Dems drop 16 words ("NO LONGER AN ISSUE") for 12 words

[LiberalBushFan]

"I will soon submit to Congress a request for 87 billion dollars."

Dems Scrap Plans To Look Into Claims White House Manipulated Intel On Iraqi Threat

by Jason Leopold

 
Democrats in Congress have abandoned their efforts to investigate the White House’s use of questionable intelligence information about Iraq’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, saying the issue has been "eclipsed" by President Bush’s request for $87 billion from Congress to continue funding the war there.
<snip>
"We’re past that," Helfert said, referring to the intelligence issue. "Those questions were eclipsed by the supplemental request by President Bush for $87 billion" to fund the Iraq war. "Congress if focusing on asking questions about the $87 billion, what it will be used for and whether it’s worth it. It would be a good characterization to say that the intelligence questions on Iraq and how the President came to believe that it had weapons of mass destruction are no longer an issue."
<snip>
...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0915-07.htm

[WillParkinson]

1. And then tomorrow...

We'll forget he asked for 87 billion dollars.

<Sigh>

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. What $87B?

[candy331]

6. Regime change

of the Democrats. We need a whole new group of Democrats/or more independents, ones who believe in a fight sticking to the issues and not being snowed by distractionary measures. That is just what this admin wants for them to be sidetracked and just move on, but i can guarantee you no repug will move on when Dem issue is at stake. Take California for instance they would not just move on they will dog the courts until they get their way.

[JHB]

2. Rename this thread while you have the chance...

It sounds like a freeper-thread, but it's about a damn legitimate complaint.

[BurtWorm]

4. Yeah, rename the thread. Please.

Or you'll wind up with a lot of flames and the thread will be locked.

PS: You can edit your title using the edit button at the bottom right side of the post.

[LiberalBushFan]

5. how's this n/m

[BurtWorm]

7. Frankly, I think it needs to be more specific

You could ask a question like, Are we over the 16 words? or Should Dems Drop Push for Inquiry into Faulty Iraq Intelligence?

That will get people to drop in. I think.

PS: or you could state those: Congressional Dems Say We're Over the 16 Words. Dems Drop Push for Inquiry. This gets DUers angry in a constructive way.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[BurtWorm]

10. Good one. Nice touch with the 12 words at the top.

[Terwilliger]

11. I think it is specific enough...Dems can't stand up to a breeze

Bush's actions are ammunition city, and Dems want to play "Vote for me!"

[JHB]

9. Good enough

beats the old one.

[wtmusic]

8. LOL

That will be the day when a freeper thread cites commondreams.org!!!

[LiberalBushFan]

13. Thank you all

for helping my first post become a successful one

[Mari333]

12. I agree with the title of the thread

* is at an all time low in the polls, and the Dems continue to wear their pink tutus?????????????????
NOW is the time to strike, and with a vengeance...the Dems better get their bums out of the beltway and take the pulse of the citizenry REAL fast, and wake up.
Im sick of * getting away with murder..

[John_H]

16. Please give them the strategy

they should use in the House--did you notice that that's what the article was limitied to--not the party? Tell them how they can get heard on the intel issue, please.

[John_H]

14. Response from the horse's mouth

I just spoke to a source extremely close to the thinking expressed in the article (and expressed my deep concern)and here's what's going on.

It was made clear to the dems that there would be no offical investigation or even a hearing in the house. Never. And given the Rethugs majority tactics they will make that stick.

For the last weeks their calls for an investigation were not getting reported.

So here's the deal: Never going to be an investigation. Nothing on the news no matter how they scream. Result: No matter what they do it's not going to do the slightest bit of good and noone is going to hear about it.

They do have an excellent chance of getting many hearings and news stories on the 87 billion. ie. this is a battle they can win. Why not make the admin. repeat they want to spend 87 million bucks over and over.

This is from me, not my source:
You need to be more tough-minded, more realistic, and sophisticated in your thinking: The dems got whacked by a reporter who was doing everything possible to find a facet of the 87 bil to whack dems. Obviously he turned a single question into an article.

The spokesman was articulating strategy--and it's good strategy. The reporter focused on the "inside baseball" aspect and slanted the story to subtly whack dems.

You may not be happy with it--but then again, you don't have to operate in the real world of the Hill. They do.

