Interesting. So basically you are saying then that Reagan and Bush Sr. are the ones ultimately responsible for both bin Laden, since he was trained and armed by the Reagan admin, and Saddam since he was given chemicals by the CIA under Bush Sr. Makes sense to me.

Here's a couple of recent Bush ideas
Sept.2003:
The White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name.
Today:
President Bush qualified his pledge to dismiss any White House official found to have leaked the name of a CIA operative, saying Monday that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.

Here's a little pic to go with it
http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Bac...eld-Saddam.jpg

Yo Spanky,

I know my guy ain't lilly white but it burns me a bit to sit idly by when you say things that just aren't accurate.

Most Presidents suffer the effects of the previous President's agenda - Republican or Democrat.

Finally, I totally agree with you, but how long is it before you take responsibility for what you are doing. The current administration acts like they can do no wrong. That's their biggest problem. Everything is black and white. We all know life isn't like that. Lots of shades of grey.

no just someone with enough brains to read the actual report instead of just blindly believing the spin of a democrat pundants who miss quoted the report as proof "that no WMD existed in iraq"

Keep on keeping man. If you say it enough times, you will actually start to believe it yourself.

There is one good thing to come out of this administration. They are making the Nixon admin look like fucking saints.

First line of the republican handbook: 'When in doubt mention Clintons penis'.


As far as Rove goes, Rove's betrayal of a CIA WMD expert, while the U.S. was using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq, is virtually indistinguishable from Robert Hanssen's selling out of American spies. Both allowed America's enemies to learn the identities of covert operatives. Both are traitors. Both are eligible for the death penalty.

HANS BLIX: Well, they certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time. We had heard in the autumn of 2002 that the alleged aluminum tubes, for instance, which were thought, alleged to be for making the centrifuges, were probably more likely to be for making a rocket. And in January 2003, we had performed quite a lot of inspections to sites which were given by intelligence and they had not shown any weapons of mass destruction, so we began to be doubtful.

From an interview with Jim Lehr

You got ahold of the republican handbook?? Damn, we're gonna have to stay up late tonight an rewrite it now!

A good republican:

He is with the " PROGRAM "....

exactly what about
"the report commissioned to investigate the war determined that there never was chemical WMD, or Nuclear WMD (because sadam did not have the facilities to produce them) "

do you not understand

How does quoting a response to a question about CHEMICAL and NUCLEAR WMD not existing prove your point.

Yep. Take a look at this republican board, half of them are defending him. Goes to show republicans support terrorists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445489/posts

An example:

'It's a shame that most pro-lifers lack the courage of Eric Rudolph.'
63 posted on 07/18/2005 1:49:08 PM PDT by Ignatz (Gravity: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.)

You have to keep repeating things to catapult the propaganda :winkwink:

No. :)

"Did you remember to buy the milk hun?", asks the wife.
"Umm.. no, they were out of milk", answers the husband, making up a lie as he did forget.



"Did you kill all these young men in the basent hun?", asks the wife.
"Ummm... no, they were there when I came in", aswers the husband, making up a lie as he did kill them.

I know this has nothing to do with anything. I just wanted to hang on to that 'A lie is a lie', part for no particular reason.

LOL, for some reason when I read this I thought of the commercial where the woman walks into the kitchen and asks her husband if her outfit makes her look fat and he says, "You betchya!" :1orglaugh

A reasonable analogy up to a point: running a democratic country is much more like keeping a pre-owned car running than trading the old model in for a new one. It is neither possible nor desirable to totally overhaul all of a country's laws and policies within - effectively - 2½ to 3 years.

When it comes to mid-east policy for example, the US has pursued a consistent line since the 1920's under a succession of presidents from both parties. You can argue it was a wise policy or not, but if you believe it was a wise policy, then the invasion of Iraq was almost a necessity at this stage of the game.

The present president cannot be held reponsible for the actions of his predecessors and could even use them to justify his own actions. But that doesn't let him off the hook in respect of specific decisions that he made. He didn't have to order the invasion of Iraq, and he made the choice to sell it to the public in the way he did.

I seriously doubt the White House is bothered by the Rove story because it is a sideshow that will fizzle away in a few weeks. It may even have been a useful diversion, drawing attention away from other recent events: the announcement at the end of June about the formation of a National Security Service under the direct control of the President; the placing under the President's authority of the 180,000 employees of Homeland Security; and the release of a document from the Pentagon that the military intends to ?expand military activity? within the United States (something which is specifically banned under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878).

Thanks - at least in part - to all the speculation about Rove, these potentially far more serious events have barely caused a blip on the radar.

And Bill Clinton was too busy getting a blowjob instead of sending a couple people overseas to pick up Bin Laden on two seperate occassions when he was being handed to us, whats your point?

So far the consensus is Rove did not leak the name. I have heard that time and time again, the reporter investigated and found the name. So he is doing what he stated, if he finds an insider who leaked the name he would fire them, to this point maybe no one leaked the name.

The Rove story will quickly take a backseat within the next 72 hours once Bush makes his Supreme Court nomination :upsidedow

Do you even watch the news. Cooper came out and said Rove gave him the info. Now how much more do you need. The reporter in his own words said he did it.

I guess that's just a liberal spin.

OK maybe you don't watch/read the news....from an article on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/
NO where on there does it say he did give the name. Cooper says that is the first he heard about it. Heard about it in what way? A minor hint that made him investigate further or the full name, notice he doesn't say.

Guess woj is sleeping, or not into politics.

