligence community and cherry picking the intel. He may have bombed it alot, which he did periodically. Saddam was contained. You can slap him around without taking responsibility for running the country, which we are seeing is darn near impossible-- which Cheney and Bush I said was the case in 1991. There was a choice, and this was the wrong choice. If you can't see that yet, maybe you never will, but most people do. Iraq is more of threat now than then, and it is now a training ground for terrorists, as well as American gangs. Buchanan has been consistent. Scarborough first supported and now sees it as a mistake. I avoid Savage if at all possible so I can't speak to that.

[drewau02 0]

Actually Tex, it was Bill Clinton who said that Sadaam had WMD. Before Bush took office, Clinton told him that the #1 threat to national security was Sadaam Hussein. So, after 9-11 and Sadaam violating 17 UN Resolutions, you bet you a** he would have invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam. Remember, Bill Clinton is a political opportunist and I know that you libs love to rewrite history everyday, but back in 2003 all of these so called people who are against the war now were in favor of it back then. And don't give me this crap that Bush and Cheney "cooked" the intelligence on Iraq either. The UN made the same case as Bush. So did George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. So did John Kerry. So did John Edwards. So did the entire civilized world.

So yes, that's how I'm making the case that Bill Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Back in 2003, the American people demanded action, not carpet bombing that Clinton was known for during ihs presidency. Clinton would have seen the polls and invaded, based on the best possilbe intelligence from the CIA director who he appointed.

If you're gonna make a case against Bush and Iraq, then make a case about how ill prepared we were to win the peace once Sadaam was deposed. That's a legit argument. Not your nonsense about how Bush, Cheney, and Rove cooked the intelligence to support the case for war.

Iraq is worse off than it was under Sadaam? Try telling that to the families of all the Kurds that Sadaam gassed up with his WMD's that he "allegedly" didn't have.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Guys, tying the hands of any President (Clinton or Bush) means Vietnam. We cannot conduct war by press reporter vote, nor by democratic (small d) approval.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Actually Tex, it was Bill Clinton who said that Sadaam had WMD. Before Bush took office, Clinton told him that the #1 threat to national security was Sadaam Hussein. So, after 9-11 and Sadaam violating 17 UN Resolutions, you bet you a** he would have invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam. Remember, Bill Clinton is a political opportunist and I know that you libs love to rewrite history everyday, but back in 2003 all of these so called people who are against the war now were in favor of it back then. And don't give me this crap that Bush and Cheney "cooked" the intelligence on Iraq either. The UN made the same case as Bush. So did George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. So did John Kerry. So did John Edwards. So did the entire civilized world.

So yes, that's how I'm making the case that Bill Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Back in 2003, the American people demanded action, not carpet bombing that Clinton was known for during ihs presidency. Clinton would have seen the polls and invaded, based on the best possilbe intelligence from the CIA director who he appointed.

If you're gonna make a case against Bush and Iraq, then make a case about how ill prepared we were to win the peace once Sadaam was deposed. That's a legit argument. Not your nonsense about how Bush, Cheney, and Rove cooked the intelligence to support the case for war.

Iraq is worse off than it was under Sadaam? Try telling that to the families of all the Kurds that Sadaam gassed up with his WMD's that he "allegedly" didn't have.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation. Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. Now we've returned the favor to Iran. But that doesn't mean he was seen as an imminent threat, and he certainly wasn't seen by Clinton as the greatest threat. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein.

You're revising history. Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it. Cheney said it would only take weeks, not months, and Wolfowitz said Iraq oil would fund it, so Americans didn't see much down side in supporting what their president said needed doing. I opposed it from the start, but as cocky as they were, even I assumed they had knowledge of biological and chemical weapons that they just weren't making public. I thought they'd find some right away, but I didn't think it was great threat to us, since we assumed Saddam hadn't relinquished it since 1991.

Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq. He fought Kosovo and Bosnia from the air, sacrificing bombing accuracy and greater civilian casualties to avoid American deaths, which he needed to do because he received virtually no Republican support. Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced.

In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't.

And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that.

The Kurds lived in the "no fly zone" that allowed them to live fairly autonomously since the first Gulf war. The Kurds were pretty well since then, but I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now.

