Is Clarke right? No...I mean yes...wait, no.

[Gaard]

press briefing

Q He's right that in October -- in October of 2001, when the President signed this directive, the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, that's part -- that's part of his revisionist history.

Q That's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of his revisionist history, that's what I'm saying --

Q Are you saying it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's right. I am.

Q You are saying that it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of -- that's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that. He knows that at that point that our focus was on going -- was on Afghanistan and removing the Taliban and taking away the safe haven for al Qaeda.

****************************

whoops
from 1/12/03

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.




Ok, I admit it. I read blogs.

 

[DanJ]

This administration has no idea how to deal with the truth coming out. You've got some calling Clarke the anti-christ and personally resposible for all the terror of the last 15 years, while Cheney is saying he was completely out of the loop computer nerd.

Its sad.

 

[Gaard]

ts sad.

It really is.

My personal opinion is that this administration is breaking apart. If the Ds have a shot, I think now is the time.

 

[conjur]

If only it was Edwards at the helm instead of Kerry.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
If only it was Edwards at the helm instead of Kerry.

:beer:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
If only it was Edwards at the helm instead of Kerry.

:beer:

Regardless of what happens, boy is it going to be a fun 4 years I might even root for Kerry just to have fun bashing his impossible campaign promises and mishandling of foreign affairs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
If only it was Edwards at the helm instead of Kerry.

:beer:

Regardless of what happens, boy is it going to be a fun 4 years I might even root for Kerry just to have fun bashing his impossible campaign promises and mishandling of foreign affairs.

Yeah, if Hell freezes over and kerry actually wins - it'll be fun seeing the leftists having to deflect and "nuance" his mis-steps and broken promises.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, if Hell freezes over and kerry actually wins - it'll be fun seeing the leftists having to deflect and "nuance" his mis-steps and broken promises.

You mean like you've been doing for Bush? Frankly, I don't see why you're so emotionally involved with the man. If Kerry was elected in November and he screwed up, I'd be all over his ass too.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, if Hell freezes over and kerry actually wins - it'll be fun seeing the leftists having to deflect and "nuance" his mis-steps and broken promises.

You mean like you've been doing for Bush? Frankly, I don't see why you're so emotionally involved with the man. If Kerry was elected in November and he screwed up, I'd be all over his ass too.

Ditto.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, if Hell freezes over and kerry actually wins - it'll be fun seeing the leftists having to deflect and "nuance" his mis-steps and broken promises.

You mean like you've been doing for Bush? Frankly, I don't see why you're so emotionally involved with the man. If Kerry was elected in November and he screwed up, I'd be all over his ass too.

Politics isn't an emotion. I'm not "emotionally involved" with Bush but I think alot of people here are "emotionally involved" with Bush - they hate him. This BS about "hating policy not the person" the left is spouting is utter trash. "Anyone but Bush" proves it. "gay marriage" proves it(kerry is against gay marriage) too.

But whatever - it's just politics and the subject needs to be tended to

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
If only it was Edwards at the helm instead of Kerry.

:beer:

Regardless of what happens, boy is it going to be a fun 4 years I might even root for Kerry just to have fun bashing his impossible campaign promises and mishandling of foreign affairs.

Yeah, if Hell freezes over and kerry actually wins - it'll be fun seeing the leftists having to deflect and "nuance" his mis-steps and broken promises.

CkG

Not a problem, Cad. I've saved all your old posts. I'll just do a global substitution and I'll have 9,600 ready-to-spin replies.

Oh, wait. I'm not a rabid Kerry fan. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not big on supporting incompetent, dishonest, and/or reckless politicians from any party. If Kerry is even a hundredth as bad as Bush-lite, I'll be posting anti-Kerry posts right along with you (mine will be about substance rather than empty partisan attacks, but still). We'd better be careful. Having the two of us on the same side could lead to a critical imbalance in the universe.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Politics isn't an emotion. I'm not "emotionally involved" with Bush but I think alot of people here are "emotionally involved" with Bush - they hate him. This BS about "hating policy not the person" the left is spouting is utter trash. "Anyone but Bush" proves it. "gay marriage" proves it(kerry is against gay marriage) too.

But whatever - it's just politics and the subject needs to be tended to

CkG

It's called cognitive dissonance Cad. Look into it.

You still can't accept that people disagree with Bush based on his acts and words, not his politics. You are so blindly devoted to the man, your brain just can't comprehend that others have differing -- and perfectly valid -- points of view. "Anyone but Bush" simply means that people saw no leading Democrats they supported less than Bush. Until you can grasp this, you will remain a self-parody.

Re. gay marriage, that's a clueless comment. Supporting a person doesn't mean agreeing with his position on every issue. I realize you uncritically swallow all of George's drivel. That is not an immutable law of physics, however. "Gay marriage" proves squat (except for the you not having a clue part).

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard
press briefing

Q He's right that in October -- in October of 2001, when the President signed this directive, the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, that's part -- that's part of his revisionist history.

Q That's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of his revisionist history, that's what I'm saying --

Q Are you saying it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's right. I am.

Q You are saying that it's not true?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of -- that's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that. He knows that at that point that our focus was on going -- was on Afghanistan and removing the Taliban and taking away the safe haven for al Qaeda.

****************************

whoops
from 1/12/03

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.




Ok, I admit it. I read blogs.

This fella in the washington post link
that they keep quoting
"senior administration official"

and his buddies
"senior administration officials"

How qualified are they to contribute
to an opinion that I may want to form?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You mean like you've been doing for Bush? Frankly, I don't see why you're so emotionally involved with the man. If Kerry was elected in November and he screwed up, I'd be all over his ass too.

Politics isn't an emotion. I'm not "emotionally involved" with Bush but I think alot of people here are "emotionally involved" with Bush - they hate him. This BS about "hating policy not the person" the left is spouting is utter trash. "Anyone but Bush" proves it. "gay marriage" proves it(kerry is against gay marriage) too.

But whatever - it's just politics and the subject needs to be tended to

CkG

Come now CAD; gay marriage is a wedge issue, designed soley to get Bush's constituants and the right to get out to vote to keep those damned gays (sarcasm) from sharing the same rights as them. Hey don't look at my record, don't you hate gays? War on Terror failing? Hey, what about the gays!

As Kerry says, Bush can't run on his record because he has no record. I could care less if Kerry doesn't have the guts to say he supports gay marriage, he wouldn't support it as a consitutional amendment. Bush knows it has no way in hell of passing, he just uses it to force the dems to vote on it so he can possibly get political gain out of it. LOOK OVER HERE AT THE GAYS!

 

[arsbanned]

Don't forget, "LOOK UP THERE AT MARS!!!"

 

[0roo0roo]

ah, more credibility gaps.