Egalement jeu world poker pc game casino texas holdem werte vente de jeu de poker poker spielen download…

Look forward to reading more soon….

The NYTimes spotlights moonbats who have nothing better to do with their time. Like Bryan said last week: These are the people who are going to build a nuclear Google bomb and drop it on the GOP? For some reason,……

They do still assert this, but refuse to provide their sources even as they’re required per IAEA guidelines. And, as we know, not even the Bush administration would vouch for it in its report to the IAEA.

And the actual report made my point.
Not really. Actually, there were two points: one was that the British still assert that the yellowcake story was correct. They do still assert this, but refuse to provide their sources. And, as we know,

I’m ignoring EVERYTHING in that Vanity Fair article by Unger, because it is nothing but deliberate misinformation. That’s why TRUTHOUT.ORG — who went silly for months by claiming that Karl Rove has been secretly indicted — has it up on their website, after all.
SOP for neocons… deny, deny, deny. So everything archived on truthout.org is a lie? That’s an awful lot of information to toss aside.

You wrote: “Perhaps you value British intelligence over American” Given the massive failures of the CIA over the years, WHY SHOULDN’T I?
Your statement speaks volumes. Sorry you’ve lost confidence in our intelligence apparatus… even though they were first on the ground and kicked ass in Afghanistan. From PBS: “Conflicts surface between the CIA and military during the Afghanistan war against the Taliban, but the war is deemed a CIA success story. Meanwhile Cheney works to undercut Tenet’s CIA by building his own intelligence capability.”

Bush accurately reported that the Brits had told the US government that that monster Saddam was attempting to buy uranium for enrichment — and that was exactly the case.
Bush did report what the British were saying. My point is he ignored what his own intelligence people were saying.

Damn straight I have a source. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, pages 45 and 46. The one who is “incorrect” is YOU (and Craig Unger).
Perhaps you can provide a link (for a change) to the report? In the one I’m looking at, it says the Iraqis didn’t have any chemical weapons.

ONLY a idiot moonbat with the brains of a toad would claim that the bi-partisan commission that included the following individuals:
Charles S. Robb, Laurence H. Silberman, Richard C. Levin, John McCain, Henry S. Rowen, Walter B. Slocombe, William O. Studeman, Charles M. Vest, Patricia Wald were “shills” or dupes of the President…”
Never said any such thing. But just like the investigations of the Iran/Contra affair in the Reagan area, you can almost guarantee the outcome you’re looking for by limiting the scope of the investigation. The New York Times explains:

Sadly, there is nothing about the central issue – how the Bush administration handled the intelligence reports on Iraq’s weapons programs and presented them to the public to win support for the invasion of Iraq. All we get is an excuse: the panel was “not authorized” to look at this question, so it didn’t bother. The report says the panel “interviewed a host of current and former policy makers” about the intelligence on Iraq, but did not “review how policy makers subsequently used that information.” (We can just see it – an investigator holding up his hand and declaiming: “Stop right there, Mr. Secretary! We’re not authorized to know what you did.”)

“Who called Pillar a liar?” Read the links. Pay particular attention to the one that links to Michelle Malkin’s site.
Which link? Throw me a bone here.

You wrote in reference to dinocrat’s blog: “Now THAT is a baldfaced lie, and you know it.” Take it up with dinocrat. I’ll take HIS word over anything YOU claim.
Dinocrat didn’t claim that “that Pillar does NOT believe in the use of military force to fight terrorism. EVER.” You did. That’s a very creative interpretation of wheat he said.

1. You suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Your personal hatred of the man precludes you even understanding the arguments against your position. You just dig in your heels and shout BUSH LIED!! even louder when well meaning people try to talk to you about it. BDS is, in fact, a specific form of paranoia (see Dr. Pat Santy’s blog, THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT at http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/political-paranoia-of-left-parts-i-and.html for a detailed explanation of what it is, and why it is so destructive to those who have it, and the rest of us forced to watch YOUR personal train wrecks.
That’s the first I’ve heard of critical ability being called a mental illness. And your link doesn’t work. I’ve applied information from sources I trust, and you simply dismiss them all as liars, including the intelligence professionals involved in the affair, without providing a source to the contrary aside from British intelligence, which the Bush administration itself claimed to doubt in its report to the IAEA. Pretty shaky.

