Volunteer Needed!

[Red]

George Bush has started an ill-timed and disastrous war under false
pretenses by lying to the American people and to the Congress; he has run a
budget surplus into a severe deficit; he has consistently and unconscionably
favored the wealthy and corporations over the rights and needs of the population; he has destroyed trust and confidence in, and good will toward, the United States around the globe; he has ignored global warming, to the world's detriment; he has wantonly broken our treaty obligations; he has condoned torture of prisoners; he has attempted to create a theocracy in the United States; he has appointed incompetent cronies to positions of vital national importance.

Would SOMEONE please give him a blow job so we can impeach him?

[Trev]

Would SOMEONE please give him a blow job so we can impeach him?
You lick a pussy, you don't blow it. :yowsa:

[PornoDoggy]

It wouldn't matter.

Bush, who is doing the Lord's work, would be authorized to lie for the greater good.

Pat Robertson would forgive him his sins, and threaten the districts of any Congressman who voted to take action against him with spiders and snakes and horrors straight out of the Old Testament.

[Grump]

Red, if you wrote that... pure genius! :wnw:

[Red]

Red, if you wrote that... pure genius! :wnw:

I wish I could take the credit Grump, but my mother-in-law to be sent that to me, I have no idea who wrote it, but I love it. :)

[voodooman]

Sure, great idea, that way we could end up with a woman for pres.


I can see it now, Bush impeached, Cheney takes over with Condo Rice as Vice, Condo whacks Dick, voila, we have a woman president.

[Grump]

"Condo whacks Dick"... isn't that how Clinton got in trouble?

[JR]

George Bush has started an ill-timed and disastrous war under false
pretenses by lying to the American people and to the Congress; he has run a
budget surplus into a severe deficit; he has consistently and unconscionably
favored the wealthy and corporations over the rights and needs of the population; he has destroyed trust and confidence in, and good will toward, the United States around the globe; he has ignored global warming, to the world's detriment; he has wantonly broken our treaty obligations; he has condoned torture of prisoners; he has attempted to create a theocracy in the United States; he has appointed incompetent cronies to positions of vital national importance.

Would SOMEONE please give him a blow job so we can impeach him?

uhm... yeah. Bush lied. we are all dumb. had absolutely no information available to us other than what some claim was the "lie" that Bush spoon fed us all. i feel so stupid. and here i thought Iraq attacked kuwait, violated the terms of the cease fire for 10 years, refused to account for weapons stocks, refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors and so on and so on and so on and so on.

and congress was lied to. here i thought the senate intelligence committee and other government bodies had access to 95% or more of the same intelligence that bush had access to - yet they were ALL lied to. interesting.

i feel stupid.

damn you bush!

[voodooman]

"Condo whacks Dick"... isn't that how Clinton got in trouble?

Same actions, different girls. ;)

[Red]

uhm... yeah. Bush lied. we are all dumb. had absolutely no information available to us other than what some claim was the "lie" that Bush spoon fed us all. i feel so stupid. and here i thought Iraq attacked kuwait, violated the terms of the cease fire for 10 years, refused to account for weapons stocks, refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors and so on and so on and so on and so on.

and congress was lied to. here i thought the senate intelligence committee and other government bodies had access to 95% or more of the same intelligence that bush had access to - yet they were ALL lied to. interesting.

i feel stupid.

damn you bush!

Lighten up JR. It was just a joke. ;)

[PornoDoggy]

uhm... yeah. Bush lied. we are all dumb. had absolutely no information available to us other than what some claim was the "lie" that Bush spoon fed us all. i feel so stupid. and here i thought Iraq attacked kuwait, violated the terms of the cease fire for 10 years, refused to account for weapons stocks, refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors and so on and so on and so on and so on.

and congress was lied to. here i thought the senate intelligence committee and other government bodies had access to 95% or more of the same intelligence that bush had access to - yet they were ALL lied to. interesting.

i feel stupid.

damn you bush!
You may be right – you should very well feel stupid, if you believe the hogwash you just posted.

The oversight committees are given what the administration wants them to have.

The other governmental bodies that you speak of are all under the Executive Branch. Congress does not (and should not) have an independent intelligence agency.

Saddam was a bad guy. Nobody argues that he was other than a bad guy, but people (like you) keep dragging that into the conversation as if that proves something. He, like many of our current and former allies, did plenty of mean nasty things.

