Dick Cheney was right!

Karzak , I think that the preemptive war to take out a despot who sits on 1/5 of the worlds oil is, to your thinking ok.

The statements up front implied that Saddam was seeking to acquire nuclear feedstock. The president stated that he represented an immedaite danger, by virtue of his WMDs (including nukes )

The fact that we never found a track of yellowcake, let alone U/Hex . or the end point, enriched U never passes the pea brains of the administration or its apologists. You dont make a bomb out of yellowcake. It takes a number of sophisticated steps beyond the sintered U oxides. So we didnt go to war over nukes. What did we go to war for?
Regime change and protection of the Iraqis. Yeh right. We wouldnt think of attacking Korea , (your and Mcg's l;ogic would have us sighting an attack plan)
We are, however, sending a task force to patrol offshore Nigeria. Where huge recent oil strikes arent not done being tabulated as far as increased reserve capacity. We are sending a carrier group to challenge the Muslims rebels.

I dont think that anyone , would have objected to a calculated risk of a "series of "hits" on Saddam, without a preemptive war. Id like to think of my country as the good guys. This whole fiasco makes me wonder about the simple mindedness of the right.
You guys have no levels of complexity nor are you capable of deep abstract thought or , in this case strategic thought. You dont question anything after its already done, and you call that patriotism. I call that "flag waving toadyism".

Weve decimated a country, killed almost a thousand Americans, recruited thousands more terrorists, and made the rest of the world(except for the PM of UK) wonder whether weve not gone totally nutz.

Also, as we seem to be dipping into a second wave of recession, Impersonally pissed at how this gang has caused our economy harm just by the distraction .
Well, Im personally glad that my vote cancels your vote, and I hope someone else steps up to cancel McG's vote and others who are unflinching followers of the Moron who occupies 1600

Karzak , I think that the preemptive war to take out a despot who sits on 1/5 of the worlds oil is, to your thinking ok.

The statements up front implied that Saddam was seeking to acquire nuclear feedstock. The president stated that he represented an immedaite danger, by virtue of his WMDs (including nukes )

The fact that we never found a track of yellowcake, let alone U/Hex . or the end point, enriched U never passes the pea brains of the administration or its apologists. You dont make a bomb out of yellowcake. It takes a number of sophisticated steps beyond the sintered U oxides. So we didnt go to war over nukes. What did we go to war for?
Regime change and protection of the Iraqis. Yeh right. We wouldnt think of attacking Korea , (your and Mcg's l;ogic would have us sighting an attack plan)
We are, however, sending a task force to patrol offshore Nigeria. Where huge recent oil strikes arent not done being tabulated as far as increased reserve capacity. We are sending a carrier group to challenge the Muslims rebels.

I dont think that anyone , would have objected to a calculated risk of a "series of "hits" on Saddam, without a preemptive war. Id like to think of my country as the good guys. This whole fiasco makes me wonder about the simple mindedness of the right.
You guys have no levels of complexity nor are you capable of deep abstract thought or , in this case strategic thought. You dont question anything after its already done, and you call that patriotism. I call that "flag waving toadyism".

Weve decimated a country, killed almost a thousand Americans, recruited thousands more terrorists, and made the rest of the world(except for the PM of UK) wonder whether weve not gone totally nutz.

Also, as we seem to be dipping into a second wave of recession, Impersonally pissed at how this gang has caused our economy harm just by the distraction .
Well, Im personally glad that my vote cancels your vote, and I hope someone else steps up to cancel McG's vote and others who are unflinching followers of the Moron who occupies 1600

Not just me, but Bush AND Kerry, and a majority of people think so.

That the ABB crowd would rather have saddam still in power is kinda sad, that they won't admit it directly, even though every other post is about how we were wrong to liberate iraq is sadder still.

The fact is saddam was seeking nukes, and if left with just the UN sanctions he would eventually get them.

Saddam was funding and aiding terrorism.

And despite all the moaning, whining and wringing of hands over it by the libs and commies, Bush did the right thing, the smart thing, and removed someone who needed removing.

So cry a river, the world got better despite you.

You use the typical right wingers tool that states
"If youre against a war, you must be for Saddam"
This is just using hyperbole and is totally invalid logic.

British guy finds that some undisclosed Iraqi had a conversation with somebody from Niger's Resource Commission--All of a sudden this becomes
PROOF THAT WMD NUKES are being readied for use against Israel and the US. Kinda floppy reasoning dont you agree?This is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug
ADMIT it--you guys are straw grasping. Your trying to claim some moral high ground for the recent foreign adventure, and by doing so, (standing with the President and his cabinet of "honorable Men(and woman)"), you feel that there is some safety in numbers .
You kinda remind me of the hardhats in the late sixties, the ones whod run out of a crowd and pummel anti-war demonstrators. Your actions are fact-free and youve made no attempt to think things out on your own.

Your entire previous post is replete with math propositions
"if...then", that is so much flaky bullshit and its pathetic reasoning.

We, according to your logic, started a war on the basis of "if..then". I dont recall that our founding fathers would have championed that.
Im not crying a river, although I have been to one funeral for a local soldier killed in Iraq. I dont believe that squandering our kids lives moves your point any farther off start. Its quite a dis-service to the honor of the military that fought Hitler and Japan, wherein we now use our kids as a tool to advance faulty, admittedly erroneous based, foreign policy.

Lets face it, Cheney wasnt right, he was posturing, thats all. He employed the "if...then" logic and convinced enough congressmen to vote for a war resolution.
Id bet that , knowing then, that all this WMD crap was pretty much made up bogosity, most of Congress would have pulled its vote. Quite a few have already said that.
I have a feeling though, that your one of the staunch fellow travelers of the right. My vote cancels your vote, so why dont you stay home on election day.

I'll admit the administration is right about something. First, they have to be right about something - Otherwise the deal's off.

I read the Butler report. It took much of my paper to print out and Im on the road with few STAPLES in Western Vermont. I dont believe McG and Karzak , that this report gives the "Boost to the admin" that you wish to see. It does however, show that Iran has the ability to
1 mine and process Uranium

2They have a U hex plant

3 They have a U enrichment by steam distillation and centrifuge tech.

They have the tech to process Plutonium

5 They have alaser polonium enichment capability

6 Theey have a soon to be tested "space delivery system"

Id be more concerned about Iran for reasons that make Iraq look like "The mouse that roared"

Read the report before you start posting, Thanks to Walter Hinteler for finding and posting it in another thread

My vote cancels McGs