Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says

He argued that Iraq was the "heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated on Sept. 11. "If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Cheney said.

Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?

What Bush and Cheney Said

Less open to interpretation is what Bush and Cheney said in the past. They both described a strong, dangerous connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

In his State of the Union address shortly before the war began, Bush said "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda," and suggested that Saddam might provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And earlier, Cheney described Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists" and "the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States." Cheney spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we?re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it?s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it?s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it?s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Just for starters. Google has plenty more where those came from. Now, if you want to defend "leaders" who try to play fast and loose with the truth to get their agenda through then, after their lies are exposed, play some school yard game trying to deny they meant to erroneously influence perception then by all means keep supporting Bush/Cheney.

I don't like "leaders" who influence public opinion with ambiguous statements they and their supporters then redefine after the facts become too plain for them to ignore any longer.

They are incompetent, unrepentent liars and the people who follow them are fools.

Nothing you linked has a claim by the admin that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Try to wriggle and "interpret" all you want but you're simply wrong and the true facts are in plain view for all to see. Bush, Cheney, and Rice have all made specific statements claiming there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Merely mentioning the two together in the same paragraph does not make for a compelling case at all.

Are you really that thckheaded? The administration deliberately caused this confusion, and didn't it in a wa that excusers and appologists like you would believe him and support him in the way that you are. Just because he didn't say the words does not mean that he did not deliberately try to trick us/them into believing it, in fact it indicates that he did deliberately do it.

 

[Genx87]

Yet how actively did they try to disuade the public from linkage between 9/11 and Saddam?

Outside of being quoted on multiple occasions and going on talk shows like Meet the Press?
I really dont know how much they could have done outside of call a presidential conference during primetime television and state it.

Even then I bet you a good % of the people still wouldnt get it. The information was available and easy to find. If anybody was looking for a link it would be somebody like me. But they never said there was one. If I am looking for the link I am surprised so many liberals couldnt see the same. Instead they are falling back on the ignorance excuse and saying GWB tricked them into believing the link.

My opinion is the media spun the story so much that people bought into the link.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Can we have an impeachment yet?

Maybe in 2006, if we can get 51% of Americans to wise up and put in a Democratic Congress.

If Americans "Wise up" we'll put both the Democrats AND the Republicans out on their asses. However, keep dreaming

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yet how actively did they try to disuade the public from linkage between 9/11 and Saddam?

Outside of being quoted on multiple occasions and going on talk shows like Meet the Press?
I really dont know how much they could have done outside of call a presidential conference during primetime television and state it.

Even then I bet you a good % of the people still wouldnt get it. The information was available and easy to find. If anybody was looking for a link it would be somebody like me. But they never said there was one. If I am looking for the link I am surprised so many liberals couldnt see the same. Instead they are falling back on the ignorance excuse and saying GWB tricked them into believing the link.

My opinion is the media spun the story so much that people bought into the link.

So the liberal press supported the NeoCon agenda? I don't think so. I only recount what I saw and heard. I heard both the associations and the infrequent weak claims against association.

You and I see things different, but you and I know pols know how to work the public if they have any talent. This admin. does.

Why didn't CHeney just shut up about it?

An example of the "methinks they protest too much" principle.

TLC said something about semantics. I would argue that semantic use was an ally in selling the war.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So what is the answer to my quesiton, how would you spend the money IF you had that choice?

Nice change of topic. Lose one argument and start a new one.

If we werent in a war and we had 100 billion a year free to spend. I would spend it on paying down the debt.

If your Glorious Leader hadn't decided we needed a war, we would have an extra 100 billion dollars laying around. Whe we had 100 billion+ laying around, did he pay off the debt? Of course not, it was spent on wasteful and poorly thought out (although perhaps deliberately poorly thought out) taxcuts, and corporate entitlements.

However he actively tryed to connect the two, and talked about iraq and "terrorists" working together and all that, which was a bunch of bs.

Only in your mind did he try to connect them. Just because you bought into the media's ignorance is no excuse for not doing your own research. Funny how the two conservatives in this thread have known since day one what the administrations stance is on 9-11 and Iraq. Yet the enlightened libs still cant figure it out.

No i think we have it quite figured out. Bush systematically missled the american public into associating Al qaida and Saddam hussein, and did it knowingly in a way that we allow the excuses to let him off the hook.

 

[BBond]

Cheney linked Saddam and 9/11 on Press the Meat.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

You're attempting to turn this into a semantics game.

In case you hadn't noticed, politicians rarely speak in absolutes. The fact is, you can't prove Saddam had "absolutely" no connection to 9/11. He may have, directly or indirectly, and it just hasn't been uncovered yet or never will be. It would be stupid to claim he had "absolutely nothing to do with it."