[BurtWorm]

17. What should rank and filers do though? We want an inquiry into this

How are we going to get it?

[joeybee12]

18. Sorry, it's not the real world, it's the Spineless world!

If those patsys had tried to make a stink over the intelligence failure, it could have made it into the press-yet another example of the dems bending over and taking it.

Regime change is right!!!!!

[John_H]

21. The point is they DID make a stink

but if the rethugs won't persue it (and they have ALL of the power in the house) and the media drops it, what are they supposed to do?

[JHB]

19. Ask your friend...

If this subject would be revisited if the Dems can turn it around in the 2004 elections, both at the prez. and Congressional levels.

If they want to play it that way, then they ought to pay for it when they don't have all the cards anymore.

[John_H]

23. My buddy doesn't get to make that decision

I think it will be a campaign issue--the article, remember, is about strategy within the house, not campaigns, noth the Senate, not the DNC, and not even in individual members' offices.

[ibegurpard]

22. You may be right about it not going anywhere

but them saying "it's no longer an issue" makes them look like it was just political hay to begin with. That is very damaging...it makes it look like they didn't care about the fact that Bush lied about his reasons to go to Iraq and were just trying to score political points. Whether it goes anywhere or not, they should still keep mentioning it AS WELL as the $87 billion.

[John_H]

24. I agree.

nt

[Mari333]

30. Tell your friend to explain Dem strategy to the dead soldiers families

and the thousands of dead Iraqis and wounded soldiers and citizens.
I expect more from the Dems, and I am sick of their pandering to the Thugs.

[John_H]

58. Plent of griping, no thoughts apparently

Cwebster and Mari are doing plenty of bitching, but have not yet responded to requests for their strategic thinking. This folks, is a quintisential example of how the far far left operates--rather than act they theorize and complain. Their "strategy" amounts to "Wanting it more" or "burning down reality" or "calling the families of dead soldiers" and other things that pass as activism over a double skim latte but won't make a microscopic dent in the lives of the people who's interests they claim to fight for.

Shit or get off the pot, one-percenters. The Dems on the hill are working hard to make Chimp repeat as often as possible that he wants to spend their kids' money thereby facilitating *'s retirement on his astroturf ranch. What are you doing, aside from making KKKarl beat off to your posts?

[Mari333]

95. You sound lile a DLC talking head.

iggy on.

[John_H]

108. I'm nowhere near the DLC worldview--but you still havn't offered strategy

instead opting to complain some more. Thanks. I couldn't have thought of a better way to prove the accuracy of my post.

[CWebster]

31. highly suspect

"For the last weeks their calls for an investigation were not getting reported."

How long have we been hearing this claim that the Dems can't get coverage? It is a wonder that anything Robert Byrd says on the floor ever makes it to our ears. This is fucking political cover. I wonder how the hell Dean managed all the coverage? You have to want it.

"It was made clear to the Dems.." Poor Dems, what good are they?
"...Operate in the real world"? They don't even have a clue.

[BurtWorm]

32. So let's say you're Rep. Obey. What would you do?

[library_max]

114. Crickets

Gee, I guess you're not going to get an answer, Burt!

[John_H]

54. OK...let's have CWebster's plan to get a hearing in the house Intel Commit

because if the majority makes it clear that something's not going to happen, guess what? It's not going to happen. That's how the House has worked for 200+ years.

Dean gets the coverage because he's running for president. Obey is not. Byrds comments make it to our ears because someone on DU takes the time to go to his website and posts the link. Seen his comments lead Headline News on CNN recently?

It's a proven fact, whether you like it or not, that the media doesn't report a lot of anti-Chimpy stories--do you read MWO, Daily Howler, Conason, Alterman, and our DU media watchers?

I share your pain that Chimpy's getting off the hook on this one. So how about giving those Hill dems a clue with some specific non-pie-in-the-sky actions they can perfom? Can't think of any? Me niether.

[CWebster]

69. Are you telling me they shouldn't bother?

You know, they could use some madison avenue type of campaigns to raise awareness for a start. They need to get a handle on some kind of media voice, but you know their damn hands are so often tied because of their own POOR political decisions and constant inability to achieve any progress because of their own complicity in feasting at the corporate trough.

[Terwilliger]

71. so you don't think if the Dems stood up unified and called

for Bush's oster, it wouldn't influence the American public?

