No, you just demand that everyone else do it. Right-o.

Nobody sensible is hiding Saddam’s wretched record. What a ludicrous claim.

I cited two links in which people, including the head of a major media organization, specifically admitted to hiding information about Saddam’s record. We won’t even go into the massive coverups at the UN involving “oil-for-food”.

What is being forgotten, though, is the fact that the US invasion, to say nothing of sanctions beforehand, have resulted in far more deaths than under Saddam in the last 10 years.

Oh? And what’s your source for THAT claim?

Really, I do want to see someone who makes that comparison. In general, the media never has, because they know that their inflated “100,000″ figure looks pretty pathetic next to the estimated millions that Saddam imprisoned, tortured, and murdered, plus the mass genocides against the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and Shi’ites.

Preznit Chimpy can talk all he wants about the valiant sacrifice for freedom but the Iraqi people had NO choice in that sacrifice. This war had nothing to do with that and by a huge margin, they want us out of their country.

Ah yes, the “if they had really wanted Saddam gone, they would have rebelled” argument.

Problem is, they did rebel — early and often. Indeed, the reason Saddam systematically exterminated hundreds of thousands of them throughout the previous ten years was BECAUSE they, their spouse, their parents, their next-door neighbor, their cousin on the other side of the country, or whoever had rebelled.

Furthermore, wanting us “out of their country” is far different than wanting Saddam back. Since you and your fellow leftists want to take the will of the Iraqi people into account, why not ask them what they prefer — your choice to leave them under Saddam in perpetuity, or what they have now?

The effort nearly four years later to establish a signficicant connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is pathetic.

And a big slap in the face to those of you who denied it, it seems.

We have known that a connection existed. The documents emerging are merely corrolaries to what was known at a much higher level and directed the decisions.

But, since you staked so much on denying Saddam’s brutality, insisting the Iraqis were better off under him, and pretending that no such connection existed, I can understand why you protest so much now.

Nobody sensible is hiding Saddam’s wretched record. What a ludicrous claim. What is being forgotten, though, is the fact that the US invasion, to say nothing of sanctions beforehand, have resulted in far more deaths than under Saddam in the last 10 years. Preznit Chimpy can talk all he wants about the valiant sacrifice for freedom but the Iraqi people had NO choice in that sacrifice. This war had nothing to do with that and by a huge margin, they want us out of their country.

The effort nearly four years later to establish a signficicant connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is pathetic. I’m well familiar with the neocon argument, significant connection or not, and even Francis Fukuyama has abandoned it. When you’re in your rocker at the nursing home, NDT, you’ll still be manufacturing “evidence” that the invasion of Iraq was sensible, not because of any rationale the administration provided the American people, but because you staked so much on it. You’ll still be blaming the media and liberal homos for the failure of of the rest of the wworld to see things the way you did way back when.

It is going to be fascinating to see where ultra rightwing homos are going to land when the corruption of the Bush administration comes to full light. Perhaps you will continue ranting about Clinton’s perjury over a blow job and John Kerry’s failure to get on board with gay marriage while this generation’s heirs are left to deal with pre-emptive war, a huge deficit, and major social problems left to grow untreated. “Yeah but Clinton fucked the face of his intern and lied about it.”

Maybe you can explain to us why that’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to strip gays of rights by state constitutional amendment, especially since that’s what HRC, NGLTF, and the others all claimed.

Ah, but there’s a difference.

Bush never said that Saddam was not in cahoots with al-Qaeda.

What Bush said was that Saddam was probably not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

What IS coming to light is that Saddam’s involvement with al-Qaeda not only existed, but was rather extensive, and included plans for attacking the US and US interests.

Meanwhile, Nit, the evidence is there that you and your fellow liberals deliberately hid information concerning Saddam’s brutality and are deliberately downplaying events like these. Furthermore, you encouraged “inspections”, even though the evidence is also indisputable that Saddam paid both UN diplomats and UN member governments to prevent and sabotage them.

What you and the liberals have done to punish Bush for daring to put an end to your selfish exploitation of billions of dollars in hush money from Saddam Hussein is to launch a campaign of deliberate distortion, hiding the brutal practices of Saddam Hussein in the name of “dealing peace”. Mainly because you know the American public would never tolerate people like yourself admitting the truth about the millions that Saddam brutalized, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered — especially since you a) covered it up and b) went to war with Slobodan Milosevic over far less.

No, Fitz’s investigation doesn’t extend to Cheney and Bush; that doesn’t mean people aren’t free to speculate and establish another inquiry.

Yes, I know. It’s all a grand conspiracy of the MSM to discredit George Bush. Even though the vast majoirty supported the Iraq invasion and even though the majority of working newspeople (according to E&P polls) voted for Bush, they’ve suddenly turned against him for no good reason, ignoring the “mountain of evidence” that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, even though Bush himself admitted he was not. But leave it to the gay pats to establish as fact what Bush himself discounts.

