First thank you for calling it treason-gate. Second, so the WH that took a long vacation in August 2001, ignored a warning that terrorist were planning to attack the US and the list goes on has the gall to attack Johnson for something he wrote in June 2001 that basically said the same thing the admin was saying. Too funny if it weren't so damn sad, and scary.

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is! This is how PNAC frames everything. Read below.

Very interesting!!

Some people thought coverup artist Scott Mclellan was bad, but they **didn't see** coverup artist Ari Fleischer this time.

The following information is from revealing press briefing that was erased from the White House records. Look what they're hiding.

"Q: So we don't think this is serious, or whether there's a serious possibility ---

* * * * *

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: **Let me say this on background.** It is not an atypical way of internal Palestinian machinations.

Q: Kind of like the White House? (Laughter.) Are you always threatening to quit?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: --- **with the President. (Laughter.)** The President tells Harriet --- I don't think that's --- (laughter.) It is --- it's just sometimes their way of doing business.

* * * * *

Q: What's the final language, Ari, your final position on the State of the Union speech and the uranium --- I know they were working on stuff last night, but I never got a chance to read it.

Q: Is this on the record?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, we're back on the record. After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents. With the advantage of hindsight, it's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech. This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech. There was reporting, although it wasn't very specific, about Iraq's seeking to obtain uranium from Africa. It's a classic issue of how hindsight is 20-20. The process was followed that led to the information going into the State of the Union; information about the yellow cake was only brought to the White House's attention later.

But there's a bigger picture here, and this is what's fundamental --- the case for war against Iraq was based on the threat that Saddam Hussein posed because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, and his efforts to reconstitute a nuclear program. In 1991, everybody in the world underestimated how close he was to getting a nuclear weapon. The case for going to war against Saddam is as just today as it was the day the President gave that speech.

Q: Ambassador Wilson said he made a case months before that there was no basis to the belief ---

MR. FLEISCHER: No, he reported that Niger denied the allegation. That's what Ambassador Wilson reported. "

"Q: Are we going the other way now in overestimating their ability to reconstitute ---

MR. FLEISCHER: **Well, obviously the regime is gone, they're not reconstituting anything anymore.**

Q: But that really wasn't the question. Did we overestimate his capacity for doing this before the regime was ---

MR. FLEISCHER: It remains clear from the United Nations and others that Saddam had biological weapons, chemical weapons that he had not accounted for. Those are weapons of mass destruction. We continue to learn about the Iraqi nuclear program, information such as the scientist who had buried material in his garden for the purpose of bringing it out after the sanctions were imposed. The concerns are valid. The yellow cake report may have turned out to be inaccurate, but the broader concerns remain valid.

So it's important to get this in context. It's important to understand whether one specific sentence based on yellow cake was wrong, that does not change the fundamental case from being right. "

"Q: Ari, Prime Minister **Blair is coming next week** , is that correct?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that's correct.

Q: I've heard --- I thought I heard from somebody at the White House ---

MR. FLEISCHER: --- saying I'm paying a little less attention to events after Monday than I used to, but I don't ---

Q: I heard he's giving a joint address to Congress ---

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to look. I don't know. I know there's another head of state visit that you guys know about.

Q: **Right, to the ranch.**

MR. FLEISCHER: But I'll have to ask. "
http://canberra.usembass...per/2003/0709/epf301.htm

Now what kind of senior administration official would speak on 'background'? Why use the word background, and why is he talking about the president 'on record' and the Niger claim?

What is it, code speech, or **Karl Rove** speech? Is this not the same period of time, Karl Rove was doing his deeds to the Washington Post....Karl Rove is the senior official here isn't he? Why is his name blocked out?

Why do we see an interesting **tone** about regime change, which confirms what the downing street minutes said? What are they hiding?

Doug E.

Haven't we all been wondering how long Fitzgerald had before the "rough beast" glanced in his direction?! Put on your gas masks, everyone...and wear ear-protectors. I can smell the stench and hear the howling from here.

Of course! Classic Rovian tactic: attack their strengths! Does anybody doubt who's really running the show?

Here I am Joy mongering at Brad blog on a post about Republican Operatives! How funny is that?

This punch was pulled yesterday (7/25/2005) on the Seattle PI forum. It was easy to dispel, asking the poster of such inane content if they held this administration in the same disdain as they did Larry Johnson as his July 01 article was the administration's point of view as well. Back pedaling started, and the poster admitted Bush wasn't hard on terrorism to begin with. So hit them back with this guy being Republican, and toeing the same line as the administration - if they are full of disdain for one of their own, then why not this administration?

