0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 05:55 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Let's also ignore that Iraq had no way to deliver nails to our driveway.


Sure they did.

You talking a way to deliver WMDs to America? What was that?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 05:58 pm
snood wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Let's also ignore that Iraq had no way to deliver nails to our driveway.


Sure they did.

You talking a way to deliver WMDs to America? What was that?


In okie's example, 9/11 was a nail, snood. No, I wasn't specifically referring to WMDs,
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 06:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Tico, Can you follow this article?


Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11
Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital

By William Hamilton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01

Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.[/color]

The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Cheney is described as "steamrolling force" who had developed what some colleagues felt was a "fever" about removing the Iraqi leader by force. (Mark Humphrey -- AP)


In 3 1/2 hours of interviews with Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, Bush said that the secret planning was necessary to avoid "enormous international angst and domestic speculation" and that "war is my absolute last option."

Adding to the momentum, Woodward writes, was the pressure from advocates of war inside the administration. Vice President Cheney, whom Woodward describes as a "powerful, steamrolling force," led that group and had developed what some of his colleagues felt was a "fever" about removing Hussein by force.

By early January 2003, Bush had made up his mind to take military action against Iraq, according to the book. But Bush was so concerned that the government of his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, might fall because of his support for Bush that he delayed the war's start until March 19 here (March 20 in Iraq) because Blair asked him to seek a second resolution from the United Nations. Bush later gave Blair the option of withholding British troops from combat, which Blair rejected. "I said I'm with you. I mean it," Blair replied.

Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.

Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. The vice president, for his part, believed Powell was mainly concerned with his own popularity and told friends at a dinner he hosted a year ago celebrating the outcome of the war that Powell was a problem and "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do."

Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "you're going to be owning this place." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called "the Pottery Barn rule" on Iraq: "You break it, you own it," according to Woodward.

But, when asked personally by the president, Powell agreed to make the U.S. case against Hussein at the United Nations in February 2003, a presentation described by White House communications director Dan Bartlett as "the Powell buy-in." Bush wanted someone with Powell's credibility to present the evidence that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, a case the president had initially found less than convincing when presented to him by CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin at a White House meeting on Dec. 21, 2002.

McLaughlin's version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence. "Nice try," Bush said when the CIA official was finished, according to the book. "I don't think this quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin's boss, and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we've got?"

"It's a slam-dunk case," Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air. Bush pressed him again. "George, how confident are you?"

"Don't worry, it's a slam dunk," Tenet repeated.

Tenet later told associates he should have said the evidence on weapons was not ironclad, according to Woodward. After the CIA director made a rare public speech in February defending the CIA's handling of intelligence about Iraq, Bush called him to say he had done "a great job."

In his previous book, "Bush at War," Woodward described the administration's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: its decision to attack the Taliban government in Afghanistan and its increasing focus on Iraq. His new book is a narrative history of how Bush and his administration launched the war on Iraq. It is based on interviews with more than 75 people, including Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

On Nov. 21, 2001, 72 days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq. "Let's get started on this," Bush recalled saying. "And get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to." He also asked: Could this be done on a basis that would not be terribly noticeable?

Bush received his first detailed briefing on Iraq war plans five weeks later, on Dec. 28, when Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, visited Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. Bush told reporters afterward that they had discussed Afghanistan.

While it has been previously reported that Bush directed the Pentagon to begin considering options for an invasion of Iraq immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush's order to Rumsfeld began an intensive process in which Franks worked in secret with a small staff, talked almost daily with the defense secretary and met about once a month with Bush.

This week, the president acknowledged that the violent uprising against U.S. troops in Iraq has resulted in "a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people." But he insisted that his course of action in Iraq has been the correct one in language that echoed what he told Woodward more than four months ago.

In two interviews with Woodward in December, Bush minimized the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction, expressed no doubts about his decision to invade Iraq, and enunciated an activist role for the United States based on it being "the beacon for freedom in the world."

"I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told Woodward. "I would hope we wouldn't have to do it militarily, but we have a duty."

The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq, and the powerful role his religious beliefs played throughout that time.

"Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."

The president told Woodward: "I am prepared to risk my presidency to do what I think is right. I was going to act. And if it could cost the presidency, I fully realized that. But I felt so strongly that it was the right thing to do that I was prepared to do so."

Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

The president told Woodward he was cooperating on his book because he wanted the story of how the United States had gone to war in Iraq to be told. He said it would be a blueprint of historical significance that "will enable other leaders, if they feel like they have to go to war, to spare innocent citizens and their lives."

"But the news of this, in my judgment," Bush added, "the big news out of this isn't how George W. makes decisions. To me the big news is America has changed how you fight and win war, and therefore makes it easier to keep the peace in the long run. And that's the historical significance of this book, as far as I'm concerned."

Bush's critics have questioned whether he and his administration were focused on Iraq rather than terrorism when they took office early in 2001 and even after the Sept. 11 attacks. Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill and former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke have made that charge in recently published memoirs.

According to "Plan of Attack," it was Cheney who was particularly focused on Iraq before the terrorist attacks. Before Bush's inauguration, Cheney sent word to departing Defense Secretary William S. Cohen that he wanted the traditional briefing given an incoming president to be a serious "discussion about Iraq and different options." Bush specifically assigned Cheney to focus as vice president on intelligence scenarios, particularly the possibility that terrorists would obtain nuclear or biological weapons.

Early discussions among the administration's national security "principals" -- Cheney, Powell, Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- and their deputies focused on how to weaken Hussein diplomatically. But Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz proposed sending in the military to seize Iraq's southern oil fields and establish the area as a foothold from which opposition groups could overthrow Hussein.

Powell dismissed the plan as "lunacy," according to Woodward, and told Bush what he thought. "You don't have to be bullied into this," Powell said.

Bush told Woodward he never saw a formal plan for a quick strike. "The idea may have floated around as an interesting nugget to chew on," he said.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., according to Woodward, compared Bush to a circus rider with one foot on a "diplomacy" steed and the other on a "war" steed, both heading toward the same destination: regime change in Iraq. When it was clear that diplomacy would not get him to his goal, Card said, Bush let go of that horse and rode the one called war.

But as the planning proceeded, the administration began taking steps that Woodward describes as helping to make war inevitable. On Feb. 16, 2002, Bush signed an intelligence finding that directed the CIA to help the military overthrow Hussein and conduct operations within Iraq. At the time, according to "Plan of Attack," the CIA had only four informants in Iraq and told Bush that it would be impossible to overthrow Hussein through a coup.

In July, a CIA team entered northern Iraq and began to lay the groundwork for covert action, eventually recruiting an extensive network of 87 Iraqi informants code-named ROCKSTARS who gave the U.S. detailed information on Iraqi forces, including a CD-ROM containing the personnel files of the Iraq Special Security Organization (SSO).

Woodward writes that the CIA essentially became an advocate for war first by asserting that covert action would be ineffective, and later by saying that its new network of spies would be endangered if the United States did not attack Iraq. Another factor in the gathering momentum were the forces the military began shifting to Kuwait, the pre-positioning that was a key component of Franks's planning.

In the summer of 2002, Bush approved $700 million worth of "preparatory tasks" in the Persian Gulf region such as upgrading airfields, bases, fuel pipelines and munitions storage depots to accommodate a massive U.S. troop deployment. The Bush administration funded the projects from a supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Afghanistan and old appropriations, keeping Congress unaware of the reprogramming of money and the eventual cost.

During that summer, Powell and Cheney engaged in some of their sharpest debates. Powell argued that the United States should take its case to the United Nations, which Cheney said was a waste of time. Woodward had described some of that conflict in "Bush at War."

Among Powell's allies was Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush's father, who wrote an op-ed piece against the war for the Wall Street Journal. After it was published in August 2002, Powell thanked Scowcroft for giving him "some running room." But Rice called Scowcroft to tell her former boss that it looked as if he was speaking for Bush's father and that the article was a slap at the incumbent president.

Despite Powell's admonitions to the president, "Plan of Attack" suggests it was Blair who may have played a more critical role in persuading Bush to seek a resolution from the United Nations. At a meeting with the president at Camp David in early September, Blair backed Bush on Iraq but said he needed to show he had tried U.N. diplomacy. Bush agreed, and later referred to the Camp David session with Blair as "the cojones meeting," using a colloquial Spanish term for courage.

