Weblog

110 Comments »

1. I don’t think he reads any reports…..he has his advisors tell him.

   Comment by Kurt — 7/8/2004 @ 9:19 am

2. That’s assuming he CAN read.

   Sorry, sorry cheap, cheap shot. I just couldn’t control myself. Mea culpa.

   Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/8/2004 @ 10:06 am

3. This is all a waste of time. Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger according to mulitple European intelligence sources, and Iraq had ongoing WMD programs at the time OIF commenced, according to ISG reports.

   More ado about nothing.

   Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 11:21 am

4. Commie freaks! Bush is the best!

   Comment by Walery Tonik — 7/8/2004 @ 1:38 pm

5. When OIF commenced the ISG (UK) backed whatever statements were required. This is common knowledge. What else would they do? Hearsay evidence does not support hearsay evidence.
   Please follow along in your books and try to stay with the program

   Comment by Forest Ranger — 7/8/2004 @ 1:57 pm

6. Bush has already stated that he doesn’t read papers. Why should we be surprised that he didn’t read this report. Frankly, I am more shocked that Rice had not read the report thoroughly.

   Comment by Lindsay — 7/8/2004 @ 3:30 pm

7. Forest Ranger,

   The ISG reports I’m referring to were released after we invaded. You know, like the one where David Kay said “In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service.”
   http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

   Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 5:28 pm

8. Thanks for the link.

   Comment by Forest Ranger — 7/8/2004 @ 7:51 pm

9. Bill, anyone that calls the war in iraq OIF stands revealed, i’m sorry to say, as a victim of propaganda, pure and simple. If you think that the sentence you cite form the Kay report proves anything, you didn’t read the Kay report. Even if the statement meant what you hoped it meant, the idea that we expended the blood and treasure and reputation and opportunity costs of this war because there were “ongoing” r+d activities in the iraqi intel service is deranged. There is no chance that the American public would have supported a war on these grounds, nor did the congressional resolution provide a basis for war on these grounds. Have you literally learned nothing at all from the past 18 months?

   Lindsay, Rice acknowledged that she didn’t read the report, and at this late date, being shocked that Rice is incompetent at her job is, well, a little out of touch.

   Comment by howard — 7/8/2004 @ 8:19 pm

10. howard,

    Here is another sentence from the Kay report: “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.”

    Here’s a sentence from UN resolution 687 (1991): The Security Council… “Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

    (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities”

    Oops.

    Now here’s a sentence from the Congressional resolution authorizing military action: “The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–

    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    And another one: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    Not only did Congress provide a basis for war “on these grounds", but the American people, through their representatives, overwhelmingly supported a war “on these grounds".

    Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 10:18 pm

11. howard,

    P.S.- Have you literally learned nothing at all from the past 13 years?

    Comment by Bill — 7/8/2004 @ 10:22 pm

12. Not only did Congress provide a basis for war “on these grounds", but the American people, through their representatives, overwhelmingly supported a war “on these grounds". Bullshit.

    Comment by Janet — 7/9/2004 @ 12:18 am

13. get your conspiring ass out of this country you lyeing socialist ass! what the fuck are you on? you must hate at least half the people you meet you fine loveing open minded American that people died so you can shit on all of us asshole . NO Im not wacked out my for fathers built this country and you are exactly what we move away from! watch your back you hateful socialist , boom its you next ,get it asshole

    Comment by mike — 7/9/2004 @ 12:23 am

14. Janet,

    Please read the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, and get back to me. You can read it here, to make it a little easier:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

    Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 12:46 am

15. Bill,
    All of your examples simply confirm how our whole nation, its representatives and its military were hoodwinked into action that should have never been taken. Now watch as the Bush denies its continued pressure on intelligence agencys to manufacture a causus belli against Iraq had anything to do with the propaganda defecated by CIA, FBI, et al., reguritated by an ovine media and then spoon fed to the masses under the label of an elixer to cure their emasculated feelings post 9/11, David Corn has repeatedly, relentlessly pointed out the falsehood leading to the completely avoidable deaths of tens of thousands, including a thousand American and “coalition” soldiers. He is to be commended and through his and other efforts, I believe many people are finally catching on.

    As said the guy at the Pickens County, SC dump this morning when they saw the “I love my country, but fear my government!” bumpersticker today. “That’s about the truest thing I’ve heard said in a LONG time.”

    Two years ago, I might have found myself climbing out of a dumpster for sporting such an “ant-eye gummint” statement!

    -T

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/9/2004 @ 12:42 pm

16. … and who appointed Mr. Tenet? And how in the world did bad intelligence get past all the checks and balances within the CIA to be handed to the President? And who told the President the case against Iraq was a “slam dunk?”

    The truth is that despite some bad intelligence, Saddam did not comply with the U.N. resolutions as was required to prevent a war. Saddam could have complied, but didn’t and the consequences remain completely justified.

    Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 1:14 pm

17. T.Hajji,

    Nobody was hoodwinked- Iraq did have weapons programs, in violation of UN resolutions, and it did have banned weapons. We’ve found some of them, and 2 of our troops were injured by one of them and had to be treated for chemical exposure.

    Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 1:22 pm

18. Bill,

    “Made in USA” stamped on one ancient pre-1991 artillery shell that wouldn’t have created sarin gas, even if it had been armed properly. It might as well have been any other IED for that matter.

    Rumsfeld didn’t say, “We know they have WMD PROGRAMS.” He said, “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit, north of Baghdad and to the west, east…etc. ”

    You know as well as I do that we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq knowing what we now know to be true. The fact that our Executive Branch had to exaggerate and inflate and cajole and threaten and yes, outright lie should’ve told you that something was horribly amiss. But some people will never get it…until it too late.
    kisses,
    -T

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/9/2004 @ 2:01 pm

19. …not to also mention that Bush repeatedly stated that he has “every confidence” in the information and intelligence he was being provided by Tenent’s CIA and other agencies in the run-up to an unfounded war. No matter what info was being handed to him, it was HE who pulled the trigger. It is George W. Bush who ordered the invasion of Iraq. On his shoulders lies all those unnecessary deaths, the horrible mangled casualties of war. By association, it lies on each and every American as well.

    It lies on me, for not doing more to stop it, it lies on you, for continuing to justify it and we’re all guiltier every day for letting it go on.

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/9/2004 @ 2:16 pm

20. Hajji,

    You are simply in denial of the facts, my friend.

    Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 2:27 pm

21. Mike’s attack (on whom? Mr. Corn? Janet? Bill? Howard?) is very disturbing. He’s actually threatening murder here. Yes, we have our own homegrown terrorists. How they can consider this kind of rabid assault on First Amendment values consistent with their superior Americanism is beyond me.

    The Bush administration has, from the outset, pushed the case that the threat from Iraq was an urgent one because of Iraq’s possession of WMD and because of his alliance with terrorists, specifically with Al Qaeda. It was so urgent that we could not wait for Hans Blix and a credible threat of war (courtesy of the Congress) to pry the country open. Now we know, and many of us knew then, that neither of the claimed pretexts has proven to be the case. As for the fact that Iraq was in material breech of UN resolutions, this was not a new thing and was not found by the Security Council to be a sufficient basis for going to war.

    The obsession of the Bush administration with Iraq from the very beginning has been the driving force behind the war, not any objective case that was made to it by intelligence agencies or briefs, which the decision makers did not in any event feel compelled to read. It was evidently a case of “don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.” The obsession is too well documented to deny. A striking moment in Richard Clark’s “Against All Enemies” is when he returned to work the day after 9/11, after about an hour and a half break, and walked into a White House surrealistically preoccupied with proving that Iraq was behind the attacks of the previous day. Subtract the obsession from the facts and the whole thing deflates.

    What bothers me in a lot of the discussion around the justification for the war is the insistence that the justification was and remains unassailable. Just in this discussion, Bill says “Nobody was hoodwinked” and Tim calls the war “completely justified.” If nothing else, the reports of the 9/11 Commission and the new Senate report make it clear that the justification for war was hardly unassailable. What seems implicit in this concern for the unassailability of the justification for the war is a recognition that war demands an unassailable justification, and I agree with that.

    Comment by Patrick S. — 7/9/2004 @ 3:49 pm

22. Bill, you’re still kidding, right? you aren’t actually trying to convince us that we went to war on the basis of wmd-related program activities? You aren’t trying to tell us that there was a threat to anyone from wmd-related program activities? you aren’t going to try and claim that there was a there there? You clearly have not read the Kay report carefully, or you would recognize just how much he tried to dance around literally saying “the case was hokum,” but since then, he’s given a number of interviews, during which he has made it clear that the case was hokum.

