John, You Ignorant Slut.

Hey, you're right. That *does* feel good!

It comes to something when you have Bush supporters calling Kerry 'ignorant,' not that this zealous dirt dishing has anything to do with him being ignorant anyway.

''Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.''

Colin Powell - February 24, 2001

''The Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.''

George W Bush - March 17, 2003

Lying, criminal, ignorant ''sluts.''

Obviously not a Saturday Night Live fan, and no sense of humor, either.

Poor commie.

What has this post got to do with humour?

I see your Powell and Bush, and raise you a Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton.

"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

Does this make Pelosi one of the "Lying, criminal, ignorant 'sluts'"?

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

Senator Kerry, one of the "Lying, criminal, ignorant 'sluts'"?

"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

Senator Clinton, another of the "Lying, criminal, ignorant 'sluts'"?

But that's okay. You can go on believing that Kerry didn't hold the same beliefs that most people did.

And I addressed Powell's contradictions earlier this year. Look here.

Everything, if you happen to be an old-school SNL fan.

''But that's okay. You can go on believing that Kerry didn't hold the same beliefs that most people did.''

A cunning ploy from an equally cunning argument. Ahem. Unfortunatly for you, i never did suggest this. Kerry is truly little better than Bush. Your ''Oh but they said it too!'' argument is pretty full of assumptions.

The, what you're saying is that John Kerry is a lying, criminal, ignorant slut? Just of a lesser order?

Then what's your problem with my post?

And, my point, since you seem to have missed it, is that the "lying" portion of your argument is just a joke.

Even the guy that you support for the job believed the same things that Bush believed--the fact that intelligence was wrong and didn't back up the beliefs doesn't make anyone liars, it simply makes them wrong.

Your "Oh but they said it too!" argument is pretty full of assumptions.

No assumptions, just facts. The intelligence services of five countries, along with the majority of this country's leadership, believed that Saddam Hussein was actively trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Bush never lied. He simply stated what was the prevailing belief at the time and then acted on it. A lie is when you say something that you know to be false with the deliberate intention of being misleading. None of the aforementioned people (Bush, Clinton, Kerry, and Pelosi) said anything that they knew to be false at the time. None of them were attempting to be misleading. Hence, none of them lied.

My problem, as i thought i pointed out was the irony.

4 Aces, in the form of a simple link to some Bushisms. If this isnt ignorance at its best, i have no idea what is.

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_bushisms.html

''They want the federal government controlling social security like its some kind of federal program.''

I think that one wins first prize.

Also the fact John Kerry's somewhat quick change of mind during the gulf war has nothing to do with being ignorant.

''None of them were attempting to be misleading. Hence, none of them lied.''

Which is actually incorrect. Bush and his ilk were extremely misleading about Saddam's WMDs, up to the point of lying.

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

''"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." -- Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003.''

''"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -- Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003''

''"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 ''

''"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002''

Received via email: Anyone care to fact check these?

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country." - John F. Kerry

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - John F. Kerry

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'." - John F. Kerry

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." - John F. Kerry

"The future will be better tomorrow." - John F. Kerry

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world." - John F. Kerry

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - John F. Kerry

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." - John F. Kerry

"Public speaking is very easy." - John F. Kerry

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." - John F. Kerry

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." - John F. Kerry

"For NASA, space is still a high priority." - John F. Kerry

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." - John F. Kerry

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." - John F. Kerry

"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system." - John F. Kerry

Like I said, I haven't had the chance to check these out. If they really are John Kerry quotes, sweetness.

If I remember correctly, most of those are actually Dan Quayle quotes, but I could be wrong.

Commie, in what way do those quotes prove intent to decieve?

I've been informed that they are not ruly from kerry. Damn. I still think he's a stupid head head. Even he did talk all sweet n' stuff, I disagree with the stuff he's saying.

yeah netlore. I should have known. too good to be true.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry_quotes.htm

They were blaming those quotes on Al Gore four years ago.

I wonder who they'll blame them on in '08? Gray Davis?

''I wonder who they'll blame them on in '08? Gray Davis?''

If someone was scared he might actually win anything maybe.

''Commie, in what way do those quotes prove intent to decieve?''

Intent to decieve is extremely hard to ''prove'' but i think its fairly easy to spot, especially in that chain of 3 Rumsfeld quotes. Saddam may of had ambitions to obtain WMDs, im not denying that. But what the Bush administration said he HAD has proven to be quite flawed, and misleading.

