Ahhh. The ostrich approach. Let me know how that works out for ya!

Did you actually SEE what you just wrote? Did you even think about that statement?

I am not your type of democrat. I am a Democrat the way that democrats USED to be prior to the invasion of the social liberals and eco-biased “scientists”.

I stand strongly behind organized labor – not the politcal powerhouse national unions, but the actual local unions and laborers. I stand against unfettered and unchecked corporate political and economic domination. Simply put, I* am a Jefferson Democrat. You and your kind are neo-communists who want America to be transformed into a Euro-socialist state.

You, sir, are the imposter here. Not me.

WMD's in Iraq
A self acclaimed democrat (small 'd' intentional) who's every remark is against everything Democrats stand for.
God fearing Christian that goes against everything Christianity stands for.
etc. etc.etc.

This comment excluded, I stopped 'replying' to you several weeks ago and would appreciate it if you would do the same.
Best regards, SteveK

They already knew and know about all of this – as does President Obama. You don't hold the highest office in the land without access to most of the information. A deal with Syria was most likely reached as to keep the stuff out of Hezzbola's hands – but I have no way of proving/disproving that theory.

There's really no revelation to the WMD question in Iraq. Most of the WMDs found since 2003 have been documented, but not publised heavily for reasons beyond my comprehension.
Thos items found are mostly weaponized nerve/blister/blood agent in gaseous form. We have found literally tons of the stuff. The more dubious WMD's made their way to Syria in the months leading up to our invasion. The stuff we keep finding is the older stuff that he used on the Kurds.

During a visit to my alma mater, General Georges Sada, Hussein's #2 guy (Air Force), offered convincing arguments and illustrations proving that he did, indeed, witness the convoys of WMDs going into Syria – along with gold, top scientists, etc.

As I said, this is not really new data. I cannot comment on individual discoveries or caches.

Dorian wrote: “… I am sure most of our readers would be fascinated by it, too.”

As would the UN Weapons Inspector… Donald Rumsfeld… Dick Cheney… Oh, and George W. Bush, too.

That sounds like an extremely interesting experience, J.D. Could you share with us?

And I am not being fictitious or disigenuous, I am sure most of our readers would be fascinated by it, too.

How about a Guest Voice on this experience? I am sure Joe G. would be glad to have you

Thanks

Dorian,

I'm not naive and I know everything that went down prior to our invading Iraq.

But we are not talking about IRAQ! We are talking about AFGHANISTAN.

There were no lies leading up to Afghanistan. It was plain and simple. Terrorist resources in Afghanistan directly lead to an Al Quaida attack on September 11.

So don't talk to me about lies and “illegal wars”. Save that for the Iraq debate. There were many like you that were attacking FDR for having pre-knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack but decided not to act on it to get us into the war. I don't buy that garbage any more than I buy the assertion that President Bush lied to the American people about WMDs in Iraq. As I've stated many times, I have personally SEEN WMDs in Iraq with my own eyes. But I digress…..

My point stands that all Presidents deal with past decisions. Get over it.
And there's no love lost between me and George W. Bush. I had many problems with his administration. But I felt confident as a soldier while he was Commander-in-Chief. The man had his pluses as well. I'm not an apoligist, merely a person who refuses to see him as totally evil as you do.

Am I missing something?

I don't agree about the war crimes for either president though. Waterboarding and most of the other methods were approved by law at the time. If anything it should be handled as individual counts against the Geneva Convention. Because no matter how the Johnny Cochran types out there dance around the subject, waterboarding and the like are against the Geneva Convention – a code all American warriors adhere to.

Because he is not accountable any more. Obama is now the accountable one. All presidents have to deal with both good and bad ramifications from presidents before them. As far as Afghanistan goes, a bipartisan Congress approved it. Their Intelligence committee approved the intel, and the American people (for the most part) were behind the invasion THEN.

Obama has to deal with policies put in place during Nixon, Carter, FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and now Bush. All we can do now is to see how he handles what he's been given. I held Bush and every other President up to the same criteria. I discounted those Reagan supporters that blamed everything on Carter, and those Bush supporters that blamed the Al Quaida mess on Clinton. It is totally unproductive for any party to keep pointing back to the “other guy”.

It is absolutely astounding to me that the nimrods that espoused these two wars of choice, now have the utter gall to dog the guy who has to figure out what to do about their mess.

You can say that with a straight face, VeratheGun? I'll grant you that Iraq was dubious, but even Senator Obama during the campaign never once criticized President Bush for going into Afghanistan. His criticism (as you'll recall) was that the administration got distracted from Afghanistan by invading Iraq. So – by Obama's read – the legitimate war (Afghanistan) was hamstrung by the dubious one. That's one war of choice, not two.