Bush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’
Bush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’
At a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August” that “we have some new information” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information was”:
BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
Later, when a reporter followed-up on this statement, Bush asserted no one ever told him to stop ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran:
REPORTER: Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Watch it:
Yesterday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said, “when the President was told that we had some additional information, he was basically told: stand down; needs to be evaluated; we’ll come to you and tell you what we think it means.” Later in the briefing, Hadley reversed course and said, “In terms of stand down, they did not tell the President to stand down and stop talking about Iran’s nuclear program.”
White House officials are obfuscating on what they knew and when they knew it because the answer has the potential of further damaging the credibility of what they have asserted about Iran in the past few months. As ThinkProgress has noted, while the intelligence community was processing new information that Iran was “less determined to develop nuclear weapons,” President Bush was specifically warning that Iran was trying to “build a nuclear weapon.”
To recap: At the same time Bush was ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran, he was told by his National Intelligence Director that we have “some new information.” Yet Bush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested.
UPDATE: The Washington Post reports this morning that “intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration” about the new information “beginning in July.” But apparently, Bush was left completely in the dark until last Tuesday.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. I’d like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud. Then there were no WMD in Iraq.
When it came to Iran, you said in October — on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when, months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in ‘03 had already come to light to this administration. So can’t you be accused of hyping this threat? And don’t you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
BUSH: I don’t want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it’s not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered. If they think it’s real, then what does it mean?
And it wasn’t until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
And the second part of your question has to do this: Look, Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
[...]
QUESTION: President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you’re saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Having said — having — having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran’s a danger. Nothings changed in this NIE that says, OK, why don’t we just stop worrying about it? Quite the contrary.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
261 Responses to “Bush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush is a liar on the run now.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:11 amWe need to institute a mandatory reading test for all Presidential candidates. We can no longer afford to have an illiterate commander-guy-in-chief.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:12 amSounds like someone's in line for a promotion.
Seriously, why does Bush keep listening to Cheney?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amBut Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information wasâ€.
What a bunch of BS. Someone tells you they have info about something that is on your main agenda, and you don't follow-up right then?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amPoor little Zionist lapdog. He looks so beaten and pathetic these days.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 amIs there any way that a President can look and dumber?
I mean, does he have to wear a pointy hat with bells on it and dance in front of the press before they realize just how truly idiotic this guy is?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am"Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was."
And you didn't ask?... Right.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 amOn a twist of an old saying; A country's destiny can be measured by it's character.
The latest NIE on Iran is just another example in a series of how the Bush administration, in the face of sagging evidence, will sacrifice truth and forthrightness for an agenda. Delaying reports to the public, until vetted by the machine, has become common practice.
Yet, another example of the declining quality of character of America was displayed for the world today. Bush's press conference answer as to his response to the Saudi government's sentence of a rape victim to 200 lashes was pathetic.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 amRight... the Director of National Intelligence DIDN'T tell the President what they knew.
Poor Georgie... out of the loop.
Perhaps they were waiting until they could present the info comic book style.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am"He didn’t tell me what the information was.â€
And all the reich-wingers believe this....this will be their next talking point.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 amIncurious George is just trying to maintain relevancy, and his name.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:16 amDoes he mean to tell us that he isn't the go-to guy, the top dog, the commander-in-chief, the leader of the free world, the guy who should know what's happening. Holy Cow! It must be Cheney then. Alll of the above.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amand you don’t follow-up right then?
Comment by leftcoast — December 4, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Well, when Georgie got a memo stating "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike Inside US" he didn't bother to read that either.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amI wish we had the opportunity to elect a press corp because with the exception of a couple, we have a room full of Jeff Gannons.
I can't believe they let this liar get away with shit like this. Bush lies worse than an eight year old and the press just eats it up.
Shame on Dave Gregory....
Why doesn't Helen Thomas ask questions anymore?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe release of the NIE makes it virtually impossible to imagine Bush
generating the political will to bomb Iran. That is good.
Apparently, the diplomatic pressure that the US has been putting on
Iran has been effective. That is good too.
IF we believe the regimes in Iran and North Korea, and IF the NIE is
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amaccurate - two HUGE "ifs" - then that means the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil have given up their nuke programs without a shot being
fired. Our diplomacy has succeded. So we are all happy, right?
I almost feel sorry for the guy if he hadn't produced the deaths of one million + civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amOh, goody, another shining example that Bush is a lying piece of sh!t.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amthis will be their next talking point.
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 4, 2007 @ 11:15 am
They'll be doing their regular tap-dance... Well... well... PROVE he lied about it.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amLet's see how CHL tries to spin this.
Good luck with that, buddy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amSo we are all happy, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Go F- yerself, creep.
It is hysterical to see you try and dance away from the Brusch Admin as the ship hits bottom. For months you've been coming here and sneering at people, and now, we're just all common fokk, disappointed in the admin?
F -OFF!!!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amThey’ll be doing their regular tap-dance… Well… well… PROVE he lied about it.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
O simple denial, like Exley yesterday when he said Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians with chemicals that weren't from the US.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amSo if Bush's leashholders spent the last three months "analyzing the information to make sure it's accurate," I guess we can assume that the released NIE is indeed accurate.
Huh.
That kinda blows to hell any conservapoints that the NIE is flawed, doesn't it?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:21 amLiar!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhat's worse, having a President who decietfully lies about national security issues for political gain, or having a President who is so damned stupid that even his top aides keep him "out of the loop" on the most important national security matters?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amHe couldn't be trusted with the new information.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amthen that means the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil have given up their nuke programs without a shot being
fired.
Comment by Keltoi
Axis of Evil? Isn't that a new chapter of some George Lucas' saga?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amJust give him back his copy of "My Pet Goat". He hasn't quite finished it yet.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amWe have a lying imbecile for a President.
One would have to be incompetent to be told new information was available and not question the new info. So he's obviously incompetent, but is he lying as well?
Haven't we been down this road before, several times?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:23 amOn one hand, the President is lying.
On the other hand, the President is an idiot and so the people around him.
Well, not the best choices for the country that leads the shining light of freedom around the world, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:24 amIF we believe the regimes in Iran and North Korea, and IF the NIE is
accurate - two HUGE “ifs†- then that means the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil have given up their nuke programs without a shot being
fired. Our diplomacy has succeded. So we are all happy, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:18 am
There has also not been a single bear attack in Manhattan since 2003. Not a one. Not one of the millions of residents or commuters in New York has been attacked by a bear.
From this overwhelming evidence I can only conclude that U.S. passive-aggressive stance towards Iran has been successful in preventing bear attacks in New York.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:25 amBush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested.
The latter is most likely true. His interests are bicycling, clearing brush and dishing dirt. Period.
Cheney & Bush have to be called out on their bullshit. For 7 years Americans have listened to a tirade of lies, shams and Profit over People.
Corporatists have made fortunes while 1 out of 5 Americans can't afford health insurance. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Add the housing slump in, a long cold winter and downward market trends and we may find ourselves in an even bigger mess by Spring.
Iran may not have nuclear weapons, but America still has Bush.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:26 amI can almost imagine:
-Mr. President, we have new info about Iran´s nuclear activity.
-Well, ok. Let's have a beer.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:26 amCHL, what "pressure" were we exering on Iran in 2003? BushCo was obsessed with Iraq, and invaded that nation, to the delight of Iran's leaders. Some pressure.
And I guess you have nothing to say regarding our president's lack of curiosity, or his staff's purported failure to reign in his mistaken rhetoric?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amThe point, I believe, is not whether Iran stopped, started, delayed, gave up or is now our friend and ally. The point is that our president continues to withhold vital information to the detriment of discourse.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amCHL:
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Maybe that was a cyborg that Faiz designed in order to impersonate the President for saying what he said.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amTime to launch them cruise missles now at the iranians/syrains/ohh maybe some iraqs and whoever else gets in the way....
We don't care...cheeeeney and me will be outta here soon to go get some more money and it'll be somebody else's problem..HA!!
Next question??
December 4th, 2007 at 11:28 amBush: "Well, my mother's back is just fine! That's because I haven't stepped on any cracks! My policy of no-crack-stepping is WORKING!!! But all options are on the table..."
December 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am.
.
.
.
Our National Embarrassment gets more embarrassing by the second. God help us.
I don’t think we should let our guard down or lessen the pressure, particularly as the pressure appears to have worked from 2003-2007.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Of course, no one here CARES what you think. Bugger off, ya tosser.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am"Or on the other hand, TP is twisting and misreporting the facts.
