Boy Cheney/Rove had a lot of power during the Clinton administration!

That the press doesn’t mention these other democrat examples of hypocrisy is mind-boggling:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction program.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs.”
– Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

What I found annoying about Bush’s handling of Iraq was that the reasons for invading kept changing; first it was WMDs (I remember watching Colin Powell presenting the “evidence”), then it wasn’t. Then it was links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then it wasn’t. Then it was to save Iraq from a cruel dictator, and that seems to be the last explanation. But in a world full of cruel dictators, why Iraq in particular? Why the only secular country in that area? Since the “liberation”, gay people there have had a much tougher time of it, sharia law seems imminent, and with that comes a kind of conservatism that I think even the most far right American conservative would find creepy. Or perhaps not.

As for torture, the tricky thing about waterboarding and such is that under ideal conditions it may be monitored carefully, etc, but if that kind of thing becomes a regular habit, instead of something reserved for extreme cases (as things do when they are made an acceptable norm), then this will be done more often, and under less-than-ideal, stressful conditions by people under a lot of pressure to produce results, and will inevitably result in more extreme methods and abuse of people who genuinely know nothing. The “interrogation professionals” are only human, after all. Get used to driving 80mph, and 100mph is pretty easy to slip into.

Considering how angry this little boy seems to be, I can’t imagine how the hell he’s able to get out of bed in the morning.

You could follow your own advice, and re-read Bush’s speech, if you care about this subject so much and presume to pontificate on it. But nobody here expects you to. We know that would be asking way too much of you.

If the President lied, then they all lied. They all made the same decision based on the same information. No one is responsible for their vote except the individual who cast said vote.

I say to you now, this will never happen. As the Dems attempt this charade, the truth will reveal itself and they will once again have egg on their face.

My hope is that they perform this behavior in front of all the media, for the world to see.

Of course, when it comes to those plans actually being in the hands of a dictator who had the uranium, the technology, the scientific knowledge, the money, and the wink from the UN to actually build it, no, that was no threat to the US at all.

Right.

again, I can’t believe there are people who actually enjoy talking about this stuffd 3 and a half years into this. all the possible directions for this dialogue are in billions of pages all over the net. if you actually wanted to know the answers you could try and find them. you’re on the internet after all. to continue to play this right wing 3 card monte in 2006 is ridiculous. the jury is very in: there was no mahammed atta meeting, no yellow cake from niger, no mobile labs, no aluminum tubes. it was a lie. everything powell said at the UN was as good as made up.

Kind of like today’s leftists who have also pretty much “made up their minds” to support the other side in the war and hate Bush no matter what (per Dan’s original point in this thread).

Before that mentality set up – guess who else “made up their minds” that Saddam positively had to go? The Democrats in Congress. Go and google “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998″.

While the substance of your post only serves to illustrate the intellectual honesty with which the majority of people on this board conduct themselves, calling upon the liberals here to do likewise is about as likely as al-Queda deciding to convert to Catholicism.

Nope MA, arguing Bush wanted the military to expand the WOT to Iraq and worked nat’l and intern’l events to a point where most politicians were on board before they decided it was politically prudent to get off-board… that is exactly what Dan is trying to point out. It fails the sniff test (please see gryph for a recap of recent lessons he learned the hard way on sniff tests).

You guys on the Left can throw out the nonsense left and right, 24×7, but it’s still nonsense without substance. Like those tidbits from the DailyKos… “this war has lasted longer than WWII” (ignore the fact the deaths are less than 1/10% of WWII’s total) or arguing that CindySheehan is gaining ground on the PR anti-war front.

Sorry, to debunk your spinnings doesn’t reduce to the postulate that I think Bush is a saint. Nice try at painting the issue into an untenable corner, but that ain’t working for you, MA. Bush is no saint… but did he deliberately expand the WOT to Iraq so that he could avenge his Daddy’s honor? What rubbish.

BTW, M.A… a quick querry for you? Who were you before you became M.A? That syntax and sentence structure looks very very familiar.

Plausible, implausible, whatever. Now you’re just talking in hypotheticals. You apparently missed the entire point of this thread. Try reading it again.

When it comes to a supreme court nomination, all we here is “checks and balance, checks and balance.” Where the hell was that oversite before the war?

You can be certain that had Bush not gone to war, they’d be up in arms about it. In fact, no matter what Bush did, they’d have been up in arms about it. Failed to secure the ports? Up in arms. Oversecuring the borders? Up in arms. And on and on…

I’m tiring of it all.

You mean to say your fantasy of an all-liberal America has finally come to pass?

My God, dear, SNAP OUT OF IT!!!