    Notice, also, the conclusions of the Senate Intel committee, accurately summarized by our host on another posting here today: in short, there was no there there. Continuing to pretend that there was a there there is nothing but denial.

    Now, as for the last 13 years, yes, i’ve learned a great deal: i’ve learned that saddam’s capabilities were gradually being diminished; i’ve learned that saddam didn’t do anything to respond to Al Qaeda contacts; i’ve learned that the biggest threat to america in the post-Cold War era is non-state actors like Al Qaeda and related terrorists groups, not dictators in a box like Saddam Hussein; i’ve learned that a group of delusional neocons believed that the simple act of removal of Saddam Hussein would open up an era of democracy and improved security for Israel that clearly is nowhere close to true; i’ve learned that ideologically blinkered fantasists and hubris can cost this nations hundreds of lives and billions of dollars; and i’ve learned that right-wing enablers of all of this want to pretend it’s not so, instead, repeating, over and over again, that see, there must be a pony in here somewhere.

    And Tim, intel got to the president to meet the requirements: he wanted a basis to go to war with iraq. Tenet (reappointed by Bush, thank you very much, and allowed to stay in office on 9/12/01 by the responsibility administration) had to intervene several times to keep these clowns from overstating the case even further than he was prepared to go. Feith opened up a separate office to try and “stovepipe” juicy defector tidbits straight to the oval office decision-making.

    And for crissake, we did not got to war over some old chemical and biological weapons; even Sen. Roberts now acknowledges this. Why can’t you?

    Comment by howard — 7/9/2004 @ 3:59 pm

23. Tim,

    I am accepting all the facts, As more and more come stingily my way I am more and more amazed that half the country is still falling for the bullshit. As I was saying about the dump today, even people I wouldn’t suspect in a million years are finally having their eyes opened. When the folks in Pickens County are figuring it out, the jig is up. Goodbye neo-con manipulators of the military/industrial complex!

    -Hajji

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/9/2004 @ 7:16 pm

24. Howard, like so many folks here is completely missing the point. I doubt many of the posters here have read the multitude of reliable, verifiable, publicly available documents, news pieces and articles that prove beyond any argument that Saddam maintained his WMD programs in violation of the relevant U.N. resolutions. Iraq was also found to have prohibited WMD material and weapons systems once we got in there and discovered them. Funny how these were missed by Mr. Blix and Company.

    There are also many, many tantalizing pieces of information that point to Saddam having either hidden or shipped out what WMD’s he had just prior to the invasion. It is interesting to note that right up to the war he continued to attempt the purchase of large quantities of the newest technology atropine injectors. Also, ss our troops advanced they found large quantities of brand new chem-bio suits. Now Saddam knew very well we possessed no chemical or biological weapons to use on the battlefield. Would any of you care to explain your theories as to what Saddam needed these items for?

    One interesting and plausible theory I read posits that we have already found WMD’s in Iraq. They were right under our noses all the time, but we just didn’t put two-and-two together. In the early stages of the war as our troops advanced there were numerous reports of highly suspicious chemical materials that always set off the detectors, but after further testing were shown not to be WMD’s. These materials were often found in camoflaged drums and hidden at least from our satellites and aerial recon. Another tantalizing bit of info was that these types of materials were often found at so-called “agricultural chemical” manufacturing facilities (again, conveniently located near ammunition dumps or other military facilities.) In fact, the suspicious chemicals often tested out to BE agricultural chemicals. Now, why do you suppose Saddam needed to hide agricultural chemicals in this fashion? Answer: the chemicals are recognized precursors for certain chemical weapons. Not only this, but it was well known before the war that Saddam had set up a lot of factories that could be converted to produce chemical or biological weapons. Verdict: Saddam GUILTY!

    It sometimes just galls the hell out of me to listen to all the people tearing down our President and our country. I really have to ask: just whose side are they on?

    Comment by Tim — 7/9/2004 @ 7:33 pm

25. T.Hajji,

    You say: Rumsfeld didn’t say, “We know they have WMD PROGRAMS.”

    You are wrong. He said this on Friday, Sept. 27, 2002:

    “Saddam Hussein’s regime is a regime that has been on the terrorist list for many years. It’s a regime that has relationships with terrorist networks. It’s a regime that has a very aggressive weapons of mass destruction program.”
    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t09302002_t927wxia.html

    Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 8:00 pm

26. howard,

    We went to war on the basis of Iraq’s noncompliance with disarmament requirements. End of story.

    David Kay said that Saddam and the situation in Iraq were “more dangerous” than anyone had thought.

    Saddam’s capabilities were gradually being diminished? They were supposed to have been eradicated more than 10 years ago.

    Saddam didn’t do anything to respond to Al Qaeda contacts? If that’s true, there would not have multiple contacts.

    The biggest threat to America in the post-Cold War era is non-state actors like Al Qaeda and related terrorists groups, not dictators in a box like Saddam Hussein? Hussein was harboring and supporting such terrorist groups.

    A group of delusional neocons believed that the simple act of removal of Saddam Hussein would open up an era of democracy and improved security for Israel that clearly is nowhere close to true? It’s a tad bit early too draw any conclusions on that point.

    Ideologically blinkered fantasists and hubris can cost this nations hundreds of lives and billions of dollars? As can a “war on terror". Depends on your point of view I suppose.

    Right-wing enablers of all of this want to pretend it’s not so? Right wing enablers like Clinton, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Rockefeller, Schumer, Torricelli… who all voted to authorize military action?

    You haven’t learned as much in the last 13 years as you think.

    Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 8:33 pm

27. honest to goodness, it is amazing to see the fantasists out in force today, living in denial and raging against the dying of the light. At this late date, to even waste time on some of these delusional notions is quite absurd, so i will not bother to go point by point with links and rebuttals; it will only be a waste of time. I will, though, hit the high points that Tim and Bill stunningly believe.

    First, and most important, we did not go to war on account of UN violations. That was not the wording of the congressional resolution, it was not the case that george bush made, and it was not the desire of the american people. Rather than perpetuating your denial, tim, i’d advocate that you spend the 2 minutes on google it will take you to read the relevant congressional resolution; i’d then urge you to read the following speeches and transcripts: cheney at the vfw in 8/02; bush in cincy in 9 or 10/02; bush sotu in 1/03; powell at the un in 1 or 2/03; cheney on russert the weekend before the war; and the wolfowitz full transcript that led to the vanity fair interview.

    Second, the idea that we have found them, the weapons of mass destruction, in the words of our shallow, ill-informed leader, is utterly pathetic and beneath discussion. That delusional right-wingers like michael ledeen are currently pushing a theory that really, we have found wmds is utterly contemptible and demonstrates why the right-wing in america is so dangerous (the honest conservatives, of course, have gradually acknowledged the phoniness of the case, the most recent being bill buckley).

    Third, i am utterly familiar with the kay sentence, which, when read in the context of the kay report and the follow-up interviews that he has given stands revealed as nothing but a temporary cover for the bush administration.

    Fourth, Rumsfeld said we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. When later questioned in congressional testimony, he said that perhaps he should have said “we know where they were.” Pretending that he didn’t say such a thing, bill, merely demonstrates that you aren’t familiar with the essential facts of the matter.

    Fifth, there is no credible case that Saddam was harboring terrorists or had any kind of meaningful relationship with al qaeda. None. How many times does the 9/11 commission have to tell you this? The most recent time, even cheney’s press secretary finally gave up the ghost, pretending that cheney and the 9/11 commission had been in agreement all along.

    Sixth, criticizing George Bush for his manifest failures of leadership, honesty, vision, character, and decision-making is the essence of our rights as american citizens. Thinking that the president is beyond repreoach when he has obviously presented an exaggerated case for a war whose difficulties he underestimated and whose aftermath he didn’t plan for is the behavior of totalitarian societies. Perhaps, Tim, you would have been happier in the old Soviet Union, or living in Saddam’s Iraq?

    Seventh, the congressional resolution did not, by itself, authorize war. it authorized war if and only if the president made certain representations to congress, which he did. These, of course, turned out not to be true.

    And eighth and last, bill, whatever i have or haven’t learned in the last 13 years, based on your comments, it towers over your inaccurate perception of reality and your blind willingness to justify the unjustifiable.

    There was an honest case for war; saddam’s current wmd capabilities had nothing to do with it, and neither did the case that bush et al presented. Deal with it.

    Comment by howard — 7/9/2004 @ 9:31 pm

28. howard,

    1. “we did not go to war on account of UN violations. That was not the wording of the congressional resolution, it was not the case that george bush made, and it was not the desire of the american people”

    The White House’s case for war can be read here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html

    The reason at the top of the list is “Saddam Hussein’s Defiance of United Nations Resolutions".

