Bluffing? You mean when he was repeatedly denying that he had WMD’s? This is a right-wing yarn that has gained momentum over the past several years, retroactively, to suggest that Saddam Hussein was trying to mislead the world community into thinking he had WMD’s. The trouble with this story? There’s absolutely no evidence to support it. What we do have, however, is an extensive history of Saddam Hussein repeatedly denying that he had WMD’s. How are you construing that as a “bluff”?

And for the purposes of argument, let’s take as fact your assertion that “most” believed Saddam Hussein had WMD’s before the invasion. Whose fault is that? The Bush administration that cherry-picked the intelligence to bolster their case for war? Or the media that uncritically reported government propaganda as fact?

What I want to talk about is Jeremiah Wright, bitter-gate, and whether or not Barack Obama likes to drink orange juice. Because that’s what we “real Americans” like me care about.

Geebutz.

I’ll give the Cap’n this much; he was far more clever about his agenda than most of the trolls here.

Furthermore, concealing details from our, duly elected, legislative branch is, at best, dishonorable. At worst? It’s treasonous.

Rice and Powell both new months prior to 9/11 that Saddam was not a threat. Check out the link below for complete information.

Either Bush was kept out of the loop (unlikely, yet if true, a very dangerous situation considering that he IS the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and as he likes to remind us, it is his Constitutional duty to protect us from attack) or he ignored that with which he disagreed (very likely).

There is also evidence that within days of 9/11, the administration set its sights on Iraq (you’ll recall Rummy’s declaration that Iraq had more targets).

Link.

Knock yourself out.

backup Says:
Most believed that he did at the time. But, Saddam was bluffing.

Excuse me?!
I knew, Hans Blix knew, Germany knew, France knew. Hell everyone knew that gave a damn. You are not here because you believe that crap, you are here just as Ralph has pointed out….to rub our noses in your excrement. I fingered you a long time ago and let Ralph and some others convince me that you were here to discuss…..bullshit.

The question becomes, did Bush know before that Saddam didn’t have them. If he didn’t know, it wasn’t a crime. It was a mistake, due to faulty intelligence.”

Even this is a a bullshit piece of spin. This traitorous cabal in the Whitehouse has been spinning the meme of the WMD MANY, MANY years after its PROOF that there was none. So, the bullshit line “due to faulty intelligence” could NEVER have happened as they were in control of ALL of the intelligence, that which DISPROVED them, that which they funneled to CONGRESS, and that which they narrowly allowed to be offered to the public through their Murdoch controlled and GE controlled FREIGHTWING media. So, do not let this lying sack of shit tell you anything different. They lied, they KNEW THEY LIED, THERE IS AMPLE evidence all over the U.S. England, Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan that they lied, They are CrRIMINALS and even a second year law student could prove their guilt. They need to be arrested, tried and HUNG for treason. Plain and simple. No spinning, or bullshit about “evidence” is going to take our eye from that prize of seeing george and dick swing from the gallows.

“See george swing.” A new children’s book, to replace My Pet Goat,” for the kids in Florida to read.

We could care less about pardons or not, The Hague don’t listen to no pardons dumbfu(k. Your boys are going down, and going down HARD. Get ready to be SHOCKED AND AWED by the might and power of reality. You have danced around it for 7 years now, time to pay the piper.
backup, you are doomed. You already know that as you are probably posting from Dubai as I type.

backup Says:

ralph. I know you think I’m an idiot. But, please bare with me.

Cap’n, I understand what you’re saying. My criticism wasn’t based on some misunderstanding of your point. It was rather based on a pretty solid understanding of it.

The conclusions you draw and present as evidence that the president did not lie us into a war are very weak.

You assume that if Bush did in fact lie to get us into war a) Democrats in Congress would have evidence of those lies, b) that evidence would be compelling enough to assure conviction and c) Democrats would find it politically expedient to impeach.

This “logic” ignores the likelihood that a) the most secretive White House in history would work very very hard at both skating to the edge of falsehood (the phrase plausible deniability comes to mind) and keeping the lid on any evidence (millions of missing emails come to mind), b) the razor-thin margin in the Senate would make conviction very difficult to achieve, and c) Democrats might feel that the good of the party comes before the good of the country (a lesson learned at the feet of Newt, Trent, and Dubya) and their electoral prospects are better served by keeping the most upopular president in history around at least through the election, in order to hang him around the neck of McSame.