I usually don't approve of ethos arguments because they're subjective factors determining real credibility, but GOP hypocrisy is amazing. Here we have a gay male prostitute who's lied about his name, his employer, his status, knowing breached security, is STILL overtly supported by his real GOP employer AND its mouthpiece, the "mainstream" media, and he is criticizing the credibility of a retired CIA operative because he professionally erred in 2001! How "fair and balanced." How "open eyed, open mind"! Image the corporate "mainstream" media editors' reaction if this were a Democratic Administration!

Its nice to see that the Administration has renamed the "Global War on Terror" to "a global struggle against violent extremism", I was beginning to wonder how one wins a war against a tactic. Now the extremely competent folks who are running this fiasco only have to define "violent extremism" in terms that will allow them to classify anyone who disagrees with them as "violent extremists".

Having a long memory, I seem to remember that one of the problems in Vietnam was despite the bravery of most of the troops there, the powers that be forgot it was their country, they didn't want us there and they kept on coming. Sound familiar?

Yup, it was only a matter of time before they began on Fitzgerald. Warning shot? I guess we'll be finding out what Fitzgerald is made of.

When talking about Treasongate and DSM, let's not forget how the known wmd sites were left unprotected during and after the invasion. That too says a lot about what a sham the supposed reason for the war was.

Jeez Brad... the Repugs are all alike, aren't they?!?!?!

I WANNA BE A CLONE TOO!!!

Go to Mark's website

Information on attacks

I threw together a checklist you may wish to refer to to get some perspective on the RNC strategy to divert concerns with treason by smearing those who dare say what is self-evident.

It is designed to give you some pointed questions to see the flaws of their bungling.

Not for the feeble. Use at your own risk. Do not share with the RNC: They might get upset.

I'd post the entire thing here, but it is more than a paragraph. Feel free to skip this link. Don't say I didn't warn you. [More . . . ]

This still puzzles me because it's AFTER the Justice Department contacted the White House.

October 2, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
...
Q Scott, now that the leak investigation has begun by the Justice Department, has the White House given any special instructions to White House staff as to how to deal with reporters who call in or approach them with questions about this thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

Q --- no instructions ---

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

"Violent extremists" are O.K. if they're doing something the administration likes...such as the Contras in Nicaragua, Marcos' thugs (who killed Benito Aquino) in the Philippines, the anti-Chavez insurgents in Venezuela, or even Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran.

Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

It's when our ox is gored that a "freedom fighter" becomes a "violent extremist."

The neocon knee jerk is "when we fear we smear".

Their Problem is that the body politic is wising up.

Also just for anyone keeping score...I am confused by the White House website which lists a October 6, 2003 Press Briefing by Scott McClellan (located at http://www.whitehouse.go.../2003/10/20031006-5.html ) and yet on the White house site there is also (but not listed) October 6, 2003 Press Briefing by Scott Mcclellan Aboard Air Force One
En Route New York, New York (located at http://www.whitehouse.go...003/10/20031006-8.html#6 ) and then the same exact briefing but identified as October 6, 2003 PRESS GAGGLE BY SCOTT McCLELLAN Aboard Air Force One En route Milwaukee, Wisconsin (located at http://www.whitehouse.go...003/10/20031006-9.html#6 ) so was there only one briefing, or was there two or were there three but the third was just everyone asking the same questions and giving the same responses? This makes my brain hurt.

K-K-K-Karl-a, Robotron Karl-a,
You're the only k-k-k-kind admin. adores!
When the m-m-m-moons shine,
In bu$h's cowshed,
Which Repugnant-K-K-K-Kons will ask for more?

Where's Karl-a?

Nice, Kira! lol! But you know what song is making me crazy right now? Constant Cravings. CONSTANT cRAVINGS. You know that song? I just DON't GET that song. But it's making me CRAZY.

Scott only stopped talking and took the "can't talk during an active investigation" path when the heat was on. He didn't have any trouble saying it was "ridiculous" BEFORE the election.

A gusty report should ask Scott the obvious question...

"Scott, I know you can't talk about an ongoing investigation, but I've got a hypothetical for you. You stood there 18 months (?) ago and said it was 'ridiculous' to even discuss Turd Blossom and Scooter being involved, and that you had talked to them both. So, my question is simple. As far as I can tell, there are only three possible scenarios. First, you didn't talk to them and LIED about that, or you DID talk to them and THEY lied to you, or you DID talk to them and then YOU lied. In any of those three cases, either YOU or Turd Blossom and Scooter lied and need to resign immediately, unless you were taking orders from the President, in which case HE has some splaining to do. So, Scott, which is it going to be?"

That's a simple question, no?

Charlie L
Portland, OR

Joan #19

I loooove kd lang (I'm a real Torch and Twang fan.)

I wish I had that album (with Constant Craving) to listen to, but I don't. You have to write that one.

传奇私服
最新传奇私服
新开传奇私服
新开私服
新开传奇
六合彩