....to explain this one to me.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/ Must be some plausible explanation that would tie this back to the liberals eh?
There is no excuse for that, assuming he's being truthfull. That there is corruption should be no surprise to anybody. It's reprehensible but it's also inevitable when there is that much money being tossed around.
And a "Neocon" is needed why? This is a story that, assuming it holds up when all the holes are filled in, is a story of corruption... It is not a story of conservatism vs. liberalism, nor even a story of policy.
Stu...just a little revisit to the old theory that neocons like Dick Cheney were the ones chiefly responsible for convincing or perhaps conning Bush into getting into a froth over the prospect of invading Iraq.
Would be interesting, however, to hear what AJ and Gort have to say about military personnel turning over "photos and documents and other intelligence" to an FBI agent in Chicago...I would hope that if there are legitimate concerns that the military would have someplace that they could go...couldn't trust anybody in Iraq so he had to go to Chicago??? I have a feeling we haven't heard the full story.
Stu...allowing for generality allow me to state that for the past several years there has been a pervasive pressure emanating from the top down in all facets of Iraq....from the outing of Valerie Plame to other well known acts of hush maneuvers designed to shoot all messengers and fall guys taking the fall like Cheney's head of staff. Why wouldn't the Bush-Cheney administration as acting Commander in Chief want to get to the bottom of all this more than anybody else?
A. Who says he doesn't? B. There still are rules and laws regarding turning over military intelligence that need to be followed. I still say there is more to this than a whistleblower being punished...but who knows how it will play out?
Dick Cheney certainly is the modern day bogeyman. He had this same mysterious power of persuasion over 95% of Congress as well. He must be like Rasputin. :lol:
You're kidding yourself if you think that when Congress voted for Iraq in 2002 that they weren't still running scared from the real bogeyman....Osama Bin Laden. It continues to be denied by the right that Dems had no choice with the general mood of the public being what it was and with the power of the right at the time to scare up support from the American people to go after the bad guys who perpetrated 9-11....even if they were not even in Iraq. (not until Saddam was deposed anyway) Heck....Congress would have voted to go to war with the Pope if the neocons had supposed "hard" evidence the Vatican had Al-Queda connections and a bogus intelligence report said they were developing WMDs. I'm telling you...I have always smelled a rat here and somebody's not telling the truth......many times over.
To suggest that Hussein's perceived capability and intentions were a product of the Bush administration is simply untrue..... Before we get too enamored of the "Rat" theory, let's not forget that, in addition to every prior US administration and the United Nations, every major intelligence agency in in every major foreign capital in every developed country in the world shared the same conclusions about Hussein's Iraq and WMD capability and intent. Should we then assume that they have the same rat - obviously omnipotent - or different rats?
George...either running scared on the vote to invade Iraq or they were misinformed or both on the DEM side and otherwise they were blindly following their illustrious Whitehouse leaders on the Republican side who back in those days could absolutely do no wrong.