Is a new scandal about to erupt? Some think so.

[Buck Laser]

I've been a bit bemused by the Edwards "scandal"--hell, throw away the quotation marks, it's a scandal. But Edwards isn't a candidate, and he's clearly not gonna hold any post in the Obama White House. But the scandal broke just as word was getting around about Ron Suskind's new book, which reveals some pretty startling evidence that Bush and all his cronies [b]knew[/u] there were no WMDs in Iraq, but went ahead with it anyway. One can't help but wonder if the Edwards thing is a "wag the dog" operation.

Some writers in the media are wondering the same thing:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2021817254/Bush-White-House-on-verge-of-Watergate-type-scandal

Take a look. I'm pretty sure you'll find it interesting.

[Stoner]

More conspiracy theories.

If Bush did anything wrong the proper steps will be taken. Until then these accusations are as believable as the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and alien anal probing.

Until Bush is impeached you have no ground to stand on.

[Buck Laser]

More conspiracy theories.

If Bush did anything wrong the proper steps will be taken. Until then these accusations are as believable as the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and alien anal probing.

Until Bush is impeached you have no ground to stand on.
Aw Stoner, you're just pissed because someone got to it before you did. I don't think we're really gonna have the time for an impeachment this time around. But we'll have ALL the time in the world to have a nice criminal investigation, hearings and a trial come 2009.

I'll bet you thought the stuff about Clinton and Lewinski was Loch Ness monster stuff, didn't you. Watch and learn sonny, watch and learn. :evil:

[Trish]

I read the article and couldn't find the slightest hint of a suggestion that the Edwards scandal had anything to do with the book or Suskind's claims in any shape, form or fashion.

For anyone to believe that the scandal broke deliberately to draw attention away from the book's contention, one would also have to believe that Edwards was one of the conspirators. After all it WAS Edwards' actions on that night in the hotel that caused the story to come to the forefront again. I highly doubt that Edwards would do anything to benefit the Bush administration in way.

[Buck Laser]

I read the article and couldn't find the slightest hint of a suggestion that the Edwards scandal had anything to do with the book or Suskind's claims in any shape, form or fashion.

For anyone to believe that the scandal broke deliberately to draw attention away from the book's contention, one would also have to believe that Edwards was one of the conspirators. After all it WAS Edwards' actions on that night in the hotel that caused the story to come to the forefront again. I highly doubt that Edwards would do anything to benefit the Bush administration in way.
I didn't say the article suggested that. I was just speculating about why so much air was being wasted on Edwards, and this story, with the prospect of being worse than Watergate, could be a motive.

I am gonna enjoy the next few months.

[xLIBREx]

I've been a bit bemused by the Edwards "scandal"--hell, throw away the quotation marks, it's a scandal. But Edwards isn't a candidate, and he's clearly not gonna hold any post in the Obama White House. But the scandal broke just as word was getting around about Ron Suskind's new book, which reveals some pretty startling evidence that Bush and all his cronies [b]knew[/u] there were no WMDs in Iraq, but went ahead with it anyway. One can't help but wonder if the Edwards thing is a "wag the dog" operation.

Some writers in the media are wondering the same thing:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2021817254/Bush-White-House-on-verge-of-Watergate-type-scandal

Take a look. I'm pretty sure you'll find it interesting.

Hey, speaking of "Wag The Dog" there was an interesting Op-Ed piece by David Mamet, who was nominated for an Oscar as the screenwriter of Wag The Dog, called "Why I Am No Longer A Brain Dead Liberal." I'll look it up and post it.

[Milton Bradley]

I didn't say the article suggested that. I was just speculating about why so much air was being wasted on Edwards, and this story, with the prospect of being worse than Watergate, could be a motive.

I am gonna enjoy the next few months.


Obviously they would rather talka bout anything other than the substance of their candidates actual views, or voting records, or the complicity of the press in these matters.


As we have all seen, that was going nowhere fast.


:nana:

[Trish]

I didn't say the article suggested that. I was just speculating about why so much air was being wasted on Edwards, and this story, with the prospect of being worse than Watergate, could be a motive.

I am gonna enjoy the next few months.

Buck, sorry, but that's exactly what you suggested.

But the scandal broke just as word was getting around about Ron Suskind's new book, which reveals some pretty startling evidence that Bush and all his cronies [b]knew[/u] there were no WMDs in Iraq, but went ahead with it anyway. One can't help but wonder if the Edwards thing is a "wag the dog" operation.

Some writers in the media are wondering the same thing:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opini...e-type-scandal (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2021817254/Bush-White-House-on-verge-of-Watergate-type-scandal)

And as I said in my previous post, to even entertain the possibility of the two being connected in any fashion, one would have to first accept the possibility that Edwards was a participant in wagging the dog - and that possibility is just not worth the gray matter to consider.