Comment by cold_hard_left "
Fine, set us straight or accept the mantle of neofacist apologist.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:30 amOr on the other hand, TP is twisting and misreporting the facts.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:25 am
You can keep repeating this lie as many times as you want - that won't make it true.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amCHL, the only reason you are still here is to spice up the comment count. Let's keep this in perspective...
December 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amAS with all other Bush press conferences this was another pathetic one. This is supposed to be a leader of a great nation meeting the minds of the free press. He obfuscates and the press plays softball.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:34 amHarry Reid will probably do his normal Harvey Milktoast response, as well. God, this country is in bad shape.
This means that the Busch Administration has officially backed down from military action against Iran.
That is why they are telling you this now. That NIE report may or may not be accurate.
∞
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amWait, presuming that Bush is telling the truth...
Okay, so someone told him that they had some information and he didn't ask what that information was?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amCHL, the only reason you are still here is to spice up the comment count. Let’s keep this in perspective…
Comment by Bluedahlia
LMAO!!!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amF -OFF!!!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 4, 2007 @ 11:21 am
You seem angry.
I have not "sneered" at anyone, I have disagreed with them on policy, it is possible to do the latter without the former.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amEither way you look at it, Bush will never get support to bomb Iran now. However, it would be nice if we could exert some more diplomatic pressure to get the four remaining non-signators of the NNPT to sign the damn thing and agree to abide by it.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amThere's your CEO President, trolls. Shifting blame downward. Can we hit eject on this guy yet? Hell, give him a hundred mil and send him to Paraguay and we'll still come out way ahead of where we'll be if he stays in charge for another year.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:37 amLiar, liar, pants on FIRE!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amShould we bury our heads and ignore that risk? Clearly the answer is “no.†We need to continue with the type of diplomacy that has apparently worked from 2003 to 2007, and that includes the type of diplomacy that leaves all options on the table.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
###
Just last week you were saying that diplomacy would not work and that all we could do is bomb them.
"The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." Douglas MacArthur
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amWow, its always bad when one has to look like and idiot to avoid being known as a liar! I though that was Gonzo's role in this play anywho...
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amThe wheels have come off.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amWe live in an era of bewildering politics. The world moves fast and furious and sometimes we make mistakes - but what is our duty as leaders of the free world to admit mistakes? Where doe humility and Pride intersect?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amOhg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/12/04/the-politics-of-admitting-mistakes/
To W and his cabinet, information is just an inconvenient distraction from long held, but never questioned or challenged, gut feelings about this or that.
And if the NIE really means that everyone must be more vigilant because Iran (allegedly) once had a nuclear weapons program and, therefore, could restart it, what does that mean for Iraq or North Korea. Both of these nations had a program. Therefore, they have the knowledge. Therefore, they could begin their respective programs again. OMG, what's to be done?
And what about Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, the former Soviet Republics? All of them have programs, had programs or have people who have the knowledge to begin such programs.
And, if mere knowledge is now the threat, why the hell are we and all the other nuclear powers educating people from nations without nuclear weapons in nuclear technology?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amThis whole NIE is proof that international diplomacy works and that unilateral attacks are not needed.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amShould we bury our heads and ignore that risk?
Comment by cold_hard_left
What risk? Be specific.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amWasn't there some sort of problem a few years back where the intelligence community supposedly told the WH that what they were saying was false and the WH put it back in their speeches ? Tenet somebody? Some guy talking to the UN ???????
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 amBush's exit speech, 1-20-08:
'You go your way and I'll go Paraguay'.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:40 amWhat I can't believe is that people are acting surprised that George Bush is incompetent, addle-brained, and criminal. Ample evidence for these facts was available before he was elected (appointed) the first time.
We need to cleanse our government and our financial sector. We need to apply the laws regarding fraud, criminal negligence, and crimes under the color of law. Then, we need to start building gibbets - lots of 'em. We need to follow China's method of dealing with white collar crime (political, or not). This administration should be used to teach a lesson about those who endanger their Constitution and their fellow citizens: Do so at the risk of your life. If your run for office is an attempt at the brass ring, and you miss, on the next cycle, the brass ring becomes a noose.
Try them, hang all of the guilty, and let the pigeons, crows, and rats feast.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amYou know, Canada might have nukes in the year 2037, and some bureaucrat in their government with no military power stated that he doesn't like Israel, so we should just bomb them back to the stone age.
Gee, I wonder what Pakistan and Saudi think about Israel?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amThe axis of evil: The White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amHe didn't tell me, I don't recall, let me get back to you about that, 5 days after Katrina I just got the video, I read about Dubi buying the New York Ports in the newspaper and the lies just keep on coming.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:42 am#62 That's spicy talk right there!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:42 amI have not “sneered†at anyone, I have disagreed with them on policy, it is possible to do the latter without the former.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:36 am
"sneer" no, smirk yes. your leader has failed and lied. again. something both troll and non-troll can agree on. a uniter not divider? yes.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:43 amIf the Director of National Intelligence withheld information from the Commander in Cocaine, then the DNI needs to resign by COB today.
And that will happen about the time an apparition named "christ" "returns" from some cosmic party its been attending for the last 2000 years.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am52. Chris. I said no such thing. Liar.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:41 am
###
All of the trolls have been saying exactly that for more than a year. Any time diplomacy is mentioned all they want to do is bomb. By the way, there is ONE member of congress who is an OIF veteran, do you know who that is?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amWas Helen Thomas on that Presidential News Conference?
I would love that woman to kick the sh*t out of that liar and murderer in Chief.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this. For months TP has been billing an attack on Iran as inevitable, and that has been the conventional wisdom here. Now this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amChris. I said no such thing. Liar.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:41 am
yes you did, why are you lying about it? are you ashamed? admit your error and move on.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amNow this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
and a stake through the heart of neo-conservatism. this is good too, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:46 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this. For months TP has been billing an attack on Iran as inevitable, and that has been the conventional wisdom here. Now this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
###
Yes, it is good, I just hope you are right. I still think the republicans are going to be pushing for war with Iran. Remember, WMD were only one reason we invaded Iraq. Bush can still say that Iran supports terrorism, Al-Qaeda, blah blah, 9/11, etc. And the repubs will follow right along.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amthis is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi
For people on Iran and on US, yes.
For profits of oil and war companies, no.
And US govt doesn't work for people on Iran and on US.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this.
this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi
Yes, it's great to hear yet AGAIN that the Presidunce is a lying sack of crap who is nothing but a partison hack, Neocon puppet-boy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amI am really confused by all of your reactions to this. For months TP has been billing an attack on Iran as inevitable, and that has been the conventional wisdom here. Now this report puts a stake through the heart of a likely attack - this is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Except it's not at all clear, based on the White House spin (and equally dishonest spin from the Exleys of the world), that this will have any effect at all on Bush foreign policy.
It's also highly revealing that they continue to lie about how long they've been sitting on this information. They only just mentioned this to the President in the last couple of days? Hmmmm. Pull the other one.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amBush is such a liar, I'm laughing out loud this morning.
Now, please, journalists, remember that part of your mandate is to investigate. Find out when the report was written. When was the report sent to the White House. Does the White House have access to the raw intelligence. Are there drafts of the report you can review.
Try to summon up the same kind of passion you displayed in journalism school when you did your four part expose on the sexual proclivities of the janitorial staff.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by Chris L — December 4, 2007 @ 11:47 am
what about this guy? what does the nie mean to him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w
the real power behind bush's middle eastern war policy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:52 amHey, Cold hard left, are you there?
Should we bury our heads and ignore that risk?
Comment by cold_hard_left
What risk? Be specific.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amComment by Juan C.
I've heard the NIE report was actually issued in Oct. of '06.
You don't suppose the '06 election was a factor in not releasing it, do you?
KKKarl & the Big Dick must have had some say in this being kept under wraps for so long.
Now Bush wants us to believe 'no one told him'? Facts talk & Bullshit walks. Time to take a hike, Georgie-pooh.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amWhat are you? Some kind of freekin' moron, or do you think your spin is so good we can't see right through it.
The BAD thing is that our government was caught in a premeditated lie that very easily could have resulted in war.
I will recommend that a gibbet be built for you, specifically.
