Imhooked is dead on. I must agree with him one hundred percent. I also will say that at least GW hasn't had anone "offed". Not that it was proven that the Cklintons did, then again, prove to me that GW has.

Some people around here are so against the Republicans that jesus christ could run for office, but if it wasn't as a dem, he'd loose.

One thing I am sick of is the "my party/politician can do nothing wrong, the other party/politician can do nothing right". There is plenty of blame to go around. As far as Bush goes: It seems as though he really doesn't want to be in office any more and I don't know if he ever really wanted the job to start with. If you watched him at all lately he is really just going through the motions and it is my opinion that he has been like this for quite a while. We have 3 candidates that are in the senate right now that could be writing legislation to work on some of these problems and they aren't doing it.

imhooked- I resent your comments on my "knowledge" I pull my " knowledge" from MANY bi-partisan books including The 911 Commission Report, which I have read twice.

And any intellengent person would know by now, about the lies and deceipt from this President and his administration. I fell sorry for you and others that are still blind to this.

" His reasoning was that Saddam will never dump his WMD program, as he was ordered to do by UN Resolutions."

I will remind you -
WE NEVER FOUND WMD's - because they weren't there, AND we knew it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another thing - if you truly read ALL my post - I have NEVER said that the DEM's are flawless or have not made mistakes.

George Bush IS the worst President in American history !! And Time WILL prove that.

Sorry to interrupt fellas but all the blame cannot be put on one mans shoulders. It is our whole governing body that is to blame here. The system is flawed now. It was a great thing in it's original form. But, they have tinkered with it to a point that is beyond repair. What we need is a great hero to come along and save us. lol.

Your response is just as I predicted, Reelemin.
It's statements like yours that make me glad I do not belong to a political party.

I invited you to check for yourself if what I posted was true. And, as expected, you have not disputed any of my statements.
Just more of telling me how much you hate the lying President.
And more claims that I am blind, and "do not see this."
And the statement,"And any intelligent person would know."
That statement is more of a defense mechanism than fact.
If you truly read the 9/11 Commission Report as I have, and it's unlikely you have, you would have not liked one of their conclusions.
The 9/11 Commission report found "no evidence of manipulation of intelligence."
The Silberman-Robb Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee also find no evidence of manipulation of Pre-war intelligence or any political pressure put on the intelligence community to come to any conclusions.
The Butler Report from Great Britian also agrees, and found "credible evidence that the Iraqi government was seeking yellowcake from Niger."
The commonality all the above share is addressing the issue of intelligence failures.
But they all find no evidence of deliberate manipulations.
Until you can post some credible investigation that proves that the president lied about the WMDs, then your postings are nothing more than the opinion of a Democratic Party loyalist.
And will be viewed as such.
The comment my commander made about the Saddam not dumping his WMD program was made after we came home from Gulf War One.
That war was pre-President George W. Bush.
A lot of our training during the 1990's was what dangerous regimes had WMDs and their suspected inventory.
One of those regimes was Saddam Hussein.
I am sure you are aware George W. Bush was not the president in the 1990's.
Again, your arguing needs to be,"point-counterpoint."
So far it's claims of reading all these books and when confronted, you don't counter point.
You attack.
You still have not countered my previous post.
I don't want an opinion.
I want you to direct me to a Bi-partisan investigation that shows Bush did, in fact, lie about the WMD program.
I would be interested in reading it.
After all, a President lying to the public and pressuring the intelligence community to lie to get a war going is an impeachable offense.
Do you find it curious that the Democratic Party doesn't seem interested in investigating the issue, save for a few extremists?
It should be, in the words of George Tenet, a "slam dunk."
It's because they don't believe it themselves.
They are only using the issue for fundraising.

No. We did not know it. Stay informed here.
Saddam admitted that he lied to the world (everyone) about the WMD program. It was his poker chip against Iran. He never strayed from the story. He let everyone think that, and did nothing to clear the air. He knew Iran wanted to attack Iraq, and the WMD program was a bluff. He just expected the US to act in a more measured and controlled fashion than Iran.

