I will use my 6 hours ahead to take the first shot here as I assume many will jump on her.

The points she makes about the "memo" on some level I share but with a big BUT here.

When Bush turned his attention to Iraq so soon after Afghanistan I felt then Bush had set his sights on Iraq regardless of what was happening or would happen. I didnt need this memo to confirm this as Bush actions upheld what I felt. The only disappointment from this memo is the lack of prepareness for the aftermath.

Understand I dont have a problem when our president forsees a possible enemy and prepares our military for any and all possibilities. That is his job. But there is a difference in asking your military to draw plans for the "what if" vs. having your mind made up to go in.

But the arguement of impeachment is wrong. I may not agree with why we went into war but as there will always be those who oppose war any of them could make this arguement for impeachment. I condemn Bush for not making our troops better prepared and safe following his infamous quote but Bush is no war criminal.

Oh come-on Jo Boykin - are you saying $300 Billion Dollars (and growing) and tens of thousands of lives and limbs while alienating much of the world is more important than a little cum-stain on a blue dress? Our congress knows better!

Just kidding. I'm not sure how to handle this, and like hayes I don't yet agree with the impeachment route, but you'd think the unquestioning right-or-wrong bush-lovers would at least gain a little humility (or at least better vision). Probably not.

Nice letter. I disagree with the impeachment route for one reason - Cheney. If we thought Bush was bad for the country, just think of what it would be like under Cheney. I do think that Bush and Co. needs to be held accountable for their actions but I think impeaching Bush would only make thing worse.

*Yawn* more whining from the Bush haters. Y'all are the policital equivalent of yappy little dogs, IMO.

Bush, as proven by the DSM, lied us into war. If you want to call that yapping, then so be it. It proves you have no argument with the veracity of the memos.

Let's see republican majority in the House and Senate. Republican president in office. Hmmmmmm......no, no impeachment starting while that's the situation.

Bush could walk up to an innocent by-stander, beat him with a bat until the by-stander was unconcious, urinate and defecate on the victim, pour gas on him and set him on fire, take the ashes and bury them in the rose garden, go on television and defame the victim, then start the same thing with each family member of the victim, steal billions from the U.S. mint, turn the White House into his own frat house, and you still wouldn't see an impeachment proceeding take place.

I guess it doesn't matter what memo you have or what it says. Bush II will stay in power until the next election. Thank God for term limitations.

Jo has left off the part of the memo that talks about the concern as to just when Saddam would deploy his WMD. Kind of an odd discussion if there was certain knowledge that he didn't have any, don't you think.

And to add insult to injury it has now come out that these "memos" may be faked. Like other things the liberal left gets their hands on, the originals seem to be non existent. The "reporter" says he destroyed them, wonder why?

Term limitations? Not if Sensenbrenner has his way. Go to www.thomas.loc.gov and look up HJ RES 24 IH. They've already taken action to get rid of the 22nd amendment. Scary stuff.

You liberals are funny.
Every week you trot out another "smoking gun" to try and destroy the administration.
That Bush recognized Iraq was a threat long before the invasion is a no-brainer. Iraq didn't develop overnight.
I hope to heck our leaders are planning things in the future, and this includes possible conflicts. I'd venture to say that locked somewhere in a file cabinet in the Pentagon are invasion plans for every nation in the world. Just in case.

Bush won, get over it.

Mac, As I posted yersterday, the originals were not destroyed. Michael Smith of the London Times photocopied the originals, typed from the photocopies and destroyed the photocopies. He did this to protect his source.

If I had promised someone to keep them safe from harm, I would do everything in my power to honor that promise. Wouldn't you?

"Bush could walk up to an innocent by-stander, beat him with a bat until the by-stander was unconcious, urinate and defecate on the victim, pour gas on him and set him on fire, take the ashes and bury them in the rose garden, go on television and defame the victim, then start the same thing with each family member of the victim, steal billions from the U.S. mint, turn the White House into his own frat house, and you still wouldn't see an impeachment proceeding take place."

Joe Schmoe,

I understand that you can't constrain the number of words you use to make an argument. But can you at least stick to reality?

ButYvonee, how can the right-wingers attack the credibility of the source if they don't know who it is? Look what they've done to deepthroat.

"That Bush recognized Iraq was a threat long before the invasion is a no-brainer. Iraq didn't develop overnight.
I hope to heck our leaders are planning things in the future, and this includes possible conflicts. I'd venture to say that locked somewhere in a file cabinet in the Pentagon are invasion plans for every nation in the world. Just in case."

Well, said future leaders could go a long way by not recklessly giving weapons and military aid to countries like Iraq to begin with.

The United States *did* help Saddam Hussein build up his army and arsenal during Iraq's war with Iran, after all. That fact cannot and should not be swept under the rug and forgotten, lest we make the same mistake again later on.

Mr. Knight, do you possess a crystal ball that can see which countries will be a threat to freedom in 10 or 15 years? If not, come back to reality.

No Mr. Frederick, but I do possess a history book wherein George Washington advised us to "avoid foreign entanglements".

John Frederick
If Bush had such great incite into the threat of Iraq then I wonder why didnt he in his 2000 campaign stand up say how dangerous Iraq was to America and under him he would militarily remove him!!

Also what point did a second rate dictator become a threat to the biggest military in the world?

And dont use the terrorist arguement here we are talking his incite into this danger here and whether you accept the point or not the terrorist arguement would be AFTER the fact.

Mac, I forgot to bring it to your attention that it was NOT Bush who was discussing Saadam's WMD as you tried to make it sound. A very clever manipulation of facts, just like your hero.

