On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:00:03 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.


Doug, you whine about the planting of articles in Iraqi newspapers, but
see nothing wrong with the
planting of articles in our own?

At least we're at war in Iraq!

Here's Nancy Pelosi's comment from today's NYT:

"In a statement, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic
leader, said she was
advised of the president's decision shortly after he made it and had "been
provided with updates on
several occasions."

"The Bush administration considered these briefings to be notification,
not a request for approval,"
Ms. Pelosi said. "As is my practice whenever I am notified about such
intelligence activities, I
expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."

Both 'advised' and 'updated', but did nothing. Must have been too legal to
raise a stink about,
wouldn't you say?

And the Democrats had visions of impeachment in their heads until Pelosi
talked. Why couldn't she have deflected the quesiton like Sen. Reid did?


Good question.

I think the Sunday talk show's should all be under oath. Maybe that would stop some of the crap.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****