By mwm

May 20, 2008 7:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry TRS, you have no evidence to validate a reason for a war in Iraq. And, Bush had no material evidence to go to war. Yours are the wild accusations. Show me the WMD’s! No WMD’s, no reason for the war.

By TRS

May 20, 2008 7:51 PM | Link to this

Sorry MWM, your not going to turn this one. You got nothing, you said nothing new (nor have you for the last 2 years) and none of it changes anything. All you have are wild accusations and assumptions, lacking material evidence to support your assertions and frankly they aren’t even good enough to stand the test of circumstantial evidence. The facts are on my side and your conspiracy theory, which is the true fabrication, isies is your to have and to hold. You can stomp and shout, call names and pretend you even know what a neocon is, but that doesn’t change the facts. No lies - bad intel!!

By mwm

May 20, 2008 7:31 PM | Link to this

The intel was a fabrication. Scientists questioned Powell’s speech to the UN from the beginning. That is why Bush continued to spew lies about WMD’s in even after none were found. Many months into the war and occupation and no WMD’s but, he continued with the lies and deceptions. Why would any person continue the lies after nothing is found? The aluminum tubes - fakes. “Artist Renditions” - fakes. Uranium from Niger - lies. I do agree that Bush and the neocons lack intelligence. But, even when confronted with people, including congress, asking for verifiable evidence, the Bush syndicate did nothing. There are facts. You and neocons only have conspiracy theories as a reason for the war in Iraq. But of course, there is no valid and moral reason to be in a war in Iraq. Except of course for the Oil. Which, by the way is an immoral reason to invade and occupy a country. Of course immorality and conservatism go hand in hand.

By TRS

May 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

Tim - don’t believe I said anything about Al Qaeda being in Iraq prior to the invasion although Ansar Al Islam, which did exist prior, pretty much became Al Qaeda. My post of 5/17 said we are talking about now - that would mean at this very moment. If your denying that, then it is you who has no clue. As for MWM, intelligence reports were fabricated - PROVE IT! Provide me with first hand witnesses who will attest to that fact. There is a difference between being fabricated and being wrong. Chemical weapons given to Saddam? PROVE IT! Still just a statement on your part - where is a 1st hand witness that would cooraborate that! MWM - you really have a difficult time understanding the difference between fact and theory. Lets put it this way - you are like a prosecutor who puts together your theory of events; but, your theory must be proven with documentation and witnesses. Otherwise your case is simply circumstantial in nature. To this point in time, you have offered nothing other than your assessment of the facts, easily refuted by investigations conducted by the 9/11 commission, congress and others whose conclusions do not come close to support your theory. Many witnesses involved in the intel have come forward acknowledging that it was faulty. Many foreign intelligence agencies had it wrong - did they go along with the fabrication? I don’t think so. Simply put, your theory, developed through your intepretation of the facts is not supported by hard evidence and therefore not proven and not fact. I’m sure you’ll keep making your undocumented claims formed on circumstantial evidence, but that doesn’t make them correct…

By reggie98ud

May 20, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

MWM you are an idiot! We found several different Caches of WMD’s in Iraq. True they were older, but mustard gas released in the middle of downtown Manhattan could kill several thousand people! And most intelligence agencies have agreed that most of the WMD’s were shipped to Syria while we waited on the UN to do something. Maybe your liberal buddies in the UN were actually trying to help Saddam (kind of like the French who were profiting heavily on the “oil for Food” Program? There’s my proof, where’s yours?

By Tim

May 19, 2008 8:37 PM | Link to this

TRS, Please find out what you are talking about before you spew your neo-con arrogance and ignorance. AL Qaeda was not even in Iraq before we invaded. I can understand of course that it is difficult to see opinions different than yours with those blinders on. And oh Jerry, how do you define victory in Iraq? Sunis and Shiites have been fighting for a long time. Since we invaded, do you expect them to submit to us or just give us all their oil?