It was, according to the DS Memos, the military who has begun to question "what if". They had been told by Bush that Saadam had WMD, just as it was Bush who told the American people such BS.

In the memo it clearly states Iran, Libya and N. Korea had weapons superior to anything Saadam had. One only needs to read the memo to see that GWB did not fear Saadam or his WMD or that he was not an imminent threat to us.

www.downingstreetmemo.com

Yeah..and again...all Clinton did was get a blowjob and look what happened to him. Why are these assholes still in office?

Be careful, Tony. The censors might be watching.

"That Bush recognized Iraq was a threat long before the invasion is a no-brainer. Iraq didn't develop overnight."

IRAQ WAS NOT A THREAT!

That's why the DSM IS a smoking gun: The intelligence was being faked for the end result; that being the duping of the Americans and Britains into believing that IRAQ was a threat.

I'm sorry you don't understand satire Mr. Sinclair. As far as reality is concerned, I hope everyone realizes that Bush will not be impeached. Concise enough for you Mr. Sinclair.

"They had been told by Bush that Saadam had WMD, just as it was Bush who told the American people such BS."

So Yvonne are you saying that Bush and only Bush ever mentioned Iraq and WMD? Would you care for me to refresh your memory and paste some quotes from Russia, Britian, France, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, etc. etc. I am more then willing to pull all the quotes. Funny thing is, it was Clinton's policy of regime change (H.R. 4655, "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.") It is funny how people forget what government policy was before Bush.

Yvonne,
Play the idiot here and lets test her to see how well she can give us a history lesson. Especially on the regime change part as I have heard from the people around Clinton,like Albright, yes they wanted regime change but that didnt mean necessarily at gun point.

But hey what do we know?

IIRC, John Kerry said Iraq had WMD capability on the floor of the Senate in 1998.

Hugh
If you are responding to my post to Trish then I can only say tell me what most here dont already know.

We all here on these blogs know those on Trish list said or believed there were wmd's. Nothing new. Heck I believed it but I will say the more and the longer Blix was in there I begin to question,on my own, whether sadaam had a program or weapons of any importance and really had a problem accepting he or those weapons were a direct threat to the United States.

And how many of those on her list,minus britain, selectively used the information, I wont use the word lie here, to convince their people to go to war?

WMDs were only a side issue. The main issue was that Iraq was a threat to us. Even though the DSM acknowledged that it was believed that Iraq had WMDs it discounted the threat except in for the threat to invading troops. That was the big lie that the administration layed on us.

Iraq was a huge threat to the stability of the Middle East, a major part of the world. Unrest in the Middle East threatens the security of the region and subsequently the world.
All over the Middle East we are seeing the positive results of removing the threat of WMD's, which include chemical, biological, and missile weaponry.
A threat in the Middle East was a threat to us.

Tom
I accept your point here and even believe in it.

But how many americans would have supported war if this was about protecting the Israelis or Saudis?

And some argue that the unflinching support of the US for Israel is the biggest reason for instability? What then

Hayes: I don't readily accept Tom point .. are Iran and their friends in Israel and also Palestine and their best buddies right-next-door in India -- all rushing to remove WMD's? I must have missed it. What about North Korea? - oh, they'er not Middle East, and don't have oil, I forgot.

OK - "Unrest in the Middle East threatens the security of the region and subsequently the world." true -- so lets just piss all off the rest of the world, that's a solution!

Hey - they're either With us or Against Us, or so I was chastised.

"Iraq was a huge threat to the stability of the Middle East, a major part of the world. Unrest in the Middle East threatens the security of the region and subsequently the world."

Tom,

Then why were none of its neighbors in favor of the invasion except Kuwait?

Trish, No I'm not saying Bush was the only one talking WMD but he was the main one in America using it as an excuse to go to war. But since you seem so anxious to educate me, please continue.

Tom, Please expand on how Iraq was a threat to the Middle East.

"Bush won, get over it"

The ignorant tag of stupid Americans.

Yvoone

Well let’s see, Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN was the UN own report from weapons inspectors. However if you want the quotes I will be happy to print them and I don’t even have to go back to Clinton in 2002 prominent democrats, Kennedy, Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Daschle, even Al Gore all said the had WMD. But that is neither here nor there. Everyone agreed he had them (even France and Germany) the only disagreement was how to rid him of them. So in short why did you state that Bush was the only stating that? And more to the point how is a memo based on what someone thought other people were thinking even creditable? Also if the cause of WMDs was being faked, why did the memo express such concern about dealing with their potential use? And so what? What is the big deal if the goal of the US (which was endorsed by 2 Presidents, Congress and other government officials of both parties) was to remove Saddam from power? Not to even mention the fact that it takes Congress to approve us going to war? Didn’t the Congress people have the same information that the President did? And if not why did they vote to go if they didn’t have any idea?

But let me ask you this, there are no longer mass graves being filled, rapes rooms have been shut down, millions of people are free from tyranny, Iraq had free elections, so did the Palestinians oh and let us not forget so did Lebanon. As a matter of fact Syria left Lebanon so fast it would make your head spin. The suicide bombs in Israel are down due to the fact that Saddam is no longer paying the bombers. Kadafi gave up his weapons programs. Women can drive in the kingdom now, I could go on and on but I think that is enough. So the question is was all these things worth it and do these things make America safer?

Oh and Yvonne I wasn't trying to educate you, I was correcting your misrepresention of the facts, as you did state "just as it was Bush who told the American people such BS." If it was BS, a lot of people were telling it.

