|
14 Jul 03 - 03:24 PM (#983190) Subject: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: outfidel 20 Lies about the War |
|
14 Jul 03 - 05:02 PM (#983243) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: GUEST I forgive him... You won't believe whats in Washington DC home of the red white and blue There are no angels or devils or liars with shovels its just people like me or you. There are men with agendas like the brothers Menendez with vendettas as dark as a whore. But presented with wealth and luck of good health they are just kids in a candy store. If you had their money dipped in tax honey you'd do the same and more. First thing you need is to satisfy greed Its the power and cash you adore. So you give some to friends who you hope in the end won't try to steal back whats yours. Your friends need their favors in green dollar flavors or armies to capture yet more. Right now they're all spoiled with all of that oil You've seen their glee on TV So lets all take a pause and forgive them because they're not killing you or me. |
|
14 Jul 03 - 07:05 PM (#983352) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: GUEST,julie Thanks for that link ! |
|
14 Jul 03 - 07:24 PM (#983368) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Gareth Aaaah ! More retrospective support for that mass murder Saddam Hussain. I am not gong to wast my time on a line by line rebutal. There has been enough of it over the last few months. Just one question ? "Are you glad that Saddam Hussain has gone ? " YES or NO"Just be thankful that for once in thier history the armed forces of the USA acted as the armed wing of Amnesty International. Gareth |
|
14 Jul 03 - 07:52 PM (#983386) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: McGrath of Harlow There really doesn't seem much doubt that we were lied to in order to ensure that we went to war. Even if the good consequences of that war outweigh the bad consequences, that doesn't change that. It's possible to argue that the lies were justified, but that is not the same as pretending they weren't lies - and what is the point of trying to do so? "War is a profession by which a man cannot live honorably; an employment by which the soldier, if he would reap any profit, is obliged to be false, rapacious, and cruel." Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
14 Jul 03 - 09:28 PM (#983448) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: SINSULL The troops will be home by the first of the year...what year? Latest estimate is 2007. |
|
14 Jul 03 - 09:33 PM (#983451) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: SINSULL McGrath, Am I glad to see Saddam gone? Do the ends justify the means? Might he not have been gotten rid of without the sacrifice of thousands of lives? Might we not have accomplished the same result by honoring our obligations to the UN? How many other ruthless leaders are there whose death or destruction I ought to celebrate? Will we as a nation invade all those countries as well? Or only the ones providing economic trophies to Bush and his buddies? Mary |
|
14 Jul 03 - 09:36 PM (#983452) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Raptor HE'S NOT GONE \ Not this time or the time DADDY BUSH tried to take him out! NOR IS OSAMMA BIN LAUGHING But manny have died!!!!! Raptor |
|
15 Jul 03 - 12:56 AM (#983529) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Sorcha So, now we go to Africa...........is Your Country next?? Preaching to the choir here. |
|
15 Jul 03 - 05:15 AM (#983592) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Hrothgar Gareth, I can harden my heart to Saddam's problems, too. I am developing a little curiosity as to what they are going to do if/when they catch him, though (and don't ask who "they" are!). The element that turns my stomach is the double standard involved. Robert Mugabe is a brutal dictator - but there isn't any profit in shafting him, so it's not being done. Riffle through Africa, South America, and Asia, and you can come up with heaps more brutal dictators, who in many cases were put there by the virtuous-sounding people who say what a good thing it is that Saddam is gone. Who is going to get rid of those dictators, when thir countries don't have any oil? Now, if I can switch off cynical bastard mode ........ |
|
15 Jul 03 - 06:40 AM (#983638) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Teribus I'm with you on this Gareth. But just to go through the exercise: Supposed Bush/Blair Lies Nos. 1 & 2 - Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks; - Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together. With regard to any Iraqi/AlQaeda connection, Colin Powell is on record from the outset clearly stating that the US Administration did not believe that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Ba'athist Regime had anything to do with the attacks of 9th September, 2001. He is also on record as having said that no evidence existed that could possibly support any contention that they had any part in those attacks. The fact that Saddam Hussein publicly applauded those attacks is also a matter of record. That the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq did support Palestinian terrorist groups is also a matter of record. To therefore dismiss out of hand that such support could not be extended to the degree that WMD and WMD technology could be transferred to international terrorist groups, in the aftermath of the attacks of 9th September would have been completely irresponsible. No one yet in this forum has come out and said that this threat could not possibly exist. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 3 - Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme. From the US perspective this came from a single source and was uncorroborated. The fact that the documents were proved to be forgeries came later. The fact that British intelligence are reviewing existing additional intelligence information indicates that as far as they are concerned this matter is still "live". Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 4 - Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons. Not so cut and dried as the article suggests. Initial claims by the US were immediately refuted by Dr Al-Baradei, until the US drew the attention of the IAEA to the manufacturing specification of those tubes, particularly the internal specification for the surfaces of some of the batches those tubes and the manufacturing tolerances. This was subject to further evaluation by the IAEA. They still came down on the side that supported their original position, but could not explain the Iraqi requirements with regard to specification. Anyone who can remember the "Super-Gun" affair could. It would be terribly naive to think that the Iraqi regime had not learned from that, and in the light of the sanctions regime in place, it would be interesting to know by how much that specification would have to be altered in order to make those tubes fit for the purpose implied by the US intelligence analysts. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.5 - Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War. If this is a lie it was a lie propagated by the UN through its own inspectors - Refer to UNSCOM Report to the UN Security Council January 1999. The pilotless aircraft referred to were found by UNMOVIC UNSCOM inspectors during their stay in Iraq did test stocks of weaponised agent held by the Iraqi's that theoretically should have passed its shelf-life years before. They found it to be in perfect condition. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 6 - Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus. Again a lie told by UNSCOM, they were there for seven years and could not find these missiles or warheads. The down-playing of the threat once the fighting began was more probably due to air supremacy enjoyed by the US and British forces. As to the removal of chemical protection equipment, it would be intersting to know: - When it was removed; - What items of chemical protection equipment were removed; - Where it was sent to. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.7 - Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox Barring going to the moon, 2 billion US$ provides the wherewithal to accomplish much. That is how much Saddam Hussein had to play with - it is therefore undeniable that he had the wherewithal, now did Colin Powell state that Saddam Hussein was in the process of developing smallpox, or did he state he had the wherewithal to do so - completely different things. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 8 - US and British claims were supported by the inspectors The stocks of WMD referred to, and discussed last September were those detailed by UNSCOM as existing but unaccounted for. There is no lie there on the part of anyone. In evaluating a threat it is always more prudent to believe and prepare for the worst. The article linked above, omits the statement by Dr Blix that he firmly believed that the Iraqi declaration of the 7th December, 2002 was false and incomplete. It omits to mention that UNMOVIC did find munitions that the Iraqi's claimed they did not possess. It omits to mention that Iraq was developing missile systems proscribed by the UN. It omits to mention that UNMOVIC found equipment dismantled by UNSCOM repaired, reassembled and relocated. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.9 - Previous weapons inspections had failed The conclusion reached by the UN panel in 1999, backed by the UNSCOM Report of January of that year clearly show that Tony Blair was not lying. If however you regard the part about "important elements still have to be resolved" as being nothing more than meaningless jargon, then more fool you. UNSCOM did not find traces of Saddam's ongoing offensive biological programme. The UN got the regime to admit to the existence of such a programme, therefore Tony Blair was lying when he said that this was not known about until Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected - I don't think so! Anything stated by the Iraqi Ba'ath Regime could be taken with a pinch of salt, the confirmation of their assertion that they had an ongoing offensive biological weapons programme was provided by the defection - hardly a lie. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 10 - Iraq was obstructing the inspectors The article again conveniently omits a reccurring item in every single report made by Dr. Hans Blix to the UN Security Council - that of lack of full and pro-active co-operation by the Iraqi Authorities - A fundamental requirement of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which if denied was to be regarded as a material breach of that resolution. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 11 - Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes Why would the man lie? This could be confirmed by existing NATO partners who were once part of the Warsaw Pact Forces. 45 minutes seems reasonable time to fill C/B warheads with agent and distribute those munitions. The apparent contradiction, on the part of Tony Blair, assumes that the C/B agents were hidden far from the forces that would use them - that would be an extremely dangerous assumption to make, particularly with regard to Republican Guard Units - C/B warheads, that the Iraqi's claimed they did not have were found in Iraqi ammunition dumps by UNMOVIC. