Quote :

"because he could never get approval from congress or the US people for a war over this"

Yeah, you're probably right......oh wait, what about the Tonkin Resolution? Didn't LBJ get a blank check to fight in Vietnam for much less than what Bush had?

6/1/2005 11:51:02 AM

OMFG THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EVER THAT PROPAGANDA HAS BEEN USED TO INCREASE POPULAR SUPPORT FOR A WAR

THE FIRST TIME EVER

PROPAGANDA HAS NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE

OMFG BUSH INVENTED PROPAGANDA

WHAT IS PROPAGANDA

OH JESUS OUR NATION'S CORE VALUES ARE AT STAKE

BUSH HAS SACRIFICED OUR NATION'S CHARACTER ON THE ALTAR OF PROPAGANDA

AT NO POINT IN OUR HISTORY HAS A LEADER EVEN THOUGHT OF USING PROPAGANDA

IMPEACH BUSH

HE USED PROPAGANDA

6/1/2005 11:54:24 AM

Quote :

" intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

Downing Street Memo July, 2002

Quote :

"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

--Bush 2003 State of the Union address.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Quote :

" Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- 1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

---False Statements Accountability Act of 1996

6/1/2005 12:40:53 PM

Quote :

"^ Can you prove that W did any of that, or is it just more pointless pryderi speculation?"

-- Soap Box Bitch Slap 2005

6/1/2005 12:43:38 PM

Quote :

"The question of prewar intelligence has been thrust back into the public eye with the disclosure of a secret British memo showing that, eight months before the March 2003 start of the war, a senior British intelligence official reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that U.S. intelligence was being shaped to support a policy of invading Iraq. Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs. These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence agencies. For instance, Bush said in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was working to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. More than a year later, the White House retracted the statement after its veracity was questioned. But the Senate report makes it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president's speech, analysts at the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium information."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html

6/1/2005 12:50:04 PM

pryderi, you make me wet in my naughty zone

6/1/2005 12:53:29 PM

Nothing new here, little buddy.

Bush reported ambiguous data in a way to support his policy. Every politician in the history of mankind has done this. I know that you would give your left nut to catch Bush in a lie, but you're just not doing it.

6/1/2005 12:54:59 PM

did we ever catch clinton in a lie? i can't remember

6/1/2005 1:00:38 PM

Did Clinton's lie cause 1500 American troops and many more Iraqi civilians to die? A polished knob is a little less significant than fixing intelligence to legitimize invading a country. Yes, Clinton lied, and should have been punished. But so should W.

6/1/2005 4:23:36 PM

Did Clinton lie or "fix intelligence" when he bombed Iraqi "chemical weapons factories" in 1998 (the night before he was impeached)?

6/1/2005 9:43:35 PM

CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT! GET OVER IT!

Quote :

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Minutes of Prime Minister Tony Blair's meeting on Iraq (7/23/2002)

Quote :

""Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." "

Dick Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002).

Quote :

""Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." "

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (10/7/2002).

Quote :

""With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people." "

Donald H. Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to American Troops, Defense Department (3/20/2003).

Quote :

"Reviewing the Record on Iraq: Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an “imminent” threat."

CIA Director George J. Tenet Georgetown University (2/5/2004)

Quote :

" Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- 1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

---False Statements Accountability Act of 1996

Americans were screwed blue and tattooed by the Bush Administration.

6/1/2005 11:15:41 PM

Quote :

"Did Clinton lie or "fix intelligence" when he bombed Iraqi "chemical weapons factories" in 1998 (the night before he was impeached)?"

Josh, if you read my post, it said that Clinton should be punished for his lies. If he did, then yes, he should have been punished. I'm not disagreeing with you on that, it should be fair game as well.

6/2/2005 12:01:49 AM

Isn't being married to Hillary punishment enough?

6/2/2005 12:27:25 AM

excellent point

6/2/2005 12:28:16 AM

i'm willing to bet that if tomorrow we found a nuclear bomb in Iraq w/ video feeds and timestamps of the bomb being made and such that shows it was pre-war, and sworn affidavits from the scientists and their grandmothers stating that the bombs were made in iraq pre-war, that pryderi would still claim that it was an illegal war and that dubya was the anti-christ

6/2/2005 12:34:09 AM

^...and you would be wrong.