Commie: "Flawed" and "misleading" are two different things. As I stated earlier. the intelligence services of five countries believed that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program in place. Bush gave eight reasons for going to war, one of which was the weapons program. In retrospect, it turns out that the intelligence was flawed. Bush never lied or attempted to mislead, however. He was very open about what was believed, who believed it, and why it was believed.

The Rumsfled quotes are not misleading, either. If I went outside of my office and burried a can of paint and then told you that it was buried "in the area around Akron," how long do you think that it would take for you to find it? The second quote is that "I never believed that we'd just tumble over..." The key phrase here is "tumble over." What he was saying is that he never expected the weapons to simply be laying around in the open where anyone could see them. The intelligence at the time asserted that there were weapons of mass destruction resources being stored near two major population centers but that finding the exact locations within those two geographical areas would still prove to be challenging since they would have been (had they existed) been hidden. Again, the intelligence was faulty, but no one intentionally misled. Rumsfeld was perfectly honest and open in his assessment of the situation, based on the available intelligence. Intelligence, which I will add again, that was believed by the previous administration.

''Commie: "Flawed" and "misleading" are two different things.''

I said flawed AND misleading. I think intelligence may of been flawed, but i still think information was used misleadingly to push the American people to back the war. For example, Saddam was never a threat to the United States, and much of the the things he was cited as owning simply dont exist.

''The Rumsfled quotes are not misleading, either. If I went outside of my office and burried a can of paint and then told you....''

Come now. We are hardly dealing with a can of paint here. When there are thousands of soldiers in the area, who im quite positive are very good at their job (note Saddam, Uday and Qusay Hussein all being caught...) I would expect them to have the ability to find hundreds of tons of WMD's or their means of production.

''Rumsfeld was perfectly honest and open in his assessment of the situation, based on the available intelligence. Intelligence, which I will add again, that was believed by the previous administration.''

I personally think that Rumsfeld was trying to squirm his way out of what he had said previously. He, and the rest of the cabinet for that matter made it appear to the American people that Saddam was much more of an existing threat than he really was.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.

Sigh.

Great contribution Deb. *Roll eyes*

Z,

This is SOP for Kerry. Ive just put down "Reckless Disregard" by Buzz Patterson and he has quite a few more of these Kerryisms.

Last time I checked I wasn't required to make a contribution that met your approval. Thanks for providing an example of why I don't bother anymore.

Hey thats fine with me. If you want to sit there and talk shit without making any points to the debate be my guest. Who am i to stop you?

The surviving family members of those Kurds and Iranians killed in Hussein's gas attacks will be quite surprised to discover that Saddam had no WMD.
Instead of bleating about 'Bush Lied' we'd be a helluva lot better off if there was a demand, and not just from the Right, that we find out what happened to them. Either they've been destroyed or they've been moved. If they've been destroyed, fine. If they've been moved, WHO HAS THEM?
The danger of the Bush Lied meme is that if we do get a handle on where they are, and they're someplace like Syria our hands may be tied in going after them.

Why, thank you. And if you want to go right on rehashing all of this shit, please don't let me interfere. I sort of miss the days when I had the energy, really.

Z, sorry for junking up your comments with my exasperation. Now you know why I don't blog this stuff anymore.

Don't apologize; he's just trying to pick fights for some reason.

Thanks. I feel bad, since I ought to know better by now...how long have I been doing this? :)

''Why, thank you. And if you want to go right on rehashing all of this shit, please don't let me interfere. I sort of miss the days when I had the energy, really.''

Oh please. You really arnt worth anybodys time. What ''shit'' would that be then? You have to love the clueless war supporters that dismiss any argument as shit. I have no problem with right wingers, or Republicans at all. Infact i have no qualms with agreeing with them over some issues. You however, are a shit talker with no said argument or knowledge on the subject. I miss the days when you could debate without morons clogging with meaningless smack, trying to get personal over the net. Sad sad debby.

''Don't apologize; he's just trying to pick fights for some reason.''

Not at all, unless you call questioning trying to pick fights. Ive only debated, quite rationaly i might add. If anything, people like deb are the fight starters, baiting people by posting pointless one liners.

Filthycommie:

Saddam was never a threat to the United States...

Bush said, very specifically and very clearly, that we needed to act before he became an imminent threat.

much of the the things he was cited as owning simply dont exist...

