Bush to discuss Afghanistan, dollar on European trip

TO TERRORFIEDJun 10th, 2008 - 21:18:07

Your comments are brief, true, extremely important and concise - a credit to these pages, where people write enormously long pieces of utter crap which nobody reads except SP4 and that little prick Tonny from Belgium.

Well done !

We all know the war was a personal Presidential circus act. Not about, Saddam, weapons or terrorists, but about OIL and killing thousands of young American soldiers, many of them conscripted to die early from their families, jobs and happy American life.

The little Texas murdering pig.

Report this comment

Again...Jun 11th, 2008 - 06:51:57

'Your comments are brief, true, extremely important and concise - a credit to these pages,'

Too bad they are 1)Spam and 2)Wrong.

'How is it NOT front-page worthy that a sitting president of the United States had 35 articles of impeachment brought against him yesterday?'

Because he didn't. Kucinich doesn't have a case and they know it.

' finding that the Bush administration actually DID exaggerate and manipulate intelligence information to garner support for the occupation??'

Because that is not what it said. The New York Sun's editorial board notes that Rockefeller deliberately manipulated data for his committee's report to support the 'Bush Lied' BS:

Mr. Rockefeller decided to exclude a handwritten note from the CIA's terrorism analyst of the Mr. Bush's 2002 speech in Cincinnati on the eve of the Congressional vote authorizing the war saying the paragraphs about Iraq and terrorism were 'all-Okay.' Wrote Senators Bond, Chambliss, Hatch, and Burr in an addendum to the report: 'Apparently the majority did not think this was something the public needed to know since they denied our request to include it and did not allow a vote on the amendment offered to fix this shortcoming.'

www.nysun.com/editorials/the-senates-intelligence/79553/?print=70751031 21

EVEN STILL:

Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements 'were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.'

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements 'were substantiated by intelligence information.'

On chemical weapons, then? 'Substantiated by intelligence information.'

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? 'Generally substantiated by intelligence information.' Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? 'Generally substantiated by available intelligence.' Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? 'Generally substantiated by intelligence information.'

Hiatt also brings up Rockefeller's own inconvenient quote from October 2002:

'There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.'

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR200806080168 7.html

Report this comment