The revisionist history over Iraq is stunning.

Blair, like Bush, told his citizens Saddam had WMD's. Later, the story changed to 'he was an evil dictator'. I read through the transcript of Blair's testimony today. As they say in the UK: "Poppycock".

I posted utterly indefensible contradictions by candidate George Bush and President Bush. Only a handful, but it's clear despite all the right wingers alleging Obama's a liar they voted for a certifiable liar and his VP candidate in 2000 and 2004:

Clinton didn't have UN Weapons Inspectors on the ground begging for more time before we invaded either.

Thinking Iraq had WMD's and being in the position with inspectors on the ground getting access and begging for more time are two entirely different things.

That isn't 'spin'. That's a fact.

Isn't partisan. It's a known fact there were grave doubts within our own and foreign intelligence services about the WMD claims. The yellowcake claims stated in Bush's 2002 SOTU had already been disproved by his own emissary. They scrubbed anything and everything that didn't meet their goal of going to war, which turned into "Nation Building", yet another promise along with 'timetables' the Bush WH did a 180 on.

Bush the candidate and Bush the President contradicted each other to the Nth degree. Even Cheney stated on TV that invading Iraq (with 500,000 troops in 1991) would lead to a 'quagmire'.

You'd be the partisan to deny any of that.

ROSEMOUNTBOMBER

In fact, when we were first attacked on 9/11 Cheney was asked if Saddam was behind it, to which he answered (sic) "No, we have him boxed in" (no fly zones).

THEN the light came on and it was 'go with the plan we discussed first on the agenda - with maps of oilfields - at the very first cabinet meeting in February 2001 and invade).

Republicans seem to suffer from CRS (can't remember shit) once one of their own isn't occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Make that CCRS - Conveniently Can't Remember Shit

ROSEMOUNTBOMBER

Nice to have you join the discussion. Welcome. A vast majority of right wingers here repeat what they heard on Fox and have CCRS (conveniently can't remember shit).

I read the transcript last night of Blair's testimony. We should have had just such a panel here. Blair's reasoning seems to have gone much like W's, but at least he's openly admitted he wanted to take out Saddam. Unfortunately for him, the reason of 'regime change' is against British law. He was told that, in fact, by letter, to which he replied "why are you bringing this to me in writing (messy paper trails!)?

Hans Blix BEGGED the Bush WE for two more months (as I'm sure you know), had full access, and, as you say, were 'kicked out' before the bombing began.

Blair and Bush were both privy to the same domestic and international intelligence they shunted aside because it didn't jibe with their long held invasion plans. Bush's were glaring. February 2001, first cabinet meeting, first item on the agenda was about invading Iraq. "We're going in" was the statement. 9/11 provided the perfect excuse.

So, we let Bin Laden an Zawahiri go in Tora Bora as the CIA BEGGED the WH and Central Command for more troops and the OK to kill them. Sadly, the Bush WH needed 'boogiemen' to distract us while they raped the country and cost 4000 American lives in a folly with no planning for post-invasion in a war they told us would last no more than 5 months and cost no more than $50 Billion - repaid with Iraqi oil revenues.

All this while George W "I will not send troops into harms way without a clear plan and a clear exit strategy (with timetable)" (sic) morphed into 'no timetables' and 'no exit strategy' and 'no plan'.

It's sickening. Yet, the right wingers here will tell you how Obama is going to ruin the country and turn us into a Bolshevik pile of ruin.

Oh, and RE: Tora Bora

THOSE assets were already allocated to Iraq. The WH said they couldn't spare them.

Not to kill the SOB's who planned the murder of 3000 innocent American civilians? Please!