Hayes said: "And how many of those on her list,minus britain, selectively used the information, I wont use the word lie here, to convince their people to go to war?"

In answer to your question a lot of Senators who voted to go to war for one. And if everyone here knew it, why did Yvonne state it was Bush telling the American people? Yvonne made it sound like Bush lied about WMD when in reality no one was arguing about where he had them or not (not the UN, not France no one) heck he even used them on his own people, what the disagreement was about was how to rid him of them.

Trish,

Yes, they all agreed with Bush, mainly because the intelligence that he presented was bogus. He cooked the books, and no flim-flammery you try to produce will refute that.

The Downing Street Memos/Minutes have not been refuted AT ALL. Tony Blair does not dispute the accuracy of them. Bush has not disputed them. If he, through not refuting them, basically accepts their veracity, then how is it that you can't?

Rockafeller stated: "are Iran and their friends in Israel and also Palestine and their best buddies right-next-door in India -- all rushing to remove WMD's? I must have missed it. What about North Korea? - oh, they'er not Middle East, and don't have oil, I forgot."

Well Iran might be if we didn’t have Senators going about saying we are “losing the war in Iraq”, “wrong war”, “shouldn’t have went to war”, “sanctions were working” I do believe that Iran wouldn’t be feeling quite as safe as they do. Why shouldn’t they feel safe, they know that Bush’s hands are tied and Congress will not approve us going into Iran. But before the comments don’t you think they would have been just a little bit worried? Also you talk about North Korea, but wasn’t it Clinton with help from Jimmy Carter who made the deal with North Korea and he gave them two contemporary nuclear reactors? Oh that’s right, it’s all Bush’s fault that appeasement didn’t work.

Oh and if it was all about oil? Where the heck is that oil at anyways? It sure isnÂ’t flowing into this country.
Then why were none of its neighbors in favor of the invasion except Kuwait?"

Do you really believe that the dictatorships of the Arab world want a free, democratic Iraq? I mean really the Kingdom had to cave and let women ‘gasp’ drive. Really what do you think is going to happen when the oppressed people get to watch Iraqis going to the polls? If you were a dictator would you want your neighbor having a free, un-oppressed government right next door?

Marshall stated: "

Marshall stated: "Then why were none of its neighbors in favor of the invasion except Kuwait?"

Do you really believe that the dictatorships of the Arab world want a free, democratic Iraq? I mean really the Kingdom had to cave and let women ‘gasp’ drive. Really what do you think is going to happen when the oppressed people get to watch Iraqis going to the polls? If you were a dictator would you want your neighbor having a free, un-oppressed government right next door?

Jim,
Wait a minute, you are stating that Bush made up all that information; even the UN’s own weapons inspectors reports? He made up the British intelligence and our own CIA’s. Heck did he even make up the intelligence that Clinton used? You really need to start drinking water and stop with the Kool-Aid.

What is there to refute? They are the OPINIONS of one person on what other people THOUGHT other people were THINKING. It's speculation piled upon presumption. You can’t be serious are you?

Trish,

Don't forget that Bush would not let Hans Blix finish his job. The man went to the UN and asked for more time...2 weeks...and was told to get out by Bush.

The Intelligence that made up everybody's minds was cooked up by people who have been for the invasion of Iraq for years: ever heard of the Project for a new American Century? Their members are a who's who of the current administration.

When you present intelligence intended to sway, guess what happens?

Your last comment on the Downing Street Memo and Minutes is laughable. You truly are ignorant on their content and their veracity- which neither Blair nor Bush have refuted.

I have one comment to make regarding what Trish has stated in at least two posts on this topic. Here is one of those comments, "In answer to your question a lot of Senators who voted to go to war for one." The ENTIRE Congress of the US NEVER EVER voted to go to war! What was voted on dealt with the War Powers Act of 1973 (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html) and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/tonkin.htm).

What the Congress voted was to give the President the authority to wage war at his discretion. This, IMHO, clearly violates the Constitution. It states that CONGRESS and ONLY Congress shall have the power to declare war. Congress has not done this since Monday December 8, 1941. Therefore, officially, the USA has not been at war with any nation since the hostilities of WW II officially ended on September 8 (?), 1945.

I believe that Trish should be a little more careful in what she states before she posts it.

Many of us raising the DSM are wanting honest answers as opposed to mantra-like repetitions about freedom marching and "we went to war because we were attacked." Trish, check your facts, Colin Powell did not base his presentation on just UN reports as you suggested. Here is what he said back in Feb. 2003: "The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources." CNN transcript. More significantly, Powell's presentation contradicted what he said two years earlier regarding Saddam: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." www.the memoryhole.org Seems to fit the DSM glove. Have our actions in Iraq made us safer? According to a recently released CIA report the Iraq war will produce a bumber crop of "people coming to the action with anti-U.S. sentiment". As far as your vision of happy, grateful Iraqis how do you explain these numbers? "recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition." www.boston.com Cheney's kool-aid may go down easy, but it will give you a heck of a hangover.

Trish, First off, I suggest you stick to what people say, not what you think they mean. I said "It was, according to the DS Memos, the military who has begun to question "what if". They had been told by Bush that Saadam had WMD, just as it was Bush who told the American people such BS." Now, where in that statement did I say Bush was the only person who believed Saddam had WMD? Where did I say it was JUST Bush who was discussing it?

I said Bush told the American people, meaning me and you, that Saddam had WMD and that this posed an imminent threat to us, the American people. Are you saying Bush did not tell this to the American people?

