Forum Discussion

It's pretty clear to me. The Left are fighting themselves.
Actually, the Demos are just making themselves look bad...well, foolish too.

Yeah, just not seeing it.
I guess am a bit to busy following the CIA Leak investigation, recalling the Miers fiasco, readin up on the trial of Tom DeLay and so on, and so on.

Plus I see nothing wrong with some healthy debate. People are bound to disagree.

This cartoon shows that liberal demoncrats (mispelled on purpose, I promise) can't even stand up against a near mute inanimate object when it is clothed in the face of plain and true speech.

See Jim, I TRY to be eloquent when I write.

The cartoon illustrates that the democrates have been using bush as a punching bag, blaming everything on him. bush punched back finally.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a157/BarronSomde/MFT51121.jpg

I had no ide that punching bag was Bush. It does not really look like Bush. Ears are too small.

it doesnt have any ears, it wouldnt look like a punching bag if it had ears

The could have been drawn like they were pinned back or something, O completely missed it was Bush.

Well if they would have added the ears it would have look like a monkey, since Bush looks and acts like one! Hitting animals is just mean. Im waiting for when we can impeach him.

Ashley: Do not insult monkeys. They did nto do anything to be compared to Bush.

Bush is not getting impeached, just because you want him to, doesn't mean that he is. Sorry to disapoint. Democrats have got to learn that they can't always get what they want, and throwing a tantrum just doesn't look good. The Democrats will have their shot for failure in '08. Then you can throw more temper tantrums.

>Then you can throw more temper tantrums.
Yeah...totally temper tantrums.....
Um......yeah....so much worse then taking bribes for votes and illegal wiretapping.

I�m not throwing a tantrum. So many people wanted to impeach Clinton because he had affair (Now don�t go and type that I said it�s ok to have one, because I don�t think that) which was a family issue. Now I know that he went in front of the American people and said he didn�t, which was a lie. Now Bush can lie about let me think about it... Chemical weapons in Iraq, and the Al Queada/Iraq connection. Now since people bring up the Clinton thing I�m sure it really hurt people. I can see it now 2000+ people died when he lied. Wait sorry that only happened when Bush lied. Now you might say that it was wrong information not a lie, well either way you look at it we went to war based on wrong facts. I have always thought that if you go to war, you need to MAKE sure that you have the right facts. I guess Bush forgot that part. So lets recap Clinton lied about an affair, people wanted to impeach them. Bush lies and now we are throwing a tantrum. Please next time you want to impeach someone lets makes sure it�s about an important issue that really affects the American people.

> I�m not throwing a tantrum.
I was responding to Crazy Pete. Plus do not let them rattle you, the conservative side enjoy personal attacks and off topic.

>Please next time you want to impeach someone lets makes sure it�s about an important issue that really affects the American people.

I agree. I rememebr during the whole Lewinsky think Republicans kept talking about the "RULE OF LAW". What ever happened to that?

While I agree that lying is bad no matter who does it, there are two key reasons why a Clinton impeachment would have been legitimate (I'll leave whether it *should* have happened for another argument) and why a Bush impeachment would not. 1) It is, as of now, still an open question whether Bush lied, or whether he merely (as Ashley even suggested) didn't check his facts properly and/or put too much trust in George Tenet. There are arguments for both sides (which do not need to be posted here right now to sidetrack the topic), but nothing is proven. 2) It is not a crime to lie, even as a public official in an official speech. Clinton's crime was not that he lied. It was that he lied *under oath*. That's perjury.

Also... //Plus do not let them rattle you, the conservative side enjoy personal attacks and off topic.//

Good Will... aren't you usually the one who *objects* to over-generalizations? I am a staunch conservative, and I have yet to make a single personal attack in these threads, and I *actively avoid* going on a tangent (which is hard for me, because that's the way my brain runs). Furthermore, I think this is pretty much an off-topic sideswipe... and it was your post:
//Um......yeah....so much worse then taking bribes for votes and illegal wiretapping. //

Just one more thing - Ashley, impeachment, as it is written in the law, has nothing to do with how much something affects the American people. According to our laws, it is very simple: if the very *best* President commits a "high crime or misdemeanor", he is impeachable. If the very *worst* President never does anything actually illegal, he is not. (Note: I don't think Clinton *or* Bush is the best *or* worst. I was just putting the issue in strong terms to highlight the relevant point.)