After the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq, Bush became increasingly impatient with their effectiveness and the role of chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. Shortly after New Year's 2003, he told Rice at his Texas ranch: "We're not winning. Time is not on our side here. Probably going to have to, we're going to have to go to war."

Bush said much the same thing to White House political adviser Karl Rove, who had gone to Crawford to brief him on plans for his reelection campaign. In the next 10 days, Bush also made his decision known to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar, who helped arrange Saudi cooperation with the U.S. military, feared Saudi interests would be damaged if Bush did not follow through on attacking Hussein, and became another advocate for war.

According to "Plan of Attack," Bush asked Rice and his longtime communications adviser, Karen Hughes, whether he should attack Iraq, but he did not specifically ask Powell or Rumsfeld. "I could tell what they thought," the president said. "I didn't need to ask their opinion about Saddam Hussein or how to deal with Saddam Hussein. If you were sitting where I sit, you could be pretty clear."

Rumsfeld, whom Woodward interviewed for three hours, is portrayed in the book as a "defense technocrat" intimately involved with details of the war planning but not focused on the need to attack Iraq in the same way that Cheney and some of Rumsfeld's subordinates such as Wolfowitz and Feith were.

Bush told Powell of his decision in a brief meeting in the White House. Evidently concerned about Powell's reaction, he said, "Are you with me on this? I think I have to do this. I want you with me."

"I'll do the best I can," Powell answered. "Yes, sir, I will support you. I'm with you, Mr. President."

Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who fought Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But, he added that the two had discussed developments in Iraq.

"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.

Describing what the 41st president said to him about Iraq, the 43rd president told Woodward:

"It was less 'Here's how you have to take care of the guy [Hussein]' and more 'I've been through what you've been through and I know what's happening and therefore I love you' would be a more accurate way to describe it."


This is nothing new.
The US always pursued the way of diplomacy with the old USSR,but also planned for war at the same time.

Every admin has done this,even the democrats.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 May, 2006 06:05 pm
snood, What they're really talking about is the rail spike that Osama sent to the twin towers. That 1/8 inch nail that Saddam supposedly had didn't even have a hammer to do any damage. Small nail and no hammer on Saddam's part only makes Bush's attack on Iraq that much more stupid and illegal.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:27 am
DrewDad wrote:
Dear, dear Bernard. Still reposting the same article? If you are this tedious in real life, it is no wonder you spend so much time here.

It's inappropriate and childish to reply to an objective, impersonal post expressing an opinion, be it true or false, with a personal insult. Regardless of whatever snappy comeback you dredge up, it's simply bad and improper behavior.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:40 am
Brandon1000_ Thank you for your comment.

I promise faithfully that I will not repost the article by Mr. Podhoretz but there is one qualification. Someone must attempt to rebut three or four of his claims.

I can only conclude, Brandon 1000, that if no one rebuts any of the points, those points stand.

I am very much afraid that Mr. Podhoretz has written such a definitive and documented article that his points are NOT rebuttable.

Therefore, Brandon 1000, in future posts when irresponsible and undocumented claims made by the left are posted, I will be obliged to repost the Podhoertz article in full or in part.

Of course, Brandon 1000, worthies like Drew Dad can immediately solve that problem by presenting EVIDENCE to show that Mr.Podhoretz is incorrect.

I can wait!!!!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 01:00 am
Mysteryman- You are correct with regard to your comment on the Washington Post writer who talked about President Bush planning war on Iraq three months after 9/11.

Woodward in his book"Plan of Attack" P. 4 says:

"The Vice President, after 9/11 clearly saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace and was unwavering in his view that Saddam was a real danger"

P. 10 WHAT VERY FEW PEOPLE REMEMBER---


QUOTE

"In operation Southern Watch, the US patrolled almost the entire southrern half of Iraq up to the outskirts of Baghdad. Pilots overfying the region had entered IRAQI airspace an incredible 150,000 in the last decade. IN HUNDREDS OF ATTACKS FROM THE IRAQIS, NOT A SINGLE US PILOT WAS LOST"


But now, Mysteryman, here are the real goods---

P. 10

"A 1998 law passed by Congress and SIGNED BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AUTHORIZED UP TO 97 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO IRAQI OPPOSITION FORCES TO'REMOVE THE REGIME HEADED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN" and "PROMOTE THE EMERGENCE OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT"


It must not be forgotten, Mysteryman, that WIlliam Jefferson Clinton, who pre-emptively attacked Iraq in December 1998 said, in his speech rationalizing the attack__

quote__

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world"

Why, Mysteryman, that is almost the same thought that VP Cheney, as quoted by Woodward above, was entertaining.