If you will remember one of the reasons the weapons inspectors were in Iraq was because the US demanded Iraq agree to allowing inspections to resume (had formerly ceased in 1997 or 1999). Bush was pushing it because he wanted to use WMD as a reason for going to war. When the inspectors were turning up nothing and asked for forty-five more days, GWB declared war. IMO, he knew this ploy was not going to work, so he did what he wanted anyway.

As was reported, after the fact, the only people who had anything to fear from Saddam's WMD was his own people. In fact, it was the opinion of the "experts" that Saddam had not had the capability of manufacturing any significant WMD in over ten years. The same is not true for the US, N.Korea, Libya, China, etc, etc.

Perhaps if you were to read some books written by people "in the know" shortly after 9/11 it would help you to understand how this manipulation and deception of the American people happened. Bush's agenda becomes clear without the DS Memos for substantiation.

It would appear that you think the end justifies the means. Apparently it does not matter to you that GWB lied to manipulate the people of the US. But it does to some of us. Some of us think just because you can do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

In the grander scheme of things, it would have probably been a far wiser thing to have left Saddam Hussein in power over Iraq. Although Bush made the mistake and now apparently lied to get us in there, the ultimate blame for the Iraq mess must go to... Sir Winston Churchill.

Just as Yugoslavia was cobbled together from leftover countries after World War I, so too was Iraq created from several smaller tribal provinces, at the behest of Churchill. Paralleling the hold that Marshal Tito had over all those ethnic factions in Yugoslavia that otherwise would have been at each others throats, Saddam was a strongman that kept the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, etc. from doing the same to Iraq. Take the strongman figure out from each, and it was only a matter of time before each country's factions would start violently vying for power.

By toppling Saddam, the United States now takes on the strongman role... and all the responsibility that comes with keeping such a disparately-created country from collapsing into full-bore civil war.

Is that really going to be worth the cost to us in the long run?

Trish ... believes Iran feels quite safe knowing that Bush's hands are tied and Congress will not approve us going into Iran.

That's part of why going into Iraq is making us less safe, imo.

"North Korea .. Clinton / Carter made the deal with North Korea [for nuclear reactors"

No one's blaming Bush for "starting it" (at least not me). I really don't know too much about it, but I would suggest with the twin deficits and the mess of Iraq - and I will defend that statement - plus the destruction of our industrial base, has certainly removed clout needed to deal strongly with NK.

"Oh and if it was all about oil? Where the heck is that oil at anyways? It sure isnÂ’t flowing into this country."

We'll actually, Trish - we are currently importing a record amount of our oil (or durn close to it, but I think it is a record amount - like 60%) - check it out and lemme know, babe.

"Do you really believe that the dictatorships of the Arab world want a free, democratic Iraq?"

Hell no.

"Really what do you think is going to happen when the oppressed people get to watch Iraqis going to the polls?" Clearly they don't like it - but the show's not over - while I cheered with the rest, ask me in 20 years how it turned out.

and BTW - don't forget the the Bush plan was a 60 day way followed by the installation of US puppets to run the governement. In fact, repeated calls for free election were repeatedly igored by this adminstration, until a year and a half later, they had to let it - and then all the rhetoric about a how we're there to spread freedom.

I'm sorry, Trish, but Bush is doing more flip-flop than his buddy Kerry!

Trish,

Be aware that that you are in a chat room with a bunch of liberals who will never believe/hear a word you say. You mine as well go ahead and accept that and simply make your point and avoid the personal attacks.

I made the same mistakes you did and after battling with some of the more "uneducated" ones for weeks on end I realized they were not going to change their minds.....at all. They hate Bush and would rather have a terrorist living beside them then the Bush family.

SO....I normally support what you say 99% of the time but realize you are fighting an uphill battle with all of the bleeding liberals in here. There are some that support you though. ;-)

One more thing Trish....

Glad you came into the "chat room". We need more conservative minds in here because there are certainly enough "liberals".

You've got that right, Tater.
Trish, thanks for sticking it out.
Yvonne, Brian and crew have stormed the door and taken over the blogs as a Dem stronghold.
If you don't agree with their liberal views, expect to be battered and beaten while they try to deny you your first amendment rights.
The pile on in great numbers like flies on stink, and will denigrate, ridicule, smear, and put on their "holier-than-thou" elitist attitude in your face if you DARE to believe in God or our current administration.
They will never be swayed by facts or logic or human decency, or concern for the good of the country. They're Dems for goodness sake!

Tater, While I understand being able to connect with those of like mind is rewarding, I would like to say might does not make right for either side. Being in the minority in this forum does not make you wrong or right, it just means more less conservative folks are speaking out.

I, too, hope Trish keeps posting as she seems to be quite bright and has the potential to offer much to the discussion board. However, when someone tries to make their point by wishing harm on someone they disagree with, it invalidates the point they were trying to make, imho. Hayes, Mr. P, Jon and some others taught me that.

You know you and I have all but gone for the jugular before. But I can't remember you wishing ill fate on me or me on you. Since we are such strong personalities I can't imagine any other two people becoming more frustrated with one another. I will admit I wanted you to shut up a time or two but I never wished you harm.

You gave Trish some excellent advice about the personal attacks. I respect and applaud that. I hope you and I can continue to agree to disagree. It makes participating in this forum more rewarding, even if we never agree on anything.

Oh BTW, I don't hate Bush. As I said in another post, I am disgusted with him. I simply think he is not and never was the right man for the job. That is my opinion, right or wrong.

Yvonne, I appreciate the words written to Tater. And likewise Tater's words to Trish. It just seems ironic that when facts were presented to Trish, her postings stopped. I am reminded a frequent saying of the late President Harry S. Truman, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." That man was one who could stand the heat and did take quite a bit of it! Yet, it never detracted him from his goal/s.

