1
   

Why do you still support Bush?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 10:44 am
Advocate, It's useless trying to prove that Bushco planned the removal of Saddam before 9-11 with all the evidence now available, the misleading of congress on Saddam's WMDs, and the lies he continued to tell that congress had the same intel as was availble to his administration.

The only positive coming out of all this is the maxim, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time."

The majority of Americans now believe we're in Iraq for all the wrong reasons.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 10:47 am
New Time Poll: Bush Popularity Sags Amid Iraq War Unpopularity
by Joe Gandelman
If a new Time Magazine poll is accurate, the talk about a political resurgence for President George W. Bush may be premature:
A spate of good news at home and abroad has so far failed to boost how Americans feel about President Bush's job performance. Bush's approval rating slipped to 35% in a TIME poll taken this week, down from 37% in March (and 53% in early 2005). Only 33% of Americans in the survey said they approved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, vs. 35% in March, and 47% in March 2005. His management of the U.S. economy lost supporters, too, as 36% approved, compared with 39% three months earlier. Bush's handling of the war on terror saw a slight gain in support, from 44% to 45%.

Bush's poll numbers remain stuck in a rut despite several high-profile victories scored recently by the Bush Administration. Earlier this month, U.S. forces killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi in an air raid in Iraq. Also this month, Karl Rove escaped indictment in the CIA leak investigation. And the Commerce Department reported today that the U.S. economy grew 5.6% in the first quarter of 2006, the fastest growth in more than two years.

But continued pessimism about the situation in Iraq and a broad sense of unease about America's direction may be undermining Bush's popularity. In the TIME survey, 66% said the country is on the wrong track, vs. 28% who said it's going in the right direction. Those numbers have worsened since March, when the poll recorded a 60% to 34% split. When asked whether the new Iraqi government will be able to build a stable and reasonably democratic society, 48% of those surveyed said no, while 39% remain optimistic.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 11:16 am
BernardR wrote:
Okie- I am stunned. Seldom have I seen such a concentration of reasoned arguments using fact and evidence as I note in the post by Mr. Frank Apisa!! He must, of course, because of his agile debating ability be placed among the giants in the field.

I was ready to respond to his post but after I read it again, all I could really do is snicker in amazement!!!


Snicker away. I love to amuse folks.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 11:21 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
BernardR wrote:
Okie- I am stunned. Seldom have I seen such a concentration of reasoned arguments using fact and evidence as I note in the post by Mr. Frank Apisa!! He must, of course, because of his agile debating ability be placed among the giants in the field.

I was ready to respond to his post but after I read it again, all I could really do is snicker in amazement!!!


Snicker away. I love to amuse folks.


Frank & everyone else knows that when a silly Repug snickers, it's because he is either stalling for time or doesn't know his head from his other end............. same difference in both cases!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v737/Magginkat/JacksGraphicslobotomy.gif
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 11:42 am
The A2K Censors are at it again and locked my thread "Cut & Run Liberals" claiiming that this image converted to a link. Bullschitt!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v737/Magginkat/BushWarVictim.jpg

It's a picture of one of the thousands of people who were blown to bits by bu$h illegal war. Find it offensive? Doesn't seem like it to me since you keep encouraging that vermin to murder at will.

Censorship is what it's all about .... and support of the rotten beast who occupies the oval office.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 12:13 pm
Magginkat wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
BernardR wrote:
Okie- I am stunned. Seldom have I seen such a concentration of reasoned arguments using fact and evidence as I note in the post by Mr. Frank Apisa!! He must, of course, because of his agile debating ability be placed among the giants in the field.

I was ready to respond to his post but after I read it again, all I could really do is snicker in amazement!!!


Snicker away. I love to amuse folks.


Frank & everyone else knows that when a silly Repug snickers, it's because he is either stalling for time or doesn't know his head from his other end............. same difference in both cases!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v737/Magginkat/JacksGraphicslobotomy.gif


Reminds me:


While it is true that not every conservative is a red-neck, xenophobic, race mongering moron...damn near every red-neck, xenophobic, race mongering moron is a conservative.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 12:29 pm
Magginkat wrote:
The A2K Censors are at it again and locked my thread "Cut & Run Liberals" claiiming that this image converted to a link. Bullschitt!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v737/Magginkat/BushWarVictim.jpg

It's a picture of one of the thousands of people who were blown to bits by bu$h illegal war. Find it offensive? Doesn't seem like it to me since you keep encouraging that vermin to murder at will.

Censorship is what it's all about .... and support of the rotten beast who occupies the oval office.


Perhaps you could round up a link to one of the mutilated corpses from Saddam's torture rooms, or maybe a picture of a child found dead as a result of Saddams use of WMD's, or maybe a picture of the carnage wreaked by the use of IED, or maybe one of the many, many dead as a result of the terrorists blowing themselves and innocent bystanders up?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 12:55 pm
McG, Why only Saddam? Did you know we have other tyrants in this world that kills people at-will? Why aren't we attacking those countries?
Like China, North Korea, Sudan....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 01:53 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG, Why only Saddam? Did you know we have other tyrants in this world that kills people at-will? Why aren't we attacking those countries?
Like China, North Korea, Sudan....


Yes there are, but you ask a really stupid question. Par for the course though.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 02:22 pm
McGentrix wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG, Why only Saddam? Did you know we have other tyrants in this world that kills people at-will? Why aren't we attacking those countries?
Like China, North Korea, Sudan....


Yes there are, but you ask a really stupid question. Par for the course though.


