Meet the Press

[lechuza 0]

if you have not seen Meet the Press today, you should try to catch it. It shows how McCain might truly be mentally unstable. he is completely dillusional to reality and it is honestly scary that he has any credibility.

 

Tim Russert made him look like a fool on the show, even using McCain's own words to show how way off he is. McCain pretty much thinks that he knows whats best for this country and Iraq and what Americans or Iraq think doesnt matter.

 

This is not a dem vs rep thread, i am a republican and will likely vote republican but people need to be aware about how crazy McCain really is and this guy cannot even be considered for the nomination

[Guest Black Label Society]

if you have not seen Meet the Press today, you should try to catch it. It shows how McCain might truly be mentally unstable. he is completely dillusional to reality and it is honestly scary that he has any credibility.

 

Tim Russert made him look like a fool on the show, even using McCain's own words to show how way off he is. McCain pretty much thinks that he knows whats best for this country and Iraq and what Americans or Iraq think doesnt matter.

 

This is not a dem vs rep thread, i am a republican and will likely vote republican but people need to be aware about how crazy McCain really is and this guy cannot even be considered for the nomination

 

 

Ron Paul baby.

[jerryskids 5,213]

if you have not seen Meet the Press today, you should try to catch it. It shows how McCain might truly be mentally unstable. he is completely dillusional to reality and it is honestly scary that he has any credibility.

 

Tim Russert made him look like a fool on the show, even using McCain's own words to show how way off he is. McCain pretty much thinks that he knows whats best for this country and Iraq and what Americans or Iraq think doesnt matter.

 

This is not a dem vs rep thread, i am a republican and will likely vote republican but people need to be aware about how crazy McCain really is and this guy cannot even be considered for the nomination

Really? I caught some of it and thought the complete opposite. Russert was up to his typical uber-lefty tricks, and McCain put him in his place. His statement that he has known war and peace, and isn't going to change his mind regarding what is right in Iraq based on popularity polls, was quite strong. Perhaps you want a shill in the white house, I don't.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Newt in '08

[Guest Black Label Society]

Newt in '08

Not that it's any sort of surprise....but you're a complete fishman.

[lechuza 0]

Really? I caught some of it and thought the complete opposite. Russert was up to his typical uber-lefty tricks, and McCain put him in his place. His statement that he has known war and peace, and isn't going to change his mind regarding what is right in Iraq based on popularity polls, was quite strong. Perhaps you want a shill in the white house, I don't.

 

if by uber-lefty tricks you mean facts, then yes Russert was up to his typical tricks.

 

no no i do not want a shill in the White House, but i also dont want someone who should be in a mental institution either

 

Ron Paul baby.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Sounds like I missed a good one. Recently Russert dismantled John Edwards on his show as well. I have to admit Russert does an outstanding job. I love how Russert just happens to always have a tape of his guest contradicting his current position. Also, I find it interesting when people call Russert a "lefty". Russert has been the star guest on Rush Limbaugh and he's been on the Shawn Hannity show. Russert talked about how he idolizes Reagan.

[lechuza 0]

Sounds like I missed a good one. Recently Russert dismantled John Edwards on his show as well. I have to admit Russert does an outstanding job. I love how Russert just happens to always have a tape of his guest contradicting his current position. Also, I find it interesting when people call Russert a "lefty". Russert has been the star guest on Rush Limbaugh and he's been on the Shawn Hannity show. Russert talked about how he idolizes Reagan.

 

[Angry White Male 0]

Veterans just can't get any respect in America anymore. Thanks to rampant liberalism, we now have veterans facing physical attacks from the young, and public verbal attacks from cranky old libs like Russert.

 

[lechuza 0]

Veterans just can't get any respect in America anymore. Thanks to rampant liberalism, we now have veterans facing physical attacks from the young, and public verbal attacks from cranky old libs like Russert.

 

 

so you fully support Murtha?

[Toro 1]

Right now, I am having a really hard time voting for McCain. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat in 2004 based on the way he bucked the system and started doing the right thing. But he's back to pandering and it makes me almost sad.

 

I loved the part when Russert was trying to bust him on the ethanol statement from 2003 and said "so you changed your mind" and McCain basically set him straight on his rhetoric on trying to prove that he flipped, then expanded on the fact that he adjusted his position based on a new set of circumstances. Instead of asking "why did you change your stance", it seems that every reporter just wants to get you to admit that you changed your stance, regardless of reasoning behind the change.