Some of those mean nasty things (like gassing Iranians) he probably did at our behest. After all, we could only "accidentally" shoot down so many airliners.

Some of the things he did against the Shia and the Kurds he did because we let him. In this, U.S. Administrations put United States conduct in the rarified company of the Soviet actions regarding the Warsaw uprising during World War II - they rose up with our encouragement, but failed to get the support they needed because of our ties to Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

None of that justifies what he did, but in the scale of things, there are lots of other mean nasty guys out there who probably warrant as much or more attention than Saddam. Are we going to remove them all?

It's hard to use his thumbing his nose at the international community when we weren't willing to wait an additional six months to allow the inspectors to do their job – the job he was finally letting them do. The list of requirements the U.S. put out to avoid an invasion were cut from the same cloth as the ones Austria handed Serbia in 1914, and like 1914, I suspect if they were met we'd have found another pretext to go to war.

I, for one, wish people would quit focusing on being lied to about the war. That's as traditional as Apple Pie. With the arguable exception of World War II, there have been lies told about every foreign conflict we've ever been in. The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Hearst, er, Spanish American War, WWI, Korea, and Vietnam were all conflicts about which great lies were told to the American people.

Even in WWII, we had been effectively fighting on the Allied side for a year and a half in the Atlantic, and in 1941 imposed economic sanctions on the Japanese that most people knew would result in a conflict. It's despicable, reprehensible, and about as American as a hot dog and a beer at a baseball game.

By the Administration's own words - today, at least, now that the pretense of WMD can't even be sustained by a puppet like Cheney - we entered Iraq as a front on the war on terrorism.

Odd logic, that. Our bosom buddies the Saudis fund most jihaddists, and fund the mosques by which jihad is spread throughout the Western world. The nationality of most of the 9/11 hijackers wasn't Iraqi, was it? There is not and never has been a relationship between Iraq and the people who have attacked New York City, London, Madrid, Australia (via Indonesia) and other countries so far.

I wish people would quit focusing on being lied to, and start focusing on the fact that the U.S. has achieved the goals that Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld/Blair/Howard set out for them when they started this war. The current situation in Iraq is not the results of a miscalcuation at all.

I do not for a minute believe that Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld/Blair/Howard were stupid enough to believe that Americans would be greeted as liberators, at least not for long after the "Saddam is gone" euphoria to wear off. I believe they knew fully well what would happen if they invaded Iraq with approximately 1/3 the troops that Bush I had at his disposal – when he made the TACTICAL decision not to proceed.

So ... I think a reasonable argument could be made for delivering Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld/Blair/Howard to the Hauge and put them on trial for crimes against humanity.

I think you could make the argument that the chaotic condition of Iraq today was the objective goal of the war plan. Terrorists are operating at will in Iraq today for one reason, and one reason only - we let them in. Actually, that's not completely correct - most of the terrorists operating in Iraq today are purely domestic.

Please note that I didn't say I believe that - I said you could make a reasonable argument for that.

It makes as much sense as anything else about this clusterfuck, and is every bit as reasonable as the smoke you're blowing.

[JR]

PD... i dont necessarily disagree with anything you said. I deeply resent the notion that Bush lied and thats why we went to war. I am sure he did lie about a lot of shit... but EVERYONE had an opinion about it before it came to that point. its not like we were all sitting here in a vacuum waiting for the final word for Dubya Bush, Our Lord and Savior before we formed an opinion on the matter. Neither was the rest of the government. He might have lied about a lot of things... but that does not change the fact that the case for war was there regardless.

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS... MOST Americans after 9/11 were ready to pull the trigger regardless. It had nothing to do with anything Bush said. The case was there, he was an asshole. He was a bad guy and people just wanted to lash out.

I dont remember forming any opinions about invading Iraq based on ANYTHING Bush said. I seriously doubt all the liberals all over the world that are complaining today were on the fence until that mean ole nasty Mr Bush lied to them and tricked them. Thats just bullshit and childish. Own up to it.

You were one of the first ones to admit that the case was there and that you were a bit apprehensive about timing, motives etc. Thats fine. I would not expect you to be saying today "Holy Shit.. Bush lied to me" - because you know as well as i do that your opinions were not formed around Bush's "lies" and you were not personally decieved in the slightest bit. I have almost no respect for anyone who would suggest they were, because it would signal to me that they have zero integrity as a person.

sure... pick on the lies. Thats all fine and well... point them out, post them, debate them etc etc etc... but I really hate to see people belittle themselves by suggesting or implying that Bush was responsible for their views on Iraq. Thats just fucking pathetic.