It must be difficult to see your man going down the tubes. It’s hard enough to be a gay Republican but to have your leader turn out to be the despised subject of impeachment discusson must be galling. Where will this leave you? I’ve often wondered why you people defend what even a growing number of Republican mainstreamers reject and now I realize that without Bush, your fearless effort to challenge the gay status quo by aligning yourselves with a colossal loser makes you look pathetic.

And that’s what offends you about Andrew Sullivan. He’s jumping ship before he ends up looking like a total moron, all the while claiming he was never THAT supportive.

Someone needs to study the way the gene pools of gay REpublicans and lemings intersect.

1) If sexual orientation is malleable and changeable, it no longer suffices as an excuse for gay misbehavior.

2) Transgender ADDS to the “potential victim to be manipulated towards our ends” for the gay left. Exodus subtracts another person from the pool; since NGLTF and HRC are paid by the various leftist groups to whom they provide marchers on a per-head basis, it diminishes profits and salaries for their leaders.

Why is it we are supposed to cheer when someone chemically and surgically mutilates their body so that they can become a crude facsimile of the sex they would choose to be, but we’re supposed to recoil in horror when someone attempts through therapy to have the sexual orientation they would choose to have?

Actually, the truth on that one is far less exciting.

You see, I didn’t ask Ian to leave; I merely called him on his bluff when he threatened to do so.

Might be a useful lesson for future reference.

“Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth… [After being exposed, he] subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him [by blowing Plame's 'cover']…After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge. In last week’s court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not [repeat NOT] authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity…

“As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby’s indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It’s unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.”

Is this a general rule or just one you’ve decided to apply to me alone?

I have repeatedly stated that if you or GP ask me to leave, I will. (And NDT for one knows I will surely do so.) But don’t hide behind arbitrary and petty “rules” that let you avoid telling me to my (virtual) face that YOU don’t want me to comment anymore.

[Please keep commenting, but address the points we've made. I love a good debate, love it when people challenge my ideas, but you have in this thread by and large not done so. --GPW]

You’re the one going on ad nauseum here about Joe Wilson – or, to put it most precisely, about Fitzgerald’s junkyard-dog investigation of the Wilson-Plame affair.

And yet, at the same time, managing to evade relevant facts, considerations and questions. Isn’t that interesting?

For joint illustration of both points, see #5, #13, #15, #21, #25, #30, with still further allusions to Fitzgerald’s investigation from Wilson-Plame in #22, #28.

“It is fascinating how you refuse to address the points in my post — how you dodge the discussion by attacking the Administration any which way you can.”

Dan, thus far from our discussions I have gathered that your policy is to allow this charade with Ian & Co. to continue in the interest of not only encouraging free debate, but allowing the fools to continue exposing just how dishonest they truly are.

Therefore, in the interest of perhaps elaborating my position, we may do well to consider the similar approach the German Jews took towards the Nazis.

And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a Cub game to watch.

Eric in Hollywood

Certainly, I’m not the only person here who sees this – it’s textbook Clinton-era distortion, and a perfect example of how this particular troll steadfastly cannot tolerate anything resembling a conservative mindset.

This is the crux of my issue with Ian, and to a large extent, the point of this entire thread. Faced with the truth of the matter, the MSM refuses to admit that which every other rational, sentient being seems to know is true.

For those who passionately share Ian’s dangerously negligent worldview, the following equation best applies:

2 + 2 = 5. Why? Because “Bushco” has criminally altered basic mathematics.

I beg of you, Dan & Bruce, do not allow this simpleton to think he’s contributing anything to this discussion other than senseless, patent fantasy. To do so is tantamount to surrender. He can do nothing to further conservatism, and to permit him to continue under color of “allowing the left to expose their own insanity” is analogous to taunting a wounded rattlesnake.

Sooner or later, you’re gonna get bit.

So far no one has substantiated the MSM and Left’s claim that the intelligence was twisted (prior to the Iraq War). And recent documents released by the Pentagon confirm the wisdom of the president’s decision to go to war — by showing Saddam’s intentions to deceive the UN and acquire WMDs as that one-time tyrant was working with terrorist organizations and developing his own plans to bomb “U.S. facilities and personnel.”

You rant on and on (and on and on) about (what you call) the Rubber Stamp Republicans at the same time the media is full of stories about divisions in the GOP and Republicans distancing themselves from the Administration.

The more you comment, the more you make one of my points — that all too many on the Left are more interested in savaging the President of the United States than in considering the record of his Administration.

It is fascinating how you refuse to address the points in my post — how you dodge the discussion by attacking the Administration any which way you can.

Perhaps I shouldn’t indulge you by taking the time to take issue with your unfounded attacks. But, I do enjoy writing.