You better cheer …. or you might be next.

Aaron wrote:Then you would be wrong. Innocent until proven guility. That's how we roll Frank.

So then Saddam was innocent of the charges Bush made against him and Iraq re: why the U.S. invaded Iraq? Those were never proven, you know.

No proof of WMDs in 2002 or 2003, no proof of even indirect complicity with 9/11 terrorism, no proof of anything other than that he was one bad assed s.o.b. of a dictator- not unlike a whole bunch of similar such dictators worldwide. But by how you say we "roll", Saddam was innocent.

Take it up with Congress and the UN Frank. They're the one's that found Sadaam guilty.

Maybe you can use that proof you got that Bush lied and get him impeached while your at it.

Take it up with Congress and the UN Frank. They're the one's that found Sadaam guilty.

But you are the one that declares him innocent:

Aaron wrote:Then you would be wrong. Innocent until proven guility. That's how we roll Frank.

Yep, that's how we roll. Innocent until proven guilty.

GWB made his case to the UN and they found him 'guilty'. He then made his case to the Congress of the United States of America and they found him guilty.

Punishment was naming GWB the judge and allowing him to pass sentence, which he did.

Just because you didn't like the proceedings doesn't change the facts Frank.

And in all your boohooing about GWB lying, which you've offered no proof of whatsoever btw, you've failed to address the topic of the thread.

Any thoughts on Pakistan fundamentalist decapitating Afghans for cooperating with Americans?

The UN tried Saddam Hussein? I missed that.

Did he have an attorney? I don't recall any of that.

You don't remember Colin Powell at the UN? There was something like 11 or 12 resolutoins including the final one that the UN Security Council passed unanimously after GWB spoke to the UN in September, 2002.

Perhaps the reason you were so easily duped into supporting the Iraq invasion to begin with was because you weren't paying attention to what was going on.

GWB made his case to the UN and they found him 'guilty'.

Guilty of what? Based on what evidence?

He then made his case to the Congress of the United States of America and they found him guilty.

Again, guilty of what? And based on what evidence?

And in all your boohooing about GWB lying, which you've offered no proof of whatsoever btw,

But we can note that at least twice here you have declined to opine that Bush believed what he was saying about Iraq and WMDs in his hype leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And neither you nor Bush have offered proof that he didn't lie. So you are trying to have it both ways- again.

Frank my man, as I told you GWB has never confided in me, I'm not a Medium, and I don't mess with Ouija boards so I have no way of knowing what he believed and didn't believe leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I gave you his number. Call him up.

As I've told you, you're the accuser so the onus is on you to prove he lied. Prove it if you can.

And if you want to know what SH is guilty of, try Google. Google Iraq war UN resolution and I'm quite confident you'll find all you need to know and then some.

Aaron wrote:You don't remember Colin Powell at the UN? There was something like 11 or 12 resolutoins including the final one that the UN Security Council passed unanimously after GWB spoke to the UN in September, 2002.

Perhaps the reason you were so easily duped into supporting the Iraq invasion to begin with was because you weren't paying attention to what was going on.

That wasn't a trial, Aaron.

You seem a little confused.

Confused about what? How our President laid out his plans and received the support of both the world community and the United States community, both political and private, and did only what he was authorized to do?

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's how it happened. No confusion here.

Aaron wrote:Take it up with Congress and the UN Frank. They're the one's that found Sadaam guilty.

Maybe you can use that proof you got that Bush lied and get him impeached while your at it.

Confused about what? How our President laid out his plans and received the support of both the world community and the United States community, both political and private, and did only what he was authorized to do?

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's how it happened. No confusion here.

No trial, Aaron......you're confused......or your twisting the facts to suit your purpose.

GWB took his case to the UN Security Council and they unanimously passed UN Resolution 1441.

He took his case to the US Congress and they passed by over 70%, public law 107-243 authorizing the Iraq War.

It doesn't matter what you call it, GWB followed procedures, which YOU agreed with. No confusion and no purpose here. Just plain simple facts.

He was deceptive. He should be ashamed of himself. Unfortunately, it would appear, like other despots before him, GWB has no shame.

How was he deceptive?

He insisted Saddam Hussein had WMD and he was hiding them from UN Weapons Inspectors. That wasn't truthful.

He insisted Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America and Americans. That wasn't truthful.

Bearing in mind that you've just expressed an opinion. If there were proof of what you say, GWB would have been impeached a long time ago.

The facts are, the consensus of the worlds intelligence agencies was that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's and hid them from weapons inspectors. That is a belief that Sadaam perpetuated to keep Iran, among others, at bay.

And yes, he was a threat to America. He invaded Kuwait because an official from Kuwait upset him. He hated GB Sr and America and blamed us for the reduced role Iraq played in the Middle East. Sam is right in that sooner or later, we would have had to deal with Sadaam Hussein. I don't disagree with that. I disagreed with the why and questioned the when part of it. I felt like, and still do, the pre-emptive strike was not reason enough for American action at that time.

I also felt Iraq was fairly well contained in 2003. Sooner or later though, Sadaam would have done something that would have justified American intervention though. It was a matter of time.

Stephanie wrote:He insisted Saddam Hussein had WMD and he was hiding them from UN Weapons Inspectors. That wasn't truthful.

He insisted Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America and Americans. That wasn't truthful.

Being wrong is not the same as being deceptive

Being wrong is not the same as being deceptive

Mike, do you think that Bush believed all that he was saying about Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the weeks and months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Michael,

So you really believe Bush & Co. were being totally up front with the UN, Congress, and/or the American people?

Didn't Colin Powell address the UN on that subject?