I know that George will never, ever admit to a mistake. That is probably going to be his fatal flaw. I am far more comfortable admitting I was wrong about something than I am following a questionable course of action that will lead to unimaginable dangers. Maybe you are willing to contribute the cannon fodder that will be required to handle Mr. Bush's overseas adventures, but I am not. My opinion is every bit as relevant as yours. I won't attack your stance, because it's what you believe. I happen to believe otherwise.

I'm not attacking you in the least, nor am I going to indulge in making this personal. I am not adding cannon fodder to anything....

I am speaking directly to the comments about someone being fine attacking Iraq which posed no threat- yet at the time, and for years in the past it was COMMON agreement that Iraq was a threat. Now it is convenient to state that it was all a lie and use it to attack the administration.

I don't have anything to admit wrong for. I was not sitting in those congressional or senate meetings, I don't have access to the intel they do, and I have not personally sent anyone to war. I personally think, as does Morrigoon, who started this thread, that we did the right thing in Iraq- and I don't have to admit to being "wrong" about anything.

The dems are not saying they were wrong- they are denying their past stance and screaming that Bush and Co are liars. It's partisan and transparent, and no attempt to make it look noble works.

So they demanded action in Iraq over what they thought was an urgent threat to America's security based on "full info and briefings" provided by....the Bush administration. Yowza!

And let's not forget, since we are engaging in an exercise to defend against revisionist history, the political climate (70% of Americans in favor of attacking) at the time. The dems where guilty of lacking a backbone and going along with the frenzy whipped up by a warmongering administration, I'll grant you that.

Yes, there were people on both sides who truly believed that Iraw was a threat before we went in. But as the issue got pushed, as the time for a decission came, people said, "Okay, let's see the hard evidence, the smoking gun, THEN we'll support it." And what hard evidence came out? Collin Powel with a couple satelite photos of trucks with circles around them. THAT'S when people's "stories changed", and by "stories changed," I mean people stood by their statements that said we shouldn't go in without defnitive proof. And yet we did.

Between you and me, I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that Sadaam DID have a WMD program. But without proof, there was no justification for action. Assume and speculate all you want, but there's a damned good reason part of the foundation of this country involves the addage "innocent until proven guilty." I suppose we should all thank George for demonstrating so vividly why it's important to do more than pay lip service to the values that define our country, and actually uphold them rather then uphold them unless it's convenient not to.

:rolleyes" yeah- that's it. The dems were weak willed helpless and hapless, almost victims, who just could not stand up to anyone. They are not REALLY responsible for any of the opinions that Iraq was a threat, or had WMD's, no, they were just misled, and it's all someone else's fault

The briefings and intel came LONG before the current Bush administration-

do you ever get tired of offering these excuses, justifications or finger pointing at anyone BUT your party?

You can't apply our JUSTICE system to this! I'm sorry- after years of problematic inspections, breaking of cease fires, flaunting every resolution from the UN, and MONTHS of warnings and time to move any WMD or program- we had plenty of proof. How many terrorists did Iraq have to pay money to? How much support of terrorisim do you let them get away with?

They are not subject to the addage of innocent until proven guilty-

you seem to want to apply US citizen principles to world issues or foreign people- it doesn't work that way. They don't get the innocent until proven guilty anymore than foreign NON-uniformed terrorist get the protection of OUR Constitution.

I could point to the quotes by powell and rice about Iraq not being a threat a year before they were a threat, but whats the point.

If by excuses you mean an honest recollection of the events between 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion, no, I'll never stop telling the truth.

The dems weren't helpless, they were spineless. Considering the climate at the time, it would have been political suicide to speak out against attacking Iraq. That shouldn't have stopped them from doing the right thing but it did.

Do you remember the congresswoman from Oakland, California and the hell she went through when she voted against giving Bush the authority to go to war? Ugly stuff. Let's face it, this country is full of people who feel better about themselves when America is kicking somebody's ass.

I like to believe that the US citizens principles are principles that many of us strive to live by, and not just use when it is convinient to us. And the only concern I have about not living our principles outlined in the constitution and considering them when dealing with NON-uniformed individuals that may or may not be terrorists is at that point we are no longer living by those principles, and living a lie. We then become arrogant, and better then the rest of the world. Which is also a lie, for this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal, no matter on what the citizenship.

You don't think guilt should be established before engaging in the heretofore un-American act of unprovoked aggression? Yikes!

What you call the truth I call partisan hysteria and manipulation.