[drewau02 0]

Actually Tex, it was Bill Clinton who said that Sadaam had WMD. Before Bush took office, Clinton told him that the #1 threat to national security was Sadaam Hussein. So, after 9-11 and Sadaam violating 17 UN Resolutions, you bet you a** he would have invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam. Remember, Bill Clinton is a political opportunist and I know that you libs love to rewrite history everyday, but back in 2003 all of these so called people who are against the war now were in favor of it back then. And don't give me this crap that Bush and Cheney "cooked" the intelligence on Iraq either. The UN made the same case as Bush. So did George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. So did John Kerry. So did John Edwards. So did the entire civilized world.

So yes, that's how I'm making the case that Bill Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Back in 2003, the American people demanded action, not carpet bombing that Clinton was known for during ihs presidency. Clinton would have seen the polls and invaded, based on the best possilbe intelligence from the CIA director who he appointed.

If you're gonna make a case against Bush and Iraq, then make a case about how ill prepared we were to win the peace once Sadaam was deposed. That's a legit argument. Not your nonsense about how Bush, Cheney, and Rove cooked the intelligence to support the case for war.

Iraq is worse off than it was under Sadaam? Try telling that to the families of all the Kurds that Sadaam gassed up with his WMD's that he "allegedly" didn't have.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation. Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. Now we've returned the favor to Iran. But that doesn't mean he was seen as an imminent threat, and he certainly wasn't seen by Clinton as the greatest threat. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein.

You're revising history. Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it. Cheney said it would only take weeks, not months, and Wolfowitz said Iraq oil would fund it, so Americans didn't see much down side in supporting what their president said needed doing. I opposed it from the start, but as cocky as they were, even I assumed they had knowledge of biological and chemical weapons that they just weren't making public. I thought they'd find some right away, but I didn't think it was great threat to us, since we assumed Saddam hadn't relinquished it since 1991.

Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq. He fought Kosovo and Bosnia from the air, sacrificing bombing accuracy and greater civilian casualties to avoid American deaths, which he needed to do because he received virtually no Republican support. Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced.

In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't.

And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that.

The Kurds lived in the "no fly zone" that allowed them to live fairly autonomously since the first Gulf war. The Kurds were pretty well since then, but I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation." You're wrong. The UN did make the same case as did Bush. After all, Sadaam kicked their weapons inpsectors out of his country on numerous occasions. As always is the case with the worthless UN, they were not willing to use force and disarm Sadaam. The UN did beleive that Sadaam had WMD's but weren't willing to use force because they wanted to give their sanctions more time.

"Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. " Most people believed that Sadaam had WMD because he had used them in the past, violated 17 UN resolutions, and kicked the UN Weapons Inspections Committee out of his country. Sadaam's the one who decided to invade Kuwaiit back in '91 and cause all this trouble.

I remember throughout the 90's after Bush I left office, the biggest criticism of his policies, by Dan Rather and many in the media, was the he did not and I quote, "finish off" Sadaam Hussein when he had the chance. Well, as you know, his son did finish off Sadaam and is now reviled for it.

" Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein." As was Sadaam. Clinton mentioned Sadaam as well.

" Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it." You're right. He invaded Afghanistan because the Afghanis were the ones linked to Osoma Bin Laden and Al Quiada, as you know. As any decent president would do, he made the case for the Iraq for through appropriate channels, the UN, the US House and Senate, and the American people, who gave Bush a 70% approval rating in March of 2003.

Tex, you seem to forget the 90's. Every night I would watch the news, I would watch a "nightly" report on the misbehavior of Sadaam Hussein. News outlets like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and even Fox woudl go around and interview American soldiers and various other people. The consensus with them seemed to be "well, we should have taken out Sadaam the first time." Remember, this was before America knew who George W. Bush was. Night after night, Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings would rant on and on about how we should have finished Sadaam the first time. You may not remember it, but I do.

" Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq." The same Clinton who put boots on the ground is Somolia and Haiti? Trust me, Clinton would have put boots on the ground in Iraq because by 2003, still reeling from 9-11, the American public was fedup with Sadaam and wanted him taken out.

" Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. " Okay, I really don't believe you on this one. Are you trying to tell me that the Republicans didn't argue vigorously for taking out Bin Laden after the first World Trade Center Attack back in '93? What about Kobar Towers? What about the Embassy Bombings? What about the USS Cole. Are you gonna sit here and tell me that the Republicans, and even most Democrats didn't recognize Bin Laden as a threat? Hell, everyone considered Bin Laden a threat, Clinton, the Dems, the Republicans, everybody.

"Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced " Did you ever stop to think that they supported giving the president authority to invade Iraq because it was the right thing to do? Rarely do politicians take actions contrary to their best interests but in this case, I think that both parties were wise to be Americans first, and politicians second.

"In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't. " Thank Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharaf, for this. Bin Laden and his goons are in Pakistan as we speak. Yet, our Rangers are not allowed to go in there and get Bin Laden because Musharaf won't allow it.

"And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that. " Okay, it's a game of semantics here. Cooked and cherry picked sound interchangeable to me. And if Bush Cheney and Rove cherry picked the intelligence as you say, do you have any proof of this? If so, write Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrat leaders who are "chomping at the bit" to impeach Bush.

"I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now." You're absolutely right here. The American people want us to win but they're not seeing that right now. Actually we are winning from a military standpoint but unfortunately, only the bad news gets reported. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld and Bush had no plan to win the peace after we deposed Sadaam. History will judge them harshley for this.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Actually Tex, it was Bill Clinton who said that Sadaam had WMD. Before Bush took office, Clinton told him that the #1 threat to national security was Sadaam Hussein. So, after 9-11 and Sadaam violating 17 UN Resolutions, you bet you a** he would have invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam. Remember, Bill Clinton is a political opportunist and I know that you libs love to rewrite history everyday, but back in 2003 all of these so called people who are against the war now were in favor of it back then. And don't give me this crap that Bush and Cheney "cooked" the intelligence on Iraq either. The UN made the same case as Bush. So did George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. So did John Kerry. So did John Edwards. So did the entire civilized world.

So yes, that's how I'm making the case that Bill Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Back in 2003, the American people demanded action, not carpet bombing that Clinton was known for during ihs presidency. Clinton would have seen the polls and invaded, based on the best possilbe intelligence from the CIA director who he appointed.

If you're gonna make a case against Bush and Iraq, then make a case about how ill prepared we were to win the peace once Sadaam was deposed. That's a legit argument. Not your nonsense about how Bush, Cheney, and Rove cooked the intelligence to support the case for war.

Iraq is worse off than it was under Sadaam? Try telling that to the families of all the Kurds that Sadaam gassed up with his WMD's that he "allegedly" didn't have.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation. Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. Now we've returned the favor to Iran. But that doesn't mean he was seen as an imminent threat, and he certainly wasn't seen by Clinton as the greatest threat. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein.

You're revising history. Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it. Cheney said it would only take weeks, not months, and Wolfowitz said Iraq oil would fund it, so Americans didn't see much down side in supporting what their president said needed doing. I opposed it from the start, but as cocky as they were, even I assumed they had knowledge of biological and chemical weapons that they just weren't making public. I thought they'd find some right away, but I didn't think it was great threat to us, since we assumed Saddam hadn't relinquished it since 1991.

Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq. He fought Kosovo and Bosnia from the air, sacrificing bombing accuracy and greater civilian casualties to avoid American deaths, which he needed to do because he received virtually no Republican support. Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced.

In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't.

And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that.

The Kurds lived in the "no fly zone" that allowed them to live fairly autonomously since the first Gulf war. The Kurds were pretty well since then, but I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation." You're wrong. The UN did make the same case as did Bush. After all, Sadaam kicked their weapons inpsectors out of his country on numerous occasions. As always is the case with the worthless UN, they were not willing to use force and disarm Sadaam. The UN did beleive that Sadaam had WMD's but weren't willing to use force because they wanted to give their sanctions more time.

"Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. " Most people believed that Sadaam had WMD because he had used them in the past, violated 17 UN resolutions, and kicked the UN Weapons Inspections Committee out of his country. Sadaam's the one who decided to invade Kuwaiit back in '91 and cause all this trouble.

