One presumes that the info released is screened to as not to give away
important secrets, but then, sometimes mistakes are made (who *did*
release that Plame ID anyway?? Didn't President Bush vow to find & punish
them?).


NOYB wrote:
I just read that Newsweek is ready to release the name so that their
reporter doesn't sit in jail.


Oh, you mean the folks that got jumped on because they reported
instances of abuse of Koran at Gitmo... which later turned out to be
correct? I'm still waiting for all the Bush/Cheney cheerleaders who
called Newsweek bad names to apologize.


One also might assume that the info is often given some political spin, but
unless one assumes that all military, CIA, and State Department
counter-terrorist operatives are very strongly anti-Bush, why would they
contradict Bush & Cheney's rosy pronouncements?


The CIA is responsible for missing the warning signs before 9/11, and losing
track of what happened to large quantities of unaccounted for WMD's in Iraq.
Goss has been weeding out the bad apples and there are a lot with an axe to
grind. So, yes, it is likely that there are numerous anti-Bush folks in the
CIA.

Oh, that explains it... the official news office of the CIA is made up
of bad apples who have been weeded out... from what, exactly?


BTW--generals work for the DoD. Why did you mention the State Dept. when we
have been talking about "generals and CIA operatives"?


Because shortly after Vice President Cheney made his statement, the
State Dept was one of the gov't branches saying they had given him no
information on which to base his "last legs" statement. In other words,
State is on the list of people going 'WTF??' after Cheney spoke.


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.

In other words, you think President Bush is lying?




Bush never said that we'd withdraw.

No? Did he say "We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a
day longer."



Now tell me where he said that we'd withdraw from Iraq.


Well, it's that wet/dry up/down black/white thing. Can our military not
stay in Iraq one day longer than needed, and yet stay in Iraq? Was this
President Bush's way of saying that this 'war' will go on forever?



And you can bet that as long as we're reliant on oil, a US troop presence in
Iraq will be "needed". Get it, Doug?


Oh, I got it long ago. President Bush tells pleasant sounding lies to
fool church people, who are uncomfortable with the truth and too
ignorant to spot the contradictions.


A... All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties
to terrorists.

That's no surprise. But we're still waiting to see some proof of Iraq's
ties to anti-US terror, to Al-Queda, and to Sept 11th. So far, a couple of
years of intense investigation hasn't come up with any.


It's come up with plenty. You just haven't been paying attention.

Oh? In that case, let's review...

Sept 11th links to Iraq found by the CIA:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq found by the Sept 11th Investigating Committee:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq detailed by the President:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq hinted at by the President:
many many many

Sept 11th links to Iraq detailed by the Vice President:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq hinted at by the Vice President:
almost as many as President Bush

Requests made by the Sept 11th Investigating Committee, the DIA, the
FBI, the CIA, for details from the President & Vice President:
several

Number of times the President & Vice President refused to testify:
many

Number of times the President & Vice President did testify:
once

Number of times the President & Vice President testified under oath:
none




Are you saying that Al-Queda is the main terrorist organization operating
in Iraq?


Yes.


Oh.

Got any evidence at all? Hopefully more than you have for Iraqi
involvement in Sept 11th?



Really? Why have they been asking for more then? Why is the Army in such a
flap over recruiting shortfalls?


The army isn't requesting more troops in Iraq.


That's what President Bush says, but that's not what the Army says.

DSK