    The joint resolution by Congress specified that “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to… enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” That says exactly what you claim it doesn’t say. Where do you get this stuff from?

    2. “the idea that we have found… the weapons of mass destruction… is utterly pathetic and beneath discussion”

    No one has said that we found “the” weapons of mass destruction. We have only found “some” of them. More than a dozen chemical shells filled with mustard gas or sarin, which were undiscovered after a dozen years of UN inspections. It took an invasion to find them.

    3. “i am utterly familiar with the kay sentence, which, when read in the context of the kay report and the follow-up interviews that he has given stands revealed as nothing but a temporary cover for the bush administration”

    You are obviously not familiar with the Kay sentence, which came from one of those follow-up interviews- after he had already stated that the intelligence was wrong. Here is exactly what he said: “I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.”
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/

    4. “Rumsfeld said we know where the weapons of mass destruction are”

    Weapons of mass destruction are not so heavy that they can’t be moved. Talk about pathetic… puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

    5. “there is no credible case that Saddam was harboring terrorists or had any kind of meaningful relationship with al qaeda”

    Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2002… Iraq was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel, and other countries. Baghdad overtly assisted two categories of Iraqi-based terrorist organizations—Iranian dissidents devoted to toppling the Iranian Government and a variety of Palestinian groups opposed to peace with Israel. The groups include the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, the Abu Nidal organization (although Iraq reportedly killed its leader), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Arab Liberation Front (ALF). In the past year, the PLF increased its operational activity against Israel and sent its members to Iraq for training for future terrorist attacks. Baghdad provided material assistance to other Palestinian terrorist groups that are in the forefront of the intifadah. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad are the three most important groups to whom Baghdad has extended outreach and support efforts… Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage Palestinian terrorism, channeling $25,000 since March through the ALF alone to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank… The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan—where the IIS operates—is well documented. Iraq has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al-Islam as well. In addition, small numbers of highly placed al-Qaida militants were present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls…
    http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm

    6. “criticizing George Bush for his manifest failures of leadership, honesty, vision, character, and decision-making is the essence of our rights as american citizens”

    The first half of that phrase is opinion which I disagree with… but I agree with the spirit of the remainder.

    7. “the congressional resolution did not, by itself, authorize war. it authorized war if and only if the president made certain representations to congress, which he did. These, of course, turned out not to be true”

    That’s your opinion. I disagree with it. None of Bush’s representations have been discredited yet. Unless of course you can provide one.

    8. Does not deserve a response. If anyone here is out of touch with reality, it is you.

    Comment by Bill — 7/9/2004 @ 11:12 pm

29. How fucking stupid can Bill and Tim be? They are a couple of fascist cocksuckers.

    Comment by Janet — 7/10/2004 @ 4:03 am

30. Janet,

    “The true measure of a man is not what he puts into his mouth, but what comes out.”

    well, at least they have each other.
    -T

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 8:10 am

31. Some participants in this discussion could use a little enlightenment. I suggest they read the recent Supreme Court decisions that show how our dear leaders have been using the Bill of Rights to wipe their butts these last couple years. (Hey Ashcroft–can you recite the fifth amendment? You might have to plead it once you’re out of office…) Next, you can ask Chalabi how much the Iranians paid him to roll us–it’s bad enough they kept our hostages for 444 days, 25 years later they con us into deposing their neighbor and long-time enemy, Saddam… As for that “Bill” guy, my guess he’s a student at some 86th-rate college in the Midwest.

    Comment by Tenzin Gyatso — 7/10/2004 @ 9:16 am

32. bill, truly, you should be working for richard perle: the arrogant certainty while you are in total error is exactly the perle mindset.

    Specifically, your press release from the white house is not the “case for war,” it was the “backgrounder” to Bush’s argument to the UN. The case for war is the accumulated arguments that Bush, Cheney, et al made in the speeches i outlined, and that case was that Saddam was a threat to the United States right this second. The UN speech was specifically crafted for that audience and was not the case for war.

    Second, read the frickin’ resolution and don’t’ cherrypick it, bill. You left out the critical “and,” namely: “and
    (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

    Without that “and,” there is no approval for the resolution. We did not go to war to enforce UN resolutions that the UN itself did not believe needed war to enforce.

    Third, sorry, i am familiar with the Key sentence. If you read accurately what i wrote, you will discover i said that “in the context” of the Kay report and post inteviews, that sentence is clearly aimed to give the Bush administration cover. It was. It is a meaningless sentence, carefully worded to sound meaningful. This is the cherrypicking mentality at work, the selection of isolated words without the full context.

    Yes, weapons can be moved. Or, as the Senate Intel Committee now acknowledges, they didn’t exist any more. Regardless, either you or Tim (i don’t care enough to look it back up) claimed that Rumsfeld only said something about “programs.” He did not. He said we know where the weapons are. We didn’t “know.” We were fed bs by Chalabbai’s defectors in the intrests of using our power to overthorw Saddam.

    Bush’s representation - if you read the “and,” is that

    The entire discussion of Iraq and terrorism is merest piffle: a “way station.” $25K to suicide bombers in Israel. Outreach to Hamas. Terrorist camps outside of the area over which Saddam exercised control Blah fucking blah. Of course Saddam wasn’t a nice, friendly guy, and of course he associated with bad actors to some extent, but the idea that this little set of sins, almost entirely aimed not at the United States but at Israel, constitutes “harboring” terrorists or “a meaningful relationship” with Al Qaeda.

    Bush’s dishonest represtation was that the war on iraq had something to do with 9/11 - read the “and,” then read his letter.

    Sorry, Bill: future historians will find the prevalence of denial among bush-supporting war-enablers to be a matter of much interest in the history of mass delusion. Comments like yours will be grist for these future historian’s analytic mills.

    Comment by howard — 7/10/2004 @ 9:58 am

33. Just a comment about footnotes: footnotes will always appear at the bottom of the page that the text they are annotating appears. (Hence “foot’ note.) Endnotes appear at the end of the text in numerical order. Therefor if they are referring to footnotes they must have appeared on the very page they were reading. And given the protocol for footnoting described in the article, they would have been hard to avoid. That is, unless, you were deliberately trying to ignore them or didn’t understand wht they were. Both dismal prospects.

    Comment by Jethro — 7/10/2004 @ 10:50 am

34. howard,

    Bush and Cheney stated repeatedly that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. You are parroting your party line. You are lying to and misleading the public. You should be impeached, LOL.

    Perhaps Saddam should choose you as his defense attorney.

    Comment by Bill — 7/10/2004 @ 2:23 pm

35. Howard,

    If I were scoring this match I would have to give the majority of the rounds to Bill. He has never failed to adequately refute every misrepresentation you have attempted to foist on us here.

    All I can say to you is that you are entitled to your opinion, just like Bill and I. Just quit trying to state opinions as facts, it doesn’t work.

    Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 2:25 pm

36. Horay for Tim!
    He scored a win for Bill! So glad you can sit and keep score (do you have to take your shoes off after Ten?

    How’s this for a score… TENS of THOUSANDS of MURDERED (mostly) innocent people, just trying to get through another day. ZERO threatening WMD.

    Score one for callous stupidity.

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 4:02 pm

37. Bill: did you read the full war resolution? and did you read bush’s confirming letter? did that letter say anywhere: saddam hussein and iraq had nothign to do with 9/11, but we believe that the resolution entitles us to go to war because of the violation of UN resolutions, so that’s what i’m saying in this letter? i must have read a different copy.

    Tim, i am not citing opinions, other than my opinion on george bush. As for facts, yes, let’c check the scorecard, why not?

    1. Case for war: Bill cited a talking points document for the UN speech on 9/12/02 as the “case” for war. Not true. Round to Howard.

    2. Basis for war: Bill says noncompliance with UN resolutions. Not true, assuming that you think the congressional resolution and bush’s follow-on letter constitute the basis. Round to Howard.

    3. Level of WMD danger: Bill says David Kay said that Iraq was “more dangerous” than we thought. Howard notes that read in the total context of Kay’s report and interviews, that particular thought is nothing but a line of defense for Bush, in whose emply Kay was. However, Bill did cite Kay’s statement accurately, rather than cherrypicking it. Draw.

    4. WMDs that we’ve found: Bill says we found a dozen shells. Howard says who cares, we didn’t go to war in order to find a dozen old shells. However, Bill did speak the truth. Draw.

    5. What did Rumsfeld say: Howard says that Rumsfeld said “we know where the weapons of mass destruction are.” Bill says they could have been moved. Howard says or maybe they didn’t exist at all at the time that Rumsfeld claimed that did; howard also notes that not even Rumsfeld tried the “the dog hid my WMDs” defense. Round to Howard.