The statements from the Bush admin were all they could say. There is no "proof" Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's all they could claim with any reasonable certainty.

I can never disprove that you aren't connected to 9/11. I say we invade your house and arrest you? Of course thats were the reasonable doubt thing comes in. We can very reasonably doubt that saddam was associated with 9/11.

 

[Genx87]

So the liberal press supported the NeoCon agenda. Ok.

I dont believe it was the neo-con agenda to push the link between 9-11 and Iraq.
But it sure was a good setup for the liberal press. It gave them more ammunition to call into question Bush's policies.

The media is very predictable and I saw this one coming from a million miles away.

If your Glorious Leader hadn't decided we needed a war, we would have an extra 100 billion dollars laying around.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

No i think we have it quite figured out. Bush systematically missled the american public into associating Al qaida and Saddam hussein, and did it knowingly in a way that we allow the excuses to let him off the hook.

By saying there is zero link between Iraq and 9-11?

How much more spelled out does it need to be for you?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Afghanistan is what it was before the U.S. invasion. Warlords run the vast majority of the country, poppy cultivation is at an all time high, and women are still treated as they were under the Taliban in most of the nation.

Missioned Accomplished.

Quick, give someone a medal. :roll:

Oh yeah. It's all the same.

Well except for women being allowed to work now. And get an education. And they are not required to wear burqas anymore.

And the country is more politically united than it has been in decades.

The Taliban is limited to being a problem in a few places in the south. Other than that it's relatively (in comparison to its past) peaceful there.

And the people voted for their president for the first time ever.

Are there still problems? Of course. However, anyone claiming it's the same as it ever was is simply not facing up to the facts or has unrealistic expectations of what constitutes change.

Yeah, right. And Osama isn't still roaming the countryside with the Taliban.

The U.S. brought change to Kabul. Period. And the people who found the back end on this made themselves and some energy companies a sizable profit from their gas pipeline venture that just happened to meld well with the overthrow of the Taliban.

Got to get those resources, after all.

 

[Genx87]

Cheney linked Saddam and 9/11 on Press the Meat.

Which episode?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Don't know if the article is accurate. It states that the US intercepted then altered the report before it reached the UN. However, it offers no evidence that it was even possible to do so nevermind proved that it happened. Wouldn't surprise me that it happened, but I wouldn't just assume just because some guy in Germany claims to have seen the original Iraqi report.

Well, it does beg for an answer to an important question: If the US "intercepted" this report (how was it transmitted? Mail? Email? Was it the ONLY copy in existence? If so, why?) how did they do so? And if it was the only copy, how did this guy get hold of it? If it WASN'T the only copy, why didn't SOMEONE get a copy of the full report sooner? Surely the person who originally TRANSMITTED the report would have a copy, as would, one would presume, his or her superiors.

It's weird. You so-called "liberals" are jumping at this in just the same way as the "conservatives" would jump at a pro-Bush story, which is to say: Without question, criticism or skepticism.

Maybe this has some truth, maybe it doesn't. I don't have a clue (nor, honestly, a care. Obviously I wish that all elected officials would be 100% honest with the public, but when has EITHER of the two major parties been upfront? Not in the 20th century, that's for sure, and so far...not in the 21st, either.)

Jason

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Cheney linked Saddam and 9/11 on Press the Meat.

Which episode?

Ya' see? I knew you weren't reading any of the links I posted.

That's why you live in the dark and think Bush is the light.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

You're attempting to turn this into a semantics game.

In case you hadn't noticed, politicians rarely speak in absolutes. The fact is, you can't prove Saddam had "absolutely" no connection to 9/11. He may have, directly or indirectly, and it just hasn't been uncovered yet or never will be. It would be stupid to claim he had "absolutely nothing to do with it."

The statements from the Bush admin were all they could say. There is no "proof" Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's all they could claim with any reasonable certainty.

Yet how actively did they try to disuade the public from linkage between 9/11 and Saddam?

I know politics exaggerate, and that is a kindness. I don't limit that to Bush. Clinton was good at it too. One reason I have a general distrust of political animals.

Given that pols lie/exagerate/cover their ass, intent and results count. That is why I voted for the first Bush over Clinton, and why I voted for GWB the first time around over Gore. IMO Gore was tainted by association. I took a chance on GWB, but I am greatly disappointed.

You may not be, but that's America. We have the right to call any leader an ass.

I never voted for Bush so I feel no guilt.

Feel free to call any leader an ass. Just use to the right reasons to do it. Using faulty "facts" is not the right reason.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: sandorski
Don't know if the article is accurate. It states that the US intercepted then altered the report before it reached the UN. However, it offers no evidence that it was even possible to do so nevermind proved that it happened. Wouldn't surprise me that it happened, but I wouldn't just assume just because some guy in Germany claims to have seen the original Iraqi report.

