Since you mentioned Kerry, it seems ironic to hear about him accusing Mr. Hillary Clinton of "abusing the truth". That's just rich.

civil war amoung the dems.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Yes, how did the Swift Vets, on their budget, talk Industrial Light & Magic into digitally inserting Kerry into footage of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations back in 1971, and pay Rich Little for doing an outrageously over-the-top Boston Brahmin accent?

Answer -- they didn't!
Clear enough? Tommy can you see now?

Oh pshaw, they used Rather's magic linotype: tinyurl.com/2zhexw

The war between Hillory and Obama could be great for the Republicans in November. If Hillory is the nominee, and she has angered the black vote, there is no way they will support her. Same goes for Obama. Women will not vote for him.
All campaigns are hard fought, but this one is vicious. It will get worse. The get even mentality will come out, and the democratic party could be split for years. Edwards is gaining in SC so tomorrow could be interesting.
I bet that Bill and Hillory haven't spent so much time together in their whole marriage, as the last few weeks. He has even been seen kissing his wife instead of a bimbo. I heard him say he loved his wife. Yes, they will do and say anything to win.

Don't forget the magic hat Kerry got from the Specials Ops forces in Cambodia!

The Left is great for historical revisionism. And they think most people are dumb enough that they would not remember something like, say, the FACT that kerry, gore, clinton et al all claimed that Saddam WAS a threat to the US, he DID have WMDs, Iraq MUST be disarmed...

Leftist academics are already claiming we went into WW II only for the oil....

When I was in junior high, a teacher advised our class that Vietnam was "all about oil"...

I was never under the impression that Kerry claimed he *didn't* testify to the Senate Committee or that he *didn't* appear on the Dick Cavett show - so I'm not sure what's being implied in the post.

It kind of seems like a straw man argument being made about something that went on 4 years ago.

(shrug)

Kate,

"When I was in junior high, a teacher advised our class that Vietnam was "all about oil"..."

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

In 30 years, we'll hear about how Iraq was all about global warming.

Bless the mindless Lefties!

Well, actually,one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, Paul Wolfowitz, has stated that the Iraq invasion and war was about oil. So I don't think people in the future will be saying it was about 'global warming'.

Volik,
I don't think the architects of Vietnam were claiming it was about oil so why are you being so obtuse?

Well, h2o...

You conjectured that in 30 years the 'mindless lefties' would be claiming Iraq was about global warming.

I simply observed that since one of the architects of the war has explicitly stated it was about oil, it's unlikely that the lefties in the future will mistakenly claim it was about global warming.

That's all.

Well Volik,
I simply observed that the mindless lefties would probably equate Iraq with global warming.

Given the lack of articles, arguments, and assertions equating Vietnam with oil by the politicians, journalists, activists during the Vietnam era AND since we have a contemperate example of a lefty equating Vietnam and oil, it's not very difficult to extrapolate the lefty mindset of tomorrow conflating and confusing global warming of tomorrow (or the equivalent eco-doom scenario) with a conflict from today.

If you are still confused, please substitute soil depletion, cancer clusters, red sea plumes, or krill suicide as the cause du jour as responsible for reverse cause-effect conflicts.

How's Johnny coming along with that $1 million challenge issued by T. Boone Pickens to disprove the Swifboat Vets charges? He accepted it, yet we haven't heard a peep from the gasbag since last year?

Sure, h20 -

I understood that you were responding to someone's claim that a high school teacher somewhere once said Vietnam was about oil, and pretending as though the monolithic 'left' insisted that this was so, and then extrapolating from that false premise to imagining what the 'lefty mindset of tommorow' might say about Iraq 30 years from now. I understand the reasoning behind your exercise, even though I'm puzzled as to what such an extended flight of fancy issupposed to achieve

My point was merely that such speculation isn't be necessary since one of the war's creators has 'fessed up that it's all about the oil. Not about WMD, as was repeatedly claimed, not about 9-11, or terror. Oil.

