Great catch, Gary! Thanks. I hope others read this.

+_+_+_+

Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken

Repeating the lie often enough certainly worked on you:

It reminds me of Coulter's book where she not only defends Joe McCarthy, but rewrites him as a great patriot. It's like the mentality is "Well we want to vindicate some figure who's been maligned by the left; ah, f**k it, let's go with the most blatantly corrupt one we can think of!" I suppose the sheer audacity is such that your political opponents will spend so much time stuttering over it - "Really? They're defending him?" - that they won't be able to mount an effective comeback. Perhaps it works.

It's easy to find the lie in the McCarthy issue. The left shows the House Unamerican Affairs Committee grinding Hollywood stars. Senator Joe McCarthy was a Senator, duh, not a member of the House.

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.

as if Cheney needs any defense

we're just correcting your kool-aid view

a highly valuable free service a might add

Saddam was one of if not the bulwark in Iraq against Islamic militarism, particularly the flavor practiced by his neighbor Iran. That's why we sold him weapons and supported his regime all through the 80s. Remember this? He was a bloody, godless dictator, but he was our bloody godless dictator. If this was a fight against islamic militarism, Iraq was absolutely the wrong place to invade.

Crusader, I didn't even realize this post was directed at me somehow. I saw Blogo's response, which I thought was pretty much on point, and failed to realize my name was right at the beginning. So, apologies for the delay.

There is little to say to your main justifications for the invasion that will not sound like shopworn left-of-center "talking points" but since a) your justifications are mostly shopworn right-of-center talking points and b) the left-of-center rebuttals are, although oft-cited, infrequently replied to, I'll give it a try.

3000 more american citizens incinerated in one of our largest cities.

You've just proven the point I've been belaboring above with David P., Dee, and Candance. Your statement implies a logical link between 9/11 and Saddam's regime. I have been arguing with said posters about the rhetorical effect of the administration's pre-invasion stance, that even if they never blatantly stated that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, the planting of that seed has been, if not the actual intent, certainly the outcome.

17 more UN resolutions ignored.

Ah yes, I always forget the high esteem in which conservatives hold the UN. Hasn't the cornerstone of neo-conservative political theory been the desire to act independently of that particular body? To see conservatives so relentlessly invoke it, despite its legitimacy, indicates a rift in the viability of Wolfowitzian politics.

A hundred thousand more Iraqi's tourtured or killed

A major problem indeed, but not one for which we went to war. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks this war was about altruism to the Iraqis is painfully naive. Their liberation has been a happy, incidental occurrence. The obnoxious liberal talking-point: Of all the nations with human rights abuses, why Iraq? As opposed to Burma, N. Korea, China, Laos, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, &c.

...by a tyrant maintaining a terrorist breeding ground.

Highly debatable. Again, none of the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks came to America by way of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, or even the UAE would have made more sense by this logic.

Islamic militarism is not confined to a single geographic location. It is not a nation state.

Exactly; all the more reason to question why our military operations were confined to one nation-state. Especially since, as Blogo pointed out, that nation-state was secularly militaristic.

I don't know what the Bush administration did or did not know about Iraqi involvement

Nor do I. I do not presume that "Bush lied" or any of the other liberal bumper-sticker rubbish. I can only take my own knowledge of geopolitics, the limits of what I know to be true and what I can read into political rhetoric (as can anyone else) and determine that the invasion was wrong.

Finally, as to your statement below that Saddam's only goal was to maintain power: I agree completely. Which is why it would not make sense for him to act outwardly aggressive toward the U.S. The man was nothing if not Machiavellian. Using his allegedly-existing long-range weapons against us or our allies would have been foolish. He knows as well as anyone that that sort of hostility would have been met with swift, brutal retaliation...and there would go his beloved power.

"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."

"Every time I see one of his posts I start hearing "Rolling on the
river" music in the background and I start humming "Trolling, trolling,
trolling on the weblog...", etc. "

Wow, how creative..... River sounds so similar to weblog.

Real life video games are cool