"On March 20, 2006, Bush said, “I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.”

So tell me again, why did we then attack Iraq??

Dunno, musta been a misteak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The best thing anyone can do is ignore the editorializations of politicians and journalists and look up this information yourself. It's all out there.

The above link contains the legislation which authorized the use of force in Iraq. I'm not saying that it was right or wrong. I'm just giving you an entry point into finding out what really led to the invasion of Iraq. I'll give you one piece of information to consider: It didn't start on 9/11/2001.

Shouldn't the most powerful leader in the world be able to do what he wants? Why do all you haters gotta get up in W's grill? It's a hard life being in charge, people should show some respect.

It's like none of you ever lied to get something you wanted really really bad. Then that lie led to the death, injury and displacement of literally hundreds of thousands of people. While at the same time costing nearly a trillion dollars that could have been used to buy school books that told the children what a great guy you are.

We wanted to go to Iraq because they were harboring terrorists. That wasn't good enough so we decided they probably had WMD's also and then congress signed on. Turns out they didn't have WMD's.

I'm not really confused as to why we"re in Iraq, that was an attempt at sarcasm.

The point is not the actual legislation that legitimized Bush's war, it the fasehoods that it was based on.

Instead of branding everyone who wants to make sure the real truths about this administration come out, as haters, it might be wise to follow your own advice and check into the actual facts.
There's no shortage of materials in books and articles.

It didn't start on 9/11 and much more importantly it didn't start in Iraq either.

I'm not sure, but I think we're in agreement at least when it comes to finding out the facts which led to the invasion.

I wasn't branding anyone as a hater, so if it came off that way, I apologize.

I make a distinction between the rhetoric (from both sides, btw) used by politicians during photo ops and speeches, and things like the legislation and history of whatever the topic happens to be.

In this case, both sides are guilty of taking a serious matter (i.e. Iraq and Saddam Hussein) and spinning the crap out of it during election cycles.

Can't argue with that.:-)

DerAlt I was just having some fun with the haters thing. I figured the second part of my post would reveal where I was coming from.

It did.

I understood you were having fun, I even upvoted your post.

Unfortunately I confused your haters line with vexingmodstw's comment and combined the two.

I apologize to Vex.

In the words of Vincent Bugliosi himself.

No worries.

- Oil.

- The need for America's war industry to move its products.

- To provide a testing ground for America's weapons of mass destruction.

- To divert attention away from domestic problems.

There are probably plenty of other reasons. Among the scariest: Bush himself claimed God inspired him to attack Iraq.

Money can buy one the White House. It can not buy intelligence.

I wonder if it was much of a change from Manson to Bush.

Note: I just upvoted your comment because I like your avatar. Please comment more often, all over the place :)

Big change from my first plime avatar I guess.