The truth is oozing out like a slime trail

Your superhero, Bill, said yesterday on Larry King Live that "all presidents make mistakes", in reference to the content of Bush's speech.

He certainly is well qualified to make that statement.

Why do they never learn?

Why -- after all the many things that have happened to people manning the oval office -- are they not smart enough to simply fess up at the first opportunity?


Why go through all this bullshit?

Why?

cjhsa
cjhsa, you are leaping to an unfounded super hero conclusion. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton twice.

BumbleBeeBoogie

Insiders suggest Condoleezza Rice could leave
Friday, July 25, 2003 - US News and World Report
Washington Whispers
Insiders suggest Condoleezza Rice could leave

As White House officials try to control the latest fallout over President Bush's flawed suggestion in the State of the Union address that Iraq was buying nuclear bomb materials, there's growing talk by insiders that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice may take the blame and resign. For most insiders, it's inconceivable that Rice, touted as a future secretary of state, California governor, and even vice president, would go, but the latest revelations that her shop and deputy Stephen Hadley mishandled CIA warnings have put the NSC in the bull's eye of controversy.

While it's unclear how serious the talk is inside the administration about the future of Rice or Hadley with the NSC, a few top aides are already suggesting replacements for Rice. They include former Bush administration National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, NASA chief and former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe, and Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq.

All of them were responsible for the damage already done. Replacement of GWBush's underlings will not correct that. The whole administration has to be replaced for the healing to begin. c.i.

In the future they'll talk about Hitler, Stalin and Bush in the same breath, and the stars and stripes will become the most despised symbol of tyranny in the history of mankind-if it's not already.

I must say, no mistakes Bill Clinton made ever made can match those of bush. Bill Clinton had an ego (a prerequisite of the job). Bush is blinded by his ego, sees absolutely no point in paying any attention to anything but his own interests and those of friends whose interests coincide with his...

It's finally become a bit of a treat to watch bush. He's always been AWFUL. Now that everyone is getting a taste of the real bush, it's suddenly fun for the rest of us who knew all along...

Is the king's downfall a sure thing?

Oh sure, CI -- eventually. Very possibly not in satisfactorily timely fashion. We aren't dealing here with an earnest, hardworking group simply determined to win the next election in order to continue pursuing their worthy policies. We're dealing with what we know now are a bunch of unscrupulous pols who have almost certainly engaged in criminal behavior. They're not going to let go easily.

Do you think we have a chance of unseating him in 2004?

That's what's bothering me the most; I'm not so sure. c.i.

Could we unseat him in a fair election? Yes.

Will the election be fair? Most unlikely.

That's my take on the situation.

I don't know about you, but it seems pretty clear to me that Bush is interested in the security and welfare of the American people. If you don't believe in those things, then I guess you're right about him.



It's just sad to see that people like you are actually thinking this way about the President of the United States. Can you give me an example of Bush killing millions of his own people? This image that you liberals have of Republicans is really offensive.

I don't know why you would think that America is in a state of tyranny. That's just an insult to our founding fathers and our country, which was created in order to check the power of its leaders. I would like you to give me a few examples of Bush being "tyrannical." The only thing I've seen him do so far is fight to protect us. It's really awful that society today breeds you anti-american extremist wackos.

[quote]"tyrannical" Of pertaining to, or characteristic of a tyrant; despotic; arbitrary; oppressive. Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.[/quote]
1, Tyrant: a preemptive strike on a country that was not a threat to the American People.
2. Despot: A autocratic ruler. He does not listen to the people or the world leaders.
3. Arbitrary: Decided to wage war against Iraq by using information from another government's intelligence, and ignored our own.
4. Oppresive: Patriot I.

Classified Section of Sept. 11 Report Faults Saudi Rulers
Classified Section of Sept. 11 Report Faults Saudi Rulers
By DAVID JOHNSTON - New York Times 7/26/03

A copy of the Congressional report on the 9/11 hijackings showed blacked-out areas of classified information.

WASHINGTON, July 25 ?- Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it.

The 28-page section of the report was deleted from the nearly 900-page declassified version released on Thursday by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The chapter focuses on the role foreign governments played in the hijackings, but centers almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, the people who saw the section said.

The Bush administration's refusal to allow the committee to disclose the contents of the chapter has stirred resentment in Congress, where some lawmakers have said the administration's desire to protect the ruling Saudi family had prevented the American public from learning crucial facts about the attacks. The report has been denounced by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and some American officials questioned whether the committee had made a conclusive case linking Saudi funding to the hijackings.

The public report concluded that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. had known for years that Al Qaeda sought to strike inside the United States, but focused their attention on the possibility of attacks overseas.

The declassified section of the report discloses the testimony of several unidentified officials who criticized the Saudi government for being uncooperative in terrorism investigations, but makes no reference to Riyadh's financing of groups that supported terror.

Some people who have read the classified chapter said it represented a searing indictment of how Saudi Arabia's ruling elite have, under the guise of support for Islamic charities, distributed millions of dollars to terrorists through an informal network of Saudi nationals, including some in the United States.

But other officials said the stricken chapter retraces Saudi Arabia's well-documented support for Islamic charitable groups and said the report asserts without convincing evidence that Saudi officials knew that recipient groups used the money to finance terror.