Well, it does beg for an answer to an important question: If the US "intercepted" this report (how was it transmitted? Mail? Email? Was it the ONLY copy in existence? If so, why?) how did they do so? And if it was the only copy, how did this guy get hold of it? If it WASN'T the only copy, why didn't SOMEONE get a copy of the full report sooner? Surely the person who originally TRANSMITTED the report would have a copy, as would, one would presume, his or her superiors.

It's weird. You so-called "liberals" are jumping at this in just the same way as the "conservatives" would jump at a pro-Bush story, which is to say: Without question, criticism or skepticism.

Maybe this has some truth, maybe it doesn't. I don't have a clue (nor, honestly, a care. Obviously I wish that all elected officials would be 100% honest with the public, but when has EITHER of the two major parties been upfront? Not in the 20th century, that's for sure, and so far...not in the 21st, either.)

Jason

^^^ You know you have them when they have to resort to the "they all do it so why not condemn them all" routine.

 

[Genx87]

Ya' see? I knew you weren't reading any of the links I posted.

That's why you live in the dark and think Bush is the light.

I was playing with you.

Either way grow up.

Your link again uses a bunch of conjecture and paints the picture by iteself of a connection. Read what it actually says and get back to us.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
None of the documentation either way changes the truth one whit. No nuclear program, no wmd's, no links to al qaeda worthy of the term- zero, zip, nada, nothing. Just a very expensive and fruitless war dragged in on the coattails of a lot of fearmongering and misdirection over 9/11, justified and sold on the basis of a great deal of supposition and cherry-picking of intelligence, much of it supplied by Iranian sponsored exile groups...

Whatever Blix believed, TLC, we'll never know unless he tells us, unless you can successfully represent yourself as the next Kreskin... but we know what he said, and that was that his work would be completed in a matter of months from march 7, 2003- months that the Bush admin refused to allow him in their rush to war...

Yeah, those pesky al quaeda training bases in Northern Iraq...nothing to worry about there! And hey, Osama on video proclaiming Al Zarqawi as his "man in Iraq" was probably just an actor hired by Bush! Saddam probably didn't even know they were there!

I mean honestly, people, THINK! I completely understand the hatred of Bush, hell *I* hate Bush (well, GEORGE Bush, anyway but that doesn't mean every conspiracy in the world centers around him! What is the difference between what you guys are doing here and what the Neocon crowd was doing when Clinton was in office? There is NO difference! You're looking for every flaw, every conspiracy, every mistake, every possible way to demonize this imbecile.

How about just taking recognition of the fact that when Bush leaves office we'll have had two solid DECADES of morons in the white house! Now THAT is some sad sh1t!

Jason

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Are you really that thckheaded?

Do you really feel the need to insult someone when you have a weak point to make?

The administration deliberately caused this confusion, and didn't it in a wa that excusers and appologists like you would believe him and support him in the way that you are. Just because he didn't say the words does not mean that he did not deliberately try to trick us/them into believing it, in fact it indicates that he did deliberately do it.

I'm just stating facts. I have no need to apologize, so your poor accusation has no roost to rest on.

Oh, look. You said "administration" and "support" in the same paragraph. I guess I should take this to mean that you actually support the administration? Of course you didn't say it directly, but one can infer that through obfuscation, grammatical eviseration, and a little tap dancing.

:roll:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Isn't it funny...so far, every pathetic attempt to counter the OP hasn't dealt with the actual FACTS the article tries to argue. Just more chickenhawks trying to find more reasons to excuse our blunders...

Chickenhawks? There are child molesters in this forum? Who?! Are they from Thailand?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

You're attempting to turn this into a semantics game.

In case you hadn't noticed, politicians rarely speak in absolutes. The fact is, you can't prove Saddam had "absolutely" no connection to 9/11. He may have, directly or indirectly, and it just hasn't been uncovered yet or never will be. It would be stupid to claim he had "absolutely nothing to do with it."

The statements from the Bush admin were all they could say. There is no "proof" Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's all they could claim with any reasonable certainty.

Yet how actively did they try to disuade the public from linkage between 9/11 and Saddam?

I know politics exaggerate, and that is a kindness. I don't limit that to Bush. Clinton was good at it too. One reason I have a general distrust of political animals.

Given that pols lie/exagerate/cover their ass, intent and results count. That is why I voted for the first Bush over Clinton, and why I voted for GWB the first time around over Gore. IMO Gore was tainted by association. I took a chance on GWB, but I am greatly disappointed.