That's all.

Volik

"I understood that you were responding to someone's claim that a high school teacher somewhere once said Vietnam was about oil, and pretending as though the monolithic 'left' insisted that this was so, and then extrapolating from that false premise to imagining what the 'lefty mindset of tommorow' might say about Iraq 30 years from now."

Speaking of false premises and imagining the future based on a single claim.

"So I don't think people in the future will be saying it was about 'global warming'."

"My point was merely that such speculation isn't be necessary since one of the war's creators has 'fessed up that it's all about the oil. Not about WMD, as was repeatedly claimed, not about 9-11, or terror. Oil."

I wasn't aware that Wolfowitz had the power to create war. I also wasn't aware that his recognition that oil is a factor in global affairs boiled down to, how did you put it...oh yeah, "all about oil".

So a factor in a decision in your mind becomes the entire reality for the decision.

Sure.

Kate,
"When I was in junior high..." Well that's understandable since Moonbats were just getting into the "All about the Oil" thing just about fifteen years ago.

Well, h20, you're right

Oil was certainly a factor in the decision to go to war.

The other factors, as presented to the public, were: WMD, "the smoking gun/mushroom cloud" repeated ad nauseum.

As well: the carefully worded insinuations that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

As for the WMD: there were none.

The implied connection between 9/11 and Iraq: there was none.

What's left as the 'entire reality for the decision'?

Oil.

Volik,

"What's left as the 'entire reality for the decision'?"

Weren't you paying attention?

"Drain the swamp"

Works for me. It's just a multi-decade land reclamation project.

Or are you still being obtuse by pretending you didn't actually hear those words spoken by Bush as opposed to insinuations by lefty media?

Volik

"As well: the carefully worded insinuations that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq."

"Insinuation" in the eye of the beholder.

or is this just what you want to believe they said.

"The other factors, as presented to the public, were: WMD, "the smoking gun/mushroom cloud" repeated ad nauseum."

Was it repeated as nauseum or were your personal filters just ignoring the rest of their arguments.

Still, given the media repetition of these points both before and after, I can forgive you only hearing these arguments and not understanding the main justifications.

Not that surprising; Halberstam who was for the Vietnam War before he was against it; though it
was important because of tungsten; you know the filament in light bulbs.

Actually Wolfowitz's quote, truncated by the likes of Gitmo abolition crusader David Rose, (who used the same tactics when he interviewed
the lead neo-cons two years later)was that WMD's
was the main issue, because the members in the UN General Assembly don't care about democracy, and
they're not really exercized about terrorism

Indeed, h20

I heard 'draining the swamp' as I heard 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' and all the other phrases contemptuously flung out to justify the war for oil.

The swamp which bred the perpetrators of 9/11 was assuredly not Iraq, so your argument is academic.

If you choose to believe it was, that's your right, and I don't doubt that in that case it 'works for you'.

But it really doesn't square with objective reality. As in the case of WMD and the 9/11-Iraq connection, the 'draining the swamp' rationale is more fodder for the gullible - or dishonest arguments advanced by the disingenuous.

Now: which would you be?

Incoming

"are you advocating the tactics of mr hussein?"

Ah yes, using a common phrase with one meaning while tangentially linking it to an unrelated act, scratch that, an act that is precisely what needed to be stopped in the first place...an you somehow think this implies the TACTICS would automatically be the same

Grow a brain.

Scratch that. Grow a moral compass instead.

The person posting as "Incoming" is Bullocks. Please ignore him, folks.

Volik

"The swamp which bred the perpetrators of 9/11 was assuredly not Iraq, so your argument is academic."

Academic to you. But the discussion is whether the rationale was, as you put it, "all about oil".

As it wasn't academic to Bush et al then you are wrong on the face of it and need to stop allowing the media to filter your history for you.

Well, no, h20:

There's no credible reason to believe the 'draining the swamp' rationale wasn't academic to Bush et al; and there's every credible reason to believe the 'draining the swamp' was, for them, a purposeful falsehood.

