For Obama Supporters ONLY

[The Holy Hand Grenade]

At least KSG can sight facts' date=' sources, and gives you places to research his point of view, unlike... well you THHG.

[/quote']

 

Not really KSG spends most his time talking **** instead of just proving his point.

[James Allen]

He is a god. Just look at the media, they don't lie.

 

BTW, if you raise taxes on cigarettes, which millions of average hard working people smoke, isn't that a tax on the middle class?

Doesn't that negatively affect their lifestyles?

 

Don't even get me started on the ten trillion dollars in spending, or the fact that he socialized GM. Or the fact that he gave Chavez a really fly handshake. Or that sat in his chair while a dictator trashed America. Or that he keeps attacking private citizens. Or that . . .

 

But, since he's a god, I guess we're not supposed to understand his master plan.

[The Holy Hand Grenade]

He is a god. Just look at the media' date=' they don't lie.

 

BTW, if you raise taxes on cigarettes, which millions of average hard working people smoke, isn't that a tax on the middle class?

Doesn't that negatively affect their lifestyles?

 

Don't even get me started on the ten trillion dollars in spending, or the fact that he socialized GM. Or the fact that he gave Chavez a really fly handshake. Or that sat in his chair while a dictator trashed America. Or that he keeps attacking private citizens. Or that . . .

 

But, since he's a god, I guess we're not supposed to understand his master plan.[/quote']

 

Exactly you should not question God.

[Bluemoon]

At least KSG can sight facts' date=' sources, and gives you places to research his point of view, unlike... well you THHG.

[/quote']

 

Actually he just cuts and pastes from Wikipedia.

[Bluemoon]

He is a god. Just look at the media' date=' they don't lie.

 

BTW, if you raise taxes on cigarettes, which millions of average hard working people smoke, isn't that a tax on the middle class?

Doesn't that negatively affect their lifestyles?

 

Don't even get me started on the ten trillion dollars in spending, or the fact that he socialized GM. Or the fact that he gave Chavez a really fly handshake. Or that sat in his chair while a dictator trashed America. Or that he keeps attacking private citizens. Or that . . .

 

But, since he's a god, I guess we're not supposed to understand his master plan.[/quote']

 

Are you talking about Obama or KSG?

[KSG_Standard]

 

Actually he just cuts and pastes from Wikipedia.

 

The power, intelligence and wit in your posts is incredible!

 

What do you write for a living?

[The Holy Hand Grenade]

 

The power' date=' intelligence and wit in your posts is incredible!

 

What do you write for a living?[/quote']

 

I used to write your mother child support checks. ZAP.

[Bluemoon]

 

The power' date=' intelligence and wit in your posts is incredible!

[/quote']

 

I know. I am good. Thanks.

[Bowdiddley]

 

OK...let's revisit your scenario. Let's say that by using torture to save my family' date=' it puts your mother and father, as well as a thousands of members of our military, at much greater risk of being kidnapped and beheaded in the future.

 

Would you want them to save my mother and father?

 

 

[/quote']

 

First off one must look at the enemy at hand. The terrorist we are fighting now aren't like a organized, disciplined armed force we have ever fought before. These aren't the type of people who understand diplomacy, they see any attempt at trying to discuss differences as a sign of weakness. I can say this from first hand knowledge. The big difference between the terrorist and other enemies we've fought is the fact that no politician is making the decision for these guys, therefore no amount of diplomacy is going to benefit our cause. Diplomacy only serves as a hindrance for us, which benefits them. These guys are ruthless, they cut peoples heads off and not bat an eye of remorse. They aren't going to have anymore hatred for us if we torture each and everyone of them. They just don't care.

 

Any enemy who's see's what they take as a weakness will be emboldened and think they are making progress.

 

So getting to your question, yes I would say go to all means available to get the needed information. Then I'd go one more step, I'd drown the mad monsters in pig blood (this would prevent them from entering heaven), and this would be broadcast on all networks just so the terrorist remaining would know without a doubt what will happen to them when they are caught. Thats right, no more virgins in heaven awaiting their arrival.