Why don't they exist? As val pointed out, Hussein did have WMDs at the end of the Gulf War. He admitted so himself and we have the evidence of him gassing the Kurds. He claims to have disposed of them according to the treaty, but he has never accounted for them. This means that one of two situations exists: 1) he disposed of them and, for some unexplained reason, simply refuses to prove it, 2) he never disposed of them. If he has disposed of them then all that he needed to do to avoid war was show the documetation. He never did. You are free to presume that this means that he did dispose of them, but that presumption comes with a potential danger that I, and many others, feel is too steep.

When there are thousands of soldiers in the area...

You have completely missed the point of what I was saying. I agree with you that it now appears that the intelligence was faulty. My point had to do with your false assertion that Rumsfled had lied. In the first quote that you cited he was saying that he knew the geographical location where the WMDs were supposed to have been. In the second quote he was saying that knowing the geographical location did not mean that we wouldn't have to search those areas thoroughly. The meaning that you are missing is in the "just tumble over" phrase.

...made it appear to the American people that Saddam was much more of an existing threat than he really was.

Again, you need to remember that Bush, very clearly and specifically, said that he wanted to act before Hussein became an imminent threat. You must also remember that the Clinton administration made the exact same assessment of the threat level of Hussein. They simply chose not to act at the same level. You cannot claim that Bush lied about the threat posed by Hussein without also leveling the same charge at Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madleine Albright, et. al.

''Bush said, very specifically and very clearly, that we needed to act before he became an imminent threat.''

So what you are saying is, it was ok for Bush to act on assumptions gained from faulty intelligence. Anyway, Bush and his cabinet made many accusations claiming that Saddam's WMDs were an IMMEDIATE threat. Most notably claims that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. UN nuclear inspectors have repeatedly contradicted these claims. They concluded the notorious aluminum tubes Powell said were for uranium-enrichment centrifuges were actually conventional 122-mm rocket artillery casings.

Powell also accused Iraq of owning 1,200 km range missles that could reach Israel.

''Hussein did have WMDs at the end of the Gulf War. He admitted so himself and we have the evidence of him gassing the Kurds. ''

Weapons that were knowingly supplied by the Reagan administration.

''He claims to have disposed of them according to the treaty, but he has never accounted for them.''

He lacks the proper documentation, but this is hardly grounds to call his claims lies. Afterall, this havnt been found yet. Most of those WMDs were made in the 1980's, in which case its highly likely they are inert from age. Its also important to note that mustard gas always made up the bulk of Iraq's chemical weaponry....which is not a WMD and is no more lethal than fuel air explosives, or napalm used by the US. Bush really did mislead the people about the EXISTING threat posed by Iraq.

''The meaning that you are missing is in the "just tumble over" ''

Well, the time for ''just tumbling over'' WMD's has ended. I was positive they wouldnt be found then, and guess what they still havnt.

''You must also remember that the Clinton administration made the exact same assessment of the threat level of Hussein. They simply chose not to act at the same level.''

EXACTLY, they didnt invade Iraq hastily. The ACTION taken by Bush is the key thing here. It was far too hasty. Its quite well known now that the coalition was quite unwilling to let the weapons inspectors do their job. Here is a link to an article from April last year, which gives some interesting quotes from Hans Blix.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0423undermined.htm

''....without also leveling the same charge at Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madleine Albright, et. al.''

I think i can, as this group did not jump to use clearly unreliable information from defectors as a case for war with Iraq. They did not mislead the American people into a war with Saddam, who posed no threat.

So what you are saying is, it was ok for Bush to act on assumptions gained from faulty intelligence.

Yes. This is exactly what I am saying. Every President must act according to the intelligence that they have in hand. That is what Presidents do. It's their job. It is foolish to assert that a President with intelligence that is considered credible should not act on it. This is what you are asserting, however. It would be nice if we lived in a world were the President could see the future, but we don't. You have the benefit of hindsight and it is intellectually dishonest for you to assert that the knowledge that you have now and that the President didn't have at the time is the knowledge that he should have acted on.

Weapons that were knowingly supplied by the Reagan administration.

This is irrelevant. How he got them is not the issue. The issue is that he was supposed to have destroyed them after the end of the Gulf War. This statement by you is a red herring.

He lacks the proper documentation, but this is hardly grounds to call his claims lies.

I never said that he lied. I said that he either disposed of them and failed to prove it or that he never got rid of them.

EXACTLY, they didnt invade Iraq hastily. The ACTION taken by Bush is the key thing here. It was far too hasty.

There was nothing hasty about it. Hussein had failed to meet the cease-fire requirements after 12 years and 14 UN resolutions. There is nothing hasty about 12 years and 14 resolutions. Period.

