Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

"with full knowledge and support of The Taliban in Afganistan, Saddam in Iraq, the meathead of Iran, and the moron in Libia"

and another rightwing myth. Saddam had NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA. In fact, Islamic fundamentalists were his enemies since he was against the religious extremists - He was the leader of the SECULAR Baath party - and no friend to Islamists of any stripe. This is one of the reasons he was mortal enemy of Iran which is run by mullahs.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

"EVERYBODY believed the butcher of bagdad had WMD's."

No. They didnt. Millions didnt believe it here and marched about it. Go read the papers at the time. 120 Democrats in Congress didnt believe it and refused to authorize the use of military force. Foreign governments didnt believe it, most prominently the Brits who thought that the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy" as shown in the Downing Street memos.

This is more than a little misleading. Leading Democrats, Republicans, media, yes basically everyone did think that Saddam had WMD's, and many still think that he did. You are trying to re-write history.

I agree WMD's weren't the real reason we went into Iraq, but it's not very honest to carry that a step further and say that there were a lot of people who didn't think Saddam had WMD's.

[poopdeckpappy]

Millions sck, really ??, I might believe thousands, but Millions ???

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by sck5

"with full knowledge and support of The Taliban in Afganistan, Saddam in Iraq, the meathead of Iran, and the moron in Libia"

and another rightwing myth. Saddam had NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA. .

And this is why Blue koolaid is so bad for you

[PBzeer]

sck5 - before you go shouting Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, you might want to re-read the previous posts and see that no one was saying that he did.

Since Bush Derangement Syndrome is impervious to rational treatment, it seems pointless to say more. I laid out my opinion on why I think we went in in Iraq, and the significance of it. The only rebuttal so far is ... Bush Lied. Hardly what I would call a rational, cogent response.

[PBzeer]

After a week, I'm still waiting to find out what Obama has accomplished in his life, that makes him qualified to be President. Now, he is certainly qualified Constitutionally. And one can make a case he is qualified intellectually, though not necessarily in a common sense way.

I don't question that he believes he has something to offer. Or that he believes he can make a difference in America. I do though, question how good what he proposes is for the country.

The larger question remains though of what he has accomplished in his life that gives any support to the notion that he can accomplish what he says he wants to do.

That his supporters seem to accept on faith, an ability he has not hitherto shown, is not surprising. There is a certain amount of faith necessary even in the support of a candidate that does have a record that points in one way or another to probable performance. That though, is much different from the blind faith of the Obama supporters.

It's mind-boggling to imagine the media reaction to a Republican using running a political campaign as evidence of executive experience. Yet, the MSM finds nothing worthy of mention in such an utterance from their obviously chosen candidate. Evidently, in the minds of the media elite, only the VP candidate must be questioned about leadership ability.

I certainly don't fault anyone who decides to put their faith in Mr Obama, though I do, and will continue, to question how anyone can do so in a rational, cogent way.

[PBzeer]

An article by another Brit concerning the past week and the possible repercussions of the media feeding frenzy. (I find it interesting not just because he sees much the same thing as I do, but because, as a Brit, he has some emotional distance from the subject, and he doesn't push one side over the other. In other words, it's a rational assessment.)

Nick Cohen: When Barack's berserkers lost the plot | Comment is free | The Observer

[sck5]

Poopdeck and wind

Yes millions

Pictures of Anti

and more than 120 dems in congress.

senate vote and house vote tallies are here Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is entirely honest to say it, particularly when we have documentary evidence that foreign governments (in fact our closest allies) thought we were making up the evidence.

Downing Street memo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because it has been repeated over and over and over that "everyone thought there were WMD's" doesnt make it true. In fact, why on earth do you think so many people were opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning? Do you really believe Dems dont want to defend the country from madmen with nukes?

Come now, we all ought to be able to respect each other more than THAT. I understand why you say what you do - The administration has repeated it many times and even I still dont like to think that our government is less than truthful. But the fact is that they blew it big time on this one, and many many people said so from the get go but were shouted down. The evidence is plain that many Dems didnt believe the administration - you can look up their speeches at the time if you doubt it but their votes show they put their money where their mouths were and were right to do it.

[sck5]

"The only rebuttal so far is ... Bush Lied. Hardly what I would call a rational, cogent response."

Except he DID lie. And that is hardly the only rebuttal. You refuse to accept the evidence presented - Thats fine, its a free country. But most everyone else now believes the stories about WMD's were a crock. And as noted above there is documentary evidence to back it up.

Unshakable belief that GW Bush is always honest and right in what he does and says is hardly what I would call rational and cogent.

Seems like three quarters of the country agrees with me.

[PBzeer]

From the article linked above (though it wasn't about this specificly, only used as an illustration) comes this quote, regarding the same charge leveled at Tony Blair.

English leftists made the same mistake of allowing their hatred to override their judgment after the Iraq war. If they had confined themselves to charging Tony Blair with failing to find the weapons of mass destruction he promised were in Iraq, and sending British troops into a quagmire, they might have forced him out. They were so consumed by loathing, however, they insisted that he had lied, which he clearly had not.