Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I was just reading in The New York Times…

“The special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has been examining this period of time to determine whether the officials’ work on the Tenet statement led in some way to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, according to the people who have been briefed.

It is not clear what information Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby might have collected about Ms. Wilson as they worked on the Tenet statement. Mr. Rove has said he learned her name from Mr. Novak. Mr. Libby has declined to discuss the matter.

The effort was striking because to an unusual degree, the circle of officials involved included those from the White House’s political and national security operations, which are often separately run. Both arms were drawn into the effort to defend the administration during the period.”

So - basically - it was in our National Security interest to spend time protecting the Administration’s lies than actually protecting the Homeland.

I know I have a bias towards the liberal side of things, but - when you look at the way things have been run for the past 5 years or so… it’s hard to argue against: “Republican leaders will do anything to achieve what they consider to be patriotic goals - even if they must evade democratic procedures to accomplish them.”

Republicans say what you will - but your leaders are looking corrupt as hell - and it only gets worse with every bit of information uncovered. They’ve been THE most secretive Administration - and it’s becoming painfully obvious why. But hey - when it comes down to it - Republicans have to spend every waking hour defending these guys… I just could sleep at night being that way.

(OK - for the people who want to bring up Clinton - yea he was a complete Bubba for getting busted and lying about a BJ from his intern… but if you can compare the two Administrations in your mind - you really need to seek counseling.)

slight change to the above- “I just couldn’t sleep at night being that way

Paul, you make it sound like the actions you have described aren’t common practice. (They are, by politicians of every faction at every level of government.)

So, please don’t mind that I take your supreme outrage with a grain of salt.

sorry Brian - but I don’t buy into the whole lemur-mentality excuse. It’s really lame to use a blanket, over used generalization to justify what’s going on now.

Brian, Nixon got caught doing what preceeding presidents had done. Having been caught and indicted, the use of our intelligence agencies for political purposes was halted.

We cannot do anything about what has been done in the past under the cloak of secrecy, but, we can damn well do something about corruption of our government as it is happening and being discovered today.

Paul, I see that the House passed some legislation that you don’t agree with, but I don’t see what’s the least bit “undemocratic” or sleazy about it.

Looks pretty democrat to me when our elected representatives vote on something and it goes through.

If you’re objecting to the use of procedural rules to kill an amendment, that’s just how things work and it happens all the time. I don’t always like it when such things happen either, but that’s how our governement has worked for generations and it’s not just some recent invention of the Republicans.

I don’t like it, to cite something similar, when Senate Democrats use procedural rules to deny an up or down vote on judicial nominees. The reason they do this is because they know those nominees would pass if the majority got their way. But that’s our system of government and I have to live with it just like you do.

Paul,

I’d like to know, which is it? Are we supposed to catch the terrorists before they blow something up, or is the war on terror simply a police investigation to figure out who did it after Americans are dead?

Seems to me that the ones doing the most squealing about how we aren’t doing anything to stop terrorist here in the US are the same ones squealing that we can’t use profiling, or search library records, deport, arrest, or even question illegal aliens, or person’s with expired visas, or violate the US constitutional rights and due process of enemy combatants who are not US citizens.

Did I happen to mention that the detainee that Dick Durbin was sympathizing with was most likely one of the hi-jackers of 9/11? He was turned away at the airport and wasn’t able to board the plane with the other hi-jackers.

I’ve already sung my Kumbyya’s this evening. are you sure that’s all it takes to protect my family from terrorist attack?

I have another thought. Isn’t this post essentially questioning the patriotism of Republicans?

Because I thought that that was one of the cardinal sins of the post 9/11 world— questioning one’s patriotism? However they might define it. Certainly if burning flags and ‘dissent’ can be construed as patriotism then passing a law in congress should be high up there on the list?

Questioning democratic patriotism is the cardinal sin, but questioning that of republicans is just fine. The typical double standards.

I agree, this is way our government was set up to work. Those in power set the agenda. The democrats are not in power & if & when they ever gain the trust of the American people to win an election, they will be able to set the agenda.

