Originally Posted by tyreay

I am tired of providing you with proof because you said so. The only one who doesn't believe me is you. None of us have seen you say you stand corrected, when someone provides you with proof. I told you I saw Tenet say these things. This is not good enough for you. You'll just come up with some other unsubstaniated reason why the link is not proof. Why do you think I would take my time to look up something you will attempt to discount anyway, no matter what the link? I have no problem with supplying links, in the future, for anyone who has a true interest. We both know that you are just here to try to dilute the truth with more government propoganda. You would use one of your wonderfully predictable, pre-written, conservative come backs. You know, the one where you look the facts in the face but can't bring yourself to actually admit the truth. The one were you say us liberals twist things to our benefit and anything we say is a lie. You know, the one the Bush administration is forced to use all the time. In the end, really, who cares what you think?
If this subject is important to anyone else here they will either comment and also say they think I am a liar(don't bother alias) or they will look it up on there own. Lets just see who also needs 'proof'!

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Lack of evidence, proof, link, website, book, newspaper, or other credible source, noted...

Originally Posted by tyreay

Believe what you wiil, I said what I had to say.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

And once again, you can provide no evidence to back up your claim.

I would expect nothing less from you.

Originally Posted by tyreay

Could this be because the Administration twisted the intelligence given to them by the CIA and other sources and that most of the Senators, Reps and Congresspeople, believed it too?

We all know Bush lied:

The president had hoped Saddam could be removed in some way short of war. But early in 2002, Woodward reports, the CIA concluded they could not overthrow Saddam. That word came from the CIA's head of Iraq operations, a man known simply as “Saul.” (Curveball?)

"Saul gets together a briefing and who does he give it to first? Dick Cheney. He said, ‘I can count the number of sources, human sources, spies we have in Iraq on one hand,’” says Woodward. “I asked the president, ‘What was your reaction that the CIA couldn't overthrow Saddam? And the president said one word. 'Darn.'"

The vice president led the way on declaring that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Before that, the president had said only that Saddam “desires them.”

But ten days later, the vice president said Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction. And 12 days after that, the president too had apparently been persuaded: “A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction.”

Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.

”McLaughlin has access to all the satellite photos, and he goes in and he has flip charts in the oval office. The president listens to all of this and McLaughlin's done. And, and the president kind of, as he's inclined to do, says ‘Nice try, but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna convince Joe Public,’” says Woodward.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml

The president is guilty only of taking seriously what faithful friends told him. One is expected to assume that his friend the vice president, Dick Cheney, neglected to tell him that his office had ordered the uranium from Niger story checked out in February 2002 and had found there was nothing to it.

The Bush administration has distinguished itself by its inability or unwillingness to deal with allies as equals, with legitimate interests and views of their own to be respected.

This is the issue Washington obfuscates and London has refused to raise. Prime Minister Blair's support for the United States has been exploited to lend legitimacy to a war entirely conceived and controlled by Washington.

The United States has a new kind of government, which takes a new view of what allies are worth, and how they are expected to behave.

This has been an underlying issue throughout the U.S.-European drama of the past 10 months. It will determine the future of the Western alliance, as well as the character of the new European Union now being ushered into existence by an EU constitution, EU expansion and an independent EU security policy.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0717-04.htm

You are always bitching about the Democrats investigating this Administration's decisions. Then you bitch because they believed the Bush/Cheney supplied intel. Make up your mind please.

I am not sticking up for the Dems as personally, I think both parties cater to whoever is paying them at the time, and they all could care less about the average person. Who do you impeach when everyone in power sucks ass?

Originally Posted by tyreay

Dear alias, Get around what? You act like you think I am a Democrat. I never said Clinton was great or that he is not a part of the madness. I'll say it again: both major parties in power now, are in it together. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are pay-off taking, self-centered, power mongers. Very few of any of our elected officials even give a shit about the common person. What part about they play each other to get the results they want, did I not make clear?

Originally Posted by tyreay

Dear alias, Get around what? You act like you think I am a Democrat. I never said Clinton was great or that he is not a part of the madness. I'll say it again: both major parties in power now, are in it together. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are pay-off taking, self-centered, power mongers. Very few of any of our elected officials even give a shit about the common person. What part about they play each other to get the results they want, did I not make clear?