    6. Links to terrorism: Bill cites Hamas, $25K payments, vague statements about “way stations,” ansar al islam in the Kurdish area where Saddam wasn’t in control, and some random guys walking the streets. Howard says “blah fucking blah.” Howard also notes that the case Bush made was Al Qaeda; the case the congressional resolution supported was Al Qaeda; the finding that Bush made in the required letter was Al Qaeda. In short, while Bill is accurate about those minute links, they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Round to Howard.

    7. RElationship to 9/11: Bill says that Bush and Cheney have disavowed a relationship to 9/11. Howard says not in the context I cited it, the resolution about the war and the Bush letter. Howard also notes that Cheney went out of his way not to deny a relationship to 9/11, and Bush only finally acknowledged there was no relationship to 9/11 after the war. Round to Howard.

    I may have missed a couple of rounds (it’s a drag to keep scrolling up and down), but i score it as 5 for me, 2 draws, and none for bill.

    Of course, i’d love to see the scoresheet of a guy who thinks that we actually have found WMDs because he’s read suggestive material about chemical suits or stuff like that, Tim: bring it on….

    Comment by howard — 7/10/2004 @ 5:39 pm

38. Oh, crap, NOW you’ve done it. Tim Might have to drop his pants to get to 20 and a half!

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 6:10 pm

39. Howard, you have a wicked sense of how to keep score!

    Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 7:09 pm

40. I can see a lot of you won’t be satisfied until there’s a front page photo of our troops at the Super Wal Mart-sized WMD warehouse Saddam kept fully stocked with nice boxes marked “Latest and Greatest Model WMD - keep away from heat.” That building also has the words “Saddam’s WMD store” painted on the roof in nice bright 20′ letters. Folks, I hate to break the news to you - they were never going to be THAT easy to find!

    It is plainly a futile exercise to try and get some of you folks to at least admit that it is entirely possible Saddam moved or hid any WMD’s he had. Regardless, I and a majority of voters agree that this is beside the point. Any rational person can see by the evidence that Saddam retained his WMD program capabilities intact. Hell, he even had all the biological weapons seed stock safely stashed away in one of his scientist’s refrigerators! Oh, I bet that scientist really enjoyed being responsible for having that in his home along with his family.

    Saddam supported terrorism in many significant ways up to and including harboring wanted terrorists, running a training camp (Salman Pak), and on and on and on and on and on!!! BUT NO, you folks simply ignore the evidence. Talk about a credibility problem,,,

    Comment by Tim — 7/10/2004 @ 7:23 pm

41. Gee, Timmy, read the papers over the last few days? Senate intelligence sez your info is all bullshit! That’s right! Seems somebody forgot to include all the caveats about this source being paid by Chalabi those aluminum tubes being completely wrong for the centrifuge thing, remotely controlled aircraft being only barely suitable for recon, “Trailers of Mass destruction” info from a source (Curveball) who’d repeatedly been discredited, that analyst trying desperately to keep C.Powell from making a complete ass of our country in front of the Whole Friggin’ World because “The report was TOO FAR ALONG to change it in time!”

    What I can’t get is how I and millions of others knew they were lying…
    …oh, yeah, their MOUTHS were moving! That’s how we could tell!

    You’d better return to keeping score and leave the arguing to Bill, good buddy. You seem to keep making the mistake of entering a battle of wits completely unarmed!

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/10/2004 @ 7:35 pm

42. howard,

    I have read and re-read Bush’s letter and I present it here for everyone to see:

    March 21, 2003

    Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

    On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

    Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

    These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

    As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

    Sincerely,

    GEORGE W. BUSH

    The basis for military action is to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” AND to “lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq".

    Even if, by some remote chance, you were ahead on points, it no longer matters. You have just been KO’d.

    Regards.

    Comment by Bill — 7/10/2004 @ 8:15 pm

43. This is my first foray into this debate, and I have to say that it is astounding, that Bush supporters when confronted with the FACTS about this administrations ability to lie to achieve its objectives, still believe him to be a moral and decent human being. What has happened in the last three years is shameful and criminal, and yet there are those of you that rabidly defend him and his administration. Read the letters, and memos and the lies they contain … for God’s sake, wake up before its too late.

    Comment by Susan — 7/10/2004 @ 8:38 pm

44. Timmy and Billy are in a haze that they will not wake up from. When Bush is voted out of office, they will support investigations like Whitewater.

    Comment by Janet — 7/10/2004 @ 11:17 pm

45. Janet is an angry lesbian.

    Comment by Curly — 7/10/2004 @ 11:36 pm

46. Janet is straight, married, employed and far more intelligent than Billy, Timmy, or “Curly.” (Hi Billy)

    Comment by Janet — 7/10/2004 @ 11:41 pm

47. Janet licks pussy. Her momma’s pussy!!

    Comment by Curly — 7/11/2004 @ 12:33 am

48. She licks my asshole, you dork.

    Comment by Janet’s mom — 7/11/2004 @ 12:35 am

49. It isn’t surprising that the sexually repressed republicans are the first to attack a woman that is strong enough to call a troll a troll. Try to reel yourself in . . . remember when this thread was about: “Will Bush Really Read the Senate Report on MIA WMDs?”

    Comment by Jon Mendez — 7/11/2004 @ 1:05 am

50. Janet sucks Timmy’s cock while I pound her in the ass, and Billy jerks off watching us.

    Comment by Jon Mendez — 7/11/2004 @ 1:20 am

51. I could’ve sworn that this Blog wasn’t quite so disgusting when I went to bed. Bill, since there WAS no threat, as has been proven and since the UN resolutions cited hadn’t been played out through the inspection process and since the UN Security council hadn’t decided for military action that sort of makes the point that Bush was going to invade Iraq, regardless of the facts now doesn’t it? Our UN charter specifically declines endorsement of any military action against another nation “except in the event of self-defense". Now what was it we were defending ourselves from that couldn’t have continued to be kept at bay by a nightlight and the secure knowledge that “mommy and daddy are sleeping in the room next door"?

    Now y’all can git back to your juvenile porno.

    -T

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 2:21 am

52. Bill,
    You’re right of course. Regan’s endorsement of Hussein (through Rumsfeld) only opened up the storehouses of the vast military/industrial complex to Saddam and his petrodollars. While we cozied up to Stalinist Dictators around the world, yes many corporations provided many services to Iraq. I’m wondering how many “offshore” subsidiaries of US defense contractors there are today, doing pretty much the same thing? More than just Halliburtion, I’m willing to bet.
    -T

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 2:27 am

53. For the life of me, I cannot understand what sucking cock or getting pounded in the ass has to do with whether Bush took the U.S. to war based on totally false information. It seems that when logical arguments fail, some people can only resort to calling names and using dirty words like ten year old boys.

    The consensus of the Kay report, the 9-11 Commission and the Senate CIA investigation is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no credible evidence that Saddam tried to purchase yellow cake from Africa. There is no evidence that he had colluded in any way with Al Qaeda, that he had any involvement in the 9-11 atttacks or that the aluminium tubes he purchased were usable to centrifuge uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

    The terrorist group operating in northern Iraq was in an area which Saddam did not control, and which the Bush administration did control and could have bombed out of operation on numerous occasions except Bush didn’t want to put it out of operation since that would remove it as a justification for the claim that Saddam was allowing Al Qaed-related terrorist groups to operate in Iraq. As to whether an Al Qaeda-related terrorist obtained medical treatment in Baghdad, Al Qaeda operatives were living in California and Florida and may have also obtained medical treatment in those locations.. Does that mean that the U.S. government was intentionally “harboring” those terrorists?

    The invasion of Iraq was a colossal fraud perpetrated on the American people and the entire world community. We have devastated the lives of 25 million Iraqis, as well as the families of the more than 1000 U.S. and British soldiers who died for those lies. Over 16,000 such soldiers were also severely injured, and will require medical treatment at a time when Bush is reducing their medical benefits and .closing their hospitals.

    As for going to war because Saddam violated UN resolutions, the resolutions were the UN’s, and the UN refused to sanction an invasion of Iraq before the weapons inspectors had completed their investigation and actually found some weapons of mass destruction. (It should also be noted that our ally, Israel, has
    likewise violated dozens of UN resolutions, yet Bush. has not yet seen fit to invade Israel.)

    There was no rational reason that the U.S. could not have given the inspectors a few more weeks to complete their inspections. The only explanation for invading before those inspections were completed was that if the inspectors had found no wmd, then Bush would not have had any excuse to invade, and the weapons of mass destruction were simply an excuse. Former treasury secretary O’Neill reported that Bush stated at his first cabinet meeting that he wanted to be shown a way to take out Saddam.