The reasons are: 1) objective reality: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so 'draining the swamp' in that country has no meaning whatever in terms of 9/11 - as Bush et al well knew.

And 2) Wolfowitz has an architect of the war said it was about oil and that WMD was offered as a rationale most people could understand. Since Bush et al includes Wolfowitz, we can presume they had all agreed they'd say anything to get the war they wanted in order to get their hands on that oil.

Because 3) the 'draining the swamp' rationale, like WMD, like 'fight them over there so not here', like 'exporting democracy' has been proven false. Of course, it was never advanced sincerely in the first place.

In summation, it's only possible for two types of people to propound the 'swamp draining' rationale: the gullible, who are ready to believe any excuse for war thrown their way; and the disingenuous hoodwinkers, who glibly repeat any catchphrase so long as it keeps the war going (and they don't have to fight it).

Again: which would you be?

Volik

"There's no credible reason to believe the 'draining the swamp' rationale wasn't academic to Bush et al; and there's every credible reason to believe the 'draining the swamp' was, for them, a purposeful falsehood."

I haven't yet seen such "credible" evidence of purposeful falsehood. I have seen credible evidence of distortions of Bush's assertions, however.

So, if Bush wasn't lying, you are wrong.

I noticed you keep using the words "proven", "credible", "objective" as if the force of these words alone should sway me.

Perhaps you should try finding the document where Bush says "it's all about oil and I know the rest is a lie." or something that actually, well you know, "credibly" and "objectively" "proves" him lying as opposed to merely differing with you or at worst, shows him mistaken in his assessments as is likely the case.

Y'see, h2o, it's like this:

If a person says they're going to 'drain the swamp' of terrorists after the biggest terrorist attack ever on American soil, and they go to a country to do that which had nothing to do with the attack, or any other attack on America, then there's only two possibilities.

The first is that they're lying. Bush et al are consciously and falsely tying Iraq to 9/11 in order to get Iraq's oil (as Wolfowitz said).

OR:

They're stupid. They're not just "mistaken", as you would have it: a mistake is when one forgets to put a stamp on a letter. This was about invading a country, consciously spending blood and treasure, to drain a country of terrorists in response to an act of terror which was committed by terrorists who had nothing to do with said country.

That's no mistake, and it's beyond stupid. It's insanity. Anyone who would be sincere about proposing such a thing is mentally handicapped, if not mentally ill.

And I've never believed Bush was either of these things.

So, barring the notion that Bush et al are insane or stupid, we're really only left with one other option.

They lied.

In that case volik, so did clinton / gore / kerry et al, in the late 90s.

Guys, most wars are about more than one thing, sometimes it's about supporting your allies,sometimes resources, sometimes just pre-empting the other guy, sometimes about economics (If X does this , Y must go to war or be beggared.), sometimes there are other reasons/excuses like saving minority X from Y, and believe it or not sometimes it's just about stupid shit like human rights (hey! you! stop enslaving my citizens/burning widows on pyres/forcing everyone to choose your dumb religion or be killed/etc...), sometimes it's about religious fervour. And let's not forgot good old fashioned grudges and historical antipathy.

The best wars combine everything and healthy dose of propaganda, fear, uncertainty and bullshit.

What I mean by that, is that the official reason, "They insulted my ambassador, the villeins." may have lots of of other calculations, like "if I squat on that strategic bit of land those other shifty characters won't, and hence won't cause me trouble, especially if I run the place better, my friends will be grateful. Which means 2000 miles away my friend will stand with me and those other jerks will back down. Also the current villein has a nasty habit of eating his local enemies brains in public, so causing that to stop will make me look like a hero on the home front AND it doesn't hurt that I will corner the market on blue whatits and commercial interests will contribute to my re-election"

All to say it's rarely "about oil" or about "human rights" or "saving minority X" or "strategic position", it's about all of it. all the time, some things praiseworthy, some cold and calculating...and which is which chnages with fashion and others with time. You may go to war to do X and accomplish Y.