BTW: You are a smarmy little prick.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amMissing WMD's SHOULD have been the biggest political scandal since Watergate, if not bigger. They lied to get us to invade another country.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amYou have a whole scandalous presser and this is what the AP boils it down to: Bush: US Must Remain Vigilant on Iran. You can't get through to Cletus out in Hooterville when the Tee-vee doesn't even try. In quite, just the opposite--they willfully misinform just as happily as the President does.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amThe Iranian threat has been lessened,
Comment by cold_hard_left
Oh, there you are, sneaky. What does this threat consist on, please? Elaborate. You can use drawings if you want.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amThey lied to get us to invade another country.
Comment by lefty
Yeah, but the Pats are undefeated, buddy.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amThe Iranian threat has been proven to be nonexistent, Dems admit that the surge is working in portions of Iraq, and the price of oil has decreased by about 10% in the past few days from enormous peaks reached as a result of Bush foreign intervention. The libs must be really ticked off now.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
With a little work, I was almost able to turn your moronic comment into fact, but it's still got a long way to go.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amComment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
fresh lies?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amDems admit that the surge is working in Iraq, and the price of oil has decreased by about 10% in the past few days. The libs must be really ticked off now.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
How has the surge "worked"? 2007 is the deadliest year of herr dubyah's "war" and there has been no political gains....the purpose of the surge. Reich-wingers must be really ticked off now.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:57 amComment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 11:56 am
i wish the price at the gas pump lied like cold_hard_left.
but it doesn't.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:58 amReich-wingers are having a hissy fit because now that cannot claim the big bad Iranian bogeyman is coming to get us.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:59 amHe didn't know, ah ha. Well, then, let's move on and explain it to President Bush.
It is agreed, that according to the NIE Iran is not a threat that requires military action. All over Europe, all newspapers available to me are quoting the NIE and there is no chance left to spin it. That doesn't leave much space to wriggle out of this hole and an attack on Iran would be considered as a wilful act of illegal warfare, and would be punishable by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
And, hey, don't even think about another convenient terrorist attack!
Btw, Senator Clinton has egg on her face, too, in this case, see the WaPo from January 2006, where she urges the Bush administration not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the falconess of all falcons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html
December 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am“sneer†no, smirk yes. your leader has failed and lied. again. something both troll and non-troll can agree on. a uniter not divider? yes.
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 11:43 am
I'll grant you a smirk here and there, but come on, I am told to F-off, F-myself, am called an F-ing idiot every time I voice a dissenting opinion, a smirk here and there seems forgivable.
How has Bush failed in this instance? Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program. Lied? Probably, but all politicians lie, especially to one another.
And Bush is certainly divisive, no question there.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI bet cold_hard_lies love paying 3 dollars+ a gallon to fill his scooter.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pmIran has ceased its nuclear weapons program. Lied? Probably, but all politicians lie, especially to one another.
The NIE never stated the herr dubyah's pathetic excuse for foreign diplomacy is the reason why Iran halted their program. Oops. Don't let facts stand in the way of you reich-winger licking herr dubyah's boots.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pmso the president threatens attacking a nation while knowing that the is no information supporting his case for war. Question to Pelosi: how is that not an offense worthy of impeachment investigation?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm.
What's even better is that Bush said that the problem now isn't that Iran had nukes or was trying to get them; it's that they know how to make nukes. I'm not making this up.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pmAnd Bush is certainly divisive, no question there.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
your honesty and self-criticism are refreshing. you set a wonderful example for trolls such as cold_hard_left. would that she had your sense of humility and self-effacing doubt!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmLied? Probably, but all politicians lie, especially to one another.
Comment by Keltoi
OMG!!! One of those lies produced that around 1 million civilians were killed and 4.5 million displaced.
Iran has ceased...since 2003!! when all the rethoric was that Iran wanted a nuke to bomb Israel and the US (I don´t know how, yet). Iran has complied and cooperated with IAEA all the time, yet, he was looking for nukes!!!
And now, he lied, well, all people do lie!!!
You deserve to be dropped at the worst Baghdad neighborhood with a big "I'm Muhammad, the Teddy Bear" sign strapped to you.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmNoOneYouKnow, what they can read? Another one over your President ;-)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pmPrior to 2003, herr dubyah was firmly focused on his two failing wars. Iran was barely on the radar. Sorry reich-wingers, herr dubyah doesn't walk on water and herr dubyah had nothing to do with Iran halting their nuke program.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pmyour honesty and self-criticism are refreshing. you set a wonderful example for trolls such as cold_hard_left. would that she had your sense of humility and self-effacing doubt!
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Hm. Someone better tell Marcus Aurelius to cancel the order for my gibbet.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pmherr dubyah doesn’t walk on water and herr dubyah had nothing to do with Iran halting their nuke program.
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 4, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
So why did they? Surely you do not deny that there has been all kinds of pressure applied on the Iranians by the US government at the UN and with the EU? We are likely not the sole cause of their decision, but it seems unlikely we had "nothing to do with it".
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmHm. Someone better tell Marcus Aurelius to cancel the order for my gibbet.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
No harm in putting the gibbet together, just in case.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmYou deserve to be dropped at the worst Baghdad neighborhood with a big “I’m Muhammad, the Teddy Bear†sign strapped to you.
Comment by Juan C. — December 4, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Juan that was priceless!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmHelen Thomas is still around. There was a great video here of a WH Press conference in the last few days with Dana Perino. Watch this exchange with Helen. If looks could kill.. (Perino)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmNo harm in putting the gibbet together, just in case.
Comment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Okay, now I am smirking.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmDissenting opinion? There's a huge difference between a dissenting opinion, and a willful twisting of known facts. Your comments are not opinions, they are talking points designed to mitigate the criminal activities of your faction.
For example, you ask: How has Bush failed in this instance? This is not an opinion. It's not even a real question. it is a Red Herring. It is mendacious intellectual buggery. Bush failed in his latest attempt to lie us into a war. When caught in said lie, he pleaded ignorance (he's confusing ignorance with negligence). BTW, Bush's actions are crimes under the color of law and abuse of the Office of the President of the United States of America.
This is why we all sincerely hope you F-off.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmBush: DNI Told Me ‘We Have Some New Information, He Didn’t Tell Me What The Information Was’
Because .........???????
You were still in the middle of reading "My Pet Goat" ?
What a friggin' imbecile......
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSo why did they? Surely you do not deny that there has been all kinds of pressure applied on the Iranians by the US government at the UN and with the EU? We are likely not the sole cause of their decision, but it seems unlikely we had “nothing to do with itâ€.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Prior to 2003, herr dubyah was firmly focused on his two failing wars. Iran was barely on the radar. Fact. Again, herr dubyah doesn’t walk on water and herr dubyah had nothing to do with Iran halting their nuke program.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSo why did they? Surely you do not deny that there has been all kinds of pressure applied on the Iranians by the US government at the UN and with the EU? We are likely not the sole cause of their decision, but it seems unlikely we had “nothing to do with itâ€.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
One could easily make just the opposite argument: US bellicosity is responsible for the Iranians even entertaining the notion of nuclear weapons, and significantly hampered the European diplomatic efforts over the years. After all, the White House is now claiming that the real problem is that Iran was sneaky and never admitted they'd had a weapons program.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm108.
challenging comments here, keltoi.
perhaps you'd like to revise your previous comments in lieu of this...?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm#99
I can't help but believe that the poster here claiming to be "Juan C" is not the real Juan....The language and terminology does not seem correct.
The real Juan is consistently wrong when he makes factual assertions in his posts but this particular "Juan C" does not sound like him.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pmWhy would Iran care what herr dubyah says? Herr dubyah attacked a country that DIDN'T have nukes or other WMD. Herr dubyah is completely irrelevant.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI call serious bullshit on Bush here. Do you mean to tell me that "new information on Iran" wouldn't elicit an immediate question from Bush like "what is it?". Who the hell do they think they're fooling? If he didn't ask immediately what the new information was, then he's a larger moron than any of us even know and needs to be impeached for "derelection of duty".
But of course we all know that he knew this information existed for the past year - not just last week. This is called treason.
It's time for this poor excuse for a president to pick his poison because either way he has no credibility left nor is he qualified to remain in his position as president.
Take your pick, Chimp: Treason or incompetence. I believe it's also called "culpable negligence" legally. He's guilty either way. Then there's the probability of "obstruction of justice" so he has an "axis of evil" from which to choose now.
Bye Chimpy!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmand btw, where's cold_hard_left?
why does she always run away when the going gets tough?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pmHehehe. I knew you would be here, Ex.