I just wish some of the valid questions presented to Trish would be answered by same!

Chris Knight, "No Mr. Frederick, but I do possess a history book wherein George Washington advised us to "avoid foreign entanglements"."

I think if you will flip over a few pages in your book you will find that Thomas Jefferson sent the US Marine Corps and a Naval expedition to carry them to the Mediterranean to put down the Muslim Barbary Pirates. That was done because the pirates were being a destabilizing influence on the region. The Barbary Pirates were not an organized government, just a bunch of hooligans causing problems. Sound familiar?

Hey Darrly, have no fear my posting haven't stopped. Thing is I actually have a job and two kids. Today when I had time at work I was in another thread, I saved this one for tonight. Facts indeed.

Yvonne as far as wishing ill on someone? Did I really do that or did I wish for someone to take a walk in anothers shoes? Big difference between the two.

"If you don't agree with their liberal views, expect to be battered and beaten while they try to deny you your first amendment rights."

Well, I don't see that - I hear the R's saying God Bless America, and our President too, and the D's (L's, whatevers) saying "jeeze, the story I heard on that issue gives me caution ...."

Clearly we're all better listening to both sides, I'm a guilty as anyone of endless opining.

Jim said: “Don't forget that Bush would not let Hans Blix finish his job. The man went to the UN and asked for more time...2 weeks...and was told to get out by Bush.”

First off let me ask you Jim, how many years did Blix/the UN have to do the job? Was it 14? 12? How many? Let’s look at the timeline:
Sept. 12: President Bush addresses the UN, challenging it to swiftly enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. If not, Bush contends, the U.S. must act on its own. Oct. 11: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq. Nov. 8: The UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq. Nov. 18: UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq for the first time in almost four years. So it wasn’t until Congress authorized war and the UN Security Council approved yet another resolution that Saddam allowed back in inspectors. Why do you suppose that is? Why after four years would all of a sudden Saddam would let them back in? But let us continue: Feb. 14: In a UN weapons inspections report on Iraq, chief inspector Hans Blix indicates that slight progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation with the weapons team. So Blix said that there was only SLIGHT cooperation. So here he have a mad man who has used WMD on his own people and he is still not cooperating fully. Wow and Blix just needed 2 more weeks and then all of a sudden Saddam was going to just cooperate fully you say?

Jim said "The Intelligence that made up everybody's minds was cooked up by people who have been for the invasion of Iraq for years"

Really, then why was the majority of intelligence gathered during Clinton’s years, remember the head of the CIA? A Clinton appointee. Not to mention Clinton drew up and had plans for “a regime change”. So every was cooked up by Bush and company? Even the UN data?
Jim said "Your last comment on the Downing Street Memo and Minutes is laughable. You truly are ignorant on their content and their veracity- which neither Blair nor Bush have refuted."

So are you saying that in fact the memos are not someones opinions on what someone else was thinking? You are saying that the person who was taking notes on the meeting (remember they are minute meeting notes) knew and heard our President say that he “cooked the books”? How can someone refute someone's opinion on what someone thought someone was thinking? Let us not forget what happens when things are not refuted need I say Koran and toliet?

Darryl said: "What the Congress voted was to give the President the authority to wage war at his discretion."

Yes I was wrong is saying Congress voted for war, I should have said that Congress authorized war, which they did when then gave the President the power. Does it make a difference? Either way Congress was on board and saw what the President did. Supposedly these Congress people have some intelligence, yet here everyone is thinking that Bush was able to hoodwink all of them who voted. And here everyone was saying Bush was stupid.

Frances:
"Trish, check your facts, Colin Powell did not base his presentation on just UN reports as you suggested."

True, he also used the CIA, GB and many others, point being it also used UN reports correct? So tell me how did Bush “cook” the UN intelligence?

Frances said "As far as your vision of happy, grateful Iraqis how do you explain these numbers? "recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition."

Well what about this poll done by an Iraqi newspaper:
Al-Sabah is conducting a new opinion poll and till no 1590 people have said their opinion about this question:
What is the task Jafari's government has to handle first? The answers came like this:

providing security 55.16% (877 votes) getting the foreign troops out 4.97% (79 votes) )

So it looks like the people polled here had different feelings wouldn’t you agree? If they wanted us out how come that only got not even 5% of the vote? Also as far as getting intel, from what I read from our guys over there, that is not a problem. Maybe you should try reading some military webblogs, written by the soldiers over in Iraq and see what they say. Try going to blackfive.net he has a whole list. Or look at this one: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/. Sorry but I think I will take the word from our guys over that of the Boston Globe.

Yvonne:
"Are you saying Bush did not tell this to the American people?"

No I am not saying that, what I am saying is that Bush wasn’t the only one as implied, so did a lot of other politicians and government personnel. Even a former President.

"If you will remember one of the reasons the weapons inspectors were in Iraq was because the US demanded Iraq agree to allowing inspections to resume"

Because we demanded? What I thought that Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement after the first gulf war agreeing to allow weapons inspectors in right? How many resolutions did he have? How many years to agree with the cease-fire? And what did the UN do when he did not follow the UN resolutions? Well nothing. Why shouldn’t we demand, we had been attacked, we knew he had used weapons on his own people and all intelligence (even the intelligence from the Clinton administration) said he had the weapons?

"Bush was pushing it because he wanted to use WMD as a reason for going to war. When the inspectors were turning up nothing and asked for forty-five more days, GWB declared war. IMO, he knew this ploy was not going to work, so he did what he wanted anyway."

