PDA

View Full Version : Who's Telling The Truth? Bush Say's No WMD's In



Gayle in MD
08-22-2006, 11:44 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/22/video-bush-makes-sen-sa_n_27755.html


Too bad that Bush and Santorum can't get their stories straight! Bush says there was no connection between Iraq, S.H. and 9/11? Good time to finally tell us. Unfortunately, there are many instances when both Bush, and Dick Cheney spoke about the issue, and made the case that there Were connections between S.H. and 9/11.

Check out this video of Bush/Vs. Santorum's recollections.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

wolfdancer
08-22-2006, 12:52 PM
well,"shoot" ...., just an honest mistake....let's apologise to the Iraqi's and bring the boys back home.

Gayle in MD
08-22-2006, 01:16 PM
Yeah, well, atleast this last press conference should put to rest any hell bent supporter's insistance that there were WMD's in Iraq, or any connection between Saddam, and 9/11, once and for all. So, this makes it official! There was absolutely no good reason to go into Iraq, unless, of course, you were walking around everyday after 9/11, your top priority being that you were worrying yourself to death because Iraqis couldn't vote, or worrying everyday, after we lost 3000 people, that Saddam might kill some more Iraqis. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Yeah, thank God we have Republicans to protect us! And that they're so tough on terror! Just ask bin Laden, North Korea, and Iran!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-23-2006, 06:20 AM
The huffington post is where your material comes from? You have lost it.

eg8r

DickLeonard
08-23-2006, 06:29 AM
Eg8r I get my news from Sacrboruogh Country. George Bush is an Idiot. He shouldn't be allowed in front of a microphone, TV camera, nor a mirror he is starting to resemble a monkey.####

wolfdancer
08-23-2006, 08:33 AM
Is that flippant remark supposed to negate the implications of Bush's answer?
While you may be patting yourself on the back "boy, I really came up with a dinger, that'll show her".....let me spell it out for you:
He now claims there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11....and apparently there are no WMD's in Iraq, except some that where there when "Papa Doc" Bush was Pres.
Left unsaid is ....that ain't quite what he told Congress, or the American Public...in the past.
To myself and other free thinking Americans....just proof of his lies, and warped agenda
to the close-minded party faithful....just an honest mistake.
It's unfortunate that the Huffington report challenges both your intellect, and your beliefs....but if you really want to prove that you are on top of current issues....try challenging what is reported there....and save the "clever" remarks for socialising with your right wing friends.

eg8r
08-23-2006, 08:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is that flippant remark supposed to negate the implications of Bush's answer?
<hr /></blockquote> If you have a quote, video or audio of something W said, and you honestly don't think it has been doctored or taken out of context, why not post a link to it from a reputable source. If you want credibility at least act like it and refrain from using huffington as a source.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-23-2006, 10:10 AM
As usual...a non-reply....
I'm guessing you weren't Captain of your debating team?
Here's what I get from every post you have ever made here.
You never have a fact-based reply to challenge anything posted against your faith-based beliefs....instead you want the other person to prove his posts....well sir, after awhile, it's like talking to a ten year old that keeps asking "why" to every explanation you give them.
I keep wondering "why" I choose to respond to your posts? Is it because I'm hoping to figure out how somebody could be both that smart, and that stupid...at the same time?
So rather then me finding another source then the Huffington report....why don't you enlighten us with your insider info... Explain why the following is happening, and why we are so much better off with GWB as President:
Americans, Iraqis are dying every day, the Middle East is in turmoil, the threat of a terrorist attack is increasing, the country is seriously indebted, our jobs are being exported, or given to our imported "guest workers"...a financial disaster is on the horizon....Bush wants to abandon SS in favor of the big casino on Wall St.....
And you're still stuck on the Clinton scandal

eg8r
08-23-2006, 12:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As usual...a non-reply.... <hr /></blockquote> It was more than you deserved.

eg8r

pooltchr
08-23-2006, 06:11 PM
I watched John Kerry on the Sunday morning talking heads...and although I agree that GW has not handled things in the way I personally would have liked to have seen...I still believe we would have been far worse off if Kerry were in office. That man is a radical idiot!
You may think GW is the worst president we have ever had...but it could have been much worse!

Steve

SnakebyteXX
08-23-2006, 06:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>
You may think GW is the worst president we have ever had...but it could have been much worse!

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Wouldn't it be great if we had a political system where the choices didn't always seem to come down to voting for the lesser of two evils?

Imagine what it would be like if either or both partys ran candidates that were truly qualified to lead us?