Oh, so now we are back to "he never gave her name" bs.

Lets see, I think President Bush' wife was involved.
I didn't give her name, but it sure is fucking easy to figure out.

We are talking fucking semantics here, and it ain't playing.

Step away from Fox news. Move away from the tv fast.

Maybe read the transcript from your own article you are quoting

For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?

MR. COOPER:ha That's correct.

All politicians are liars and scumbags. Right, left, it doesn't matter, they are all full of shit.

JMHO

Look semantics or not, all people are innocent until proven guilty. The fact is that he is living up to what he fucking promised. If Rove gave the name he would fire him, NO WHERE does it state Rove gave the womans name. Even in your statement.


First time you learned Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove. -- Does that mean he gave him the name?

The conversation could have went like this....

Cooper: I have heard that Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA is this true?

Rove: I have heard the same thing.

According to the accounts I have read, this is what was said. Does that mean Rove gave the name? No. I know you guys want to crucify this guy, but its not going to happen. Trust me, if the guy gave the name, he should be fired, flat out, and prosecuted. I am not against that, I am just saying the law should be the law for everyone. He is innocent until provent guilty and at this point I have seen NOTHING that Rove did that was wrong.

The other thing that bothers me is that no one is really attacking Cooper, he is the one who fucking published the information, and everyone is on Roves jock for it. When are the news outlets going to be held accountable for printing shit they shouldn't be.

I agree with this as well. But I wouldn't say ALL, I would say MOST. I am sure there are a few legit politicians out there, most are just not on capital hill.

As far as FoxNews, that comment is irrelevant. I posted an article from MSNBC which is more liberal. The simple fact of the matter is that if anyone makes up their mind without doing research is a fucking imbecile. If you think I believe everything I see on FoxNews, Drudge or MSNBC, etc you obviously don't know me that well and have not read my posts that well either.

Why is it if a republican has an opinion on this board, he/she is a sheep , yet all the liberals are open minded thinkers? The same could be said for all the liberals who voted democrat just because you are in the porn business. People need to use their fucking minds and vote for the best laws, bills, politicians that suit their needs. There is more to life than porn, and I do think about that when I cast my votes. Taxes, Millages, Politicians, Crime, Education all come into play, being near sighted and voting over one issue is how most of these politicians get into office, unfortunately.

So you are saying that one of the presidents closest members of his cabinet, leaked information (name or not) for political gain, or retalitation and thats ok with you. Call it what you want, but he deliberately leaked information.

You would have done well with the nazi party too.

I do use my mind. I am against deficit spending, government intrusion into private lives, balanced budget, strong education. We sound very much alike. You must hate the current administration too then.

We are talking about different things here. Moral vs Immoral, Right vs Wrong, Legal vs Illegal.

You cannot try a man for being immoral. You CAN try him for breaking the law. I never said what he did was moral, but it wasn't against the law from what I have read, therefore he should not be tried. He did not do what George Bush said he would fire him for, so he shouldn't be fired. If we were firing people for being immoral, most of the people in this biz would be shit canned and Bill Clinton would have been impeached.

Hate is a strong word, there are things I like and things I dislike. That will happen with every administration. I am for what I believe in, nothing less. I am not 100% republican and I am definitely not 100% liberal. I am 100% common sense. Although I am a registered republican I would say I believe more in the libertarian way.

No GW said he would fire anyone who leaked information ( which Rove did)Now he is saying if he committed a crime (he might have, we just don't know yet). Just like Iraq, keep changing the rules until they fit the recent scenario.

Ok then which is more Immoral.

Lying about a blowjob

or lying about reasons to got to war and now 1700 us kids are killed.

That's a whole different thread. Your immoral and my immoral could be two different things.

That's why i'm asking, cuz a whole lot of conservatives are worried more about blowjobs than killing 18 year olds.

Here's another one for ya.

We have to save the lives of unborn and overturn Rowe vs wade, but just wait until you're 18, then we will kill ya.

I love the mentality that came up with this.

They can bash republicans all they want over these fake news stories, but we could have fun letting them name and defend the core values of liberalism that they are fighting for.

If Hillary Clinton bought GFY from Lensman today, I would be getting some of you guys sites.

They all lined up to see lumpy rutherfords 9/11 movie, but none of them realize his political views ask for some Americans to be taxed over 60+ % of their income.

Liberal judges voted for more control over their private property

and John Kerry would have appointed a SC judge that would vote to take away their guns.

Democrats dont want them to have private retirement accounts, so it would be fun watching their opinion on liberal social programs using their tax dollars while their future is 100% dependent on that money.

Free healthcare! Hell yes! Lets all get free healthcare. Of course everyone in the country already has free health care but people buy insurance to get access to private health care. All Hillary wants to do is get rid of private health care and bring everyone down to the standards of the charity hospitals.

Liberals would ruin this country if left unattended, just like having kids

Great post. I asked in another thread about Al-Qaeda what Liberals would do to secure our nation and no one responded. They want to give illegal aliens drivers licenses, and they wonder why were getting fucking attacked from all sides.

There are so many fucked up parts to both parties, but to me republican is the lesser of two evils.

you don't testify under oath just because the political trash that are the liberals want to create an appearance of wrong doing.

Just as there was no legitimate reason for the president to testify under oath about 9/11, there is also no need for them to do it for the cia leak.
The hahahaha wasn't under cover and her husband was lying for political gain.
When you're the president under those circumstances you tell the other side to go fuck themselves. You do not testify under oath.
:thumbsup