Good point, very good point. Yes impeachment may be a written law that states that the President must commit a crime, but what constitutes as a crime or just law for that matter. (At one point in time it was illegal for women and blacks to vote). Hypothetical question (sorry if the spelling is wrong) But you can answer me if you like, and I�m not trying to play the feminist or race card. I guess the question is can a country afford for a President to (however you want to put it) mislead or lie? (would that be lack of ethics, break down of morality lack of tolerance?). I don�t know, only time will tell. When you look at all the things that have gone wrong with this administration the blame must fall somewhere. I will agree with you (conservatives and who ever else) that it�s too easy to blame the President. At first, but when evidence upon evidence piles up against him, I�m sorry it�s wrong to ignore it. I will also agree that pointing fingers gets us no where, obviously. But I would prefer to be a voice to be heard then a silent bystander (in no way am I referring to anyone here.) I believe our founding fathers and patriots lived by this example. Wanting or demanding change is natural, sadly change is slow and its long term, as an Echo Boomer I�ve been told that we can�t think long term, but I�m inclined to disagree. I just hope that for every side out there that we as a nation can heal from our injuries, something I hope we all can agree on.

Well, as much as I understand your point about the definition of "crime" and the concept of just or unjust law (I took a full year of Philosophy of Law), it's ultimately irrelevant to this issue. If I were to grant that the law is flawed (i.e. that it should make any lying by a public official a crime), that would only imply that Congress should change the law, not that Bush is impeachable under this "ideal law" that doesn't actually exist yet. Incidentally, I don't grant your premise, but my point is that if I did, it would leave Bush in the same legal territory as now (unless he was proven to lie *after* the law was changed).

As far as impeachment is concerned, a crime is that which breaks the written law of the US, and whether that law is just or not is an issue for a legislative session, not an impeachment trial hearing (and not the Supreme Court, incidentally).

I do think it's wrong for a President (or any public figure) to lie to the people, but I don't think it should be a crime for the simple prudential reason that it would result in the removal from office of almost every politician. Furthermore, what about exceptions, like if there's a covert operation in progress, the media hears a rumor and asks him about it, and he lies to preserve the secrecy of the operation?

I do certainly agree though that I hope the nation can, in time, heal the chasm between Right and Left.

There really needs to be some clarification here.

1. Bill Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is the process that the House of Representatives undertook and they impeached him. The Senate did not vote to remove him from office but he was still impeached by the House.

2. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. That was separate from his lying to the American public.

3. If you really want to stick with "Bush lied" then, given all the evidence to the contrary, it is no longer President Bush that can be accused of lying.

4. If you want to stick with the "Bush is an idiot" mantra then John Kerry should be very insulted because Bush did much better in college. The transcripts even prove it.

4. If the Left could find something to stand for and start using facts instead of emotional rhetoric and baseless attacks then that chasm would start closing.

It is a sad day to be a Democrat and to be identified with the likes of Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean......and the list goes on.

Uhh... you're responding directly to my points, but it sounds like we're on the same side...? I'm a Republican, and I was defending the same points as you...(except the one about "Bush is an idiot" because that hadn't come up yet, and the Clinton impeachment because no one was disagreeing with that one).

I agree that we are on the same side but I also see that you wrote that "a Clinton impeachment would have been legitimate" when in fact it was legitimate. That distinction needs to be made and wasn't. As for the idiot statement, comparing President Bush to a monkey is done intentionally to make him seem like an idiot.
Again, I do agree with you but I like to make it a bit more clear so there is no mistake of what the facts really are.

Yes the monkey line was bias and that�s it.

�If the Left could find something to stand for and start using facts instead of emotional rhetoric and baseless attacks then that chasm would start closing.�

I stand for something it�s called a better United States. You want facts?
� President Bush said we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before he admitted we hadn't found them.
� The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
� In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.
� After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his month long vacation.
� The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.
� The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion deficit.

I think that will do, and so you don�t think I made up these facts here is the website I got them from. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/facts PLEASE if any of the facts are wrong let me know. I will be the first to say that I�m wrong. Speaking of that, thank you for correcting me, Clinton was impeached at least by the house anyway.

�It is a sad day to be a Democrat and to be identified with the likes of Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean......and the list goes on.�
So this isn�t �emotional rhetoric and baseless attacks.� Wait this must be proven facts, let me know where you got your information.

Well, first off, I admit, I forgot to make the distinction clear between impeachment and conviction... what I meant was that it would have been legitimate if the Senate had removed Clinton.

As for your facts Ashley... aside from the easy retort that they come from "The Nation", one of the most liberal publications in the country, here are responses to a few of them (some are simply true and politically neutral, so I won't address them).

