Bush didn't 'intervene' in Iraq, he conquered it. Now we own it.
I don't think there is much support for doing the same thing in Iran.
(Besides, during the run up to the 2003 invasion, there was strong public support for the invasion of Iraq, because most Americans believed Bush when he was lying to us about his reasons for invading Iraq.)
Bush didn't 'intervene' in Iraq, he conquered it. Now we own it.
That is a complete and outright lie.
I don't think there is much support for doing the same thing in Iran.
I'm going to guess you don't get out much? Do you happen to have a Twitter account? You might want to check it.
(Besides, during the run up to the 2003 invasion, there was strong public support for the invasion of Iraq, because most Americans believed Bush when he was lying to us about his reasons for invading Iraq.)
First, I said the American public was fickle, and that is just another example. Second, you are outright lying again. Prove that Bush lied to us about Iraq, or shut up.
Uh, he made 30 some claims about Iraq to the UN, using Colin Powell as his mouthpiece. Not one of them has turned out to be factual. This has been called an 'intelligence failure' in polite society. If you are willing to believe that even the Bush Administration was capable of that degree of incompetence, then go ahead. The more likely scenario is that they were deliberately lying to us.
The rest of your prattle doesn't deserve a response. The US didn't conquer Iraq in 2003? Saying that is "a lie." 
Are you high?
Uh, he made 30 some claims about Iraq to the UN, using Colin Powell as his mouthpiece. Not one of them has turned out to be factual. This has been called an 'intelligence failure' in polite society. If you are willing to believe that even the Bush Administration was capable of that degree of incompetence, then go ahead. The more likely scenario is that they were deliberately lying to us.
So then you just admitted you have no proof, but instead choose to believe that Bush lied, regardless of the fact that you have no evidence.
The rest of your prattle doesn't deserve a response. The US didn't conquer Iraq in 2003? Saying that is "a lie."
Are you high?
You see a fifty-first star on our flag? Are the flights to Iraq domestic?
I am going to pretend for a moment that you aren't marking me out as a gullible old geezer and answer your question.
This isn't the Yale Debate Club, this is Madville of the Internets. We are having a conversation over here, not entering evidence into the record.
One piece of Powell's presentation to the UN that wasn't subject to speculation or interpretation and just plain observable fact, was the issue of the aluminum tubes. Colin Powell famously told the world that the tubes Iraq had acquired were suitable for one and only one purpose, that is the enrichment of uranium in a centrifuge.
As it turns out, the tubes that Powell referenced were not suitable for that purpose and were used for a totally different purpose that had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
I tend to give Powell a free pass for not knowing the difference between a centrifuge tube and the tubes in question. But surely someone in the government could have fact-checked this point. Any nuclear engineer, nuclear scientist, or technician that works in this field could verify whether or not the tubes Powell was talking about would work for such a purpose.
So, no I don't have proof. But this part of the presentation was either a spectacular bit of incompetence or a bald faced lie.
Your choice.
It doesn't matter whether this is the Yale Debate Club or the Internet. Claiming speculation as fact is lying, no matter where it is done. You for some reason seem to have a problem with me pointing that out every time. I am quite frankly baffled as to why you are even doing it in the first place.
To address your statement, yes, the administration as a whole made many many statements that turned out to be factually incorrect. That makes them wrong, not liars. Considering the Bush administration as a whole, I would say they lean towards incompetence, not outright deception (if for no other reason than I don't believe the administration is competent enough to hide the fact that they were lying - they weren't competent on most other issues, so why should Iraq be any different?).
Hey, I gave you the only two possible options, lying or massive incompetence, and you have chosen one. Fine, I have no problem with that.
Of course, to put the tubes in proper context, they were just one point out of the 30 some other points which were all inaccurate/wrong.
Obviously I can't prove that each of those points was a deliberate prevarication, and not evidence of incompetence, but taken as a whole it seems unlikely that even the Bushies could have been so poorly informed, especially when they fervently wanted to invade Iraq. It would be some coincidence if they just happened to make all of those mistakes that just happened to support what they already wanted to do.
But, as I said, it is your choice what you believe.
I would rather be with these guys
than the sheeple who think that Obama is different
The 'Bad Company' I was referring to is Iranian president "I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket."
I like your version better.
The FF wishes that intelligence told Bush that Iraq had WMD, that Bush would have chosen chose to ignore the intelligence because an attack on Iraq might make France mad, and Iraq would have let loose against the world with WMD. But then again, the FF also appreciates how this whole thing happened so the west will be to fearful to ever act on any intelligence again (like the radar operators crying warnings at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41) and be wide open for attack, again.
Obama was "appalled and outraged" at the death of 20 protesters...don't make me laugh.
Obama is taking the gullible Americans for another ride: JUST LIKE BUSH, while he shuts down your bank accounts, robs your Medicare and cuts of your social welfare.
This is just a BIG Diversion one that is expected since his approval ratings are dropping fast.
Oh and Gramps was bang on when he said Bush lied and Iraq was conquered not "saved" or "liberated"
Anybody remember any HUGE fuss from the media about the 2004 Ohio vote rigging allegations aimed at Bush? nothing compared to this.
jammer170
I think Obama is just like Bush, but Obama has yet to do anything regarding this particular issue that makes him like Bush. However, I do find it funny that there is all this American support for intervening in another country's internal affairs, and yet there was so much condemnation for intervening in Iraq. It just goes to show how fickle the American people truly are. Depending on whether Obama devotes American resources to this issue, he could indeed become pretty much indistinguishable from Bush.