Exactly when did the US stance on Saddam's wmd become a lie ? Would that happen to be the same day Bush took office ?

Oh, hell. Who am I kidding? It won't be interesting at all. It will be predictable. Because Obama and his Democrats own your mind, you will write exactly what they would have you write.

The fact that current Democrats voted wrongly doesn't change what liberals still want.

Conservatives, on the other hand, want more escalation. Conservatives have completely embraced the neo-con viewpoint. What does that say for conservatives? And…do conservatives want more and better neo-cons elected?

Fine, neocons started the war. I note once more that 29 Democrats voted with said neocons and that the 60 Democrats in the Senate, the 250 Democrats in the House and your Democrat president continue to fight it. And you're OK with it. Because they're Democrats.

Once more: You are an intellectual slave to a gang of liars.

You lie!…..speaking truthfully about neo-conservative bloodthirstiness, a bloodthirstiness embodied in the person of Joe Lieberman, is considered being an "intellectual slave to a gang of liars."

Furthermore,…."Democrats set upon him like a pack of wolves"…is that why Lieberman faced no consequences from Democrats for actively defending Bush and campaigning for McCain? Doesn't sound like an attack by a pack of wolves to me.

I wonder if they knew then what they knew now……that "President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” would they have voted to entrust Bush with the power to start wars?

"…..once popular opinion turned against that war." Or was it when the truth came out?

I can't imagine anyone clinging to a pack of lies when the truth is known…..of course I'm not one of King's fellow republican travelers

"Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”

It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.

For six years, Americans really haven’t known why he launched the unnecessary Iraq attack. Official pretexts turned out to be baseless. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after all, and wasn’t in league with terrorists, as the White House alleged. Collapse of his asserted reasons led to speculation about hidden motives: Was the invasion loosed to gain control of Iraq’s oil—or to protect Israel—or to complete Bush’s father’s vendetta against the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Nobody ever found an answer.

Now, added to the other suspicions, comes the goofy possibility that abstruse, supernatural, idiotic, laughable Bible prophecies were a factor. This casts an ominous pall over the needless war that has killed more than four thousand young Americans and cost U.S. taxpayers perhaps $1 trillion."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5

"29 Democratic Senators voted to give the President the authority to go to war…"

I add the Democrats were the majority party in the U.S. Senate back then, just as they are now. Which means they funded the war, just as they do now.

Democrats have always been neck-deep in this war, just as they are now. The Reverend is an intellectual slave to a gang of liars. They own his mind. He writes only what they would have him write in their efforts to lie to people about what they represent.

The Reverend is a liar.