What is it the military guys say? Plans don't survive contact with the enemy, that is because war is a democracy and the enemy gets a vote too.

(Except that in this "democracy" the electorate can change and you may not know who is the running.)

Volik

"If a person says they're going to 'drain the swamp' of terrorists after the biggest terrorist attack ever on American soil, and they go to a country to do that which had nothing to do with the attack, or any other attack on America, then there's only two possibilities."

According to you there are only 2 possibilities.

I see another that was elaborated upon when this whole thing began. Drain the swamp means and meant CHANGE the dysfunctional nature of the culture that brought this forth. Not just change the particular regime of a particular nation.

Reasonable people may disagree on how to accomplish this or whether it can even be done but as you can't even bring yourself to admit this is what was meant, you can't see it as a possibility and hence your only option is to believe the worst of Bush including over-emphasizing the role of OIL in the conflict while minimizing the role of 911 impact.

To demonstrate my point, recall that Saddam and many Iraqis celebrated the strike on the towers. Hence, their cultural attitude fostered and encourages others to commit these acts of barbarity even if they themselves didn't participate.

Add to this mix Saddam's continual threat to virtually other nation in the region and his desire for WMDs and willingness to commit any atrocity for his own purposes, and you have a legitimate reason for wanting him gone that has little to do with oil.

Again, reasonable people can disagree on the merit or effectiveness of this approach but it is a legitimate thought process that doesn't involve lying for oil.

Oh, wow, otter -

Did Clinton/Gore/Kerry invade Iraq in the nineties saying they needed to drain the swamp of terrorists,investing blood and treasure in an abstract unproven theory, crossing their fingers and hoping the 4000 soldiers they sacrified wouldn't die in vain?

I missed that!

My TV was in the shop for awhile in the nineties -it must have happened then.

Volik,
Apparantly Clinton/Gore felt sufficiently justified to continue responding to Saddam's aggression with military actions of their own just short of invasion throughout the 90s. Not to mention making any number of statements, pre-Bush, acknowledging Saddam's bad character and attempts to acquire WMDs.

Also, you seem to forget that almost every Democrat Senator felt sufficiently justified in suppporting Bush's invasion by voting for it...including Hillary.

It seems you are on thin ground with your "it's all about oil" conspiracy rather than face reality that perhaps they did have better intentions than you give them credit for.

h20

Do you blush when you write these preposterous 'justifications' for the colonization of Iraq?

Again, common sense says: if you want to change the 'dysfunctional nature of the culture that brought this forth (9/11)' you don't go topple the government of a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 - whose culture did not, in fact, bring forth 9/11 at all.

Iraq was a secular state at odds with Bin Laden - so to invade Iraq as a way of preventing further attacks by Bin Laden makes no sense whatever.

This is all quite part from the reality that it's far-fetched to think it's possible to radically change the nature of another country. It's never been done before, your reasoning seems to be, but heck, let's invest the lives of 4000 young people and give it a whirl (as long as you're safely ensconced behind your computer).

It simply doesn't pass the smell test. In the aftermath of 9/11, people were in shock, and yes, this was one of the justifications for the war that was shopped around and had some success: remember, they had a committee within the White House (WHIG) whose express purpose was to 'sell' the invasion to the American people.

Regardless of what I can or can't 'bring myself to admit', the 'draining the swamp' routine isn't reasonable or a 'legitimate thought' process at all: it's the equivalent of fumigating a house in Vancouver to cure a rat infestation in a house in Regina.

Besides: far more prevalent a justifcation than 'drain the swamp' was the 'smoking gun/mushroom cloud' jazz (boy, WHIG could really come up with those snappy catchphrases) that Bush and Rice among other repeated ad nauseum. For the average person that was a more effective convincer: Saddam had a nuke ready to drop on us so we better get over there and 'disarm' him before he did it!