[Bluemoon]

 

First off one must look at the enemy at hand. The terrorist we are fighting now aren't like a organized' date=' disciplined armed force we have ever fought before. These aren't the type of people who understand diplomacy, they see any attempt at trying to discuss differences as a sign of weakness. I can say this from first hand knowledge. The big difference between the terrorist and other enemies we've fought is the fact that no politician is making the decision for these guys, therefore no amount of diplomacy is going to benefit our cause. Diplomacy only serves as a hindrance for us, which benefits them. These guys are ruthless, they cut peoples heads off and not bat an eye of remorse. They aren't going to have anymore hatred for us if we torture each and everyone of them. They just don't care.

 

Any enemy who's see's what they take as a weakness will be emboldened and think they are making progress.

 

So getting to your question, yes I would say go to all means available to get the needed information. Then I'd go one more step, I'd drown the mad monsters in pig blood (this would prevent them from entering heaven), and this would be broadcast on all networks just so the terrorist remaining would know without a doubt what will happen to them when they are caught. Thats right, no more virgins in heaven awaiting their arrival. [/quote']

 

I agree with you for the most part. But I think there has to be a limit to how far you go to get the needed information. At what point are you crossing the line and actually behaving like the enemy you are tying to defeat. Their view is that anything goes to defeat us. Should we do the same? I believe we can defeat them without compromising our own beliefs and democratic ideals. We beat the Japanese in WWII. They used some of the same tactics that the terrorists are using.

[Hoyt]

 

. . . . . . These guys are ruthless' date=' they cut peoples heads off and not bat an eye of remorse. . . . . . .[/quote']

 

 

I've asked this question of numerous of war supporters who say the same thing -- Is blowing the heads off innocent women, children, and their poor parents with bombs any less ruthless than "cutting peoples' heads off?"

 

I think bombs are much more ruthless, but would love to read your response.

 

Usually what I get is something along the lines of "the only good Muslim is a . . . . . . . . ."

[Hoyt]

Nice points Bo.

Untold attacks that may never come to light.

Those men and women serve this country even though some citizens denigrate them for doing so.

What ever it takes to ensure the domestic tranquility and safety of this great nation.

 

 

bush managed to kill 2000 more of our guys in Iraq based upon his lies and distortions than were killed on 9/11. That is hardly supporting the military, or defending our country.

 

And I haven't even started to count the tens of thousands of dead children.

[Bowdiddley]

 

I agree with you for the most part. But I think there has to be a limit to how far you go to get the needed information. At what point are you crossing the line and actually behaving like the enemy you are tying to defeat. Their view is that anything goes to defeat us. Should we do the same? I believe we can defeat them without compromising our own beliefs and democratic ideals. We beat the Japanese in WWII. They used some of the same tactics that the terrorists are using.

 

 

 

IMHO when you have a enemy that is willing to go to any length to kill us, we better have the same view towards them or eventually we will cease to exsist. You see there are children brain washed into believing that their views of the world are correct and they are ready and waiting to join the Jihad.

 

Yes we stopped the Japanese, but at a cost of how many thousands of innocent people?

 

As far as having limits on what we will do in a war is self defeating if you are fighting someone who has no limits.

 

But like you said, we agree on the most part, we just see different paths to get to the same goal.

[KSG_Standard]

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/14/moral-equivalence-rides-again

 

Moral Equivalence Rides Again

 

By Brandon Crocker on 6.14.05 @ 12:06AM

 

Back when I was in college in the 1980s, the American and European left propounded a belief known as "Moral Equivalence" which essentially said that America was every bit as bad as the Soviet Union. The argument ran something like: "Sure, Stalin, utilizing the powers of a totalitarian state, executed millions of his own citizens, but the United States interned Japanese-Americans during World War II; the Soviets enslaved eastern Europe, but the U.S. supported dictators like the Shah of Iran." The point was that the world was made up of two "morally equivalent" superpowers that were both doing nasty things (though somehow the Soviet's actions were more "understandable" or even "defensive") in a struggle for world domination and that America, the leader of the "so-called" Free World, had no moral standing to object to the Soviet empire.

 

Apparently, the doctrine of Moral Equivalence did not die along with the Soviet Union. The left has just substituted a new evil to which the United States is supposedly morally equivalent.