How strange it is to live in a democracy and know that for the time being the true potential to choose the best leaders remains maddeningly out of our reach.

How is it that our two party system feels as if it's failing to meet our needs as citizens?

Any suggestions?

Snake

Gayle in MD
08-24-2006, 07:55 AM
Steve,
I'm curious, how, or in what ways, do you think that John Kerry's decisions could have been worse? IOW, given our present circumstances, could you be more specific regarding what you think Kerry's likely decisions would have been, and how other actions might have been worse for our country.

Kerry has said, many times, that he would not have invaded Iraq, and that his focuss would have been to get bin Laden, alQaeda operatives, and to utilize diplomacy first and foremost in the Middle East.

Lets imagine, for a moment, if we had had a leader who had allowed the inspectors to continue their investigations long enough to prove that there were no WMD's in Iraq, which Bush now finally admits, and admits there was no connection between 9/11, and Saddam. Let's imagine for a moment that we had had a leader who had implemented diplomatic talks with the countries in the Middle East which are now such a greater threat to us, than before we invaded, some say, partly because we are bogged down in Iraq.

As the Iranian situation has worsened, and given that in 2003 Iran sent word to Bush that Iran was requesting talks with the United States, which he immediately rejected, how would things be worse had we had a leader who displayed to Iran, and the rest of the world, that the United States was in favor of meeting first at the conference table, rather than on the battle field.

Dick Cheney's immediate response to Iran, "Iran cannot have Nuclear Weapons." Bush's response to his statement, "All options are on the table"

When our leader's policies are such that only bombs, occupations, and war are in the picture, and talking is not an option, what space does that policy allow for any likely result, other than Nuclear confrontation, ultimately.

Colin Powell, for example, stated that he intended to continue the talks with North Korea that had been going on during the Clinton Administration, which, by the way, and by most accounts, were making progress. He was quickly admonished, and Bush put a quick end to that.

Personally, I would much prefer to have a man in the White House whose view is.... war as a last resort only, than some cowboy up there who thinks that statements like "Wanted Dead Or Alive" and who names countries as included in the axis of evil, and threatens our enemies with pre-emptive attacks. This attitude that our enemies are not worthy of communication, is, in my opinion, not only dangerous, but rather stupid, and destructive. If you're not going to make an effort to talk with your ememies, what's the point in talking to anyone else? It is never smart to back your enemy into a corner as a first attempt. There can be no peaceful option on the table, when our country refuses to even go to the table.

I, Personally, think, that the simple fact that we would not be bogged down in Iraq, had Kerry, or Al Gore, been president, at a time when there are real threats, and were more pressing threats, would have put us in a much stronger position to deal with those more pressing threats. I also think, and according to his statements, that Kerry would have definately gotten bin Laden by now, because he has stated over and over that getting bin Laden should be, and should have been, our first priority, along with intense negotiations with the other countries in the Middle East, and I happen to believe that bin Laden, is the greatest Nuclear Threat to our country at this time.

I honestly can't think of anyone who could have put us in a worse situation than Bush has put us in, especially, since there seems to be no likely way out which could be seen as a success, unless one is still of the opinion that the warring Iraqi factions will suddenly decide to put aside their thousand years old grudges, in the interest of friendship and peace. Given their history, and the Iranian interest and efforts to keep the bombs exploding, and the alQaeda influence, which has now grown to twenty percent, where there were non previous to our occupation, it is obvious, to me atleast, that we will atleast double, or tripple the number of lost American lives in Iraq, and I consider that estimate to be on the light side, given that Bush has stated that we will be there atleast until he is out of office. Had we not ocupied Iraq, we would likely be watching Iraq and Iran warring with one another, and yes, probably Isreal and Lebanon, and we would be among the other peaceful nations in the world who were actively working to produce peacful resolutions between warring nations in the Middle East. Had we spent all this money on making our country safer, and defensive technology for Nuclear threats, and continued to alliegn ourselves with countries whose efforts are along the lines of peaceful resolutions, we would surely have fewer enemies, and much more credibility.

When one considers all these things, not to mention our increased numbers of Islamist militant extremists, and our loss of credibility around the world, a first course of diplomacy, with the input and participation of many other nations, which would have been very likely after 9/11, might well have been worth the effort, and certainly could not have created this quagmire in which we find ourselves at the present. And, lastly, I also do not think we would be dealing with the biggest occupation of illegal aliens this country has ever seen, nor with the greatest debt, trillions of it with China, of all places!