[PostmodernProphet]

how is alluding to some unidentified scandal NOT wagging the dog?........

[Buck Laser]

how is alluding to some unidentified scandal NOT wagging the dog?........
The scandal is NOT undefined. Suskind's book documents the administration's knowledge of the fact that Saddam had no WMDs a good long time before he managed to hornswoggle the congress and public into starting a personal vendetta war and fuckin' forgetting about bin Laden. Sorry you didn't get that news.

[BoogyMan]

The scandal is NOT undefined. Suskind's book documents the administration's knowledge of the fact that Saddam had no WMDs a good long time before he managed to hornswoggle the congress and public into starting a personal vendetta war and fuckin' forgetting about bin Laden. Sorry you didn't get that news.

Hmm, I am glad no democrats (the group you seem to wish to give a pass on the current situation) believed that Hussein was a threat BEFORE Bush. Oh, wait, they did, didn't they?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

Who hornswaggled these folks before Bush did Buck?

[Stoner]

Saddam had no WMDs

Of course he did. We found some of them. Go back and read some articles. You won't find them on the Moveon/Kos websites, though. Look in unbias sources.

Why is it only libbies believe we didn't find WMDs? Eventually you have to give up the fallacy and recognize the truth. You'll come around, son.

[Trish]

The scandal is NOT undefined. Suskind's book documents the administration's knowledge of the fact that Saddam had no WMDs a good long time before he managed to hornswoggle the congress and public into starting a personal vendetta war and fuckin' forgetting about bin Laden. Sorry you didn't get that news.

According to the linked article you provided, the book does not "document" anything.

Ron Suskind, has claimed in a book titled "The Way of the World" that White House officials ordered the forgery of Iraqi documents to suggest a link between President Saddam Hussein and Muhammed Atta, the lead hijacker in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Suskind has also claimed, based on insider interviews, that the Bush administration knew from compelling evidence in early 2003 that Iraq had no stocks of nuclear or biological weapons, but decided to invade the country anyway.



Those are CLAIMS - not documentation, not evidence, not proof - merely CLAIMS. Now the claims may prove to be true, but they may also prove to be false. I do agree with Grace's conclusions, however.




Suskind's charges should be taken quite seriously and examined by the appropriate congressional authorities...President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.



Suskind's claims should be investigated to determine if there is any evidentiary merit. If so, the matter should be addressed by the appropriate authorities. Until such time and such evidence determines otherwise, the President and Vice-President should be presumed innocent.

[lily]

Hmm, I am glad no democrats (the group you seem to wish to give a pass on the current situation) believed that Hussein was a threat BEFORE Bush. Oh, wait, they did, didn't they?



Who hornswaggled these folks before Bush did Buck?

Wow.........I haven't seen that list brought out in a long time......so I'll give you the same answer as when it was first brought out.......all the dates are before the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq.

[Truth_and_Power]

The scandal is NOT undefined. Suskind's book documents the administration's knowledge of the fact that Saddam had no WMDs a good long time before he managed to hornswoggle the congress and public into starting a personal vendetta war and fuckin' forgetting about bin Laden. Sorry you didn't get that news.

Wow, you mean the war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's? I am SOOOO surprised.

[PostmodernProphet]

......all the dates are before the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq.

you mean the inspectors who reported to the UN AFTER the war started that they had not been able to document the destruction of all the WMD they had inventoried after the Persian Gulf War?.......

[ilikegw]

Hmm, I am glad no democrats (the group you seem to wish to give a pass on the current situation) believed that Hussein was a threat BEFORE Bush. Oh, wait, they did, didn't they?



Who hornswaggled these folks before Bush did Buck?

There's a book coming out soon that claims that Bush is responsible for everything bad that's happened in this country since 1972.

[preservanation]

Why is it only libbies believe we didn't find WMDs? And are the only ones who seem disappointed.
It seems that if our troops were met by Saddam with all sorts of mass killing nastiness, the invasion would have all been worth while.
A little unsettling, actually.

[Stoner]

And are the only ones who seem disappointed.
It seems that if our troops were met by Saddam with all sorts of mass killing nastiness, the invasion would have all been worth while.
A little unsettling, actually.

Right on, brother. Everyone outside the Moveon/Kos/Air America trash can knows we did indeed find WMDs.

It's more fun to let them keep believing the party line dribble. It's actually amusing watching them make up crap. Not as amusing as being baked but it's amusing none-the-less.

[Buck Laser]

Right on, brother. Everyone outside the Moveon/Kos/Air America trash can knows we did indeed find WMDs.