What a minute, as I showed above even Blix said that he was getting “slight” cooperation. The fact is all Saddam had to do was open his country up but he wouldn’t do it and not even that but other countries were offering him amnesty he could have left and showed Bush the fool when none were found, why didn’t he if he had nothing to hide? Why play the games with inspectors? Why not let the inspectors in, unescorted? What was he hiding? Not only that all he had to do was prove he destroyed the weapons why didn’t he? Oh and so far as Bush using WMD as a reason, yes he did but he also used other reasons go back and read his State of the Union on Feb 26, 2003.

"In fact, it was the opinion of the "experts" that Saddam had not had the capability of manufacturing any significant WMD in over ten years."

Actually this is what the expert, David Kay had to say: "He added that Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild"
And this as well: “As a result, virtually everyone in the United States intelligence community during both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations thought Iraq still had the illicit weapons, he said. And the government became a victim of its own certainty.”

Trish:

I'll check out those links - thanks, but I am a skeptic, in general: God Bless our troups, but God Damm the men that sent them to Iraq.

OK - to http://www.mudvillegazette.com/

Yvonne continued:

"Dr. Kay said he was convinced that the analysts were not pressed by the Bush administration to make certain their prewar intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq.”
So both Clinton and Bush administrations thought Iraq had the weapons, yet at the same time “Bush lied, Bush made up the intelligence” right? What about Clinton? Didn’t he bomb Iraq for the same reasons:
"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 Bill 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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

So even you say it was ten years since they had weapons? Why did Clinton bomb them and how is it that Clinton didn’t lie to the American people?

"It would appear that you think the end justifies the means. Apparently it does not matter to you that GWB lied to manipulate the people of the US. But it does to some of us. Some of us think just because you can do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do."

The question wasn’t about does the end justify the means, I was just asking a simple question. However if Bush manipulated the people didn’t Clinton also? Oh and also a former Presidential candidate:
"[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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Still Bush’s fault and lies?

Rockafeller:
"Trish ... believes Iran feels quite safe knowing that Bush's hands are tied and Congress will not approve us going into Iran.
That's part of why going into Iraq is making us less safe, imo."

Really Rockafeller why did it make us less safe? Kadifi gave up his weapons because of it, are we not safer? Also you don’t think that if Kerry and the democrats hadn’t kept going on and on and used that as a way to get elected (the whole Bush lied blab blah blah) if we were united you don’t think that Iran would be just a little bit worried?

"I really don't know too much about it, but I would suggest with the twin deficits and the mess of Iraq - and I will defend that statement - plus the destruction of our industrial base, has certainly removed clout needed to deal strongly with NK."

Started it? Ha if Clinton and Carter had finished it, wouldn’t be a problem now. All North Korea proves is appeasement doesn’t work, which is why we took care of Saddam. By the way can you name me on time that appeasement has worked? Sure didn’t work with Hitler.

"We'll actually, Trish - we are currently importing a record amount of our oil (or durn close to it, but I think it is a record amount - like 60%) - check it out and lemme know, babe."

So we went into Iraq for oil and all that Iraqi oil is flowing into the US? So we have taken over the Iraq oil industry and are making a bundle off it? I know we import oil however I don’t think it is Iraqi oil. But please let me know if it is.

"ask me in 20 years how it turned out."
As I’m sure some people said the same about Japan and Germany. History will tell, however it does seem that the liberals do not have a good record with being on the right side of history, so I am willing to bet on this.

"and then all the rhetoric about a how we're there to spread freedom."

Really? So Iraqi’s didn’t go to the polls and they are not free from a tyrant, no new government was elected and they are not working on their constitution? Don’t know what you have been reading but I have been reading from an Iraqi in Iraq who says different. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

"I'm sorry, Trish, but Bush is doing more flip-flop than his buddy Kerry!"

What flip flops? Show me the flip flops.
Where's the beef! :)

Darryl said: "I just wish some of the valid questions presented to Trish would be answered by same!"

Did I miss any Darryl?

Tater, Paulie and Yvonne thanks for the nice words and the advise. Didn't mean to personal attack anyone, was making a point of walking in another's shoes, unless I missed a post. But normally that is not the way I debate, so sorry if I slipped. My major problem is writing books when I respond! LOL Will work on that.

Rockafeller said: "I'll check out those links - thanks, but I am a skeptic, in general"

They are good links, Blackfive has a list (a couple of post down) who list all the mil webblogs, what branch and where they are. I'm just saying the guys over there (and they are ranked from enlisted to officers) say a whole different story then what we are getting in the MSM here. Read there own words and what they are experiencing, they are in fact out there and not in a hotel in Baghdad! If nothing else good reading and information.

Why do typical Republicans never admit that one of their own made bad decisions?

Repugnicans:Never accept responsibility and always pass blame on Clinton, Carter or some other guy.

Brian said: "Why do typical Republicans never admit that one of their own made bad decisions?"

Not true Brian. I personally believe it was a bad decision for Republicans to cave on social security. It is a bad decision for Bush to not handle illegal immigration. I could go on, however it was not a bad decision to free Iraq. Here read this article wrote by Ed Koch, I think we can all agree he is not a Republican right?