...did not jump to use clearly unreliable information...

This information has only proven to be unreliable in hindsight. At the time they believed it to be as reliable as Bush did.

They did not mislead the American people into a war with Saddam, who posed no threat.

Of course they didn't. Neither did Bush. Bush lead the American people to war, bet he mislead no one, and he did so before Hussein became a threat. This makes Bush a leader and Clinton a diplomat.

''Yes. This is exactly what I am saying. Every President must act according to the intelligence that they have in hand.''

I suppose thats our fundamental difference in opinion then, because i totally disagree. Not only has the invasion increased the probability of attempted terrorist attacks on the United States, its resulted in over 10,000 civilian deaths.

''It is foolish to assert that a President with intelligence that is considered credible should not act on it.''

Its quite well known that information gained from defectors is unreliable.

''You have the benefit of hindsight and it is intellectually dishonest for you to assert that the knowledge that you have now and that the President didn't have at the time is the knowledge that he should have acted on''

Not at all, many people at the time said the weapons inspectors should of been allowed more time. What im saying is hardly new, Bush wasnt backed into a corner and frankly he rushed into a war he shouldnt have.

''There was nothing hasty about it. Hussein had failed to meet the cease-fire requirements after 12 years and 14 UN resolutions. There is nothing hasty about 12 years and 14 resolutions. Period.''

...Which is a ''red herring'' as there are many other countries who have ignored UN resolutions, including the United States, and most notably Israel. As far as im concerned, Saddam was giving the inspectors unlimited access to his country....which was still not good enough for Bush. There was really little more he could do.

''I never said that he lied. I said that he either disposed of them and failed to prove it or that he never got rid of them.''

Ok, touche.

''This information has only proven to be unreliable in hindsight. At the time they believed it to be as reliable as Bush did.''

As i pointed out, much of the information used as a base for declaring war....most notably the much vaunted claims about Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities were from defectors...who are notorious for unreliability. It seems to me the administration heard what they wanted to hear, proceeded to ignore the UN and went along with their own SUSPISCIONS.

''Of course they didn't. Neither did Bush. Bush lead the American people to war, bet he mislead no one, and he did so before Hussein became a threat. This makes Bush a leader and Clinton a diplomat.''

Id say it makes Bush a war criminal, with no respect for the international community.... which at the moment...despite his faults cant be said of John Kerry. Bush clearly mislead many people. The number of people ive spoke to who have changed their stance on the war is unbelievable. Bush and co made out Iraq to be an immediate threat, which is a surefire way to work up the American people. He tried to play on emotions.

I suppose thats our fundamental difference in opinion then, because i totally disagree.

There is nothing to disagree with here - I made a statement of fact: "Every President must act according to the intelligence that they have in hand." No one can act upong information that they don't have, only on the information that they do have. "Act" is not synonymous with "go to war." Clinton on the same intelligence that Bush had. His action was to allow the UN to handle things. Bush's action was to send troops.

Its quite well known that information gained from defectors is unreliable.

The intelligence that Bush was acting on was not solely from defectors. It was from numerouse sources. It was also backed up by the intelligence services of four other countries, including the United Kingdom.

...many people at the time said the weapons inspectors should of been allowed more time.

Many people had been saying this for 12 years. many people were saying that we should go to war. Bush, as President, lead the country in the direction that he felt was right. That is his job.

...with no respect for the international community...

This is incorrect. Bush has tremendous respect for the international community. He has tremendous respect for the countries on the UN Security Council, whom he tried very hard to work with. He also has tremendous respect for the 30+ countries that allied with us in the coalition. Ultimately, however, the job of the President is to protect the United States and its interests. It is not to be respected by the "international community" (unless doing so supports him in protecting the United States and its interests). I agree with you 100% that John Kerry will give more credence to the opinions of the leaders of other countries when he makes his decisions. Quite frankly, this is one of the reasons that I do not intend, at this time, to vote for him. It is unconscionable for the President to give away our sovereignty that way.

Zom, when this thread hits 50, SELL!

"Every President must act according to the intelligence that they have in hand."

Yes, and Bush mislead the people knowing full well Iraq was no threat to US national security. The intelligence he ''acted'' on was ridiculous, few other Presidents have made a blunder of quite this scale.

''The intelligence that Bush was acting on was not solely from defectors.''

Much of it was. A huge argument for Bush's war...which was that Iraq was supposedly trying to buy uranium from Niger was proven to be false, and even the government of Niger denied it. As i said, Bush acted on what he wanted to hear.