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 12 - The "dodgy dossier" Intelligence is information, from whatever source. Alastair Campbell was not the only person who stood by the dossier's accuracy, the author of one of those sources stood by the accuracy, and current relevance, of what he had written. It was he who pointed out the inaccuracies relating to the number of Iraqi intelligence organisations, and their areas of responsibility. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 13 - War would be easy Generally it was. Winning the peace will prove much more difficult, but it is very much early days yet. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 14 - Umm Qasr The southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr did fall very early on in the conflict, it took some further time until it was considered to be fully under the control of Anglo-American forces. It fell in as much it could no longer be considered as a viable base of operations for Iraqi forces, irregular or otherwise. Anglo-American forces gained full control when the port could be considered safe to accept shipping. No lie here, unlike the reports from the BBC regarding a rogue strike that hit a maternity hospital in Baghdad. They persisted in broadcasting this news for 48 hours, even after their second transmission which included a report from their on the scene reporter who stated that no maternity hospital had been hit. What he reported was that either a bomb or a spent Iraqi anti-aircraft missile had landed close to a maternity clinic that had been empty at the time, the extent of the damage, in his opinion, lent towards the latter as the cause - the BBC, however continued to report the strike against a maternity hospital - now that was a lie. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 15 - Basra rebellion It was clear that something had happenned inside Basra, the media were the ones to impute an uprising by the population, a contention that the military consistently played down. Neither Bush nor Blair ever claimed that a rising had occurred. 40 and 42 Commando did break up an attack by Iraqi forces from Basra directed towards the Al-Faw penninsula. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.16 - The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch Bush/Blair contended that she fired until her ammo ran out - when? where? If memory serves me correctly it was reported that very little was known about the circumstances of her capture apart from the fact that the convoy she was travelling in had been ambushed. The extent of her injuries were only ever known after her rescue. Everything reported previously was pure speculation on the part of the media - not lies told by Bush or Blair. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No. 17 - Troops would face chemical and biological weapons This was a vague threat put about by the Iraqi authorities themselves, not by Bush or by Blair, even the wording suggests that. Neither Bush nor Blair would have been wrong to state, "Troops COULD face chemical and biological weapons." Knowing the Regime they were up against, only a complete and utter fool would ignore the possibility that such weapons could be used. And as stated by Lieutenant General James Conway, "Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen." Supposed Bush/Blair No.18 - Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD What interrogation of the Iraqi scientists, military and civil servants will yield will be information relating to Iraq's WMD and WMD programmes. Locations of the material detailed in UNSCOM's report or the sites of their disposal, the true picture relating to the status of the former Iraqi regimes programmes directed at the acquisition of WMD. That I believe to be perfectly true, and on that matter it is still early days yet. And while claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin. It does not make those claims any less real. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.19 - Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis Irrespective of UN- administered trust funds, which incidently included fairly hefty UN administration charges, being in place or not. The Iraqi people stand to see more of the country's oil revenues spent for their benefit now than ever they did before, with the added bonus that there will be a hell of a lot more of them around to enjoy such benefits than there would have been had Saddam remained in power. The UN, not Bush or Blair, require that Iraq honours its commitments to pay Kuwait compensation for the Iraqi invasion of 1990. Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.20 - WMD were found A great deal has been made of the two mobile units found in Iraq. What they were when they were exported to Iraq and what possible use could they be put after they had arrived in Iraq could be two quite different stories. Similar tale with the medical scanners and ultra-sonic machines Iraq attempted to import from Germany. Remember the order for eight machines and the back up order for 120 spare electronics components that could be used as the trigger devices for a nuclear device. Now what about what UNMOVIC did find? Were Bush and Blair lying about those as well? One thing is for sure the Iraqi's certainly were. |
|