You may not be, but that's America. We have the right to call any leader an ass.

I never voted for Bush so I feel no guilt.

Feel free to call any leader an ass. Just use to the right reasons to do it. Using faulty "facts" is not the right reason.

Well I go by the evidence of what was said, how it was presented and the result. I go by how people react. Certainly you and I have remarked in common that a great many believed in the connection. It was their failure in buying it. I don't grant absolution.

Propaganda is a sophisticated science. The goal is to say and do things that lead a people to believe and act in a specific way. People believed in the connection. Little was done to challenge that in reality. Occasional denials between linkage of Saddam and Al Queda who are then mentioned as the cause of 9/11 can hardly be called forceful denial.

If so many people believed in the link, either they were encouraged, or little was done to correct that belief. No one woke up one day and out of a vacuum decided to believe the same thing as millions of others did, and believed it was this administration who gave them this idea.

That is not rationally consistent.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
None of the documentation either way changes the truth one whit. No nuclear program, no wmd's, no links to al qaeda worthy of the term- zero, zip, nada, nothing. Just a very expensive and fruitless war dragged in on the coattails of a lot of fearmongering and misdirection over 9/11, justified and sold on the basis of a great deal of supposition and cherry-picking of intelligence, much of it supplied by Iranian sponsored exile groups...

Whatever Blix believed, TLC, we'll never know unless he tells us, unless you can successfully represent yourself as the next Kreskin... but we know what he said, and that was that his work would be completed in a matter of months from march 7, 2003- months that the Bush admin refused to allow him in their rush to war...

Yeah, those pesky al quaeda training bases in Northern Iraq...nothing to worry about there! And hey, Osama on video proclaiming Al Zarqawi as his "man in Iraq" was probably just an actor hired by Bush! Saddam probably didn't even know they were there!

I mean honestly, people, THINK! I completely understand the hatred of Bush, hell *I* hate Bush (well, GEORGE Bush, anyway but that doesn't mean every conspiracy in the world centers around him! What is the difference between what you guys are doing here and what the Neocon crowd was doing when Clinton was in office? There is NO difference! You're looking for every flaw, every conspiracy, every mistake, every possible way to demonize this imbecile.

How about just taking recognition of the fact that when Bush leaves office we'll have had two solid DECADES of morons in the white house! Now THAT is some sad sh1t!

Jason

Jason

The terrorists weren't in Iraq until the U.S. invaded and brought them there.

It's been in all the newspapers and even posted right here at P&N. It's from a CIA advisers report.

You can read all about it here.

Pay particular attention to the bolded passages.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

In the right in what way? If Hitler yelled to you that a truck was about to run you over and yelled jump and you did and it saved your life, was he wrong because he was Hitler?

This whole thing was fscked by a lot of people at a lot of levels. Those in France who profited were wrong, and those in the US who did so as wrong.

There is enough blood to go around. Everyones halo is tarnished.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BBond
Topic Title: Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong
Topic Summary: Bush administration hid evidence of Iraq WMD destruction

Sadly it doesn't matter.

Just like an entire Country followed their Fealess Liar in the 1930's the U.S. is doing the same thing.

Oh, you mean when we let Franklin Delano Roosevelt enact the New Deal, imposing Socialism upon the nation and institutionalizing legalized theft from some for the benefit of others? Yeah, we really should have learned our lesson from that one, and I for one am ASHAMED that the people of a FREE country didn't understand better what it was that had made them free to start with.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Fealess Liar in the 1930's

FDR?

Dammit, you beat me to it you sonofoabitch!

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.

that is what it's all about. a consperacy theory to invade a nation over a decade later.


manyoursmartiwishiwheremorelikeyou

But that's precisely what it IS.

The neocons urged Bush1 to go all the way to Baghdad. They urged Clinton in a letter you can read at PBS Frontline site to invade Iraq in 1998, IIRC. I believe the piece is called "The Long Road to War".

Wolfowitz wrote a 1992 Defence Planning Guidance that had to be re-written by Cheney because it was so radical it wouldn't ever be accepted by Americans. Yet that became the policy of the U.S. government in 2001 when those same radical neocons took control of the government.

Those are the facts. If you don't want to admit them don't expect me to ignore them.

Well, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but in the end we SHOULD have removed Saddam in 1991. At that point he had PROVEN that he was a hostile dictator both to his own people and to his neighbors. He had PROVEN that he was willing to invade the neighboring country utterly unprovoked and kill thousands to take control of their country. The time to take him out was RIGHT THEN, and when the UN told us no we should have told them to go to hell. The support was there, the reasons were there, the justification was there, Bush Sr. Just didn't have the cajones to follow through, and it cost him his job when the next election came.

Jason