 

Senator Ted Kennedy showed himself in the forefront of this revival with his venomous spewing on Abu Ghraib. On the floor of the Senate Mr. Kennedy proclaimed: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." Saddam filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people, and tortured (by which I mean raped, cut off hands and tongues, electrocuted, conducted beatings with steel rods) hundreds of thousands more. Obviously this is the moral equivalent of a handful of degenerate guards making naked Iraqi prisoners form human pyramids or wear underwear on their heads.

 

And now Amnesty International writes that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is "the gulag of our times." I wonder what that makes North Korea. At Amnesty International they still can't resist comparing the United States to the Soviet Union and in ways as ludicrous as ever. Amnesty International would have us believe that there is no difference between Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and an al-Qaeda fighter; no difference between sleep deprivation in order to get information from terrorists and hard labor, exposure to the deadly Siberian winters, and malnutrition to "reeducate" political dissidents.

 

In the old days, many leftists promoted "moral equivalence" not just because they disliked the capitalist United States but also because they sympathized with Soviet Communism. The new moral equivalence arguments are just as silly. Those who make them, however, do so not out of any sympathy for Saddam Hussein or militant Islam, but simply out of a dislike of the United States (or, in the case of Senator Kennedy, a dislike of George W. Bush and the belief that engaging in disgusting calumnies against the United States is perfectly "patriotic" as long as there is a Republican in the White House).

 

The new moral equivalency, however, does not just deal with the United States, per se, but with Christian Western Civilization as well. Robert Reich, for instance, has written several articles and a book (Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America) expounding the idea that "[t]he great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism....The true battle will be between modern civilization and the anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority;...between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

 

Pope John Paul II, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden -- all cut from the same cloth, so to speak.

 

This was the popular notion echoed by Ridley Scott in his film Kingdom of Heaven in which the real dangerous troublemakers in the world are the religious -- be they Christian or Muslim. Compare for instance the Christian world's reaction to Palestinian gunmen killing a caretaker and taking over the Church of the Nativity, and the Muslim world's reaction to false reports about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, or the Christian reaction to writers and filmmakers who produce works critical of Christianity and the Muslim reaction to a filmmaker like Theo Van Gogh or a writer like Salman Rushdie. Pretty much the same, right?

 

Well, not exactly. But that's what the left wants us to believe. Sure, we currently have a problem with radical Islam, but Christianity and Judaism, are really just as bad, just as dangerous. And the problems we are having with militant Islam should be reminding us that we need to be more frightened by Christianity, and particularly by Christians who think they have the right to cast votes based on their moral values. According to much of the left, we should regard anyone who has genuine religious convictions as a would-be member of the Taliban. Beware the coming theocracy headed by John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

The tactic of arguing moral equivalence is to focus attention away from the obvious evil -- Soviet Communism or militant Islam -- and to refocus attention on the rather less obvious supposed evils of what the left sees as the more immediate impediment to the achievement of its goals -- America, with its heritage and value system that promotes capitalism and individual liberty, and Christianity which promotes an unacceptable moral code and the idea that there are things greater than the State.

 

The comparisons made by the proponents of moral equivalence have always been transparently absurd. Yet those that give voice to these arguments think their grotesque hyperbole is justified in order to make their point -- though they are often deceptive about what, exactly, that point is. But just as during the days of the Soviet empire, today's proponents of "moral equivalence" merely demonstrate their own moral -- and intellectual -- bankruptcy.

[Hoyt]

 

The enemy STARTED kidnapping and beheading BEFORE we started enhanced interrogation...try another argument.

 

 

We blew off a lot more heads with our bombs while invading/occupying an innocent country. Anything like "enhanced interrogation" that comes from that is a war crime in my opinion.

 

In the event you don't see it as a "crime," it's certainly immoral. And, as bush's own cronies said is likely to create more terrorism.

[The Holy Hand Grenade]

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/14/moral-equivalence-rides-again

 

Moral Equivalence Rides Again

 

By Brandon Crocker on 6.14.05 @ 12:06AM

 

Back when I was in college in the 1980s' date=' the American and European left propounded a belief known as "Moral Equivalence" which essentially said that America was every bit as bad as the Soviet Union. The argument ran something like: "Sure, Stalin, utilizing the powers of a totalitarian state, executed millions of his own citizens, but the United States interned Japanese-Americans during World War II; the Soviets enslaved eastern Europe, but the U.S. supported dictators like the Shah of Iran." The point was that the world was made up of two "morally equivalent" superpowers that were both doing nasty things (though somehow the Soviet's actions were more "understandable" or even "defensive") in a struggle for world domination and that America, the leader of the "so-called" Free World, had no moral standing to object to the Soviet empire.