By mwm

May 19, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this

The “so called” Intelligence reports were fabrications. It goes along with the aluminum tubes - not capable of use for nuclear material production. And, “artist renditions” of mobile chem labs. Most second year art students could do the same drawing and claim that it was a chem lab on wheels. Perhaps even drawn on the back of a three ring binder. And, of course, FOX news was there to push the Bush lies. During the Iraq/Iran war, the Reagan administration did open diplomatic relations with Iraq, did send Rumsfeld to meet with Sadaam Hussein, (nice pics of Rumsfeld shaking Sadaams hand) and did sell Iraq weapon systems; including the chemical variety. As stated, conservatives can continue to live in fantasy land and try to justify the war in Iraq. But, the conservatives are running out of ways to morph the Iraq war into a justified action. As is McCain, who will focus on the neocon agenda and ignore American citizens. Perhaps the neocon motto is “In Oil we Trust”.

By TRS

May 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Intelligence reports said the Saddam was actively seeking to develop a nuclear program. Bad Intel. As for any administration selling Chemical weapons to anybody - PROVE IT!!! Where is your independent corrobrating evidence? Takes more than just a statement by you to make it so.

By mwm

May 19, 2008 5:52 AM | Link to this

There are no “theories”. The WMD’s never existed in Iraq… At least the “nuclear” variety that Bush and the neocons used as propaganda to start the war and sway public opinion in favor of a war. Some chemical weapons may have existed.. Ones that were sold to Iraq by the Reagan administration. So yes, the whole concept of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq to start a war was and is a lie. Every subject brought to the UN by Colin Powell was proved false. From aluminum tubes to “artist renditions” of mobile chem labs. Yellow cake uranium from Niger. Lies. The scientific community was against the war due to lack of evidence. Certainly the “govt. experts” may have opted to back Bush. But, there really was no fact based information to substantiate an invasion. Only cooked up false information. Propaganda was used to try and link 9-11 to Iraq. This was a fear campaign to justify the war in Iraq. There never was a link. But, Bush and the neocons were good at a propaganda campaign. Terror alert color codes and the like. Then, the attempt to morph the reasons for the war. Nation building, creating democracies, stable governments, and then, GWOT. The administration assumption was to meld the war in Iraq with the war on terror to justify the war in Iraq. That did not work. The american public finally got wise to Bush’s lies. So you see the neocons supporting an unpopular war. The good news is that 70% of the American public is opposed to the war and the direction our country is going. To continue another four years of Bush via McCain is not an option. It is the conservatives that have “conspiracy theories”. They actually think there is a reason for the war in Iraq.

By RALPH

May 19, 2008 1:38 AM | Link to this

I do not think President Bush lied. He went with the best information he was given. Just like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton did. WHICH They have now backed out of There is a clear choice this election. Victory for Mccain. Defeat for Obama. I chose victory.

By TRS

May 18, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

Within the past week I was watching CSpan. Leon Panetta, a Democrat from CA and former chief of staff of Clint, was leading a panel to include retired Gen Peter Pace, another retired General McCaferty and a civilian whose name escapes me; however, he held a high level job at the Pentagon. Focusing on the civilian for a moment, much like you he opposed the idea of going into Iraq. He said this (and I paraphrase) - he disagreed with the final decision; but, that there had been an open and spirited debate, all sides were heard and that even though he disagreed with the final decision, he felt the process had been fairly vented and the decisions were made on the facts as they were presented before them. In particular he referred to the faulty intelligence as being the major item which led to their final conclusions. This factually and directly contradicts your theory of “lies”. Perhaps you want to smear this gentlemen and the others on the panel as well as liars too, but they appeared to be honorable men trying to reasonably assess the situation as it was and assess how it could be done better the next time. There are to many other honorable men and women involved in the process who have testified and agreed with this. There is not a fact out there was would convince you that your theory is invalid. It seems more important to you that you be right than anything else, but the reality is the basis of your “lies” theory - no WMDs is contradicted by those involved, those who agreed and those who disagreed with invading Iraq and who have stated repeatedly that the basis of their deicison was bad intelligence. As for “no connection to 9/11” no one ever claimed Saddam was connected. Your cute little rhetorical trick that it is well known that Bush lied actually shows how shallow your case is because you really have no facts to present - only a conspirtorial theory which you want to believe about everything else. Yours has always been a theory to the point of obsession and nothing, and I mean no amount of evidence to the contrary, would ever convince you otherwise. I have no problem with you believing that - you have a right to be wrong; but, it is more than inaccurate to advance it as fact - that would be a lie and we all know how you feel about “lies”.