And for once, I would like to see Liberals make up their minds... Either Bush is a total retard... or he is a brilliant master of the universe bending everyone to his will. He can't be both.

[Nickatilynx]

I thought the war was an incorrect action before I realised bush was a lying useless twat.

I believe from the git go I thought that he should wait for support from the UN

(/smug mode)

:)

I also thought the UN believed he was offering sufficient help to Weapons Inspectors and kept refusing to sanction military action?

[JR]

I thought the war was an incorrect action before I realised bush was a lying useless twat.

I believe from the git go I thought that he should wait for support from the UN

(/smug mode)

:)

I also thought the UN believed he was offering sufficient help to Weapons Inspectors and kept refusing to sanction military action?


exactly. you had an opinion without having to wait to hear what President Bush, Lord and Savior and the Protector of Truth had so say. who didn't? The answer now, is apparently every Democrat who voted to support the war. Suddenly they are just mindless twats that are easily manipulated by someone who is possibly the dumbest person in history to every attain that much power without killing people by the thousands.

[Nickatilynx]

exactly. you had an opinion without having to wait to hear what President Bush, Lord and Savior and the Protector of Truth had so say. who didn't? The answer now, is apparently every Democrat who voted to support the war. Suddenly they are just mindless twats that are easily manipulated by someone who is possibly the dumbest person in history to every attain that much power without killing people by the thousands.

I think Bush is not the smartest person...but I think his handlers / puppet masters are brilliant.

The utilisation of 911 for their own ends has been masterful.

[Dravyk]

And for once, I would like to see Liberals make up their minds... Either Bush is a total retard... or he is a brilliant master of the universe bending everyone to his will. He can't be both. I and most liberals have always been consistent that Bush is a total retard.

[PornoDoggy]

PD... i dont necessarily disagree with anything you said. I deeply resent the notion that Bush lied and thats why we went to war. I am sure he did lie about a lot of shit... but EVERYONE had an opinion about it before it came to that point. its not like we were all sitting here in a vacuum waiting for the final word for Dubya Bush, Our Lord and Savior before we formed an opinion on the matter. Neither was the rest of the government. He might have lied about a lot of things... but that does not change the fact that the case for war was there regardless.

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS... MOST Americans after 9/11 were ready to pull the trigger regardless. It had nothing to do with anything Bush said. The case was there, he was an asshole. He was a bad guy and people just wanted to lash out.

I dont remember forming any opinions about invading Iraq based on ANYTHING Bush said. I seriously doubt all the liberals all over the world that are complaining today were on the fence until that mean ole nasty Mr Bush lied to them and tricked them. Thats just bullshit and childish. Own up to it.

You were one of the first ones to admit that the case was there and that you were a bit apprehensive about timing, motives etc. Thats fine. I would not expect you to be saying today "Holy Shit.. Bush lied to me" - because you know as well as i do that your opinions were not formed around Bush's "lies" and you were not personally decieved in the slightest bit. I have almost no respect for anyone who would suggest they were, because it would signal to me that they have zero integrity as a person.

sure... pick on the lies. Thats all fine and well... point them out, post them, debate them etc etc etc... but I really hate to see people belittle themselves by suggesting or implying that Bush was responsible for their views on Iraq. Thats just fucking pathetic.


And for once, I would like to see Liberals make up their minds... Either Bush is a total retard... or he is a brilliant master of the universe bending everyone to his will. He can't be both.
I meant what I said - I wish people would quit focusing on the fact that he lied about why we went to war, and look very hard at what he did when he got us there.

I was one of the people who - even though I should have been suspicious, since his lips were moving - originally accepted the President's assertions that Saddam had WMD.

You are right - the case for war appeared to have been made. When the U.S. government began to react to attempts to defuse the situation with responses that seemed straight out of Berlin, circa 1939, I became alarmed.

When Colin Powell went the U.N. and I was hoping for the case for war to be laid out with the fire and the factual foundation of Adli Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I got a second-rate salesman making a piss-poor pitch for a third-rate product, my heart sank.

