Lets start with the basics.

First, DA you seem unable to discuss politics without becoming personally abusive of others. I am not on crack, nor have you pwned me. Knock it off, please. BTW way I dont mind the large type, even tho you use it in an attempt to gloat over your incorrectly perceived victory, but as an older American the large type helps me. Too bad all you use it for is taunts.

Second, you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourselves.

You, more than anyone else here, fudge the facts. Support your accusations with facts. I know you hate Bush. Fine. We get it. I also don't think he lied. But PROVE me wrong with facts. Not conjecture. FACTS.
You demand facts yet seem willing to base your arguments on nothing more than your philosophy.

Let's look at some examples

c. If Saddam gives terrorists WMD, then they get to stuff us in the pooper and Saddam can get away with it.
d. Terrorists were communicating with Saddam and shiznit was going down, imminent style.
e. We needed to take out Saddam anyway for gaffing the UN seurity resolutions anyway for 12 years.
There is no evidence that Saddam intended to give terrorists WMDs. This idea fails to recognize that Saddam knew he couldn't attack the US without severe retribution; it characterizes him as an idiot, which he wasn't (a brutal madman, yes, but no idiot) cause he wanted control of the region, not a war he couldnt hope to win against the powerful country in the world.

Gelatinous Cube hit it right on the head with

Everyone thought, but not everyone was ready and willing to act on it. Bush acted on it for a reason, and likely on bad advice that came from people with an agenda. It takes a lunatic to believe that Saddam would have launched nuclear weapons on America, knowing his entire country would be turned to glass as well.
I'm not sure where you gets your facts about this alleged shiznit; is that a WMD or some sort of Iraqi prostitute? But the point is clear, no facts just conjecture on your part.

Other nations, including the US, have ignored UN security resolutions; why did we need to take him out when we fail to take out others. Again, I agree that Saddam needed to be overthrown, but I disagree with the reasons and method Bush used, think we have botched the job, and continue to see that you include your personal feelings as facts but are quick to condemn others for the same crime.

So I'll go back to the one fact you tried very hard to avoid, which is that there were no WMDs found.

Then I'll follow up on your press release of 8/11/2002. UN Inspections returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002.

From Hans Blix's report to the UN on January 27, 2003

UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President,

We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.
Ironside points this out very nicely in his rebuttal of your position.

Remember also that the UN Security Council refused to endorse the US-UK invasion until many months after it occurred, mainly because others were not convinced of WMD argument.

and actually, there were several facts that you ignored. You were so quick to dislocate your shoulder self-congratulating yourself that you failed to address the fact that there was a cabal of high-ranking admin types who had planned this war from before Bush's election, and that those same guys have made a very large trunkload o' cash off the war.

So lets look a little closer at your stuff

Then it was:
a. Let's get the UN on board.
b. The UN is full of pussies, so let's get congress on board.
c. Congress looked at above argument and said "let's rocknrolla against that Saddam Ayatollah!"
Not a lot of facts in there mate, but quite a bit a conjecture.

The UN was on board for Bush the Elders foray into Iraq, but not this time. Why? Because most of the world felt that there were no WMDs as we had stated.

I like the 'UN is full of pussies' thing. I wish it were so easy to take the High School jock approach to life, but on the scale of international politics testosterone poisoned machismo really is inadequate. But whatever.

Congress supported the President because he said 'trust me we have solid intel and sure-fire plan'. Now that it has been made clear that he lacked either, but instead wanted badly to go to war in Iraq and has since blown it, failing to achieve the 'right thing' and actually making it worse for many Iraqis, we as a poeple have the right to hold him accountable.

NOW that their are no WMD, the liberals are trying to backtrack and say WOH WOH WOH. If we knew Saddam did not have WMD, then we wouldn't have voted for war. WELL NO KIDDING! NEITHER WOULD THE PREZZIE!!!
But Bush did know, the whole WMD was a lie designed to sell the war. We (the neocons at the top) wanted to invade Iraq to gain control of the oil, the help our friends the Saudis, to finish the job Bush the Elder balked at, and to attempt to spread democracy to people who will probably use their votes to elect Muslim Theocrats.

The main point isnt that people (and not just liberals, a wide spectrum of Americans, including many vets) are backtracking on their support, the American public was lied to and we don't like that from our leaders. Many have died as a result of those lies and we have a right to expect leaders to be held accountable.

DA you may have strong feelings about this, and you may even dislike or even hate those who disagree with you. But please, try to be civil. Play the ball, not the man, and instead of insulting or gloating try to prove your point.

ichi