Tell me that fantastic tale where Saddam gassed Kurds with Soviet chemical and biological weapons.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm#99
I can’t help but believe that the poster here claiming to be “Juan C†is not the real Juan….The language and terminology does not seem correct.
The real Juan is consistently wrong when he makes factual assertions in his posts but this particular “Juan C†does not sound like him.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't ya' just love it when losers that have been 0-for-7-years try to critique others and claim they are "consistently wrong".........?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm#76
I love how Gummitch calls my postings from yesterday "dishonest spin" when what I was doing was actually quoting from the NIE Key Judgments that Gummitch refused to read himself.
Have you read them yet, Gummitch? You've had a day to do so.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmAnd we all know how the kettle loves to call the pot black - Axis of Evil, Chimp? You may find yourself smack dab in the middle of one now. His goose is cooked.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmHe expects us to buy that line of crap?
Oh, forgot the 28%ers will totally buy that crap, and ask for more.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials '09
Buck Fush
December 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmhis is GOOD, right?
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
F You, you sneering, smirking sack of cheney.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pmChimpy's AIE Trilogy: Culpable Negligence in not immediately asking what the new info was. Derelection of Duty in not bringing this new information forward. Treason for knowing the facts and intel and lying about them to trump up a call for war.
It's Chimpy's Choice! Time for him to pick his poison. He's sliding down the sewer either way.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmComment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
"0 for 7"
he's right ex.
your thoughts?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThere is no possible way for Chimpy to come out of this one unscathed.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmOh, Juan, that is you? Surprising (and disappointing). In any case, the history of Saddam's use of poisonous gas yesterday was thoroughly discussed yesterday -- a discussion in which I produced a slew of primary documents that disproved your inaccurate and now discredited assertions (A discussion, by the way, in which you produced ZERO documentary evidence) -- No need to go over it again. You know you were proven wrong.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThe real Juan is consistently wrong when he makes factual assertions in his posts but this particular “Juan C†does not sound like him.
-Comment by Exley
Hmmm, going Schizo, Ex? You've certainly left a lot of us wondering where the facts are in your posts.
Sounds a lot like the kettle & the pot...
December 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmWhich is the worst? 1. Our President knew what the premise to hype another war was false ? or,
December 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm2. Our President wasn't told by his senior advisers that the premise was false ? or, 3. The president's men lied to everyone including the President to hide that the premise was false ? or, 4. Our President doesn't care that the premise was false? or, 5. Our President isn't capable of understanding that the premise is false? or, 6. The President has created a new premise that although the premise was false it could someday become true so the premise remains true?
Don’t ya’ just love it when losers that have been 0-for-7-years try to critique others and claim they are “consistently wrongâ€â€¦â€¦â€¦?
Comment by MCMetal
Nahhh, don't you remember all those feeble attempts made in order to make a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? All those feeble attempts to connect Saddam with some WMDs? All those feeble attempts to predict that Iraq will turn into a democracy? All those feeble attempts to deny the involvement of CIA in Chile's military coup?
Well, it turned out, he was correct!!! Hehehe.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pmTP has been right in stating an Iranian attack was on the Bush agenda, if this NIE report which has been held for a year had not come out Bush would have been allowed his game.
The man doesn't understand the word of working with people instead of acting like a dictator and demanding everything be his way. What a total ass.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm128, rehbock,
Ummm, all of the above?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm# 113 exley, irrelevant. Comment #99 was priceless.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmLet´s see how correct he is this time by explaining the inaction or lie of his glorious analphabet president in this particular thread.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:25 pm"Elaborate. You can use drawings if you want.
Comment by Juan C. — December 4, 2007 @ 11:55 am"
Juan, A friend’s advice, this is destroying any ability of discussion you had before.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pmEV... ;)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm"BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that. "
And there is an idiot born everyday and George W. Bush is one of them. Bush certainly deserves the Trainwreck Award for Tuesday for his statement.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmOne could easily make just the opposite argument: US bellicosity is responsible for the Iranians even entertaining the notion of nuclear weapons, and significantly hampered the European diplomatic efforts over the years. After all, the White House is now claiming that the real problem is that Iran was sneaky and never admitted they’d had a weapons program.
Comment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
You could make that argument if their nuke program didn't date back several decades. Blaming Bush for the Iranians having a nuke program in the first place does not seem fair at all, or even factually accurate.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm#132, Doro,
It might have been priceless, but it didn't read like a Juan posting....Sure, it has the usual Juan ridiculous and easily refutable numbers (1 million dead? Pure silliness, but typical of Juan's hyperbole)...But Juan does usually employ so many exclamation points, for example.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pmaWol spoke: "Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was."
Did any of our fearless WH press corps ask whether he (aWol) had any basic curiosity about that information? Did no one ask him if he asked McConnell about it?
What a useless lot!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pmExeley: Republican forensics expert. WhaddaDick.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pmI love how Gummitch calls my postings from yesterday “dishonest spin†when what I was doing was actually quoting from the NIE Key Judgments that Gummitch refused to read himself.
Have you read them yet, Gummitch? You’ve had a day to do so.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Still lying, Exley? I read them before you did yesterday, and quoted them in refuting your b.s. Your "dishonest spin" was just like this comment: your deliberate distortion of what was actually written. The "spin" reference was your feeble attempt to prove that neither Bush or Cheney was actually lying about what Iran was up to. Now you're lying about how I "refused to read" the NIE even though I was very clear that I had read them.
You can't help lying, Exley. It appears to be the only thing you know how to do.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm.
Dear Mr. President,
Just WHO is the threat TO our National Security?
.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm1 million dead? Pure silliness, but typical of Juan’s hyperbole)…But Juan does usually employ so many exclamation points, for example.
Comment by Exley
Well, that's one number that has been in the press for some time, just like the number of displaced.
I don't know why you are not shocked or disgusted with the amount of dead Iraqis when you cry over 3,000 people.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pmex comment 99 says it all. you better read it before you continue on. otherwise you'll just make your position look silly and irrelevant.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pm#15 Keltoi wrote:
"Apparently, the diplomatic pressure that the US has been putting on
Iran has been effective. That is good too."
Correct. The Bush diplomatic strategy, coupled with the military action in Iraq, which demonstrated the U.S.'s resolve in preventing rogue nations from producing WMDs, was indeed responsible for getting Iran to suspend its nuclear activities in autumn 2003 (and Libya as well).
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmAt a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August†that “we have some new information†regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information wasâ€...
"... I was too busy reading my ninety books for the year to keep pace with Rove in our reading contest.... Was it anything of importance?"
Cheers,
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmYou could make that argument if their nuke program didn’t date back several decades. Blaming Bush for the Iranians having a nuke program in the first place does not seem fair at all, or even factually accurate.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
And where did I do that?
I do, however, blame his bellicosity for making it essentially impossible for them to acknowledge their suspended effort.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmGummitch, Exley thinks that interpretation = quoting.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThe comedian Lewis Black said it all, "each week you think the Bush news can't get any worse and yet it does."
December 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pmOh, you have finally read the NIE, Gummitch? Good for you.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pmchallenging comments here, keltoi.
perhaps you’d like to revise your previous comments in lieu of this…?
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Not really. My whole point is this report is GOOD NEWS, we should all be HAPPY that the likelihood of a strike on Iran has plummeted.
As far as Bush's obsfucation on what he knew when and why his public comments were inconsistent, you can read whatever you want into that. If you hate the guy and think he is Satan incaranate, a view often put forth here, you assume he just had this secret wish to start another war for the pure bloodlust/oil of it and now he can't. Another possibility is that he is adopting Nixon's old strategy vis the Soviets and Chinese - I am just a little bit crazy, there is no telling what I might do, you had better watch it. There is no way to know which is true. The point is, it SEEMS Iran has suspended its weapons program, that is POSITIVE. Just because something happens while W is President doesn't automatically mean it is bad.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmExley, if your post at 144 is true then why the need to continue to bang the war drums and all the talk of WWIII from this administration. An administration that knew there wasn't a threat. The need for an honest and open govt. is long overdue.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmCorrect. The Bush diplomatic strategy, coupled with the military action in Iraq, which demonstrated the U.S.’s resolve in preventing rogue nations from producing WMDs, was indeed responsible for getting Iran to suspend its nuclear activities in autumn 2003 (and Libya as well).