When the battle plan became apparent, I began to realize that something really, really foul was up.

When the bobbleheads began talking about “liberation of the Iraqi people” followed by “new front in the war on terror” I knew that The Who had been wrong.

We did get fooled again.

Seven more Americans died yesterday in Iraq.

Those Americans died at the hands of an insurgency.

That insurgency developed for one of two reasons - George W. Bush and his lackeys are incompetent, or this is what they wanted. . I'm not trying to have it both ways - he's one or the other. I don’t think he’s incompetent.

I think that the attitude of this Administration toward the lives of Iraqis and toward the lives of American military personnel make Henry Kissinger look like a fucking bleeding-heart tree-hugging humanitarian.

I think they thought we could open up a front in the war on terror and draw Al Qaeda and/or “organized” Islamic terror into a confrontation in Iraq.

The problem is, Al Qaeda and/or “organized” Islamic terror is not who we are fighting in Iraq. What/who we are fighting in Iraq are people we wouldn’t have to be fighting at all if we weren’t there.

Al Qaeda may claim credit for some things in Iraq, but they are a bit player. Those Al Qaeda cocksuckers are out there and planning their next attack. It might be the U.S., it might be the U.K., it could be anywhere in Europe or Asia – but it’s coming.

I have been saying since before Saddam's statue fell that the way we were going about the war in Iraq was going to recreate the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

The battle lines between Sunni and Shia are being drawn, and the confrontations are moving way beyond skirmishes. The relationship of ethnicity/denomination to bombings and mass killings is greatly under-reported in the Western press, and even more so in the American press.

If the Kurds - fairly quiet up until now - get into the act, it could turn a clusterfuck into a real nightmare. And yes, Virginia – it could get worse.

I honestly believe it’s going to get worse – much worse – before it gets better.

The damage to American prestige if we cut and run now would be incalculable.

The problem is, there may be no point in staying. We may not be able to control the forces we have set loose.

[PornoDoggy]

exactly. you had an opinion without having to wait to hear what President Bush, Lord and Savior and the Protector of Truth had so say. who didn't? The answer now, is apparently every Democrat who voted to support the war. Suddenly they are just mindless twats that are easily manipulated by someone who is possibly the dumbest person in history to every attain that much power without killing people by the thousands.
Now hang on a minute, hoss ...

I know that you like to pretend to be non-partisan, but gimme a break here.

Some Democrats (and some Republicans, too) who originally supported the war are beginning to question it. Some have broken ranks entirely and called for withdrawal.

Not all Democrats have broken with the war. Not all Republicans are supporting it whole-heartedly.

If they believe that part of the reason for their initial support was that they were fed bad/manipulated intelligence, how does stating that now make them mindless twats?

Are you saying that the House/Senate Intelligence Agency failed to give them good independent information?

Oh, wait ... there is no House/Senate Intelligence Agency, is there?

[Dravyk]

It's a scary thread when the posts are long, yet mine are of the shortest. ;)

[JR]

Now hang on a minute, hoss ...

I know that you like to pretend to be non-partisan, but gimme a break here.

Some Democrats (and some Republicans, too) who originally supported the war are beginning to question it. Some have broken ranks entirely and called for withdrawal.

Not all Democrats have broken with the war. Not all Republicans are supporting it whole-heartedly.

If they believe that part of the reason for their initial support was that they were fed bad/manipulated intelligence, how does stating that now make them mindless twats?

Are you saying that the House/Senate Intelligence Agency failed to give them good independent information?

Oh, wait ... there is no House/Senate Intelligence Agency, is there?


When have I ever claimed to be non-partisan? There is a difference between partisan politics and objective reality. I have always admitted that my thinking favors the conservative side... ok.. i made a simple fucking mistake and could not think of correct name of the committee that that the CIA etc is accountable to. big fucking deal! Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Is that good enough for you? I watched all the testimony on CSPAN. They were presented with all the intelligence and they have access to almost ALL intelligence that the president does. Do you even know how your own government works? Do you think the CIA answers to no one? I watched them asking questions. I watched as much of the hearings as I could when they were presenting the case to go to war. Its all a matter of public record.

Everyone voted to authorize the use of force in dealing with Iraq. Everyone knew what it meant. Bush was very upfront about his agenda for regime change in Bagdad from the first days of his presidency. Everyone in the country supported it after 9/11 except Michael Moore and Sean Penn and the Dixy Chicks The evidence surrounding the idea that they were some sort of "immenent threat" was ALWAYS WEAK. Colin Powells presentation to the UN was even more pathetic.