    Wolfowitz confirmed in his Vanity Fair interview that the putative weapons of mass destruction excuse was simply the one that all the parties could agree on. Wolfowtiz admitted there that taking out Saddam because of his human rights violation was not a sufficient reason to invade. Taking control of Iraq was part and parcel of the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. Project for a New American Century’s plan for U.S. world domination, drafts of which were written as early as 1992. We wanted control over their oil and control over the 14 military bases we wanted to build there, preparatory to taking control of Iran and Syria.

    The invasion of Iraq was a fraud, the occupation of Iraq has been a continuing disaster, a monument to Bush/ Rumsfeld/ Brenner arrogance and rejection of the advice of military generals and state department experts who actually had some prior experience in making war and dealing with its aftermath.. Bush and the neo-conservatives who created this debacle had no experience with war, knew nothing about the culture of the Middle East and Iraq, and had no interest in learning from those who did.

    We need to bring out troops out of Iraq immediately, give the twenty billion in reconstruction funds to the Iraqis, not Halliburton, and let them get on with re-building the country that we so arrogantly destroyed.
    We also need to get Bush and his neo-conservative friends out of power before they create still more havoc
    on our planet, it’s the only one we have.

    Comment by Justina — 7/11/2004 @ 4:34 am

54. Beautiful, just beautiful, Justina thanks.

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 5:56 am

55. Justina,

    You are making a number of broad generalizations and quite a few statements that are factually incorrect. I don’t even know where to begin, plus I’m short on time. Go back on this and other threads and read every comment posted by Bill and I for a refresher on the facts.

    Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it’s not convincing.

    Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 8:59 am

56. He’s right Justina, getting pounded in the ass is EXACTLY what’s happening to us and the rest of the planet under the Bush Regime!

    There’s no need to go back and re-read the Tim and Bill dreck. Just about every thing they’ve spoken of has been proven false by the Conclusions of the Select Committee on Intel., of course I’ve only read the conclusions, so far, but I’m about 20 pages into the full report. The conclusions are enough to determine that they should have known better, (they probably did, judging by their headlong careening dash to invasion before the truth was discovered) only saw what they wanted to and even changed the words from “might” and “possible” to “there is no question” and “we know where they are".

    -Bye, bye!

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 9:22 am

57. Janet,

    The level of discourse you bring to this discussion thread is in the gutter. So typical of folks like you. You will not or simply cannot discuss issues in a rational manner so you try to provoke those of us who do. The kind of stuff you throw out meets the definition of “trolling” (look it up.)

    Why don’t you just lay off the potty-mouth diatribe? It’s unbecoming of a woman and demeans you personally every time you engage in it. Calling people names is not the mark of a mature person, but then again I don’t know what your maturity level is.

    If you just can’t control yourself, go ahead and rave on, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 9:27 am

58. Timmy,
    Janet didn’t start that crap. She was disposing of it. Why don’t we stick to the most recent thread. I’m getting dizzy!
    -T

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 10:10 am

59. Getting back to the original subject of this thread, which I believe was “Will George Bush actually read the Senate Intelligence report?” I would have to say “probably not.” But I would bet you a donut that Karl Rove and his political hacks will read every word, looking for ways to spin it to their advantage.

    By the way, this ongoing discussion is really quite amusing, puntuated every so often with a pro-Bush rant filled with vulgarity and mis-spelled words. Keep it coming, folks!

    Comment by frsbdg — 7/11/2004 @ 10:29 am

60. Justina, thank you for posting. Timmy has a habit of telling people what they should do for example: “Go back on this and other threads and read every comment posted by Bill and I for a refresher on the facts.” That would be very funny, if they weren’t serious. T.Hajji, I really enjoy your sense of humor and sincerely appreciate your ability to interject some subtle levity towards the trolls. While I’m sure it is lost on them, the rest of us enjoy it.

    I wonder if Billy or Timmy have read David’s book. I suspect that they have not read it any more than Bush will read the senate report.

    Comment by Janet — 7/11/2004 @ 11:22 am

61. Justina,

    New look at Bush’s `16 words’
    By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 11, 2004

    LAST YEAR at this time, the media were in full scandal mode over 16 words that President Bush had spoken nearly six months earlier. “The British government has learned,” Bush had said in his State of the Union address in January, “that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    A furor erupted over that statement when a CIA consultant and ex-diplomat named Joseph Wilson, who had gone to Niger in 2002 to look into the matter, publicly claimed that the charge wasn’t true. The White House agreed that the line shouldn’t have been in Bush’s speech, but far from quelling the uproar, that admission only intensified it.

    Within days, Howard Dean was making comparisons to Watergate, a group of left-leaning former intelligence officers were calling for the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney (who had taken a close interest in the uranium evidence), and the Bush-is-a-liar shrieking reached fever pitch. The Democratic National Committee cut an ad accusing Bush of deliberately lying to the American people. And the press embarked on a classic feeding frenzy, turning loose a tidal wave of coverage on what had been, by any sober estimate, only a very small piece of the administration’s case against Saddam.

    Upshot: Bush’s credibility took a blow, support for the war in Iraq was undermined, and the idea that Saddam’s regime had tried to acquire refined uranium in Africa for use in nuclear weapons was dismissed as false.

    But what if it was true?

    Late last month, the Financial Times reported that, according to European intelligence agencies, Iraq was one of five countries negotiating with smugglers in Niger for the illegal purchase of uranium yellowcake. “These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier . . . that Iraq sought to buy uranium from an African country,” the Financial Times reported in a front-page story on June 27. For some reason, though, the US media showed virtually no interest in that revelation. (One exception: columnist William Safire in The New York Times.)

    A few days ago, the Financial Times was back with more news: An independent British commission investigating the government’s use of intelligence during the runup to the war in Iraq, the paper reported on Wednesday, “is expected to conclude that Britain’s spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein’s regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.”

    But this, too, has been largely ignored by the American press. Curious, no? Journalists couldn’t get enough of this topic when the story line was that Bush and the British had lied. Shouldn’t they find it just as riveting when facts point in the other direction?

    Here’s another fact, this one from a recent book by a one-time US ambassador: In 1999, Saddam’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf approached an official of Niger to talk about expanding trade, an approach the official interpreted as a possible attempt to buy uranium. The author of the book? None other than Joseph Wilson – the man who accused the Bush administration last year of making up an Iraqi interest in uranium from Africa. Now, it seems, he comes close to confirming that interest. Yet except for a single story in The Washington Post, the media have had virtually nothing to say about Wilson’s new account. To be sure, none of this proves that Saddam’s agents sought uranium for use in nuclear weapons. What it proves is that reasonable people had good reason to believe that that’s what Saddam’s agents were doing. Just as reasonable people had good reason to believe that Iraq was armed with biological or chemical weapons. Remember: That was the deeply held consensus of the US intelligence community. It was affirmed by Republicans and Democrats, by Americans and Europeans, by the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, and by a unanimous UN Security Council.

    Only in the wake of Iraq’s liberation has it become fashionable to assert not just that there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but that only a liar would have said there were. And only now have the media, in their eagerness to discredit Bush, been reluctant to cover stories that prove otherwise.

    Intelligence failures are not the same thing as lies. And intelligence failures about Iraqi WMD did not begin with the Bush administration. It is worth recalling that the CIA was way off the mark in its estimates of Saddam’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs before the first Iraq war, too. It turned out then that Saddam was a much more dangerous WMD menace than the experts had realized. This time around, the experts may have overestimated the threat.

    But if intelligence mistakes are inevitable, is it better to worry too much about potential threats or to worry too little? Worrying too much – if that’s what happened – resulted in the toppling of one of the planet’s most murderous tyrants. Worrying too little resulted in 9/11.

    Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 12:26 pm

62. “Janet didn’t start that crap”

    See post #29 above. Get your facts straight Hajji before attempting to correct someone else!

    Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 12:35 pm

63. You folks should be really upset with the UN. After all, as recently as 2002, the UN said this: “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security…”

    Kind of destroys your theory that George Bush lied, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 1:00 pm

64. Tim,
    You’re RIGHT (for once) Janet DID call you a “Facist Cocksucker"!
    How long have you twp known each other? Sounds like a personal squabble to me! Maybe I can refer you to a good relationsnip couselor.

    Comment by T.Hajji — 7/11/2004 @ 1:32 pm

65. T.Hajji,

    Thanks for the laugh! You do have a good sense of humor! I’m not sure if I’m ready for counseling, though. I didn’t want it to become personal, but it’s kinda hard to avoid a fight when you’ve got an angry female calling you names like that (and others in a different thread.)