Bush, Rice and others knew that wasn't the case. They also knew it wsn't hard to spook Americans after the biggest attack it had suffered in its history.

Draining the swamp: illogical. Mushroom cloud: no. The artful insinuation that Iraq was connected to 9/11: misleading wordplay at best.

All any of it proves is that they were willing to say anything get their invasion happening. since all these reasons were false what was the real reason? Oil.

The only question is who's more vile: the WHIG board members exploiting fear to market a war and propagating falsehoods; the citizens who didn't live up to their democratic responsibilites and accepted this nonsense at face value; or the smug dishonest one *still* shamelessly trying to retail this palaver after so much blood and misery.

Volik,

I noticed that you skipped any mention of Clinton/Gore continuing a war against Saddam and failed to notice Hillary and the other Democrats but went straight back to Bush, Rice, and the White House.

You say it's "all about oil" based on your smell test? Good grief! Get a new nose and a few facts backing up your position rather than your beliefs.

Here, let's try again.

"Draining the swamp: illogical.

That's an opinion, not fact that Bush didn't think it.

"Mushroom cloud: no. "
What mushroom cloud? The idea was to remove Saddam before he could get his hands on one. It worked. We now know he never will.

"The artful insinuation that Iraq was connected to 9/11: misleading wordplay at best. "

Why does it always seem to be Bush's opponents doing the insinuating that Bush insinuated this?

Where are your facts instead of YOUR BELIEFS?

Me, I choose the aggregate statements and actions by Bush, the Senate, both Clintons, and Saddams past actions to justify my position that Bush thought the best way to prevent another 911 was to throw out the status quo and drain the swamps where a fetid and dysfunctional culture was putrifying and threatening to ignite their explosive gasses on the world stage.

Good luck with those documents showing Bush just wanted the oil. It's been several years and you guys still haven't been able to forge them yet?

What's taking so long?

No, h20

I didn't pass over your Clinton/Gore routine. My post was in response to your post prior to that.

But let me say that with your introduction of the ol' Clinton/Gore gambit you reveal your growing awareness that your argument can't be defended on its own merits: "well, Clinton/Gore/Kerry was in on it, too, so that makes it okay!"

Clinton/Gore contained Saddam. They didn't launch an invasion and try to 'remake a dysfunctional culture'. And as for politicians casting cravenly political votes to authorize force-so what? That's no what's being discussed here. You continually try to make this into a partisan issue with your "lefty media" and your invocations of "Hillary", revealing your unchallenged partisan mindset that spews catchphrases rather engages in real intellectual thought.

The neo-cons in the administration, beleiving in Leo Strauss's theory of the 'noble lie' - the idea that the gov't. can tell any falsehood to its people as long as its "for their own good", decided to get this war going by retailing a bunch of falsehoods and cockamamie theories.

So they could get the oil. That's really all there is to it.

As for Iraq "threatening to ignite its explosive gasses on the world stage", well I must've missed that memo. Citation? Do tell.

Volik

"As for Iraq "threatening to ignite its explosive gasses on the world stage", well I must've missed that memo. Citation? Do tell."

And you continue to miss the obvious. I didn't say Iraq. I am making a broader accusation on the general dysfunction in the muddle east. As a broader assumption, it thus ties together Afghanistan (directly involved with 911) with Saddam's brutality, and yes, even Saudi Arabia, etc.

Given this broader assumption by myself and the Bush administration, it thus recognizes the failure of Clinton's containment strategy as it dealt only with Saddam (temporarily...the sanctions were crumbling) and failed to bring to heel the other despots and tyrants. Thus they failed to actively engage in any attempt to free up the average person in the middle east.

That's not criticism of Clinton per se. He was only continuing the policy of his predecessors and advocated even today by the NDP etc.

So, again, this hilites the reality that Bush et al saw the bigger picture than you are even capable of realizing. Hence, you need to rely on outdated conspiracy theories and outmoted rationalizations that I doubt you would have even believed had they been proffered before the current crisis.