Such a LOW estimation you have of the sheeple. Damn, they're so dumb that the smart Democrats cant manipulate them into voting for them. Yep...realllly stupid.

[BurtWorm]

79. Just out of curiosity, is Nader calling for Bush's ouster or impeachment?

Why isn't he using his bully pulpit? Do you think it's because he might want matching funds this time around?

[janekat]

87. Nader too busy beating up on the Dems THAT'S why n/t

[Terwilliger]

92. Maybe he agrees with Democrats

I don't know

Maybe he wont press the point because he knows the Dems will do nothing.

Anybody's guess :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

97. In other words, maybe you don't know!

I'm glad to see you make such an admission. Now if you would apply that to the Dems, and stop assuming the worst about all of their intentions when, in fact, you have no more clue about them than about Nader, my estimation of you might grow again.

[Terwilliger]

105. you think I'm worried about your estimation?

you've got another thing coming

You don't know is a mantra of your allegiance to Democrats...I use mine to think.

[BurtWorm]

111. Me don't know, but me think you am prejudiced.

Against realists.

[John_H]

107. I think the dems could all start themselves on fire on the white house

lawn, and there wouldn't be an impeachment hearing in the judiciary committee--just like there wouldn't have been if the dems controlled the House in 98.

[Terwilliger]

36. then their real world needs to be burned down

why is that hard to understand?

shit, the reason they can't do it is because they missed the opportunity. HELL! Even the MEDIA was ready to get behind the Democrats when Tenet fell on his sword...but NOOOOOO-body in the Democratic party was willing to stand up and do the right FUCKING thing!

:nuke:

[BurtWorm]

42. Great idea. Let's get our pitchforks and torches, fellow peasants.

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

51. yes, and while you appease the people who do nothing

you can shutup about people who want a REAL change

[BurtWorm]

52. Wanting a REAL change must be fabulous!

How are you making it happen, O'Reilly of the left? What does whining and griping actually do?

[Terwilliger]

63. What are you doing?

appeasing to right-wing sentiments on small internet discussion boards delivering us into the halls of power?

[BurtWorm]

66. You're calling for radical change. How are you going to get it?

[Terwilliger]

67. revolution

how else do you intend to curb the two great monoliths from their lumbering path towards neofascism?

[BurtWorm]

68. Revolution.

That's easy. Why didn't you say so before?

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

73. yes, so easy that you wont consider it

thats why you fail

[BurtWorm]

77. I actually gave you a lot more credit than you apparently deserve.

Revolution! Do you mean armed revolution? Where are you going to get the arms for it? Are you stocking up on them? Are you ready to command the Berkeley militia?

Or are you talking paradigmatic revolution?

[Terwilliger]

80. any revolution that will get the job done

9/11 proved that the people can have a HUGE influence on what happens to America (everybody stopped spending any money, and they panicked)

If you can find a group of people willing to sound the alarm, maybe you convince a lot of other people that raising that alarm is a good idea

You cant stand up to Bush atrocities, you can't come up with a new plan to attract the disenfranchised, you cant stand up to the right-wing rhetoric that pervades the public consciousness. But your counsel is to sit back, shut up, and hope for the best??

:nuke:

[BurtWorm]

82. My counsel is for every activist here at DU and elsewhere

to keep the pressure on their Reps and Sens, GOP and Dem, to a) find a way out of Iraq, b) investigate the Bush regime's planning and execution of the war, c) investigate the intelligence and diplomatic failures that led to 9/11. My counsel is for every activist at DU and elsewhere to pressure the media to do its own investigations into these subjects. My counsel is for every activist to do their own research, as well.

Take care of your own business. Be specific. Be concrete. Avoid fragging. Avoid generalizing and contributing to useless, enervating stereotypes about Democrats, Greens, Deanies, Kerry-ites, etc. It's okay to blow off steam once in a while, but if all you do is blow off steam, what good are you? You're no better than the gasbags in the media.

[Terwilliger]

89. and what are you doing?

I'm signing the petitions and pressuring my reps. I'm going into the streets to protest the insane policies of our government. I'm doing a lot of the "work" that needs to be done. Who's working for me? Who's working for you and your needs? What are they giving us, exactly?

