Reality Check: Even many in Bush's inner circle doubted the WMDs. Gimme a break. Get your head out of Bushco's butt.

Also, there was almost a general consensus against Iraq being behind 9/11.

And by that I mean 1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

One shd know what words mean when they utter them.

I.e.- when you type 'the consensus of the world's intelligence agencies' it means most thought, which is not so. A few US lackeys, and a few US agencies, officially, so as to not make W & Cheney look like total asses, kept their mouths shut when the lies were uttered.

'I'm sure they did, just like Bill Clinton did in the 1990s when he bombed Iraq. You're missing the point. '

No, that is the point, when the cherrypicking, as you admit, utterly deflates the claim of 'consensus.

It's. Called. Logic.

'You do realize there are thousands of dead Kurds in Halabja killed by Saddam's WMD? Bush didn't invent them. Saddam refused to account for them, and everyone assumed he had still had them.
Oh well, say hi to Fox Mulder in your wacky conspiracy world.'

That was years before the invasion. It's not conspiracy. It's reality.

'BTW, we now know why everyone thought Saddam had WMD: according to his interrogator, that's what Saddam wanted everyone to think. It was a deliberate pretense because he was worried about Iran, and apparently believed no U.S. President would have the cojones to actually invade and overthrow him. He bet wrong.'

Yes. So you think it was a good thing to start a needless war on false pretenses. At least you're honest about your idiocy. More than can be said for W.

It was a slam-dunk case! Reality? Please.

Yes, there was dissent about what certain tubes were being used for and whether Official A was trying buy WMD component B in country C. No, the overall conclusion was never doubted. Not under Clinton, not under Bush, not under Bush Sr. Never. It was assumed, quite reasonably,.that Saddam would not have gone to war over fighting inspections for WMD he didn't have — and remember, even into 2003 he could have decided to cooperate and prevented his ouster and eventual execution.

That Bushco cherrypicked what it believed and not is not really disputable.

I'm sure they did, just like Bill Clinton did in the 1990s when he bombed Iraq. You're missing the point.

Every. Intelligence. Agency. In. The. World.

You do realize there are thousands of dead Kurds in Halabja killed by Saddam's WMD? Bush didn't invent them. Saddam refused to account for them, and everyone assumed he had still had them.

Oh well, say hi to Fox Mulder in your wacky conspiracy world.

Or if it's, you know, the consensus of the world's intelligence agencies. Sometimes people believe that, too.'

Uh, well, it wasn't even the consensus within the CIA, if we want to remain in the real world. That Bushco cherrypicked what it believed and not is not really disputable.

Uh, no. It's a question of getting the best person in the White House. This year it's Edwards, but Obama'd be a good 2nd choice. However, if the D's are dumb enough to send another hack like Hillary (Kerry, Gore….) then let's hope Bloomberg gets in.

A lot of people in the middle would very much like to see an African-American take the Presidency. It would say a lot about how meritocratic this country has become.

Or if it's, you know, the consensus of the world's intelligence agencies. Sometimes people believe that, too.

Frankly, it's pretty hilarious seeing the left suddenly discovering that the Clintons are shameless liars who will say absolutely anything, totally without regard to the truth, to benefit themselves. Apparently they missed that whole episode where Bill very angrily and emphatically denied he had ever had sexual relations with Monica, and said the whole scandal was just distracting him from serving America.

Moderate Clinton voter Joe Gandelman is absolutely furious at the Clinton campaign, and is obvious…

I also realized just a while back that when the Clintons were rousing the troops with an us-against-them frontal attack, they weren't talking about Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, but the Clintons and everybody else.

I have my problems with Obama's proposals, and I think that he is spectacularly wrong on some issues, but I can't keep myself from being inspired by him and is candidacy. His could become a generational presidency, like Kennedy's or Reagan's.

Robert Heinlein once said that if you can't find someone to vote for you must find someone to vote against, which is just as vital an activity. So I think that I will re-register as a Democrat, not because I pine for the land of my birth, but because I feel compelled to vote against Hillary. And who knows? There might be a Republican to vote against in November.

I think it is still accurate to say, as I saw weeks ago, the person with the highest % of “would never vote for him/her under any circumstances” — is Hillary. That MAY change. but I doubt it will because it is a widely held judgment and the aversion is deep indeed.

Her competiton will probably be Oback up to the convention, if it is anyone. He has a shot in the general election, but she does not. It surprises me that there are so many who delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

I have said this time and time again. This election in November is for us Democrats to loose. If we are not very careful, with our division and partisanship, we will loose it.

We have to remember people that at the end of the day, it is a question of all of us electing a DEMOCRAT into the White House.

The Reps know how to play the divide and rule game through the media and we are playing into their hands.

Bill Clinton may have been a little aggresive in campaigning for his wife, but quite frankly I think his role in the South Carolina was largely miscontrued and misrepresented.

We have to realise that no matter how you passionate you feel about your candidate so are other people about theirs. That is what we've got to remember. This is what we quickly forget.

The competition in the primary process is good, but honestly let's keep in touch with the fact that Hillary and Barrack are both Democrats and we should not pour vitriole on either one of them.

This is one thing the GOP never do to their own no matter what. It's this kind of petty bickering and squabbling in our ranks that has resulted in us being outsmarted time and time again in past elections.

Please let's stay focused on getting a Democrat into the White House whether it is Hillary or Barrack that is eventually chosen as the nominee. Otherwise in our folly, we could be hearing “Four more years” to our utter shock in November.

But it is still, as they say, “early days”, and some things still have to happen:
1. Obama or someone else has to pass all the way through the campaign territory without being “exposed” as a fraud in terms of walking the talk, then
2. That person needs to be nominated;
3. Then, that person has to be elected by still following the higher road; and THEN,
4. The actual practice of more open and conciliatory and respectful governance and leadership has to happen.

So, I'd put the odds at about 20:80 or 10:90 right now. But that's better than nothing!

Check out more thoughts at: http://www.fixourpolicies.com

I never despised Bill, later on, so much as I grew tired of him and his theatrics — and I admit to having been sorry for him; you know, the psychologically affected victim of his upbringing and all like that. I'm big on “benefit of the doubt”.

But now? Not a chance. “Just say no” has a new meaning for me: I will NOT have electoral sex with that man (or his wife) again.