Would someone on the left please explain to me why all republican politicians are considered ignorant & out of touch with the mainstream & yet when a republican descents with the rest of his party, he is quoted over & over again. Example:
“Even some Republicans were upset. According to Representative C. L. Otter of Idaho, the action amounted to a “gag rule” that prevented a full debate on needed restrictions in the law. He said: “I’m embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle.”
John McCain is another example. In one post, you say republicans walk in lockstep & in another post you praise anyone who differs with the party as the voice of God. Which is it? The Republican Party is made up of a diversity of people such as log cabin republicans, libertarian republicans, etc. The republicans with libertarian viewpoints are certainly against government intervention in our lives & vote the way they believe. When Zel Miller voiced his viewpoint against the radical left, who is controlling the democratic party, he was called a traitor, a republican in disguise, & some of you even said he was an senile old man who had lost touch with reality. Would you like to go back & see how you talked about him? I read your statements.

On the other hand, we have a congress & senate in the legislative branch. Again, checks & balances. The Patriot Act that passed in the house will be modified in the senate & a compromise bill will eventually be worked out.

Americans understand we are at war with an enemy who uses our freedoms against us. They also understand sacrifices have to be made for our safety. I would rather have laws that allow security forces to catch the enemy, than allow the enemy the opportunity to repeat 9/11.

The left of today would never be able to handle the sacrifices of the great generation. Not only did they SUPPORT our troops & government, but also did without the most basic necessities of life. We are dealing with a group of spoiled elitists, who think they are right & everyone else is ignorant. That is one of the reasons you loose elections.

Perplexed

Paul, I know this may come as a surprise because many on the left have yet to realize this, but you are the MINORITY party at the moment having lost the last election by more than 3.5 million popular votes (ouch). Another surprise for you here, not one American has gone to jail over library records, not one, yet it remains an important tool in the Patriot Act to help law enforcement track suspected terrorists IF NEEDED (doesn’t the left want this to be a law enforcement issue). The Patriot Act has been partly responsible in detering any terrorism on our soil for the last four years, why fix something that’s not broken. Great point ericsimonson, I do think that the left would rather clean up the blood and appoint the attorneys (their freinds) rather than be proactive in this battle against terrorism, but doesn’t that fit? Isn’t it ironic that the ones screaming the loudest about how GW has failed to adequately protect this country are the same ones yelling about torture at Gitmo and the need to release those detainees at the same time wanting to strip away the protections of the Patriot Act. My advice is to let them spin their wheels on perceived outrages while ignoring the need to develop a positive coherent platform for the future of Amercia for 2008, and then they will have another Republican controlled government to wail against.

I may be misinformed, but does the Patriot act require a judge to approve the use of these tools like library records and other things? If it does not, what is the big hassle for the law enforcement and intelligence officials to obtain a warrant from a judge? I have no problem with the government looking into suspicious people with probable cause; what I do have a problem with is tracking people and their records at random or based upon a weak hunch.

From Earlier Post:
“if you can compare the two Administrations in your mind - you really need to seek counseling.)

True, I would never compare the Clinton administration with the Bush administation. How can you compare the integrity of Bush with the hedonism of Clinton? Cannot be done. Many Americans have been duped by the smooth talking slick-willy, truly believing that he “felt our pain”. My potfolio is still feeling the pain of his reign. We are still feeling the pain of his inability to hadle foreign relations as well. Flipside, many believe Bush to be an idiot since he is a “straight shooter” and states what he thinks. I will take a straight talking Texan over a conniving carpetbagging Billary any day, any way in my Whitehouse.

Warren P, the problem is the judge who issues the warrant is secret, the reasons for the warrant are secret, and judges DO NOT INVESTIGATE to see if the reasons for the warrant are valid or not. Since everything is secret, there is no review, after the fact, to determine if the process is being abused or not.