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
08-24-2006, 06:19 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

moblsv
08-24-2006, 06:30 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

wolfdancer
08-24-2006, 08:00 PM
Good link!!!

Gayle in MD
08-24-2006, 08:20 PM
Thanks Mobvls,

Incredible, isn't it. Have you ever heard such obvious re-arranging of the facts in your life?

First, not one single person in the political arena has suggested that we leave Iraq now, not one. The cry is for a reasonable exit plan, or a plan for success. Stay the course, doesn't cut it, when it becomes obvious that the course one has set, is not working, is failing.

Also, he never mentions that 80% of Iraqai voters, voted for sectarian candidates, IOW, did not vote for those candidates which were not part of the sectarian problem, known as moderate unity seekers.

Also, no mention that without his occupation, Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists, or that these drastic, dangerous conditions in Iraq, terrorist wise, were created by him, and his incompetence, and the incompetence of the man he refuses to fire.

The way he uses the word "Ordered"....in saying that he never said that Saddam ordered the attacks on the WTC, is just more BS, and more denial, because we all know, that he, and Cheney, and Rice did everything they could possibly do to suggest there was a link between alQaeda, bin Laden, terrorism, and Saddam/Iraq.

He's just a complete liar. He can't open his mouth without lying.

This guy, Miliki, probably not the correct spelling, is nothing but a thug. He has no intention of stopping sectarian violence. No plan for a balanced and fair situation among the various factions in Iraq. And obviously, after his remarks, right here in our country, about us, no gratitude or appreciation for what American troops have sacrificed.

This mess is a sad state of affairs.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-25-2006, 06:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First, not one single person in the political arena has suggested that we leave Iraq now, not one. <hr /></blockquote> You might want to go back over the past couple years and re-read what is out there. Murtha is a fine example of a political figure requesting we leave Iraq now. While not saying exactly those words, it is hard to mistake his intentions when states, "It's time to bring the troops home...".

What you are doing with your statement above is forcing anyone to find a quote in which someone in the political arena used the word "now". Might not happen, but only someone desperately trying to hide a lie would make the statement.

Further to prove the point, many Dems state that we need to leave Iraq as soon as possible. This goes along with the President and the rest of Congress. However the Dems don't really mean "as soon as possible" they really mean drop your weapons and come home NOW. As soon as possible would mean they accept the fact that Iraq cannot handle it themselves right now and are dependant on our support and skill. It would also mean that when we left, we would be successful in defeating Saddam and successfully standing up a Democratic Government that is able to support and protect themselves. This would be devastating to the Dems because it would make W a hero. No, I am sorry, we are not buying your "plan for success" BS. The Dems are in no position to help put together a "plan for success" in Iraq. They already cannot win an election, can you imagine if Bush had wrapped all this up in a couple years?

eg8r

DickLeonard
08-25-2006, 07:51 AM
Eg8r We can win elections we just can't figure out how to prevent them from being stolen.####

Gayle in MD
08-25-2006, 08:30 AM
You know what Ed, you are so full of $hit, that's why I don't bother answering your trivial posts, but if you insist on getting on here just to insult people, and for no other reason, atleast get your F-ing facts straight.

Not Murtha, nor any other Democrat has said the troops should leave immediately, regardless of how YOU try to lie about what is being said. Murtha said our troops should be re-deployed to the peripheral, in a position of support when necessary, and let the Iraqis fight it out between themselves, but should not be left to die, fighting between Iraqis, in a Civil War. There are also a number of plans that Democrats have laid out for improving our quagmire, which was created because Bush and Rumsfeld, who refused to listen to people with decades longer experience than either of them ever had, about what would happen if they insisted on going into Iraq without enough troops.

As for desperately trying to hide lies, that's been your modus operendi, not mine. If you kept abreast of what is happening in Iraq enough to know what is happening, you'd know, that the very idea of George Bush settling anything with expedience, IS unimaginable.

You might want to go back over the past couple years and re-read what is out there. Do you read anything? Oh I forgot, it's beyond your capability to read anything without applying your fantasy interpretation to everything you read. Murtha is a fine example of a political figure requesting we leave Iraq now. That is a lie. Murtha never said that. While not saying exactly those words, it is hard to mistake his intentions when states, "It's time to bring the troops home...". Another lie, he said re-deploy to the peripheral.