Interesting reading:
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004
It may well be that weapons of mass destruction will never be found in Iraq. They may have been destroyed after the first Gulf War in 1991, or were buried in the desert or shipped out of the country.
David A. Kay, who was appointed by President Bush to search for these weapons, recently said, according to The New York Times, that "the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes."
If this is true, we were not the only ones duped by the Iraqis. The United Nations Security Council passed its Resolution 1441, which unanimously threatened Iraq with serious consequences if it did not account for its weapons of mass destruction, based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein failed to destroy those weapons after the first Gulf War.
Hussein's refusal to demonstrate to U.N. weapons inspectors in the weeks leading up to the second Gulf War that he had eliminated his prohibited weapons led to the assumption that he still was in possession of such weapons.
In my view, it was not necessary for President Bush to wait for absolute proof that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to take action against him. If the President believed, based on, at the time, credible intelligence provided by the CIA and the British, that Iraq had such weapons, and Saddam Hussein declined to prove he had destroyed them, that was enough to justify war.
As the President stated in his 2003 State of the Union address, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. ... If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions would come too late."
President Bush was not alone in reaching this conclusion. His predecessor, President Bill Clinton, took the same position, stating in August of 1998, "Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction ... threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of the rest of us."
In other words, the U.S. did not go into Iraq because we knew for certain that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction – a reasonable assumption under these circumstances. We went into Iraq because we believed he might have such weapons. And after 9/11, we could not take the chance that he might use these weapons or give them to terrorists.
It continues to puzzle me that so many Americans oppose the U.S. liberation of Iraq. The anti-war camp is comprised of at least three groups. The largest is made up of those who simply hate President Bush, as their counterparts in the 1980s hated President Ronald Reagan.
The second group is aligned philosophically with the "America First" isolationist movement of 1940, which was led by hero aviator – and anti-Semite – Charles Lindbergh. Isolationists were largely responsible for keeping America neutral while Hitler conquered Europe and committed genocide against Jews, gypsies, Communists, Socialists and other minorities.
The third group consists of pacifists who believe no war under any circumstances can be defended. During the Cold War, that group’s views were epitomized by the slogan "Better red than dead."
Fortunately, most Americans believe in New Hampshire’s slogan, "Live free or die." Today, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are demanding as part of their Jihad (holy war) that the U.S. and other Western countries abandon democratic ways, convert to Islam and abandon their friendships with Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.
These terrorists want to replace the pro-Western governments of our Muslim allies with fundamentalist regimes. Of course, they also want us to end our support of Israel.
When the Allies of yesteryear were led by FDR and Winston Churchill in World War II, they knew the choice was victory or defeat. The same is true today.
The Times article by James Risen, which quotes David A. Kay, provides the best assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. To summarize it would not do justice to his analysis, so I am setting forth a number of conclusions described in his own words.
What follows are excerpts from The New York Times of Jan. 26, 2004.
"'I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction,' Dr. Kay said. 'We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.
"'I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990s. Somewhere in the mid-1990s, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated.'
"Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development 'right up until the end' to improve their ability to produce ricin. 'They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization,' Dr. Kay said. 'They were maintaining an infrastructure, but they didn't have large-scale production under way.'
"He added that Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990s.
"While he urged that the hunt should continue in Iraq, he said he believed '85 percent of the significant things' have already been uncovered, and cautioned that severe looting in Iraq after Mr. Hussein was toppled in April had led to the loss of many crucial documents and other materials. That means it will be virtually impossible to ever get a complete picture of what Iraq was up to before the war, he added.
"But Dr. Kay said the C.I.A. missed the significance of the chaos in the leadership and had no idea how badly that chaos had corrupted Iraq's weapons capabilities or the threat it raised of loose scientific knowledge being handed over to terrorists. 'The system became so corrupt, and we missed that,' he said.
"In addition, Dr. Kay said, it is now clear that an American bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998 destroyed much of the remaining infrastructure in chemical weapons programs.
"The former Iraqi officers reported that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons, he said. But all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons.
"'They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said. He said it appeared they were the victims of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Mr. Hussein.
"As a result, virtually everyone in the United States intelligence community during both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations thought Iraq still had the illicit weapons, he said. And the government became a victim of its own certainty.
"Dr. Kay said he was convinced that the analysts were not pressed by the Bush administration to make certain their prewar intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq.
"'All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on W.M.D.,' he said. 'Everyone believed that they had W.M.D.'
"'The only comment I ever had from the president was to find the truth,'" Dr. Kay said. 'I never got any pressure to find a certain outcome.'
What all this means is that if Saddam Hussein had acted rationally, he could have avoided war. But he was not the rational leader of a nation. He was a sadistic despot who tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and invaded other countries.
He used poison gas against the Kurds and the Iranians. He set fire to more than 700 oil wells in Kuwait, creating an environmental catastrophe. The world is surely better off without him. Let's hope the effort to create a free and democratic state in Iraq is successful.
If the CIA failed in its intelligence-gathering responsibilities prior to the war, as is now charged by Dr. Kay, Bush's opponents should remember that the CIA director, George Tenet, is a holdover from the Clinton administration. A congressional inquiry is now under way and Tenet will testify. Let the chips fall where they may.

I read these posts and agree with some but not all. There is one thing I would like to say to Mr. Rockefella. When you say "God bless America and God d... the men that sent them to war in Iraq", are you referring to the same God? If you are referring to the Lord Jesus Christ then I find it very offensive and am asking you or anyone else to please not do that. I'm so thankful to Him that He has saved me from a devil's hell and I love Him too much to let this go by and not say anything. I notice that you use language that is offensive in most of your posts. Could you please clean it up? I really believe that you can get your point across without it. Am I the only one that takes notice of this??

Mr. Rockefeller, that was uncalled for and blasphemous. You should cease posting here for that, I hope the moderators ban you.
Taking the Lord's name in vain says a lot about you. You disgust me.