It's more fun to let them keep believing the party line dribble. It's actually amusing watching them make up crap. Not as amusing as being baked but it's amusing none-the-less.
We found WMDs. Really? Name a few.

[Wndrtch]

More conspiracy theories.

If Bush did anything wrong the proper steps will be taken. Until then these accusations are as believable as the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and alien anal probing.

Until Bush is impeached you have no ground to stand on.

Any idea how many times you have to post the following, before the Libbies give up on the "Bush lied, troops died" crap?


Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#wR6nIpoLli
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#oaT1baqjeJ
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Lof9huGeMd
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

It was a fcuking law to remove Saddam, signed by a Democrat President!

How about nit-wit Nancy?


Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Reb6pNPrWh
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Or hack-ass Harry?


Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Bu2pEtWhKr
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Good ole' Harry thought we should wack'em just becaue they breached the cease fire signed after Desert Storm.

And how could I forget the T-Rex of the DNC, Ted Kennedy.


Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#meC4KnBuxD
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Hillary actually confered with her peeps on Iraq, and also asserted that sometimes, you have to do things, even if you have no support from the international community.


Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Cuf1SojhAy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."


This next one is precious!


Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#oPi7NipoMS
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

[suedanim]

I've been a bit bemused by the Edwards "scandal"--hell, throw away the quotation marks, it's a scandal. But Edwards isn't a candidate, and he's clearly not gonna hold any post in the Obama White House. But the scandal broke just as word was getting around about Ron Suskind's new book, which reveals some pretty startling evidence that Bush and all his cronies [b]knew[/u] there were no WMDs in Iraq, but went ahead with it anyway. One can't help but wonder if the Edwards thing is a "wag the dog" operation.

Some writers in the media are wondering the same thing:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2021817254/Bush-White-House-on-verge-of-Watergate-type-scandal

Take a look. I'm pretty sure you'll find it interesting.


Of course. Diversion. I'd thought of this in the past week. The obsession by the press and absolute JOY by wallow in dirt with the rest of the swine rightwingers has affectively snuffled the Susking revelations...

That said, the Edwards story seemed orchestrated too. Timed to come out during the Olympics? By a piece of shit yellow journalism rag?

Oh well.. Russia chose to pull its military action during the Olympics too. I guess the truth is there are scandals and cover being played by all.

BUT.... Everyone knows... yes everyone, including righwingers who try so hard to pretend otherwise that George Bush and Dick Cheney are corrupt sobs who lied us into wars and responsible for the deaths and horror for hundreds of thousands, including Americans. If this were not true, Bushco's poll ratings would not have been in the toilet from way, way on back. They aren't just polling Democrats!

I've come to believe its only rightwing message board posters who maintain the culture of standing by this criminal WH, no matter what they do. The rest of the world gets a phone call asking them what they think of George and they are saying... fuck him and Dick Cheney.

Thats why when he finally does get the hell out of DC his approval rating will be about a 13 ... Thats for the 13 message board nutjobs still singing his praises by then.

The plain fact is... Suskinds book is resulting in an investigation in the works.. The fact that they lied and conspired to begin wars with no justification will become known. I'm quite sure Putin already knows, as do most world leaders. If our slackass legislators in DC would do their damn job this shit would already be known. Why does it take a book .. years after the fact, to begin getting the truth out most of us knew anyway?

The facts around that Niger letter have always been shady and that was known very early on and written about.

And 13 sycophants will now commence attack.. :lmao:

[Wndrtch]

There's a book coming out soon that claims that Bush is responsible for everything bad that's happened in this country since 1972.

I heard it was going to blame him for everything that happened after the Great Flood.

[ilikegw]

No, that one is coming out next year, around Easter.

[suedanim]

We found WMDs. Really? Name a few.

This is something they cannot do.

George Bush said Iraq had no WMD's. Are you calling him a liar?


CU49TtHCZcM

[Milton Bradley]

Any idea how many times you have to post the following, before the Libbies give up on the "Bush lied, troops died" crap?


I'm guessing, until the last one dies of old age.


:help:

[Truth_and_Power]

I heard it was going to blame him for everything that happened after the Great Flood.


No, that's "libruls"

[Stoner]

We found WMDs. Really? Name a few.

Here's a few links for you, son.

Saddam's WMD have been found. New evidence unveils chemical,
biological, nuclear, ballistic arms.

New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.
Key assertions by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all.

But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.

“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

Pretty remarkable, considering that it’s a supposed article of faith that “there were no WMDs found in Iraq.”

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/04/02/well-isnt-this-special-munitions-found-last-year-were-official-wmds/

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq


"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

[Buck Laser]

WorldNetDaily and Fox News aren't on my acceptable list. And a quote from Rick Santorum, that lying sack of shit is totally unacceptable. Not even a nice try, stoner.

