<p>^seems to get politicians and partisans everywhere</p>
<p>B2Man, no, actually they were civilians working for the Pentagon.</p>
<p>Brownie, you’re being disingenuous as Republicans generally are these days. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was the compromise foisted on Clinton due to the Republican outcry when he proposed removing restrictions against gays in the military. If many/most Democrats had their way, sexual orientation would not be a consideration.</p>
<p>And, yes, if you look at the list of problems Bush has created, that Bush has actively sustained and fostered, and that Bush has contributed to via neglect, it’s a terribly long list. He’s like a drunk driving a car down the street, weaving from one side to the other as he bangs and crashes into parked cars, trees, and anything else unfortunate to be in the way. Except that the car is my country and I’m outraged at seeing the damage that my daughter’s children will still be paying for.</p>
<p>Captain’s Quarters? Ooh-boy. </p>
<p>If there was any validated information having greater reliability than sightings of Elvis, the Bush administration would be bandying it about with more enthusiasm than a “Mission Accomplished” banner. They haven’t. QED.</p>
<p>CaptainsQuarters makes the Weekly Standard look reliable in comparison and the Weekly Standard is something I’d hesistant to use as the liner of a cage for a dyspeptic parrot. You have a better chance of coming up with a useful nugget of truth on Al Jazeera. Other websites that might be enjoyed by the credulous, the gullible, the naive, the weak-minded, or just plain fools include Little Green Footballs, the Winds of Change, and-- oh damn, I forgot the name of one of the others I’ve read. You know, I sometimes feel like I should be wearing a toxic biohazards suit when viewing places like that. Norton Internet Security should at least give you a prompt “Do you really know what you’re doing? Use a ‘Right’ click for ‘Yes’.”</p>
<p>W/e partisanguy. Not all of us enjoy reading the Huffington Post and DU every day. LGF eats liberals for lunch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bush is such a liar!</p>
<p>Um, Iloveagoodbrew, the problem is that Iraq’s capacity to develop WMD’s was denied. There weren’t any usable ones left by 2003, and there was no “program” in place to produce any. That’s what the international inspectors were telling us in 2003; the Bush Administration response was to savage the inspectors for failing to find what we just knew was there. Problem was, the inspectors knew what they were doing and had uncovered the actual truth. CC’s righties are still spewing the party line about how “incompetent” the inspectors were, which is kind of amusing. It’s like the old saying - if you want to make someone angry, lie to them. If you want to makes them absolutely livid, tell them the truth. :)</p>
<p>
Right…</p>
<p>
But of course it was…How, it remains to be seen.</p>
<p>When Bush lied, he tought he was telling the truth. When Clinton lied, he knew he was lying, but the stakes were much lower</p>
<p>Actually, when Bush lied, no one but he and God know if he really thought he was telling the truth. </p>
<p>Fact is, lotta folks thought he was lying, even if <em>he</em> thought he was telling the truth (which is still a big stretch).</p>
<p>Nice try, TD. The Republicans couldn’t foist anything on the Dems back then. The Dems ran Congress and they ran the White House. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a Dem policy. End of story. You want everyone to think that the Repubs authored it, but your guys ran Congress and ran the White House when it was enacted into law. It’s your bill and it’s your policy.</p>
<p>They could rescind it now, though.</p>
<p>
To be precise, they were below the belt; his aides say his pants were literally on fire. Of course, Bubba claimed it was because he’d been hanging from a telephone wire…</p>
<p>Really, he was not a very ingenious liar.</p>
<p>Horny ■■■■■■■. I wonder if hillary was his pimp and she was just hoeing him out</p>
<p>To those posters who like to post quotes by Democrats in support of the belief that Saddam had WMD:
Why do people who believe Saddam did not have WMD in 2003 have to believe that anything stated by a Democratic politician (or many Democratic politicians) is true? I believe that most politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are in the business of saying whatever they believe will benefit their political prospects. Besides, even if those Democrats honestly believed that Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion, that fact has no bearing on the point in question: whether he actually did have WMD. Reports by the CIA and the team appointed by Bush to look for WMD (led by a man, David Kay, who believed that he would find them) stating that Iraq had no WMD seem much better evidence to me than statements made by ignorant legislators before the war began. David Kay stated that “there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them.” As Kay had been one of the leading proponents before the war of the idea that Saddam had chemical weapons, his finding to the contrary as head of the Iraq Survey Group seems very certain. Neither the Bush Administration nor any other prominent politicians who would benefit from the idea that Iraq in actuality had WMD continues to make that claim. This fact makes no sense under any scenario other than one in which Hussein or UN inspectors destroyed all WMD between 1991 and 2003.</p>
<p>browninfall: “The Dems ran Congress and they ran the White House. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a Dem policy. End of story. You want everyone to think that the Repubs authored it, but your guys ran Congress and ran the White House when it was enacted into law. It’s your bill and it’s your policy.”</p>
<p>Wikipedia: “It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush. The policy is opposed by some pro- and anti-gay advocates alike.”</p>
<p>Oh just found this on Wicked Thoughts :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs cannot make law. Look it up. This law was the brainchild of Sam Nunn and Les Aspin both DEMOCRATS and was signed by Bill Clinton DEMOCRAT…kind of their way of celebrating diversity. It’s OK to be gay as long as you keep it your little secret.</p>
<p>“ZM, no, I’ll criticize the administration from firing Arabic translators for no other reason than being gay. I guess the culture war must be maintained at all costs, no matter how immoral or stupid it might be.”</p>
<p>Shockingly, I agree with that post completely.</p>
<p>“So would you care to post any evidence contradicting the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group?”</p>
<p>THe report is three years old. Much has changed since then. Of course, closed minded folks like yourself and Kluge have a point of view to espouse and not amount of education will ever get through.</p>
<p>Solid point zoosermom,</p>
<p>You’ve still failed to present any evidence contradicting the report.</p>
<p>“You’ve still failed to present any evidence contradicting the report.”</p>
<p>After reading some of the truly vicious posts on this thread, I’ve decided not to continue to engage. I do, however, wonder why some of the posts weren’t reported. I made a tongue-in-cheek post earlier and it WAS reported. Just curious, that’s all.</p>