Iran role suspected in brazen Iraq attack

CNN ^ | UPDATED: 10:00 p.m. EST, January 30, 2007 | CNN Staff

[FreeReign]

And I'm just pointing out that he needs to talk to them more, every night if necessary with charts and pictures. He can't just rely on Tony Snow and Rush to get the message out. How can he compete with all the lies out there circulated by the DBM to destroy him. Or by members of Congress who go unchallenged with their undermining day after day. If the American people were really listening to the president, they wouldn't be fooled by the likes of a power-hungry witch in a pantsuit. It's late and maybe I'm not making much sense here so let's call it a night.

Sounds like you are calling the American people a little slow on the uptake.

... and you may be right. :)

Goodnight Miss Didi.

[Marine_Uncle]

I was being specific regarding how the POTUS goes along with the notion Saddam had no WMD's nor WMD programs in place.
Much of the criticism he has received over a period of time was where he was willing to use false information as an excuse to invade Iraq. His opponents in all forms conveniently use this argument to diminish the importance for removing Saddam.
And as far as the world is concerned, Saddam had no WMD. You hear it all the time. When quite the contrary can be found to had existed.
If hording 1.7 tons of highly enriched uranium in the Salmon Pak area is not important, then what is the beef about Iran being in the very early stages of obtaining such materials as they ramp up their underground serial cascade centrifuge systems.
His wording to the effect that we goofed on intel on Iraq and now must be extra carefull in evaluating Iranian nuclear ambitions worries me.
As far as I am concerned. The intel was good. He could have all along said, we cannot devulge a lot of things that will eventually be made public. And stuck to that scheme.