//President Bush said we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before he admitted we hadn't found them.//
He never explicitly said we found WMDs, only that we found *evidence* that Iraq had or was making them. This was what was told to him by the CIA (which, just as an aside, was run by a director whom Clinton appointed).

//In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.//

What he meant was that the original conflict was over - and it was. The "Iraq War" is really two wars: one that we very quickly won, against the Saddam Hussein regime (which is very clearly defeated), and then the ongoing one against insurgents.

//After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his month long vacation.//
What could he have done to stop 9/11 if he had immediately come home? Contrary to some sources, he *was not* specifically informed of *how* they planned to attack.

As for the "sad day to be a Democrat" thing... while I have no love for any of the politicians listed, I'll leave it to Democrats to decide whether they are proud to call those people their leaders. I wouldn't be, but that's admittedly only my opinion.

As a Democrat I am proud. You say two wars. See the only reason why insurgents would even be in Iraq is because we opened the door so to speak. So is it one war that turned into two, by mistake of course. The difference between finding the WMD and finding evidence of that they might be making them sounds like spiting hairs to me. Next time Bush can say well we found evidence of them, now that doesn�t mean that they are really there. And thank you, for clearly up that 9/11 thing. I�m sure Bush didn�t know how Bin Laden was going to attack the United States. Wait who? That�s right it was Bin Laden, not Saddam who planned to attack us. That�s why we went to Iraq to liberate the people, and just hope that we find Bin Laden somewhere in Iraq. So instead of going to war with the terrorist that attacked us he decides to go to war to liberate Iraq. I�m all for liberating, I�m a liberal after all (sorry bad joke), but we need to focus on our immediate issues at hand before we open up a new can of worms.

You're right. We opened the door to the insurgents. Not the way you think though. They aren't attacking because they object to us being in Iraq and want Iraq left to the Iraqi people. Most of them aren't even Iraqi. They're attacking because they want to take Iraq *from* the majority of the Iraqi people and have it run by a tiny minority of religious extremists. We "opened the door" only in the sense that we removed Saddam, so now they see Iraq as up for grabs. I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda, but these insurgents have everything to do with it, and would like nothing more than to have a new Taliban-style regime in Iraq.

The difference between finding WMDs and finding evidence of them is not splitting hairs. Finding WMDs means we actually found nukes and chemical and biological agents. Finding evidence means that we verified various facts that led us to believe it was *highly likely* that there were WMDs somewhere in Iraq.

As for the 9/11 thing... you're switching the subject. I say "Bush had no idea *how* bin Laden would attack, therefore there was no benefit to be gained from him returning home immediately" and you reply with a comment about the war in Iraq. And I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but I *am* sure Bush didn't know how bin Laden was going to attack. If *you* had been President pre-9/11, even if you *had* been informed *directly* of a plot to use jetliners as flying bombs (which there's no evidence that Bush was told of at all), you can't honestly say you would have believed it... it was just too far-fetched. The CIA gets tips about dozens of attacks *per week*, and they have to choose only the most credible ones to investigate... say, maybe 5 per week, and out of those 5, only the ones that are investigated and shown to be real threats are even *shown* to the President as far as I know. Even if I'm wrong about the last part, I know I'm right about the first - the CIA can't possibly investigate *every* threat they receive, so the ones that sound like a Hollywood plot (like the 9/11 attack would have before it actually happened), must occasionally be ignored.

Furthermore... //So instead of going to war with the terrorist that attacked us he decides to go to war to liberate Iraq.//... If I recall, we *did* go to war with the terrorist who attacked us. We *beat* the Taliban, and as for al Qaeda itself, it's sort of hard to have a conventional war against a bunch of guys scattered over the whole Middle East... we could only attack specific countries that harbored them.

I *agree* that Iraq had little if anything to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. That doesn't mean, per se, that we were wrong to invade Iraq because the "War on Terror" is not simply a "War on al Qaeda".