It's dumb to suggest we attack another country because they murdered their civilians?

Who would have thunk it? Who would possibly bring that up as a reason?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 03:27 pm
CI, it is absolutely untrue that congress had available the same intelligence as did the administration. Congress did not have access to the Daily Brief and a lot of other information. It was not, I understand, informed of doubts on Niger, the tubes, etc.

Remember, all the intelligence emanates from the executive branch. Congress is given the crumbs. Moreover, those on the intelligence committees are busy with other things, and have few people to examine what little intelligence given to them. If you do just a little research on this, you will see what I mean.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 04:41 pm
Advocate, That's what I said! It's easy enough to do a search on that very point - that congress did not have the same intel. The administration kept the truth away from congress while pushing for war, and that's how they got the votes.

I know this, because I wrote to Senatopr Feinstein, and she assured me the information they had required her to join others in approving Bush's actions against Iraq. She later said they were lied to by the administration.

There was an media article later on that said something to the effect that 70 democrats would not have voted as they did if they knew what they know now.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 04:43 pm
Here's one of the "false claim" charge.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 04:46 pm
From the Congessional Research Service to Senator Feinstein.

Bush continued his lies.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 04:52 pm
John Dean's opinion about Bush's lies.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

----
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Column continues below ↓ "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption --when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 05:12 pm
Well, I read that Advocate says that "Congress did not have available the same evidcence as the Administration". I will be willing to accept that if Advocate can PROVE it.

What Advocate has to DISPROVE is that the Congress, especially the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, had the Intelligence findings on WMD's that came from Germany, Britain and France in 2001 and 2002. If Advocate can show that the Intelligence Committees DID NOT have the Intelligence data from Germany, Britain and France that held that Saddam still had WMD's in 2001, then I will agree.

If he does not, he is blowing smoke---as usual.....
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 05:16 pm
Cicerone Imposter, the writer of this article must have had personal contact with some of the rabid right in this forum, like MassaBernard, McGentrix, etc.

The Reality Beneath the Flag-waving

by Paul Craig Roberts (excerpts)


I have made it clear in my columns that Bush supporters
are not true conservatives.

They are brownshirts with the same low intelligence
and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters.

Many Americans are so unsophisticated
that they refuse to believe anything bad about their country.
They regard acceptance of unpalatable truths as disloyalty.

This failure of American character
is why Bush has been able to get away with
- transgressions that scream out - for his impeachment
and trial as a war criminal.

It is amazing that Bush supporters think we have
a John Wayne military, when according to news reports,
recruitment problems have resulted in the military
- accepting felons,
drug users,
thugs,
low IQ high school dropouts,
and illegal Mexicans promised green cards for signing up.

Apparently, the same people who make America's streets
unsafe for Americans make Iraqi streets unsafe for Iraqis.
In response to the declining caliber of new recruits,
some of our best troops are refusing to reenlist...................

To this day the Bush regime and the neocon nazis have not told us
the reason for their invasion of Iraq, the destruction of its towns
and infrastructure, and the slaughter of its citizens.

Every reason Bush has given has proved to be a lie.

There is no more reason for US troops to be shooting up Iraq
than to be shooting up Canada, Scotland, Holland,
Spain, Taiwan, Florida, Virginia or California.
We are killing Iraqis for no other reason than
- that they resist our invasion and occupation of their country.

It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character
of the American people that the American public
and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in
the Bush regime and to hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes.

America has become a land of evil.
The rest of the world hates and despises us.
And we are going to pay a terrible price for it.
Bush's belief that our superpower status makes us immune
to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts165.html
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 05:23 pm
Mr. Advocate-Perhaps you believe that countries like Denmark are in President Bush's pocket?



Denmark reveals Iraq arms secrets


Mr Rasmussen says the reports vinidcate him
Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.

The extracts appear to contradict claims leaked to a newspaper that there was no evidence to back up the theory.

Former intelligence officer Major Frank Soeholm Grevil has been charged with breaching the official information act.

The major told reporters at the Berlingske Tidende newspaper he had sent 10 reports to the prime minister which concluded that the coalition was unlikely to find weapons of mass destruction.

Pressure

The two journalists who published the leaks, Jesper Larsen and Michael Bjerre, have been charged with exploiting information emerging from a crime.

Before the war, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen supported the US-led invasion and told parliament that he was convinced Iraq was in possession of such weapons.

I don't think we get a complete picture of what the government knew

Jeppe Kofod,
Social Democrats spokesman


Danish press split on move
Denmark sent a submarine and a warship to participate in the campaign.

Since the leaks - and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction - the prime minister has come under increasing pressure from opposition parties to declassify the reports.

But Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief Rear Admiral Joern Olesen said: "These reports that have been made public document that Iraq, according to the entire DDIS's evaluation, probably had biological and chemical weapons just before the war."

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

Mr Fogh Rasmussen said the documents were proof that neither he nor anyone else in government had tried to mislead parliament.

"The released documents remove any insistence of claims that the government could have misused, twisted or suppressed information received from the DDIS," he told reporters.

*******************************************************

You know how to read, Mr. Advocate- I hope--and you will note that the Danes got their information from NATO and the UN. Now, it is your job to convince us that NATO and the UN are also in President Bush's pocket.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 05:33 pm
Bernie wants to show that the leaders of some other countries besides the UK supported our invasion of Iraq; but their continued refrain is "we don't listen to other countries when American lives are at stake. "

They want it both ways; up-down, left-right. Makes one wonder if their tongues will ever straighten out!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 05:43 pm
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 12:23:07