Scumbag President blames CIA

“The effort to protect the Scumbag President has begun in the face of evidence there were never any WMD:



Save Our Spooks
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Op-ed columnist, The New York Times
Friday, May 30, 2003 Posted: 7:19 AM EDT (1119 GMT)




On Day 71 of the Hunt for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up.

Maybe we'll do better on Day 72. But we might have better luck searching for something just as alarming: the growing evidence that the administration grossly manipulated intelligence about those weapons of mass destruction in the runup to the Iraq war.

A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public.

"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world — that such work should be nonpolitical — and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists.

"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."

The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."

"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."

Ray McGovern, a retired C.I.A. analyst who briefed President Bush's father in the White House in the 1980's, said that people in the agency were now "totally demoralized." He says, and others back him up, that the Pentagon took dubious accounts from émigrés close to Ahmad Chalabi and gave these tales credibility they did not deserve.

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence.

"I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

Some say that top Pentagon officials cast about for the most sensational nuggets about Iraq and used them to bludgeon Colin Powell and seduce President Bush. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has been generally liked and respected within the agency ranks, but in the last year, particularly in the intelligence directorate, people say that he has kowtowed to Donald Rumsfeld and compromised the integrity of his own organization.

"We never felt that there was any leadership in the C.I.A. to qualify or put into context the information available," one veteran said. "Rather there was a tendency to feed the most alarming tidbits to the president. Often it's the most ill-considered information that goes to the president.

"So instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some more hot garbage."

The C.I.A. is now examining its own record, and that's welcome. But the atmosphere within the intelligence community is so poisonous, and the stakes are so high — for the credibility of America's word and the soundness of information on which we base American foreign policy — that an outside examination is essential.

Congress must provide greater oversight, and President Bush should invite Brent Scowcroft, the head of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a man trusted by all sides, to lead an inquiry and, in a public report, suggest steps to restore integrity to America's intelligence agencies.

Also:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/30/sprj.irq.wmd/index.html”

“oooooh...he's from the new york times....sooooo....we can trust him then.... i mean, afterall, it's the new york times.....right?


















[cue upurs]”

“Alaska... you may disagree with our pres politically, but since when does that make it OK to turn that into low-life name-calling?

Why is it that political discussions resort to this level of immaturity?

Please don't blame "someone else" and claim that "well, so& so did it", that reminds me of when my kids were 6 years old and didn't know any better.

Grow up Alaska, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, that's great, but if all you want to do is name-call, trey searching for a chat room under "children - immature" or something similar.

I'm REALLY perplexed by the lack of decorum & childishness I see here...”

“Actually - one thing that is remarkable about the New York Times is how seriously they took what happened with their employee lying. If only the government cared that much. The Bush boys just cover up the lies they get caught in. Rush Limbaugh gets caught in mistatement after mistatement and doesn't acknowledge them.

Whats remarkable about the NYT is how loudly they cried mea culpa.”

“It was somewhat novel when Rep. Dan Burton publicly referred to Clinton as a scumbag.”

“Wait a second!!

Alaska says: "The effort to protect the Scumbag President has begun in the face of evidence there were never any WMD:"

That's a bunch of hooey!

1) Everyone knows there were WMD's - Iraq used WMD's. S

2) There isn't evidence that there never were any. There is evidence that the risk and the danger were trumped up.

Yer as bad as Bush with your distortions and your demonizing of your opponents.

Yer as bad as Stat with your willingness to use fractured fairy tales and dress 'em up as fact.”

“The U.S. knows that Iraq, (at least at one time), had WMD's. Where do you think some of them came from?
However, as Ped stated, and the CIA stated before the war, Iraq was not a threat to the U.S.”

“I smell impeachment.”

“impeach,impeach,impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach,impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach.”

“Just be sure to vote in '04.”

“Our local Detroit paper had a piece about this in todays paper. The artical claims the US relied too much on info from the over zelous INC (Iraqi National Congress), who have been proven time and time again to be the supplier of crappy info only to further there own adgenda. Was there WMD? I think there was. I also wouldn't put it past Hussen and his boys to get rid of the stuff just in time, thus firmly placing the egg on our faces. ush is a dope at best. Teddy Roosevelt, our Nation looks to you....”

“On NPR the other day there was a piece about this issue. They claim there is a group of admin people who call themselved the cabal who basically manipulated information with INC misinformation over and above what the intell pros had come up with to basically support the administration's wishes.

And that, Dubya apologists, is according to NPR.

