And the neocons say...

[audreyh1]

that if they'd realized the "incompetence" of the White House they never would have advocated a invasion of Iraq. : : :

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?printable=true&currentPage=all

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Audrey

 

[Cattusbabe]

You know what they say. Sucess has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[audreyh1]

Perle: Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have.

I sure remember neocons insisting that NOTHING other than invasion would work. That there were no other alternatives. And anyone who tried to push for some other means to manage the threat - well if not downright unpatriotic, they were sadly misguided...

So sad for Colin Powell. He sure has vanished into thin air.....

Audrey

 

[2B]

You know what they say. Sucess has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

Quite true. Most of the dems screaming about the war are on record as either supporting it or screaming that GW was taking too long to attack.

 

[uncledrz]

Quite true. Most of the dems screaming about the war are on record as either supporting it or screaming that GW was taking too long to attack.

Levin, Durbin (sp?), Senator from West Virginia (forgot his name for now) all spoke out forcefully against the War. They made clear that war was and should be the last alternative and as long as inspections were ongoing, they should continue.

Not surprised by the above quote, however, seems the crew that was never able to get their facts straight is now most willing to rewrite history.

 

[brewer12345]

Not surprised by the above quote, however, seems the crew that was never able to get their facts straight is now most willing to rewrite history.

That's OK. I am sure in the fullness of time they will have an opportunity to perjure themselves by doing the same under oath.

 

[samclem]

Levin, Durbin (sp?), Senator from West Virginia (forgot his name for now) all spoke out forcefully against the War.

You might be thinking of Senator Byrd of West Virginia, he was opposed to the war and is a prominent Democrat. This is well after his time as leader of his local KKK chapter. A very "colorful" character and a (barely) breathing poster child for term limits..

 

[Craig]

And let's remember as well all of the fine Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq ...

 

[2B]

Levin, Durbin (sp?), Senator from West Virginia (forgot his name for now) all spoke out forcefully against the War. They made clear that war was and should be the last alternative and as long as inspections were ongoing, they should continue.

Not surprised by the above quote, however, seems the crew that was never able to get their facts straight is now most willing to rewrite history.

Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy.... and others I won't bother to look up. Like good politicos they frequently spoke out bothsides of their mouth but the vote approving the invasion was overwhelming. Murtha did vote against it but I think he was the only one. The outcry now is the hypocrital blather I've ever heard.

Oh wait. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it.

Look up your own facts before you make a fool of yourself. Oh sorry, it's too late.

 

[2B]

You might be thinking of Senator Byrd of West Virginia, he was opposed to the war and is a prominent Democratic. This is well after his time as leader of his local KKK chapter. A very "colorful" character and a (barely) breathing poster child for term limits..

I don't think we should overly burden a person with things long into their past unless they bring them up. Just like Bush's service record was "ok" when he was in it should have been left alone. Good ol' "reporting for duty John Kerry" deserved what he got. He must have had half a brain to bring up his war record with the anti war activities so closely attached. He cost himself the presidency.

Byrd is the "prince of pork" and is a legend in being able to bring home the bacon. He's just been elected to another 6 year term. There is no way he can make it based on what I've seen of his health and age. All I can say is the dems should be glad there's a dem governor in WV or the senate may have been back in play.

 

[sgeeeee]

Bush lied. He sold his bill of goods to the American people. Reps and Dems voted based on the lies and based on the fear of voter backlash. We invaded Iraq without good cause. We got stuck in a terribly costly quagmire. Dems eventually complained about the original lies. Reps did not.

But the details are really not important here. This is clearly Bush's Invasion and the blood and death associated with it are clearly Bush's burden. If he and his administration had not single mindedly pushed for the invasion, it would never have happened. He fought against public opinion and the international community and forced it to happen. Dems had nothing to do with that sales job. Once he sold this con job on the American people, he used it like a club to beat up any Dems who dared oppose him.

The American people seem to realize that this is Bush's Invasion based on Bush's lies and spin. That is why they voted overwhelmingly to put a stop to such nonsense.

 

[MJ]

Bush lied. He sold his bill of goods to the American people. Reps and Dems voted based on the lies and based on the fear of voter backlash. We invaded Iraq without good cause. We got stuck in a terribly costly quagmire. Dems eventually complained about the original lies. Reps did not.

You keep forgetting it was Clinton's fault

The American people seem to realize that this is Bush's Invasion based on Bush's lies and spin. That is why they voted overwhelmingly to put a stop to such nonsense.