In short, Cap’n your argument is spurious, unsophisticated and weak.

I don’t think you’re an idiot — your use of language says you have some education — I just think you’re here to amuse yourself at our expense and you don’t really care whether you make sense or not.

Otherwise, I can’t understand how someone who writs reasonably well can argue so consistently poorly.

In retrospect, I think the invasion into Iraq was a mistake. (I just don’t believe Bush new there were no WMD before hand). I also believe that oil could have been one of the many reasons we went.

I also believe that Afghanistan should be and should have been the focus. I support what I believe is a combination of McCain’s securing Iraq and Obama’s refocus on Afghanistan (I know the problem is more troops and money).

In hindsight (for me) the invasion into Iraq was a mistake (we had more time to do it peacefully).

And the war was mismanaged (especially under Rumsfeld).

I do think that the major reason the US went to war was for oil, but there were other personal reasons for Bush II, and neocon reasons. The problem is, they did such a stupid job of managing the war, the oil issue was overtaken by the continuing need to justify our presence, and most of the world, including much of America (I believe unrightly so) would not support “war for Oil”. I was totally against the war from June 2002 when I realized what was going to happen. Having served in VIetNam, and study a bit of insurgent warfare, any reason but for oil was ridiculous. I don’t intend to write a book here about why the war was stupid, but suffice it to say that if it were for oil, I could support the premise for going in, but I could never support the stupid way it was planned and managed. And, as I felt during my stays in VietNam, I wish my military leadership had lived up to their obligations then, as I wish they had lived up their obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any second lieutenant of infantry would hav known that a blocking force was needed at the Afghan border if we were going to capture OSL. So, in my humble opinion, Gen Tommy Franks earned his Medal of Freedom either because he was following orders because Bush needed a demon, or he was dumber than a second lieutenant. Either way, Bush showed his colors.

Oh to live on Yucca Mountain
With the criminals and the colored baloons.

backup (of bush Traitors Inc) Says:

“A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Even though the economy has been experiencing very slow growth, we have yet to have even one quarter of negative GDP growth.”

See it does not matter what the rest of the world, the overwhelming vast majority of economists and everyone else in the know, even the fed says we are in a recession. The Traitors have a “Metric” and they have fudged everything in the the economy to not let that metric fall, Ergo, No recession. Forget about the foreclosures, the credit crises, and the fall of the dollar, and the loss of American manufacturing, and on and on. The metric has not fallen. It reminds me of Caddyshack, when at the end the whole golf course is blowing up, and Brian-Doyle Murray is sitting with his face right up to the teetering gold ball on the side of the cup, and it happens to fall into the cup when a HUGE explosion happens. Unfortunately, the bushit trators Inc, will not “Win” when the metric (ball falling in the cup) happens. WE all will lose.

Also reminds me of Animal House and Kevin Bacon trying to calm the rioters at the parade, “ALL IS WELL, ALL IS WELL”

“Death to the king” May his protoplasm rot for eternity, or be sent to the sun to never allow humanity to experience its dna again. YEs that includes all the rest of “them.”

If a bank is missing a million dollars suddenly but no one knows who took it does that mean no crime was committed?

Fred. It’s a little different. Bush took us to war under the assumption that Saddam had WMD. Most believed that he did at the time. But, Saddam was bluffing.

The question becomes, did Bush know before that Saddam didn’t have them. If he didn’t know, it wasn’t a crime. It was a mistake, due to faulty intelligence.

Progressives want to open up the records, even if there is no evidence of criminality, it would probably be politically embarrassing.

Conservatives (or Bush supporters) can assert that opening up the records could be detrimental to our security or to the effort in Iraq. They also see the potential for political embarrasment and distraction, they would rather avoid.

It boils down to this: If the Democrats in Congress were confident enough of the evidence being there (and it being more significant than just politically embarrasing) they would get the support to get it done. They would feel obligated to right the wrong. They’re not that confident. And a partisan, circumstantial attack could also be embarrassing.

I believe Democrats are content to let the assumption of guilt to persist (take a look at Bush’s approval ratings and negatives) without jeopardizing it with an impeachment.