YOU and your fellow moonbats believe that “BUSH LIED!!” to take us into war. Nothing that anybody tell you, no proof or logic to the contrary will sway you that you might happen to be wrong.
Provide me with some proof or logic that the WMDs do exist, or that Saddam was a threat to us. Provide me with proof or logic that shows any of the Bush administrations rosy predictions for Iraq came true, or that there were any links to Al Qaeda as the President claimed… and then denied. If Bush is so concerned with the perpetrators of terror, where is the logic in diverting resources from hunting Osama bin Laden to a fool’s errand in Iraq? It’s documented that the PNAC advocated invading Iraq back in the 90’s, members including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and John Bolton. Think there wasn’t a predisposition to invade Iraq on flimsy evidence? Who’s in denial here?

You and people like you litterly live in a different perceptional reality than the rest of us. You are so far removed the fact, and are unwilling to accept the fact, that we face a war “to the knife,” one which was not-of-our-choosing, that you hide in the comfortable denial of the mantra: BUSH LIED!!

We will NOT yield to you the argument. We will not let your paranoia and your denial threaten our survival.

I live in the same place and time as you do, I just see it differently. I agree with Paul Pillar: terrorism cannot be destroyed, only minimized and controlled. This should be obvious to you if you think about it. Why? Because the jihad against America, and the concept that America is the Great Satan, is an idea. And you can’t destroy an idea. You could attempt to kill every person who chooses to act on that idea, but you will simply give more credence to the Great Satan label, and help the idea spread; the most recent NIE has shown as much. The war in Iraq has made us less safe.

The good new is that America is also an idea that can’t be destroyed. Every terrorist in the world could strap on an explosive vest and successfully detonate it within the United States, and we would still be here; even if they destroyed every major city in our country, we would still exist and function. They can never, ever destroy us. Our survival isn’t threatened, but I’m sure you can see there are those who are all too ready to create paranoia and exploit fear for their own ends. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves, of course, the key word is defend.

We can only be destroyed from the inside, by betraying our own laws and principles. By dismissing sections of the constitution, by giving in to fear and allowing unscrupulous men to divert our resources (especially our military) to their own ends. This is how the Soviet Union collapsed, through its own corruption and lack of principle. In this way, the Bush Administration has done tremendous damage to the idea of America as a just nation working for the benefit of mankind.

What’s with all the ANGRY CAPS? Seems you devote a great deal of energy to psychoanalyzing and namecalling rather than debating the facts.

“Incorrect. You’re quoting the Butler Report, a British inquiry. The summary can be found here; ”

WHY READ A SUMMARY, boyo, when you can read the ACTUAL Butler Report instead. And the actual report made my point.

You wrote: “And you’re ignoring…”

DAMN STRAIGHT I’m ignoring it. I’m ignoring EVERYTHING in that Vanity Fair article by Unger, because it is nothing but deliberate misinformation. That’s why TRUTHOUT.ORG — who went silly for months by claiming that Karl Rove has been secretly indicted — has it up on their website, after all.

You wrote: “Perhaps you value British intelligence over American”

Given the massive failures of the CIA over the years, WHY SHOULDN’T I?

The CIA *HAD NO CLUE* that the fall of the Soviet Union was imminent. The CIA *BLEW* the location of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia that we mistakenly bombed. The CIA *BLEW* the entire Iraq WMD thing — George Tenet even said it was “slam dunk!”

Bush accurately reported that the Brits had told the US government that that monster Saddam was attempting to buy uranium for enrichment — and that was exactly the case.

Unger (and you) are LYING.

You wrote: “Incorrect. You have a source for that? If it’s the GOP web site smear of Wilson, please tee that up for me so I can hit it out of the park.”

Damn straight I have a source. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, pages 45 and 46. The one who is “incorrect” is YOU (and Craig Unger).

You wrote: “Robb/Silberman report was commissioned by Bush himself. If that alone isn’t enough to discredit it, there’s this. [With a link to Mediamatters.org."

