Obama: on pace for more private sector job growth than Ronald Reagan

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.

No, it was deception.

The CIA director in the fall of 2014, George Tenet, informed the Bush administration that the threat was next to none and the WMDs did not exist. From there on Cheney and Rumsfield created their own intelligence wing in the Pentagon, "the office of special plans", to wring out the information they wanted even if it was fabricated or unsubstantiated.

There's a reason Colin Powell showed cartoons, and stock pics at the U.N. .

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/

Either your 2014 date is wrong, or you're a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

And I think Team America does a pretty good job of demonstrating how stupid the U N'S plans to disarm Iraq were.  Even so, Iraq showed Hand Blix their chemical weapons stock pile.

[Dugout DickStone]

Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.

Wait, they found WMD and then left them there?  The hell is wrong with Bush?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.

Wait, they found WMD and then left them there?  The hell is wrong with Bush?

They promised the UN they'd take them apart, again.  You guys realize Saddam used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people, and now so has Assad?

[Headinjun]

But you just can't get around the facts that Hillary and Joe Biden (among others) were chomping on the bit to invade Iraq.   Even John Kerry before he ran for president and was suddenly against it.

All three voted for the war for political reasons. The vote came up right before the 2002 mid-term and no incumbent wanted to seem weak on national security.  It was one of Karl Roves brilliant, but evil moves.

[Headinjun]

It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.

No, it was deception.

The CIA director in the fall of 2014, George Tenet, informed the Bush administration that the threat was next to none and the WMDs did not exist. From there on Cheney and Rumsfield created their own intelligence wing in the Pentagon, "the office of special plans", to wring out the information they wanted even if it was fabricated or unsubstantiated.

There's a reason Colin Powell showed cartoons, and stock pics at the U.N. .

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/

Either your 2014 date is wrong, or you're a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

It was a typo.

[Headinjun]

Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.

Wait, they found WMD and then left them there?  The hell is wrong with Bush?

They promised the UN they'd take them apart, again.  You guys realize Saddam used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people, and now so has Assad?

The majority of those were recovered and destroyed after the 91 Gulf war.

[star seed 7]

Dax, I challenge you to dig up some Hillary or kerry love posts on this blog

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think they are both crap heads, fwiw.

[chum1]

The Clintons are the best. Some of the all time bests.

[Headinjun]

But you just can't get around the facts that Hillary and Joe Biden (among others) were chomping on the bit to invade Iraq.   Even John Kerry before he ran for president and was suddenly against it.

All three voted for the war for political reasons. The vote came up right before the 2002 mid-term and no incumbent wanted to seem weak on national security.  It was one of Karl Roves brilliant, but evil moves.

So you're saying that these people that most Dems absolutely love voted to send our men and women off to die strictly for political reasons?

Well, at least that's better than the "they were fooled by the administration" defense that I've heard before . . . which in essence is saying that they're gullible and dumb but we love them anyway because they're Democrats.

Im saying they're lousy political opportunists without a backbone.

I may be to the left, but I really don't take kindly to the republican-lite Democrats.

[star seed 7]

Dax, I challenge you to dig up some Hillary or kerry love posts on this blog

This blog doesn't cover all of Prog Dem World.

Plus, you know in your little heart that you  both of them at some point in time.

I voted for Nader 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.

Wait, they found WMD and then left them there?  The hell is wrong with Bush?

They promised the UN they'd take them apart, again.  You guys realize Saddam used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people, and now so has Assad?

The majority of those were recovered and destroyed after the 91 Gulf war.

Majority = half+1 /= all

But thanks for discrediting your ridiculous post above.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Dax, I challenge you to dig up some Hillary or kerry love posts on this blog

This blog doesn't cover all of Prog Dem World.

Plus, you know in your little heart that you  both of them at some point in time.

I voted for Nader 

Confirmed tard

[chum1]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-nytimes