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Since you're such a big reader, Exley, I imagine you read the linked article I posted yesterday which takes a hard look at the story about Libya. Right? You read it? And you're still trying to give the credit to Bush's war?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmOh, you have finally read the NIE, Gummitch? Good for you.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
See what I mean? You can't help it. Seek professional help, Exley.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:38 pmThe comedian Lewis Black said it all, “each week you think the Bush news can’t get any worse and yet it does.â€
Comment by texaslady — December 4, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
ex, can the bush news get much worse? how far down the septic tank of neo-conservatism policy can the chief executive plumb?
these are tough questions ex, do you have tough answers?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm"I don’t know why you are not shocked or disgusted with the amount of dead Iraqis"
Actually, Juan, it has been you who has celebrated with Al Qaeda or othe extremist groups have killed innocent Iraqis by setting up bombs in marketplaces, univerisities or mosques, not me. You have defended such actions by saying they are merely examples of Iraqis fighting for freedom.
I, on the other hand, have supported efforts to stop the violence in Iraq (such as my support for the successful surge, which has indeed brought down the violence dramatically) and help the Iraqis create a peaceful, tolerant society.
So, please, spare me your feigned concern for the innocent Iraqis murdered in that nation. You have consistently demonstrated you care nothing about them.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm#137 exley, still irrelevant:
a) it is Juan C. - Hi Juan ;)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pmb) get back on topic and try to make a reasonable contribution here, it's hard for you, but you can still try.
Just because something happens while W is President doesn’t automatically mean it is bad.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
his record speaks for itself kel. and it's bad.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmOh, man. Our preznit is retarded.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pmAn administration that knew there wasn’t a threat. The need for an honest and open govt. is long overdue.
Comment by hellinabucket
Oh, I think US knew Iran had not nukes, just like they knew Iraq hadn't WMDs. I mean, you are not going to invade a country with a nuke. My opinion is that US have not yet attacked Iran because people are more aware of the lies that this admin throws and because it seems that Russia and China are not going to allow it.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm155- Hey! Nice, nice pretzel logic there, Exleyboy!!
Has your head stopped spinning yet?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pmExley, did you support the manner in which the invasion of Iraq was conducted? Did you/ do you support the manner in which the first 3 years of this conflict has been waged? Are you satisified with the manner in which our troops have been treated? Has this administration met your standards of treating our wounded?
I'll await your answers.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm#150 - keltoi - wow you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something good that Bush has done in the last 6 years. And starting a war just because he wants to, yes, I believe he would do that, he did it once. Didn't bother the country that housed and facilitated the hi jackers but went after a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Because he wanted to, because he was showing up his father, who knows what other insane reason he had.
Now, 3,875 troops died for his insanity and you stand by him? How do you sleep at night?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm#151 Hey HiB,
I addressed yesterda why the administration has continued to talk tough about Iran over the past year.
NIE: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.â€
That explains why the Bush administration has correctly continued to talk tough about the Iranians and the possibility that they might one day resume their effort to develop nuclear weapons. You don’t abandon a diplomatic strategy that has been working especially when your intelligence agencies tell you they do not know Iran’s intentions re: nuclear weapons development.
More from the NIE:
“We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.â€
So, again, we see clearly why the tough talk of the administration (and the international community) has not let up despite evidence Iran has at least temporarily halted its nuclear weapons program….The fact is that as good as the news that Iran looks to have halted its program, the NIE shows Iram was pursuing nucler weapons up untill 2003 and that we have no idea what their intentions are in this area in the future.
Thus, it clear that continued pressure (whether it be diplomatic or economic or both) is necessary to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligation under the NNP Treaty and does not develop nuclear weapons.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmYou have consistently demonstrated you care nothing about them.
Comment by Exley
Like gummitch said. Seek help, buddy.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmJust because something good happens when W is president doesn't mean he had anything to do with it.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI, on the other hand, have supported efforts to stop the violence in Iraq (such as my support for the successful surge, which has indeed brought down the violence dramatically) and help the Iraqis create a peaceful, tolerant society.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
sorry ex, there are some iraqi christians who beg to differ with you on that score. or don't you care about iraqi christians?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pmBottom line:
Bush LIED about Iran, and continues to do so.
Bush LIED about Iraq, and we are quagmired...
Bush failed to pursue Bin Laden, member of a family that was friends with the Bushes since 1970's.
Bush LIED about not knowing about exposing Valerie Plame, our WMD spy, thus SABOTAGING NATIONAL SECURITY.
Bush and Cheney REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission, which they resisted forming for OVER A YEAR.
Bush is a MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL, and a COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA and everything it EVER stood for.
Bush needs to be in Gitmo until he DROPS DEAD and goes to be with his MASTER, Satan.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pmIn fact, I think that Russia is somehow is getting angrier at US actions like the missile shield in Ukraine and US permanent bases in Iraq. If they lose Iran they will have the enemy at the gates.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pmDear Mr. President,
Just WHO is the threat TO our National Security?
.
Comment by Max-1
Don't beat around the Bush! Set it on fire.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pmhis record speaks for itself kel. and it’s bad.
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
I know that is the central thesis of this website, I get it.
But honestly Joe, can you see my point at all? This news is GOOD. If you think Bush's diplomacy gets no credit at all, well, okay, but all that means to me is that no matter what happens in the world, if it is bad Bush did it and if it is good he had nothing to do with it. It seems like a pretty absolute position.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThe World is paying attention to what is happening in the US since these criminals took over it government. If the US does not hold these WAR CRIMINALS accountable, they will have a lot of work trying to convince anyone about anything. The US has no credibility! I'll say it again because it is a very serious matter: The US has no international credibility. Wake up America! IMPEACH, INDICT, IMPRISON!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm“We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.â€
Some of the criteria being, perhaps, continued attempts by the US Government to overthrow the current regime through overt or covert operations.
And nothing in the NIE to suggest that lying to the American people about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the threat of WWIII has been at all helpful, no matter what Exley would like to believe.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pmThanks for the response Exley at post 163. It is not so clear as to why the Bush administration continued to push the idea of a WWIII. There is also no evidence to support the idea the Bush administration is responsible for the halting of the nuclear weapons program in Iran. Your answer does not clear up the flip flop from Hadley on the stand down or not stand down.
There is no cohesive international policy that this adminstration moves forward on.
Please provide examples of this administration balancing their tough talk and scare tactics of a WWIII with restraint. Something a true diplomat would do.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pmExley: Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32
Well, Juan, you defend blowing up innocent Iraqis in mosques, marketplaces, universities, etc. by Iraqi insurgents by calling it "self-defense," but I call it murder and terrorism.
Like I said, your own words show your so-called concern about the Iraqi people is a sham.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by Exley
You and your ilk constantly remind me to invest more in Kimberly-Clark Corporation.
The Depends market has really taken off since the Neocon agenda took hold.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pm#173, HiB,
I will agree the "World War III" language was over-the-top (but ultimately harmless).
As to your question, in addition to the "tough talk," the Bush administration has worked with the G-8 and the UN to get a number of economic sanctions enacted as well as Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran complies with its obligations under the NPT.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pmOk one good thing is happening....Bush and crew are so rotten even the most suck up journalist (david gregory, russett) are getting sick to their stomachs and are asking some tough questions.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAmericans and the World are waking up and telling the public what is really happening.
This was not happening a year ago, so much was hidden to make Bush look good or was being paid off to protect the Bush name.
Well, Juan, you defend blowing up innocent Iraqis in mosques, marketplaces, universities, etc. by Iraqi insurgents by calling it “self-defense,†but I call it murder and terrorism.
Murder and Terrorism, ey Exley. What else would you classify as Murder and
Terrorism.
Like I said, your own words show your so-called concern about the Iraqi people is a sham.
Right back at you. You're really throwing a nifty little tantrum today, Ex.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:55 pmGet some bad news w/ your morning coffee?
Actually, Juan, it has been you who has celebrated with Al Qaeda or othe extremist groups have killed innocent Iraqis by setting up bombs in marketplaces, univerisities or mosques, not me. You have defended such actions by saying they are merely examples of Iraqis fighting for freedom.
I, on the other hand, have supported efforts to stop the violence in Iraq (such as my support for the successful surge, which has indeed brought down the violence dramatically) and help the Iraqis create a peaceful, tolerant society.
So, please, spare me your feigned concern for the innocent Iraqis murdered in that nation. You have consistently demonstrated you care nothing about them.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
The british say the tactics you support have in fact made the violence worse, and when they began to withdraw - the violence drop.
