[Graybeard58]

They need to conduct an investigation to see if Hannity's good friend Charley Rangel has a brain.

[thoughtomator]

Here's a newspaper for Rep. Rangel, to get him up to date:

[RexBeach]

I'd prefer an investigation of what caused Charlie Rangel.

[CyberAnt]

Errr .. excuse me .. wasn't that what the 911 Commission was all about ..?? Why do we have to go down that road again ..??

The dems are just mad because all their carping and whining is not gaining them any ground.

[Gator101]

Well, you see Charley, it all started back in 570 AD in a town called Mecca...

[FlingWingFlyer]

Rangel is proof that anyone, even the severely mentally handicapped can get themselves elected to Congress. Whadda country.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

1. The war was not that long ago. If Rangel cannot remember - it may be the onset of dementia. Maybe not even the onset....
2. The "buildup" to the war was a protracted period during which Saddam Hussein was repeatedly told what he could do to avoid it. If Rangel wants to call it a "rush to war" or a hasty judgment - he can - but it flies in the face of what actually occurred.
3. The decision to go to war was based on a number of factors, including the presence of WMD or WMD capabilities.
4. Intelligence is never perfect.
5. There was uncertainty as to the state of WMD capabilities in Iraq in March 2003.
6. Leadership involves decision making in the face of uncertainty or imperfect intelligence.
7. The President knew that whatever the true state of nature (i.e., that Iraq had WMD or that Iraq did not have WMD) in March 2003, it would be only a matter of months before the end of the war- and that would afford an investigation, and on the ground audit of the true state of Iraq's WMD capabilities. The President also knew that this audit or investigation would be completed well before the 2004 election campaign was over, and that a finding that there were no weapons or capabilities would be politically damaging.
8. He erred on the conservative side by electing to go to war, given the uncertainty, in order to protect the United States. If the President had decided not to take action and the intelligence had been understated (i.e. the true state of nature was that Iraq was closer to nuclear and biological capability than we had surmised) then the nation and the Middle East would be at risk.
9. The nation voted in November 2004 with full knowledge of 1-8 (above).
10. Charlie Rangle is a dickhead.

[finnman69]

Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.

No they should not. No they wont.

[A CA Guy]

They hit us.

Mass graves and beheadings

[DOGEY]

Just when you think the Democrats can't find a bigger idiot than Dean, they proffer Rangel and Durbin. God bless them!

That Karl Rove is a genius. How does he get them to make these statement?

[TheForceOfOne]

Shut up Rangel, you piece of dirt!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

He voted for it. How could he not know?

[oldbrowser]

New York Rep. Charles Rangel was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

It had something to do with terrorist knocking down the World Trade Center Buildings. What a disingenuous political hack.

[beavus]

Very simple:

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait.
2. Coalition came to Kuwait's defense.
3. Iraq agreed to ceasefire.
4. Iraq repeatedly violated terms of ceasefire.
5. Coalition forces eventually responded to Iraq's technical resumption of war.

A more detailed view of what happened between 4 and 5 is interesting:

4.1. Iraqi forces repeated fired upon coalition aircraft for years following the ceasefire (one violation).
4.2. Iraq obstructed UN inspectors (another violation).
4.3. UN demanded accounting Iraq's known and unknown WMDs promising retribution for noncompliance.
4.4. Iraq did not comply.
4.5. Coalition force build up.
4.6. Coalition leader (Bush) gave Iraq's leader 24 hours to leave Iraq to avoid invasion.
4.7. Iraq's leader did not leave.

So, the justification for the response to Hussein's war is solid and independent of any terrorism or WMDs.

The only question is whether the Bush administration was unethical in his efforts to raise US public support for the response, by building on 9/11 fears and overstating evidence of Iraqi WMDs.

[Burlem]

I got the following satire from the Bill Wattenburg web site:


SATIRE: How the D-Day Invasion Would Be Reported By Today's Press
NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944)

Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded
today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe.
Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French
casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting
to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of
thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French
town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had
anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running
high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition
of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say
this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops,
tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and
thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that
the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus
threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace
said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a
year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just
another example of how the military destroys the environment without a
second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate
greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French
government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the
invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows
that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once
the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will
control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in
part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent
a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret
weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties
on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could
last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and
international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after
spending two long weekends in Germany.

Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners
had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at
their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this
remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and
French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a
public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in
advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it
up."

[hattend]

Rangel about to get skewered on Hannity after the bottom of the hour news. (well, hopefully)