Well since YOU originally brought it up and posted about wiping your own ass I thought that I would congratulate you on reaching a new level in your life.


Don Cardi

This is awkward DC. Normally you tend to use the government/intelligence reports as evidence for your believes. And now, when the reports don't suite your believes, you do this.

You don't want anyone to think that you are hypocritical in your use of evidence, do you? That's the first step to become a liberal, so watch out for that. [/b][/quote]What bothers me is that there are those out there and on here who jump at any chance to make the President and this adnministration look like the bad guys.

Think about it and you'll understand why I posted the way that I did. There are people who are trying to insinuate that Bush is more evil than Saddam. To suit their own agendas they conveniently forget that Saddam was a mass murderer who tortured people, killed children of his own country, and gassed not only people from other nations, but of his own nation.

It's almost as if many people are saying that because Saddam had no ties to 9/11, he wasn't a bad man but George W. Bush is a bad man.

Saddam was a fucking piece of shit who has absolutely no place on this earth. And the bottom line is that he is no longer in a position to support terrorism, pay suicide bombers, gas people from other nations, or murder and torture his own people.

Now tell me something, is that such a bad thing?


Don Cardi

Okay, I see where you are coming from.
But, because there are people who use this report as a chance to Bush-bash, does that mean that this US-Senate report has no value?
Are you gonna let those people ruin this report?

Keep in mind that many of the senators that investigated and put together this report are the same senators that supported our going into Iraq because they believed, based on the same intelligence reports that were given to The President, that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. Here are two examples ( but the list goes on ):

Senator Orrin Hatch Voted to go into Iraq ( said this before U.S. troops went into Iraq) - " Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda…Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains."

Mike DeWine - Voted to go into Iraq.

I've only provided examples of two senators, serving on this committee who came to their conclusion in this new report, who also voted to go into Iraq based on the same pre-war intelligence that The President received. And there are quite a few more who voted to go to war based on information that Iraq and Al Qaeda had ties, who now served on this investigative committee and came to this conclusion.

(For a quote from that report that will give you the explaination of how this committee gathered information that made them come to this conclusion, hop on over to the "Senate Confirm No Link" toipic).


Don Cardi

I'll never say George Bush is "Evil", but the fact is over 100,000 innocent Irqais, and 2,667 American soldiers have died since George Bush decided to forget about Bin-Laden and invade Iraq for no good reason. This doesn't exactly make him a hero, especially in the eyes of the rest of the world.

I never said that YOU said that President Bush was evil.

And I never said that he was a hero.

But you must admit that there are people both around the world and on these boards that have insinuated that President George W. Bush is no better than Saddam Hussein.

As for the hunt for Bin laden, well I don't believe that we ever gave up looking for him.

You ever think that maybe the media attention and the reports of our looking for him were intentionally toned down?

I believe that it's not a question of if we find him but more of a question of when.


Don Cardi

It's been 5 years since Bush promised to "smoke him out of his cave". How much longer do expect it's going to take? Do you believe that if we hadn't changed our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq he'd still be free or alive?

It's been 5 years since Bush promised to "smoke him out of his cave". How much longer do expect it's going to take? Do you believe that if we hadn't changed our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq he'd still be free or alive? [/b][/quote]You may be right. It's very possible that if we were not in Iraq that we may have caught him. But we'll never know for sure. And tell me something, do you really beleive that President Bush wouldn't love to capture this guy? Do you think that Bush wants him to stay free?


Hindsight is 20/20 and we can go back and forth all day saying "what if" we didn't go into Iraq or we can even say "what if" former President Clinton had been more aggressive and had accepted the offer from Sudan, or we can say "what if" President Bush wasn't so caught up with Saddam, or we can say " what if former President Clinton had given the go ahead to the CIA when they had their sights set on Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda camp.

But the bottom line is that we ARE in Iraq, and both the former and present leaders of our country "could have" done several things differently to change the shape of what has and is taking place today.


It's very east to be a monday morning QB.


Don Cardi

What about us historians, DC?

Are me and DJ guilty of being Tuesday Morning Quarterbacks as well?

Yes, tuesday. Considering MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL, the times move on. :p