For the record, I voted for Dubya, but will not in 2004.”

“Accountability, no matter where the chips may fall.”

“i don't think bush is a scumbag, though i disagree with many of his policies.

as for WMDs, we still need to wait and see. they best be there.”

“i'll vote for him, AGAIN. i don't see anyone i would rather have in there that is currently in the running. i don't think i was pro-bush in the last election as much as anti-gore.”

“Maybe Pat Buchanan will run again.”

“How you you spell Harry
Browne?”

“Planning to vote for the Liberians?”

“I would rather have innuendo than this whine fest.”

“Whats remarkable about the NYT is how loudly they cried mea culpa."
pedxing


whatta joke! the rag has been marred for years. only romatically enamored liberals believe that they won't spin things.








and the walls.....coem tumblin tumblin....DOOOOOWWWWWNNNNNNN”

“The absence of WMDs is making the French smell better.

Oh, and the Germans and Russians too.

And that little lapdog, Tony Blair's butt is gettin' stinkier.”

“Alaska... you may disagree with our pres politically, but since when does that make it OK to turn that into low-life name-calling?

Why is it that political discussions resort to this level of immaturity?

Please don't blame "someone else" and claim that "well, so& so did it", that reminds me of when my kids were 6 years old and didn't know any better.

Grow up Alaska, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, that's great, but if all you want to do is name-call, trey searching for a chat room under "children - immature" or something similar.

I'm REALLY perplexed by the lack of decorum & childishness I see here..."
wanderer
10:05:39 PM
05/30/03

"So dubya will be the Pretender of the U.S.

He is nothing but a scumbag anyway.

He was arrested for theft in 1968 and lied about it.

DUI in 1972 and lied about it.

DUI in 1976 and lied about it.

History of drug and alcohol abuse and lied about it.

Refused to take a drug test in the National Guard (fear of failure?) and lied about it.

Was AWOL for 18 months and lied about it.

Entered into business deals with known organized crime figures.


That's three strikes and you are out. In 42 states dubya would be classified as career criminal.

This loser is nothing more than a clinton clone who happens to be a republican."
gordon
03:35:54 PM
12/08/00

RE: The Fat Lady is Clearing her throat”

“I've always wanted to ask this question but never found anyone who qualifes until now: What's it feel like to be a one trick pony? Do you think about it alot while you're flipping burgers and turning off the french fry machine?”

“Bush and the republicans continue to pin blame on the CIA:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A line in President Bush's State of the Union address alleging that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa should never been included in the speech, CIA Director George Tenet said Friday.

In a statement released Friday evening, Tenet said that the CIA had seen and approved the speech before it was delivered, and he took responsibility for the mistake.

"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said.

The CIA director also said, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."

Tenet's candid mea culpa came hours after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas, criticized the director for what he called the CIA's "extremely sloppy handling" of the uranium purchase claim. He also accused the agency of orchestrating "a campaign of press leaks" to discredit the president.

But Clinton wasn't stupid enough to fall for the BS like Bush did... hook, line, and sinker.”

“Oops, my bad. It IS Clinton's fault:

A CIA spokesman told CNN that Tenet, appointed to the helm of the agency by President Clinton, has no plans to resign and has not been asked to leave.”

“yawn”

“Those pesky WMD's keep eluding us, but we BELIEVE that we will find them someday. Meanwhile, keep sending your sons and daughters to Iraq. We will make up some reason for them to be there, trust us.”

“In God we Trust.

God created Saddam.

God created Osama.

God made Bush a liar.

God kills babies.

God needs money, send your tax-deductible donation now.”

“Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road
Tony Karon's Web Log: The question is no longer whether the President uttered a falsehood in his indictment of Iraq; it's at what point the Administration learned the claim of uranium purchases from Niger was false




Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003
Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.

So, the White House is not contesting the fact that the President made a false claim — merely whether he, or those who prepared his speech, knew at the time that it was false. And holding the line forces White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a rhetorical dance that can only be called Clintonesque: conceding on the one hand that the claim made by the President was based on forged evidence that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake" refined uranium from Niger, but at the same time maintaining that "I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement."

While the Bush administration may have been sweating, just a little during the past two months, over the absence of WMD finds in Iraq, a majority of Americans appear willing to believe that going to war was justified even if no such weapons are ever found. Across the Atlantic, however, Bush's closest ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being roasted daily by Britain's media and legislature, some of the fiercest attacks coming from within his own party. Just this week, a parliamentary inquiry exonerated Blair's government on the charge that it "sexed up" intelligence reports to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam's regime, but nonetheless remained deeply skeptical of the case made by Blair for going to war.

