100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION

A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) shows that supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. For example, "a large majority [72%] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Most Bush supporters [57%] also believe that the recently released report by Charles Duelfer, the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, concluded Iraq either had WMD or a major program for developing them. In fact, the report concluded "Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion" and the U.N. inspection regime had "curbed his ability to build or develop weapons."

According to the study, 75% Bush supporters also believe "Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda." Most Bush supporters [55%] believe that was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. In fact, the 9/11 commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Bush supporters also hold inaccurate views about world public opinion of the war in Iraq and a range of Bush's foreign policy positions.

The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

[How can anyone read this and still vote to re-elect the little freak puppetboy?]

The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus estimated that in inflation-adjusted terms, World War I cost just under $200 billion for the United States. The Vietnam War [8 years] cost roughly $500 billion from 1964 to 1972, Nordhaus said. The cost of the Iraq war could reach nearly half that number by next fall, 2 1/2 years after it began.

Basically, when somebody claims to have 100 non-arguable claims and the first one turns out to be flagrant BS, I stop reading and don't bother to read the other 99.

The claim that Iraq was a "war of choice" is BS.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36704

This is gungasnake's flagrant BS

The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

We went to war and I happen to think it was not a war of choice. While we didn't find any WMD's, I still think it was important to remove Saddam to prevent any future attempts to obtain WMD's.

The basic fact of the matter is this; we would have ended up going into Iraq at some point anyways.

Baldimo wrote:

We went to war and I happen to think it was not a war of choice. While we didn't find any WMD's, I still think it was important to remove Saddam to prevent any future attempts to obtain WMD's.

In other words: It was a war of choice (because you didn't have to go now).

And please don't argue with a fantasy future. Or I will argue that Bush will cause the 3rd world war if reelected.

Baldimo wrote:

The basic fact of the matter is this; we would have ended up going into Iraq at some point anyways.

This is my opinion but, I disagree. From everything I've read Hussain was becoming increasingly detached from reality and I doubt he would have lasted 5 years, left to his own devices. Whether what would have followed would have been better or worse is speculation.

The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's. If this was indeed true as we have no reason to doubt the report, then we would have ended up fighting Saddam anyways.

The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's.

Shouldn't we be focusing on REAL threats? Like Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda?

Baldimo wrote:

The Dulfer report even stated that Saddam was working to undermine the sanctions and still had aspirations to obtain WMD's.

Wow, had _plans_ to _preserve_ the _capability_ to _start_ a _program_ _if_ sanctions were lifted.

A load of "ifs" there. Let's hope China doesn't attack the US because they feel threatened.

Let's see what the Duelfer Report says:
"The fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Hey, no necessity for war = war of choice

Let's see what the report further says:
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Clear words

Exactly.

Or as the terrorism expert Dick Clarke says: "There are a lot of dictators where the US would be better off without. The question is just whether it's worth the price"

When we have 12 years of sanctions on other dictators and they don't provide proof that the sanctions have worked then we might invade. Don't make it sound like the sanctions were new and we ignored them.

I guess bin Laden wasn't worth the price for Clark to go after. After all he was offered to the US and Clinton at least twice and he did nothing. Talk about a faliure.