I remember throughout the 90's after Bush I left office, the biggest criticism of his policies, by Dan Rather and many in the media, was the he did not and I quote, "finish off" Sadaam Hussein when he had the chance. Well, as you know, his son did finish off Sadaam and is now reviled for it.

" Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein." As was Sadaam. Clinton mentioned Sadaam as well.

" Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it." You're right. He invaded Afghanistan because the Afghanis were the ones linked to Osoma Bin Laden and Al Quiada, as you know. As any decent president would do, he made the case for the Iraq for through appropriate channels, the UN, the US House and Senate, and the American people, who gave Bush a 70% approval rating in March of 2003.

Tex, you seem to forget the 90's. Every night I would watch the news, I would watch a "nightly" report on the misbehavior of Sadaam Hussein. News outlets like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and even Fox woudl go around and interview American soldiers and various other people. The consensus with them seemed to be "well, we should have taken out Sadaam the first time." Remember, this was before America knew who George W. Bush was. Night after night, Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings would rant on and on about how we should have finished Sadaam the first time. You may not remember it, but I do.

" Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq." The same Clinton who put boots on the ground is Somolia and Haiti? Trust me, Clinton would have put boots on the ground in Iraq because by 2003, still reeling from 9-11, the American public was fedup with Sadaam and wanted him taken out.

" Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. " Okay, I really don't believe you on this one. Are you trying to tell me that the Republicans didn't argue vigorously for taking out Bin Laden after the first World Trade Center Attack back in '93? What about Kobar Towers? What about the Embassy Bombings? What about the USS Cole. Are you gonna sit here and tell me that the Republicans, and even most Democrats didn't recognize Bin Laden as a threat? Hell, everyone considered Bin Laden a threat, Clinton, the Dems, the Republicans, everybody.

"Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced " Did you ever stop to think that they supported giving the president authority to invade Iraq because it was the right thing to do? Rarely do politicians take actions contrary to their best interests but in this case, I think that both parties were wise to be Americans first, and politicians second.

"In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't. " Thank Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharaf, for this. Bin Laden and his goons are in Pakistan as we speak. Yet, our Rangers are not allowed to go in there and get Bin Laden because Musharaf won't allow it.

"And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that. " Okay, it's a game of semantics here. Cooked and cherry picked sound interchangeable to me. And if Bush Cheney and Rove cherry picked the intelligence as you say, do you have any proof of this? If so, write Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrat leaders who are "chomping at the bit" to impeach Bush.

"I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now." You're absolutely right here. The American people want us to win but they're not seeing that right now. Actually we are winning from a military standpoint but unfortunately, only the bad news gets reported. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld and Bush had no plan to win the peace after we deposed Sadaam. History will judge them harshley for this.

I don't know that cherry picking evidence is a high crime or misdemeanor. It is incompetent. If incompetence were the grounds for impeachment, there would be no question.

We invaded Aghanistan and Iraq and set up governments in each, and yet you said the big bad President of Pakistan is to blame for us not having Osama? BTW, before 9/11 precious few voters knew who Osama was. Bush wasn't even familiar with him. When Clinton bombed the pharmaceuticial factory b/c intel told him it was producing chemical weapons tied to Osama he was roundly criticized by Republicans. Clinton didn't put boots on the ground in Somolia-- Bush I did. We lost one soldier in Haiti. Any loss is tragic, but the odds of losing many troops was low.

[drewau02 0]

Actually Tex, it was Bill Clinton who said that Sadaam had WMD. Before Bush took office, Clinton told him that the #1 threat to national security was Sadaam Hussein. So, after 9-11 and Sadaam violating 17 UN Resolutions, you bet you a** he would have invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam. Remember, Bill Clinton is a political opportunist and I know that you libs love to rewrite history everyday, but back in 2003 all of these so called people who are against the war now were in favor of it back then. And don't give me this crap that Bush and Cheney "cooked" the intelligence on Iraq either. The UN made the same case as Bush. So did George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. So did John Kerry. So did John Edwards. So did the entire civilized world.

