I don't believe it

[SmokinDVM]

The point is, the WMD angle was just another lie by the chickenhawk in charge. Only the very gullible were fooled by that line as a reason to attack Iraq. Now only the feeble-minded still believe it.

As far as Saddam goes, I don't give a shit about him. But, far less suffering, on both sides, would have occurred had he been left as he was.


If we spent half as much money and energy on alternative energy sources as we've spent on this stupid "war", we would have no need for those fossil fuels. Why do we waste time chasing oil around the world when we could remove ourselves from the game altogether?

Did you see the new electric car that's being released by a U.S. company in CA, that gets 250 miles to a charge, and will do 120+mph and goes from 0-60 in about 4 seconds?

[stjohnroe]

I have an issue with Darwinistic evolution being banned from schools in favour of creationism (drop the a and the o of the latter if you prefer)

Disclaimer: View from the UK

[SmokinDVM]

I have an issue with Darwinistic evolution being banned from schools in favour of creationism (drop the a and the o of the latter if you prefer)

Disclaimer: View from the UK

No argument here.

[Shelby07]

The point is, the WMD angle was just another lie by the chickenhawk in charge. Only the very gullible were fooled by that line as a reason to attack Iraq....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983" - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"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

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"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

[WhiteWidow]

I think it is funny how he was too much of a pussy to even shoot himself before the guys from Ft Hood snagged him out of his little shithole in the ground.

[Desert Rat]

THANK YOU Shelby!

Your post is the perfect extension of the point I am trying to make:

Democrat or Republican, the American people should be standing up and asking our "leaders", WTF are you guys doing?

Saddam never was a direct, right now, in-your-face threat to America.

We have sent hundreds of thousands of our men and women into harms way for NOTHING.

And yet 50% of the people polled still want to cling to a "bogey-man".

I want to vote for the man who stands up and says:

"OK America, heres are the real reasons we are in Iraq: we want control of thier oil, we want to maintain strategic air and ground bases in Iraq, we want secret control of the emerging Iraqi government. We want to be in a strategic position to nuke Iran, North Korea, and maybe Pakistan and Syria if needed, the real threats."

Now give me a man like that, and I will grumble about the war and argue about it, but at least there would be a reason to be in Iraq.

To go there shouting "War on terrorism", "Saddam is a threat", and "Weapons of mass destruction", is an insult to the American people and our armed forces.

That rant was kinda fun

.

[WhiteWidow]

"OK America, heres are the real reasons we are in Iraq: we want control of thier oil, we want to maintain strategic air and ground bases in Iraq, we want secret control of the emerging Iraqi government. We want to be in a strategic position to nuke Iran, North Korea, and maybe Pakistan and Syria if needed, the real threats."


[/I]

That would be nice but if we had someone that said that everyone including the UN probably would bitch about it.

[SmokinDVM]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983" - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"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

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"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

#1.) CLINTON NEVER INVADED IRAQ!! Why is it that the neocons can't get through one complete thought without trying to tie Clinton into it? I find it extremely funny that they are so consumed with hate for old BJ Bill.

#2.) All the rest of those quotes from the Democrats, many of whom are only marginally better than the neopukes, were all based on intelligence reports fabricated, filtered, and eventually provided to them by and at the direction of dumbya and the rest of the chickenhawk neopukes.
I know this is info that hasn't been broadcast on the fox network, but please try to keep up...Dumbya, Darth Cheney, Rice-a-foni, the Rummy, and the original house minority Colon Powerless, stood in front of Congress, and the rest of the U.S. AND LIED.
So, those quotes really don't pertain to the discussion at hand.

Got anything more up to date?

[Shelby07]

#1.)

...based on intelligence reports fabricated, filtered, and eventually provided to them by and at the direction of dumbya and the rest of the chickenhawk neopukes.

Just curious here. I have heard this rhetoric over and over and political spin alleging this, but I have never seen anything in the form of concrete evidence, official reports or documents, formal charges or even allegations by the news media stating that Bush fabricated or filtered anything. Can you provide?

EDIT: BTW - I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here. Nor am I trying to tie Clinton into anything. The statements in my posts were made by the very people who are now saying that we had no reason to go into Iraq. Ranting aside, you seem to be well informed about "your side." If there is some concrete evidence that I have missed, I would like to see it. I am not adverse to having my mind changed if it is warranted. But so far, I have not seen anything from either party that doesn't fit into the category of political positioning. I have my views and opinions, but I really am not left with much after filtering out the spin doctors, empty suits and talking heads. As I've stated in the past, my position is with a platform, not a person. I have, however, come to the conclusion that the democratic spin doctors are much more vicious and free with the allegations than the republicans, although the republican party has done its fair share of stretching things. Politics is, after all, a business and it seems to me that the country as of late has been run more like the NFL than a government trying to do what is best for the people.

