You want to know why there were only 3 bumps? Because for the life of me, I can't understand why the president doesn't exploit this.
For example, we know Saddam had WMD - he never showed any proof he got rid of them, yet the administration says he doesn't have them. What kind of logic is that?
Why the President is saying Al Qaeda was never in Iraq - or they don't have WMD - (even though they used them in IED's) I can't understand.
I guess for the same reason they don't bring up the OKC connection, TWA800, Ron Brown's murder, etc. New Tone.
I trust you know about Jack Cashill's latest video, 'Mega Fix'?
PING FOR AN IMPORTANT QUESTION!!
I has puzzled me as well. I think I know the answer.
You have to understand that Bush has been accused of "lying" for saying things that the CIA will dispute and leak to the New York Times. See Bob Novak's "CIA v Bush" piece Linked from here:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
I think Bush is in a corner in terms of the Saddam/WMD/terror links due to CIA reports that have 'gone south' in terms of what they are 'believing'. I think some in the CIA are out to get Bush and are *refusing to make intelligence claims that might support Bush's position*!!
The way the CIA assessment of situation in Iraq, an overly negative assessment btw, was leaked to the New York Times, bears this out. Put on your conspiracy-hat for a moment: Joe Wilson, the '16 words' Niger scandal-monger and liar, met a New York Times columnist *at a Democratic Senatorial party* - they conspired on the story from there. Folks like this embedded in the CIA are using MSM links to 'debunk' even true points about Saddams WMD pursuit and terror links. There are other Joe Wilson's in the CIA; they just haven't come forward by name. And unlike Rather-gate, we dont have access to the source docs to refute the 'analysis'. It can get filtered through anonymous sources to the New York Times to become "the story".
Thus, the details and facts of Saddam's support for terrorism and his pursuit of WMDs is washed away in a river of NYT words that put anonymous intel officials talking
of 'no links' or down-playing any evidence or source material.
Rumsfeld let slip this intelligence 'ignorance' the other day by saying the intel could even tell if Zarqawi was helped by saddam. (Funny those CNS docs seem to have something to say on that, and its obvious he was a terrorist *working out of baghdad*!! but 'never mind', CIA will say they cant conclude there is a link.)
What is Bush to do? I think since January of this year, Bush has had 3 not-so-good interactions publicly: MTP Tim Russert, April press conference, Debate Thursday. The common thread was Iraq and justification for war came up. Bush is not making claims and being defensive because if he goes out on a limb, CIA underlings are going to cut it off.
Bush has chosen this approach: Rather than debate or defend the WMD claims in specifics, he will stick to generalities, not specifics and point out the benefits of victory in Iraq.
He is not tangling in details because he doesnt want to get into a 'gotcha' trap of making a claim the MSM will trumpet as false.
Here is the way out: He should simply report on what the 9/11 commission and CIA *do* acknowledge, and get something out in the open that is bolder and more forceful than the MSM interpretation. For example, instead of 'no collaborative links' point out that the 911 commission reported that Saddam offered Osama Bin Laden safe haven in 1998 and that there were contacts between Saddams intelligence service and AL Qaeda for most of the 1990s.
etc.