My point is simply that no normal person could possibly say "you know, i was on the fence about the whole war thing... until Bush made a clear and solid case for it" - people had opinions before that. People wanted it. My personal belief is that Bush had little to nothing to do with anyones support of attacking Iraq. He was an idiot then. He is an idiot today.

Is it ok to be upset that Bush lied about or embellished the evidence? Of course. Is it ok to sit back and say "bush lied about the reasons to go to war so Bush is a war criminal and I was tricked into supporting the war" - uhm.... I think not.

I supported the idea of attacking Iraq. I do today. I am not saying I am right... or that there is a right and wrong on the issue. I have always believed that the world is much better off with these countries being put on notice. The last thing you will ever hear from me is "gee... i just didn't have an opinion until Bush gives it to me" and the most ironic thing is that is what Liberals and democrats are basically saying today... because its politically convenient and its a way for them to reconcile their own behavior and support of war.

Other than that... we are basically saying the same thing. I don't really even get your point.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

[JR]

If anyone wants to play innocent and claim they were tricked by Dubya... therefore not responsible for their positions on the war... i suggest you do a little reading on the intelligence that was presented to the government before the fact and their report on it... Democrats and Republicans alike had more than enough info to make an educated decision about starting a war.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

saying "Bush lied" is nothing more than easy out for those who regret thier decisions or the ranting of those who hated him anyway. I am soooo totally amazed that Liberals can claim that the worlds dumbest leader to assume power without the use of force pulled off the con of a lifetime and tricked each and every person who supported and even voted for the war.

[PornoDoggy]

Just to prove that I do know a little about how the government works, the data provided to all members of Congress in closed session(s), and provided in more detail to the Select Committee, came from the CIA. The CIA has sat on the Executive Branch side of the little organizational chart used to teach Middle School students about government since 1948-ish.

My point is simple, JR.

Part of the reason that some people - and some members of Congress - supported the war is that the President of the United States told them it was necessary for X, Y, and Z reasons. Maybe he claimed X because of an intelligence "failure". Y and Z were still lies.

Not George W. Bush, mind you - the President of the United States.

Now, maybe a political sophisticate such as you isn't vulnerable to that.

It got me, and I'm a pretty cynical son-of-a-bitch.

There are morons who believe that the Islamic fundamentalists can be dealt with by some method other than rendering them dead - the Michael Moore types, if you will.

Trying to paint Rep. John Murtha as Michael Moore is the height of ignorance.

I don't find the waning support for the war on the part of liberals and Democrats any more "ironic" than I do the sudden concern with human rights and nation-building on the part of conservatives and Republicans that developed as soon as the WMD pretense became untenable.

I have no doubt that some members of both parties are changing sides for political expediency. That is obviously easier for Democrats.

I don't think that's the only reason they are doing so. Again, maybe that's because I'm not the political sophisticate that you are, but I think some people are changing sides because the facts and the situation on the ground in Iraq warrants it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the fact that he lied is of far less importance to me than the fact that he put American military personnel in harm's way without using enough of them in a way designed to secure victory.

I think that Bush wants to keep the discussion on who supported what when, because if and when the nation has a serious dialog about how he conducted the war itself, he and the Republican Party will suffer a setback that will make the post-Watergate period seem like a victory.

[JR]

PD i agree with you. I will just sum up my own feelings by saying that I am a bit disgusted by the mantra being chanted by all... "bush lied" and the similar remarks. The people making those remarks had an opinion without Bush. Liberals were not sitting on the edge of their seat, biting their nails waiting to hear what Bush said before the fact so they could have an opinion. Now, everyone trys to act as though they were. 1/2 the idiots in this country still think Iraq is linked to 9/11... which is more the point i am trying to make.

Again, i agree with most of what you are saying and we are saying a lot of the same things. I am not trying to paint any black and white pictures here or oversimplify complexities of the events leading up to the war.

[PornoDoggy]

I guess what confuses me is that the fact that, as you point out, the "1/2 [of] the idiots in this country still think Iraq is linked to 9/11..." proves that idiocy, like honor, is not restricted to either side of center.