[BurtWorm]

91. I'm doing what you're doing. Writing letters, sending faxes,

signing petitions, making phone calls, going to meetings, going to rallies, doing Internet research, writing to journalists, giving money to candidates and causes, demonstrating.

Something is going to come from it. It's coming even as we speak. It won't be a revolution, necessarily, but it may be justice. We'll see.

My main beef with you is your constant drumbeating this generalized whine about how NO Democrats do anything. You're fucking wrong. It's just gas.

[Terwilliger]

93. *FART*

When you say "Just vote D, and everything will be alright" I say "BUSH-IT!"

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

Just vote your conscience.

[BurtWorm]

98. Jefferson was lying when he said that.

He was a staunch, even rabid Democratic-Republican.

And by the way, I've never said just vote D.

[Terwilliger]

102. oh really

now you know what Jefferson means? come on

And, you said you wouldn't just vote D? I'd really like to know where you're not advocating a straight D ticket. Everything that complains about why Democrats can't do anything is always tied to my voting for the Dem. Why wouldn't you act towards that same end?

[BurtWorm]

109. Maybe I'm more complex than anyone you think you've encountered

before. ;)

[library_max]

103. Wow!

You got "revolution," "monolith," and "neofascism" into the same one-sentence post! Throw in "dialectic" and "atavism" and you'll have a perfect Marxist word salad!

[BurtWorm]

110. Not Marxist

Post-Marxist. Or neo-Marxist. Or neo-post-Marxist?

[library_max]

113. Sorry,

I got my English to Blather dictionaries mixed up. Thanks for the correction. :7

[bpilgrim]

86. The Real World: Go along to get along

how's that for a more accurate headline? i like it...

i wonder if they ever thought of 'PACKAGING' them together? seems like a natural fit ;->

peace

[JHB]

15. Time to hammer Obey & pals

Hell, with Clinton, when the rethugs squeezed up an new "scandal" that didn't mean they let up on the old ones! And Shrub's scandals are a hell of a lot more significant than that damn runway haircut or "Travelgate"!

I think it's time to start actually sending pink tutus to the "soft on Republican malfeasance" crowd in Congress :grr:

[BurtWorm]

20. You're forgetting that the Thugs controlled Congress under Clinton.

As they do now.

These Dems have to make do with the scraps they get.

Still, if there were pressure on them--on all representatives--to investigate the causes of the war, they would be in hot water if they didn't act. I think Dems who live in GOP Reps' districts ought to put the squeeze on hard.

[JHB]

57. They didn't control it at first...

...and, IMHO, part of the reason Clinton was so mired by the Rethugs was because he and the Democratic Congressional leadership gave a pass to getting to the bottom of the Republican scandals of the Reagan & Bush41 years now that they had the chance.

It's not just "the way things are now". Dropping the ball on major Republican abuses of state power has been the MO of Democratic leadership for almost 20 years AND IT MUST STOP!

Putting the uranium on a back burner for now, is an acceptable tactical decision, but if its inexcusable to completely drop it.
Since one of the other posters pointed out that the story was spun to make the Dems look bad I'm not sure which is the case, but we can't hem and haw about the "political reality". The damn conservatives didn't: they pushed to change that "reality". We need Dems that are willing to push back and throw punches of their own.

[BurtWorm]

65. You're absolutely right that it must stop.

You're wrong, though, about the chronology. The Republicans only really started going to town with their investigations when they took over Congress in 1994.

I think the Dems are showing a lot more spine lately than they did before Nov. 2004. Remember the Ways and Means showdown last summer?

[library_max]

104. It's easier to holler "stop" than it is to do it.

Conservatives get their way by lining up behind their candidates and supporting them, not by calling their representatives assholes and tearing them down every chance they get.

Every time I see a DUer sneer at reality, I get a little more nervous about the 2004 election. :scared:

[AndyTiedye]

81. The Thugs Controlled the Press Under Clinton Too, as they do now

And when the talking heads get the word from on high to go even more easy on Bush* they do.

[gratuitous]

25. I agree with the change in strategy

We got a good bang out of the 16 words. The media finally sat up and took notice that the administration is a bunch of lying sacks of sugar, and finally began looking at what it disseminates critically. The argument over the 16 words has degenerated into a "did not say that" "did too" "didn't mean it" debate that has become meaningless to the general public. Since Congress will in no way investigate this, Democrats should continue to cite it as an example of Republican demagoguery, while bringing up fresh examples. Heaven knows there's no shortage of those examples popping up every day.

