Hey Hankster, please provide an example of one person tortured.

Thanks for caving, Jimmy. Nice to see.

Comment 24 -

Yes Bob – they saw the exact same National Intelligence Estimate that the President saw.

They didn’t see the President’s Daily Briefs – HOWEVER – the Robb-Silverman Commission found that those briefs were produced (and fed to the Administration) by the same intelligence “professionals” as the NIE, and, were even more un-ambiguous and alarmist than the NIE given to both the Administration and Congress.

So Congress was given a more complete, more carefully nuanced version of the intelligence than the President was given. And it was only 93 pages long or whatever (I read documents like that for breakfast). And the Democrats had time to read it. And they still reached the conclusion they reached – i.e., that Saddam was a gathering threat and Coalition action to remove him was right.

Just give him a couple days to make something up.

#27

Hardly. But I am sick to death of pathological liars on the left and their Screw America disinformation campaign of propaganda.

Fire away. I’m more than happy for the opportunity to educate.

What intelligence did they have, oh wise and all knowing dumbass? Where’s your proof that Bush lied? What’s that based on other than blind seething rage?

Where is the proof?

“This amount of Anthrax (pointing to a 5lb bag of sugar) could be spread over a city-let’s say the size of Washington. It would destroy at least half the population of that city” Holding up a small vial, “VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such-one single drop will kill you within a few minutes”. Clinton Defesnse Secretary William Cohen on ABC’s This Week underscoring the threat from Iraq, 16 November 1997

Sound familiar? Col. Powell has been mocked and criticized by liberals for the same thing. Now let’s look at an example of how “secular” Saddam Hussein was.

“In the name of God, the most merciful, the most passionate, all great people, those who are satisfying the nation with glory and Jihad, the sons of our Arab glorious nation, the failures have come back again to Baghdad. They have come come back to the steadfast Baghdad, the symbol of every noble city. And they have come back to the City of God the Greatest, bearing with them the failure that they have encountered which has run for all their previous trials, which started two years back until the day of turning back on the 13th of this month…
Attack them, our beloved people. You are the glory of our nation. Attack them. God, his prophets, and his angels and his soldiers are standing beside you. Attack because this is the day of defense, where we’l see the sun which will never fade from it in order that it will be, and all Arabs and faithful people will be at the grade which God has bestowed upon them in the great side with their faith which is ceaseless and everlasting glory in the past, present, and future, the doors of which are open to all glory. Here our souls will be satisfied.” –Liberal hero Saddam Hussein announcing “the day of battle has come”, 17 Januay 1993

Doesn’t sound very secular, eh?

Shall I go on, GayCow?

How about these, Gay Cow?

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

Or how about this:

“Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.” – Lord BJ Clinton, 31 October 1998

Or this:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime. – Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Go F**k yourself, assclown.

Words have meanings regardless of their use in sentences. There’s no reason to repeat “intended meaning.” But why not, when that item, too, is a talking point these days?

I must go practice my enunciation of “pernicious” and the scowl that must compliment it, one that will clearly manifest how much of a victim I am as the Democrats continue to attack my party.

Pernicious, pernicious, pernicious….grrrrrrrrrr.

If you ever thought “I wonder what it would be like to have a media that hates the sitting, majority-elected President, even though he’d done nothing like Watergate and actually defended the country”: this is it. A new breathless, angry storm of coverage over some newly invented non-issue, every time you turn your head.

With the President then inevitably dropping to 39% in the polls, and people going “See?! See?!” like he should resign, despite the fact that 39% is historically good for second-term Presidents.

Instapundit makes a good point about the new White Phosphorus brouhaha:

if WP is a form of chemical WMD (that America consequently should never employ), then Saddam absolutely had WMD stockpiles (as he had WP stockpiles) and the war was justified.