''He has tremendous respect for the countries on the UN Security Council, whom he tried very hard to work with.''

Then why didnt he allow the weapons inspectors to do their job? Hans Blix, the chief inspector has said the US tried to undermine his mission. Coincidence? I think not.

''Ultimately, however, the job of the President is to protect the United States and its interests.''

This argument is invalid, as Iraq had little to do with US interests. The only thing worth noting is Iraq's previous change to value oil contracts in Euro rather than USD. It didnt surprise me when the US government then changed back to USD within a week of taking control of the Iraqi government.

'' It is unconscionable for the President to give away our sovereignty that way.''

A common paranoia. The UN has nothing to do with giving away sovreignty, as shown by Bush's flaunting of other countries opinions on the matter. I agree, we should act on US interests, but we should still value the respect of the international community. The time of imperialist gun boat diplomacy has ended. Bush was out of line.

ROFL!!! And that's my last word. *grin*

Ahhhh the smack talker raises its ugly head. Go back to your yahoo chat rooms or something.

Heh.

Yes, and Bush mislead the people knowing full well Iraq was no threat to US national security.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You can say that Bush "lied" or "mislead" all that you want, but reprtition doesn't make it true. The facts prove you wrong.

...which was that Iraq was supposedly trying to buy uranium from Niger was proven to be false, and even the government of Niger denied it.

Of course the government of Niger denied it. The consequences of them admitting that they did so, if they did, would have been enormous. Their word on this has no credibility. Moreover, 1) British intelligence still maintains that the attempted sale did occur, and 2) the supposed 'evidence' for clearing them has been so thoroughly debunked that your whole assertion is laughable. Even if it were to be proven beyond every shadow of a doubt that Niger never tried to sell Iraq uranium, you are still incorrect in claiming that Bush lied or mislead. The intelligence at the time supported this belief. The famous "16 words" specifically state that British intelligence was making the claim. British intelligence is still making that claim. You are telling a lie by saying that Bush lied or mislead.

Then why didnt he allow the weapons inspectors to do their job?

He did. He gave them 12 years. They failed.

This argument is invalid, as Iraq had little to do with US interests.

Iraq had everything to do with US interests. It undeniably had more to do with US interests than Bosnia yet Clinton sent troops there.

The UN has nothing to do with giving away sovreignty, as shown by Bush's flaunting of other countries opinions on the matter.

The UN had nothing to do with giving away sovreignty in this case, but only because Bush acted in our interests despite their disagreement. If Kerry is elected and he refuses to act in the interest of the US just because the UN disagrees with us, as both you and he have implied that he would do, then the US would be giving up its sovreignty.

...but we should still value the respect of the international community.

Bush did value and respect the international community. That is why he 1) tried very hard to make our case to the UN, and 2) he worked with a coalition of 30 countries when he finally moved.

The time of imperialist gun boat diplomacy has ended.

Tell that to the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center, attacked the USS Cole, etc. War was declared on us (literally - look up the word "jihad" in the dictionary some time). I want a President in office who understands that and who is willing to do what it takes to win.

''Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You can say that Bush "lied" or "mislead" all that you want, but reprtition doesn't make it true. The facts prove you wrong.''

I could say exactly the same to you. Facts have proven Iraq was neither an existing threat, or an imminent threat. Despite the protests of Hans Blix, Bush was determined to fight this war. He claimed Saddam could of prevented the invasion, which is another lie. He gave unrestricted access all over Iraq, which he had not done in the previous 12 years. Still not good enough.

''The consequences of them admitting that they did so, if they did, would have been enormous. Their word on this has no credibility.''

Thats ridiculous. You support the invasion that was based on a lot of claims made by defectors, most notably the tubes used for uranium-enrichment and the infamous ''vans of death'' but have the audacity to slam this has having no credibility. Sorry, but that just doesnt cut it.

''1) British intelligence still maintains that the attempted sale did occur''

Which is actually incorrect. The Hutton inquiry concluded that a dossier formed by British intelligence contained a lot of misinformation, including the said uranium claim.

''.....He then started to acquit MI6 of the charges made against it. First is the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa - taken on both sides of the Atlantic as proof that Iraq was seeking a nuclear programme. It later emerged that this was a hoax which emanated from Italy.''

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=807832004

The only person that still stands by the claim is Lord Butler, who does not represent ''British intelligence.'' Even the CIA has accepted the claim was fabricated.