So, please, spare me your feigned concern for the innocent Iraqis murder in that nation. You have consistently demonstrated you care nothing about them, and your projection is BORING!!!!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pmOur colonial patriots were considered terrorists by England. I am against the death of anyone. I also understand that the most of the violence going on in Iraq now is for the future control of that country. Murder and terrorism are tough stances. They should be backed by tough actions. This president long ago fought this conflict on the cheap and with the private contractors benefitting. Not unlike how Mother England did to their "terrorist" problem.
Bush lost the support for this conflict long ago.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pmGood thing I get here in order to know about myself, Ex.
I have forgotten your others great pearls of humanity:
1) WP is not a chemical weapon
December 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pm2) Waterboard is not torture
#144: whipping out talking points faster than a cardsharper whips out aces, aren't you?
Bush lied to his people about Iran, he lied to you too, Exley! He should have known better since August, or he could have known better if had done what is expected of every reasonable human being, let alone of a POTUS, when his DNI said
"Mr President, we have some new information!"
ask
"What is the information? Details please!"
Either he is lying or he is incompetent! Exley, your President is either incompetent or lying to you! Comprende?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmImagine what the report ACTUALLY said (that is, before the Bush administration bowdlerized it) if what they are releasing after two years is that Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmExley, then why didn't the Bush administration tout the sanctions as a possible rationale for the nuclear program stopping? I find that a little hollow being the information was known for sometime but all we heard was another bang on his war drum.
And any threat making of WWIII is not harmless when it comes from a man who has his finger on the wnd largest stockpile of nukes in the world.
Irresponsible is more like it and not worthy of the position he holds.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pmAlpuz3,
I think it is adorable that you felt the need to rush to Juan's defense once you saw his hideous defense of the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the radical Islamic terrorist groups over there, but Juan is a a big boy....He can try and defend himself. But Juan should know that he should not write such things if he doesn't expect to called on them.
But thanks for your contribution.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pm... if it is bad Bush did it and if it is good he had nothing to do with it. It seems like a pretty absolute position.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
the record bears that position out doesn't it kel?
but ya know something kel? soon bush will be out of office. a democratic leader installed his place. a democratic majority in both houses of congress. our country united as it's never been before. ne-conservatism marginalized to an unpleasant footnote in u.s. history. that will good too, right?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:00 pmExley, is it true you don't consider WP (WillyPee) a chemical weapon?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pmEither he is lying or he is incompetent!
Comment by doro
I'm gonna go with both.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pmI would like to know Exley or CHL or Keltoi just what would it take for you to begin to wonder if your idol had clay feet? Jack Cafferty was a Bush man until he started questioning and checking facts and flip flops made by this administration. You really need to read his book, he was one of you until he did some thinking.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:03 pmHiB,
Bush didn't threaten World War III. He talked about preventing World War III.
And I do not think you are accurate when you say that the Bush team has not touted economic sanctions as a diplomatic tool that could be used against Iran. Sanctions were one part of a wide-ranging effort to get the Iranians to stop its nuclear weapons program.
The key now is to get them to stop the program permanently, which even the NIE acknowledges it has not done.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:03 pmOne quick way to tell if a Troll is completely full of shit is when they allude
to diplomacy within the Bush Crime Family. They can't spell it, let alone
practice it. They found umpteen different reasons why Iran was a
nuclear threat, and justified 'pigeon-holing & secluding' them.
But! They knew all along the pursuit of nuclear capabilities stopped
FOUR YEARS ago.
Exley, you should really stop sucking the Bush tit. It's bad for your
health and rots both of those teeth.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pmYeah? Well, my whole point is that the issue isn't Iran, it's our Deciderer in Cheif deciding to lie us into war - again. Intelligence was ignored (at best) and intentionally buried (most likely). This would be compelling evidence at a war crimes trial. A behavioral pattern emerges.
You keep trying to change the subject. Your spin isn't good enough, and you should immediately stop making me have to refute your lameass position.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pmI guess Exley was asleep when Bolton was talking.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pmHiB,
Bush didn’t threaten World War III. He talked about preventing World War III.
And I do not think you are accurate when you say that the Bush team has not touted economic sanctions as a diplomatic tool that could be used against Iran. Sanctions were one part of a wide-ranging effort to get the Iranians to stop its nuclear weapons program.
The key now is to get them to stop the program permanently, which even the NIE acknowledges it has not done.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
And Hitler talked about preventing WWII, while invading Poland...
How do you KNOW they haven't stopped the program permanently? Are you a fortune teller now son? You sure a stupid little 'tard - exlax.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThe self-delusion and twisted logic of the right wing is breathtaking.
And funny! Bwahahaahhaaaaaaaa! Ha!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pmComment by Exley
It does appear that multi-lateral diplomatic efforts did work. I'm glad the Bush administration is finally doing what those of us on the left have been calling for for so long.
My question to you is why this worked for North Korea and Iran, but would not have worked in Iraq?
It's quite clear to me that the same strategy would have worked in Iraq had it been employed. And several thousand innocent lives could have been saved.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pmHiB,
What I have said (quite accurately) is that WP is not a prohibited chemical weapon under international law, including the Chemical Weapons Convention.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAlpuz3,
I think it is adorable that you felt the need to rush to Juan’s defense once you saw his hideous defense of the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the radical Islamic terrorist groups over there, but Juan is a a big boy….He can try and defend himself. But Juan should know that he should not write such things if he doesn’t expect to called on them.
But thanks for your contribution.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Civil wars are bloody, and we triggered it. Are you saying that Abraham Lincoln was indefensible, and that he was a hideous person for defending his actions? ROTFL!!! You are one 'tarded child!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pmI think it is adorable that you felt the need to rush to Juan’s defense once you saw his hideous defense of the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the radical Islamic terrorist groups over there, but Juan is a a big boy….He can try and defend himself. But Juan should know that he should not write such things if he doesn’t expect to called on them.
But thanks for your contribution.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
That's not the way I read it, Ex. That's the way you interpreted it.
I'm not defending Juan as much as I'm calling you on your bullsh*t.
You're welcome.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI guess Exley was asleep when Bolton was talking.
Comment by Juan C. — December 4, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
lol, i thought ex was bolton!
ex, are you johnny b.?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI understand that Exley, do you consider WP a chemical weapon? Here's a nifty description from globalsecurity.org (great site by the way)
WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus is a pyrophoric material, that is, it is spontaneously flammable).
When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen. Up to 15 percent of the WP remains within the charred wedge and can reignite if the felt is crushed and the unburned WP is exposed to the atmosphere.
White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.
Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
WP is a chemical and is used as a weapon. It's not classified as a chemical weapon but it is.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHiB,
What I have said (quite accurately) is that WP is not a prohibited chemical weapon under international law, including the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
I'm sure those that died from it appreciate your classification.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:12 pmEx is just especially interested in this topic. Why is that, Ex?
Did you help out on the Afghan thread? - I didn't check.
Did you read a report that subtly infers something that you can, in turn, subtly imply means something else??
4.86 means we should all be happy, and stop criticizing stuff, right Ex?
or is it 7.19?
Gosh, I'm not too bright, Ex, and it sure does help when you're here to refract reality for me, and show me how I'm just not bright enough to see how you and your Philosopher-King Uber-men buddies are secretly making sure that the whole world is awesome, just for me.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pmAlpuz3,
There is no other way to read it. It's the "insurgent" who have caused the VAST majority of deaths and injuries in Iraq. When Juan defends their actions by calling it "self-defense," he is condoning the slaughter of innocent Iraqis by these insurgent groups....And then he tries to turn around and shed crocodile tears for them. It would be laughable if it was not so vile.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmbut ya know something kel? soon bush will be out of office. a democratic leader installed his place. a democratic majority in both houses of congress. our country united as it’s never been before. ne-conservatism marginalized to an unpleasant footnote in u.s. history. that will good too, right?
Comment by joe cantwell — December 4, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Our country united as never before would be great. But do you think that will happen with Hillary as President? She isn't left enough for most here, and is not what I'd call a uniting figure for the right, either.
That which is effective is good, I honestly don't care who gets the credit.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmI would like to know Exley or CHL or Keltoi just what would it take for you to begin to wonder if your idol had clay feet? Jack Cafferty was a Bush man until he started questioning and checking facts and flip flops made by this administration. You really need to read his book, he was one of you until he did some thinking.