Who appoints the judge who will issue the secret warrants? Will that judge be impartial, partisan, or biased? We have judges if each ilk you know. But, the huge potential for abuse lies in the total absence of after the fact review. The authorities can make up any kind of story they want, fabricate a document or an email, and the judge is not going to investigate. After the fact, it all remains secret for national security reasons. Right, The national security is the protection of the authorities asses when the inevitable abuses and improper uses are implemented in the name of police state efficiency.

—-
True, I would never compare the Clinton administration with the Bush administration. How can you compare the integrity of Bush with the hedonism of Clinton?
—-
Oh msn - you truly have a warped sense of reality. Clinton - lied about blowjob from intern. Bush lied to force us into a war, lied to get prescription drug benefit passed ($300B… but after if past we find out it’ll cost $700B), lied about budget (oopppps - left the war in Iraq out of those numbers), lied about Rove and Libby’s involvement in CIA leak, lied about statements about Bin Laden (I never said I didn’t care about Bin Laden… “I don’t know where he is, I don’t really think too much about him these days.”)

If you can compare Bubba Clinton with completely evil-intentioned Bush… man, I’d let my own daughter stay out late with Clinton before I’d even trust Bush with anything. Period.

Tony:

Clinton was found guilty & impeached. That is the proof for Clinton. Where is your proof & where is your conviction of Bush? Or are you just assuming?

Perplexed

Curmudgeon-at-large,

“I will take a straight talking Texan over a conniving carpetbagging Billary any day, any way in my Whitehouse.”

Yo, dude. Your straight talking Texan is from the Northeast.

Jay,

“The Patriot Act has been partly responsible in detering any terrorism on our soil for the last four years, why fix something that’s not broken.”

And it is a good thing too, because Mr. Bush isn’t doing anything to stop them from coming through our borders.

Perplexed:
If you can not see the lies as bold as they have been - then there’s really nothing I can do to bring light to the subject for you. Bush chooses to lie (and it has been proven) - you choose to be blind.

Clinton did not control all three branches of the government. Until that changes, there will never even be serious investigations, much less convictions for Bush. If that satisfies you as to his innocence…

Tony:

As I said, Clinton was found guilty.

Has President Bush been found guilty of anything?
For almost 5 years, accusations have been made over & over again, against Bush & against his cabinet. It is a constant flow of accusation from the left. Do you expect us to believe everything the left says? Was he tried & found guilty of anything? That is not a difficult question. Since there have been no guilty verdicts from a court or from the congress, I assume he is innocent until proven guilty. I know you would not want us to accept the accusations on watchblog as truth.

Perplexed

OK… accept whatever you will. The legal conviction sounds very much like the latest rounds of BS coming from the White House. First it was “anyone involved in the leak” and now it’s “anyone who committed a crime” will be fired.

He has no intention of firing Rove or Libby. Even if they committed crimes, he will find someone to weasel away from the truth, and the ‘faithful’ will be right behind him.

Conviction is only a legal state - not what is real. But, again - believe what you will.

Tony, conviction may not be the only way of measuring reality, but it’s a pretty good one and one of the best we have.

It at least has the benefit of requiring one to involve facts in their thinking and to weigh evidence, something you show little patience for in your assertions of guilt no matter what. If conviction by court of law “isn’t real,” it’s still a thousand times better than conviction by partisan blogger and partisan emotion.

The Democrats’ insistence that the courts don’t matter and all that does is their own feelings and selective verison of reality shows that they’re afraid facts aren’t really on their side.

—-
The Democrats’ insistence that the courts don’t matter and all that does is their own feelings and selective version of reality shows that they’re afraid facts aren’t really on their side.
—-

Do you mean: the facts about no WMDs in Iraq (or are you still holding out for them to be ‘found’?) Or maybe the actual budget costs for the prescription drug benefit bill (go back a watch what Bush says - even when it was known that the costs were more than double?) Or maybe the involvement of Rove and Libby in the CIA leak as ‘ridiculous’? How about Bush’s switching back and forth about whether Bin Laden really matters to the war on terror? Or the link between Iraq AND 9/11? Or yellow cake uranium from Niger? High strength aluminum tubes? Terror in the shape of a mushroom cloud?

