It wouldn't be so easy to dismiss the administration's claims if it hadn't lied about the threat posed by Iraq. That's what happens when you cry wolf.

Exactly. Sort of like looking directly into the camera, shaking your finger, and saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." There goes any credibility.

Curt

Come on Curt. At least he didn't inhale.

What's worse, lying about a blowjob or lying about a war?

Oh, I forgot, lying is lying. Sure...

Sure, no perjury that can be proven, unless someone takes the bull by the horns and follows up on the phony documents submitted "proving" Iraq was indeed harboring weapons of mass destruction.

You are darn right Iran and North korea, etc. should not have nukes and we should. They sponsor terrorism and are a threat to democracy all over the world. The United States is not a threat. I think we should use our power to wipe out dictatorships like Saddam's all over the world.

^^So, the lesson is that we're within our rights to invade any sovereign nation that we reasonaby assume might possess WMD, whether we have actual (as opposed to manufactured) intelligence or find any WMD after our invasion or not.

Got it.

That does simplify matters.

Exactly. Sort of like looking directly into the camera, shaking your finger, and saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." There goes any credibility.

This is indeed an interesting point. Which way would you have it? For you can't have it both ways. Were the U.N. weapons inspectors giving us actual or manufactured intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until 1998?

WHAT ABOUT THE MOBILE BIOWEAPONS LABORATORY DISCOVERED NOT TWO WEEKS AGO IN NORTHERN IRAQ?

Who says the United States isn't a threat? That's an opinion, based on one's perception of their relationship with the US. Obviously you won't think it's a threat from your point of view, but billions of other people around the world do, and since a threat is an issue of perception (in my opinion at least), that makes us a threat.

Reasonable people can see that this is about President Bush...specifically hating President Bush. As others have nicely pointed out, no one was saying how evil America was/is when Clinton was in office.

This is indeed an interesting point. Which way would you have it? For you can't have it both ways. Were the U.N. weapons inspectors giving us actual or manufactured intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until 1998?

Curt

I read that counterpunch link that skibabeage posted, it was the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while.

Seriously, trying to psychoanalyze someone from afar? They drew the conclusions they were looking to prove, hardly objective. They bable on and on about his ego and his self importance. Clinton was an ego maniac but I never heard anyone call him 'dry drunk.'

What a bunch of $hit.

WMD was no reason. Terrorism was no reason. Liberating the Iraqis might have been a reason

Exquisite thought process. One can only imagine what Hussein & Co would be doing right now if they had a fraction of our military power......I'm sure you cannot imagine that...you're too busy contriving theories to support your grand "perceptions" theory, to really understand the definition of "threat."

It amazes me how many people on this board enjoy sitting around and trying to look "intellectual" by way of repeating the mantra "America is evil."

Remember 9/11?

If we were so worried, why did we let looters have several days' access to the country's most important nuclear facility?

But--and I'm being perfectly honest--he's not the focus of my anger.

Harboring terrorists? This was merely the first in a series of reasons the administration gave, which it then had to back off of when people actually had the balls and intelligence to ask for evidence.