 

I swear if stem cell research all of the sudden cured cancer and Bush opened all the funding to stem cell research, the press wouldn't be asking anything but "So did you change your mind?"

[wiffleball 4,649]

Right now, I am having a really hard time voting for McCain. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat in 2004 based on the way he bucked the system and started doing the right thing. But he's back to pandering and it makes me almost sad.

 

I loved the part when Russert was trying to bust him on the ethanol statement from 2003 and said "so you changed your mind" and McCain basically set him straight on his rhetoric on trying to prove that he flipped, then expanded on the fact that he adjusted his position based on a new set of circumstances. Instead of asking "why did you change your stance", it seems that every reporter just wants to get you to admit that you changed your stance, regardless of reasoning behind the change.

 

I swear if stem cell research all of the sudden cured cancer and Bush opened all the funding to stem cell research, the press wouldn't be asking anything but "So did you change your mind?"

 

Couldn't agree more with the first paragraph. I was all for him before, but between the pandering to the Religous nut-jobs and his swing to the radical right, he looks like a phony. Basically, he lost to Bush b/c he wasn't 'right' enough, so now he's running that race all over again. The problem with that is the country's shifted - sick of the radical right - and so he's going to lose all over again. He's really screwed up. If he just stayed the way he was, he'd be sitting pretty.

 

Also, I think the guy's just plain senile these days. He comes across as too old to be Prez. He's just looked bad so many times - mentally just not quite 'with it'.

 

As far as the 'flip-flop' phenomenon, basically it's Bush's tactics coming back to bite his own party. He made such a big deal of the Kerry "Flip-Flopper" soundbite (while conveniently ignoring his own), that now anybody who changes their mind is a "flip-flopper'.

 

Sad, because I agree with you Toro, intelligent men should be 'allowed' to change their mind as they learn more or conditions change. Hell, Lincoln was for slavery, then for shipping all the blacks to Panama, before he finally changed his mind after seeing how valiantly they fought in the civil war. - Nobody was calling him a 'flip-flopper'.

[lechuza 0]

Couldn't agree more with the first paragraph. I was all for him before, but between the pandering to the Religous nut-jobs and his swing to the radical right, he looks like a phony. Basically, he lost to Bush b/c he wasn't 'right' enough, so now he's running that race all over again. The problem with that is the country's shifted - sick of the radical right - and so he's going to lose all over again. He's really screwed up. If he just stayed the way he was, he'd be sitting pretty.

 

Also, I think the guy's just plain senile these days. He comes across as too old to be Prez. He's just looked bad so many times - mentally just not quite 'with it'.

 

As far as the 'flip-flop' phenomenon, basically it's Bush's tactics coming back to bite his own party. He made such a big deal of the Kerry "Flip-Flopper" soundbite (while conveniently ignoring his own), that now anybody who changes their mind is a "flip-flopper'.

 

Sad, because I agree with you Toro, intelligent men should be 'allowed' to change their mind as they learn more or conditions change. Hell, Lincoln was for slavery, then for shipping all the blacks to Panama, before he finally changed his mind after seeing how valiantly they fought in the civil war. - Nobody was calling him a 'flip-flopper'.

 

 

well said (except there is a lot more about Lincoln than what you said but no need to get into it now)

[Uh-huh 0]

Isn't it funny how right-wingers are all over Kerry and Hillary for allegedly changing their political positions, yet they can't/won't admit McCain, Bush or Giuliani do the same?

 

And in Bush's case, with far more serious consequences.

[Toro 1]

Isn't it funny how right-wingers are all over Kerry and Hillary for allegedly changing their political positions, yet they can't/won't admit McCain, Bush or Giuliani do the same?

 

And in Bush's case, with far more serious consequences.

 

They only have problems with Hillary and Kerry for flip-flopping based on 20/20 hindsight.

 

You think those two would have flipped if they had found a big chemical weapons dump?

 

Same old, Duh-huh. Taking generalizations and trying to apply them incorrectly.

[wiffleball 4,649]

Isn't it funny how right-wingers are all over Kerry and Hillary for allegedly changing their political positions, yet they can't/won't admit McCain, Bush or Giuliani do the same?

 

And in Bush's case, with far more serious consequences.

 

 

TDS has a classic bit on Governor Bush debating President Bush. Kerry an the DNC are idiots for not just airing that over and over again when the whole "flip flopper" thing came up. I'll always remember this quote from the Guv:

 

"I don't want our boys halfway across the world "Nation Building"

 

 

http://digg.com/videos/comedy/The_Daily_Sh...Debate_Of_Words

[IGotWorms 3,323]

I think its funny how you guys all think Russert is some sort of fantastic journalist.