These were all proven wrong by FACTS! We have them on tape or admissions of falsehood… yet no supporter of Bush will even admit to a single one of them. You guys love to change semantics, or argue over the letter of the law verses the intent of the law… Your entire ‘defense’ consists of technicalities and hatred of a past President.

Tony,

It can be so difficult to discuss anything with Dems. This is why as an Independent; I tend to find myself voting Republican a whole lot more than Democrat. Dems want to cover there ears and scream la la la la Bush is a liar, a Nazi, a murderer. They blindly follow the likes of Michael Moore & the Hollywood crowd.

We had evidence from the CIA, as well as UK and Russian intelligence. They all reported Iraq was a threat. John Kerry and the Democratic Party stated that Iraq was a threat. The Congress voted to go to war. Again, if this evidence turns out false later, how can Bush be lying? When he did in fact receive false evidence?

There is no way around it, I know you would like to call Bush a liar, but you can’t since he did not; unless of course your biases supersede your common sense.

If it’s not true, then please show me any link that any of the intelligence agencies said that Iraq was an “immediate” threat before the 9/11 attacks? There is none. Period. This case couldn’t be made during the Clinton era, and after years of sanctions and constant air patrols over Iraq the case was even weaker.

Grow up, stop playing the blame game. Its old & week and taken the Democratic Party into the toilet

“Your entire ‘defense’ consists of technicalities and hatred of a past President.”

Tony:
How would you like to be falsely accused, called guilty, & sentenced (without a trial)on “technicalities”?

What does “hatred of a past president” mean?

Perplexed

Rocky, both parties are responsible for our porous borders and the public should be outraged and demand that something gets done soon. However, we have not had an attack in four years and for that I am thankful and give part credit to the Patriot Act and GW.
Tony, you are in complete denial over the war on terror, This issue is much larger than Bush, yellow cake, or WMD. Bush is the first world leader to have the cajones to do something about this cancer on civilization. Terrorism will not be thwarted by appeasement, understanding or approaching it as a law enforcement issue. These are sub-humans that kill school children and any other unsuspecting innocent people in quest to fulfill their twisted selfish desires and they need to be eliminated from the face the earth, they do not deserve to breathe the same air as we do. If we can have a zero tolerance policy on aspirin in elementary school, why can’t we have a zero tolerance policy on terrorism. Kerry suggested that he would work toward the day that terrorism was a nuisance, really, essentially he means that if only some innocent people are killled by terrorism every year then that is OK. That’s not a leader. That approach towards terrorism stems from weakness and fear and that is exactly what the terrorists want. If we don’t win this battle now, our children will have a much more difficult time with it, so step back from your partisan myopia, see the bigger picture and let’s do whatever it takes to eradicate these serial killers.

So - you want to present this academic argument as vindication of Bush’s lies? This is not a court of law… and far as I know, lying to the American public is not a crime. If you can excuse lies because there’s no legal ramifications… well that’s your issue not mine.

“Hatred of a past president?” Wow - OK. This one’s kind of hard to explain. It’s a long-running theme: REPs hate Clinton and use his issues in the White House to say “Hey, your guy lied, so there’s no way that you can complain that our guy lied.” REPs seem to really want to justify rather than expect better actions from their leaders.

As to the Imminent threat… give me a break. Rumsfield actually used the word Imminent in several press interviews. As to Bush and the rest - they didn’t use the WORD, but if you think that was not what they were saying - then you are pathetically blind. Bush - responding to a question about whether Iraq actually met the conditions of an immanent threat, Bush stated “We can not wait until after they attack us again to take action.”

btw - you can generalize DEMs all you want, but I’ve tossed out quite a few bold-faced lies accounted for on video tape. If there’s a mic on, it’s kind of hard to pretend it didn’t happen.

“So - you want to present this academic argument as vindication of Bush’s lies?”

