Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements
Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements
During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” Watch it:
In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:
BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]
BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]
BUSH: [Zarqawi's] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]
Transcript:
MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
what a fricken lie. and why do these folks keep denying the truth when in fact it can be proven. ummmmm, sociopaths?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pmYay...more fodder for Jon Stewart.
Somewhere along the line, the presidential shenanigans have lost their appeal...I think it was around January 20th, 2000.
Someone needs to go in armed with a soundboard of all the president's statements, and just play them back to him when he attempts to deny them.
When is enough enough? When do we get our country back?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:33 pmWhy doesn't someone point out that Saddam was trying to have Zarqawi arrested… BUSH KNEW THIS... and still he perpetuated the lie that Saddam was providing safe-haven for Zarqawi?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:34 pm*!@$#^ liar that Bush.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:41 pmHe's not lying. See, he never used the exact phrase "operational relationsihp" so everything is hunky dory (*wink*). He also never said Saddam and Zarqawi were "BFF", "totally ccol with each other", or that they were "homies" so he's totally off the hook and it is everyone else's fault for believing otherwise.
Now, someone needs to ask him if he said "he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi".......
September 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pmTripMaster Monkey,
I've been wondering the same thing.
The journalists know the question they're going to ask; for crissake have a tape or at the very least a transcript available!
Why do they let this Admin. get away with blatantly lying to the American Public?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pmDo you mean he has been lying to us all along?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pmCould someone clarify his statement(s)?
Methinks that it's getting harder and harder to talk their way out of their lies.
I learned that lesson when I was a kid. Tell and lie and you almost inevitably had to tell a bunch more lies to cover the first lie.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pmI don't believe the question was if there was an "operational relationship". This is amazing. They push the fear then juggle the words when that falsehood is exposed and go merrily along like the gengerbread man. "I didn't say that" is not a free pass. Game over.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:44 pmLook, you can't have it both ways - when you say something, and it's on record, you can't just magically "un-say" it. How many times can the president claim to have it both ways and the so-called "reporters" let him get away with it?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:44 pmI was looking for the quote from Clear and Present Danger when Harrison Ford confronted the President when he tried to pass the buck and say he didn't know what had happened. Can't find it. Something like "I won't let you tarnish their memories by saying you had no idea what happened!"
But this one is almost better. For shame Mr Bush.
"(1) You are such a boy scout. You see everything in black and white. (2) No, no, no Mr Bush {Ritter}. Not black and white. Right and wrong."
September 15th, 2006 at 2:44 pmBut..but...but...he wasn't lying. He said that Saddam provided safe haven to terrorists "like" Zarqawi. In the second statement, he said that Saddam harbored terrorists, then just rattled off a few names which had nothing to do with the original statement. See, you folks need to work harder at splitting hairs.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWe just heard the President of the United States refuse to obey the law and directly attack The Supreme Court of the United States, when he said “This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.â€
We just heard the President of the United States ask what outrages upon human dignity meant, when he asked “And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like — it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity?â€
Any more questions?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:52 pm"I never said there was an operational relationship...."
....and no one asked you if there was an 'operational relationship' Georgie.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:53 pmBush also never said that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. He was talking about "nukular weapons" :)
September 15th, 2006 at 3:00 pmCan someone please ask him if being in the same country constitutes a relationship... if so maybe we need to investigate Bush's relationship with the 911 hijackers!
September 15th, 2006 at 3:02 pmWhat Bush says and does is reminiscent of how the writer Mary McCarthy described th playwright Lillian Hellman: "Every word that comes out of her mouth is a lie, including the words 'the" and "and."