ONLY a idiot moonbat with the brains of a toad would claim that the bi-partisan commission that included the following individuals:

Charles S. Robb
Co-Chairman

Laurence H. Silberman
Co-Chairman

Richard C. Levin
John McCain
Henry S. Rowen
Walter B. Slocombe
William O. Studeman
Charles M. Vest
Patricia Wald

OF COUNSEL

Lloyd Cutler
[Source: http://www.wmd.gov/commissioners.html

... were "shills" or dupes of the President, especially when the commissioners included university presidents, corporate CEOs, senior DOD officials under DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS Clinton, Carter and Johnson, two federal appellate judges, INCLUDING a FISA judge AND a former justice of the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague (who was appointed to the federal bench by CARTER) and that they are "discredited" -- and then try to justify it by an appeal to mediamatters, a liberal/Democratic Party *LIE FACTORY*

That's called moving the goal posts, and that kind of bullshit behavior on your part isn't going to fly, moonbat.

You wrote: "Who called Pillar a liar?"

Read the links. Pay particular attention to the one that links to Michelle Malkin's site.

You wrote in reference to dinocrat's blog: "Now THAT is a baldfaced lie, and you know it."

Take it up with dinocrat. I'll take HIS word over anything YOU claim.

You wrote: "You may disagree with Mr. Pillar’s ideas and opinions, but that doesn’t make him a liar."

Take it up with Steven Hayes, Dinocrat, and Michelle Malkin. I trust their word over ANYTHING you claim.

You wrote: "You’re a class act, sir. Sorry to have messed with your world view and made you so upset."

Thank you, I think.

Let me explain why I am no longer predisposed to be in the mood for "taking prisoners" on the BUSH LIED!! moonbat mantra.

1. You suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Your personal hatred of the man precludes you even understanding the arguments against your position. You just dig in your heels and shout BUSH LIED!! even louder when well meaning people try to talk to you about it.

BDS is, in fact, a specific form of paranoia (see Dr. Pat Santy's blog, THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT at http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/political-paranoia-of-left-parts-i-and.html for a detailed explanation of what it is, and why it is so destructive to those who have it, and the rest of us forced to watch YOUR personal train wrecks.

The hallmark of the paranoid individual and the paranoid style is constant anticipation or expectation of either attack or personal betrayal. Paranoia finds causal connections everywhere and in everything; for them, nothing is coincidental. They can develop complicated conspiracies about innocuous behaviors and seemingly irrelevant events. Their paranoia makes them constantly on guard, searching for hidden motives and meanings in everyone else's behavior. (Just go check out the Democratic Underground, where these fantasies on every action or inaction on the part of the Bush administration are immediately converted into conspiracies and plots). The tragic death of a reporter -- Bush et al had him killed because he knew too much. Osama's most recent tape -- a Rovian plot to show how frightened we should be. And so on.

...Once fixed on a particular idea or explanation -- no matter how bizarre or irrational; the paranoid person looks for evidence to validate their prejudices. It is almost impossible to change their minds. Their entire concept of themselves is tied up with the paranoid idea or conspiracy. If it did not exist, or was proven to be untrue or false-- then they would need to question their underlying assumptions and ideas--and those are what usually form the foundation of who they believe themselves to be.

YOU and your fellow moonbats believe that "BUSH LIED!!" to take us into war. Nothing that anybody tell you, no proof or logic to the contrary will sway you that you might happen to be wrong.

which leads us to:

2. You and people like you litterly live in a different perceptional reality than the rest of us. You are so far removed the fact, and are unwilling to accept the fact, that we face a war "to the knife," one which was not-of-our-choosing, that you hide in the comfortable denial of the mantra: BUSH LIED!!

3. There can be no meaningful communication between fools like you who are blind to the truth and the nature of the reality that faces us, because your very belief structure is, by its very existance, a mortal threat to my life, and that of my family, and the people of America. And the inability to convey awareness of this to you is blocked by YOUR mental chains, not mine.

Michael Walzer, the editor of Dissent Magazine put it this way:

"Many left intellectuals live in America like internal aliens, refusing to identify with their fellow citizens, regarding any hint of patriotic feeling as politically incorrect. That's why they had such difficulty responding emotionally to the attacks of September 11 or joining in the expressions of solidarity that followed. Equally important, that's why their participation in the policy debate after the attacks was so odd; their proposals (turn to the UN, collect evidence against bin Laden, and so on) seem to have been developed with no concern for effectiveness and no sense of urgency. They talked and wrote as if they could not imagine themselves responsible for the lives of their fellow-citizens...

