See, if you have a "principle" Herb, you'll stand up for it every time, and go after every country (or dictator) who violates that principle.

On the other hand, if you are only throwing out justifications for Iraq, and Iraq alone ... that is an "excuse."

You are taliking out of you rear end, Saddam used WMD on the Kurds, Do you remember that?

Also, there were meetings between OBL people and the Iraqs, that is a proven fact. Do you remember that.

No, I doubt that you remember a thing that goes against you own ideas that Bush lied. No, I doubt that you would remember anything that would be contrary to your present fixed ideas and would prove you wrong, You see Odo, You are one of those who just don't give a damn about how you hurt others or put others in danger, You, Odo, are SELFISH, as well as self sentered with your thoughts. I know there is no way to change your made up closed mind, you already know and have all the answers.

The problem you have Odo is, YOU ARE WRONG and as Bush stated it, IRRESPONSIBILE.

... but where I was heading was this: We say we are bringing democracy to Iraq. Are you ready to let them vote, on whether we should get out?

I guess you missed the part of the article that said "If this poll is accurate,..." Sounds like they haven't even reviewed the methodology, but it still makes for a great headline. Why do you continually eat up this B.S.?

What do you think the response would be if the respondents were asked if they would feel safe under the Iraqi government? Under Saddam? Whether they would feel safe, or be happy regardless of who was in power?

A poll from the liberal British Independent is not a relaible source of information. Still waiting for that proof I mentioned. I will reiterate: put up or shut up.

So show me the proof. I hear a lot of talking points, a lot of hysterical accusations and poisoined rhetoric, but no FACTS. If Bush lied, I want the irrefutable proof. I will be the first in line in support of impeachment. The problem is, it doesn't exist and you know it.

I am also not satisfied on the Al Qaeda and WMD issue. Al Qaeda is undoubtedly there now. We probably don't know everything there is to know about Saddam's support, either direct or indirect, before the war. We know he paid to have Isreali's killed, an act of terror in itself.

Just because we have not turned up "stockpiles" of WMD to date, does not mean they NEVER existed. I'm not willing to bet my life on it. We have found some WMDs, and certainly banned weapons. We knew of his intent to get them, and his constant game-playing with inspectors. The amnesia on the left is almost laughable if not so despicable.

So show me the proof. No public opinion polls. No LAT articles. No CNN references. No interpretations of what was said. No hidden meanings. I want to see Bush's actual words, and the irrefutable proof that he knew they were false a the time of the statement. Put up or shut up.

Consider this:

The confidential survey, leaked to the British media last weekend, suggests that fewer than 1 percent of Iraqis think the U.S. and U.K. military involvement in their country is helping to improve security. Sixty-seven percent feel less secure precisely because of the occupation. And — most worrying of all — around 65 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on occupation forces.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/245746_iraq25.html

Even if you aren't clear on whether this was a lie or simply a mistake, the "need" for boots on ground is disproven.

One can conclude with reasonable certainty that it was Clinton that made us get "Boots on the Ground" providing the Democrats with reason to continue with their ever increasing LIES.

(stand-off punishment with bombs or missles has definite advantages over boots-on-ground.)

Wake up and smell the coffee. I eaver made the charge thet "Bush Lied", You did. Inasmuch as YOU made the charge, it's your responsibility to "Prove It", and to date you have not submitted one shread of evidense to prove YOUR CHARGE.

Sure Bush said that Iraq had WMD, but so did Kerry, Gore, Durbin, Dean, Kennedy and the rest of the Democrats that all voted to take on Saddam. The excuse the Dems use "That Bush stretched the intelligence" just don't get it. All the Dems making that charge had the duty and responsibility to make sure that the WMD intelligense was correct before voting on the War Resoloution. If they, as they are now saying, that the intel was faulty, then they failed in the performance of their jobs.

Credibility, you should talk Ken, your credibility is as low as your Dem buddys that are born LIARS, just like you.

By the way Ken, when are you going to stop sponging off of everyone in the US and do your duty to the country by joining up in the Armed Forces, or are you just to damned scared.

Bush said Iraq had WMD. Saddam denied he had any.

It is a sad day Herb when the man you support has less credibility than Saddam Hussein.

However, there are facilities that care for such individuals that offer protection for them and others around them. Perhaps the Dr should check himself into such a facility or someone should do it for him. Maybe his family (if he has one) may provide some guidance for him to better take care of his mental health problems.

In the harsh world of Realpolitik, Saddam was an anti OBL force.

And if a peacemaker had been elected in 2004 it would have slowed a war that OBL desperately wanted.