Thank you for supporting the points I made, Ashley.
1. We actually have found elements of WMD still in the country. Now we also have Iraqi and American officials saying that they witnessed or have evidence that the Iraq WMD program was moved to Jordan and Syria.
2. You call the war in Iraq a "war of choice". I will not argue that point but I will say that I am very glad the choice was made. Down the road when the partisan rhetoric dies down the wisdom of that choice will be more widely recognized than it already is.
3. Like Anthony said, the invasion part of the war was over and I will add that it was a huge success.
4. Your statement about the vacation shows a lot of ignorance about the workings of the presidency. His job as President does not allow him to turn off his cell phone and pager and disappear for a month. He still gets his daily briefings and has a staff with him at all times. Hardly a vacation as you and I would know one.
5. Your rhetoric about Haliburton falls on deaf ears. They are not perfect but they are one of the most experienced and capable companies in the world for that line of work. You need to research some more on the Cheney financial ties so you can get it straight. Specifically look at what financial impact Cheney gets if Haliburton is awarded a contract.
6. If you are actually interested in facts then keep in mind that President Bush inherited an economy that was already in recession and then we were attacked. Even with all of that the economy is doing fantastic and continues to grow, in spite of what the liberals would like us to believe. Look at the numbers and don't just listen to the lies.
6. If you don't mind being identified with a party whose leaders lack morals, character and principle then I guess that list of people has no special meaning to you. I was always taught that who you associate with speaks about who you are so I wouldn't like to be associated with those people. I am proud to be associated with the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condie Rice who have proven to be people of outstanding morals, character and principle.
Thanks again for proving my points.

The CIA said there were weaponds of Mass Distruction, Bush did NOT want to invade Iraq, he didn't make the descision lightly, he made everybody leave the oval office and said to Cheney and the head of the CIA, that he did NOT want to invade, he did not trust the intel, but the CIA said they Swear to God, there are weapsonds of Mass distruction in Iraq. He said okay, we invaded, and there were none, Bush was devistated and pissed. But he "Stayed the course" Too late to turn back now. Besides, invading Iraq was still a good idea. Invaiding Afganistan was a good idea. Even through the there were no weaponds, we still got rid of a serious threat to america. Eventually we'll get rid of Osama Bin Laden (Hopefully somebodies trigger finger twitches when they find him ooops) Iraq will become a key center point of democracy in Iraq, and eventually, democracy will take hold of the Middle east, and the terrorists will be destroyed. After were done in Iraq and Afganistan, we'll go to Korea and Iran and slap them around for a while!

I got my information from "Plan of attack" by Bob Woodward

Darrin... nothing for me to really disagree with, so I'll just say keep up the good work!

Hmm... Nice one Pete. Given that Woodward is famous for exposing presidential corruption, and is (I think) left-leaning (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think he would have exonerated Bush unless he was pretty damn sure that Bush was in the right. Thanks for the new source to cite.

Darrin Worthington if you had read what I wrote then you would of seen that I called it "facts� not my "rhetoric� And in proving your points. Exactly your pointless bias. You state things like there facts. I don�t want your opinion, I want facts. I would prefer you to prove me wrong with facts, then have you put your opinion in everywhere, which doesn�t help.
Crazy Pete all I have to say is look up the Larry King interview that he had with Bob Woodward, since you can quote him so well. I will look up "Plan of attack" thanks

((The whole thing with "we'll go to Korea and Iran and slap them around for a while!" I don�t think that would be the smart way to go. We can�t even finish the job in Iraq (so far) I hope we can finish it and our troops can come home. )) (( )) = my opinion Lets try to keep bias out of these debates, and if you use it clearly state it, and when you use facts to prove me wrong GOOD, just cite your source. Oh by the way thanks for that citation Pete
The strongest debate is bias free, I will try to give facts only, if you and anyone else will. Of course you might not agree, and that�s fine I just assumed that everyone would want to debate over facts not opinions.

Uhh... no offense, but aside from that very last point about party leaders, all of Darrin's points *were* presented as facts. Also, opinions are valuable in debates when the topic of debate is an idea and not a factual assertion.

Ok if they are facts, where did he get them? I don�t think it�s out of line for me to ask where he got his information. I agree that opinions can be valuable, as long as they don�t cloud the facts. Plus the debate that we were having was for fact based conclusions with citations not ideas or opinions. Of course I could be mistaken in that.

I agree with you on everything but the "with citations" part... Citations make an argument stronger, but are not absolutely necessary. In fact, since you are the one challenging the validity of his facts, the burden of proof would be on you to disprove.

>1. We actually have found elements of WMD still in the country. Now we also have Iraqi and American officials saying that they witnessed or have evidence that the Iraq WMD program was moved to Jordan and Syria.

Ok. we found couple of really small cannisters of some neuro toxic gas if I recall correctly. Thats all. Please back up your statements taht foudn WMDs.

Second, officials saying stuff does not have the same meaning you think it does. If we were "wrong" in Iraq having massing amounts of WMDs we could be wrong about that. Show me proof please.

Darrin: Ashley is correct, you simply state facts. Please back them up.