''Iraq had everything to do with US interests. It undeniably had more to do with US interests than Bosnia yet Clinton sent troops there.''

A red herring, as i never claimed Bosnia had anything to do with US interests. Bosnia had nothing to do with UN interests either. It was a humanitarian mission, it wasnt in any countries interests other than the people being helped.

''If Kerry is elected and he refuses to act in the interest of the US just because the UN disagrees with us....''

Do you really think he would be able to do this? While i agree with you, to an extent i dont think we should be free to ignore international law. If another country went against all UN protest and carried out an illegal invasion, i would be outraged, just as i was when my own country did this.

''he worked with a coalition of 30 countries when he finally moved.''

How many of these provided troops? To my knowledge, when the invasion began only troops from the US and the UK were used. More international troops are being used now, but the ''war'' is supposedly over (according to Bush)

'' Tell that to the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center,''

Irrelevant, as 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, as proven. I backed intevention in Afghanistan.(But dont agree with how it was carried out)

''War was declared on us (literally - look up the word "jihad" in the dictionary some time).''

Terrorists in the form of extremist Islamic fundamentalists declared jihad. The Iraqi government on the other hand, did not. Holding Iraq accountable for the actions of an extreme terrorist group is ridiculous.

He gave unrestricted access all over Iraq...

The access that Hussein gave was never unrestricted. He had numerous exemtptions, requirements for forewarning of inspections, requirements for sending his people with the inspectors, etc. Hussein only gave as much as he felt he needed to in order to appease the pacifists.

Which is actually incorrect. The Hutton inquiry concluded...

I was not aware of this so I will take your word for it. This doesn't change anything, however. You claimed that Bush "lied" and "mislead." My counter claim is that Bush was operating on intelligence that was considered reliable at the time and that, therefore, he did not lie or mislead. As I have stated several times already, the fact that much of the intelligence has been discredited after the fact is irrelevant. This does not make Bush a liar, it just means that he had faulty information. These are two entirely different things.

...i never claimed Bosnia had anything to do with US interests. Bosnia had nothing to do with UN interests either. It was a humanitarian mission...

My point was simple. You claimed that there was no US interest in Iraq and, therefore, we had no right to invade. I disagreed using a historical example. Even if I give you the benefit of that doubt and say that there was no US interest in invading Iraq (which I don't believe, I think that there was compelling interest), your claim doesn't hold water. Bosnia serves as one of many examples where the US acted out of humanitarian reasons. Bush offered up eight reasons to invade Iraq. The humanitarian reason was one of them.

Do you really think he would be able to do this?

I believe that he is more likely to do this than Bush would be.

...carried out an illegal invasion...

I have huge problems with the concept of "illegal" as used in this statement. We should probably hold off on that philisophical discussion until another day. Let me just milint my comments to this: your statement implies that we already have given up our sovreignty. I still maintain that we have the right to act in our own interests even if other countries disagree with us. hence, I don't believe that there should ever be a time when we are not allowed to act because some foreign body says that we can't.

How many of these provided troops?

This is irrelevant. You claimed that Bush doesn't respect the "international community." The simply fact is that there were 30 countries who agreed with what we were doing and offerred assistance of one form or another. If that isn't an "international community" then I don't know what is, unless, of course, you believe that "internation community" is synonymous with "France, Germany, and Russia."

Irrelevant, as 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq...

I never said that it did. You made the sweeping generalization that "The time of imperialist gun boat diplomacy has ended." I am simply disputing this generalization. It would be nice if we lived in a utopian world where countries all got along, no one ever killed anyone else, and the UN was actually capable of being a successful arbiter of disputes. Unfortunately, that world does not exist. Instead, we live in a world of terrorism. The Middle East has been an international problem for decades and no significant progress has been made. Bush made a conscious decision (and an open, honest announcement) that he was going to approach the entire region differently in the wake of 9/11.

Holding Iraq accountable for the actions of an extreme terrorist group is ridiculous.

I'm not holding Iraq accountable for this. I am holding Iraq accountable for their own actions, which include innumerable crimes against his own people, crimes against his neighbors, and crimes against America (the attempted assassination of the first President Bush).

''My point was simple. You claimed that there was no US interest in Iraq and, therefore, we had no right to invade.''

I made the point there was no US interest in Iraq, but i didnt say that was the sole reason we shouldnt of invaded. Ive made a whole swathe of points in the last x amount of posts, explaining why i think the invasion was wrong.

''The access that Hussein gave was never unrestricted. He had numerous exemtptions......''