He was wrong.

Conversely, US intelligence did know that Iraq was NOT A HOTBED of terrorist recruitment and training. If anything, Saddam brutalized the Islamic mindset that leads to terrorism. GWB wanted to kick the arse of the safest Islamic target he could find. Saddam made it easy.

George should have smacked Saudi, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, ANYONE. He took the easiest target for the US public to swallow.

If you read the Kay Report to congress (the weapons inspector in Iraq at the time), you can easily see where we got our intelligence indicating that Iraq had - or at least was still actively pursuing - WMD's.

The conclusions that were reached at the time we attacked were not unreasonable conclusions.

However, we now know that they were wrong and we know why they were wrong.

The problem is that when the new, additional information came to light, the administration refused to admit the mistake. Had the administration simply said "Given the new information, we know where our initial info was wrong and now we need to move forward with an appropriate exit strategy" we would now be out of Iraq and over the whole thing.

By the way...given the information we had at the time we attacked Iraq, if the administration had not taken the action (or very similar action) that they did, the democrats would have been beating Bush over the head with the evidence of WMD development in Iraq and how the 'weak on terror President' wasn't doing anything about it.

Being critical of this president's conduct of the war and how we got there will be debated by historians for generations.
Part of this president's refusual to change course is what cost him the Senate and House, among many other issues.
But when I hear the opposition claim that a sitting president lied about the weapons to get us into war, yet their only evidence of such is that we did not find these weapons, well that just torques my gourd.
It was what we had at the time. And there was dissent but a sitting president has to make the decision he feels is best at the time.
It may eventually prove to be the wrong one.
But until a sitting president has a crystal ball, we will have to rely on intelligence.
As imperfect as it may be.
And the Democratic Party better be careful.
Someday we will have a Democratic president who will have to make war and peace decisions based on that same intelligence.

I don't critisize Pres. Busch for getting sucked in by the wrong info from his advisors but, He has had years to end a war that is not winnable. History will prove this correct and we just need to wait and see.

Moat all knew that going into Iraq was nothing more than another Vietnam. When we caught Saddam, that should have been the time we pulled out. My understanding was that we were there to stop Saddam and since he was caught, game over.

You are not worth my time on this - I have better things in life to do then to argue with you.

Do and say what you want - ignorance is bliss.

Yes. That indeed is true.
Ignorance is bliss.
I am willing to learn.
You seem to be resistive to that idea.
I have given you points and facts.
You have not.
You also have not argued in the classic sense of the word.
You could produce no counter point to my point.
And in lacking any effective counter point, you decided that in order to protect your worldview, it was best to just dismiss what I said.
A sort of putting your finger in your ears and going, "Lalalalalala."
I have seen several of your other postings and they seem to follow the same trend.

So I will ask again, nicely.
Please direct me to any bi-partisan investigation that proves President Bush lied or manipulated pre war intelligence.
You claimed it was out there.
I am willing, with an "open mind," to read it and "get educated," as you have told others in the past that have disagreed with you on other issues.
Information from partisan web sites or books do not count.
And yet, you still have not disproven my previous point.
If you cannot, then say so and move on.

I can disprove all of what you say - But Like I said you are not worth my time

read these books - when you're done I'll have plenty more for ya

* - Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror - by Richard Clarke
* - Worse Than Watergate - by John W. Dean ( former counsel to Nixon )
* - The ONE Percent Doctrine - by Ron Suskind
* - The 9/11 Commission Report

The first three are books.
Books on current issues tend to be subjective.
On many books regarding politics, the author's own bias will tend to creep in from time to time.
The last one I have read and it does not say that there was manipulation of intelligence.
Again, I want bipartisan investigations.
My gut feeling tells me you really don't have any links to one but rely heavily on writings of people who share your worldview.