...But what really marks the left, or a large part of it, is the bitterness that comes with abandoning any such desire. The alienation is radical. How else can one understand the unwillingness of people who, after all, live
here, and whose children and grandchildren live here, to join in a serious debate about how to protect the country against future terrorist attacks? There is a pathology in this unwillingness, and it has already done us great
damage.

...We can be as critical as we like, but these are people whose fate we share; we are responsible for their safety as they are for ours, and our politics has to reflect that mutual responsibility. When they are attacked, so are we; and we should join willingly and constructively in debates about how to defend the country." [Michael Walzer, "Can there be a decent left?"
Dissent Magazine, Spring 2002,
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wwwboard/salon.html, emphasis added by me]

UNTIL YOU PEOPLE GROW UP AND ACCEPT THE WORLD AS IT IS AND STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR INFANTILE “BUSH LIED!!” MANTRA, you will get nowhere with the rest of us.

We will NOT yield to you the argument. We will not let your paranoia and your denial threaten our survival.

Well now, if Bush lied then Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, etc. also lied, because they had the same info that Bush did and said pretty much what he said about Iraq and WMDs.

However, if Bush didn’t lie, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, etc. still lied, because they backtracked from their original statements.

I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that if the donks were mislead by certain intelligence, so were the pubbies.

But in case you didn’t know, WMDs weren’t the only reason we invaded Iraq. Remember the firing on our planes in the no-fly zone? Remember the WMDs used on the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north? Remember the imperialistic designs of Iraq on both Iran and Kuwait? Remember the Oil for Food Scandal?

I can agree with one thing, if you have a steady diet of MSM, you can be forgiven that things are always going badly over there for us. Try milbloggers for a more honest assessment – of both the good and bad. Occassionally, things do slip out into the MSM because they are so amazing. Such as purple fingers.

Concerning Wilson: Which version of his yellowcake story are you concluding is the truth? The one which says that Saddam was trying to obtain it, or the one which says he wasn’t? Even Kerry eliminated Wilson from his website when he found out what a liar and an embarrasment Wilson had become. And this from a person who has never fully released his military records – while claiming he will (or has, as the case may be).

Oh, and let’s not forget Wilson’s changing stories on his wife being outed.

Really? Your opinion means so much to me, so I must have lost, even though my rebuttal went unanswered. I shall mourn now.

Just so you know, you lost the argument. By quite a large margin. But it was funny watching you squirm like a worm on a hook. Care to try it again?

Six months? He had over a year thanks to Sen. Rockefeller.

I can’t agree or disagree with your sources if you don’t provide them. Do your homework

I think you have really just revealed what is wrong with liberal groupthink. You site sources when quoting someone or listing facts. Asking for citations at the stage when someone is making logical and deductive arguments shows you really are not thinking for yourself and are making the logical fallacy of relying on arguments from authority.

If you have an answer for that, you’ll be the first.

Also, I’m going to hide a truck somewhere in Indiana, Illinois, or perhaps Ohio (three states which together are roughly the size of Iraq). I get three, no make that six months head start before anyone can start looking. Could be on the outskirts of Akron, maybe suburban Fort Wayne, or a warehouse in Kankakee.
If no one finds it, guess it doesn’t exist.
Oh yeah, it might also be in Wisconsin, but you can’t look there.
Good luck!

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/23/right-wingers-prank-dnc-donations-page/

So what does this expensive plan accomplish? If I’m googling a Republican candidate, there will be some ads and a top link to an article that is not complimentary … SO EFFING WHAT?

btw, I love the DNC prank referred to here — so much more clever!

Ignoring the fact that you’re confusing Huxley and Orwell…

Yeah, my bad on that one.

you purposefully avoid my point – that while the rest of us both care about and know the actual, objective facts, you neither know nor care.

I directly responded to your point; read again. I understand that nobody knew anything 100%– in spite of BushCo statements to the contrary. I present no facts of my own, but cite other sources. In the case of pre-war intelligence, I direct you to the words of the American operatives in the PBS piece.