> Like Anthony said, the invasion part of the war was over and I will add that it was a huge success.
That hardly our Mission in Iraq. I believe the Missions was to get rid of WMDs, Sadam, and Bring Democracy to Iraq and security for us from terrorists by bringing down this particular dan of terrorists.
So far:
- No WMDs were found (so I guess thats somewhat accomplishes, the gettign rid of them)
- Saddam is out. And noone here will shed a tear believe me.
- I would not say there is Democracy in Iraq. No Saddam does NOT equal democracy. The whole thing is like a gunpowder keg which keeps fizzling, waiting to blow up. I mean terrorist running around, blowing people up (attacks are definately up, more peopel dying, if anyone doubts, I WILL show the numbers)

- we ain't more secury from terrorists. In facts Iraq is just infested with NEWLY PRODUCED terrorist who would not mind blowing us up.

Small note: Debate is facts + analysis I dare say.

Thank you Good Will

Anthony I agree with you, but I also think that this little game of �I�m right, you�re wrong� is getting old. I just have the belief that if someone states something as fact that they know where the information came from, and o r will cite your sources. We have (maybe not the two of us, I believe it was though) discussed the huge gap between the right and the left. I figure that with stating facts and citing where you got your information would help bring that gap closer together. I suppose that might be a little naive of me, or left, as some would say. Whatever the case, I don�t care, my intentions are good. The purpose of a debate (my opinion) is to bring to light your position or argument with the help facts (depending on what type of debate bias) quotes, ect. Which, in the end should prove you point. So sorry if I wanted to give you and others the opportunities to prove the information that you call cats, to be true hard facts. I�m not saying that your information was wrong in the first place, just that people often take bias construed fats and call them real facts. (I�m not pointing any fingers here by the way, for I have done it too, it happens in a heated debate) So I guess we are all back to the game of �I�m right and you�re wrong�, although I think that all could benefit form more background on our facts. Even someone pointed out that the intelligence about the WMD was wrong (or misunderstood however you want to say it) and that �wrong facts, or misunderstood cats� exist.

These quotes, (I�m not saying they�re true, I don�t know, they look like it too me but I could be wrong) I found at http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

Sorry if the site is left. I�m sure you will let me know. If/when you prove me wrong please use facts and where you got your information from.

Sorry about the cats and fats, supposed to be facts. Anyway here is another site that has the quotes I put above in it. If you go there it�s about in the middle of the page you will find the one by Bush.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Now the one made by Cheney is about a third of the way down, if you look for simply stated, it might be easier to find it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

Now I didn�t read the articles from top to bottom so I might have missed something so if I did, please let me know.

Sounds right to me!

More conservatives need to see this, the truth is out!

The truth (whatever it may be) should be seen by all. But in today�s society it�s more then just seeing the truth, its acting upon it. It�s almost like the saying actions speak louder then words.

Sorry for the slow response. It was my weekend and I slipped out of town for a bit.

Here are a few things to look up if you are still interested in some of the places that I get my "facts".

WMD Found:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D0FC5873-EF9C-4CA2-9C19-B0B2B9537F6D.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/28/110744.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

WMD moved to Syria
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463

Economy:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3691
http://www.economic-indicators.com/
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/briefroom/BriefRm
http://www.cbo.gov/

Also, you show a couple of quotes and make them seem like they show bad for Bush and Cheney but you might want to look at the quotes on the following sites. Seems like some of your liberal icons agreed with Bush and Cheney on those quotes.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Actions do speak louder than words and that is one huge reason that I am so glad the we have President and Vice-President that we have and not the ones we almost had.

No problem. First of all the quotes that I put above were for Anthony, who stated that Bush only said that we only found evidence of WMD. I didn�t say that my "Liberal icons" as you like to name them, didn�t say agree with Bush. I read the articles on the WMD and Syria. Not all of them but I will get to them. I want to spend time with the articles of the economy, if you don�t mind.

Here are a few articles of my own. I will get back to you on the economy issue.

WMD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4484237.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3893987.stm

WMD in Syria
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2EF693EA-BCC0-4EEB-B90A-F9424043705F.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

We have different opinions on �actions speak louder then words� but I would rather debate what�s on our plate now. Also I believe that we would just go around in a circle, never getting anywhere.

This goes under the debate over Syria hiding WMD

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&page=23

If you read on it has some very interesting articles.

