The Conservative Zone

Look, dipshit. The reason Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq was because they were reading the cooked intelligence analysis that Bush and company were feeding them. Saying that we are trying to rewrite history is like saying, "Waaaaah. It's the Democrats' fault for being dumb enough to believe us."

Your side is sinking fast. Look at your poll numbers. We're only rewriting history if getting the truth out for the first time is "rewriting history".

Enjoy what's left of Bush's time in office. The neocon agenda is going the way of the Humvee.

All of us are laughing at you.

I think you are suffering from some myopia.

You didn't read the part where Clinton (and members of the Senate) said the same thing about Saddam, way before 9/11. Clinton thought it was important enough to lob cruise missiles into Iraq, albeit to knock his affair with Monica off the front page... Those words are on the record. You have obviously missed where all of the other major intelligence agencies (including the French) said he had WMD, and if he didn't have it, he was actively trying to obtain said materials. Unless there was a Neocon conspiracy with all of the other intelligence agencies.

He already had missiles that were capable of delivering such loads, with ranges that were proscribed (that means he shouldn't have had them).

Please, please, come back and refute the evidence in the article. Don't fall into that line about "the Dems believed what was fed us." Like I said, Britain, France, Israel, et. al. all said he had WMD.

Let me ask you this: Here you have Saddam, who has gassed Iranian troops and his own people. There exists no documentation that he destroyed his stockpiles. Saddam uses every trick in the book to thwart UN inspectors (who couldn't find their own privates). Now it comes down to the question, do you believe that he has WMD or not? Are you willing to bet the lives of thousands of citizens on the possibility that he doesn't? You would, wouldn't you. And when that VX bomb went off in the middle of a major American city, what would you have done?

Oh, yeah, I'm wasting my time, I should have realized that I won the conversation when you called me dipshit. Classic.

Seems Clinton-bashing will never go out of style as long as Republicans have to explain their screw-ups. Why weren't the Republican hawks pushing to invade Iraq after the first WTC bombing in 1993? Or the USS Cole attack? If anything, Republican members of Congress were just as guilty as they say Clinton was of being lazy, spineless, and incompetent. Along those lines, why didn't Bob Dole (or ANY of the Republican candidates) run on an "Invade Iraq" platform in 1996 if they had the foresight/backbone that they now say Clinton didn't have?

France and Germany-- both formerly steadfast allies of the US and NATO-- would be much more at risk of range-restricted Iraqi nuclear missile attacks ("Iraqi Nuclear Missile Attacks"...doesn't that just sound silly?) simply due to their geographic locations. If they seriously believed the doom-and-gloom reports of Chalabi (the embezzler) or Curveball (the drunk), why wouldn't they have given at least nominal (and, looking at their levels of support in the first Gulf War, "nominal" IS the word) support to the US's disarming of Hussein? Was it because they hate Bush?

We can go round and round on the usual Sean Hannity arguments, ie: "Why did CLINTON say Iraq was a threat?" or "Why did Democrats vote to go to war when they saw the same intelligence that Bush saw". Whether or not Democrats actually saw the same intelligence as Bush is debatable, but the fact remains that Clinton had more sense than to try to invade Iraq, and Democrats in 2003 had to think about getting re-elected, something Republicans will also have to face over the next four years...

Oh yeah, where ARE those WMDs anyway?

1. I apologize. I said more than I should have. All I meant to say was that Bush and Clinton used the same words while they were/are President. How does this make "Bush Lied?" Wouldn't that make "Clinton Lied" as well? That was the point I was trying to make.

2. I see you forget so easily. Both France and Germany were caught selling PROHIBITED weapons, chemicals and technology to Iraq under the "Oil-For-Food" program. We busted up their deals worth millions of dollars to the responsible politicians in kickbacks and billions of dollars to the companies affected. So they were trying to buy favor with and avoid the potential of such attacks from Iraq.

3. Clinton didn't have 9/11 during his term. Clinton didn't have a reason to invest the political capitol to invade.

>>Oh yeah, were ARE those WMD's anyway?<<

Found. It's just that they were in their non-lethal pre-chemicals.

You see, you don't just pour VX into a warhead, any minor leak would kill the crew of the gun or missile crew. For the same reason you don't just let it lie around. Instead you load it in two chemicals. The force of launching the warhead causes the chemicals to mix in flight. It's called a Binary weapon.

Oh, I almost forgot. It was quietly mentioned and quickly buried, but it seems that one of the many roadside IMD's (Improvised Munitions Device) was a LIVE VX artillery round. It was avoided, disarmed and dealt with harmlessly.

And that's not to mention the several tons of enriched uranium (not weapons grade, but getting there) found. Both of which are not reported in the press, because if they did, it would screw up the whole "Where's the WMD's" thing you like to scream.

Does that adequately answer your questions?

In regard to your VX artillery round comment, that was one shell. There is no knowledge of when the shell is from (that is, was a current Iraqi munition, one that was stolen from Iraq a long time ago, or even was it ever an Iraqi munition). If there was a stockpile that the insurgents aquired, they would have been more than just one used.

Second, in regard to whether the democrats or republicans twist the other sides statements that happens on both sides. The republicans attacked Clinton's policy on having US troops in Bosnia. At the time they did not see this as hurting US troops morale, but now attacks on Bush's policy in Iraq is "unpatriotic" because it hurts the soldiers' morale.

Third, there is a difference between a potential threat and an immediate threat. The current administration tried to make Iraq seem like an immediate threat, in fact pulling resources from Afganistan in 2002 to prepare for an Iraq war. If you wanted to examine who was more of threat at that time, Osama Bin Laudin (who had attacked the US) or Saddam, it is clear that the greater threat was Bin Laudin. In fact one of the claims of the Administration was that Iraq is a threat becuase they may give aid to Bin Laudin. If we focused on Bin Laudin and put as much manpower in Afganistan as they have in Iraq perhaps they would not have let Bin Laudin escape.

Fourth, whereas a lot of the debate is over the pre-war intelligence. Bush's team ignored the intelligence and claims of the State Department about what might occur post the war. The end result is much closer to the State Department's predictions than to what the Administration claimed would occur.