Comment by texaslady — December 4, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I don't wonder that, Texaslady, I know that. He is a deeply flawed human being, I have never said otherwise. I also don't think he is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler, which is something I have heard said here more than once.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pmExley, Bush did threaten WWIII. He stated if you are interested in not starting WWIII you better make sure Iran doesn't get nukes. I know that's condenced but the sugject matter is the same. It's a threat that's similar to something like "If you don't want me to kick your a$$ you better not...." or "if you want your legs broken, just keep on doing....).
It's a threat and it was made by the man who started out his presidency stating he wanted to be humble. He's a kneejerk reactionary jerk. No cohesive policy.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThere is no other way to read it. It’s the “insurgent†who have caused the VAST majority of deaths and injuries in Iraq. When Juan defends their actions by calling it “self-defense,†he is condoning the slaughter of innocent Iraqis by these insurgent groups….And then he tries to turn around and shed crocodile tears for them. It would be laughable if it was not so vile.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @
You certainly are on roll here today, Ex. Let me address this last post of yours
using your own words.
It would be laughable if it was not so vile.
you're losing it, kid.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pmI’m sure those that died from it appreciate your classification.
Comment by republicans hate facts
Ex only cares about people killed in planes crashing on towers.
Yeah, I know I'm being a jerk and dishonest but I wanted to see the world your way.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pm"Also, keep in mind that an October 2002 NIE said Iraq had WMD."
Not only that, Manslagt, but a 2005 NIE on Iran said with confidence that Iran was indeed actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program (It will be interesting to see what changed since 2005 for this NIE flip-flop)...
The point is that intelligence is never a certainty. That is why I never supported a military strike against Iran's nuclear program (and I never thought one would take place)...Too much ambiguity. And now with this NIE, the chances of it happening are even more remote. And for that we can be happy.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pmhttp://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/04/elbaradei/index.html
December 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pmNo one's more excited than Exley that Iraqis are all now either dead, refugees, expatriated, or involved in crooked militias paid in (our tax)cash by our military to ethnically cleanse their neighborhoods. Woo Hoo what an awesome advance for freedom, right Ex???
May the good Lord take a likin' to ya, and blow ya up real soon!!
Ex: Survivalist redneck with hi-speed and a thesaurus. Guess that makes for a new species.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAlpuz3,
There is no other way to read it. It’s the “insurgent†who have caused the VAST majority of deaths and injuries in Iraq. When Juan defends their actions by calling it “self-defense,†he is condoning the slaughter of innocent Iraqis by these insurgent groups….And then he tries to turn around and shed crocodile tears for them. It would be laughable if it was not so vile.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Rather hypocritical of you exlax, considering that the Afghan 'freedom fighters' under Ronnie RayGun caused the vast majority of deaths in that country, yet you wingnuts called them brave heroes.
Sorry, son, but you have no integrity and your moral wavering demonstrates you have no morals.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pm"The point is that intelligence is never a certainty."
Except when you're cherry-picking it to back up a capricious assertion, right Exster???
December 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe point is that intelligence is never a certainty. That is why I never supported a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program (and I never thought one would take place)…Too much ambiguity. And now with this NIE, the chances of it happening are even more remote. And for that we can be happy.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Yet you wingnuts are willing to murder almost a million people on your 'uncertainty'. It takes a lot of arrogance to do that - you hateful little 'tard!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pmOur country united as never before would be great. But do you think that will happen with Hillary as President? She isn’t left enough for most here, and is not what I’d call a uniting figure for the right, either.
That which is effective is good, I honestly don’t care who gets the credit.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Wow you're dumb. If she isn't left enough for the people here, then wouldn't she be great for the 'center' as you all whine is right of us? You're insanely stupid son.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI don’t wonder that, Texaslady, I know that. He is a deeply flawed human being, I have never said otherwise. I also don’t think he is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler, which is something I have heard said here more than once.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
You're right, but that's just because Hitler was competent and not a complete moron... As for their 'values', who was it that said things sure would be easier if he were the dictator? Oh, right, that was Bush...
December 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pmJuan C wrote: "Ex only cares about people killed in planes crashing on towers. Yeah, I know I’m being a jerk and dishonest"
Juan, I appreciate your retraction and your admission that you were being dishonest when you wrote that.
But it is not the first time you have done so. You seem to break it out when you are on the proverbial ropes and have nothing else to say or are stalling for time. It is only when you unleash that particular nonsense that I am forced to remind you of your unfortunate posting of July 24, 2006 (which I assume you wish you had never written).
With your admission today, I trust it will be the last time you break out that charge and we can discuss things rationally and with civility.
Again, thank you for your retraction. I appreciate it.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pmComment by republicans hate facts — December 4, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
I normally ignore your 3rd grade insults and puerille obsevations, but for someone to suggest Hillary is going to make this country more united than ever and then call me stupid? A new level of absurd.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmI normally ignore your 3rd grade insults and puerille obsevations, but for someone to suggest Hillary is going to make this country more united than ever and then call me stupid? A new level of absurd.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
You haven't been here for mr 24% have you? Hillary has almost double his approval ratings, and she's twice his IQ. A lower primate would unite the country better than Bush and liber'tards like you!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pmPresident Bush's amen corner in the conservative commentariat is apoplectic over the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. After all, the report's conclusion that Tehran suspended its nuclear weapons program inn 2003 knocked the legs out from their "World War III" rhetoric. And as you'd expect, the same people who helped bring you the war in Iraq are now quick to claim CIA incompetence and conspiracies are behind the new assessment.
For the details, see:
December 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm"Right Claims Iran NIE a CIA Plot Against Bush."
Juan, I appreciate your retraction and your admission that you were being dishonest when you wrote that.
But it is not the first time you have done so. You seem to break it out when you are on the proverbial ropes and have nothing else to say or are stalling for time. It is only when you unleash that particular nonsense that I am forced to remind you of your unfortunate posting of July 24, 2006 (which I assume you wish you had never written).
With your admission today, I trust it will be the last time you break out that charge and we can discuss things rationally and with civility.
Again, thank you for your retraction. I appreciate it.
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
I appreciate your retraction and you admitting you were wrong when you said those awful things about Juan who merely stated they were doing the same civil war behavior as your hero Abraham lincoln. I know your posts are unfortunately grounded in a lack of honesty, morality, maturity and human decency. So it's nice of you to finally behave in an ADULT manner and retract your slander, and admit that you were the little man.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pmAgain, thank you for your retraction. We appreciate it.
Keltoi - The difference between Bush and Hitler is that Bush really is only a figurehead, the powers that be are pushing the buttons to take over America. Bush has paid in reputation for his Presidency. The powers behind him are using him and he is either too stupid to realize or owes them big time and cannot stop.
What is at stake is America's future, we are so vulnerable from this White House agenda in every way from ports to food sources to economy that it will take years to repair what Bush/Cheney and all have done. That is what is sad, not the man but what greed and corruption has done to a beautiful country.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pmBush is too lazy and stupid to be hitler, lets be fair in the comparison...
December 4th, 2007 at 1:40 pmI can only hope people will vote with their minds and not by emotions. Yes, it would be great to have a female for a President, however, I don't believe Hillary is the right one. She wants the Presidency so much she will sell out to the right bid. And favors beget favors as we have seen.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pmSo Exlax, it never dawned on you the the previous NIE reflected what Bush WANTED it to, and this one is simply a situation where the recovered their balls and wrote the truth? I guess not. You aren't the brightest bulb in the trailer park!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:46 pm222 - they tried to blame the CIA for 9/11 too
they're like 3-year-olds - nothing has been or will ever be their fault, and no concerns but their own are valid. that's how they appeal so successfully to the spoiled, mommy's-titty-baby personalities that gravitate to Righty political views.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI can only hope people will vote with their minds and not by emotions. Yes, it would be great to have a female for a President, however, I don’t believe Hillary is the right one. She wants the Presidency so much she will sell out to the right bid. And favors beget favors as we have seen.
Comment by texaslady — December 4, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Republicans keep people in a constant state of fear (especially stupid insecure people with low self esteem and paranoia about zion like exley) to get their votes. If people use their brains, they never vote republican.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pmSorry, Ex, I was writing a monography of exergy and solar conversion systems...
you just post words supposedly said by me as they suit you.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm222 - they tried to blame the CIA for 9/11 too
they’re like 3-year-olds - nothing has been or will ever be their fault, and no concerns but their own are valid. that’s how they appeal so successfully to the spoiled, mommy’s-titty-baby personalities that gravitate to Righty political views.
