You gotta wonder what - if anything does - goes on in the heads of folks like that.

This is invariably followed by a trip back to whatever blog she normally inhabits, there to commiserate with her fellow earmuff enthusiasts over the unfair treatment afforded here to those like her who clearly only desire constructive debate, boo hoo hoo.

Old, old story. Old, old bullshit.

Oh, I’m always very stylish. But I wear pink earmuffs, not tinfoil hats.

And DO make sure you’ve got that tinfoil hat of yours centered properly on your head.

I can only waste your time if you bother to read and respond. You could just ignore me.

=== they disappear because no one here wants the truth to come out, I suppose.===

So it would seem.

LOOOOOOL! Yeah RIGHT, Sue. they disappear because no one here wants the truth to come out, I suppose.

What a crock of processed bull food!

So, why are you wasting your time and ours?

I really have no desire to provide facts and links. Those posts magically disappear. My flippant, cutesy ones remain intact. You’ll understand, I’m sure, why I no longer take the time to prove what I say.

Figure it out yourself. Or not. I’m not interested in trying to educate anyone. Just spouting talkin’ points, doncha know…

Someone lied.

“There was enough confirmation at the time to bomb them though. Affidavits and all.”

LOOOOOL! I LOVE it! Affidavits signed by whom? Bin Laden himself? Can you also produce affidavits confirming that Saddam and bin Laden were best buddies?

There was enough confirmation at the time to bomb them though. Affidavits and all.

I thought it was because of his daddy. Or Israel. There have been so many reasons floated I can’t keep up with all of them.

So in essence, he lied.

Sure, since I don’t remember making any predictions about the election, at least not here. Do you visit other sites I inhabit? Still, don’t remember any predictions, just hopes and dreams, that were dashed, of course.

Saddam did not kick out the weapons inspectors “for four years beginning in 1998″. The weapons inspectors were ORDERED out by their U.N. boss in order to clear the way for Clinton’s upcoming bombing campaign so disgustingly romantically named “Operation Desert Fox”. Not surprisingly, Saddam was not overly eager to allow them back in after Clinton completed his little orgy of violent death and destruction, particularly since their number been illegally infiltrated by U.S. agents.

Prior to that the Iraqi regime had discovered that Clinton, in a clear violation of the U.N. inspection mandate, had inflitrated the inspection teams with his agents in order to locate some nice targets to bomb, not to mention to try to gather information that could be used to assassinate or overthrow Saddam. Whether you like Saddam or not, as the leader of a sovereign state he had a legitimate right to object to American spies among the U.N. inspection teams. The Americans also engaged in what were clearly deliberate provocations, which Scott Ritter, among others, have described.

“Bill Clinton declared the official policy of the US to be regime change at that time.”

And that makes it legitimate?

“He also bombed a chemical weapons factory in the Sudan at that same time which he said was being used to manufacture chem weapons by al Qaeda and supplied by Iraq–al Shiffa, I think.”

That’s a flat lie. What he bombed was not a chemical weapons factory. It was a perfectly legitimate pharmeceuticals factory (government-run, as I recall - I can confirm that later). There was and remains no evidence whatsoever that the factory was used for any purpose other than the legitimate one of producing pharmaceutical products, nor is there any evidence of any connection of that factory with Al Qa`eda.

I’ve got an Occam’s Razor for yeah Chris. Bush invaded because Iraq was sitting on a $100TT worth of Dick Cheney’s oil.

“I’ll just sum it up as Iraq was a when, not an if question. I think most on the left know but don’t want to acknowledge that. Don’t like the way it has been handled? No prob. Me either. Occam’s Razor is appropriate most of the time–the simplest explanation is usually correct. Not trying to change your minds on the facts but at least as to the motivations.”
Posted by: Chris
–

Geez, Chris just invents facts. Yes, the UN weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998. But Saddam didn’t kick out the UN weapons inspectors in 2003, as you imply. UN weapons inspectors left before they’d finished their job because Bush was pushing for war.

Yes, Clinton declared regime change as official policy. So what? Does US dislike for a dictator give us the right to attack another nation that hasn’t attacked us? No. If it gave us that right, then it would give other nations that right too. In other words, if another nation doesn’t like Bush, then they could use the policy of “regime change” to attack us as well. India could attack Pakistan, etc…. You can’t run around the world attacking other nations just because you don’t like their leaders.

But that wasn’t the reason Bush attacked Iraq. Bush said we had to go to war with Iraq to avoid the “smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud.” Only it turns out, Saddam didn’t have any WMD. What’s more Bush knew it!

You assert that the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan connected al Qaeda to Iraq–based on what? Are you basing this belief on the word of one man, Mubarak Fadl al Mahdi, who wanted to hurt the owner of the plant? To date, the public doesn’t have enough information to confirm the plant was connected to al Qaeda. Do you have more information? Name your sources?

You assert Iraq was a question of when, not if, and the left knows this but refuses to admit it. Based on what?

Then you cite Occam’s Razor: Occam’s Razor involves using facts. You don’t use any! The simplest explanation is usually correct–an explanation of what??