 

Apparently, the doctrine of Moral Equivalence did not die along with the Soviet Union. The left has just substituted a new evil to which the United States is supposedly morally equivalent.

 

Senator Ted Kennedy showed himself in the forefront of this revival with his venomous spewing on Abu Ghraib. On the floor of the Senate Mr. Kennedy proclaimed: "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." Saddam filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people, and tortured (by which I mean raped, cut off hands and tongues, electrocuted, conducted beatings with steel rods) hundreds of thousands more. Obviously this is the moral equivalent of a handful of degenerate guards making naked Iraqi prisoners form human pyramids or wear underwear on their heads.

 

And now Amnesty International writes that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is "the gulag of our times." I wonder what that makes North Korea. At Amnesty International they still can't resist comparing the United States to the Soviet Union and in ways as ludicrous as ever. Amnesty International would have us believe that there is no difference between Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and an al-Qaeda fighter; no difference between sleep deprivation in order to get information from terrorists and hard labor, exposure to the deadly Siberian winters, and malnutrition to "reeducate" political dissidents.

 

In the old days, many leftists promoted "moral equivalence" not just because they disliked the capitalist United States but also because they sympathized with Soviet Communism. The new moral equivalence arguments are just as silly. Those who make them, however, do so not out of any sympathy for Saddam Hussein or militant Islam, but simply out of a dislike of the United States (or, in the case of Senator Kennedy, a dislike of George W. Bush and the belief that engaging in disgusting calumnies against the United States is perfectly "patriotic" as long as there is a Republican in the White House).

 

The new moral equivalency, however, does not just deal with the United States, per se, but with Christian Western Civilization as well. Robert Reich, for instance, has written several articles and a book (Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America) expounding the idea that "[t']he great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism....The true battle will be between modern civilization and the anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority;...between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

 

Pope John Paul II, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden -- all cut from the same cloth, so to speak.

 

This was the popular notion echoed by Ridley Scott in his film Kingdom of Heaven in which the real dangerous troublemakers in the world are the religious -- be they Christian or Muslim. Compare for instance the Christian world's reaction to Palestinian gunmen killing a caretaker and taking over the Church of the Nativity, and the Muslim world's reaction to false reports about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, or the Christian reaction to writers and filmmakers who produce works critical of Christianity and the Muslim reaction to a filmmaker like Theo Van Gogh or a writer like Salman Rushdie. Pretty much the same, right?

 

Well, not exactly. But that's what the left wants us to believe. Sure, we currently have a problem with radical Islam, but Christianity and Judaism, are really just as bad, just as dangerous. And the problems we are having with militant Islam should be reminding us that we need to be more frightened by Christianity, and particularly by Christians who think they have the right to cast votes based on their moral values. According to much of the left, we should regard anyone who has genuine religious convictions as a would-be member of the Taliban. Beware the coming theocracy headed by John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

The tactic of arguing moral equivalence is to focus attention away from the obvious evil -- Soviet Communism or militant Islam -- and to refocus attention on the rather less obvious supposed evils of what the left sees as the more immediate impediment to the achievement of its goals -- America, with its heritage and value system that promotes capitalism and individual liberty, and Christianity which promotes an unacceptable moral code and the idea that there are things greater than the State.

 

The comparisons made by the proponents of moral equivalence have always been transparently absurd. Yet those that give voice to these arguments think their grotesque hyperbole is justified in order to make their point -- though they are often deceptive about what, exactly, that point is. But just as during the days of the Soviet empire, today's proponents of "moral equivalence" merely demonstrate their own moral -- and intellectual -- bankruptcy.

 

Do you ever come up with your own opinions?

[KSG_Standard]

Yes! My opinion of you is that you are an idiot.

[The Holy Hand Grenade]

Yes! My opinion of you is that you are an idiot.