In other words, I'll bet you were all for the sanctions being lifted at the time.

It ain't "all about oil" and you still can't provide a substantive, authoritative proof other than your emotions.

Keep trying though. I'm sure that smoking gun proving Bush only wanted oil must be somewhere. Perhaps in another of CBSs wordprocessors.

h20=

I apologize for presuming your 'broader assumption' had a specific, practical application to the matter we were discussing: Iraq. Since Iraq was the country invaded and occupied - presumably to stop the ignition of 'explosive gasses' - I foolishly felt you were making reference to that.

Your commitment to the 'bigger picture' Bush sees as part of his 'broader assumption' is admirable, particularly since most of the planet would beg to differ. However, the fact that virtually all popular opinion has turned against the broader assumption that you and Bush have made, of course, doesn't necessarily mean your assumption is incorrect.

That it hasn't been borne out by reality, that it has resulted in more disaster year after year, doesn't mean that the hypothesis won't yet be proven correct either.

But the fact that the 'broader assumption' was really just a pie-in-the-sky hypothesis to begin with, and one which has gone awry in execution, is troubling in that the only reason you seem to need for standing behind it is: Bush said so.

You want to sign on for an experiment to re-make a country's culture, something which has neverbeen done before, sacrificing life to do so (would you sacrifice your own life?), in a county which never attacked America. Why?

Because Bush said so.

There's a troubling peronality cultism happening here which is authoritarian in nature, and really has nothing to do with logic and the democratic process.

You can talk of my 'emotions' and 'conspiracy theories', but I haven't presented anything here but verifiable fact.

It is you who is willing to sacrifice (other people's) blood on a theoretical possibility postulated by Bush, based on an illogical assumption.

You can talk about 'CBS wordprocessors' and any othr cliche you care to pull from the bag of right-wing talking points in an attempt to divert from your losing argument. But it really doesn't apply here.

There is no signed affadavit from Bush admitting that his grand adventure is about oil.

As an architect of the war has admitted that oil was a factor, and also admitted that WMDs was merely window dressing, oil, by process of elimination, is seen to have been the only concrete reason left.

I understand the emotions engendered by your personality cult around the visionary Bush overcame your logic at some point, and led you to 'take a chance' on the grand theory he propounded.

I hope you'll forgive the rest of us if we still count on reason and logic to serve as arbiters for the use of military force, and don't take at face value the 'broad assumptions' of any President - especially one with such a tradition of purposeful misleadings ('WMDs', 'Mushroom clouds', '9/11=Iraq') and outright lies ('Saddam threw the inspectors out'.

Volik

Your long winded response seems to avoid the core issue here. Bush had motives other than oil and you believe it was

how did you put it

"all about oil"

Do you now admit you may be wrong and it is possible he may have had our best interests in mind despite the outcome?

Or do you persist in espousing conspiracy theories based on your smell test or your emotions?

h20

I'll admit that Bush stated he had motives other than oil. That's simply objective fact.

He wouldn't have had much luck saying 'we're going to war for oil'. So he had to come up with other 'motives' - with a bunch of half-truths, fear-mongering, and speculative hypotheses which are insulting to anyone not in his personality cult.

That Wolfowitz said oil was a factor is not a conspiracy theory - that he also said WMD was presentedas an 'understandable rationale' is not a conspiracy theory. Both are documented facts.

So my question to you is: do you believe elected officials have a right to lie to the public to get them into war? You know, the 'noble lie', for their own good and all?

Judging by your support for Bush and crew, and for their promotion of a chosen 'understandable rationale' (WMD) over the real one (oil), it seems as though you do.

Volik said grudingly

"I'll admit that Bush stated he had motives other than oil. That's simply objective fact."

That's making headway. Now if only you can admit that you have no objective fact disproving his own words, which you now admit he advocated.

Anything else is simply conjecture whereas you believe you can read his mind.