Tony,
Give us all a break! You are exactly what I referred to in an earlier post. I suppose he is a Nazi as well. By your definition, all of Washington are liars (how true), therefore, stop singling out Bush. Please refer to the CIA, UK, Russian intelligence, JOHN KERRY, the Dems, the Reps, yourself, me and etc.

Think for yourself and stop toeing the Liberal agenda, geez man get a grip. We are not under the reign of a Sultan. The decsion of war does not fall in the hands of one man.

—-
Think for yourself and stop toeing the Liberal agenda, geez man get a grip. We are not under the reign of a Sultan. The decsion of war does not fall in the hands of one man.
—-
Where were you during the lead up to war with Iraq? Bush pulled the trigger. No one else. You can’t blame it on the CIA and FBI and Congress… he decided we could not wait the 30 days for the UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq. He was the one who went to the UN and failed at diplomacy (a very pathetic job of it.) One man - or one man’s administration decided this war. And he did on false pretenses. That’s called lying - and it’s all together in a totally different world than indiscretions of past administrations.

The liberal agenda? If you mean questioning lies by our leaders while our soldiers die and our children’s futures are being leveraged for that war… while we see further into the minds of those who lead us to war. Think deeper into the Rove scandal. Regardless of what you think Rove did or not - there is an official Administration document that lays out a plan to attack the messenger - people who risked proving their case against Iraq wrong were to be publicly discredited. This Administration did not want the truth about Iraq - they wanted attack Iraq, and anyone who got in their way of doing so.

Is that your Republican views at work?

“Bush pulled the trigger. No one else. You can’t blame it on the CIA and FBI and Congress… he decided we could not wait the 30 days for the UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq”

Tony, please read the history of the Sadaam administration. We couldn’t wait 30 days for a CORRUPT UN to do their job? Maybe we could have waited 30 days before we declared war on Japan? Please spare us all. How about over 12 years of countless violations by Sadaam of existing UN sanctions? The problem with the liberal agenda is that it is a lot of whine with no cheese. Bashing the Reps is not the answer. What has made our nation great is that we are LEADERS; not followers. I hope we continue the trend by keeping Dems out of office until they can wise up.

Also, Tony you might want to review the legislative policy on the declaration of war and review those who supported the war in congress. Nearly 100%….think outside the box.

—-
Also, Tony you might want to review the legislative policy on the declaration of war and review those who supported the war in congress. Nearly 100%….think outside the box.
—-

The articles you are referring to mention military options as a last resort - after all other methods have been exhausted. (You might want to re-read that material.) Please explain why we could not wait until the UN Inspectors were finished? 30 days? We made the wrong decision based on wrong intelligence because we rushed the decision. The UN Inspectors were already hinting at the fact that they had found NO WMDs - and expected to find none… they just wanted to be thorough.

And don’t try to fly the idea that everyone in the world believed as we did that Saddam had WMDs… there’s been way too many flaws proven in that debunked excuse by the Bush Administration.

Also - please explain ‘thinking outside the box’? I was opposed to the war from the beginning - for reasons that have pretty much all been proven correct.

The Bush Administration used 9/11 and flag waving to lead us into a completely stupid distraction from our goal - minimizing or eradicating terrorism. Saddam had no connection to 9/11 or Bin Laden (another Bush Admin. lie) and we are now in a quagmire in Iraq, spending all of our resources - and up pops Bin Laden in London (and probably Egypt)… So - PLEASE explain the benefits or reasons for removing Saddam? Please explain why it’s still justified even though all of the initial arguments have been proven to be completely baseless…

Don’t slam Democrats… prove us wrong… or start trying to clean up your own party…

The latest Pew Research Poll shows that only 35% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq. 57% disapprove.

45% believe it has increased the chances of another terrorist attack here in the U.S., versus 22% who believe it has lessened those chances.

Concerns over Iraq cannot simply be written off as some ‘left vs. right’ argument.

Link.

mattLaw -

I wonder what people will think of the distraction in Iraq if terrorist attacks away from Iraq continue - much less happen on our soil again.