 

Oh i could never get enough of Ad-Hominem attacks.

 

Why so blue panda bear?

[Bluemoon]

Yes! My opinion of you is that you are an idiot.

 

KSG...when are you going to learn that slinging childish insults at your opposition only weakens your position?

 

And he has a good point...your cut and paste jobs are getting boring. Formulate your own opinion. People will respect you more. They might even listen to you.

[KSG_Standard]

 

KSG...when are you going to learn that slinging childish insults at your opposition only weakens your position?

 

And he has a good point...your cut and paste jobs are getting boring. Formulate your own opinion. People will respect you more. They might even listen to you.

 

Gee thanks for the additional advice Moonie! You are the best!

 

I have an original opinion about you too...

[bluzhammer]

 

 

Applies to bushco' date=' as well. Remember -- "you are either with us . . . . . ." and war crimes. Yes, I do believe bushco encouraged war crimes. Perhaps they are not as horrific as the Nazis -- but this is 70 years later, and Americans should have progressed further than the junk bushco pulled in the name of America.

 

I do agree with you regarding "insults." [/quote'] What is truly considered a "War Crime"? I don't believe any Nazis were prosecuted for interrogation techniques, They were however prosecuted for the planned and systematic eradication of the jewish, gypsy, and slavic peoples. I really have a hard time drawing equal parallels, even after 70 years have almost passed. I have ZERO remorse for the actions taken in Iraq, I seem to remember widespread celebration in the Middle East on 9-11-2001.

[Bowdiddley]

 

 

I've asked this question of numerous of war supporters who say the same thing -- Is blowing the heads off innocent women' date=' children, and their poor parents with bombs any less ruthless than "cutting peoples' heads off?"

 

I think bombs are much more ruthless, but would love to read your response.

 

Usually what I get is something along the lines of "[b']the only good Muslim is a . . . . . . . [/b]. ."

 

As a former member of the military, I can tell you very few of us want to kill innocents, but as I stated before, war is hell and it's also a very messy event. Innocents are killed in every war, sad byproduct without doubt. But in some cases a necessary byproduct.

 

In answer to your question bombs, beheadings it's a ruthless mess.

 

 

 

 

 

bush managed to kill 2000 more of our guys in Iraq based upon his lies and distortions than were killed on 9/11. That is hardly supporting the military' date=' or defending our country.

 

And I haven't even started to count the tens of thousands of dead children.[/quote']

 

With all due respect Hoyt, you have your facts wrong about the lies. The President along with most all of our allies agreed Iraq had a WMD program, even Saddam boasted of it. Just because it wasn't posted on the front page of the NY Times doesn't mean we haven't found WMD's. It simply means our government chose not to broadcast it to the world.

 

As for the members of the armed forces that gave it all, are you aware that GW Bush personally called each and every family and gave his personal condolences. Can you get past the hatred of GW long enough to stop and think what a heavy load that man carried and will carry to his grave. I sat through some of the intelligence briefings that list daily threats to our country, thats some scary stuff there buddy. I would be the first to say GW made mistakes, some larger than others, but I honestly think he did as good of a good in an impossible situation as anyone else could have done.

[Hoyt]

 

With all due respect Hoyt' date=' you have your facts wrong about the lies. The President along with most all of our allies agreed Iraq had a WMD program, even Saddam boasted of it. Just because it wasn't posted on the front page of the NY Times doesn't mean we haven't found WMD's. It simply means our government chose not to broadcast it to the world.

 

As for the members of the armed forces that gave it all, are you aware that GW Bush personally called each and every family and gave his personal condolences. Can you get past the hatred of GW long enough to stop and think what a heavy load that man carried and will carry to his grave. I sat through some of the intelligence briefings that list daily threats to our country, thats some scary stuff there buddy. I would be the first to say GW made mistakes, some larger than others, but I honestly think he did as good of a good in an impossible situation as anyone else could have done.[/quote']

 

 

Bow, I voted for bush in 2000 -- but he stood there on TV in October of 2002 in the runup to invading Iraq and lied to everyone of us about our possibly becoming a mushroom cloud. You can apologize for him if you like. I will not.