September 15th, 2006 at 3:03 pmAll I can say is thank god for miracle of technology. Not only do we see the actual clips of the lies and misstatements, we have transcripts to verify them as well. Does he really believe that he is pulling one over on the people of this country? Not anytime soon and with technology. We can see the actual clip and see him for the liar that he is.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI wonder what the Bush adim. has already done, he wants the law changed in quite a hurry. The 14 sent to Gitmo may have already been subjected to some of it. And why is the CIA hiring lawywers left and right?.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:08 pmDemocratic President lies- Impeach
September 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pmRepublican President Lies-IOKIYAR
They are puking on their own lies. If it were not so serious, it would almost be entertaining.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:13 pmBush lies even when he doesn't have to. It's good practice.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pmBush rewrites history on everything regarding Iraq, so I am NOT surprised Dubya Dunce Decider Despot tries to change his prior statements on Zarqawi, who by the way was a CIA stooge creation!
September 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pmBUSH HAS JUMPED THE SHARK! IT IS ALL COMING UNDONE NOW!
September 15th, 2006 at 3:16 pmBy the same logic, Bush had a relationship with the terrorists who struck on 9/11. After all, they were living in the United States, ergo Bush provided terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers a safe-haven; Bush harbored terrorists. Now, there might not have been an operational relationship....
September 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pmYou see - "harbor" is not spelled the same was as "operational" so God told Bush that this lie was OK.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pmMy thoughts exactly, calguy.
Could it be that GWB has finally hit the slippery slope?
AND can we please not back off the guy?
September 15th, 2006 at 3:21 pmi hope the bushliar-criminal is in a public setting when his head explodes so we get to see what shit-for-brains looks like.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:22 pm.
putting bush out in public is an incrediably risky proposition. unka karl is clearly desparate.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pm.
I'd love to see an ad run continuously by the Democrats that simply shows Bush's denial and then clips of him saying there was a connection (maybe with some Rice and Cheney clips thrown in for good measure).
The screen could then say: "Had enough? Vote Democrat."
September 15th, 2006 at 3:24 pmOne possible reason for the President to hold onto this idea of ties between Iraq and Al Qiada is that there is no declaration of war only the AUMF.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
No connection means no authority to attack Iraq. Why isn't this being pushed.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#11-Tyler:
I was just (in the bar at lunch) seeing the replays on CNN of the conference, thinking of Batman...."this town (country) needs an enema!!"
Funny (disgusting) how we can pull crap out of Hollywood to compare this mess to. Fitting, no doubt.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:27 pmRiddle me this....
Bush is exposed as a liar, admits to torture and secret prisons, admits to breaking the law, admits that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11...... and his poll numbers go up because of the Repuglicans coming back to his side.
WTF? Are Repuglicans really that frigging stupid?
September 15th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHEY! just in from mowing... randi has clips from this press con...
dubyas' answer to a very good david gregory question is worth highlighting... he thinks the WHOLE WORLD ought to be able to torture... it'd be a better place... !!!
sorry to be yelling... this is a "melt down" for sure...
September 15th, 2006 at 3:31 pmhellina, good catch!
September 15th, 2006 at 3:34 pmI think that it is ironic that the most significant early advances in magnetic recording technology occurred in Nazi Germany. My dad spent about six weeks in post-war Germany gathering up the technology for the feds. He had spoken German at home as a boy and was able to speak either native or English with the German engineers and physicists.
That technology has come back to haunt the Fascists here.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:41 pmPer the Intelligence Committee Report:
The Intelligence Community used the term safehave to describe both active assistance to and passive acquiescence of al-Qa'ida operations.
The report finds that Saddam indeed provided a safehaven to Zarqawi and other terrorist networks.
Another thinkparanoid thread debunked.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:43 pmBush baby looks angry in the TP pic, so watch out he might order an attack on Iran tomorrow to screw us all over in revenge! Dubya is going insane, so he is very dangerous unstable kook now!
September 15th, 2006 at 3:43 pmYou are trying to make a news story out of something a politician said in 2003 and 2004? It is 2006, wake up. This isn't news.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:45 pmOf course it's new double R. Just saying words doesn't make it so. We are in the mess today because of what's been said in 02,03 and 04. it's called accountability you should try it some time
September 15th, 2006 at 4:23 pmYou are right Roger_Roger, it's not new news, it's fact.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:23 pm[Bush] "I never had relations with that terrorist!"