The fact that Blair's and Bush's governments face parallel but separate inquires from their own legislatures operates, in some ways, like the police tactic of interrogating suspects separately in the hope of finding discrepancies in their testimony. The U.S., for example, started a lot earlier than the British conceding that actual weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq. British officials were apoplectic some weeks ago when the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld suggested Saddam may have destroyed his banned weapons before the invasion. Blair, after all, has stuck by the promise that WMD will be found in Iraq — at least until this week, when he began the subtle migration to a claim that the coalition may only find evidence that Iraq had maintained weapons programs rather than any actual weapons.

Blair, moreover, appears to be sticking by the Niger uranium allegation despite the White House retraction, insisting that it was based on sources besides the forged letters. U.S. officials had hinted, also, that other sources had pointed to Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Africa, but that none of these leads was considered strong enough to include in the President's speech.

Hardly surprisingly, the Democrats are demanding an inquiry. The surging support for antiwar Vermont governor Howard Dean in the Democratic nomination race signals deep discomfort among the party's core supporters over the war, and some of those who voted for the war may be inclined to use the presence of fake intelligence in President Bush's case for war to back away from their own support for the invasion. Still, they may have plenty to work with, because there's plenty of evidence emerging to challenge the White House assertion that it was not informed, before the State of the Union speech, that the Niger claim had been debunked by U.S. intelligence.

Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it. Ambassador Joseph Wilson emphasized that he had reported back through traditional channels, and asked whether his report had been ignored because it didn't fit with the administration's preconceptions about Iraq.

More troubling questions arise from the claim by IAEA chief Dr Mohammed el-Baradei, who was in charge of the nuclear component of the prewar UN inspection program in Iraq, that he was provided with the Niger "evidence" only in February, despite it having been shared on Capitol Hill the previous October. The U.S. and Britain were publicly committed to sharing intelligence with the UN inspectors in order to help them find a "smoking gun," yet el-Baradei was kept in the dark about evidence that was ostensibly directly relevant to his inquiry. And, of course, almost as soon as he was shown the Niger documents, el-Baradei and his team concluded that they were forgeries. Also, despite U.S. and British claims that "other sources" had indicated Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa, el-Baradei stresses that the Niger forgeries were the only evidence offered to the investigators.

Even more damning are reports that CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. If those prove true, it kicks the jams out from under the administration's claim that the presence of a falsehood in the President's case against Iraq was simply the product of ignorance. And it may be expected that the CIA will more and more sharply signal that it passed its findings up the food chain, because on the basis of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, they'd be left to take the blame if they didn't. Then again, the media may turn its attention to the role of the Vice President's office: After all, Ambassador Wilson claims his inquiry was initiated by a request from Dick Cheney's office to check out the allegation. So presumably, Wilson's findings will have been reported back there. If so, the former ambassador is not the only one who will want to know what they, and other top officials, made of, and more importantly did with his information.

And right now, the game in Washington is to pin the blame on the CIA for the fact that a fib, conscious or unconscious, made it into the State of the Union address. And in a summer news trough, that's bad news for the White House.”

“The buck stops where? Tenet?”

“Georgie, we hardly knew ye.”

“All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put 'W' back together again.”

“WHAT THE HELL?!

All the conservatives have run off with their tails between their legs!

Hide your faces, boys!”

“ABUJA, Nigeria (CNN) -- President Bush said Saturday that he remained confident in George Tenet after the CIA director took responsibility for the now-discredited line in the State of the Union address alleging that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The White House now says the allegations were unsubstantiated.



In other words, Bush is saying "Thanks for being the fall guy."”

“The [Republican] Senate Intelligence Committee plans to issue a scathing report on U.S. intelligence efforts before the Iraq war, criticizing the process of documenting possible weapons of mass destruction, Senate sources said Friday.

The report will focus on the preparation of an October 2002 classified document called an NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate.

The Bush administration used this document as part of its justification for war.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said the intelligence was sometimes "sloppy" and inconclusive, according to an article Friday in The Washington Post.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat, said it is too early to draw any conclusions because the committee report has not been completed.

Senate sources said they were dismayed by how often the 2002 intelligence document appeared to rely on single-source or circumstantial evidence concerning Iraqi programs.

CIA officials said the panel's conclusions are premature. Although the document was produced in record time, agency spokesman Bill Harlow said that it "reflects 10 years of work" on Iraq's weapons programs.