[angka]

26. selling our asses

i will not let them get away with this

[CWebster]

27. More triangulation and cave-ins

The political DLC tactics of the Clinton era. Yet while y'all are complaining about the same old, same old, you insist Clinton is an asset to the future.

[BurtWorm]

29. Did you read John H's responses?

There's apparently more to the story than a short piece on commondreams.org can cover. Surprise surprise.

Idealism is great, but some people have to deal with political realities.

Here's political reality: if American voters cracked the whip, there'd be investigations right now. Why aren't voters cracking the whip?

[CWebster]

35. yes, I did

Political realities? You mean like "standing shoulder to shoulder" and "no criticizing a popular war time president" to abdicate their constitutional responsibility and ignore all these obvious lies because they might be called "unpatriotic" by the junta and they were ascared?

What makes you think they listen to the people? The people didn't favor the tax cuts, the people only supported the war with UN support and a multilateral effort. Political realities...schmalities.

[BurtWorm]

40. Where do you get this "might be called unpatriotic" from?

I didn't see it in either the article of John H's response.

[CWebster]

44. it was in my response

.

[BurtWorm]

45. That's what I thought.

Then it didn't deal with what was in the article or JH's response.

[BurtWorm]

48. Political realities, like it or not, have to do with who's really in power

We'd all love it if the people were. Unfortunately they're not. And they won't be unless they want it badly enough. Until then, the very objectives DUers want--Bush out, the war over, the war investigated, the administration investigated--are not going to be accomplished by merely wishing them to be. The power structure has to be confronted as it really is.

[CWebster]

60. Oh Burt

Quit making excuses for them.

This is important - this is grave - they should be fighting like hell instead of passing it off as just another in a never-ending line of "move-on, let's get past this" dismissals.

[BurtWorm]

70. Oh CWebster

This is so important, it demeans it to grandstand about it. What's the solution?

[CWebster]

74. Continue to work on the solution

instead of brushing everything under the carpet?

History will judge. You would think that would put a fire under the arses in their quest for political immortality. ;-)

[BurtWorm]

76. I personally believe Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, etc. need to be

investigated until they cry mercy, and after. How do you get to that point, given that the Repubs control the power to investigate? This is a serious question. What do think the Dems should do?

[Terwilliger]

64. which the Democrats will NEVER do

must be VERY comfortable knowing that you support the status-quo

[BurtWorm]

72. Terwilliger, why don't you write a nice little essay explaining what

the fuck you're doing, or proposing to do, to change the status quo? Wouldn't it be great if all Dems in poiwer suddenly started to think like you?

[Terwilliger]

75. call for Bush's impeachment...today...NOW!

The people who we voted for should have the courage of their beliefs (at the very least). Do they believe Bush is a fucknut, or do they want to tell the American public that he's a "good man trying to do good things"

I love hearing how you folks think Bush is the second-coming of the anti-Christ, yet you're perfectly contented to let him do the things he's doing.

[BurtWorm]

78. What do you want "us" to do? You want us to go to DC and physically

restrain him? Why don't you try it?

Or is it sufficient to just have the same attitude you have? To snipe and gripe at DUers in exactly the same way you do? Is that going to bring about the revolution? Is that going to get Bush impeached?

[Terwilliger]

85. you're saying you cant do it

therefeore we should just "move on" like that will make one fucking difference

Hey, good luck to the Democrats in 2004. Like I've said to others, don't blame Nader when you lose.

[BurtWorm]

88. Can't do what?

[Terwilliger]

94. its very easy to follow the conversation in these types of forums

you should try it

[BurtWorm]

99. Start a revolution? Restrain Bush? Call for impeaching Bush? Impeach Bush?

What specifically can't I do?

[Terwilliger]

101. read your own post #88

THEN backtrack from there :hi:

[BurtWorm]

112. Ok...

Now what?

[library_max]

106. So wishing so will make it so.

Calling for Bush's impeachment will get him impeached. Sure it will. Do you by any chance remember the Clinton impeachment? Bob Barr was at least honest about it - it was a political process, not a legal one, and the Republicans had the votes in the House (but not the Senate) to make it happen. Well, we don't have the votes, in the House or the Senate. So what earthly good will having a purple fit about it do? Except of course to make the Democrats look like sore losers and crybabies to the swing-voters who don't know the facts about Florida and don't care. But then I guess if you really hate Democrats, that'd be a good thing, right?