From the start of 2003, up to the point of invasion the inspectors had unrestricted access to search anywhere in Iraq, including Saddam's many palaces. End of.

''I was not aware of this so I will take your word for it. ''

I did provide a link. Posting that had nothing to do with Bush misleading, it was just to counter the claim that you made that British intelligence still maintains the attempted sale occured.

''As I have stated several times already, the fact that much of the intelligence has been discredited after the fact is irrelevant. ''

And what im saying is, Bush used information that was not properly verified for an invasion he was desperate to undertake. Hasty is the word ive used many times in the past. The key thing is, the weapons inspectors should of been allowed more time before Bush went into the job himself.....only when the coalition did it it resulted in the loss of about 14,000 civilian lives (as of yet.)

''Instead, we live in a world of terrorism. ''

You are correct. Instead of combatting this terrorism, the invasion has accelerated it.

''I'm not holding Iraq accountable for this. I am holding Iraq accountable for their own actions....''

In which case, why did you make reference to 9/11 and an Islamic Jihad?

...Ive made a whole swathe of points in the last x amount of posts...

And my comment was directed to one of those points only, and it still stands.

From the start of 2003, up to the point of invasion the inspectors had unrestricted access to search anywhere in Iraq...

This is false (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/16921.htm):

Today, we heard that the inspectors have not been able to interview any Iraqi in private. We heard that the inspectors have not been allowed to employ aerial surveillance. Why not? If Iraq was committed to disarmament, if Iraq understood what 1441 was all about, they would willingly allow this kind of surveillance, they would willingly allow people to be interviewed without minders, without fear of retribution.

We have heard that the inspectors have still not received, a full list of Iraqi personnel involved with weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction, they should willingly give the names of all who were involved in their previous programs to the inspectors for examination and interview.

The inspectors told us that their efforts have been impeded by a swarm of Iraqi minders. Why, if Iraq was committed to disarmament, would they be going to these efforts to deceive and to keep the inspectors from doing their work? Passive cooperation is not what was called for in 1441.

The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says, but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.

And the inspectors have caught the Iraqis concealing "top secret" information in a private residence. You all saw the pictures of that information being brought out. Why? Why, if Iraq was committed to disarmament, as required under 1441, would we be finding this kind of information squirreled away in private homes, for any other reason than to keep it away from the inspectors?

I did provide a link.

I know. I saw the link. I was taking your word for it because 1) you provided the link, and 2) I have no reason to believe that you would lie to me. I thought that I was offering you a measure of respect by trusting your word. Thank you for assuming the worst of me.

Bush used information that was not properly verified...

How would you have verified it? This is the entire issue! Hussein spent 12 years preventing the very verification that you are vilifying Busg for not having! We only now have verification because we invaded. Which brings me to my next point...

...the weapons inspectors should of been allowed more time...

How much more time? They already had 12 years! As far as I am concerned, that was too long. The simple fact is that Hussein had 12 years in which to make accountability. He refused to do so. He faced the consequences. End of story.

Instead of combatting this terrorism, the invasion has accelerated it.

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the deployment of troops to the Atlantic and Pacific theaters of operation accelerated the casualties among American servicemen. In the end, the world was a better place. I believe that the world will, ultimately, be a better place because of Bush's foreign policy since 9/11.

In which case, why did you make reference to 9/11 and an Islamic Jihad?

I already explained this. You made a sweeping generalization which I responded to with another generalization. I then followed this up with a more specific explanation concerning the post-9/11 approach to the Middle East as a whole.

In respect to your comments about the weapons inspectors, it can be said the US tried to undermine them just as Saddam did. Dont get me wrong, im not making out Saddam to be the good guy here, and he was hardly welcoming to the inspectors. At the end of the day he was still forced into giving them access to any given place in Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief inspector had some opinions.....so dont make out that Bush was all for letting the weapons inspectors do their job.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0423undermined.htm

''I know. I saw the link. I was taking your word for it because 1) you provided the link, and 2) I have no reason to believe that you would lie to me. I thought that I was offering you a measure of respect by trusting your word. Thank you for assuming the worst of me.''

Im not assuming the worst of you at all, im just saying you dont HAVE to take my word for it. I know making seemingly wild claims with no source can make you seem like an idiot. I interepreted you saying ''I'll take your word for it'' as an indication you wanted some proof or something. My bad.

''How would you have verified it?''