The public version of the report identified Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi student who befriended and helped finance two Saudi men who later turned out to be hijackers.

Mr. Bayoumi helped pay the expenses for the men, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaq Alhazmi. Mr. Bayoumi, the report said, "had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia." The report said Mr. Bayoumi was employed by the Saudi civil aviation authority and left open his motivations for supporting the two men.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States has angrily denied that his country had failed to cooperate with the F.B.I. and C.I.A. in fighting terrorism and dismissed accusations that it helped finance two of the hijackers as "outrageous."

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador, said in a statement after the report was released on Thursday that his country "has been one of the most active partners in the war on terrorism, as the president and other administration officials have repeatedly and publicly attested."

Prince Bandar dismissed the report's assertions about Saudi involvement in the hijackings.

"The idea that the Saudi government funded, organized or even knew about Sept. 11 is malicious and blatantly false," Prince Bandar said. "There is something wrong with the basic logic of those who spread these spurious charges. Al Qaeda is a cult that is seeking to destroy Saudi Arabia as well as the United States. By what logic would we support a cult that is trying to kill us?"

He added: "In a 900-page report, 28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people. Rumors, innuendos and untruths have become, when it comes to the kingdom, the order of the day."

Asked to comment on the report today, a Saudi Embassy representative said Prince Bandar was out of town and could not be reached.

Today, a senior Democratic senator wrote to President Bush asking for the White House to demand that the Saudis turn over Mr. Bayoumi, who is believed to be residing in the kingdom.

"The link between al-Bayoumi and the hijackers is the best evidence yet that part of official Saudi Arabia might have been involved in the attacks," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. "If the Saudi royal family is as committed to fighting terrorism as it claims, it will turn this guy over to U.S. officials immediately so that we can finally get to the bottom of his role in the attacks and his links to Al Qaeda."

Behind the immediate issue of whether Saudi Arabia played any role in terrorism are a complex web of political, military and economic connections between the two countries. Successive Republican and Democratic administrations have aggressively sought to maintain the relationship with a huge producer of oil and an ally in the Arab world.

One section of the report took issue with Louis J. Freeh, the former F.B.I. director, who testified to the joint committee that the bureau "was able to forge an effective working relationship with the Saudi police and Interior Ministry."

The report quoted several senior government officials, who were not identified, expressing contradictory views. One government official told the panel "that he believed the U.S. government's hope of eventually obtaining Saudi cooperation was unrealistic because Saudi assistance to the U.S. is contrary to Saudi national interests."

Another official said: "For the most part it was a very troubled relationship where the Saudis were not providing us quickly or very vigorously with response to it. Sometimes they did, many times they didn't. It was just very slow in coming."

It has been shown over and over again that Hussein and his weapons program were a threat to us and other countries. He could have easily sold the weapons to terrorists.


The majority of Americans supported actions against Iraq before the war. The opinions of other world leaders is irrelevant when it comes to our national security. Not being superpowers, other countries feel secure, and they don't want to get dragged into a war situation unnecessarily, which I suppose is understandable. However, as a superpower, we cannot afford to just sit around and wait for other countries to act.


Bush made one reference to another country's intelligence in one speech! The idea that we went to war on this one piece of information is, in the words of Ari Fleischer, a bunch of bull. Bush did not ignore US intelligence. We have known for more than a decade that Saddam possessed WMD programs. We have always known that his regime treated its people horrifically.


The Patriot Act is far from oppressive. It has been in practice for more than a year, and I don't think anyone has complained about it in practice. The Patriot Act is a logical advancement to the power of our intelligence agencies, and if most people really didn't like it, then the GOP wouldn't control Congress today.

Please show us how his weapons program were a threat to the American People while the UN Inspectors were looking for them? The "other countries" is a straw man.

This is a general statement. Please be more specific. How did the "majority of American's" support actions against Iraq before the war?

The 16 words GWBush used in reference to British intelligence information was to support his justification for war. Is this new US policy? To use another countries' intelligence to justify war?

Yeah, sure, tell that to the Arab Americans.

1. The tyrant part didn't come into play until the WMD question started becoming a problem. Bush had many stated reasons for making war.

2. Most polls - including those of CNN, Zogby, CBS - showed the percentages were quite a bit higher for not going to war. And the perentages never got all that favorable, either.

3. Decided to wage war by presenting evidence that there WERE papers showing intent to buy yellow cake from Niger (proven forged almost immediately - and advised against mention by the CIA), by talking about 600 odd KNOWN sites of WMD, and by referring to British intelligence. This same inteligence was laid out in both the NY Times, other papers, and numerous British papers, side by side with documents vs source. In one famous instance (although ignored by the WH, but acknowledged by the Brits), one of the sources turned out to be a thesis for a graduate student, based on internet research of 12 years prior. An American student. So how British was this source?

4. Patriot II is almost doomed by lack of funding, because even the House thought it was so intrusive. And the TIA, beloved by John Poindexter, is out, because they refused to fund it. And plenty have complained about the Patriot I. There are many legal cases in court, and some of it is now proving an embarrassment, because, apparently, many of the things Ashcroft stuck in there are questionable, and now he has to defend them.


And do you really want to get into the republicans and Congress today? That's a path fraught with pitfalls. Just remember those crocodile tears on the floor, which it looked like nobody, including the republicans, bought.