July 23, 2003
White House official aplogizes for role in scandal
It seems the left has been holding on, hoping that someone in the White House would admit that those 16 words were in the State of the Union address with the White House’s knowledge. Today our prayers were answered when Stephen Hadley apologized for his role in allowing shaky intelligence to find its way into the President’s speech.
Not only did the White House know about the shaky intelligence, but they knew about it four months before the State of the Union address. I think the picture is becoming more clear every day - we (the US public) were duped.
Posted by joestump at July 23, 2003 08:02 AMNow that the blame has jumped from Langley to the White House, I wonder how long the President will wait before he steps up to the plate and shoulder the blame for the debacle? Never maybe. Is Connie Rise the next to fall on her sword sine she swore she know nothing of the intelligence?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at July 23, 2003 09:09 AMI could’ve sworn Bush claimed that, as president, he would take personal responsibility for his actions. I guess he meant only when his actions are good.
Posted by: rev_matt at July 23, 2003 11:29 AMBill Clinton was on Larry King last night and said that the democrats should just move on and that he basicly said the same things and had the same intel while he was in office. I wonder why he said that.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 12:53 PMrev_matt: He was quick to get his name associated with the National “Do Not Call Registry”. I see stuff like that an I say to myself: “Wow, his PR team is really sharp”.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030627-3.html
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 23, 2003 12:59 PMIt’s funny to watch someone like Stephen Van Dyke write “move on.”
It really is.
It’s funny and, in a way, very sad. Because he still doesn’t get it. A blowjob was worth impeachment. Lying about the reasons for war — move on.
Think about it people. And think about the kind of a mind - whether in Washington or here — which thinks in that twisted way.
It is, at its heart, Stalinist.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 23, 2003 02:55 PMWell Peter of course we are obsessed. He is the President of the United States and if you ask a Democrat that is the problem. His numbers and economy makes him possible to beat. The 04 election might more resemble the 92 election rather than the 84. The GOP controls the White House and both houses of congress. Re-taking the White House is the best way that the DNC can restore some ballance of power.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at July 23, 2003 03:32 PMDana Blankenhorn: I guess the repubs are right, you guys really don’t have a sense of humor. I was trying to be obvious about it as well by adding the winking smiley at the end.
Aaaaanyways…
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 23, 2003 04:05 PMIf Bush misled the American people, arguing that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power because he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and it turns out that this was all a pack of self-serving lies. It follows that we should never have fought the Iraq war, and, furthermore, that Saddam Hussein should never have been removed from his position at the head of the Iraqi government….therefore…
If we did wrong in removing Saddam, then our duty is clear. We must undo the wrong we have done, and restore Saddam Hussein to the rightful place of authority at the head of the Iraqi government — with reparations, of course, paid him for the damages done to his palaces. Right? How can we have any integrity as a nation if we dont. Wont that stop these suicide bombings too? ;)
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 05:28 PMVan Dyke is from the Ouday and Usay school of comedy…
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 24, 2003 08:05 AMIt would be funnier if you said I was from the Iraqi Pig-Latin School of Comedy. Anyways, back on topic… I was reading The New Yorker last night and came across a great article on the WMD’s and was clear about both sides of the coin: Comment: Faith Based Intelligence
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 24, 2003 10:35 AMWell isnt anyone going to reply to what i said about our duty to put Saddam back in power?
Posted by: pete at July 28, 2003 05:08 PMi guess the answer is NO. it is a logical argument that really cant be opposed if you take it at its core and don’t try to change the subject to something vague or try to smoothe it out by making an accusation to de-rail the argument. I am not surprised by the lack of thought here.
Posted by: pete at July 30, 2003 12:29 AM