[Stoner]

WorldNetDaily and Fox News aren't on my acceptable list. And a quote from Rick Santorum, that lying sack of shit is totally unacceptable. Not even a nice try, stoner.

Ah, the ole, "I know I'm wrong so I'll attack your source" argument.

Sorry, son. Doesn't cut it. Besides, that tactic didn't work out so good for you all in the NE/Edwards thread.

We found WMDs in Iraq and no amount of whining or lying will undo the truth. Only the Moveon/Kos/Air America crowd still believes we didn't find any.

Better luck next time.

[BoogyMan]

Wow.........I haven't seen that list brought out in a long time......so I'll give you the same answer as when it was first brought out.......all the dates are before the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq.

That doesn't make any sense in the context of Buck's claims, lily. We are being told that Bush deceived the government into believing that Hussein had WMDs and that Hussein was a real problem, yet the truth is that those beliefs were there before Bush and were not only held by the right as that list of names and quotes shows.

[Buck Laser]

Ah, the ole, "I know I'm wrong so I'll attack your source" argument.

Sorry, son. Doesn't cut it. Besides, that tactic didn't work out so good for you all in the NE/Edwards thread.

We found WMDs in Iraq and no amount of whining or lying will undo the truth. Only the Moveon/Kos/Air America crowd still believes we didn't find any.

Better luck next time.
Stoner, it doesn't matter how thin you slice it, it's still bullshit. And the only people who are buying it are the conspiracy freaks of the right. I guess I got what I expected from you. Nothing.

[Stoner]

I guess I got what I expected from you. Nothing.

All you got was proven wrong. It's common knowledge WMDs were found. They talked about it on all the news networks when it happened (however they immediately picked up the libbie party line and said they weren't the ones we were looking for - whatever the hell that means).

Stay in denial all you want but you've been busted and proven completely, unmistakenly, 100% wrong. If you want to debate amongst people who will play along with your charade go to the left-wing extremist websites. If you want to debate me you have to bring facts to the table. But here you're going to have to do better than reciting left wing lies.

Thanks for playing.

[PostmodernProphet]

I guess I got what I expected from you. Nothing.

and as expected, you ignore the truth.....

[penmyst]

When a scandal, like the Edwards scandal, heats up... the first question I would ax myself is "who wants Edwards sunk?"

The guy is OUT of the presidential race. So why would any Republican care one lick about him?

Especially considering this "scandal" was in rumor mode as far back as last year.

Again, just who could want Edwards out of the political picture? Who could have been upset that the drive-by media didn't latch on to the rumors of his scandal last year and eliminate him entirely from the Dem nomination process.. perhaps costing someone precious votes and subsequently the Dem nomination? Who could have turned the screws up NOW since there were ruminations about Edwards being seriously considered by the Obama campaign for VP due to his (Edwards) organized labor popularity? Just who could benefit from Edwards being hooked offstage? Hmmmm.

[Milton Bradley]

When a scandal, like the Edwards scandal, heats up... the first question I would ax myself is "who wants Edwards sunk?"

The guy is OUT of the presidential race. So why would any Republican care one lick about him?

Especially considering this "scandal" was in rumor mode as far back as last year.

Again, just who could want Edwards out of the political picture? Who could have been upset that the drive-by media didn't latch on to the rumors of his scandal last year and eliminate him entirely from the Dem nomination process.. perhaps costing someone precious votes and subsequently the Dem nomination? Who could have turned the screws up NOW since there were ruminations about Edwards being seriously considered by the Obama campaign for VP due to his (Edwards) organized labor popularity? Just who could benefit from Edwards being hooked offstage? Hmmmm.


Give that man a cigar, or the politicall correct non-smoking equivilent.


I think that was right on the mark. That is how realpolitik works.


That is what makes both major ships worth of a torpedo.

[IndieVisible]

I've been a bit bemused by the Edwards "scandal"--hell, throw away the quotation marks, it's a scandal. But Edwards isn't a candidate, and he's clearly not gonna hold any post in the Obama White House. But the scandal broke just as word was getting around about Ron Suskind's new book, which reveals some pretty startling evidence that Bush and all his cronies [b]knew[/u] there were no WMDs in Iraq, but went ahead with it anyway. One can't help but wonder if the Edwards thing is a "wag the dog" operation.

Some writers in the media are wondering the same thing:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x2021817254/Bush-White-House-on-verge-of-Watergate-type-scandal

Take a look. I'm pretty sure you'll find it interesting.

All after the fact and I doubt any one will be shocked or care any more. Too little too late. Not interesting any more.