I hope it will be his final undoing.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pmI love with this douche is caught in an outright lie - he just compounds it with another one. I think the media may finally be starting to get the message that if you're aggressive with the chimp he'll eventually run away and suck his thumb in the corner. And I don't know about you guys, but that'd be good TV.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:27 pmAmerica's Least Wanted
The Intelligence Community used the term safehave to describe both active assistance to and passive acquiescence of al-Qa’ida operations.
The report finds that Saddam indeed provided a safehaven to Zarqawi and other terrorist networks.
Another thinkparanoid thread debunked.
Comment by Steed Lankershim —
"Passive acquiescence?" You mean, Zarqawi was in the Kurdish safe zone?
Another "debunking" that gets debunked! How it feel to be pantsed by your own strawman, Steed?
September 15th, 2006 at 4:30 pmRoger_Roger
You want us to stop talking about ONGOING distortion from BushCo, but you can harp all you want about Clinton after all this time. I don't think so!
Republicans: The “I’ve got mine†Party
September 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pmRepublicans believe in THEM.
Democrats, believe in US.
Republicans: the ConServingTime Party
Democrats: If you love liberty, love a liberal
Conservatives start wars. Liberals finish them.
He lies and commit crimes in the name of United States.
We know he does this time and time again.
But no one is able or willing to stop him.
Where are our heros?
September 15th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWhat happened to our "Land of the Brave???"
Yes, like every other nation state of present and past, we have appeasers and enablers abound.
One may argue we may have more of them than ever before in a single country.
Goddamn, why can't one member of the press, ONE TIME respond to one of Chimpy's misdirections by saying clearly and loudly, "With all due respect, Mr. President, that WASN'T the question"?
That seems to me like it would be one GIANT step forward to restoring the nation we once knew.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:37 pmYou are trying to make a news story out of something a politician said in 2003 and 2004? It is 2006, wake up. This isn’t news.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 15, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
WTF?!?
September 15th, 2006 at 4:38 pmIs this why we still have Bush and other criminals still in power?
Damn!!!
Each time I see this type of comment, I lose hope for my country little more.
When a lie from the lips of the "commander-in-chief" is exposed, and said lie was used as a basis (amongst other lies) to go to war with a country that was not a threat, then yes that is news.
His lies have caused needless deaths and have mortgaged the economic future of this country.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmsorry, should have been "Home of the Brave"
September 15th, 2006 at 4:39 pmCan't even think straight anymore
This is the rub... when they catch him trying
September 15th, 2006 at 4:43 pmto rewrite history, they need to hit him right
then and there with the facts. Read back his
quotes to him and let him respond to THAT.
Reporters need to start bringing portable AV units with the quotes in question cued-up and ready for playback. That way, next time one of these asshats denies he ever said it, they can play it right there. Gotcha maggot repuke!
September 15th, 2006 at 4:46 pm"Read back his quotes to him and let him respond to THAT."
That is all well and good BUT as we saw earlier in Bush's response to Powell, Bush evades the question and produces strawman aurguments and baseless rhetoric AND I'm not sure anyone at a Bush question and answer period gets to do a follow up question. Rove has taught him well
September 15th, 2006 at 4:49 pmI saw the old clips of Dan Rather getting into it with Nixon. Even Nixon kept some level of composure and dealt with it, like a professional should. The exchanges were allowed to take place.
Shit nowadays if that happens the reporter would be fired the next day, and family would disappear. They are much more afraid to ask the tough questions, they know they will just be removed. If that isn't moving away from a free country I don't know what is.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:57 pmAnd he doesn't allow follow up questions. She sat down. I saw only Gregory persist for a follow up only to get another non-reply.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:59 pmOne day I expect to see W explode in rage at one of these press conferences. He is petulant, defiant, and arrogant. He cannot continue to defend his losing position. His contradictions and revisions are more numerous. He is cracking at the edges, and Humpty Dumpty is either going to have to take more meds or cease the pressers.
Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html?sub=AR
September 15th, 2006 at 5:07 pmKICK
September 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pmRemember "Schoolhouse Rock" played on Saturday morinings during cartoons? We bought that tape for my 9 year old son, and I watched it with him, all the episodes are there. It was real nostalgic, but I noticed, some of that material would be considered leftist propaganda today, or even Anti-American.
The one that was most poingent (sp?) was the one about how we had a revolution, due to taxation without representation, and they throw the bucket on the king after the Boston Tea party. Run the British out, and we're gonna have a president instead of a king.
"Rockin and a Rollin"
"Splishin and a splashin"
"Over the horizon what do I see"
"It looks like its goin to be, a free country"
I know its corny, but what would people say if that material was shown to kids nowadays? The concept of revolution and throwing out a King? Taxation with representation?
What have we become?
September 15th, 2006 at 5:17 pmI support this blog. I believe Bush and his administration are incompetent.
But if we are going to make true progress, then we need to be judicious in our critique. In none of the three examples supplied by Payson does Bush ever claim that Saddam and Zarqawi had an operational relationship. Technically, there is no history being rewritten here. Naturally, however, there is a lack of total honesty.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:21 pmRen,
We got it on video tape, I don't know if they have a DVD, it is really good stuff, I didn't know how good I had it when I was a kid.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:31 pm"The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it has never been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past has ever existed."
George Orwell, in the voice of Emmanuel Goldstein, 1984
September 15th, 2006 at 5:37 pmHey I got an idea, we have Bush sit down and watch "Schoolhouse Rock".
It gives the basic fundamentals of government, the Constitution, our founding fathers, and some grammar to boot. Its put in a format with catchy songs, and cartoon depictions. I think that would be a perfect way to introduce George to America and how things work.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:40 pmWe have School House Rock in our house too - on DVD.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:40 pmIt was a great learning tool.
Ren you are entirely welcome, and thanks for the positive feedback.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:53 pmW. Dylan
September 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pmBush's use of "operational relationship" is his current phrase to try to parse the language and sidestep his responsibility for repeatedly, even in his 9-11-06 speech, to connect Iraq and the 9-11 attack. "Technically" takes a back-seat to reality, morality, and intentionality!
What's your point, that Bush is a liar? Is lips were moving weren't they?
September 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pmWhat's your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren't they?
September 15th, 2006 at 5:57 pmWhat's your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren't they?
September 15th, 2006 at 5:59 pmSo Dubya's a lying sack-o-shite. That so ooooolllllllllldddd news. Aren't we missing a white woman somewhere?
Cheers,
September 15th, 2006 at 6:36 pm#44,
You haven't debunked anything. Zarqawi was in Baghdad.
The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that the al-Qa'ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa'ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam-mainly the al-Zarqawi network-and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas.
Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence.
September 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pmSteed Lankershim
And how long were the 9-11 hijackers in the U.S. planning (i.e. operating) and there presence known by U.S. agencies?
September 15th, 2006 at 7:14 pmMohammed Atta was in the US - does that mean we harbored him?
September 15th, 2006 at 7:15 pmWhere's the obvious follow-up question: Well, Mr. President, what kind of relationship WAS it?
September 15th, 2006 at 7:25 pmBush can't open his mouth without getting caught in one of his own lies. He's easily the worst President this country has ever seen. And he has 2 more years of damage to do.
September 15th, 2006 at 7:45 pm"WTF? Are Repuglicans really that frigging stupid?"
Oh yea.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:03 pm.
the monkey finally understands.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:01 pm"Sadam did not...have...relations with that terrorist, Mr. Zarqawi."
September 15th, 2006 at 9:16 pmIf Bush ever finds himself in the land of OZ, he should ask the wizard for a brain, a heart, and some courage.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:12 pmBush does live in OZ, he's the chief flying monkey taking orders from cheney, the wicked witch.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:23 pmWhere are all the trolls? U-Wrong-U, Mighty Aphrodummy or Mighty Aphrodykie (whatever), Exley, etc.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:29 pmMr. Evil, you know they can't function without the talking points. Rove must be busy with Mehlman going over the...uh...budget? No, that isn't it. Foreign policy? Nooooo. They must be going over gay rights...Somehow I think that is closer to the truth.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:02 pmHere is Colin Powell at the UN on 2/5/03, promoting the upcoming Iraq war:
He used Zarqawi's name more that 20 times in that speech, even though Zarqawi seems to have been in a part of the country that was controlled by the Kurds, not Saddam.