Do you think that VP Cheney was reading Clinton's comments on how dangerous Saddam was proving to be?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 10:05 am
We have a bunch of blind arses here. They keep talking about Clinton, but the real issue is Bush that got us involved in this war when most of our allies were against it. The UN was against it, and many millions around the world demonstrated against this war.

After Bush took over as president, it doesn't matter what Clinton said. The president has the responsibility to seek and get the best information at the current time to take action. What may have been true a few months ago doesn't necessarily hold true today. Facts change.

To keep bringing up Clinton for a war that Bush started is not logical by any standard of common sense. We also learned that Bush planned this war three months before he actually initiated the war while he told the world he was seeking a diplomatic solution. Bull shet!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 10:16 am
Bush, "The devil made me do it!"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 10:17 am
A Defiant Stance In Jefferson Probe
Justice Dept. Talked of Big Resignations If White House Agreed to Return Papers

By Dan Eggen and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 27, 2006; A01



The Justice Department signaled to the White House this week that the nation's top three law enforcement officials would resign or face firing rather than return documents seized from a Democratic congressman's office in a bribery investigation, according to administration sources familiar with the discussions.

The possibility of resignations by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was communicated to the White House by several Justice officials in tense negotiations over the fate of the materials taken from Rep. William J. Jefferson's office, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Justice prosecutors and FBI agents feared that the White House was ready to acquiesce to demands from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other lawmakers that the materials be returned to the Louisiana congressman, who is the subject of a criminal probe by the FBI. Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, David S. Addington, was among the leading White House critics of the FBI raid, telling officials at Justice and on Capitol Hill that he believed the search was questionable, several sources familiar with his views said.

Administration officials said yesterday that the specter of top-level resignations or firings at Justice and the FBI was a crucial turning point in the standoff, helping persuade President Bush to announce a cease-fire on Thursday. Bush ordered that the Jefferson materials be sealed for 45 days while Justice officials and House lawmakers work out their differences, while also making it clear that he expected the case against Jefferson to proceed.

Spokesmen for the White House, Cheney's office, the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment, saying they would not discuss internal deliberations.

White House officials were not informed of the search until it began last Saturday and did not immediately recognize the political ramifications, the sources said. By Sunday, however, as the 18-hour search continued, lawmakers began lodging complaints with the White House.

Addington -- who had worked as a staffer in the House and whose boss, Cheney, once served as a congressman -- quickly emerged as a key internal critic of raiding the office of a sitting House member. He raised heated objections to the Justice Department's legal rationale for the search during a meeting Sunday with McNulty and others, according to several sources.

The talk of resignations adds another dramatic element to the remarkable tug of war that has played out since last Saturday night, when about 15 FBI agents executed a search warrant on Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building.

The raid -- the first physical FBI search of a congressman's office in U.S. history -- sparked an uproar in the House, where Hastert joined Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in demanding that the records be returned because they viewed the search as an illegal violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

Hastert wrote in an article published in USA Today yesterday that House lawyers are working with the Justice Department to develop guidelines for handling searches of lawmakers' offices. "But that is behind us now," Hastert wrote. "I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right."

Also yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) met with Gonzales at the senator's Capitol Hill office.

"We've been working hard already, and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," Gonzales told reporters on his way into Frist's suite just off the Senate floor.

Jefferson, 59, has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegations that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to promote business ventures in Africa. Two people have pleaded guilty to bribing him, including Brett Pfeffer, one of his former aides, who was sentenced yesterday to eight years in prison by a federal judge in Alexandria.

An FBI affidavit released this week alleged that Jefferson was videotaped taking $100,000 in bribe money and that a search of his Washington apartment turned up $90,000 of that money wrapped in foil inside his freezer. Jefferson, who has not been charged, has denied any wrongdoing.