By allowing the inspectors to do their job, not by invading!! Does the expression ''shoot first, ask questions later'' mean anything to you? So what you are saying is, despite the fact Saddam was docile for 12 years, with UN inspectors in his country (granted, they were underminded greatly) who advised against the war, the US was in the right for taking international law into its own hands? Why should we have the right to take action like this?

''After the bombing of Pearl Harbor.....''

I dont agree with this comparison at all, mostly because Iraq were not the aggressors in this situation, and so the invasion, and putting risk to national security was a conscientious decision by the US government, not a situation forced on them.

''I believe that the world will, ultimately, be a better place because of Bush's foreign policy since 9/11.''

After thousands of uneccesary deaths caused by our government right? Fact is, the UN inspectors could of failed in finding WMDs in Iraq without thousands of appalling, needless casualties.

''I then followed this up with a more specific explanation concerning the post-9/11 approach to the Middle East as a whole.''

...Which is the wrong action, in my opinion. Hunting terrorists by interfering with Middle Eastern governments is like going after a fly with a bazooka.

...so dont make out that Bush was all for letting the weapons inspectors do their job.

This is where you and I seem to disagree the most. You keep talking about "letting the inspectors do their job." The simple fact is that after 12 years of failure I believe that the inspectors had been given plenty of opportunity and they failed. Giving them more time would have solved nothing. They had already been given sufficient time.

By allowing the inspectors to do their job...

See above.

...mostly because Iraq were not the aggressors in this situation...

And neither was Germany before WWII (aggressors with respect to the United States, that is). The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein had made it very clear that he wanted to be in a much stronger position than he was so that he could, once again, become an aggressor. He also made it very clear that he was going to do everything possible to keep the inspectors at bay that he could. He also made it very clear that he was going to take revenge on the first President Bush if he could, and that he was going to continue to abuse his own people as long as he was allowed. Invading prevented all of that from happening.

After thousands of uneccesary deaths caused by our government right?

Unfortunately, peole have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also died in Kuwait when Hussein invaded, in Iraq when Saddam gassed them, in the US when the towers were bombed, in Israel when truck bombs were detonated, in Germany when a disco was bombed, etc. It is unfortunate that psychotic murders like Bin Laden and Hussein become so influential. Unfortunately, this is the world that we live in. I feel for the people on all sides who lose their loved ones during war. The simple truth is that sometimes wars are necessary for ridding the world of evil. This, I believe, is one of those times.

Hunting terrorists by interfering with Middle Eastern governments is like going after a fly with a bazooka.

Maybe. It has become abundantly clear, however, that our previous approach was a complete failure. Bush recognized this a long time before the 9/11 commission confirmed it. He has taken a different approach. It may prove, in the long run, that it was a bad approach. If so, Bush will pay for his sins. On the other had, it may prove, in the long run, that it was the correct approach. If so, then it will have been worth it.

''They had already been given sufficient time.''

The level of inspections that began in late 2002 were nothing like the past 12 years. Due to increased UN, and indeed US pressure weapons inspections were kicked up a notch. Saddam was put under more pressure than any other time since the Gulf War.

''(aggressors with respect to the United States, that is). ''

I wont go into this too much, but it can be argued they were. Firstly, they declared war on the US and secondly, before this point they were all too willing to partake in unrestricted submarine warfare against the US.

''The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein had made it very clear that he wanted to be in a much stronger position than he was so that he could, once again, become an aggressor. ''

Ahhhhh yes i agree, Saddam WANTED a lot of things. However, he did not have the means to maintain them, and with the UN inspectors on his back constantly he could not achieve his aims.

''He also made it very clear that he was going to take revenge on the first President Bush if he could....''

I disagree, especially since he made himself out to be a hero of Iraq, making ludicrous claims that he drove the United States back.

''Invading prevented all of that from happening.''

Fair point, but instead of him killing them....our own troops did it. Now you have the case where radical insurgents are willing to kill their own people on the basis that they supported the coalition.

''I feel for the people on all sides who lose their loved ones during war. The simple truth is that sometimes wars are necessary for ridding the world of evil. This, I believe, is one of those times.''

I dont live in a utopian dreamworld. I know that sometimes war is inevitable, as are innocent deaths. This war however, i feel was not necessary.

'' It may prove, in the long run, that it was a bad approach. If so, Bush will pay for his sins. On the other had, it may prove, in the long run, that it was the correct approach. If so, then it will have been worth it.''

You seem to be suggesting that this approach at combating terrorism is haphazard. All im saying is, much more thought should have gone into this approach.....before Bush proved himself wrong and lost world respect for the United States.