Comment by tombaker — December 4, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Unfortunately 911 was the fault of the CIA, at least the Republican part of it. Ali Mohamed (a CIA agent) was the mastermind behind Al Qaeda, he planned the first WTC bombings, the African embassy bombings and he trained Osama's bodyguards and inner circle and set up the Afghan training camps where the 911 bombers were trained.
Mukasey himself the current AG let him go free after the first WTC bombing even though they KNEW he was behind them.
Sorry but the GOP is in fact DIRECTLY responsible for 911.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:49 pmI normally ignore your 3rd grade insults and puerille obsevations, but for someone to suggest Hillary is going to make this country more united than ever and then call me stupid? A new level of absurd.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Just exactly what is meant by "more united than ever"? More united than the country was during WWII? It's an absurd standard.
More united than on September 12, 2001? Highly unlikely.
More united than during the last few years under the Bush administration? There's a standard that could be met by anyone, up to and including HRC.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pmSorry, Ex, I was writing a monography of exergy and solar conversion systems…
you just post words supposedly said by me as they suit you.
Comment by Juan C. — December 4, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Sounds EXACTLY how Bush distorts the NIE - ah the irony!
Exlax proves exactly the problem with the GOP - selective and intentional distortion of reality to avoid facing their own individual insecurities! He's such a little nerd'tard!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pmDubbie must be sweatin - I just heard him pronounce (albeit in a labored way) "nu-cle-ar".
December 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pmThe Bush version of "diplomacy"
1. Openly spread lies about those with whom you "negotiate"
December 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pm2. When caught, say stupid stuff.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
On Bush being like Hitler: Bush is only responsible for the deaths of a million people, give or take a couple hundred thousand. Hitler killed 11 million. Thats 11X as bad. Do the math.
As fot this nugget:
We know the fascist right will never allow the unification of the US. Their goal, as espoused by Grover Norquist (Mr. and Ms. Norquist had a son. They named him Grover. There's your problem.), is the destruction of the US government by making it small enough to drown in a bathtub. Too bad the big time economic crimes of this fascist cabal of an administration will result in their own destruction before they can consolidate power.
We needs us some gibbets!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pmI think it is adorable that you felt the need to rush to Juan’s defense once you saw his hideous defense of the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the radical Islamic terrorist groups over there, but Juan is a a big boy….
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
It's interesting that you're jumping on Juan for a completely out-of-context quote from a year and a half ago, while at the same time you're touting the results of the fighting by your "radical Islamic terrorist groups."
See, violence in Baghdad is down because these "radical Islamic terrorist groups" have been ethnically cleansing formerly integrated communities, sending many residents to other parts of the city, to the relatively-more-stable Kurdish north, or into exile in Syria and Jordan. When you brag about how violence is down, you are supporting the ethnic cleansing campaign of the same groups you claim to oppose.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pmOf course Dumbya didn't read it.
It wasn't on the kindergarten reading list, or published by Golden Books, and there certainly weren't near enough pictures to entertain the Shrub.
The "man" is an embarassment to everyone NOT in the ig-nernt, in-bred "git-r-done" crowd.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:01 pmMore united than during the last few years under the Bush administration? There’s a standard that could be met by anyone, up to and including HRC.
Comment by gummitch — December 4, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
I was reacting to Joe's comment in 186, it was not my original statement.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pmI was reacting to Joe’s comment in 186, it was not my original statement.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
OK. I was having trouble combing through the give-and-take to find the source.
I thought this was pretty funny . . . and I hope it's accurate.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pmOh, bugger. I can't post that link? Screw you, TP!
http://tinyurl.com/2zelux
December 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pmJuan wrote: "you just post words supposedly said by me as they suit you."
'Supposedly?'
Are you now denying that you wrote the July 24, 2006 posting, Juan? Were you name-jacked?
Or you renouncing it (which would be a good thing....It was a pretty hideous things to write)?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pmAre you now denying that you wrote the July 24, 2006 posting, Juan? Were you name-jacked?
Or you renouncing it (which would be a good thing….It was a pretty hideous things to write)?
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
It depends on the context. Any quote can sound hideous if taken in isolation.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pmoh man, can bush sink any lower?
he looks like a school boy with failing grades, trying to convince his teacher that he really did study hard all semester....
December 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pmIt depends on the context. Any quote can sound hideous if taken in isolation.
Comment by toasterhead — December 4, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Not to mention the odds of someone remembering what they wrote more than a year ago on a blog, and not to mention that Exley has a propensity to distort what others have said -- as he did several weeks back about a comment Zooey made.
Actually, not so much a "propensity" as much as it appears to be a "compulsion".
December 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pmHe didn't inhale.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:37 pmAs nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppession.
In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air-- however slight-- lest we become unwitting vicitms of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pmAs nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air– however slight– lest we become unwitting vicitms of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pmJuan wrote: “you just post words supposedly said by me as they suit you.â€
‘Supposedly?’
Are you now denying that you wrote the July 24, 2006 posting, Juan? Were you name-jacked?
Or you renouncing it (which would be a good thing….It was a pretty hideous things to write)?
Comment by Exley — December 4, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
So you deny that Abraham Lincoln's civil war justification is invalid? Because that's exactly what Juan described. Sorry, but you write HIDEOUS things 'tard, and you have no regard for the integrity, honesty or morality of what you say. You're a feckless impotent little wuss exlax. That explains why you're such a cowardly liar.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pmI was reacting to Joe’s comment in 186, it was not my original statement.
Comment by Keltoi — December 4, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
STFU you stupid little dum bass.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:32 pmOk I don't have the energy to read 250+ posts. But has anyone beside me worried about the fact that Bush admits he was told that there is new information and he did not immediately ask what it was? Any right wingers worried in the least about this? If I said something like that at work about a critical issue my boss would immediately ask me what that information was. Additionally anyone worried why no one in the press asked Bush why he did not ask what the information was or even ask him if he did ask what the information was?
December 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pmStunning.
I mean... heh... how can anyone honestly stand by that guy? How? I honestly don't get it.
~Sean
December 4th, 2007 at 5:09 pmNow that I've digested this a little bit...
This event alone is impeachable. So what's the deal, Congress? I mean... what more do you need?
~Sean
December 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pmIt was US who invented and used nuclear weapons. It is now only a matter of time before that technology ends up in the wrong hands. And that is the deep concern we all have. We need someone to blame for this eventuality. For now, it is Iran.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI haven't read all this, but surely someone has noticed that "He didn't tell me what the information was," is the lamest excuse since "the dog ate my homework."
I call bullshit on that.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pmY, Zoo - the Capt. is SO right - hardly any Dem leaders are bathroom queens.
capt - hate to bubble pop, but there is no demonstrated causal connection between Dubbie's presidentering and Iran's nookyular activitation. ain't. weren't none. t'aint gon be none.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:13 pmi'm gonna start callin' the Capt. "Dreidle", cuz that boy spins faster than joe lieberman at a daytona qualifier, a-heh-heh-heh
December 4th, 2007 at 10:16 pmZooey. It may be a lame excuse, but now, in addition to keeping us safe from domestic terror for more than 6 years, Bush has successfully got the militant Iranian’s to stop building their nukes. If that’s lame, I hate to think what you consider the current democrat leadership.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 4, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
I call bullsh*t on that.
Add Karma Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
dang, a vote for mantastic.
I also call bullsh*t on that.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:41 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 4, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
You're so damned stupid. How do you remember to breathe?
F_ck off.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:12 pmYeah, that Georgie-boy realy did such a good job on 9/11, defending us so beautifully. capt masterblastic is more clieless than Huckabee.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:37 pmDo you all realize how this is making American's in general look around the world?! Step up!
December 6th, 2007 at 2:09 amYou killed the leader of one whole society in Iraq. I do agree Saddam was bad/dictator/blah. But nobody had a right to manipulate and get the leader of a country killed the way it was done. The world believes, IMO, that this was all deliberate - where is the WMD??
How many of your own youth is your president indirectly murdering by forcing them on an unjust war (let alone the tens of thousand innocent people being killed in Iraq)? How on earth are you all ok with this injustice to you by your own leader?
Wake up!
December 6th, 2007 at 2:15 amBUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
Ooooh... so George is just the mouthpiece after all. He just says what he's told. Dang... who is in charge over there?
(Don't bother... it's a rhetorical question...)
December 6th, 2007 at 9:28 amHOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY...................STOP THE "BUSH CRIME FAMILY" JAIL FOR TREASON WOULD BE TO KIND!!!!!!!!!!!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:40 am