    Anyway, I do like the give and take here. It’s starting to feel like an old comfortable pair of sneakers. What we are engaged in is actually very important to the health of our country. I have learned quite a bit from listening to viewpoints different from my own. Keep on truckin’ as they say!

    Comment by Tim — 7/11/2004 @ 2:28 pm

66. Bill, since you have now read and re-read Bush’s letter, and since you capitalize the word “AND,” you seem like you may understand how a compound works. It wan’t an “or,” it was an “AND.” The idea that there was any chance that the Iraq Resolution would have passed entirely on the basis of enforcing UN resolutions is simple denial. At this stage, even the likes of Sen. Roberts are acknowledging this.

    Now, as a Bush supporter, you appear to be gripped with the notion that “nuance” is a bad word. It isn’t, of course. It is entirely possible to understand that Saddam was a bad actor, one of the leading potential sources of global trouble, and a man with a desire to have WMDs and still not believe that that justified this war.

    It is entirely possible to believe, despite your conspiratorial tone about Joe Wilson, that Saddam had shown an interest in acquiring uranium at some point in the past without it being the same as a currently valid concern.

    It is entirely possible that we could have intel mistakes and, in addition, have the bush administration hype up the case for war, exaggerate the mistaken intelligence, leave out the caveats, and say untrue things.

    It’s a very handy too, nuance; i commend it to you.

    Comment by howard — 7/11/2004 @ 6:10 pm

67. New poster here. Won’t get into the various claims to truth etc. Just note that the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence committee agreed on Iraq/Al Queda - NO Collaborative Link, and Kay report and Senate commitee agreed on WMD - “There never were any". Note also, that Kay recently said Tony Blair must be “delusional” to suggest the weapons might still be found. Just wanted to remind people in regards to enforcing the UN Resolution, Bush had promised to go back to the security council for a vote before invading - even if he did not say he would abide by it. On 3/17/03 (I think) he said (paraphrasing) “It is time to lay the cards on the table". As it became obvious to him, that we would not get the 9 votes necessary and may suffer several vetos, he abandoned the vote and went ahead and invaded.

    Michael

    Comment by Michael — 7/11/2004 @ 6:51 pm

68. howard,

    I’m glad to see that you are recovering from your knock out. Your short term memory is still having some problems however. Maybe you should have spent the night in the hospital like they told you to.

    Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 7:57 pm

69. Dick Clarke claims that by 2007 we could see a nuclear-armed, virulently pro-Islam government in Pakistan with a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan next door. Sadly the US has screwed up by going into Iraq. Ironically, it is conceivable that pro-Saddam elements could be reasserting themselves and that he could still have the last laugh. Irony on irony. The main game is in Pakistan and in lesser degree Afghanistan. Iraq is a diversion, a sideshow in the ‘war on terror’.
    Those of us who marched against the war - in my case in Sydney, Australia where I live - take no pleasure from watching events unfold predictably. They have a long way to go yet. The neocon agenda is r/s and the world has to be shown that the USA is prepared to change course in foreign policy and to rebuild alliances. Let’s hope that the damage done is not too great.
    Clarke was right when he said he could envisage bin Laden sitting in his cave willing GWB to ‘invade Iraq, invade Iraq’.
    jb

    Comment by john b — 7/11/2004 @ 8:20 pm

70. Ah, Bill, i knew that, in the end, you’d end up proving yourself to be a classy guy, and i was right!

    You still don’t understand a compound sentence after all, do you?

    Comment by howard — 7/11/2004 @ 9:02 pm

71. I’ll give it a try, old stick.

    We, the people, authorize the President to use force in order to protect the security of the nation AND to force compliance with UN resolutions.

    Just like I said 2 days ago… Am I right, professor?

    Comment by Bill — 7/11/2004 @ 11:01 pm

72. The Prez, the VP, and about 90% of all those who surround and advise the prez are all in the oil business. Iraq sits on the second largest pool of oil on earth. The Iraqi invasion has been called many names and the reason(s) for it have changed as each reason has been exposed as untrue. This administration has had Iraq invasion scenarios in place before they were even sworn in after their appointment to office.

    Most of the world marched in unison against this war. That didn’t matter.
    The oilmen simply wanted the oil, and they wanted it now.

    All else is subtext. As voters in a democracy who may wish to stay a democracy, I advise everyone to get out the vote, vote and remove these dangerous, short-sighted liars.

    Comment by Rowland Scherman — 7/11/2004 @ 11:34 pm

73. Rowland good buddy,
    You are relying on phony evidence that really isn’t evidence at all. Just do a little reasearch folks! I can only spend so much time trying to teach and help you see the FACTS. Clearly, you and most of the others here are confused.

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 12:03 am

74. If the oil men wanted oil they would have just bought it from Saddam.

    Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 12:35 am

75. Once again, Bill has summed it up beautifully.

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 12:43 am

76. Posts #73 and75 are not mine. Would whoever is using my name put their initial with it so everyone knows who is posting?

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 6:34 am

77. Michael,

    ” …Bush had promised to go back to the security council for a vote before invading - even if he did not say he would abide by it. On 3/17/03 (I think) he said (paraphrasing) “It is time to lay the cards on the table". As it became obvious to him, that we would not get the 9 votes necessary and may suffer several vetos, he abandoned the vote and went ahead and invaded.”

    I refer you to the inches thick ledger we found in Baghdad after liberating it that shows that Saddam was paying off officials in France and other countries as well as doing business with European nations in direct violation of the U.N. resolutions they themselves helped pass. This is on top of the oil-for-food scandal perpetrated by Saddam with complicity from top officials at the U.N.

    Now do you understand why we never could have gotten France and Germany to cease their obstruction at the U.N.?

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 8:35 am

78. You are all being fooled! WMD or not, there was no justification for war. the WMD question is just a distraction from larger issues at this point. Think about it. Merely planning an offensive war is illegal under international laws created by the US in the first place. WMD or no WMD, there was no immediate threat to the US, and if there had been it would have been our fault for making everyone feel the need to defend themselves against this aggressive administration.
    Don’t be fooled and distracted by the ignorant promotion-hungry media dimwits who miss the point every time!!

    Comment by JP — 7/12/2004 @ 8:35 am

79. It’s about Israel stupid! (illiterate americans - present readers excluded)
    Wake up reporters!!! Not oil, not threats to America – ISRAEL -the worlds premier rogue state (next to us of course) Giving good Jews everywhere a bad name, and manipulating US policy to effective use our soldiers and money to fight their (unwarranted) battles.

    Comment by JP — 7/12/2004 @ 8:39 am

80. I’m sorry - I’m a different Tim, I am using my own name - not yours . . . it just happens to be the same as yours. So, get over it. You are not the only Tim on earth. I meant to mention that upfront and was not trying to mislead anyone. Again, I apologize for using my name.

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 11:09 am

81. Tim, I’m O.K. with you using your name it’s just that we all have to use unique identifiers of some sort to keep it straight!

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 11:15 am

82. JP

    “…ISRAEL -the worlds premier rogue state (next to us of course)” Last time I checked, Israel is the only democracy in that part of the world. Israeli Arabs, while not enjoying every benefit reserved for those of the Jewish faith, nevertheless enjoy the fruits of a freely elected government that follows the rule of law.

    Now you don’t begrudge Israel the right of self-defense do you? What is your true agenda by making such comments? Actually, you give yourself away by calling the United State of America a rogue state. Not only that, but the head of all rogue states. What a disgusting display of contempt for your country. You should hang your head in shame.

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 11:22 am

83. JP

    Just wondering. Have you spent any time in Israel? Do you know anyone who has lost a loved one to the terrorist murderers?

