Yes, the truth tends to make most people 'hooked'. Go figure.
And at 6:51 you proved me right - thanks.
And don't call me honey.

__________________
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
-Abraham Lincoln

>>>I could name 20 specific lies, but try these on for size.

1) Saddam has vast stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
2) Saddam presents a grave danger to his neighbors.
3) Saddam provides a base for Al Qaeda terrorist training.

Let's face it, Pally, either you are are dumber than a bag of hammers or you are part of Bush's campaign of lies agenda.

UN Oil for Food 'Scandal'
A series of Congressional investigations followed, featuring conservative witnesses who pilloried the UN for incompetence, corruption and general unfitness. In the latest hearings chaired by Republican Norm Coleman, the committee staff claimed that Saddam's access to illicit funds totalled over $21 billion--twice the sum claimed by the CIA--and that the money went to terrorists around the world, not to mention (rather astonishingly) the post-Saddam insurgency.
Why do you support terrorism?

__________________
President-elect Clinton fooled the American people

"Conservative witnesses" "hearings chaired by Republican"

Will you swallow anything wrapped in a rightard condom?

You might be better off trying your other 17 reasons. These three are pretty weak.

1. Though they were unable to find any stockpiles of biologiocal or chemical weapons (let's keep our fingers crossed that they weren't shipped to Syria), now it turns out he had everything he needed--equipment, people and resources--to start cranking chem/bio weapons out within 3 to 5 weeks. Did Saddam have the intent to procure WMDs? Duh.

2. Sure Saddam, was never a threat to his neighbors, just those times when he invaded Iran and Kuwait. Oh yeah, and Saddam did have a problem with the Kurds, but I'm guessing in your world they really didn't count. But other than that, Saddam hardly ever bothered anybody. Some say he was a peach of a guy.

3. Turns out he did plenty to support terrorists, though the links the CIA and British Intelligence reported he had to al Qaeda haven't been proven..or disproven for that matter. And oh, by the way, there was a base, complete with an airplane fuselage, just south of Bagdad that they used to train out-of-town terrorists.

You may want to check some sources other than the Daily Kos, moveon.org. and the Huffington Post. Try this one for starters...Weekly Standard January, 2006:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

Here's what it came down to, Bush had a choice: Did he let Saddam stay in power or was it better to take him out? Based on the intelligence available at the time, clowns like you would have been screaming for his impeachment if he'd have left Saddam in to continue murdering thousands of innocent people and threatening the stability of the region.

But hey, I'm willing to listen to your other 17 reasons. Just don't waste my time.

It could be 10,000 years you wont ever change anything.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

Who wrote it, Steven no-footnotes-no-bibliography Hays?

AS you are about the same actions in ISreal, Hypocrite

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

If all that's true (and I doubt that it is), Saddam wanted his money to go to big palaces and fast cars. Before we invaded, he had no interest in stockpiles of WMDs. As evidenced by the fact that Bush has admitted (with egg dripping from his cheeks) that there are no WMDs in Iraq.

A lot of people still wonder why Saddam was playing all the games with the inspectors? Why didn't he just let everybody in to take a look, give them whatever they wanted, and go back to the palace to snack on some Cheetohs, and play around with the teenage girls he kept there?

According to the book written by the FBI agent who was sent over there to interrogate Saddam before he was executed, it turns out Saddam was a lot more worried about the Iranians than he was of us. (From what I hear Iran and Iraq hadn't been on the best of terms since Saddam killed a million or so Iranians--sometimes with poison gas--in the Iraq-Iran War.) His intelligence guys were telling him that Iran was pretty close to going nuclear, something we've since found to be true. Consequently, Saddam was doing everything he could to make everybody think he had chem/bio WMDs, and was also close to getting nukes. Not to scare us, but rather to sppok the crazy Iranians.

Sounds like Saddam had a pretty good motive for jerking everybody around as to whether he had WMDs or not. That's probably a pretty good explanation for the crappy intelligence, which, by the way, wasn't just ours, but also the British, the Russians and probably some others. Let's be honest, there weren't a whole lot of people laying out a lot of proof at the time that Saddam definitely didn't have WMDs. If you know of people who were saying there were no WMDs back when all this started, I'd like to hear who they are?Saddam had the technical people, many of the resources, the money, and a long history of trying to get them...and it would seem a pretty good motive in making the Iranians (and probably us as well) that he either had WMDs or was real close to getting them.

I've never been able to figure out why G. Bush put himself through all this hell unless he thought he was doing the right thing. What the hell was the motive anyway? What did he and Cheney gain from all this outside of a lot of headaches?

I've never been a big fan of this war, especially the way it was handled in the beginning. But listening to people say it's all based on a bunch of lies? Sorry, ain't working for me. Never made sense, and still doesn't? And the people who keep pushing this lie BS, well they ain't striking me as particularly bright.

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson? Please, spare me that bullshit from those two political hacks, whose story, surprisingly enough, is completly off the radar now--even the NY Times has dumped it as a bunch of crap. Halliberton profits? Yeah, right. A guy with millions already, who's pushing 70 and has one daughter really needs the bucks? The Iraq War got started because Dubya was pissed off that Saddam tried to kill his old man? Yeah, sure. Or maybe you're one of those who believes 'it's all about oil'. What, that we were going to let the oil companies steal it? Well if that was the plan, I wish they'd get on with it

The War may not be the best idea we ever had, but it sure wasn't based on lies. Yeah, Bush admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, after we were in there. Imagine that, a president who tells you the truth once he finds out what it is. If it had been Clinton he keep lying right up until you dragged him in front of a grand jury. Come to think of it, even that couldn't get that piece of fuck to tell the truth.