Lorie - Yes, the Bush admin's manipulation of the pre-war intel eventually worked its way into the Dem party. The Dems should have been stronger. And the Repubs should have been less dishonest in fabricating their preemptive war which would subsequently be marked by abismal mismanagement, and almost total breakdown in moral leadership.

So each side had its shortcomings.

mattyd: Are you really this stupid? The dems have been saying that Iraq had WMD ,including Nuclear weapons development programs long before President Bush decided to run for president. As a fact they were saying it before he was elected as governor of Tx and he served his full term there.

Get a brain if you have to borrow one from the local undertaker, your's is not functional.

If all else fails, find someone that reads on the third grade level and have them read the site DEM Facts. If that site is too far ahead of your ability there are several places on the net that have the list of dems and what they were saying in the mid to late 90's posted in real simple language. Maybe you can find a drunken wino or some post smoking brain dead street person to read it to you. They will be smarter than you.

mattyd is joking, right? Isn't it amazing how Bush manipulated intelligence back in 1998 and earlier, from Texas? I guess if you believe Karl Rove can command hurricanes then you can believe the Bush people were running the intelligence apparatus in the 1990's. Just exactly what the heck was Clinton doing? Oh yeah, I remember.

Scrapiron - why so testy? And redundant?

Anyway, you make a persuasive argument that: 1) I'm stupid and 2) I should get a brain from an undertaker. But back on Earth, the facts appear to be thus - George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were the primary architects and advocates of a preemptive war based on a series of changing allegations all -- or nearly all -- of which proved to be fabricated, distorted, inaccurate, or otherwise dishonestly conjured.

Don't give the Dems too much credit for the occupation of Iraq. It might hurt George's feelings.

However, I'll agree with you that I should get a brain from an undertaker. Just because it's funny.

mattyd: Have whoever is typing for you go read some of the quotes from the dimwits in the 90's about all the WMD Saddam possessed and how dangerous he was to the U.S. Maybe they can explain to you that President Bush was not in office nor in D.C. during the 90's. Your brain like the majority of the dimwit party is still not functional.

mattyd: I sometimes repeat the same thing over and over. I've found through experience that it is a good way to teach children.

Merely repeating the "Bush lied" meme doesn't make it true.

This moonbat moron blames the BUSH Administration for what Democrats said in the 1990s.

Wow, that Rove guy is GOOD, ain't he? To be able to make the opponents say those things YEARS before Bush was even a candidate for President . . . remarkable prescience.

Either that, or mattyd is moonbattyd.

Lorie, Scrap & Jim -

Oh my God, you're right. The Bush administration was NOT the leading advocates and architects of the invasion of Iraq. And Bush didn't go before congress with an argument --that turned out to be fallacious-- to PERSUADE congress and the American public to support an invasion of Iraq.

My bad.

Except that all of his major multiple, shifting, justifications for war turned out to be not true.

Come on conservatives, you used to be the "moral highground" ideology. What happened?

Unlike a true troll hit and run, mattyd actually TWICE takes the time to respond to the comments his first remark inspired - yet in each reply he fails to challenge, refute or even refer to the point of the comments.

Namely, that Democrats had a lot to say in the 90s about Iraq before Bush even came to power. Point ignored...unresponsive (finger in ears yelling la,la,la, Bush lied,la,la,la, Bush lied)

This is classic BDS - and while maybe 35% of the voters have it on the left, the nation as a whole does not.

Steve

Damn good point! I failed to respond to the arguments. Okay, let's see 1) other democrats cited the same arguments for war. Okay, and 2) there's shared culpability for intelligence failures and 3) something about a moonbat plus many, many ad-hominem attacks without any facts or actual argument.

Okay. Sure. Aside from the (typical conservative) ad-hominem attacks, those points sound true, maybe even the moonbat thing. I don't disagree.

What I'm responding to is this - the post seems to suggest that Repubs are saying "although everyone's mad at us for starting a war on grounds most of which have yet-to-be-justified, and then managed to execute it with profound incompetence and moral vacuity... HEY look the Dems said Saddam was BADDDDD! too. Even back in the 90s!"

It equates identifying a POSSIBLE threat, with well, starting and fucking up a baseless war.

The 2 are not equal to me. Seems like an inability to take moral responsibility for one's own actions and choices. Which, in this case, happens to kill thousands.

Love always,
Moonbat

p.s. I don't know what you're referring to about 35%, but the number is striking close to W's approval rating. Here's another way of looking at 35% - most of what you guys write, about 2/3 of the country disagrees.

Heh.

Pace yourself, mattyd. At the rate you are frothing, you will have choked to death on your own spittle before October, and deprive us of a good six weeks of laughs.

Take a few deep breaths. Relax. We would hate to see your head explode before Election Night.

Jim Addison - you are irrelevant.