 

He and his cronies have created generations of Islamic terrorists who do not have to buy into the Koran and radical theology. They can look at their little sister's missing arm and their dead mother's grave and know what America is capable of in the name of Christianity, democracy and all that.

 

Iraq should not have been invaded -- we already had them surrounded, starving, with no navy or air force, and little in the way of an army. Maybe that is one reason bush went for them -- they were there for the slaughter which will go down in history as the 21th Century's version of the Crusades.

 

Funny how lots of other folks who supposedly sat in on briefings came away with another opinion. Perhaps you sat in on the ones given to "sell/promote" the invasion/occupation of Iraq. It has certainly not made us safer here. (And before you start posting about how we haven't been attached since -- remember that under Clinton we weren't attacked here for 8 years after the first WTC bombing either, and without the enormous cost of lives (and Reagan nor daddy bush went for it it either -- only the idiot son).)

 

As to the "war is hell" argument -- war is hell, that is why we should not go into one based upon lies, distortions, jingoism, etc. When it's necessary, I'd be the first to support it. When it turns out like Iraq, I will condemn it and the SOBs who lied to us and killed innocent people, including our own guys, for absolutely nothing of lasting value.

[Hoyt]

What is truly considered a "War Crime"? I don't believe any Nazis were prosecuted for interrogation techniques' date=' They were however prosecuted for the planned and systematic eradication of the jewish, gypsy, and slavic peoples. I really have a hard time drawing equal parallels, even after 70 years have almost passed. I have ZERO remorse for the actions taken in Iraq, I seem to remember widespread celebration in the Middle East on 9-11-2001. [/quote']

 

 

You mean like the widespread celebration here among right wingers when we bombed innocent women and children in Iraq -- who had nothing to do with 9/11 except for their being born a poor Muslim. Of course for some, that was the whole justification for bombing them anyway. Not unlike what you write about the Nazis -- huh?

[Bowdiddley]

 

 

Bow' date=' I voted for bush in 2000 -- but he stood there on TV in October of 2002 in the runup to invading Iraq and lied to everyone of us about our possibly becoming a mushroom cloud. You can apologize for him if you like. I will not.

 

He and his cronies have created generations of Islamic terrorists who do not have to buy into the Koran and radical theology. They can look at their little sister's missing arm and their dead mother's grave and know what America is capable of in the name of Christianity, democracy and all that.

 

Iraq should not have been invaded -- we already had them surrounded, starving, with no navy or air force, and little in the way of an army. Maybe that is one reason bush went for them -- they were there for the slaughter which will go down in history as the 21th Century's version of the Crusades.

 

Funny how lots of other folks who supposedly sat in on briefings came away with another opinion. Perhaps you sat in on the ones given to "sell/promote" the invasion/occupation of Iraq. It has certainly not made us safer here. (And before you start posting about how we haven't been attached since -- remember that under Clinton we weren't attacked here for 8 years after the first WTC bombing either, and without the enormous cost of lives (and Reagan nor daddy bush went for it it either -- only the idiot son).)

 

As to the "war is hell" argument -- war is hell, that is why we should not go into one based upon lies, distortions, jingoism, etc. When it's necessary, I'd be the first to support it. When it turns out like Iraq, I will condemn it and the SOBs who lied to us and killed innocent people, including our own guys, for absolutely nothing of lasting value.[/quote']

 

 

First off let me say I'm sorry for the hatred you have in your heart Hoyt, you should try to hold it more in check because it clouds rational thinking.

 

You say he lied to us, give one bit of evidence of that other than what some left wing nut wrote or said. Because without evidence your statement is only opinions. When a President is told something by his intelligence sources and most all allies are saying that is their assessment also you have to make a call on what to do. If he had done nothing and we were attacked again you'd be in front leading the charge to have GWB head on a platter, he was/is in a position in which he couldn't win. Now you want to have the advantage of hindsight and say he lied, went to war unnecessarily, etc. Now Obama is in the same boat, look at his actions compared to what he promised (war wise) to the liberals prior to being elected. In a couple of years liberals will turn on him. You see wars can't be won with the view that liberals have.

 

Those other folks that sat in on the briefings that had the other opinions, explain why they voted to go into Iraq? Maybe their denial afterwards is politically motivated?