Funny, the “news” sources never point out the obvious — “the Democrat-controlled Senate” — unless it’s not them in charge. Weird coincidence, huh?
Oil Surges More Than $5
(While the clowns in D.C. continue to sit on their hands)
cnnmoney.com | June 5, 2008: 3:43 PM EDT | staff
Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 03:58:09 PM by kellynla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2026640/posts
{Karen Bass, California’s new} Assembly Speaker
proposes $6.4 billion in taxes
[get used to that when Obama’s your president, RINOs]
AP via SFGate | 6/5/8 | SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 06:01:10 PM by SmithL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2026711/posts
Oh Teddy!
Right Up Front | 06/05/2008 | Katy L Vidales
Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 06:07:05 PM by KatyLoraleyVidales
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2026719/posts
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Read also The Senate's Intelligence