You make exactly zero attempt to demonstrate how President Bush could – in any conceivable way – have even had the knowledge necessary to “lie.” Try a direct answer: if Hussein’s generals thought they had WMD’s, how exactly was the President – or anyone else – supposed to have better information?

Sorry, but I dispute the premise of your question. I ask you again, what is the source of this information? I provide my sources for you to examine; you should do the same.

In the end, you have but one argument: that somehow Democrats (and the rest of the world) were either dumb enough or ill-informed enough to be entirely fooled by a President who you most likely call “dumb.” Right?

Where in my posts do I call the President “dumb”? As Commander-In-Chief and instigator of the Iraq war, he’s certainly incompetent. The current state of Iraq bears that out.

Are you intellectually honest enough to admit it? That for YOU to be right, the Bush administration had to have both 1) had an amazing ability to discover information that even the Iraqi military didn’t know, and 2) had an even more amazing ability to fool every Democratic leader and every major government on Earth.

Again, I can’t agree or disagree with your sources if you don’t provide them. Do your homework.

Right? So … um … how do you explain the following statements – noting the dates. How precisely is George Bush to blame for all of the following? (Multiple quotes)

The fact that you rely on all these quotes from the 1990s seems to assume that no new information became available post-9/11. Again, I direct you to the statments of the people who were there. In addition, to my knowledge not one of the people you quoted has ever advocated invading and occupying Iraq. This has been the most recent tactic of Bush supporters. Since all Bush/Cheney’s justifications for war have proven to be without merit, neocons now comb the archives for anti-Saddam statements by anybody they can find, as if somehow this proves “everybody” (and by extension Bush/Cheney) believed the WMDs were there and we had to invade.

Hey, I can have fun with quotes, too. Here’s one:

“While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs…”
–George H. W. Bush, Time Magazine, March 2 1998

Well, he was certainly accurate about the “incalculable human and political costs,” wasn’t he? How many of Bush/Cheney’s predictions have come true?

I see you’ve declared the discussion over and yourself the winner. Congratulations.

Ignoring the fact that you’re confusing Huxley and Orwell, you purposefully avoid my point – that while the rest of us both care about and know the actual, objective facts, you neither know nor care.

You make exactly zero attempt to demonstrate how President Bush could – in any conceivable way – have even had the knowledge necessary to “lie.” Try a direct answer: if Hussein’s generals thought they had WMD’s, how exactly was the President – or anyone else – supposed to have better information?

Wait – let me guess. The Iraqi generals, along with the French/Russian/Israelis et al were ALL relying on Bush Adminstration statements? ALL of them? Really?

In the end, you have but one argument: that somehow Democrats (and the rest of the world) were either dumb enough or ill-informed enough to be entirely fooled by a President who you most likely call “dumb.” Right?

Are you intellectually honest enough to admit it? That for YOU to be right, the Bush administration had to have both 1) had an amazing ability to discover information that even the Iraqi military didn’t know, and 2) had an even more amazing ability to fool every Democratic leader and every major government on Earth.

Is *that* your position?

Well, even if we could swallow that silliness, you encounter a rather large problem: for any of the above to be logically true – this statement ALSO has to be true:

“As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, all claims by Democrats post 9/11 were based on the administration’s own claims as they tried to make the case for Iraq. They made the mistake of trusting this President, who had access to the best information.”

Right? So … um … how do you explain the following statements – noting the dates. How precisely is George Bush to blame for all of the following?

(Game – set – match. Next troll, please)

………………….

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

It is thus an absolute logical impossibility to claim as Constantine tries that Bush *KNEW* there were no WMDs. It’s not even a possibility. For Bush to know that, he would have not only had to have been smarter than every Democrat, he would have had to have had better information than every nation on Earth, and Hussein’s own military.

This is true. All I’ve proven is that Bush had all the information he needed to determine that at very least there was strong doubt that the WMDs and everything else they claimed didn’t exist. The key is that he was knowingly contradicting his own intelligence sources when making the case for war to Congress and the American people. He approved Colin Powell’s statement to the U.N. that the existence of WMDs was “not an assertion, it’s a fact.” That’s what we call a lie.