[WhiteWidow]

Just curious here. I have heard this rhetoric over and over and political spin alleging this, but I have never seen anything in the form of concrete evidence, official reports or documents, formal charges or even allegations by the news media stating that Bush fabricated or filtered anything. Can you provide?

just ask Dan Rather

[Shelby07]

#1.)
Got anything more up to date?

Do I really need anything else to point out who the "very gullible" were?

We all know what the republicans have proported about why we entered Iraq. It's in the news every day. They believed that Saddam had WMD's. The democrats are saying that they didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq, and even though they voted to give Bush the authority to use force, they "really didn't think he'd use it." Yet they voted for it. Now, if Bush is so stupid, how stupid were they to be duped by an *idiot?* Doesn't say much for them. Do I want to vote those people into office? No, not really. The flavor of the day is to bash Bush because our team isn't winning the miss congeniality contest, and the democrats have latched onto this with allegations that the only reason they thought there were WMD's in Iraq is because "Bush lied." Yet every single one of those quotes were stated with certainty that the there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and many of those quotes were made years before Bush won the Presidency. Now, either those folks are lying themselves or they were stupid enough to be fooled by a "bumbling idiot." Take your pick. It has to be one or the other. It leads me to ask the questions I do. Do I vote for those who are either 1) lying when they call Bush a liar or 2)stupid enough to be mislead when they had all, if not more, information than Bush as many of them were on the very committes and commissions that were gathering the information. As I said, it has to be one or the other. There ain't no gray area in my gray matter.

Both parties were behind Bush when we went in. And the United Nations were in agreement that force was justified. Until I see some real evidence that the democrats were truly duped and how it was accomplished, I'm not going to simply assume that the democrats are telling the truth now. I am NOT going to let them get away with it, and I am certainly not going to vote them into power, especially when all they can say is "It's time for a change" but they can't tell us what the change will be. The bottom line is that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD's, even going back to before Bush took office. Now, in an effort to win the game, the democrats are back-peddling at breakneck speed, and I don't trust them. In my view, they are the ones who are lying.

[jaewing]

"neocons" "neopukes" "chickenhawk" ????

DVM . . . why don't you try to have an intelligent debate without name calling. It makes you look 12 years old. If you have to resort to calling names then you have lost the argument.

[Kenyth]

"neocons" "neopukes" "chickenhawk" ????

DVM . . . why don't you try to have an intelligent debate without name calling. It makes you look 12 years old. If you have to resort to calling names then you have lost the argument.

Thank you. Intelligent discourse needs to be well structured and compelling. Points should be made with either some direct evidence, or a reasonably reliable source. You are also completely entitled to express your opinion, but you should make sure and specify it is your opinion. You can accompany it with a description of the logical thought process that leads you to believe it as being true. Constant name calling and unsubstantiated statements presented as "God's Truth" do nothing but detract from your argument. It sounds like the kind of emotional speak used to incite a riot.

[Shelby07]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating.

I may not like Barry's style of debate, but I think he can bring good points to the table. If I didn't think he had some intelligence I wouldn't be participating.

I don't believe that Barry has ever been disrespectful to me personally and I hope I have not been disrespectful to him. Our styles are different, but we both have differing opinions that have been formed in varying ways. Barry lives in NY, I live in Colorado and sometimes it's difficult for us to understand why our views are not shared by everyone. But views and opinions need to be questioned constantly. Although Barry is sometimes overly passionate about his beliefs, I think that's ok. My goal is to gather facts and information that I may not have seen before, and I'm not going to let his passion get in the way of anything he can enlighten me on. I think it is fruitless to discuss issues with people who agree with me.

I am also disappointed by many things that this administration is doing, I do believe, however, that at this point in time the current administration is what we need to carry out their primary responsibility of protecting us. I believe that the destruction of the WTC could have been avoided if past administrations held a firmer hand and didn't worry so much about public opinion and polls. Barry disagrees, and I can understand why. The outcome has been less than stellar. But I think our biggest disagreement is that he is willing to make a change for change's sake and I am not.

So Barry, aside from style, I want to tell you that I AM interested in your point of view. Tell me what you think and let me tell you what I think, and maybe we can both learn something. And if it turns out that I am wrong in some of my beliefs, all the better.

[SmokinDVM]

Do I really need anything else to point out who the "very gullible" were?

