Quote:
Quote by: dilligras  When I have real evidence that those things occurred, I will disapprove of it. A lie, by definition entails intent to decieve, which lefty scourges conveniently forget when it suits their agenda. Bush had no evidenced intent to decieve about Saddam's WMD stockpiles, any more than Clinton and Kerry did in '98 when they said exactly the same things--similarly, your evidence of intent, or even overt knowledge in the case of the administration (if not the incompetent, burgeoning bureaucracy that is the Pentagon) is absent for this purported "coverup", other than alleged motive derived entirely from pure conjecture and unsourced claims by obviously prejudiced witnesses. |
You know all about "intent to deceive" without first seeing the results of a comprehensive congressional investigation. That's a neat trick. I say, investigate the whole war and see where the chips fall. Clinton may indeed look worse. So be it. Let the investigation go where it must.
Quote:
Quote by: dilligras And Judith may be about to be charged with treason, depending on the current examination of her phone records for the number of the person who leaked the NSA intelligence story.
Whoever it was who leaked, I hope they hang the lefty bastard from the nearest lampost that is high enough to secure his feet from the country I cherish and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. |
Obviously you know zilch about Judith Miller's "reporting." The "lefty" gave her information FAVORABLE to Bush's case for war--the purported "aluminum tubes" for Saddam's nuclear program, mobile bio-chemical "labs," stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction--all based on White House leaks that Miller didn't bother to corroborate.
I don't care what happens to that sow legally. She did this nation a supreme disservice in the service of our lame president's war.