So yes, that's how I'm making the case that Bill Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Back in 2003, the American people demanded action, not carpet bombing that Clinton was known for during ihs presidency. Clinton would have seen the polls and invaded, based on the best possilbe intelligence from the CIA director who he appointed.

If you're gonna make a case against Bush and Iraq, then make a case about how ill prepared we were to win the peace once Sadaam was deposed. That's a legit argument. Not your nonsense about how Bush, Cheney, and Rove cooked the intelligence to support the case for war.

Iraq is worse off than it was under Sadaam? Try telling that to the families of all the Kurds that Sadaam gassed up with his WMD's that he "allegedly" didn't have.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation. Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. Now we've returned the favor to Iran. But that doesn't mean he was seen as an imminent threat, and he certainly wasn't seen by Clinton as the greatest threat. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein.

You're revising history. Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it. Cheney said it would only take weeks, not months, and Wolfowitz said Iraq oil would fund it, so Americans didn't see much down side in supporting what their president said needed doing. I opposed it from the start, but as cocky as they were, even I assumed they had knowledge of biological and chemical weapons that they just weren't making public. I thought they'd find some right away, but I didn't think it was great threat to us, since we assumed Saddam hadn't relinquished it since 1991.

Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq. He fought Kosovo and Bosnia from the air, sacrificing bombing accuracy and greater civilian casualties to avoid American deaths, which he needed to do because he received virtually no Republican support. Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced.

In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't.

And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that.

The Kurds lived in the "no fly zone" that allowed them to live fairly autonomously since the first Gulf war. The Kurds were pretty well since then, but I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now.

The UN did not "make the same case as Bush". The UN was not swayed by Colin Powell's presentation." You're wrong. The UN did make the same case as did Bush. After all, Sadaam kicked their weapons inpsectors out of his country on numerous occasions. As always is the case with the worthless UN, they were not willing to use force and disarm Sadaam. The UN did beleive that Sadaam had WMD's but weren't willing to use force because they wanted to give their sanctions more time.

"Most people assumed Saddam had some leftover chemical and biological weapons since we had provided him with his starter kit when we sided with Saddam over Iran. " Most people believed that Sadaam had WMD because he had used them in the past, violated 17 UN resolutions, and kicked the UN Weapons Inspections Committee out of his country. Sadaam's the one who decided to invade Kuwaiit back in '91 and cause all this trouble.

I remember throughout the 90's after Bush I left office, the biggest criticism of his policies, by Dan Rather and many in the media, was the he did not and I quote, "finish off" Sadaam Hussein when he had the chance. Well, as you know, his son did finish off Sadaam and is now reviled for it.

" Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were and that is what he told Bush, not Saddam Hussein." As was Sadaam. Clinton mentioned Sadaam as well.

" Bush didn't react to a groundswell demanding that we invade Iraq after 9/11. It didn't exist. He spent over a year making the case for it and the people assumed he knew what he was doing and supported it." You're right. He invaded Afghanistan because the Afghanis were the ones linked to Osoma Bin Laden and Al Quiada, as you know. As any decent president would do, he made the case for the Iraq for through appropriate channels, the UN, the US House and Senate, and the American people, who gave Bush a 70% approval rating in March of 2003.

Tex, you seem to forget the 90's. Every night I would watch the news, I would watch a "nightly" report on the misbehavior of Sadaam Hussein. News outlets like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and even Fox woudl go around and interview American soldiers and various other people. The consensus with them seemed to be "well, we should have taken out Sadaam the first time." Remember, this was before America knew who George W. Bush was. Night after night, Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings would rant on and on about how we should have finished Sadaam the first time. You may not remember it, but I do.

" Clinton would not have put troops on the ground in Iraq." The same Clinton who put boots on the ground is Somolia and Haiti? Trust me, Clinton would have put boots on the ground in Iraq because by 2003, still reeling from 9-11, the American public was fedup with Sadaam and wanted him taken out.