If we end up back at square one against the terrorists after spending all of our military capital on ‘the wrong war’… How do you think Bush and his supporters will try and spin Iraq?

Curmudgeon-at-large,

“Maybe we could have waited 30 days before we declared war on Japan? Please spare us all.”

Oh yeah, Saddam was responsible for Pearl Harbor too.

Get a grip, pal.

Americans understand we are at war with an enemy who uses our freedoms against us.

Yeah, those freedoms are our Achille’s heel. If we could just get rid of those…

I will take a straight talking Texan over a conniving carpetbagging Billary any day, any way in my Whitehouse.

That’s bizarre. Bush is a multi-millionaire from Connecticut. He’s a son of privilage from a North Eastern dynasty who went to elite universities, joined elite clubs, and ran in elite social circles. Yet, as soon as the guy fakes a Texas accent, all of a sudden, he’s “one of us”. Freaky.

We had evidence from the CIA, as well as UK and Russian intelligence.

- The CIA was split on the intelligence. In fact, it turned out that most of the intelligence was a decade old, and all the new intel was from Iraqi exiles like Chalabi, whom the CIA and State Dept. both considered unreliable. Unfortunately, the intel reports seen by Congress had those doubts removed. All the WMD intel was presented as fact, rather than assumption.

- The UK thought Libya was a greater threat than Iraq.

- And the Russian thing is just bizzarre. Putin made that claim after Bush started coming under fire, and Powell - the supposed recipient of the info - said he had no idea what Putin was talking about.

It’s pretty easy to look this stuff up before embarrassing yourself in a public forum.

Excellent post, American Pundit.

Rocky,

“Oh yeah, Saddam was responsible for Pearl Harbor too.

Geez Rocky, you don’t even recognize an analogy when you see it….

Pundit, ah Bush resides in Texas, therefore we would refer to him as a Texan. Really, is that the best you can do? So how is a Bush a liar again? That really is the point at hand and still no evidence unless we refer to entire congress as such. I guess you must find something to disprove……bravo.

—-
Pundit, ah Bush resides in Texas, therefore we would refer to him as a Texan. Really, is that the best you can do? So how is a Bush a liar again? That really is the point at hand and still no evidence unless we refer to entire congress as such. I guess you must find something to disprove……bravo.
—-

Proof has been provided - Bush is has been lying though his teeth for several years now, and it’s starting to catch up with him. If you can not or will not see it, then that’s your issue.

Bush is as much a Texan as his PR team can make him. That’s the point of that statement. He is pulling the wool over your eyes - and you’re buying it hook, line and sinker (to mix metaphors.)

Please- if all you can offer are insults propped up as argument… save everyone the bandwidth. You’ve had the same post repeated - repeated into the ground. It’s getting old.

“Bush is has been lying though his teeth for several years now, and it’s starting to catch up with him.”

Tony, follow this closely. If you can provide EVIDENCE that he is anymore a liar than the rest of congress then I will be more than willing to support the stand. I know I have stated this before, but I have yet to see any proof. Constantly repeating it will not bring it to fruition. I have no dog in the fight and despise big government. I want what is best for our nation and right now, that is NOT coming from Dems. As an Independent/Libertarian; all I see is attacks on Reps because Dems have no original ideas. Dems want to fire Rove without a trial. If Reps did this to a Dems they would cry bloody murder. Complete stupidity…

Bitterness is the call of the Dems with Ted heading the cry.
This blame game and constant name-calling (nazi, liar, neocon) accomplishes absolutely nothing. However, causes great harm. Whenever this is brought to a Dems attention they become defensive.

Example: I could care less if Bush is from Texas or Portland, but how many Dems want to harp on this insignificant point?

Go Libertarian so you can truly see your bias clearly. Reps at the moment, the lesser of the two evils.

If you can provide EVIDENCE that he is anymore a liar than the rest of congress then I will be more than willing to support the stand.

Have you heard any of the claims from the intelligence organizations…that they were pressured into shaping intelligence, and towards removing ambiguities from their data?

