Pat Oliphant for February 28, 2013

I agree!

acupuncture?

One seems to forget, Chuckie Baby, spoke the same way when he was a member of this ‘august’ forum.Hyprocrits ALL!

Yes, and he changed his mind once he had actual facts, which the Bush administration didn’t want to provide. Two good books on Iraq, which I doubt many conservatives have read: Fiasco, and Prince of the Marshes.

Accurate image for the sentiment, but honestly all those Repub senators actually stabbed him in the stomach, like a prison shiving.

Pissing on themselves.

Just because a person is an old friend does not mean that person is suited for every job. Case in point.

Speaking of being stabbed in the back, ask McCain about ol’ Chuck’s support when McCain was running for president.

You mean like Sarah Palin is right now?

Get over it righties, he’s been confirmed.

Revise history much? If someone is really going to kill you, they don’t openly threaten except in Scorsese movies.Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians & his own people in the 1980s. By 2003, everything was gone & with his back to the wall, he was willing to allow inspectors anywhere in Iraq. We invaded anyway.Then we botched the invasion & turned Iraq into an ally of Iran…. all while Iran & North Korea actually were building nukes.

I find it hilarious when I watch politicians debate an issue on TV. They always call each other “my friend” when they’re on opposite sides of the issue and would never be in the same room together ordinarily: just a TV studio or the Capitol!

Comes with that job, dude!

So Scott, Saddam’s empty talk – and that’s all it was – was worth a $3 trillion war (according to Joseph Stiglitz), thousands of Americans dead or maimed, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, our military weakened, our reputation in tatters, and on and on….This empty talk was amplified by people who stood to gain from war to scare people into getting behind a war that was really about oil, not terrorism. It is also an opportunity cost that’s unfortunately spent. Rather than getting sucked in by this empty talk and wasting all the things mentioned above, we could’ve been ten years and $3 trillion down the road toward getting off oil, which we’re gong to have to do anyway. But now it’s going to cost a lot more..It’s one thing for Saddam to mouth off and make threats; it’s quite another when the leadership of this country used those threats to scare people into a war that they wanted for their own purposes.

with friends like those, who needs enemas?

Lemmme guess, Scotty. All those chemical weapons got smuggled out to Syria on a pair of coverted airliners, right?

Hagel is an awful choice. I think it’s very clear from all the dirt dug up by his Republican colleagues that he’s going to put the interests of the U.S.A. ahead of those of Israel. Then where will we be?

Scott was probably on the plane, along with Hannity, and the fumes got to him.

Et tu, Brute. The GOP consists of brutes these days.It’s one of those wonderful & telling Oliphant details that the elephant in the background is donning his chapeau and slinking away in what one has to assume is shame and disgust.

The price of telling the truth.

Project much?

How many women with a law degree from Yale are unemployed?

unless you are a liberal…

Seriously, you morons just can’t help but default into revisionist history.Truthout – Iraq: The Democrats’ WarStill stuck on stupid . . . .

And we would be met with roses and chocolates, and Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Oh, don’t forget William Kristol to Terry Gross:There is no indication whatsoever of conflict between Sunni and Shia! (paraphrase)

You are still stuck on stupid, if anyone voted for it, they own it. You would just rather play a stupid numbers game.I noticed you failed to use percentages when you were speaking about your Democrat buddies in the Senate. Hmmm . . .. over 50% of the Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war . . . Just habitually stuck on stupid.Also noticed, as is usual for you, you failed to address the points made in the article. Both the House and Senate Democratic leadership supported the resolution and the Majority of the Democratic Controlled Senate voted for the resolution, including over 50% of the Democratic Senators.Who were some of those on the Democratic side that voted for the resolution, hmm . . .Harry Reid (D-Nevada)John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)Dianne Feinstein (D-California)Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland)Howard Berman (D-California)John Edwards (D-North Carolina)You are rather pathetic.

And we have since found out that we went to war based on false and magnified information. Saddam gone-good. What we have now-?

TheTrustedMechanic said “58% of Senate Democrats voted for the invasion”DPB responds: “I noticed you failed to use percentages when you were speaking about your Democrat buddies in the Senate”DPB, perhaps it would be more impressive if you actually read TheTrustedMechanic’s posts before responding to them? Since you obviously missed it, here’s a key section of his post: 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the invasion, only 39$ of Democrat Representatives voted for it.Contrast that with 98% of Senate republicans who voted for the invasion and 96% of republican Representatives who voted for it.