6/2/2005 12:51:09 AM

i just don't see it happening

6/2/2005 12:52:10 AM

pryderi has a tatoo of saddam on his ass. it is positioned facing inward with his mouth open.

6/2/2005 1:09:12 AM

Quote :

"CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT!"

Don't dodge the question, pryderi. I just want to know your opinion on this.

Again:

Quote :

"Did Clinton lie or "fix intelligence" when he bombed Iraqi "chemical weapons factories" in 1998 (the night before he was impeached)?"

6/2/2005 9:56:47 AM

^I don't know. If he did, put him in jail for up to 5 years too. He, Gore, Bush and Cheney can share a cell for all I care.

6/2/2005 2:11:56 PM

^ Well he must have, unless you can pinpoint the moment during the 4 years between when the White House learned that Iraq actually had no WMDs and was thus forced to lie about it. From now on I hope to see Clinton listed as another war criminal in all of your little diatribes.

6/2/2005 2:34:07 PM

There's a big fucking difference between the bombing in 1998, and a full scale invasion of a sovereign nation.

Quote :

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Minutes taken from Tony Blair's meeting.

Quote :

" Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; "

--Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Iraq was not in league with Al-Qaeda, nor did it have WMDs. The Bush Administration lied to Congress in order to get approval for the invasion.



[Edited on June 2, 2005 at 2:53 PM. Reason : add]

6/2/2005 2:50:37 PM

Once again:

Quote :

"Nothing new here, little buddy. Bush reported ambiguous data in a way to support his policy. Every politician in the history of mankind has done this. I know that you would give your left nut to catch Bush in a lie, but you're just not doing it."

Can you prove that he actually lied and didn't just present the data that would support his policy?

You can't. Of course, now you'll post the Downing Street Memo again and a bunch of other pointless shit from your blogs. It won't prove anything to us, but in your mind it's the smoking gun.

6/2/2005 3:01:59 PM

The statute doesn't specify a lie.

Quote :

"" Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -- 1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.""

6/2/2005 3:24:48 PM

conceals a material fact - what material fact was concealed?

makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation - can you prove that anything that Bush said or did fit this description?

6/2/2005 3:27:19 PM

Quote :

"Public Statement of President George W. Bush: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003). Why This Statement is Misleading: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war. This statement also was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledge that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Public Statement of President George W. Bush: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003). Why This Statement is Misleading: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose. Public Statement of President George W. Bush: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003). Why This Statement is Misleading: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing weapons to al Qaeda. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario. Public Statement of President George W. Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003). Why This Statement is Misleading: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious." "

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

[Edited on June 2, 2005 at 3:53 PM. Reason : link]

6/2/2005 3:49:07 PM

Quote :

"Nothing new here, little buddy. Bush reported ambiguous data in a way to support his policy. Every politician in the history of mankind has done this. I know that you would give your left nut to catch Bush in a lie, but you're just not doing it."

1) Where did he lie?

2) Where does your precious statute ever say that stating "information that could be construed as misleading" is a crime?

3) I guess that democrats.com is a legitimate news source these days.

6/2/2005 3:56:12 PM

A "scheme" or "device".

That's why the Downing Street Minutes are so important. It shows intent for misleading Congress and the American people.

Will the WH's official site suffice as a legitmate source, Ms Joshua?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html


[Edited on June 2, 2005 at 4:03 PM. Reason : l]

6/2/2005 4:00:23 PM

again:

Quote :

"Nothing new here, little buddy. Bush reported ambiguous data in a way to support his policy. Every politician in the history of mankind has done this. I know that you would give your left nut to catch Bush in a lie, but you're just not doing it."

Quote :

"Will the WH's official site suffice as a legitmate source, Ms Joshua?"

Oh no! You found a copy of the state of the union address! You sure put me in my place!

I'm not sure what thats supposed to prove. I just thought that it was stupid that you fell back on partisan attacks on Bush that came from the website of the democrat party.

[Edited on June 2, 2005 at 4:14 PM. Reason : durrrrrr]

6/2/2005 4:04:30 PM

Who wants to guess what's gonna happen at the Saddam trial?

Does anybody think that Bush would cut him out a deal to seek asylum in a country like Saudi Arabia?

6/2/2005 4:19:38 PM

Bush's statements would constitute a violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.