 

In Ex-Aide's Testimony, A Spin Through VP's PR

 

By Dana Milbank

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, January 26, 2007; A01

 

Memo to Tim Russert: D!ck Cheney thinks he controls you.

 

This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

 

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."

 

"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012501951.html

[Cruzer 1,992]

those of us angered by bush's desertion from conservatism, mccain offers no relief. i appreciate his service and certainly feel for what he's had to endure, but i think i'd rather have lieberman.

[wiffleball 4,649]

"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

 

That's funny they'd think that. Cheney got royally busted on that show.

 

Year 1: Cheney: "It's been pretty well confirmed that AQ met with Iraqi intelligence officials."

 

Year 2:

 

MTP: "You said "it's been pretty well confirmed that AQ met with Iraqi intelligence officials."

DC: "I never said that"

MTP: But-

DC: "Never said that"

MPT: ok...

DC: "never said that"

 

 

That was hysterical. Cheney kinda forgot that this 'videotape' stuff lasts a while. I don't think he's been back on the show since.

 

If that's their 'best format'......

[lechuza 0]

Isn't it funny how right-wingers are all over Kerry and Hillary for allegedly changing their political positions, yet they can't/won't admit McCain, Bush or Giuliani do the same?

 

And in Bush's case, with far more serious consequences.

 

its not that mccain has changed his opinion that i dont like, its that he is just completely out of touch with reality and sounds like he wants to be a dictator.

[GobbleDog 822]

McCain pretty much thinks that he knows whats best for this country and Iraq and what Americans or Iraq think doesnt matter.

 

I'm not a big McCain fan for various reasons, but it's true that what Americans and Iraqis think doesn't matter. The President is supposed to do whatever is in the best long-term interests of the United States. Not whatever is popular. When dealing with complex foreign issues, the popular opinion is usually an uninformed one.

[lechuza 0]

I'm not a big McCain fan for various reasons, but it's true that what Americans and Iraqis think doesn't matter. The President is supposed to do whatever is in the best long-term interests of the United States. Not whatever is popular. When dealing with complex foreign issues, the popular opinion is usually an uninformed one.

 

no it does matter in this case. the iraqi parliament doesn't want us there, the american people and american congress dont want us there, and the only ones that do are the Bush cronies and the people making a profit with us being there. yes a president does need to at times do what he believes best even if it is not popular, but this is not that time.

[wiffleball 4,649]

I'm not a big McCain fan for various reasons, but it's true that what Americans and Iraqis think doesn't matter. The President is supposed to do whatever is in the best long-term interests of the United States. Not whatever is popular. When dealing with complex foreign issues, the popular opinion is usually an uninformed one.

 

 

Yeah, I think the Prez lost his "I know better" card after he told us all about the WMD & "Mobile Weapons Labs".

[Toro 1]

Yeah, I think the Prez lost his "I know better" card after he told us all about the WMD & "Mobile Weapons Labs".

 

You mean, so did.....

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

 

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

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

 

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

I even cut and pasted it from Snopes for you. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

Idiot.

[wiffleball 4,649]

You mean, so did.....

I even cut and pasted it from Snopes for you. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

 

 

Gee, like we haven't been down this road seven million times already. Did THEY invade Iraq? No. In fact, the majority of the comments made were done in the context of arguing for renewing or upgrading UN Sanctions. I know context is a little hard for you to understand, but sanctions v invasion - in fact, anything v invasion is a HUGE difference. - And the best Defense W has these days is "But MOM! Everybody ELSE said so too!" Of course, this is the same guy who thought all the people you listed were complete idiots. - So, he now he agrees with the people he disagreed with??

 

That's really childish - but all they have left. In the end, Bush and Bush alone is responsible for this turd.

 

Only one President invaded - specifically for WMD ("This war was and is about Weapons!") - His crew even told us they KNEW where the weapons WERE & showed us detailed blue prints of the Mobile Wep Labs.

 

Yep, fool me once Mr. President....

[Toro 1]

Gee, like we haven't been down this road seven million times already. Did THEY invade Iraq? No. In fact, the majority of the comments made were done in the context of arguing for renewing or upgrading UN Sanctions. I know context is a little hard for you to understand, but sanctions v invasion - in fact, anything v invasion is a HUGE difference. - And the best Defense W has these days is "But MOM! Everybody ELSE said so too!" Of course, this is the same guy who thought all the people you listed were complete idiots. - So, he now he agrees with the people he disagreed with??

