Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Where have all the conservatives gone?

Why would you again disregard the broader context of your citations. Now this is a case where context is important and you neglected to provide it because you know if you did it would change the meaning of your selective citations.

Yes there was bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence which was for the most part fabricated by the Bush administration at the behest of VP Cheney. As no one saw the real intelligence or the real analysis, they could only decide based on what the Bush administration provided.

I spent many of hour typing my analysis of the evidence and concluded there was not sufficient evidence to unequivocally determine if Iraq had WMD's. In fact my analysis in all but one key item in the Senate Select Committee Report was spot on. That key item was at the time not publicly known so I could not make a determination.

So in a better context we have some Democrats voting for invasion based on faulty information. Why didn't you provide that context!!!!!?

The context in which the slogan was used by former Senator Clinton was to unite people against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a brutal dictator who had a record of using WMD's. When former Gov. Palin used it was before Trump was the GOP's Presidential nominee. As a former VP candidate Palin was telling Republicans that if the GOP wants to win in 2016 that they should unite behind whoever was the nominee, which at that time it was expected to be Trump. Palin use of the slogan was not divisive it was a call for unity. As one can see by reading the entire article. (Now I know why you don't post links to the quotes that you use. You don't because you are taking them out of context.)

Even if the intelligence was faulty the fact that Saddam Hussein was threat to the region, the US, and the world was thoroughly demonstrated by his invasion of Kuwait and his record of using WMD's.

Historically, many of the Democrats who voted for the resolution were not in favor of invasion, but felt support for the President was necessary to get Saddam to back down (and said so at the time). So, the premise is faulty.

If they were weren't in favor of the invasion they should have voted against it. By voting for the invasion they put themselves on record as supporters of the invasion. If they were bluffing they lost.

F/A/O Senator Hatrack - a Minnesotan speaks.

Now you left out the part about 10,000 people standing outside.

Say, maybe you are the untrustworthy source!

In your faint defense, when I googled the Minneapolis rally there were many right-wing sites crowing about a record-breaking crowd and some said 25,000 people standing outside. Where do they get their bogus info? Doh! I almost forgot, those were the "facts" that Trump was spewing!

(BTW, I am suspicious that your friends who were at the rally and provided the crowd estimates you used are fictitious...)

This is what a 20,000+ crowd really looks like. This piccy can be used to for future measurement purposes.

As to this assertion, my fact-checking did indeed support the fact that Trump is being billed much more than Obama was in the past. What I couldn't find were any details about what the Obama invoice was based on (10 years ago when he wasn't President, just one of many candidates). I did learn that El Paso and Albuquerque are invoicing Trump for amounts that are in the ballpark with the Minneapolis sum, and they are saying that they didn't include all of the costs. He isn't paying them, either.

As a general thing in business, if a person wants to contest an invoice because thay think someone else paid less for the same good or service, they need to provide some compelling evidence. It could be a simple matter of market fluctuations - or apples and oranges.

In any case, Trump appears to be using a lame excuse for being a deadbeat.

Trump is a welsher, he never pays invoices. He stiffed all of the people who built his "Taj Mahal" casino in Atlantic City.