By mwm

May 18, 2008 12:14 AM | Link to this

It is relevant and known that Bush used lies to start the war in Iraq. And should be remembered as the criminal that he is. To set into motion a war, based upon lies is terror within itself. Al Qaeda, if they exist in Iraq, is because of this war, based upon lies. And of course, those that live in that part of the world consider us evil. And they hate us even more for this war. Bush had a chance to pull most of the world together to fight the common enemy. He chose to attack Iraq for the Oil, among other things. Going after a BinLadin was a proper direction. As the conspirater of 9-11. Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with a war on terror. Using lies about the existence of WMD’s, BinLadin and other propaganda was a tool used to escalate the war in Iraq. Just as the Gulf of Tonkin was used to escalate the VietNam war. And just like VietNam, we will be out of Iraq someday. Hopefully sooner than later. McCain rhetoric is for election purposes only. He and Nixon have that in common . We must learn from history so that we do not repeat it. In some cases we have. Bush’s WMD’s was the modern version of the Gulf of Tonkin. Watch out for presidents from Texas.

By TRS

May 17, 2008 8:51 PM | Link to this

Ah, well - we’re finally making progress. You agree that there is such a thing as terrorism and terrorists. For a moment there I thought you were denying their existence. We’ve been through your peculiar version of history before and frankly has no relevency for today. We are dealing in the current moment - perhaps you’ll get there someday. Forget Bin Laden - he’s not relevent; but, Al Qaeda and terrorism is. Al Qaeda exists in Iraq now! Thanks to the best military in the world, they have been greatly weakened. Thanks to the greatest group of professionals in the world, Iraqi is much improved and even political progress has been made. Senator McCain’s prognostications could indeed become fact save one thing - we precipitiously pull out of Iraq.

By mwm

May 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Wrong again, TRS. Terrorism does exist. BinLadin may only be a ploy to pursue some fear based ideology put together by the neocons. There is no hatred of Bush. There is, however, hatred of his lies and fear based mindset. There is no evidence to currently support the existence of BinLadin. And, BinLadin may only be a propaganda ploy. Just as the WMD lies were. Just as the lies used to start a war with Iraq were. Terrorism does exist. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The hijackers were Saudi and Pakistani. So, we invaded the wrong country, by the lies and choice of Bush. If anything, Bush intensified hatred against our country. McCain is just a continuation of failed Bush policies. And, his “crystal ball” is cracked.

By TRS

May 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Seems to me its your Democratic friends who have been critical that Bin Laden has not been captured, who keeps him alive. Certainly we know Al Quaeda is alive and well. If it is your contention that the terrorists have gone away and terrorism doesn’t exist anymore; thus, no war on terror, then your hatred of President Bush has overridden your total sense of good judgment and few Americans would agree with you.

By mwm

May 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Still no evidence. Just Republican rhetoric. Kind of like the old Nixon lies. If BinLadin exists, we would have either killed or captured him by now. Keeping him alive, at least in the propaganda, will keep the fearmongering alive. Just like the WMD lies, milk it for all it’s worth. Until the administration can no longer use said lies. Then turn to some other reason for the war. Morph everything. The current administration never had any evidence to substantiate their claims. Just fear, propaganda and deceptions. McCain will probably resurrect the “terror alert color codes” just for the upcoming election. After all, it was a tool in the last election. Americans are smarter now. And see through what has been done in the past. Being a loyal American also means being able to question a government of deceptive people. Or, we will end up in some sort of dictatorship.

By jerry

May 16, 2008 12:30 AM | Link to this

A clear choice for all loyal americans.Victory in Iraq vote for Mccain. Turn tail and run vote for Obama .Mccain answers all questions from the press. Obama is afraid to answer tough questions.

By TRS

May 15, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this

What a unique idea. Lets just deny the existance of Bin Laden and Al Quada, deny the fact that terrorism exist and that terrorists want to kill us in mass quantities, surrender in Iraq and all will be well. Pretty much sounds like the Democratic Security plan for this nation.

By mwm

May 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

“New leadership will end the war” A quote used by Nixon in 1968. This was used as a campaign promise to get elected. Also included were six month time tables; more lies. McCain is probably using the same tactic. Also, BinLadin. Does he really exist? Or is he a fabrication used by the current administration to continue the “so called” war on terror. Seems to me that if our government really wanted to find him, it would not take over 6 years. Show some proof of his existence. Or, non-existence. Just wait, more neocon lies to come… From McCain this time!