[deutsey]

28. "Congressman Obey"?

What an appropriate name...

[Terwilliger]

33. foktarded

NEVER change your title...now you've changed it how many times so that the censors are satifsfied? did admin tell you to change the title?

[BurtWorm]

34. Notice that before he changed his title, most of the posts were about

his title. Now there's an actual discussion of the article. You have a problem with that?

[Terwilliger]

37. yep

fuck the flamers...they're idiots

stick to your guns or get blown off the sheet

[BurtWorm]

39. I don't think I was flaming. I was constructively criticizing.

And he or she changed the title of his own free will, then asked for our opinions again. Then changed the title again. And again. Then thanked us for helping him or her make this post a success.

So now you're merrily "flaming" him or her for changing the title! What do you have to say about the article? Anything?

[Terwilliger]

41. already have

GUESS YOU WERE TOO BUSY WORRYING OVER THE TITLE TO NOTICE

[BurtWorm]

43. Yeah, I just saw your brilliant analysis.

[Terwilliger]

49. ah HAH! So you dont want a discussion

thanks for letting me know

[BurtWorm]

53. While you were AHA-ing, I asked you about your analysis.

[Terwilliger]

62. what analysis do you need?

Democrats will not stand up to Bush and wonder why independents and swing-voters don't vote for them.

[JHB]

55. What flaming?

His original title was "I hate Dems".

Since it turns out the poster wasn't a freep but a newbie with a good catch, I don't see suggesting he try a more descriptive title as "flaming" or being a "censor".

[Terwilliger]

61. why did he have to change the title?

His expression might have been misdirected in terms of a proper subject for his post, but it conveyed the sentiments behind his post in the first place

[LiberalBushFan]

83. i changed it to be more specific

but I think it still carries the point, which is that they're dropping 16 words for something else when 1. it's all part of the same simple picture (the money was the motivation for the lies) and 2. the "even tougher questions" deal sounds dubious. The war has already costed 70 billion, and I don't remember any tough questions about that. If they really think this is the best change in strategy to take Bush down, I guess I can't be too angry at them, but if they're just setting up to vote 'yes' after their tough tough questions, then that's just terrible. Time will tell us how tough these questions will have been by how much of the $87 billion goes back into their pockets, but if most of it ends up going to Halliburton and troops are still buying their own equipment, shame on them if they had any voting power to stop it.

[TacticalPeek]

38. "Those questions were eclipsed" - can't walk and chew gum?

Not eclipsed completely, and working in the shadows a while may be acceptable.

House? What about the Joint Intel committee? CIA, DIA, etc internal investigation? Criminal/security investigation of KKKarl or other outers?

Civil legal action, investigative reporting. With enough hooks to hang their hats on, and constituent pressure (target mod R's, too!), the House might see that the $87B and how to spend it has a lot to do with how and why we got into this mess in the first place.

Questioning the $87B is good itself, of course, as Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) showed in splendid form at yesterday's Congressional press conference with Pelosi. He flat tore the malAdmin a new one, from watching the c-span coverage.

edtd:tipo

[CWebster]

46. In other words

they are abandoning any investigation of the lies in order to raise the issue of justifying the latest request for 87 billion dollars as the result of the lies.


What should we expect Obey to do? His job.

[xJlM]

47. I've got seven words for them

GET BUSH OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

[CWebster]

50. Shush up now

Can't you see how hard they are working to do just that?

:eyes:

[xJlM]

56. Let's hope

I actually have a little hope for the next major election, but there are a whole bunch of qualifiers on that. It will be interesting to see where it leads, though...

[janekat]

59. Perhaps we can go to the British Papers.....

they're all hankering for a story that will put a deep six on Blair and Bush AND they love scandals.

[bpilgrim]

84. the neo-cons must be delighted - n/t

peace

[janekat]

90. That article is from 9/15. Daschle brought this up YESTERDAY

Please read this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=354556

[BurtWorm]

100. Thank you!

[ElementaryPenguin]

96. Fuck them! I am NOT past that!!!

Fucking treason from a war criminal!!!