Unfortunately, the people did not vote overwhelmingly but just enough to get over the top. Many still believe the Reps are on the "right" track.

Sad

 

[uncledrz]

Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy.... and others I won't bother to look up. Like good politicos they frequently spoke out bothsides of their mouth but the vote approving the invasion was overwhelming. Murtha did vote against it but I think he was the only one. The outcry now is the hypocrital blather I've ever heard.

Oh wait. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it.

Look up your own facts before you make a fool of yourself. Oh sorry, it's too late.

Old saying, "Lie with dogs, you get fleas." Maybe even trying to respond to a Bush apologist, history rewritter, ahh, you is the fool's mission.

Levin, Durbin and Byrd were all clear and vocal in their opposition to this War. All voted against the authorization. Bush and his cabal were very clear that this was a vote to authorize force so they could go to the UN and go in, if necessary, as part of an international force to enforce the UN Resolutions re: weapons of mass destruction. The UN did not authorize the use of force. Inspections were continuing. Bush decided to invade anyway.

I saw the debates on C Span so I have personal knowledge of exactly what was said and what the votes were.

 

[donheff]

Unfortunately, the people did not vote overwhelmingly but just enough to get over the top. Many still believe the Reps are on the "right" track.

Sad

Sqeeee had it right. And while the change in the Senate hung on the tiniest margin in Virginia, remember that everyone agrees this election was nationalized (i.e. voters were reacting largely to Iraq and their view of the current administration). The total national margin or voters choosing democrat over republican was much larger than Bush's 2004 margin over the democrats. The electorate did send a clear message.

 

[Brat]

The voters spoke loud and clear: "Enough!"

Who do I think is well positioned for the next round:

R: John McCain with vp ?

D: Jim Webb with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton vp

 

[farmerEd]

>>Barack Obama

What qualifications does this guy have to be president? I keep seeing his name thrown around as the greatest thing since sliced bread...but does he actually have many accomplishments yet? Didn't he *just* get elected a couple of years ago the senate? Shouldn't supporters want to see a track record of worthy accomplishments of a presidential candidate before endorsing him to run the country...seems premature to me.

Let him do a few terms in the senate or run a state as a governor and prove he can do it before we promote him to such an important position.

As far as who I would support...nobody on my radar yet...certainly none of the declared candidates on either side would be my choice yet.

 

[saluki9]

>>Barack Obama

What qualifications does this guy have to be president? I keep seeing his name thrown around as the greatest thing since sliced bread...but does he actually have many accomplishments yet?

His qualifications? He's black, in the senate, and not yet indicted

Although the heat on his is building here in IL. Right now the Democratic govenors main fundraiser was just indicted for all sorts of different violations. Well it turns out that this same guy JUST HAPPENED to also buy a plot of land right next to the home of revered (by some other than me) Senator Obama. He then proceeded to sell it to him at below market prices.

I'm hoping he gets wrapped up in this whole thing here too. I'd like to see him off to jail at the same time they take mayor Daley and gov Blagojevich

 

[Brat]

So, who would you pair with Webb?

Let's scratch anyone from the east coast (which would eliminate Hillary who would be too PO'd to accept VP in any case), last round's D Presidential wantabees, and Pelosi.

Looking for someone from the center, maybe a state Gov.

 

[HFWR]

Evan Bayh?

 

[Brat]

I record most of the Sunday political shows. It is interesting to look at the list of potential 2008 candidates. So far none of the Ds mentioned would inspire me, and Webb was not mentioned. Humm.....

 

[bosco]

>>Barack Obama

What qualifications does this guy have to be president?

what qualifications did Bush have? His daddy's name? The heroism of his national guard non-service? Being governor of a state where the governor has very little budgetary authority (most of it is in the hands of elected comissioners)? Having a brother who bilked the S&Ls out of billions?

He was basically totally inexperienced, and we are seeing the costs now.

I doubt Obama could do worse.

 

[Brat]

Yep, Baby Bush set the (very low) minimum qualifications.

Experiance counts much more for the Prez, the VP is at best the under-study.

What the VP should bring to the table is an electorate different than the Prez candidate. The old "balanced ticket' theory.

 

[youbet]

I doubt Obama could do worse.

I agree with bosco and Brat. We should select our next president based on low standards!

 

[Brat]

Not even in the corporate enviornment is the "best qualified", from the standpoint of education and employment, the person who is hired for the job. The selecting manager looks at the totality of what candidates bring to the table.

In the political arena is no different.