 

That's really childish - but all they have left. In the end, Bush and Bush alone is responsible for this turd.

 

Only one President invaded - specifically for WMD ("This war was and is about Weapons!") - His crew even told us they KNEW where the weapons WERE & showed us detailed blue prints of the Mobile Wep Labs.

 

Yep, fool me once Mr. President....

 

So every single one of those quotes were taken out of context, huh?

 

Whatever you say. I bet you are also one of the idiots that believe that giving him authority to invade really meant to hold off and wait a while before invading.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Not that it's any sort of surprise....but you're a complete fishman.

 

Actually, I'm quite serious

[IGotWorms 3,323]

So every single one of those quotes were taken out of context, huh?

 

Whatever you say. I bet you are also one of the idiots that believe that giving him authority to invade really meant to hold off and wait a while before invading.

 

No, dipsh*t, giving authority to invade was meant as a tool to move inspections along. The thing is, the Bush Admin never wanted inspections to work, so rather than use the THREAT of force to make them work, they just went straight ahead to using force.

 

Its a BIG difference, which has thus far resulted in about 3,000 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and $500 billion.

[MDC 5,902]

So every single one of those quotes were taken out of context, huh?

 

Whatever you say. I bet you are also one of the idiots that believe that giving him authority to invade really meant to hold off and wait a while before invading.

 

Did they also vote to invade Iraq with half the troops we needed and stubbornly refuse to change strategy for five years?

[Toro 1]

No, dipsh*t, giving authority to invade was meant as a tool to move inspections along. The thing is, the Bush Admin never wanted inspections to work, so rather than use the THREAT of force to make them work, they just went straight ahead to using force.

 

Its a BIG difference, which has thus far resulted in about 3,000 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and $500 billion.

 

The Bush administration used the power that was given to them by Congress. End of story, dipsh*t. You want to blame someone, blame them all, you raging liberal hippie dooshbag.

 

 

Did they also vote to invade Iraq with half the troops we needed and stubbornly refuse to change strategy for five years?

 

Did I say it was done correctly, mascara boy?

 

No. Thanks for playing.

[wiffleball 4,649]

So every single one of those quotes were taken out of context, huh?

 

Pretty simple to answer this isn't it? Number of invasions and occupations of Iraq that occurred under the Clinton Administration?

 

 

And BTW> If you're gonna post from Snopes, you should probably read all the little words they wrote afterward.

 

However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate (that means "come before") the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

 

In February 1998, politicians debated the Clinton administration's plans to launch air attacks against Iraq in an effort to coerce Saddam Hussein into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors.

 

and on and on.... But I can see why it'd be 'inconvenient' for you to read that stuff. Rush didn't tell you about that part.

 

Pretty bad when your own "proof" makes you look like an idiot.

 

Now be a good boy and Run out and find me a quote where Clinton told the Congress we needed to invade and occupy Iraq. Don't come back until you do, mkay?

 

 

Like I've said a thousand times before Toto. READ from MANY sources. Then form your OWN opinion. This mindless recitation of the latest talking points always comes back to bite you in the butt.

[MDC 5,902]

Did I say it was done correctly, mascara boy?

 

See that question mark at the end of my post? That means I was asking you a question.

[IGotWorms 3,323]

The Bush administration used the power that was given to them by Congress. End of story, dipsh*t. You want to blame someone, blame them all, you raging liberal hippie dooshbag.

 

Are you retarded or are you intentionally NOT getting the point here? Congress authorized the Administration to use force SO THAT THE ADMINISTRATION COULD COMPEL HUSSEIN TO ALLOW WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN TO THE COUNTRY. It was supposed to a threat to waive in Hussein's face, and instead the Administration took it and went straight to war. It was blatant misrepresentation on their part, and I'd argue its criminal since 3,000 U.S. servicement have lost their lives as a result.

[Toro 1]

Pretty simple to answer this isn't it? Number of invasions and occupations of Iraq that occurred under the Clinton Administration?

And BTW> If you're gonna post from Snopes, you should probably read all the little words they wrote afterward.

 

See, but we are not talking about Clinton. You said...

 

he (Bush) told us all about the WMD & "Mobile Weapons Labs"

 

But it wasn't just him. It was lots of people including...

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

Which I believe was after the vote. So if you want to blame someone, blame them all. But it wasn't just Bush that lied. At least, for us non-simpletons.