CIA officials also cited the work of David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group, which continues to hunt for WMD.”

“(CBS/AP) President Bush will sign an executive order to open an investigation into U.S. intelligence failures in Iraq, but it is unclear just what the probe will cover and how long it will take.

Mr. Bush said Monday he will consult with former chief weapons inspector David Kay before ordering the investigation.

Trying to quiet mounting election-year criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, Mr. Bush said he will name an independent, bipartisan inquiry into faulty intelligence in Iraq and gaps in other areas, such as secretive regimes like Iran and North Korea and stateless groups such as terrorists.

Mr. Bush defended his decision to go to war on intelligence that Kay now says was erroneous. Kay has concluded that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

"I want all the facts. We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and capabilities to cause great harm. We know he was a danger … He slaughtered thousands of people," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush said the commission would "analyze where we stand, what we can do better as we fight this war against terror." He said he would sit down with Kay soon to get a briefing.

Kay threw the administration's rationale for war in Iraq in doubt with his determination that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that the United States had insisted he possessed.

The president did not set a timetable for the investigation to report its findings, and he sidestepped a question about whether the country was owed an explanation before the November elections.

The timetable is a sensitive issue since its findings could become an issue in the presidential campaign.

It is also unclear if the probe will examine merely the intelligence, or also look at how it was used by the president and aides.

The president's supporters say any problems with the case for war are due to bad intelligence, while Democrats contend that the Bush administration oversold the intelligence it had.

Mr. Bush's decision comes amid assertions that America's credibility is being undermined by uncertainty over the intelligence used as a basis for invading Iraq.

A year ago his week, Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the Administration's case for war. Powell said that Iraq had "biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more," and had shipped "chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field." He also outlined Saddam Hussein's alleged "efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program."

Despite months of searching, U.S. inspectors have found no banned weapons in Iraq. And while there is evidence Iraq maintained some capacity to make small amounts of biological and chemical weapons, no large-scale production programs have been uncovered.

Mr. Bush initially reacted coolly to setting up an independent investigation, then decided during the weekend to go forward. By setting up the investigation himself, Mr. Bush will have greater control over its membership and mandate.

White House sources say the commission will be announced this week and get up and running quickly, reports CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante.

The senior White House official said it would be patterned after the Warren Commission, which conducted a 10-month investigation that concluded in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy.

In appointing the nine members, Mr. Bush will draw heavily from experts familiar with problems in intelligence, the White House official said, describing them as "distinguished citizens who have served their country in the past."

Brent Scowcroft, who served as the national security adviser to the first President Bush, is a possible member or chairman.

Lawmakers from both parties say the intelligence flap has diluted America's credibility.

"The issue is not just shortcomings of U.S. intelligence," Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday on CNN, but "the credibility of who we are around the world and the trust of our government and our leaders."

Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democrat representing Delaware, agreed, telling CNN: "America's credibility's at stake. This isn't about politics anymore."

Some critics question why it has taken the Bush administration so long to take a second look at the Iraq intelligence. The weapons hunt to date has cost about $900 million, and Britain's Observer newspaper, quoting intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors, reports U.S. officials concluded as early as last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

David Albright, a former weapons inspector, told The Associated Press he feared the administration might try to use the commission as a way to delay judgments about the intelligence community and the administration's use of the information it receives.

"The bottom line for them (the Bush administration) is to delay the day of reckoning about their use of the weapons of mass destruction information," Albright said.

"David Kay can blame the CIA and say, 'Oh, I made all these comments based on what I heard from the intelligence community.' President Bush can't do that. He's the boss."


Bush controls the inquiry and controls the timetable...certain not to release information before the November election.”

“"I want all the facts. We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and capabilities to cause great harm. We know he was a danger … He slaughtered thousands of people," Mr. Bush said.

Saddam and Bush have so much in common. Bush is such a hyporite.”

“For those with short memories, the party line last year was that the CIA was a bunch of bumbling fools who couldn't see what a threat Iraq was until our brilliant and fearless leaders started pressuring for a paradigm shift. So which is it?


CIA's New Old Iraq File

By Jim Hoagland Washington Post

Sunday, October 20, 2002; Page B07

Imagine that Saddam Hussein has been offering terrorist training and other lethal support to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda for years. You can't imagine that? Sign up over there. You can be a Middle East analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Or at least you could have been until recently. As President Bush's determination to overthrow the Iraqi dictator has become evident to all, a cultural change has come over the world's most expensive intelligence agency: Some analysts out at Langley are now willing to evaluate incriminating evidence against the Iraqis and call it just that.

