Aside from the fact that you ignored most of my points… you have to be kidding when you ask that question? I could repeat myself, but you won’t get it anyway. I’ll just say this. If they were found, that means Bush was right (and I’d give a big eff you to every Dem who jumped back on board saying “we always knew it!”). I can’t say if the situation on the ground would be any different, but it would regain our authority because we would have been right all along (again, I still think we were, even in the worst case scenario of bad intel). But the point is, Americans wouldn’t have such a bad taste in their mouth if the majority weren’t WRONGLY under the impression that Bush lied/mislead. They would have a lot more patience. But even without that patience and if they were still pushing for a “way out”, they wouldn’t have voted Dem. Again, this can all be traced back to the case for WMDs that libs and the media has been very successful at leading people to believe was a lie.

RightWinged on November 15, 2006 at 5:29 PM

Which, at the end of the day, is all that matters. Get some perspective.

Let’s assume there were WMDs found. How would the situation in Iraq be any different today?

honora on November 15, 2006 at 4:13 PM

Aside from the fact that you ignored most of my points… you have to be kidding when you ask that question? I could repeat myself, but you won’t get it anyway. I’ll just say this. If they were found, that means Bush was right (and I’d give a big eff you to every Dem who jumped back on board saying “we always knew it!”). I can’t say if the situation on the ground would be any different, but it would regain our authority because we would have been right all along (again, I still think we were, even in the worst case scenario of bad intel). But the point is, Americans wouldn’t have such a bad taste in their mouth if the majority weren’t WRONGLY under the impression that Bush lied/mislead. They would have a lot more patience. But even without that patience and if they were still pushing for a “way out”, they wouldn’t have voted Dem. Again, this can all be traced back to the case for WMDs that libs and the media has been very successful at leading people to believe was a lie.

And don’t forget the TIMING. #S*$^&#(*u !!!

Bryan, these creeps are the L&D culture (libs/dems) more accurately, culture of Lies and Deciet.

Monologuei-sts ; All talk, no truth, won’t listen = screwed.

Does this mean the Dem’s were lying then, or are lying now?

Dem’s don’t lie only Republicans lie. Dem’s have progressive intellectual changes in direction.

You liberals make no sense. You can’t talk beyond cliches and hackneyed, unserious catchphrases. And now you’ve got the Congress. So we’re well and truly screwed.

Let’s assume there were WMDs found. How would the situation in Iraq be any different today?

The Dem Libs with their attacks on Bush like “Bush lied, people died” and all the overhype of other Leftist lies like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, etc. etc. let the enemy know that our President, our troops and our Congress, as well as the American people, could be won over with propaganda, lies and domestic political attacks much more than by guns and bombs in Iraq, although those help at our election times.

You Dhimms just don’t get it, do you? (Or do you?) I think you ginned up these lies about the Bush Administration on purpose for your own Leftist political gain, but that’s me.
So how would it be different? Iraq would be a lot quieter and well on the way on the paved road to democracy instead of the rocky road of IEDs full of both Sunni and Shi’a killers ratcheting up to civil war because the Dems are talking about withdrawal.

So back to the point… Everyone (even on my side) wants to talk about “move on” from WMDs all the time… but I can’t, because I know that it is what is at the root of all of this. If not for the WMDs, the Dems would have NOTHING right now.

RightWinged on November 15, 2006 at 4:04 PM

Perhaps a nice sampler with this embroidered on it for Christmas? Would that make it all better? I haven’t done any needlepoint since I had babies, but I’m willing to give it a go….

Let’s assume there were WMDs found. How would the situation in Iraq be any different today?

Bush has admitted there were no WMDs. Which is water under the bridge. I believe there was cherry picking of intelligence, but let’s stop picking that particular scab. Bush has a couple of years left as Commander in Chief, a position that really requires some forward thinking, versus rehashing the past.

honora on November 15, 2006 at 3:38 PM

Get the hell out of here with your “forward thinking”… The Dems have done nothing but hammer the WMD thing. “George Bush betrayed his country” “We were told lie, after lie, after lie” “Mislead us in to a war…” “Concocted a war for political gain”, and hundreds if not thousands of other soundbytes of Dems harping on WMDs right up through ’til today, so give me a break.