[MDC 5,902]

See, but we are not talking about Clinton. You said...

But it wasn't just him. It was lots of people including...

Which I believe was after the vote. So if you want to blame someone, blame them all. But it wasn't just Bush that lied. At least, for us non-simpletons.

 

Is it possible that some of these quotes were from congressmen who believed the same fictions the White House was telling the public?

 

Either way, Bush made the decision to go to war so the buck ultimately stops with him. He is also responsible for the failed military operation. HTH.

[Toro 1]

Are you retarded or are you intentionally NOT getting the point here? Congress authorized the Administration to use force SO THAT THE ADMINISTRATION COULD COMPEL HUSSEIN TO ALLOW WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN TO THE COUNTRY. It was supposed to a threat to waive in Hussein's face, and instead the Administration took it and went straight to war. It was blatant misrepresentation on their part, and I'd argue its criminal since 3,000 U.S. servicement have lost their lives as a result.

 

 

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

 

Have you ever read the actual bill or just believe everything people tell you.

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...&summ1&

 

 

 

Is it possible that some of these quotes were from congressmen who believed the same fictions the White House was telling the public?

 

Ahhh, the ol' "Bush fooled us all" response. So he is an idiot yet he fooled our entire country, both houses, Britain, Tony Blair, etc....

 

[wiffleball 4,649]

See, but we are not talking about Clinton. You said...

But it wasn't just him. It was lots of people including...

Which I believe was after the vote. So if you want to blame someone, blame them all. But it wasn't just Bush that lied. At least, for us non-simpletons.

 

 

If we're "not talking about Clinton" why did you proceed to post quotes from him and his cabinet from ten years ago??

 

And again, none of the quotes you listed say anything about invasion and occupying. In fact, for those that DO say anything about specific military action, it's almost universally all air and missile strikes. - Not invasion and occuption.

 

And last - Who was briefing these Senators in 2002,2003? Oh yeah, that's right; The White House, and the President's own personally selected DOD heads of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. I would expect ALL Senators to trust that the President's crew was niether lying nor incompetent when they were getting briefed.

 

....Unless you think Congress should have it's own version of the DOD and CIA because they can't trust the Executive branch anymore.

[Toro 1]

If we're "not talking about Clinton" why did you proceed to post quotes from him and his cabinet from ten years ago??

 

And again, none of the quotes you listed say anything about invasion and occupying. In fact, for those those DO say anything about specific military action, it's almost universally all air and missile strikes. - Not invasion and occuption.

 

And last - Who was briefing these Senators in 2002,2003? Oh yeah, that's right; The White House, and the President's own personally selected DOD heads of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. I would expect ALL Senators to trust that the President's crew was niether lying nor incompetent when they were getting briefed.

 

....Unless you think Congress should have it's own version of the DOD and CIA because they can't trust the Executive branch anymore.

 

Ahhh, the ol' "Bush fooled us all" response. So he is an idiot yet he fooled our entire country, both houses, Britain, Tony Blair, etc....

 

It's all Bush's fault.

[gocolts 300]

Sounds like I missed a good one. Recently Russert dismantled John Edwards on his show as well. I have to admit Russert does an outstanding job. I love how Russert just happens to always have a tape of his guest contradicting his current position. Also, I find it interesting when people call Russert a "lefty". Russert has been the star guest on Rush Limbaugh and he's been on the Shawn Hannity show. Russert talked about how he idolizes Reagan.

Sure he will go on their shows. The right are not affraid of haveing a lefty on their shows. They do it all the time. The problem is most of the liberals are askeerd to go on a show like that. They throw facts out there and the liberals can't think on the spot like that without sounding crazy.

 

He is not what I would call a liberal nutjob. He is a lefty and anyone who has watched several of his shows should relize that by now. But he is one of the few lefties who tries to keep it to himself, just asking what he thinks everyone wants to ask.

[MDC 5,902]

 

Ahhh, the ol' "Bush fooled us all" response. So he is an idiot yet he fooled our entire country, both houses, Britain, Tony Blair, etc....

 

 

At the time, most Americans supported invading Iraq. Now a majority of them want a timetable for withdrawal and think that Bush lied. Is it possible that some of the members of Congress you quoted changed their minds for the same reason your average American did: They realized we were sold a bill of goods? This is a serious question.

 

Although I will grant you that some members of Congress probably changed their minds once they saw what happens when you put a bunch of think tank Beltway pundits with no military experience in charge of a war.