What you are doing with your statement above is forcing Forcing? another of your false interpretations of reality. anyone to find a quote in which someone in the political arena used the word "now". Yeah, Stud Muffin, find one. Might not happen, Correction, will not happen, because it has never been said by a Democrat, without adding certain conditions. but only someone desperately trying to hide a lie would make the statement. Obviously, your post is the one full of lies, You run a close second to your hero Bush.

Further to prove the point, many Dems state that we need to leave Iraq as soon as possible. First correct statement you have made so far, you would have them stay longer than necessary? Why does that not surprise me, since you obviously could give a $hit about what this idiot in the White House is putting them through, who, BTW, is off on vacation AGAIN, this week, not dragging through the desert in 80 lbs. of gear, in 114 degrees of heat, Bush is out fishing, touting, "Stay the course, I F'ed up, but stay the course anyway, gotta make me look good in the history books! This goes along with the President and the rest of Congress. However the Dems don't really mean "as soon as possible" they really mean drop your weapons and come home NOW. Ed, we all know you can't read, reading minds would obviously be beyond your capacity! As soon as possible would mean they accept the fact that Iraq cannot handle it themselves right now and are dependant on our support and skill. Iraqis have had three years to get their $hit together, how come we train our people in six weeks? Maybe, they'd just as soon let our troops die for their freedom, instead of fighting for it themselves. They held a damn parade to honor the Hezboollah. I, for one, don't give a damn about them if they won't get off their asses and fight for their own democracy. It would also mean that when we left, we would be successful in defeating Saddam and successfully standing up a Democratic Government that is able to support and protect themselves. Dream on, Lets noe forget, they voted a tjhug into office.According to conditions on the ground, there is a Civil War going on in Iraq, not a Democracy, and not progress, in fact, the majority of the country thinks going in was a mistake, and that going in has made the whole world more dangerous. This would be devastating to the Dems because it would make W a hero. Believe me when I tell you, the last G.D. thing the Democrats are worried about, is that George Bush will EVER look like a hero! No, I am sorry, we are not buying your "plan for success" BS. Good, my plan for success doesn't include you, your opinions, or George Bush. The Dems are in no position to help put together a "plan for success" in Iraq. Seems to me that few people would be able to come up with a miracle for solving the colossal mess George Bush has opened up, but my money is on the Democrats, since the majority of the Democrats in Congress had enough sense to vote against this unwinnable war. They already cannot win an election, another lie, the Democrats have won elections, and I wouldn't be too bold about predictions at the present, since the majority in this country think we are heading in the wrong direction, thanks to your boy George. can you imagine if Bush had wrapped all this up in a couple years? BWA HA HA HA HA...can you? Obviously, his intention, according to his words, is to leave it to the next president to handle. And no, no one could imagine George Bush wrapping up anything, from illegal aliens, to health care, to open borders, to getting bin Laden, to Social Security, to Katrina, to Iraq, so far he is batting ZERO.

Don't bother responding to me. Occasionally, your lies are so preposterous, even someone who is as indifferent to your opinions as I am, is willing to take a moment to shoot you down for the benefit of reality, with which you are completely out of touch.

No wonder you love trivia, trivia in, trivia out. And yes, your friends are right.

Gayle in Md. I'm off to my yacht for the weekend, so don't flatter youself that I'm not replying to whatever your about to post due any undeniable factual arguement on your part, I don't respond to your garbage, and even if I were hear, you're back on my list of total ignore.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-25-2006, 12:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You know what Ed, you are so full of $hit, that's why I don't bother answering your trivial posts, <hr /></blockquote> Uh oh, someone lost their broom. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I thought you don't read the posts. My replies for you are for the entertainment of the rest of the board.

[ QUOTE ]
Not Murtha, nor any other Democrat has said the troops should leave immediately, <hr /></blockquote> Before you drive yourself further in the gutter and start using the F-word after every other word, go back and read the quote I posted. Murtha said it is time for the troops to come home. If you are too thick-headed to understand what that means, then I no longer think you are "playing" dumb. You might just actually be trying to prove it. I hate to see you degrade yourself to mirroring Ann Coulter but you just cannot help yourself.

Here is a quote from Murtha's website (http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html) ... [ QUOTE ]
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
<hr /></blockquote> Hmm, even those of you who need others to think for you can understand that this means leave Iraq.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Murtha:</font><hr> Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> The CAPS were provided by Murtha himself. Who knew almost a year ago he would have to accent his text so even Gayle could understand what he meant. </font color> That pesky Murtha proves your childish vulgar outbreak is yet again unwarranted.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle full of hate:</font><hr> Murtha said our troops should be re-deployed to the peripheral, <hr /></blockquote> I believe the quoted text above states an "over the horizon" position. This means out of Iraq. That is clear to everyone else in the world except you.