As for cherrypicked intelligence… that is the point of this video (for me anyway)… Even if we were to accept claims by Dems that “Bush saw different intelligence”… Dems were making the case all through the 90s! Bush had no influence of that intel! So you can say you “believe” it was cherrypicked all you want… but not only is that retarded, it doesn’t matter what you “believe”.

I will continue to say that if WMDs had been found, the Dems would have nothing right now, NOTHING. They wouldn’t have picked up any seats, because the American people would recognize that we needed to go there. While I maintain that they were there, I will set that aside for the moment to stick with concrete evidence. We ALL thought they were there. Worst case scenario is that the intel was bad. Why should Bush alone be punished for that? If the chemical or bilogical weapons we all believed were there made it over here and killed 10,000 people, Dems would have screamed that we should have taken Iraq. They’d have said “look, we argued the case all through the 90s!” and you effing know it!

The problem is a majority of the country has been lead to believe that Bush either lied or mislead us. The facts don’t support that, but good ‘ol mainstream media doesn’t let that stop her! Facts are no obstacle for the media, and they’ve managed to fool everyone. I recently said this in another thread, I would bet that 9 out of 10 people wouldn’t have a clue that the Dems ever made these statements.

So back to the point… Everyone (even on my side) wants to talk about “move on” from WMDs all the time… but I can’t, because I know that it is what is at the root of all of this. If not for the WMDs, the Dems would have NOTHING right now.

By the way, as a resource for everyone, I enjoy this list of Kerry’s WMD quotes dating back to 1990. Most of these aren’t the usual ones we read in the “Dems on WMDs” lists. And if that wasn’t enough, we have Clinton’s Dec. 16, 1998 speech/case for Iraq’s WMDs before he attacked (a month after making regime change our policy by the way). If you were to (as I once did in a blog post) replace all instances of Clinton with Bush, you would think it was the current POTUS in the lead up to this war.

You can’t say the same of Bush, though, since he said the same things about Saddam’s WMDs before and after 2003.

Bush has admitted there were no WMDs. Which is water under the bridge. I believe there was cherry picking of intelligence, but let’s stop picking that particular scab. Bush has a couple of years left as Commander in Chief, a position that really requires some forward thinking, versus rehashing the past.

But I stopped beliving in the tooth fairy, easter bunny, and santa claus a long time ago.

What is the point of this?

It’s the point Bush spoke quite clearly on the video about people rewriting history to suit their political purposes.

I thought it was awfully clear.

Allah,
Where is this video on YouTube? I want to make a copy before YouTube takes it off the net for a ‘terms of use violation’.

gmaninatl on November 15, 2006 at 11:30 AM

gmanitatl,

Click on the image itself above and it’ll open up the YouTube link and start it playing. Let it completely download and play. Then open up your cache and look for the flv file.

I’ve been looking for this exact kind of video showing the dems in agreement with W well before the invasion of Iraq.

The US policy for regime change in Iraq was set during the Clinton Administration, and I believe it was exactly the correct policy for the US to follow and enact.

Slick and Co. were right about saddam. They’re just turning cowardly now that things are rough. We need to see this through. Running away will do incalculable damage to the US. Real, quanitifiable damage.

Cut and run is a disasterous, foolish, and dangerous idea. You think it’s bad now? The troubles in Iraq will pale by comparison if we force our Military to tuck tail and come home.

We do not lack the ability and power to win this fight. We only need the strong resolve of the American People. The US Military is more than doing their part, and all Americans should be damned grateful for their service and sacrifice.

You people who disrespect the Military disgust me. Before all this is over, you’re going to be thankful they’re between you and the jihadis. Mark my word.

You can’t say the same of Bush, though, since he said the same things about Saddam’s WMDs before and after 2003.

When you plum out of ideas on how to go forward, dwell on the past. It’s fruitless, but beats the hell out of dealing with stark reality.

Why was this not out before the election? Why not the Murtha video? Why not the Abramoff testimony about 6-8 corrupt Democratic leaders? Why not the Rumsfeld resignation in August/September? Did the white house REALLY want to win the house? Or did they want to pass a legacy-making amnesty bill so much more than they wanted to keep the house? I gotta wonder.

Da Dems are too clever to dose dat.