The fact that American intelligence was correct and Bush was not is more evidence of the lie.

Every Democrat is on record, many as late as 2002, with unquivocal statements that Hussein did, in fact, have WMDs; every intelligence on Earth, from the Russians to the French, reached the same conclusions.
Even as late as 2003, Hussein’s own generals beleived they had WMDs to use.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, all claims by Democrats post 9/11 were based on the administration’s own claims as they tried to make the case for Iraq. They made the mistake of trusting this President, who had access to the best information. As far as the opinions of all the other world powers, I’d be interested to see your sources (except the British, who can’t verify their own conclusions, and neither can American intelligence).

Give up on the facts. They don’t matter.

Living in Aldous Huxley’s 1984, are we? Perhaps closer to the truth than we’d like to admit.

For Bush to know that, he would have not only had to have been smarter than every Democrat, he would have had to have had better information than every nation on Earth, and Hussein’s own military.

That Constantine can believe that is … well, liberal.

Give up on the facts. They don’t matter. But nice posting!

Professor Blather on October 23, 2006 at 9:56 AM

No Democrat would ever admit that Mr. Bush is smarter than any of them.

Professor, I’m so happy you’re back!

It looks like the ability to tweak google searches isn’t only for sales purposes anymore: What The utilization of Google Adwords and simultaneous, widespread embedded hyperlinks in order to drive as many voters as possible toward the most damning, non…

Incorrect. You’re quoting the Butler Report, a British inquiry. The summary can be found here; much of it contradicts statements by BushCo. And you’re ignoring:

“In last-minute negotiations between the White House and the C.I.A., a decision was made to attribute the alleged Niger uranium deal to British intelligence. The official reason was that it was preferable to cite British intelligence, which Blair had championed in his 50-page report, rather than classified American intelligence. But the C.I.A. had told the White House again and again that it didn’t trust the British reports.”

“A week after Bush’s speech, on February 4, the Bush administration finally forwarded electronic copies of the Niger documents to the I.A.E.A. Astonishingly, a note was attached to the documents which said, ‘We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims.’”

Perhaps you value British intelligence over American.

2. JOE WILSON was proven to be a LIAR when he claimed in his NY Times article that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake, because he TOLD THE CIA THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Incorrect. You have a source for that? If it’s the GOP web site smear of Wilson, please tee that up for me so I can hit it out of the park. If Wilson has been proven to have lied, why isn’t he being prosecuted for lying to congress?

3. The Robb/Silberman commission EXPLODED Paul Pillar’s thesis. They say, CATAGORICALLY, that the Bush Administration did not influence the Oct 2002 NIE in any way. The CIA (of which Pillar is an employee) screwed it all all by themselves.

Incorrect. First of all, you disigenuously omit the fact that the Robb/Silberman report was commissioned by Bush himself. If that alone isn’t enough to discredit it, there’s this.

4. So we have a CIA employee with an agenda to LIE and UNDERMINE the President of the United States — HIS ULTIMATE BOSS.

Who called Pillar a liar?

Dinocrat at http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/09/27/who-is-paul-r-pillar/ notes that Pillar does NOT believe in the use of military force to fight terrorism. EVER.

Now THAT is a baldfaced lie, and you know it. The article cites an Amazon reader review of the book which states:

Mr. Pillar explains the methods for answering the terrorist threat and -contrary to what many may think- he relegates military actions to the last place of the list.

Does that qualify as “not ever?”

You may disagree with Mr. Pillar’s ideas and opinions, but that doesn’t make him a liar. And in fact, his assessments are in line with recent events, in that military action has not proven to be a solution, and in fact has created more terrorism (see most recent NIE report). You seem to have a hard-on for Pillar, yet ignore the statements of everybody else in the PBS piece. Tyler Drumheller, CIA’s top spy in Europe regarding the yellowcake story: “We never took it seriously. I mean, we looked at it, but there was never any real substance to it.” Is Drumheller a traitor, too? And in fact, anybody who disagrees with Bush?

So, moonbat.

georgej on October 23, 2006 at 2:57 AM

You’re a class act, sir. Sorry to have messed with your world view and made you so upset.