Yo Reader, he didn't say Jesus Christ damn them, but God damn them. He went to a higher authority than Jesus for his request for the damnation of those who send young people to die. In my opinion that wouldn't be taking God's name in vain because it isn't a selfish request from God. It's kind of like when you pray for God to strike down all those sinners you see walking the steet so this world will be an Utopia.

Love to you all,
Brother Love & the Gospel Train
Hoooo, Hoooo!!!

Feel the love, Good eye! I wondered how many people would really read what James said as opposed to what they thought he said. Seems folks are just looking for reasons to attack others. Kinda like the prez.

... seems to me the Bible has God often wreaking havock upon those that did not work in his service.

I do find it most interesting that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God - afaik, we're all His people. Of course, some people are close to being non-human, and there are a lot of walking humans that are clearly not His people.

I guess the question is, are we in Iraq to "carry out His plans, to punish the wicked and preserve His people (Deut. 9:4-6; Deut. 20; Jer. 5; Numbers 33:55-56)."

Romans 13:1-2: "every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

So if you can show me God personally appointed Cheney and Rummy, I'll retract the statement.

Until then, Cheney and Rummy are mere mortals.

Trish (re: your June 23, 2005 08:47 PM post):

America is weaker because we have proved to the world we can't even secure RPG Alley - the 7 mile stretch from Baghdad to the international airport.

You so totally mis-read my statement on North Korea, I'll ignore this section.

We import 54% of the 20-million barrels of oil America burns every day, projected to grow to 64% by 2010.

Now I'm not whole accepting this link:

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

it would cause me to try and confirm a few things, like the Kadifi / bin Laden dispute, and the Libyan unexected "conversion".

"ask me in 20 years ..." History WILL tell.

I am not clear on what a liberal is (and I"m certainly not what ever it is - sounds too nasty ).

"and then all the rhetoric about a how we're there to spread freedom." Iraqi's did go to the polls - but we did not go there to liberate them.

James D,

Regarding your Romans quote, I'm reading Imperial Hubris, and the author indicates that part of OBL's strategy is to impune the moderate apostate regimes that support the US by saying that they establish laws of Man, like the US paradigm, instead of the laws of God (i.e. Allah, as revealed in the Quran).

That Romans quote, from THIS perspective, could be interpreted very differently.

Let me quickly add that, thanks to the training in critical thought that this forum is providing me, I can see a liberal bias in the writer, so I don't accept every premise unconditionally. That being said, the book is thoroughly footnoted, and contains a plethora of facts that I hadn't seen elsewhere.

Dough
I read the book as well. Just curious as what you find as a "liberal" bias in the book. Does it make it a less credible a book? And if yes why is a conservative bias acceptable?

Hayes,

I haven't finished it yet, and I don't necessarily think there's a tie-in between "liberal" and "less credible." My only reason for stating that was to ward off criticism form conservatives that would want to discredit it for being liberal. I am making an assumption that the book would be percieved that way, at least by extreme cons. I may be wrong about that.

As far as an example, where I'm reading now is the 6th chapter, a section headed "War Reporting or Reporting Non-Wars?". The author quotes a Pakistani journalist whom he describes as "brilliant," without explaining what makes that journalist so. He may be, I've read nothing by him or heard of him. It just brought to memory other threads where Michael and Mr Produce made a point of asking posters for references to back up points, and it occurred to me as possible that the author's description of a source that supports his position as "brilliant" without explaination could be percieved as promoting his bias.

It's actually a rather minor point in the text. I was really most interested that after becoming hooked on there blogs that I found myself picking out possible weak points in someone's position.

What is your take on the book?

Dough
I really enjoyed the book. His general premises I agree with which dont underestimate bin laden. I think the greatest advantage we hand bin laden is when we completely underestimate who is and what he represents.

There is another book: "The New American Militarism". Ignore the title; it is written by a ex-colonel who fought in vietnam. He uses vietnam as his reference. In general he is highly protective of the soldiers; shares little sympathy for the liberals who criticise the army but is equally unhappy with the right who he feels is using the military for their own good.

One line he holds is that in our chaotic society the military through its code and honor is a better representative of the society they are to protect but when they feel they are superior to that society;which he believes it has, then we have crossed a dangerous threshold.

Thanks for the recommendation. My next read will be "Blink," which Allen Johnson mentioned as interesting, then I will check it out.

Dough

"The New American Militarism: How Amercians are Seduced by War" Andrew J. Bacevich

Again look past the title as I think it comes across as anti-military or anti-war book but it isnt.

He is highly proud and protective of the men amd women who served and now serve in our military.

Another example:
He disagrees with Cheney on the Iraq war but fully supports his right to have refused to go to vietnam and yet want to send soldiers into Iraq.

He is equally critical of both the repubs and dems in how they see and use the military for their own political gains.

Wow. I am always amazed at how many responses my letters generate.

What also amazes me is how some people can completely ignore fact or twist fact to suit their own agenda. The anger and hostility is pretty incredible too.

As for impeachment - how can anyone justify impeachment on the grounds used against Nixon and Clinton and not Bush? Bush has willingly sent our troops to die for reasons known only to him. Is this not an impeachable offense?

I also can't believe that anyone can still support this criminal administration. I feel sure that if their own children were being sent to war or being held at Gitmo, or if another country had occupied our own country, as we have Iraq, for the reasons we invaded Iraq, these same people would be singing a different tune.

Thank God for 2006. When the tables are turned, there are going to be some really pissed off Republicans.