Fallout 4, Overwatch, Star Wars: Battlefront, GWJ Holiday contest! (Officially sanctioned and everything.) - Zudz,
What is this place? Who are you people? Read this helpful guide to find out!
Want to advertise with GWJ? Sorry, we don't run ads on the website, just the podcast. If you need something else, hit us up!
Come play Team Fortress 2 with GWJers! Server: 220.127.116.11:27015
7-8pm central, Mondays & Fridays, bring chicken wings
Yes. I am now convinced that there was an active drive to go to war with Iraq ever since the Bush Administration took office. 9-11 might have complicated matters; recall Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz''s continued suggestions to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Don''t you find that odd?
Edit: For your reading pleasure -
And, an unrelated bonus article:
""Bush''s Data Dump - The administration is hiding bad economic news. Here''s how.""
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"Butt hat is my opinion and we all know how far that goes around here." - Demonicmaster
"Dammit Rat Boy, I just came to post that." - Stele
Jesus Christ. Bush admitted it shouldn''t have gone in the State of the Union.
And if you keep citing Slate articles Ratboy, I''ll blast you with Newsmax salvos.
Hello my baby!!!
Another question: do you believe that the CIA informed the White House that the Iraq-Africa uranium link report was bogus before the State of the Union address was made?
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
I think I''ve cited enough over the last week to show that the CIA (or Joe Wilson, whom you''d probably scorn as a ""liberal whistle-blower"" just to keep your case going) did tell their objections about the Niger connection to the White House. Tenet himself put the kybosh on any uranium reference in October of 2002. How can you possibly deny that the CIA didn''t think that the evidence was that solid for over a year by my count?
That''s a ""yes"", then?
Yes. What are you getting at?
Well, there''s been a lot of exposition here and I think it sometimes obscures the real issues.
So you believe that George Tenet, a Democrat appointed in the previous administration and (unusually) allowed to retain his position in the current Republican administration, is allowing himself to be made the ""fall guy"" for this incident?
Just because he was appointed by a Democrat doesn''t mean he''s a Democrat. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen was a Republican congressman before being appointed to his last government job by Bill Clinton. He''s quite the hawk, if his appearnces on Lou Dobbs are any measure.
And yes, I think there is an attempt to by somebody in the Administration to get this out of the nation''s attention span as quickly as possible to cover something else. Tenet''s admission of guilt was designed to put things to bed. Bush''s backing of him (over the sharp criticism of other Republicans) means he doesn''t meet the strict standards of the ""fall guy"" set forth in previous Administrations. However, he may be in for a pretty rough ride for the rest of the year with multiple Congressional inquiries pending.
Answer me this: Why was he allowed to retain his position despite his being a Democrat appointee and despite the intelligence failures before 9-11?
Well Democrats are looking for blood and frankly, despite Bush''s backing, Republicans are not fond of George Tenet.
If this is pushed, and apparently the Dems want to push it for what it''s worth, Tenet will fall on his sword.
I think he should resign. Not because of this, because of 9/11. He was director during Clinton and Bush, and the whole scheme went forward under his nose.
But, I know Tenet resigning doesn''t get a Democrat in the White House, so I''ll ""get over it"".