If such a thing happened…are those the actions of ‘honest’ individuals, in your mind?

(I am no more a democrat than you are a republican, FYI. I have no problem with conservatism…though I find it quite odd that you refer to “name calling” and give “neocon” as an example. “Neoconservatism” is very real, and labeling someone as such is not ‘name calling,’ as far as I can tell. )

—-
If you can provide EVIDENCE that he is anymore a liar than the rest of congress then I will be more than willing to support the stand.
—-
I had no idea we were discussing the whole of Congress. You need to get over these generalizations. I stated earlier, several examples of outright lies on tape. Not just from Bush, but from several members of his Administration.

Follow this CLOSELY:

1- Bush states that - before finishing the job in Afg.) we must remove Saddam from Iraq because of his IMMEDIATE threat to America.

2- Bush sets out to make the case for removing Saddam from Iraq. (Predator Drone Aircraft, mobile chemical and bio labs, high-strength aluminum tubes, ###lbs of this chemical and that agent, yellow cake from Niger.) His lied because he gave these to us as FACTS, not possibilities. If you say that “not only do we know that they (Iraq) have them, but we know where they are.” - THAT IS A LIE

3- Bush states (while trying to move the focus from OBL to Saddam) “I don’t worry about him much anymore. he’s on the run and no longer a threat to us.” In the debates he said he never said that. I’ve seen both on tape. That is a LIE.

4- Bush states that the Prescription Drug Benefit program will cost roughly $350B. He was given a report from the White House accounting office that stated the program would cost roughly $700B. Bush had the report withheld until AFTER it was voted on in the Senate. LIE

5- A side note: Rumsfield (on CNN, I believe) was asked if he ever stated that the war in Iraq was based on immanent threat. He said he had never heard anyone in the Administration mention immanent threat - and he had never used it himself. The anchors then played back a tape of Rumsfield - “There are some who would call Iraq an immanent threat. I would tend to agree with them.’ LIE

Would you like me to continue? These are not certified by a public notary - but if you can consider these as anything other than lies - the ones that aren’t not actually viewed on tape… then what are they? Intention convenient lack of memory?

Curmudgeon-at-large,

“Geez Rocky, you don’t even recognize an analogy when you see it….

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-‘na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS

Now if Saddam had attacked American soil (even though Hawaii was only a territory at the time), it may have been easier to understand your analogy.
As it stands that never happened.

If we had invaded Saudi Arabia or Pakistan maybe the analogy would have worked.

“Have you heard any of the claims from the intelligence organizations.”

I have “heard” a lot of things. Nothing substantial. If such claims were proven true, then sure those involved would be dishonest. If there was anything there “really”, I trust Dems would be all over it. When I see guys like Rather and Time Magazine “making up facts”; I tend to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. There are so many out to bring him down and resort to all means necessary to do it. I think he gets a raw deal. The little boy cried wolf one too many times…….

Tell me - Curmudgeon-a-large- what was the memo about (classified document in the Plame case) that was sent aboard Air Force One on the way to Africa… just a few days before Plame’s name was printed?

The memo was an official tactical document to discredit Wilson for questioning the pre-war intelligence. If Bush truly wanted to fully discover what Iraq was doing before he invaded - Bush would’ve folded Wilson’s information in with his other intelligence information. Instead, he set up a plan to attack and discredit the messenger. What does that say about Bush?

Bring that in line with every other piece published about Bush’s obsession with invading Iraq and you either see a pattern or a conspiracy theory. Which do you see?

And just a few more lies from Cheney, in case you want more PROOF:

“I have not,” replied Cheney, “suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” - Cheney, 12/2/02

“His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.” - Cheney, 1/30/03

“I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” - Cheney, 1/22/04

“There’s been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early ’90s…There’s clearly been a relationship.” - Cheney, 6/17/04

you know…i’m more than happy to give up pointing out that bush is from connecticut, but now he’s a texan good ol’ boy who has found jesus after doing a crap load of cocaine…whatever…

but the next time a guy from the northeast runs for office and ANY of you go off the handle with the northeast liberal elite bullshit….

expect much rage.

you don’t want us pointing out glaring disparities…then shush!

