All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky The whole "Bush lied" argument is pure politics.

Coming from a Republican, that's a compliment, right?

I seem to recall in prior posts you denied that FDR ever lied.

Better check those posts again.

There is nothing in the constitution that says the president can't lie (of course lying under oath is a whole other matter).

You will also find that the Constitution doesn't say anything about lying under oath, either.

How do you know that the WMDs did not still exist until Bush II started making his threats? Clinton certainly believed that Saddam had WMDs when he left office. They could have been destroyed during Bush II administration just prior to Bush II's invasion. Or they could have been removed to Syria during the invasion, or destroyed during the invasion.

All of these are possible in the non-reality-based universe some conservatives inhabit, but after we occupied Iraq the CIA and others spent a fair amount of time looking into the question.

And Clinton did nothing to get Saddam to remove his WMDs.

If by "did nothing" you mean "bombed and enforced trade sanctions and so on," that's right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Man you are delusional. No one knows for certain when and if Saddam destroyed his WMDs. The only thing we know for sure is that he had WMDs at one time and that the US forces could not find any when they entered the country.

This was reported almost two years ago:

• The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
  
  Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
  
  The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.
  
  Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The senior Democrat members of the Intelligence committee in both the house and Senate have the highest level of security clearence.

You and I both know this doesn't mean they get everything. Well, I know it.

They were all convinced that Saddam had WMDs and they all supported the invasion. Kerry and Mrs. Clinton supported the invasion because they knew it was the right thing. So did every other responsible Democrat.

If you say so. I think some of them were a little more calculating.

But it is also these senior Democrats job to try and take control of the congress and the presidency away from the Republicans. They are suppposed to try and do everything they can to accomplish that goal, and if they don't they are being delinquent in their duties. So of course, when election time comes around, they critisize everything the President did. That is just standard politics. It is just the ignorant partisan hacks that don't see this and buy the propaganda.

So Democrats are partisan when they criticize the President but principled and responsible when they support him. I think I understand how that works.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Exactly, but before we occupied Iraq we didn't know. And when the Bush administration claimed Saddam had WMDs we had not occupied Iraq. In addition, when Kerry and Clinton and Albright and Pelosi all claimed Saddam had WMDs we had not occupied Iraq. Everyone, before we invaded Iraq, thought they had WMDs.

Either you know that there's far more to say about this, or you don't. If you do, wouldn't it be more interesting to have a more sophisticated conversation based on real facts -- things like what the intelligence community and foreign intelligence and weapons inspectors were saying at the time? If you don't, wouldn't it be interesting to learn?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
have a more sophisticated conversation based on real facts -- things like what the intelligence community and foreign intelligence and weapons inspectors were saying at the time

I thought you were saying Presidents know secret stuff

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought you were saying Presidents know secret stuff

Yes. And the rest of us get to learn some of it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. And the rest of us get to learn some of it.

like when we learned Clinton knew where Osama was on at least 2 occassions and decided not to kill him?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
like whe we learned Clinton knew where Osama was on at least 2 occassions and decided not to kill him?

Give him proper credit Chinaski, he killed a nightwatchman at a Sudanese babyaspirin factory and shot a camel in the arse with a cruise missile as a show of force (some speculate that Osama may have been schtupping that camel on some periodic basis). Through these bold decisive actions Clinton was able to subdue the alQaedas and make the world safe for democratic freedom. Until Bush fucked it all up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
like when we learned Clinton knew where Osama was on at least 2 occassions and decided not to kill him?

You're going to have to work harder to distinguish between reality and your little fantasies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Give him proper credit Chinaski, he killed a nightwatchman at a Sudanese babyaspirin factory and shot a camel in the arse with a cruise missile as a show of force (some speculate that Osama may have been schtupping that camel on some periodic basis). Through these bold decisive actions Clinton was able to subdue the alQaedas and make the world safe for democratic freedom. Until Bush fucked it all up.

This is the problem with the Article II theory of extreme deference to the (Bush) presidency that you clowns have been lining up behind. Before too long, someone you don't like -- another Clinton, say -- is going to be elected President. And you'll be hoping that your Senators or Representatives or Justices can act as a check.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're going to have to work harder to distinguish between reality and your little fantasies.

little quiz- who was the last person elected President? hint- it wasn't Jimmy Smits.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
little quiz- who was the last person elected Presdient? hint- it wasn't Jimmy Smits.

Ooh, burn.

I'd feel worse if I hadn't just busted Spanky with that WaPo article.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ooh, burn.

I'd feel worse if I hadn't just busted Spanky with that WaPo article.

you go Celebrate! I remember the Toledo Mudhens won the AAA title a few years back. They had champagne and shit! For that night no one mentioned the majors were 60 miles north.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you go Celebrate! I remember the Toledo Mudhens won the AAA title a few years back. They had champagne and shit! For that night no one mentioned the majors were 60 miles north.

I'm celebrating with a crappy Argentianian malbec that someone brought to my house at a barbecue a few weeks back. A few steps up from the Charles Shaw they brought the time before that, so we'll have to keep having them back -- they're on the upswing. You?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm celebrating with a crappy Argentianian malbec that someone brought to my house at a barbecue a few weeks back. A few steps up from the Charles Shaw they brought the time before that, so we'll have to keep having them back -- they're on the upswing. You?

http://www.migrationwine.com/

the 2004 is not the 2003.