The NIE report, that so many rightees point to as exonerating Bush, was itself a lie.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Iraq war - Salon.com
CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs
There are hundreds of other links to Bush’s lies about Iraq having WMDs. Throw a dart and read one.
lol so Bush believed the word of all 16 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community over the Iraqi Foreign Minister? Touche sir, that proves it, Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD's when he led us to war.
Very interesting link. Thank you!
But, from it:
September 4th. 8 ½ months after Bush took office.
Exactly one week before 9/11.
Great timing!
Read the next lines:
Question. I want to add though, that NSPD--the actual work
on it began in early April.
Clarke. There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that
were being worked in parallel.
Then the ones above them:
Question. Had the Clinton administration in any of its work
on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else,
prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special
operations forces in any way? What did the Bush
administration do with that if they had?
Clarke. There was never a plan in the Clinton
administration to use ground forces. The military was asked
at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think
about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a
good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back
and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)
Angle. So, just to finish up if we could then, so what
you're saying is that there was no--one, there was no plan;
two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes
since October of '98 were made in the spring months just
after the administration came into office?
Clarke. You got it. That's right.
And Richard Clark has to practically scream at Condi-the-liar to get that Sept 4th meeting.
That's what he says now not what he was saying then.
Ashcroft made a point of saying he never stopped using commercial for “personal” use. Typical lawyerese.
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11 - SFGate
What's the difference between using it for personal use and business use would the plane had crashed into the building differently if Ashcroft had been using it for a personal reason? He's still using commercial aircraft, in fact his wife flew right before 9-11.
From your own link:
I know you’re trying to say that because Armitage leaked her name first that that means that Rove, Libby and Cheney did not expose her identity and thus did not break any law. Wrong. That is not what the law says. When one person divulges a covert agent’s identity that agent still enjoys a covert status. If 100 people leaked Mrs. Wilson’s name to that liar Novack, all of them would be guilty of exposing a covert agent’s identity.
Well first of all you are completely wrong, so utterly and completely wrong that I know you have never even read the law in question so let me help you out here sir:
SEC. 602. [50 U.S.C. 422] (a) It is a defense to a prosecution under section 601 that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.
Intelligence Identities Protection Act
And secondly you have absolutely 0 evidence that anyone but Armitage leaked the identity of Plame.