The unprecedented FBI raid on Jefferson's office triggered an extraordinary chain of events. Hastert, long one of the president's staunchest allies in Congress, and his chief of staff, Scott Palmer, were immediately angered by the tactic. On Monday, Hastert pushed Bush strongly on the issue during a trip the two shared on Air Force One coming back from Chicago. "Hastert was white-hot," said a senior administration official.

Bush expressed sympathy but did not take sides, the official said: "He did not say, 'I share your view.' He said, 'Look, we're going to try to work with you to help resolve this.' "

The view of the emerging political landscape was notably different at Justice, where officials feared they were quickly losing the debate. Prosecutors and FBI agents felt the materials were obtained from Jefferson through a lawful and court-approved search and that returning them -- as demanded by Hastert and others -- would amount to an intolerable political intervention in the criminal justice process.

Justice had one ally at the White House in Frances Fragos Townsend, the homeland security adviser and former prosecutor, who spoke in defense of the raid's legality at a meeting on Monday, according to two sources familiar with her remarks. Townsend was not invited to participate in subsequent discussions on the issue, however. A senior administration official said she would not normally be involved in the topic.

At a particularly contentious meeting Monday night at the Capitol, Palmer angrily upbraided William E. Moschella, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, and two other Justice officials, saying they had violated the Constitution, several sources said.

As the week progressed, the confrontation escalated further. At some point in the negotiations, McNulty told Palmer that he would quit if ordered to return the materials to Jefferson, according to several officials familiar with the conversation.

McNulty, a former Alexandria prosecutor who was recently named Gonzales's deputy, was a central player in the contentious negotiations with Capitol Hill and the White House, sources said. He had also worked in the House for 12 years, as chief counsel for both the majority leader's office and a crime subcommittee.

A message that McNulty might quit was passed along to the White House, along with similar messages for Gonzales and Mueller. Sources familiar with the discussions declined to say which Justice officials communicated those possibilities to the White House.

The discussion of Gonzales and the others resigning never evolved into a direct threat, but it was made plain that such an option would have to be considered if the president ordered the documents returned, several sources said. "It wasn't one of those things of 'If you will, I will,' " one senior administration official said. "It was kind of the background noise."

"One of the reasons the president did what he did was these types of conversations and other types of conversations in the House were escalating," the official said, referring to murmured threats by some House Republicans to call for Gonzales's resignation.

The desire to do something before the Memorial Day recess also created an "artificial deadline" that Bush considered counterproductive. "As the week moved on," the official said, "there's no question emotions were running high on both sides. . . . People had a gun to their head, and it was really making people not more flexible but more intense. It was his view to say let's get more time."

The White House grew especially concerned about a House Republican Conference meeting scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday and later rescheduled for 3:30 p.m. In the heat of the moment, it could have gotten out of hand and wound up with some sort of resolution demanding that Gonzales step down. "You never know what's going to happen in a conference," the official said.

Bush decided to head off the situation. He summoned Cheney, Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, counselor Dan Bartlett, legislative director Candida Wolff, White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley and some other staff members to the Oval Office on Thursday morning and announced that he had decided to seal the Jefferson documents.

"I'm going to put an end to the escalation," one official quoted Bush as saying. "We've got to calm this down."

Bush directed Cheney to inform Hastert, while Bolten told Gonzales.

Bush aides were also worried about a war with the Republican House if the president did not act.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

Staff writer Jim VandeHei and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 10:23 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Dear, dear Bernard. Still reposting the same article? If you are this tedious in real life, it is no wonder you spend so much time here.

It's inappropriate and childish to reply to an objective, impersonal post expressing an opinion, be it true or false, with a personal insult. Regardless of whatever snappy comeback you dredge up, it's simply bad and improper behavior.

Brandon, please insert your name for Bernard, and "drivel" for "article."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 10:45 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
..the real issue is Bush that got us involved in this war when most of our allies were against it. The UN was against it, and many millions around the world demonstrated against this war....