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 11:25 am

84. First, let me commend most of you on a fascinating, knowledge-based disscussion. I especially enjoyed reading Howard, T. Hajji, Tim, Janet, Justina, Bill and Michael. It makes one feel alot better reading intelligent commentary in this day and age of utter ignorance and four-letter words. One would expect this kind of excellence on David Corn’s website. Let me compliment him most particularly for his thought-provoking pieces. He reports only facts that only he can dig up and abides by the rules of good journalism and still gets to the bottom of the story. BUT, and I ‘ve seen this crap on his website before as I’m sure we all have, there are a few rabid, venom-spewing, ignorant to the core posters that pop up with hate-soaked, violent rhetoric. I refer to #13 posted by Mike. This guy is goddamn dangerous and obviously, like so many other unfortunate souls, cannot react to meaningful discourse without extreme threats. Patrick S. in # 21 was quite accurate in his reaction that we do indeed have homegrown terrorists who threaten murder and really mean it; they call themselves American Supremacists. We have among our midst these mentalities and we wonder how Abu Graeib and Guantanamo happens? Heck, we practice this kind of torture in our own backyyard–U. S. prisons–and we export it to others in foreign countries by training them in similar horrible methods of detainment. Do they strike fear in you? They do in me! As for the original 60 page report that neither Bush nor Rice read: Does Rice do anything in her job? Bush not reading anything is par for the course. Carey

    Comment by Carey Self Hickman — 7/12/2004 @ 1:20 pm

85. I can not understand it, it amazes me the Comedy of what you have become. I am a very respectful person, my Historical Figures heros have been very Conservative as well Liberals from Wagner, Smith to Mr. King. But to obserb american Become a BANANA republic, Hy Wake up, do not kid yourselves, the Whole World is Laughing, and you can not do anything about it. Your ONLY maxim is “We are the Most Powerful Military” nation and that is it!. Close the great University from Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc, bacause your Leader DO NOT READ! you know the WORLD feel PETY FOR YOU! most of you do not know the diference between Colombia (The Country) and Columbia (South Carolina) and you THINK that you can bring Democracy to others! All of you were decieved, lie to and run over. please think by yourselves! Anyone that does not agree with the political right is Commi or Liberal or Unpatriotic or ? . Please. Europe has 3.000 years of history and you only 200+. So look at the mirror a see what you see!. The graduating Class for the past 4 years should apologize to the administration because they DO read? what a joke! Besides France, Germany, Russia, and China, and the Rest of the World were Right and you were Wrong! You are so one minded that Most of you believe that Israel is the Only democracy in the Middle East, hey you morons what about Lebanon! it has always been!. What about the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has not honored. The comment by tim is the tipical response. You have Roman Cesar in the Vice-presidency, and the second comming of Crist is your Attorney General! you have become what is call is spanish (una Pleberia). Please do not get wrong, but that is what the think of you!

    I do not mean to offend anyone. But please Wake UP.

    Comment by Napoleon — 7/12/2004 @ 8:35 pm

86. Some would say that this is what democracy is all about. I’ve never participated in this type of forum before, but let me say I found it (for the most part) enlightening. Bill and Howard are to be commended for their serious research into the FACTS (as Bill likes to call them – even if he appears mostly ignorant of same). Justina had it exactly right in her comments (see #53, paragraph 7). This doctrine of preemptive war was conceived under the Reagan administration and set forth in documents under Bush the Elder in 1992 by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle et al. That they were forced to retract the documents (oh the embarassment!!) does nothing to lessen their impact. This has long been the goal of the neocons in and out of this administration for many years. But the illegal, immoral preemptive attack on Iraq cannot be viewed in isolation. It goes hand-in-hand with the neocons domestic agenda (see Patriot Act) to provide the necessary environment for their corporate masters, be they in the oil, military or pharmaceutical industries. Europe knows a thing or two about war. France, Germany, Russia and most of the rest of the world understand the agenda of the neocon led U.S. better than most. Modern American capitalism continues to run amok. To paraphrase Janice Joplin: Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose, nothing, that’s all that Bush has left me. True democracy cannot continue to exist in a country where only 25% of eligible voters elect their representatives. Discourse is fine if all are privy to it. Do you think Clear Channel communications would ever reprint these comments? How about Fox News? People can’t know what they never learn about. And yes, they should learn that Bush was at least AWOL (defined as being missing for up to 40 days) if not a deserter (missing for more than 40 days) when he “served” in the Texas and Alabama National Guard. So people, keep up the good work. Spread the news. Debate it. Respect those with differing opinions. Show civility towards your fellow citizen. That is some of the essence of democracy. Oh hell, I forgot to mention all those right-wing Christian evangelicals! Useless fools . . . just like all other religious zealots from all faiths. They will lead us all to hell. Peace out and fight the powers that be.

    Comment by Alan — 7/12/2004 @ 8:36 pm

87. RE my comments above. I meant to say Tim (the first Tim) was the ignorant fool who liked to capitalize FACTS, not Bill. While Bill is not ignorant, he may in FACT be delusional. Nonetheless, he is a worthy advesary in the battle of ideas.

    Comment by Alan — 7/12/2004 @ 8:41 pm

88. Alan,

    I have to point out that your lack of maturity is showing by calling people names. BTW, I capitalize for emphasis. You have a problem with that? Get a grip.

    Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 8:58 pm

89. Will Bush read his own doctrines & pay attention to the Axis of Evil, is he going to quit the Iraqi Distraction & finally pay attention to the real threats? NIE has got to be saying stuff he does not want to hear, like “go back to Afghanistan”

    Comment by Armida — 7/12/2004 @ 10:09 pm

90. Anyone who is scared of terrorists, at least in terms of American national security and policy, is a coward. Terror is a weapon that is useful only on people who allow fear to be a primary influence on their thoughts and actions. I for one am not afraid. Al Quaeda spent many years and millions of dollars developing a plan and training twenty hijackers for a mission that ultimately was only partially successful. Sure, the World Trade Center was destroyed. But the Pentagon still functions as it should and the fourth plane never even reached its destination, which in all likelyhood was the most symbolic target of all, either the Capitol or the White House. 9/11 was obviously a devestating attack the likes of which this country has never experienced, but there has been no follow up, no actual threat to our sovereignty. If this is the best they can do, then al Quaeda is a pathetic, desparate organization. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be pursuing al Quaeda with the goal of its complete and utter destruction. Just as I have no fear of the violent gang members that terrorize some neighborhoods in my city, I completly support the efforts of law enforcement to disrupt and destroy these criminal organizations. Al Quaeda is not simply a criminal organization and must be dealt with by harsher means. And these harsher means have not been forthcoming. Al Quaeda should not exist any longer and Osama bin Laden should be dead. This man and his followers are the only direct military threat facing our nation today. No nation state would ever dare attempt an attack on us because we would crush their military and overthrow their regime with little difficulty. No other terrorist network that I know of has openly declared war on our country and sent us the videotape, bombed two of our embassies, and blown a hole in one of our warships. Whatever possible future threat Iraq posed to the United States, and I am open to that possibility, it was in no way close to the direct and imminent threat posed (past and present tense) by al Quaeda. So why didn’t the whole of our military, intelligence, and diplomatic community focus all of the resources they could on destroying the only avowed enemy of our country who has shown a willingness and ability to attack us on our own soil in over half a century? I don’t really want to know the answer, I’m not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I’m sure it is depressing. What matters is our president did not make this his course of action. He chose to focus the vast (but finite) resources of our power on a country that did not threaten us in word, capability, or deed.

    Comment by D Wesche — 7/13/2004 @ 1:59 am

91. A number of posts here continue to claim that “a number of European intelligence services have confirmed Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger.”

    However, in fact those claims were the result of ONE claim, submitted to Italian and British intelligence by a source which has proven to be erroneous on a number of fronts:

    1- One of the mines from which the uranium was supposed to be sourced was flooded. Another was under the control of the French who had very strict controls over sales of such products.
    2- One of the signatures on documents purporting to show Nigerian support for the sale was of a government official who had not been in that post for several years prior to the date of the document.
    3- The source of the documents themselves was also proven to be one with dubious veracity.

    The CIA had already called this story into question….Doug Feith and the shadow intelligence group set up by Rumsfeld/Cheney et al to cobble together intelligence facts that supported their desire to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not the information was valid….pressed and pressed and pressed this story as a major element of the Bush drive to win support by mentioning it in his State of the Union speech…even though the CIA tried repeatedly to tell the White House the story was bogus.

    Feith et al also pushed stories that Saddam had mobile truck labs for production of chemical and biological weapons….stories presented to the US by defectors supplied by Ahmed Chalabi. Today, Chalabi’s reputation as a source of valid intelligence is in tatters and it is widely agreed that virtually all of the “facts” presented by his group of Iraqi exile “experts” were useless junk delivered by Chalabi as part of his efforts to get the US to invade and ultimately earn him a spot as the returning “hero” of Iraqi independence from Saddam.

    Comment by Dweb — 7/13/2004 @ 3:20 am

92. Hey Tim . . . it matters not that you choose to “emphasis” that which does not hold up to scrutiny. Why don’t you respond to the substance? Of course the FACTS are as Justina so aptly stated in post #53, paragraph 7. The preemptive war doctrine has long been the object of the neocons now occupying civilian positions in the Pentagon (i.e., Wolfy, Feith, etc) and in influential “non-government” positions (e.g., Perle). Get a grip.