If there was anything there “really”, I trust Dems would be all over it.

That’s funny! I thought you were ticked at Dems for being “all over it”. Classic.

So how is a Bush a liar again?…

…If you can provide EVIDENCE that he is anymore a liar than the rest of congress then I will be more than willing to support the stand.

Oh, I see what’s going on. You’re shifting the goalposts so you don’t have to admit the obvious. Fair enough. Some people need the fig leaf.

Just to be really clear, President Bush deliberately mislead Congress and us - and you - by presenting sketchy WMD and terrorist intel as fact. That’s called lying.

Oh, and I never get tired of this. It’s based on interviews with Bush, Card, and Tenet,

“Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite - it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.”

Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop…. Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?”

From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. “It’s a slam dunk case!” the DCI said.

Bush pressed. “George, how confident are you?”

…”Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!”

…The president later recalled that McLaughlin’s presentation “wouldn’t have stood the test of time.” But, said Bush, Tenet’s reassurance - “That was very important.”

“Needs a lot more work,” Bush told Card and Rice. “Let’s get some people who’ve actually put together a case for a jury.” He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.

The TRIAL LAWYERS!! Man, they do come in handy sometimes. Like when you’re trying to sex-up weak intel so it gets “Joe Public” all riled up for war.

I also like how Powell didn’t believe any of the stuff he presented to the UN,

“At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. “I’m not reading this,” he declared. “This is bullshit.”

Too bad Powell was always the good soldier. He could’ve been a hero.

I have “heard” a lot of things. Nothing substantial. If such claims were proven true, then sure those involved would be dishonest. If there was anything there “really”, I trust Dems would be all over it. When I see guys like Rather and Time Magazine “making up facts”; I tend to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. There are so many out to bring him down and resort to all means necessary to do it. I think he gets a raw deal. The little boy cried wolf one too many times…….

Are you kidding? Democrats in Congress have been pushing for investigations into intelligence failures from the get-go!

Who do you think sets the course in action in Congress? How many of the opportunities have been passed over? Well, at least now we’re getting an investigation: Into the CIA, into who is deemed ‘under cover’ and if they really should be, and possibly a Congressional look into Fitzgerald’s investigation.

Way to go.

Bush is just as much a Texan as Hillary is a New Yorker.

Get over it. Who cares. Carpetbaggers are carpetbaggers. Its all politics.

Yea - who cares where people live. But Hillary is not putting on a fake New York persoanlity for the cameras. Hillary flipping off a cabby is about as true as W out of the ranch cutting trees with his chainsaw. Yea - right - as if.

The point is the level of hogwash tossed is with the home address. Bush rails against North Eastern Elite - and he is as blue-blooded as the worst of them.

Now if the Village People had room for another cowboy - then that I might buy Bush in that cowboy hat.

“Just to be really clear, President Bush deliberately mislead Congress and us - and you - by presenting sketchy WMD and terrorist intel as fact. That’s called lying.”

Can you post the information for us for review? Thanks Pundit. Seriously, I hear the allegations but forgive me if I would like to see all this “evidence”. I will not be Rathered again….

Hey perplexed; Clinton was found NOT guilty on two articles of impeachment. He was censured as a result in a non-binding article.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june99/holman_2-12.html

Curmudgeon;
Let’s keep in mind that, if this were a democratic administration, there would be much outcry from the repubs, and we would be watching major hearings on tv. Right now they are allegations about misleading the country. That’s right. The proof is not all out there yet. But why are the repubs in Congress not even trying to get to the bottom of it? Why the party line all the time? This “let’s wait and see what happens” statement is quite hollow when that is not what they did in the past. They were proactive to the max. They certainly had the time to investigate POSSIBLE steroid use in MLB. But is the issue of the admin POSSIBLY misleading the US into a war less important than that?