Oh, by all means, let's not do anything unpopular. And I would still like to know exactly what the lie is. Post a single quotation by the President, and then give some evidence or argument that this one single statement is a lie. You can't.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 10:52 am
See, people? All these wasted posts. Brandon demolishes your words with a simple statement. Dog only knows how many wasted hours have been spent on this thread.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 11:30 am
I've posted lies. Others have posted lies. Brandon's response, "Well, I don't know enough about that."

Alternately, he states that he didn't read the post.

And then he berates others for not engaging in honest debate.



Brandon has lost what little credibility he had left, IMO.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:19 pm
DrewDad, I'm not so sure BernardR ever had credibility. We're all liars, and he's the onlyone telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but....
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:30 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
We have a bunch of blind arses here. They keep talking about Clinton, but the real issue is Bush that got us involved in this war when most of our allies were against it. The UN was against it, and many millions around the world demonstrated against this war.

After Bush took over as president, it doesn't matter what Clinton said. The president has the responsibility to seek and get the best information at the current time to take action. What may have been true a few months ago doesn't necessarily hold true today. Facts change.

To keep bringing up Clinton for a war that Bush started is not logical by any standard of common sense. We also learned that Bush planned this war three months before he actually initiated the war while he told the world he was seeking a diplomatic solution. Bull shet!


So,should we govern our actions and our national security interests (as determined by the proper authorities) based on what our "allies" think?

And if our "allies" decide they are against the US Navy patroling the Atlantic Ocean?
Or,what if our "allies" decide they are against the enforcing of our immigration laws?

Sorry,but our "allies" do not have a say in US national security concerns.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 12:38 pm
mm wrote:
Sorry,but our "allies" do not have a say in US national security concerns.

True; our allies do not have a say in US national security concerns, but Iraq is not, repeat, was not and is not a US national security concern - until Bush did his preemptive attack that created the US national security concern - all around the world. Bush made it into a world security concern, because of the increase in terrorist activity around the world. Bush failed in stopping the terrorists that have attacked England, Indonesia, Philippines, Iraq, and Israel.

Talk about blunders...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 01:14 pm
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
We have a bunch of blind arses here. They keep talking about Clinton, but the real issue is Bush that got us involved in this war when most of our allies were against it. The UN was against it, and many millions around the world demonstrated against this war.

After Bush took over as president, it doesn't matter what Clinton said. The president has the responsibility to seek and get the best information at the current time to take action. What may have been true a few months ago doesn't necessarily hold true today. Facts change.

To keep bringing up Clinton for a war that Bush started is not logical by any standard of common sense. We also learned that Bush planned this war three months before he actually initiated the war while he told the world he was seeking a diplomatic solution. Bull shet!


So,should we govern our actions and our national security interests (as determined by the proper authorities) based on what our "allies" think?

And if our "allies" decide they are against the US Navy patroling the Atlantic Ocean?
Or,what if our "allies" decide they are against the enforcing of our immigration laws?

Sorry,but our "allies" do not have a say in US national security concerns.

Bush accepted our "ally's" intelligence over our own when he delivered hsit 2003 State of the Union address.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 01:20 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm wrote:
Sorry,but our "allies" do not have a say in US national security concerns.

True; our allies do not have a say in US national security concerns, but Iraq is not, repeat, was not and is not a US national security concern - until Bush did his preemptive attack that created the US national security concern - all around the world. Bush made it into a world security concern, because of the increase in terrorist activity around the world. Bush failed in stopping the terrorists that have attacked England, Indonesia, Philippines, Iraq, and Israel.

Talk about blunders...


You mean the same terrorist groups that attacked Israel at the Munich Olympics?
He wasnt President then.
Or,do you mean the same PLO,Hamas,Hezbollah groups that have been attacking Israel for the last 30 years?
Bush has been President since 2001,so how are those attacks his fault?

The IRA has been attacking England for years,how is that the fault of Bush?
They are also terrorists.

The terrorists in Indonesia are home grown,so how is that the fault of Bush?

Or,are you saying that it is the job of the US to destroy all terrorists,everywhere in the world?
If you are saying that,then you do agree with Bush after all.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 May, 2006 01:45 pm
mm, YOu have your head up your arse. Who said anything about the olympics? Your diversion tactics shows where your head is; your projections makes you look more stupid than you are.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 11/30/2024 at 06:35:12