15 Jul 03 - 07:12 AM (#983647) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: DMcG Others may be inclined to go through the whole of this response, but I'd like to pick on this one: Supposed Bush/Blair Lie No.7 - Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox Barring going to the moon, 2 billion US$ provides the wherewithal to accomplish much. That is how much Saddam Hussein had to play with - it is therefore undeniable that he had the wherewithal, now did Colin Powell state that Saddam Hussein was in the process of developing smallpox, or did he state he had the wherewithal to do so - completely different things. Another thing that 2 billion US$ could do is, for example, modernise the water supply. Do I take then, Teribus, you regard the two statements: a) Saddam Hussein has the wherewithal to develop smallpox b) Saddam Hussein has the wherewithal to modernise the water supply as wholly equivalent, just because they are both logically true? |
|
15 Jul 03 - 07:19 AM (#983649) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Raptor Lets face it folks Hussein is a bad man! Bush is more intrested in cash than doing whats right,but ... AWW Fuck whats my point? |
|
15 Jul 03 - 07:56 AM (#983665) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Greg F. Let's face it folks, The BuShites are Bad Men... |
|
15 Jul 03 - 08:02 AM (#983667) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Teribus DmcG, The title of the thread - Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. Now move on to the point you have fastened on Colin Powell said (note: not Bush or Blair) "Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox." is that a lie? Equally true he did have the wherewithal to to modernise the water supply, but, he chose not to do that. He was more interested in buying rocket motors and developing missiles right under the noses of the UN and right through the period of crippling and stringent UN sanctions. By the bye, he wasn't going to use the missiles to distribute water to the more arid regions of Iraq, they were intended to deliver something else, somewhere else. |
|
15 Jul 03 - 08:43 AM (#983692) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: DMcG My point was that bringing "smallpox" into the statement carried the implication that smallpox was being developed, which is not proven at this point. Saying that the statement was about "the wherewithal" rather than about "smallpox" is at the very least misleading, since substituing a neutral term like "the water supply" clearly does alter the significance of the statement. (By the way, if you search the site, you will find a posting of mine where I said I thought it more likely than not that there are biological weapons somewhere in Iraq. Whether I still think that is another matter.) |
|
15 Jul 03 - 04:01 PM (#983945) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: outfidel > More retrospective support for that mass murder Saddam Hussain. Ok, all you Hussein supporters! Stand up and be counted! Anyone...Buehler...anyone... > Just one question ? Ok. > "Are you glad that Saddam Hussain has gone ? That's 2 questions. But I'll answer #2 anyway: 1) I'm not sure Hussein is gone. But yes, it will be a good thing when he's out of power (assuming Iraq doesn't decend into total chaos). It would be even better if we focused on the real terrorist threat instead: Osama Bin Laden. 2) I'm not sure that deposing Hussein was worth a) wrecking our alliances and b) setting the modern precedence for unilateral preemptive wars that do NOT meet the "just war" criteria. 3) I'm even less sure that deposing Hussein was worth the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and dozens (soon to be hundreds) of U.S. soldiers. |
|
15 Jul 03 - 04:30 PM (#983968) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Raptor Now the states have to start another war to divert attention away from the facts that they couldn't Kill Ossama, Or Saddam, Or find any weapons of mass destruction! I hope they don't try to invade Canada Again! the last time they tried we kicked thier ass! But we're still using the same weapons as we had in 1812!!! Raptor |
|
15 Jul 03 - 05:12 PM (#983986) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: GUEST,amergin but why would we want canadia??? we already get all the resources.... |
|
15 Jul 03 - 07:20 PM (#984061) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Gareth Teribus - youve done a better job than I could have done - What is interesting is that with the exception of the McGrath, nobody has even attempted to answer my question. Again -Are you glad that Saddam Hussain has gone ? ANSWER Yes or NoGareth |
|
15 Jul 03 - 07:36 PM (#984080) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Amos Gareth: I am quite glad he is gone. I am quite unhappy that a bunch of muscleheads couldn't think of a cleverer way to do it than by spending 20 billion dollars and wasting unknown hundreds of human lives. That is, to me, a piss-poor solution. I'm glad the Japanese surrendered, too. That doesn't mean I am glad that the US nuked Hiroshima. Over-simplification is as misleading a path as over-complexification. 'Nuff said. A |
|
15 Jul 03 - 07:47 PM (#984087) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: McGrath of Harlow I'm glad Stalin has gone too. And I'm glad they didn't start a war back in the late Forties to get rid of him, as some people wanted to do. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM (#984339) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Raptor HE NOT GONE!!!!! Did you get that? BUSH FAILED TO KILL HIM. He killed many people but not him. His Daddy didn't do it either! GARRETH DID YOU GET THAT? YES OR NO? RAPTOR |
|
