Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Armitage to Step Down after election

[Nitemare]

If they replace him with a die hard right winger it probably cost them my vote. There is still no way in hell I would ever vote for a democrat especially if they are pro-socialized healthcare, most likely an independent or libertarian. I respect Powell and realize that he was probably asked to step down

 

[xochi]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
If they replace him with a die hard right winger it probably cost them my vote. There is still no way in hell I would ever vote for a democrat especially if they are pro-socialized healthcare, most likely an independent or libertarian. I respect Powell and realize that he was probably asked to step down

I also respect Powell and i usually vote democrat. He would have my vote if he ever decided to run for President.

 

[Zipp]

The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Zipp
The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

Will the American media please check their stories before posting them....thank you. First the NY Times author making up crap, the liberal smear campaign built on half truths and now this.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Zipp
The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

Will the American media please check their stories before posting them....thank you. First the NY Times author making up crap, the liberal smear campaign built on half truths and now this.

Not to mention the conservative propaganda campaigns built on untruths.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Zipp
The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

Will the American media please check their stories before posting them....thank you. First the NY Times author making up crap, the liberal smear campaign built on half truths and now this.

Not to mention the conservative propaganda campaigns built on untruths.

name one

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Zipp
The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

Will the American media please check their stories before posting them....thank you. First the NY Times author making up crap, the liberal smear campaign built on half truths and now this.

Not to mention the conservative propaganda campaigns built on untruths.

name one

You first.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Zipp
The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

Will the American media please check their stories before posting them....thank you. First the NY Times author making up crap, the liberal smear campaign built on half truths and now this.

Not to mention the conservative propaganda campaigns built on untruths.

name one

You first.

The whole 16 words and the liberal left trying to impeach him for it. This was said after congress had already said let's go to war. Also, it was based on foreign intelligence that Britain is still declaring as true. The liberal left has truncated this so that Bush is saying Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa when he actually is saying It appears that according to British intelligence Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa.

 

[tnitsuj]

Just because State is denying it officially does not make it untrue.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Zipp
The State Department on Monday vigorously denied a report that Secretary of State Colin Powell planned to leave his post in early 2005, and not serve during a second term if President Bush is re-elected.

A State Department spokesman says that discussion never happened and blames a summertime news drought for the report.
"There's no basis to the story at all," said Philip T. Reeker. "There was no such conversation. It must be August."



link

Will the American media please check their stories before posting them....thank you. First the NY Times author making up crap, the liberal smear campaign built on half truths and now this.

Not to mention the conservative propaganda campaigns built on untruths.

name one

You first.

The whole 16 words and the liberal left trying to impeach him for it. This was said after congress had already said let's go to war. Also, it was based on foreign intelligence that Britain is still declaring as true. The liberal left has truncated this so that Bush is saying Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa when he actually is saying It appears that according to British intelligence Saddam is seeking uranium from Africa.

How about the conservative right lying:

Relating to STU
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html

Not from the STU, but a similar issue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb

Some more lies
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274

More on lying
http://msnbc.com/news/940493.asp?0cv=CA00

 

[Lucky]

flavio, I only read one link (the last one), but if you intend to post that as proof of lying you must have selective memory. The SOTU claim was attributed to british intelligence, which to this day claims their intelligence on the matter is seperate from the forged documents.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: flavio
How about the conservative right lying:

Relating to STU
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html

Not from the STU, but a similar issue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb

Some more lies
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274

More on lying
http://msnbc.com/news/940493.asp?0cv=CA00

To the best of his knowledge and his current knowledge Bush is telling the truth. Unless someone has proof that he got British intelligence to make that up, impossible unless you are a conspiracy junkee like BF or that frenchie guy.

Case in point thanks for showing me an example(from your third link)...

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Notice the "..."'s?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Lucky
flavio, I only read one link (the last one), but if you intend to post that as proof of lying you must have selective memory. The SOTU claim was attributed to british intelligence, which to this day claims their intelligence on the matter is seperate from the forged documents.

If you really did read the last link you should easily have seen this lie:

The State Department received copies of what would turn out to be forged documents suggesting that Iraq tried to purchase uranium oxide from Niger three months before the president?s State of the Union address, administration officials said.

The administration, facing increased criticism over the claims it made about Iraq?s attempts to buy uranium, had said until now that it did not have the documents before the State of the Union speech.

Do you see the lie yet?

 

[Lucky]

No, not really. Unsourced and undated allegations don't pass as proof of a lie. Furthermore you'd have to prove that the person who said they did not have the documents did not know that they really did.

 

[flavio]

I think the likely scenario here is that no matter how many lies there are and how obvious they become, that people of your mindset will ignore them or try to shift the blame. You can't even hardly stand to read an article that might present something you don't want to hear, that's why you only even read one of the links I posted.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: flavio
I think the likely scenario here is that no matter how many lies there are and how obvious they become, that people of your mindset will ignore them or try to shift the blame. You can't even hardly stand to read an article that might present something you don't want to hear, that's why you only even read one of the links I posted.

Funny how it works both ways.

I think the likely scenario here is that no matter what the Bush Administration does/says that people of your mindset will attack it and try to paint it in a bad light. You can't stand to read an article that might present something positive that you don't want to hear, that's why you post links that twist words, bastardize context and attack Bush.

CkG