The Tony Blair's Downing Street Minutes proves intent.

Quote :

"Main Entry: mens rea Pronunciation: 'menz-'rE-&, -'rA- Function: noun Inflected Form: plural men·tes re·ae /'men-"tEz-'rE-"E, 'men-"tAs-'rA-"I/ Etymology: New Latin, literally, guilty mind : a culpable mental state; especially : one involving intent or knowledge and forming an element of a criminal offense —compare ACTUS REUS Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Main Entry: mens rea Part of Speech: noun Definition: the intention to commit a wrongful act, the element that establishes criminal responsibility; a criminal mind Etymology: Latin `guilty mind' Usage: law"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mens%20rea

6/2/2005 4:22:50 PM

Why don't you take up a new hobby like crocheting or something since you're so terrible at political discussion?

6/2/2005 4:30:01 PM

he won't because there aren't as many conspiracy sites on crochet?

6/2/2005 9:50:05 PM

The minutes of Tony Blair's Downing Street meeting is going to make banner headlines soon.

6/2/2005 10:19:42 PM

is that the banner you have to print out and tape together?

6/2/2005 11:01:50 PM

Quote :

"Conyers' Downing Street Letter to Bush: '86,000 signatures' and counting... Additional Members of Congress Sign On, Now at 94 and counting... Ante Upped to 'Quarter of a Million Signatures' Apparently the American People are rallying behind John Conyers' bold leadership in Congress. He has updated the progress on his request, posted late last week , for 100,000 signatures on... Apparently the American People are rallying behind John Conyers' bold leadership in Congress. He has updated the progress on his request, posted late last week, for 100,000 signatures on his letter to Bush demanding answers concerning the Downing Street Minutes. When he receives the requested number of signatures -- upped in his latest item to a "quarter of a million" -- he has promised to hand-deliver them to the White House. The official British document, now known as the "Downing Street Minutes", originally uncovered by Rupert Murdoch's own Times of London, describes that Bush Administration as having determined to topple Saddam through military means months before receiving approval from Congress. And worse, that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.""

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001436.htm

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US media needs a modern-day "Deep Throat" within the administration of President George W. Bush to reveal how America was "misled" on Iraq, former presidential contender George McGovern said. "We need someone like that who is highly placed to tell us what's really going on. We know that we were misled on Iraq," McGovern told Fox News Radio. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050602/ts_alt_afp/usiraqwatergatebush

Quote :

" Friday, June 3, 2005 12:02 a.m. EDT Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry said, referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper. "It's amazing to me," the top Democrat said, "the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that.""

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtml

6/3/2005 12:37:15 AM

haven't read past the first page, but the overwhelming amount of cocksucking the W-backing Republicans have stated lives a taste in my mouth like that of bile

6/3/2005 1:26:42 AM

you should always live them wanting mor

6/3/2005 7:56:46 AM

Quote :

"ep. John Conyers Mens Rea and WMD We have reached a point where all but the most delusional enthusiasts of the Iraq war have now acknowledged that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and likely for over a decade preceding the war. Fox News and the President were slow to acknowledge this fact, but now have. Unfortunately, it seems this rare consensus has lulled many into failing to ask the follow-up question: why were the President and other high-ranking administration officials so definitive in their statements that Iraq possessed WMD? This question is not of a merely historical significance: we deserve to know whether these statements were the result of a "massive intelligence failure" as some have contended or a deliberate deception of the Congress and the American people. Essentially, the question boils down to what lawyers call "mens rea". Before a defendant can be convicted of a crime the judge or jury must find not only that the defendant committed the wrongful act but also did so with a state of mind indicating culpability. In the case of a fraud, the jury must find that there was intent to deceive. In the case of Iraq, the weight of evidence continues to accumulate indicating that the American people and Congress may well have been the victims of a deliberate deception. On page A26 of the Sunday, May 22 edition of the Washington Post, under the headline "Prewar Findings Worried Analysts," we learned that four days before the President made the now retracted claim that Iraq was trying to buy "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, the National Security Council thought this case was so weak that it put out a frantic call for new intelligence. In the same article, we learned that before an Oct. 7, 2002 Presidential speech in which the President claimed there was a potential threat to the U.S. by Iraq through unmanned aircraft "that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons," and a contemporaneous claim to Congress by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George Tenet that this was the "smoking gun" justifying the war, " the CIA was still uncertain whether the [source of the information] was lying." On page A1 of the Saturday, May 28 edition of the Washington Post, under the headline "Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded", we learned that the analysts who pushed the now discredited claim that Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes was for the purpose of furthering a nuclear weapons program, have been richly rewarded for this conspicuous failure, receiving job performance rewards in each of the three years since this grave error. The same article quotes "some current and former officials" as generally stating "the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence." Early this morning on the Associated Press wire, under the headline "Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing," we learn that the President's nominee to be Ambassador to the United Nations once again exercised his unique diplomatic talents, flying "to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved." The diplomat’s sin? He was "trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war." Thus, absent any contradictory evidence, in the past two weeks alone (leaving out the reports of the last three years), we have a pretty clear pattern. This Administration had a cover story, namely that a clear and present danger to the United States was posed by Iraq's WMD, for something they knew they wanted to do: go to war with Iraq. Those who brought forward the weight of evidence disputing these claims were first ignored and later punished. Those who assisted in the cover story were rewarded. Sounds like the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around the policy, as the Downing Street Minutes claim. That sounds like deliberate deception to me."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/john-conyers/mens-rea-and-wmd_2145.html