16 Jul 03 - 07:42 AM (#984347) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Teribus Raptor, He's gone alright - and he knows it. At best all he can do now is hide as best he can, for as long as he can. Meanwhile the situation in Iraq for the Iraqi people will steadily improve, and as those improvements make themselves more and more evident, then those hiding him will become increasingly fewer, until he reaches the same point as that reached, and realised by Prince Charles Edward Stuart when he fled to the Vatican. Sure as hell they'll be no Iraqi singing a version of "Will ye no come back again" for Saddam, his sons, or any of the others who comprised their despicable regime. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 08:55 AM (#984377) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Greg F. Well, lets not pick on the Iraq lies alone- plenty of other lies to go around. Anyone remember that the BuShites told us there would be Federal budget surplusses thru 2011 when pushing their idiotic tax cut for the wealthy? And they have just announced the largest budget DEFECIT in the history of the country? These people are congenital liars. They just don't give a shit, and they lie as effortlessly as they breathe. Puts me in mind of Harry Truman's assesment of Tricky Dick Nixon: Richard Nixon is a lying son of a bitch. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at once, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in. Dumbya could de a contender for the title.... |
|
16 Jul 03 - 10:15 AM (#984416) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Amos That Truman cut right to the chase, didn't he?? The difference between ancient history and the modern day is that instead of just Nixon we now have a whole Cabinet of lying sons of bitches! A |
|
16 Jul 03 - 10:56 AM (#984441) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: TIA Gareth; Should all evil despots be violently deposed at any cost? Answer YES or NO |
|
16 Jul 03 - 10:57 AM (#984442) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: TIA By the way, my answer to your question is YES. Is that the end-of-story then? |
|
16 Jul 03 - 11:31 AM (#984458) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: GUEST,donuel The intelligence forgery was traced to a term paper written by a grad student at Stanford University in 1996. I bet Bush used to buy term papers all through college. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/onion8.jpg |
|
16 Jul 03 - 11:38 AM (#984466) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Rick Fielding Yes, they DO have all our Canadian resources. Yes they are making us pay quite the price for our insolence with behind the scenes things. Yes....Bush will be around for five more years (who'll stop him, Dick Gebhardt?) but to the rest of the world, our Govt. showed courage. Rick |
|
16 Jul 03 - 06:25 PM (#984724) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Terry K Yes, we wanted rid of Saddam, possibly because most people were brainwashed into believing that it was necessary - cf religion. What is an absolute is that France caused the war. The war was stupid from the off, but the Bush/Blair excrescence was clever enough (maybe inadvertently so!) to know that the UN would not go with them because of the French veto. Without that, the UN would have struggled to find a justification to deny a resolution in favour of the war. Because the UN is a failed organisation in its present guise. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 08:06 PM (#984773) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Gareth Yes - providing the cost of moral armed intevention is less than the cost of non intevention, and if it is possible. I take it TIA you were/are prepared to support the continuation of the Baathist regime ??? Oh in in case that was a crude attemt to provoke me into advocating armed intervention to dispose of G W B the answer is no - his removal is possible by democratic means - providing of course, the leftish leaning americans can get away from saying how awful he is on the Internet, and actually organise against him. Tell me TIA - What did you do in November 1999 to stop Bush ?? The World Wonders ?? Gareth |
|
17 Jul 03 - 08:46 AM (#985084) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: TIA Gareth, interestingly, you did not provide a simple YES or NO either. Having a complicated world sure is a bitch isn't it. Your qualifier reads : "...providing the cost of moral armed intervention is less than the cost of non-intervention..." EXACTLY my good man. Now, please try to understand that nobody is saying that Saddam in power is a good thing. I believe that everyone is debating whether the cost of intervention is less than the cost of non-intervention. It is so good to see that you finally understand. Now, about me in 1999 - raised by hippies who were hippies before the word hippie was invented, I've been active (as in working with hands, feet, mind, pen, voice, and wallet - not just keyboard) in political and humanitarian causes since waaayyy before 1999. Is the world satisfied? |
|
17 Jul 03 - 09:11 AM (#985107) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: Gareth No the world is not satisfied. Gareth |
|
18 Jul 03 - 11:25 AM (#985981) Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Blair lied? Let us count the ways. From: outfidel Democrats explore potential for Bush impeachment Bush won't be impeached while the GOP control both houses of Congress. But let's have a full airing of the evidence. Let the GOP -- who spoke so eloquently about truth-telling, honor, and the Constitution during the Clinton impeachment -- block the impeachment of Bush. Then let's see what happens in November 2004. What did Dubya know, and when did he know it? |