Oh yeah, all of that was quoted from 11/2005. So less than a year ago he was demanding that we leave Iraq, and here we have you saying they never said it. Pathetic indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
That is a lie. Murtha never said that. <hr /></blockquote> Watch what you say...He actually did say it. Back in Nov of 05.

[ QUOTE ]
Correction, will not happen, because it has never been said by a Democrat, without adding certain conditions. <hr /></blockquote> So, in the beginning you say it has never been said. Then I give you a quote in which they say it but not in the exact terms you describe and you change the requirements. You now added "without adding certain conditions". Basically you are now retracting your lie that they never said it, and you are now saying they might have said it and if they did they added some conditions. You need to get your head straight and quick switching back and forth.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bother responding to me. <hr /></blockquote> Uh oh, now you are suggesting how I should react to you. The one who hates it when others tell her what to do is now telling me what to do. Come on, be a big girl and fess up to the BS you state here. It was shown that you are wrong, no biggie. I have, in the past, admitted when I was wrong, it would be a step in the right direction for you to act likewise, but understand it is your prerogative. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
No wonder you love trivia, trivia in, trivia out. And yes, your friends are right.
<hr /></blockquote> I will let them know that the hot air blowing south also believes it is crazy to like trivia.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm off to my yacht for the weekend <hr /></blockquote> No doubt the realization of hard work from a corporate facist pig.

eg8r

eg8r
08-25-2006, 12:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r We can win elections we just can't figure out how to prevent them from being stolen.#### <hr /></blockquote> Doesn't the left proclaim to be the intelligent party? You can't figure out how to do what you have been doing for a century. It is only until recently the right was accused of stealing votes, the left made a career out of it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-25-2006, 12:55 PM
Gayle, what you don't seem to understand is that the truth for this admin is not static. That there were WMD's in Iraq, was the "truth" back then, and that there are no WMD's in Iraq, is the present truth. That "Mission Accomplished" was the truth back then, and that "Mission Impossible" is the truth now, just demonstrates how dynamic the truth can be.
It was true then, that it was unpatriotic to question the war's beginnings, and now it is also true, that it is unpatriotic to question how we can solve this quagmire, and slip quietly out of Dodge.
It was true then, that finding OBL was a priority, but not now. (Forgive and forget....)
Then there are the abstractions of the truth...."if Bush had solved this in a short time, the Dems still wouldn't give him credit" Well, maybe not a statue of him atop a horse, sword in hand, leading a charge.....but we might have nodded approvingly, until we thought about his other follies.
Or this...you were accused of demoralizing our troops, by citing another article about the inadequate body/carrier armor they were provided with. So, even pointing out the truth, is now unpatriotic. (Truth or Consequences)
I'm thinking that the only real truth that Bush has told us
is that Valerie was a CIA agent.

DickLeonard
08-26-2006, 11:42 AM
Eg8r we thought we were doing Gods work stealing from the rich and giving it to the Poor. We just never knew what crooks the Rich are. Stealing from the poor, must put you on a direct shute to Hell.####

pooltchr
08-27-2006, 05:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Eg8r we thought we were doing Gods work stealing from the rich and giving it to the Poor..#### <hr /></blockquote>

Finally, you are admitting how liberals think!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
There might be hope for you yet! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
08-28-2006, 06:06 AM
LOL, It's easy for him to get away with lying, much of his base can't decipher the difference between Redeploy to the peripheral, and bring our troops home now. It is obvious, unless you are a nit picker, who lives to argue about things about which you have absolutely capacity to view outside blind devotion to the Furor, that Murtha's statements show that his policy was to keep our troops in the Middle East, but to give the broad responsibility for fighting this Civil War to the Iraqis, with our people giving support from the sidelines. Murtha's true plan was, and is, redeploy to the periphery. Obviously, his words, subsequent to his policy statements, were meant to say that it is time to bring our troops home now, and it is time, in fact long past time, but we can't. Getting out of this Republican Mess, isn't going to be easy. When they make a mess, they make a HUGE mess!

Gayle in Md.

Those of us who can read, understood what Murtha was saying, understood there was no connection between iraq, and 9/11, and understood there were no WMD's. Nothing that any partisan Republican whimp, who would sooner give up their rights to privacy, out of fear, and deny the complete failure of this administration, as it destroys our country, will ever change that. Bush lied, period, and is still lying to this day.

Gayle in Md.