I am currently at my place of employment (I would be hard pressed to call it "work") so I could not access the bbc sites but will do so when I get home later this evening. The WMD in Syria links were interesting, albeit a bit outdated given the recent testimony of some former Iraqi government officials and the tape recordings of Saddam himself.
As for the blog at thenation.com, the thing I find most interesting is that the writer can bash the Bush administration for their pre-war statements and they were the same statements being made by the Democratic leadership as well. It must be an honest mistake because I am sure it could not be an intentional oversight.

I understand that the Democratic leadership said the same thing. Big deal! Bush still went to war based on bad information. If a Demo was in office and had done the same thing I would blame him as well. We can go back and forth on who said what or left/right whatever, the fact of the matter is we as a United States went to war on false information. As such that involves all parties all citizens, so your point is obvious. Plus after 9/11 everyone wanted �blood� so to speak. When Bush said that Saddam might have WMD, and that he and the �terrorist� were involved with each other, it made the already American people nervous and more willing to say yes. The American people (not all of course) feel betrayed, and lied to. They were told that Saddam was a threat to the American way of life and Americans. He wasn�t he only was to his own people, which is just as bad. But saying that he is a direct threat to the US and just a threat to his people are two different ideas.

Your premise that we "went to war on false information" is itself false.
Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda (prior to and after 9/11) and that is a known fact. There were also numerous terrorist training camps in Iraq. It is also known that Saddam had WMD but it was thought that he had more than he did. He was very much a threat to the US and to say he was not is just plain wrong and somewhat puzzling.
I believe that a very large segment of the American people are intelligent enough to see through the smoke screen and know that Bush acted on the intelligence he was given. If he had made up the "evidence" and truly sent us in to a war with intentionally false intelligence he would not be sitting in the Oval Office today.

Once again you state that the intelligence was wrong but right. That makes no sense. I�m going to ask again how much of a document has to be false to be called false. I didn�t say that he made up the evidence don�t put words in my mouth! The other stuff is debatable. There is no evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda, and if there is show me! What "numerous terrorist training camps" where are they, if they really exist. Ok how was he a threat to the American people. What actions did he take that pointed to him attacking the United States? Not evidence that showed that he had WMD, because then you could say that about every county with weapons. It only points to the fact that if he had weapons that he had them, not that he was going to attack us. There is a difference.

The Saddam tapes point to terror attacks, but not coming from Iraq!

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

"I believe that a very large segment of the American people are intelligent enough to see through the smoke screen and know that Bush acted on the intelligence he was given.

I believe that the majority of American citizens are to lazy to really investigate the facts so they grab their information from a quick headline or soundbite. "

These two quotes don�t sound right to me, but it just might be me. They don�t get the right information but yet they are smart enough to see through the smoke screens?

That is a ridiculous question that can not possibly be answered. You would have to look at the nature of the intelligence, the context of the data, the source of the intelligence, etc. That judgement would have to be made on a case by case basis.
There is no debate on the "other stuff":
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/topstory.asp?ID=12798

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
So how does it look down there in that hole in the sand? Saddam used WMD on the people he opposed such as people in his own country and on Iran. With the US becoming his number one enemy it would be irresponsible, ignorant and dangerous to think he would not use them on us. Those tapes prove nothing at all as far as Iraq not attacking the US. One little statement by a madman is not at all reassuring to me. What those tapes do prove is that Iraq definitely had a WMD program and was proud of their ability to hide it from the inspectors.
Those two statements make perfect sense but if you can not follow them I do not think I have enough space here to bring you up to speed. In short, the American people witnessed the previous administration's claims about Iraq and also this administration's claims about Iraq along with those same claims being made by our Congressional leaders. Now all of the sudden when a small bit of that intelligence is seen as false (we have not found huge stockpiles of WMD) only this administration is vilified and the others are given a free pass (a.k.a. the smoke screen). However, the majority of American citizens are to lazy to investigate and get the facts as to how accurate the intelligence really was.

First of all if you had read the article all the way through and put your bias aside then you would of seen the statement that these tapes prove nothing toward him having WMD NOW. Those two statements didn�t make any sense because your at one point say the American people are too lazy and then you go on about how they can see through the smoke screens. Please don�t make statements about my intelligence like that, its pointless and immature. Let�s stay with the facts, but thank you for explaining your point all the through.

Darin:
>That is a ridiculous question that can not possibly be answered. You would have to look at the nature of the intelligence, the context of the data, the source of the intelligence, etc. That judgement would have to be made on a case by case basis.
There is no debate on the "other stuff":

Well you made a conjecture and you are called on it. Word "ridiculous" is not an answer.