Also, Bush prevented the US military from taking Zarqawi out in 2002. (see this from WSJ, 10/25/04 and this from MSNBC)
September 15th, 2006 at 11:26 pmYeah, and he never said that Sadam ordered the 9/11 attacks either. Get off the Liar-in-Chief's back.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:55 amI guess this all depends on what your definition of is, is...
What a load of crap.
September 16th, 2006 at 2:32 amFrom Steed:
You haven’t debunked anything. Zarqawi was in Baghdad.
The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that the al-Qa’ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa’ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam-mainly the al-Zarqawi network-and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas.
Given the pervasive presence of Iraq’s security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa’ida to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — September 15, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
From the report (emphasis mine): "Reporting shows that unknown numbers of al-Qa'ida associates fleeing Afghanistan since December have used Iraq - including the Kurdish areas of nothern Iraq, Baghdad, and other regions - as a safehaven and transit area. We lack positive indications that Baghdad is complicit in this activity, but the persistence of an al-Qai'da presence and the operatives silence may indicate that Baghdad is acquiescent or finds their presence useful."
Did you think I wouldn't check, Steed?
So let's review:
"[. . .] unknown numbers" doesn't translate to Steed's assertion that "Zarqawi was in Baghdad."
Strawman one bites the dust.
"We lack positive indications that Baghdad is complicit in this activity."
Your clumsy paraphrase omits the operative part (a lie by omission): that there is no proof that "Baghdad was complicit," the rest is supposition, on the part of the commission, and you.
Strawman two, sent home crying to mama.
"May indicate" also doesn't mean "Zarqawi was in Baghdad," does it?
Your are an intellectual fraud, as I've just shown, but thanks for trying.
September 16th, 2006 at 4:30 amMADANASCAR
hey! you're biting my butt
...(thru a mouth full of butt) no i'm not!
September 16th, 2006 at 9:31 amAs more information is revealed, exposing all of the Lies BushCo has showered us with over the years, these denials will become more frequent, more ridiculous and more obvious to those who are a bit slower on the uptake. Even if the reporters do not play 'gotcha!' with the President, at least they are getting him on record giving us the proof we need to show that he has been lying all along. The ability to compare his actual statements, then and now is vitally important. This is the only proof that the Righties will accept, no matter how they nitpick and parse the words. They are doing that in a last desperate attempt to save themselves as well. They all went along with BushCo, and are 'guilty by association', and they know it. The clock is ticking...
September 16th, 2006 at 9:50 amif you haven't already, you have got to see dubya's meltdown with david gregory:
Bush Presser and Gregory
By: John Amato on Friday, September 15th, 2006 at 11:33 AM - PDT
Bush refused to accept Gregory’s question which is very relevant to the discussion about Article III. It was never vague before. As Ezra says,
This is by far the pissiest press conference Bush has given. He’s furious. I assume his feet are manacled behind the microphone. Otherwise, he’d be stalking across the stage, tearing apart the podium, and occasionally leaping into the crowd to rip out David Gregory’s heart…
video and links: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/15/bush-presser-and-gregory/
September 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am.
NEWSFLASH: BUSH IS LYING
September 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pmBush is a LSOS (Lying Sack of Shit)
September 16th, 2006 at 1:56 pmHow all this is mother of all smoke screen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4556113.stm
Kaes
September 17th, 2006 at 12:40 amHow many women and children have been killed to achive your objectives, "O fearless one"? (and you allegedly stand for Right to Life!)
September 17th, 2006 at 1:43 pm[...] Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements Think Progress, DC - Sep 15, 2006 During today s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam had relations with Zarqawi, despite the [...]
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:14 am[...] Think Progress sets the record straight. -- Tim Dickinson [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:44 pm