" Most Republicans would not have supported Clinton invading Iraq-- they didn't even support him trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, for whom they thought he was exaggerating as a threat. " Okay, I really don't believe you on this one. Are you trying to tell me that the Republicans didn't argue vigorously for taking out Bin Laden after the first World Trade Center Attack back in '93? What about Kobar Towers? What about the Embassy Bombings? What about the USS Cole. Are you gonna sit here and tell me that the Republicans, and even most Democrats didn't recognize Bin Laden as a threat? Hell, everyone considered Bin Laden a threat, Clinton, the Dems, the Republicans, everybody.

"Most of the Dems who supported this invasion did so for political reasons because they were too chickensh*t to stand up and say what they really thought. Frankly, most Republicans supported it for political reasons, too. They saw politcal opportunity which the 2002 elections enforced " Did you ever stop to think that they supported giving the president authority to invade Iraq because it was the right thing to do? Rarely do politicians take actions contrary to their best interests but in this case, I think that both parties were wise to be Americans first, and politicians second.

"In 2001, Americans wanted the people behind 9/11 to pay for it. They still haven't. " Thank Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharaf, for this. Bin Laden and his goons are in Pakistan as we speak. Yet, our Rangers are not allowed to go in there and get Bin Laden because Musharaf won't allow it.

"And I didn't say they "cooked evidence", I said they cherry picked it. If you actually followed this with an inquisitive mind, you would know that. " Okay, it's a game of semantics here. Cooked and cherry picked sound interchangeable to me. And if Bush Cheney and Rove cherry picked the intelligence as you say, do you have any proof of this? If so, write Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrat leaders who are "chomping at the bit" to impeach Bush.

"I'm sure are glad to see Saddam gone. I'm sure most people are glad to see him gone. I just think most are pretty damn disappointed in how things are now." You're absolutely right here. The American people want us to win but they're not seeing that right now. Actually we are winning from a military standpoint but unfortunately, only the bad news gets reported. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld and Bush had no plan to win the peace after we deposed Sadaam. History will judge them harshley for this.

I don't know that cherry picking evidence is a high crime or misdemeanor. It is incompetent. If incompetence were the grounds for impeachment, there would be no question.

We invaded Aghanistan and Iraq and set up governments in each, and yet you said the big bad President of Pakistan is to blame for us not having Osama? BTW, before 9/11 precious few voters knew who Osama was. Bush wasn't even familiar with him. When Clinton bombed the pharmaceuticial factory b/c intel told him it was producing chemical weapons tied to Osama he was roundly criticized by Republicans. Clinton didn't put boots on the ground in Somolia-- Bush I did. We lost one soldier in Haiti. Any loss is tragic, but the odds of losing many troops was low.

Yes, the President of Pakistan is to blame for us not having Osama. He won't let our guys enter his country and get em. Everyone with half a brain knows that Osama is hiding in Pakistan and there's not a damn thing that US and coaltion forces can do about it. Musharaf is trying to play devil's advocate, appease his American allies while keeping the jihadists and radicals in his country happy. In my opinion, it's a game that he will eventually lose so he needs to choose one side or another.

I argued about Republicans knowing who OBL was, not voters. The only voters who knew who OBL was were the voters who actually pay attention to politics, like you and I. Trust me, all of the Republicans and Democrats knew who OBL during the 90's, especially those on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Republicans should have supported Clinton back then. They were wrong not too. The Dems are wrong not to support Bush now. At least give this last troop surge a chance.

[Tiger Al 0]

Everyone with half a brain knows that Osama is hiding in Pakistan and there's not a damn thing that US and coaltion forces can do about it.

Assuming this assertion were true, why is there nothing we can do?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Everyone with half a brain knows that Osama is hiding in Pakistan and there's not a damn thing that US and coaltion forces can do about it.

Assuming this assertion were true, why is there nothing we can do?

Yeah, we invaded a country and found Saddam, why not the guy who attacked us?

[CCTAU 3,350]

I agree with TA and TT. Let's attack Pakistan. I'm not sure how this is a plan to win the warfront in Iraq, but it sounds like a good idea to us.

[Tiger Al 0]

I agree with TA and TT. Let's attack Pakistan. I'm not sure how this is a plan to win the warfront in Iraq, but it sounds like a good idea to us.

Hey, as long as we're killin' Muslims, right?