Do you think you have this power to read the minds of people or do you now admit that it is possible he didn't go to war because it's

"all about oil"

Or at least you can't prove it!

(note the consistency and steadfastment of my arguments rather than deviating off topic)

Silly h20

There was nothing 'grudging' in my admission that Bush 'stated' he had other motives. Of course he did - that's objective fact. He *had* to present other fictitious motives to get his war going, including the good old WMD hoodwink.

But I've already said that. Surely you aren't trying to pull out some imaginary victory by implying I haven't. That would be just sad.

You keep making the same sorry mistake: you think because Bush 'stated' he had other motives, that means he was sincere (even though Wolfowitz said WMD was a scam).

Why do you believe? Because Bush said so! There seems no limit to your credulity - nor the amount of (other people's) lives you're willing to sacrifice - for the word of Bush.

If Wolfowitz said oil was a factor for the war, I wonder why that wasn't cited by Bush when he was selling the war to the public?

Instead, the fictitious WMD (Saddam's gonna nuke you!) got all the headlines. Wonder why?

Oh, I know: these inconsistencies don't bother you since they're all in the service of the 'broader assumption'.

Translation: Bush said so!

(RE: your not deviating off-topic: yes, youdidn't mention 'lefty media' or 'CBS wordprocessors' even once!)

Volik

Calling me "silly" only indicates that you are desperate to prove your opinions superior.

Sorry, I want proof. Where is your PROOF that Bush invaded for oil as opposed to your emotional feelings?

Please elaborate!

I'm waiting for actual independent, corroborated, unbiased, non-emotional or partisan appeal.

EVIDENCE! Do you have it or are you going to stick to your paranoid conspiracy theories that have already been debunked by both Democrats and Bush supporters?

(No, h20

I called you silly because you said I grudgingly admitted something I've never disputed. Actually, though, it wasn't silly. It was a pathetic attempt at misdirection on your part)

Proof? No signed affadavit. Then again, OJ Simpson has never confessed to cutting his wife's head off either.

There are merely the facts that Wolfowitz said oil was a factor, and that the main 'stated motive' WMD was a sham; also that Greenspan said the was 'largely about oil'. And the fact that all other motives have turned out to be outright fictions or bizarre speculative theories that haven't borne fruit.

Leaving: oil. This doesn't constitute absolute 'proof'. But as in the case with OJ Simpson it's 'more than likely' the case.

And what is your 'proof' that the war isn't about oil?

It amounts to: Bush said so!

Tell me, do you give such gargatuan benefit of the doubt to all heads of state? Or merely to all Presidents? To all Repub Presidents, or just Bush? He said it so it must be so! Did you believe him,too, when he said Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in?

There's nothing 'consipracy theory' about the facts I've presented. Google them.

But you seem to believe they're all trumped by: Bush said so!

Where's your proof?

Volik

"And what is your 'proof' that the war isn't about oil?

It amounts to: Bush said so!"

Close. I rely on his actual statements combined with those of Hillary, Bill, Al, many Democratic senators and the actions of Saddam Hussein himself.

At least they are on my side justifying the overthrow of Saddam whereas you believe Bush invaded for oil but offer no evidence outside of your emotional gut reaction.

Tell me. Are you an artist by any chance?

Facts and logic don't seem to be your strong suit.

Sorry h20

Facts and logic don't support your statement that Bill, Hillary, Al, et al, support your open-ended land reclamation project.

Likely you thought Colin Powell's performance at the UN was a slam-dunk too.

Speaking of 'emotional gut reactions', one can only presume that's what leads you to pledge undying fealty to every word that comes from Bush's lips.

Nothing else explains it. But I should mention that such unstinting obeisance is unsettlingly antithetical to democracy.

"A moment I've been dreading-George brought his ne'er do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida.The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost forty and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at the New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a 'contributing editor', or something . That looks like easy work.
-Ronald Regan's recently published diaries, May 17,1986.
(Haw! Am considering buying that book, just to see what he had to say about Jean Cruton.)