    Comment by Alan — 7/13/2004 @ 6:48 am

93. I’ll just say “dittos” to Bill in his post #61 with respect to answering Justina’s post. She wasn’t long on facts in my opinion so I chose not to bother.

    Post 9/11 I have come to subscroibe to the pre-emptive doctrine so I don’t have a problem with those that promote it. Therefor I have nothing to argue - it is what it is.

    Comment by Tim — 7/13/2004 @ 7:19 am

94. Well that’s that. Hard to convince anyone who subscribes to a doctrine that flies in the face of international law. Ooops. I forgot. Somehow the USA has been annointed as the “chosen people” so I guess we can do whatever we want to anyone we want anywhere in the world in order to convert them heathens to Christianity. If there was a hell, you Tim would surely have a reserved spot.

    Comment by Alan — 7/13/2004 @ 8:07 am

95. Mike,

    Your scathing attack on (whomever) is very disturbing. It is really no surprise, since your uneducated sentence structure and spelling says it all, that you are so hateful. It’s painfully obvious that you are unstable, which makes you as a Bush supporter, even more frightening. Up the dosage on your Lithium man…

    Tom - Atlanta GA

    Comment by Tom — 7/13/2004 @ 10:09 am

96. Mike,

    And another thing… that’s ‘Fore Fathers’ - idiot…

    Comment by Tom — 7/13/2004 @ 10:10 am

97. Hey Gang,

    Has anyone thought it completely odd that we are looking for a 6′ - 6″ Saudi known as Bin with 13,000 soldiers, but we can’t find WMD (hint: it’s bigger than a breadbox) in Iraq with 135,000 soldiers? Did it strike anyone in the Bush administration as queer? How odd? I mean if you had definitive proof that they exsisted… why was it easier to find a tryant in a spiderhole, but no VX? Hmmm, I guess I should just follow like the rest of the lemmings voting for Shrub in November…

    Tom - Atlanta Ga

    Comment by Tom — 7/13/2004 @ 10:17 am

98. Does anyone find it scary that this administration deflects blame for literally everything bad that has happened the past 3 and half years? Now, it’s not even the President’s fault if we go to war under false pretenses. 1,000 American troops are dead, 10,000 Iraqi civilians have perished, and countless more are wounded and maimed. Just yesterday, 2 Nebraska National Guardsmen became the 1st to die overseas since WWII. I suppose the days when people (i.e. our “President") joined the National Guard to avoid fighting overseas are long gone. Between conservatives trying to legalize discrimination against gays, the rollback of Clinton-era environmental policy, and OBL still on the run/resurgence of the Taliban, I wonder how anyone thinks we’re heading in the right direction.

    Comment by Kevin — 7/13/2004 @ 11:02 am

99. The Bush administration’s lies are outrageous. I’m very concerned that we’ve somehow lost control of all of our politicians. They’ve become very good at manipulating the facts. And as we can see, the people most susceptible to this manipulation are well… um.. well here’s an example: there are people who say they’re “American” and all patriotic and shit. Then they tell other people to get out of America for expressing their opinions. Which is of course ridiculous because we all know that america is supposed to be very supportive of people’s right to express their views. .. morons… So given their demonstrated skill at manipulating illogical morons, i’m very concerned for the future of this country….

    Comment by Andy — 7/14/2004 @ 10:19 am

100. Whew… I thought we had lost this blog as a place to meet and discuss our ideas, etc. To all of you who just can’t seem to control yourself and just have to call other people names or use profanity, PLEASE go somewhere else.

     Comment by Tim — 7/14/2004 @ 7:39 pm

101. This would-be president Bush has no clothes on! When will enough Americans see this embarassing reality and throw these bums out of power, from the power they do not deserve to have in the first place?

     Comment by Ron Krtenbach — 7/14/2004 @ 11:00 pm

102. D Wesche,

     The UN described Iraq as a threat in numerous resolutions. It was not a figment of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld’s imagination.

     Comment by Bill — 7/15/2004 @ 1:03 am

103. Dweb,

     The recent Senate intel report describes the Iraq/Niger/uranium connection as “credible".

     Comment by Bill — 7/15/2004 @ 1:06 am

104. Bill,

     I never said the threat from Iraq was a figment of anyone’s imagination. In fact I said I was open to the possibility that military action would be necessary at some point. The UN has identified many threats across the world and we don’t, nor should we, act on what the UN deems to be a threat. My point one of priorities. Our first priority, the one we should pursue to its fullest before we turned our attention to other endevours, should be the destruction of al Quaeda and the death of bin Laden

     Comment by D Wesche — 7/15/2004 @ 5:56 pm

105. Bill,

     Sorry, I did say that Iraq didn’t threaten us in word, capability, or deed. The UN never said Iraq was a threat to us in particular, which is the only thing that should matter when it comes to using our military. I think its a bit silly for conservatives to assail the UN on one hand and use them for legitimacy on the other.

     Comment by D Wesche — 7/15/2004 @ 6:00 pm

106. “I hear no real sounds or truths or reasons, only noise or trash or excuses". If you know who said that you did NOT learn any of the lessons that came after. It does not matter what professionally written, proofread, calculated and practiced speech Bush & Company uses or reuses. The simple and undeniable truth is: BUSH & Company LIED AND KNEW IT WAS A LIE, period. The nitpicking word games dilute the real affect of his lies: people have died, freedom is ignored and nothing will stop this tirade of gloom and fear. We live in perilous times and only hope to survive it. Get off your high horses and face the reality, our only solace is the law says Bush must vacate the peoples’ house by 01/20/09. That is enough to tide me over. I can wait him out, he is mortal and I am ready to tough it till then. CIAO, EvW.

     Comment by Eugen VonWestphalian — 7/16/2004 @ 9:05 am

107. “The simple and undeniable truth is: BUSH & Company LIED AND KNEW IT WAS A LIE, period.”

     O.K., prove it. The truth is you can’t. Even if I accept the possibility that your statements could be tru (and I don’t) it will take some time to eventually determine this. So again I say PROVE IT! Gather up your forces and get the President impeached. Go ahead I’m waiting… (good thing I’m not holding my breath)

     Comment by Tim — 7/16/2004 @ 7:46 pm

108. To Tim,

     None of us may be able to prove that Bush or members of his administration lied at this point in time since we don’t have top secrect clearance, but the evidence against them is fairly compelling. Also, Tim, on a site dominated by liberals you should take care not to expose your sexist sentiments so as to maintain some sense of intellectual legitimacy.

     Comment by D Wesche — 7/17/2004 @ 1:52 am

109. Comment # 5 devulges the Saddam strategies that most likely are correct. Unfortunately, the same sort of strategies have been used by Bush in relation to terror groups. When people vested with the determinations of multi trillion dollar industries and millions of lives, properties, and such, there must be ethics, and firm adherrence to values, principles, and basic common sense. My gift of channeling has told me that Bush put money into the AlQueda network in Sept of 2001. The problematic nature of the long term foreign policy error- has created a monster. But the beast is easy to catch in his act. Those who want to make money
     that bad by murdering, bombing, and destroying the infrastructure that defines a modern life- in order to justify their inadequate strategies for dealing with dictators who cause trouble- should look first to what trouble Bush is causing making the same sort of deals with terrorists as what Saddam is alleged as having made.
     That is what people don’t want to see. But they have to see- to protect life and liberty in the true sense of the mindset required for the digital age ahead.

     Comment by Windy Moore — 7/19/2004 @ 8:37 pm

110. It is very disturbing to think the president did not read even a one-page summary; even if he did, it is more so unsettling his advisors left-out dissenting opinions and or Intel. Therein the question is why? Personally it is difficult to believe he did not know.

     During the build-up to war, several different sources refuted the claims made by the administration: former FBI or CIA agents testified in a senate hearing televised on C-SPAN claiming Saddam was not a threat, many articles disavowed the administrations claims, generals and military personnel gave numerous interviews on TV, so on and so forth.

     What i do not understand, why the “free-pass” for bush? Will he get off the hook again by arguing he was never told?

     Yes the press was complacent on the most part, but there were other voices that weren’t. Did everyone forget about the millions that marched world-wide in protest? Unless bush is so completely shut off – in a bubble – that he did not know … except for his comment, when asked about his thoughts on the millions taking to the street in protest, he remarked with something to the effect – it was good they could voice their opinions. Again that raises another question … wasn’t he curious enough to ask why millions were opposed to the war?

     It would be impossible for him not to have heard dissenting views. So again i reiterate, i cannot imagine how he would not//could not have been privy to the info.

     It escapes me!

     Comment by serena — 7/21/2004 @ 4:57 pm

Comment on this post are now closed