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 9:38 AM. Reason : btw, Conyers wrote this 3 days after my "mens rea" post above.]

6/6/2005 9:37:48 AM

Wow. This is just like one of those salisburyboy threads. You know, where he just posts a new article every few days. He doesn't inject his own thought or even his own words.

6/6/2005 10:21:55 AM

Well, when people give up positing arguments, I just bolster mine with documentation. Argue with me, and I'll and I'll give you more thoughts.

6/6/2005 12:54:34 PM

Whats the point in arguing with you? You're a close minded and stubborn individual who will stick to the party line, no matter what anyone else says.

6/6/2005 12:58:55 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what thats supposed to prove. I just thought that it was stupid that you fell back on partisan attacks on Bush that came from the website of the democrat party."

So would you agree that Bush's and other administration official statements would qualify as a "scheme" or "fraudulent representation" of the facts?

6/6/2005 12:59:35 PM

Oh crap

someone's actually reading Huffington's blog

PLEASE DON'T ENCOURAGE HER

6/6/2005 1:03:14 PM

I would agree if you could prove that there was a scheme or a fraudulent representation of facts. If you could provide proof that Bush actually did lie instead of just saying it over and over again that would be cool. So far you have provided nothing that would make me change my mind that they were reporting bad intelligence info.

I base my ideas on facts, not prejudices and assumptions.

6/6/2005 1:06:22 PM

Bush was told by ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was asked to investigate the Niger "yellow cake" sale to Iraq, found no evidence that any such sale back in March 2002! Long before Bush mentioned it in the 2003 State of the Union address.

Bush even retracted the statement in May of 2003, admitting the Niger document was a forgery.

We have the minutes from Tony Blair's meeting dated July 2002.

There was no evidence of a possible uranium sale to Iraq from Niger in March 2002.

Bush says in his State of the Union address January 2003, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Bush then retracts that statement in May 2003. [Conveniently after the he invades Iraq]

Now you're going to tell me that he didn't ;

1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry?

You're the one wearing the blinders.

BTW, IF YOU'RE UNSURE OF YOUR INTELLIGENCE, YOU SHOULDN'T BASE AN INVASION ON IT, UNLESS YOU'RE "FIXING THE INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE POLICY"!!!

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2005 1:34:49 PM

You have yet to prove that any of these were actual lies as opposed to intelligence mistakes.

No blinders here buddy, just rational thought. You should look into it.

6/6/2005 2:25:15 PM

How can it be an "intelligence mistake", when the intelligence was already proven to be incorrect, prior to Bush citing it in his State of the Union address?

6/6/2005 2:29:02 PM

"Proven" to be incorrect? What proof? From all sources? Please explain.

6/6/2005 2:32:06 PM

the fact of the matter is that the american people dont know half of wtf our government is involved in, nor will we ever know under this administration...as time passes, stuff will leak, bush will cover, people will get mad, and kids will start threads like this on the wolf web.

and we cant do shit about it.

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2005 2:37:20 PM