I don't find the actions of those who are changing sides in the debate on the war any more deplorable than those who continue to cling to justifications that have proven to be false, or who have blithely adopted whatever rationale for the war that has most recently come out of the White House Press Office.

Let me put it to you this way – I agree that the way some politicians who are liberals, or are regarded as liberals, have conducted themselves with regard to their position on the war does not reflect honorably on them.

That being said – IMHO, the way some politicians who are conservative, or are regarded as conservatives, have conducted themselves with regard to justifying and/or defending the war reflects on them no more honorably.

Arguing that one or the other is more dishonorable is … well, the best technical term I can come up with is “downright stupid.”

[sarettah]

Ok, gonna throw my two cents in here.

I am fairly intelligent, and I am fairly liberal, and I was against the idea of going into Iraq right up to the day that Colin Powell went in front of the U.N.

That day while he was being televised laying out all the intel before th UN, I turned to Jen and said "Well, if Colin Powell is saying it, I will back him on it. They know a whole lot more than we do". If I check back on the board I think I will even find a couple of posts to that effect.

So, when it turned out that Colin Powell himself felt betrayed I definitely became one of the "These guys are lying" crowd.

So, did I have my own opinion. Yes. Was my opinion for the war before that. No. Was my opinion for the war after that. No. Was my opinion swayed to the point that I would shut my mouth and let them do what they had persuaded me they needed to do. Yes.

Spin is about changing opinion. The Bush administration put all sorts of spin on this thing in order to change our opinions. That they were successful speaks well of their P.R. machine but since it turns out that they sold us a bill of goods, it leaves them open to be called liars. (Back in my childhood we would have tarred and feathered them and rode them out of town on a rail)

[JR]

I guess what confuses me is that the fact that, as you point out, the "1/2 [of] the idiots in this country still think Iraq is linked to 9/11..." proves that idiocy, like honor, is not restricted to either side of center.

I don't find the actions of those who are changing sides in the debate on the war any more deplorable than those who continue to cling to justifications that have proven to be false, or who have blithely adopted whatever rationale for the war that has most recently come out of the White House Press Office.

Let me put it to you this way – I agree that the way some politicians who are liberals, or are regarded as liberals, have conducted themselves with regard to their position on the war does not reflect honorably on them.

That being said – IMHO, the way some politicians who are conservative, or are regarded as conservatives, have conducted themselves with regard to justifying and/or defending the war reflects on them no more honorably.

Arguing that one or the other is more dishonorable is … well, the best technical term I can come up with is “downright stupid.”

PD, I dont think anyone or any party has the monopoly on idiocy, morality, truth or honor. I am not really interested in partisan politics as much as i was commenting on Democrats behavior today in the sense that they all deny any responsibility for their support of the war. I dont think Republicans are better or more right on any issue. But today, it's not the right that is screaming out "bush lied"... and little else. I am not defending anyone, much less Bush. I just started getting more and more annoyed by the "we were lied to" banter as that suggests that no one had an opinion without Bush giving it to them... or that no info was available to form an opinion on the issue in spite of a couple months of heated international debate before the UN and elswhere, endless debate and congressional hearings and so on.

My point is simply that everyone had more than enough info to have an opinion and most people did without Bush and anything he had to say. Their case was always weak. From day 1, they really made no sense and kept trying to make a weak connection to terrorism and security. They were reaching and the world agreed. AMERICANS did not agree. AMERICANS wanted to fight. Colin Powell went to the UN and gave the most pathetic performance i have ever seen leaving even me saying to myself "holy shit.. i sure hope to god they have more than this if they want international support to justify invading a country".

[PornoDoggy]

First of all, JR, as far as I can tell your whole point is "Democrats are bad."

Second, your statement that "From day 1, they ... kept trying to make a weak connection to terrorism and security." is at best misleading.

From day 1 , it was all about WMD. Iraqi possession of WMD would have presented a threat to United States interests in the region. Attempts to tie Iraq to the war on terror were secondary until even Cheney couldn't use the WMD line with a straight face.

The bad information on WMD had been floating around for a decade (end of first Gulf War). The additional disinformation came from the the right.

Personally, I haven't heard any Democrats denying responsibility for their support of the war.

I have heard Democrats saying that they based that support on bad information and on disinformation.

I don't agree that the actions of the Administration had little impact on why people voted to go to war, although I can see why you'd want to believe that.