We all know what the republicans have proported about why we entered Iraq. It's in the news every day. They believed that Saddam had WMD's. The democrats are saying that they didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq, and even though they voted to give Bush the authority to use force, they "really didn't think he'd use it." Yet they voted for it. Now, if Bush is so stupid, how stupid were they to be duped by an *idiot?* Doesn't say much for them. Do I want to vote those people into office? No, not really. The flavor of the day is to bash Bush because our team isn't winning the miss congeniality contest, and the democrats have latched onto this with allegations that the only reason they thought there were WMD's in Iraq is because "Bush lied." Yet every single one of those quotes were stated with certainty that the there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and many of those quotes were made years before Bush won the Presidency. Now, either those folks are lying themselves or they were stupid enough to be fooled by a "bumbling idiot." Take your pick. It has to be one or the other. It leads me to ask the questions I do. Do I vote for those who are either 1) lying when they call Bush a liar or 2)stupid enough to be mislead when they had all, if not more, information than Bush as many of them were on the very committes and commissions that were gathering the information. As I said, it has to be one or the other. There ain't no gray area in my gray matter.

Both parties were behind Bush when we went in. And the United Nations were in agreement that force was justified. Until I see some real evidence that the democrats were truly duped and how it was accomplished, I'm not going to simply assume that the democrats are telling the truth now. I am NOT going to let them get away with it, and I am certainly not going to vote them into power, especially when all they can say is "It's time for a change" but they can't tell us what the change will be. The bottom line is that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD's, even going back to before Bush took office. Now, in an effort to win the game, the democrats are back-peddling at breakneck speed, and I don't trust them. In my view, they are the ones who are lying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

[jaewing]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.

When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.

My .02

[bigpoppapuff]

he thinks he's God...^^^^



i'm not believing him...

[cigar no baka]

There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.

When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.

My .02

You're wasting your breath, he's not going to listen, just act like a child and call names.

[SmokinDVM]

There you go with the "I am right You are wrong" head-in-the-sand attitude which turns people off and make them stop listening to your arguments regarding your point of view. Take a lesson from Shelby . . . now there is the right attitude with regard to intelligent discussions.

When it comes to politics and religion, the focus of your discussion with those of opposite view should not be to convert but rather to share your views and LISTEN to their views as well. Once you shut out other's view points and begin calling names you start down the path of ignorance.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I have read your posts and posted some of my own without once calling you, your party members, or anyone else here derogatory names. I appreciate your views and your conviction, however your credibility and intelligence are diminished with every childish comment and name you call other members of this board.

My .02

Actually, it was a "I don't give a shit if you read it" attitude. BTW, anyone that believes there were any real wmd's in Iraq isn't capable of intelligent anything.

As far as religion and politics go, the reason the neopukes have courted the religious right whack-jobs, and vice versa, is both groups have proven to be incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Just ask cnb.

Credibility and intelligence being diminished? On a bb?
Now you're just being silly.

[Shelby07]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

The articles you refered to are common knowledge. I have to say that stories riddled with phrases like "one page reports", "unnamed informants" and any story involving Rove or Wilson make me raise an eyebrow. There have been so many stories, allegations and spin associated with these types of stories that one is basically left with a "pick whatever version you like" scenario. No conclusions other than supposition. These kinds of articles are exactly what I am talking about when I say I have to filter out spin and bias.

The first article does nothing to explain why the democrats backpeddled from their original assessment that we needed to stop Saddam, nor does it reference any "lies" told by Bush for the purpose of gaining support to enter Iraq. It does support the fact that pre-war intelligence was wrong, not fabricated.

Looking at the title of the web site in your second example, I would immediately be suspect of their agenda. After reading the article I would categorize it as spin. And after browsing other articles on the web site it is clear to me that all of their articles are biased. They even go so far in one of their articles as to make an argument that Hezbolla is really not trying to kill Jews. Their supporting evidence seems to be the background shots on BBC reports.

The third link references lots of spin from the Karl Rove case. Hearings and preceedings produced conclusions spun to whatever side of the argument one favors.

And as for the author of the 4th reference...

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=656


I have not seen much in the way of the printed or spoken word where I could not say it had been taken out of context or spun into meaning something other than its original meaning. Political spin doctors get paid lots of money to do just that, and they have no consequences for misrepresenting the truth.

I see nothing in those references that cannot be attributed to spin or bias depending on what side you are on.

Edit:

I base most of my opinion on the things that I remember, since I am very skeptical of the news media, be it MSNBC or FOX. I do watch them both and see very different slants in their stories and commentaries. But what I remember is everyone jumping on the bandwagon when we first went into Iraq. There was no uproar or dissention from politicians or even the news media. Battle lines were drawn during the election campaigns when both parties were maneuvering for votes. I will admit that I don't have the answers as the news slants everything, but I do remember very clearly how it all played out. I can believe that our intelligence may have been wrong, but I just can't see how Bush was able to dupe every single member of the democratic party the way they are all claiming, except for Lieberman.

Question about Lieberman's failed bid. Do you think that if the events that happened today had occured a few days earlier it would have made a difference in Tuesday's primary election?