That development has triggered a fierce internal agency struggle pitting officials whose careers and reputations were built on the old analysis of the Iraqis as a feckless, inert and inward-looking bunch of thugs against those willing to take a fresh, untilted look at all the evidence.

One breeze of change came in President Bush's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati. Among the terror-related items that were declassified for the speech was an agency finding that Iraq is developing "a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles" to deliver chemical and biological weapons on U.S. targets.

That was new stuff, delivered by a determined and effective CIA collection effort earlier this year. Agency information also allowed the president to assert (accurately) that "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

That's actually old new stuff, stored in CIA files since the mid-1990s. But that intelligence was quietly buried during the Clinton years, when the need not to know very much about Iraq and terrorism was very strong.

This is how war is waged inside the CIA: The upstarts who are challenging the agency's long-standing and deeply flawed analysis of Iraq are being accused of "politicizing intelligence," a label that is a reputation-killer in the intelligence world. It is also a protective shield for analysts who do not want, any more than the rest of us, to acknowledge that they have been profoundly and damagingly mistaken.

The "politicization" accusation suggests that those who find Iraqi links to al Qaeda are primarily interested in currying favor with the Bush White House. It comes primarily from those who won favor in the Clinton years with an analysis based on the proposition that an Arab nationalist such as Saddam Hussein would never cooperate with the Islamic fanatics of al Qaeda. They are now out in the cold in the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz era.

Their work is only one part of a monumental record of failure on Iraq by the CIA, which has at different moments sought to understand, support, co-opt and then overthrow Hussein. The agency succeeded in none. Considering the extent of that failure, it is no surprise that Bush has until now relied little on the Langley agency for his information on Iraq. There is simply no way to reconcile what the CIA has said on the record and in leaks with the positions Bush has taken on Iraq.

cont...”

“I think Bush will go down in flames. He will burn.”

“I like thus quote:

"The weapons hunt to date has cost about $900 million, and Britain's Observer newspaper, quoting intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors, reports U.S. officials concluded as early as last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

...concluded as early as May there were no WMD.......yet Bush continued with his crap that he was sure they would be found.

What a dung heap.”

“If he is re-elected he will get impeached when it is all said and done. What he did is worse than any president's misdeads before.”

“I think it would be great for the President of France, Chirac to go on international tv and tell Bush he has 48 hours to step down or face the consequenses. Not to sound un-american but I think the world could build a coalition against us right now. We don't have many true friends right now. Even the UK is shakey allie for us. Just because the PM stands behind Bush doesn't mean the people do. All idealogical mumbo jumbo but I wish some other country would stick it to Bush.

I saw a poll today that Bush's aproval rating is below 50% for the first time today and more people say they would vote for Kerry right now. Bush is in a lot of trouble. Its the downward spiral for him.”

“Monday, February 2, 2004 Posted: 7:45 PM EST (0045 GMT)

(CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.



When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush.

We may be spared a Bush re-election.”

“My political dislike for this president has turned personal. I think Bush is a worthless coward, a fool, and I have no respect for him. His presence as our leader sickens me, and I can't wait until he is gone so we can clean up the vast multitude of environmental, international, economical and political messes that he's left us.

Stick that in your file G-Man!”

“vast multitude of environmental, international, economical and political messes that he's left us.


From now on, I'll refer to this phrase as "Trickle Down Bushebonics.”

“I want all the facts."
Mr. Bush said.



Bush "wants all the facts".

LMAO..... Yeah , all the facts that support his paradigm.”

“I think it would be great for the President of France, Chirac to go on international tv and tell Bush he has 48 hours to step down or face the consequenses.
nashvillehiker
09:22:55 PM
02/02/04

No matter what you think of the current administration, only an idiot would think that would "be great"”

“I think the world needs to stand up to Bush. Right now he thinks he can go anywhere he wants. I was really glad that France and Germany made him jump through hoops.”

“you know what i think, i think that if we had Gore for pres that after 9/11 nothing would have happened and they would have hit us again and then what do we do when more civs are dead they're the monstures Bush needs to get his facts staright, but who knows where we would be with out him. ??????? Just some thing to think about. Not saying what he did was right, who knows what he knew. Maybe some one in the intell deparment srewed up, we don;t know. So lets not srew are leaders and lets remeber who the real enemies are. And remeber we can change leaders this fall but till then, lets respect what we've got. I know i wouldn;t want the job.”