[11th Earl of Mar]

While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron

Just in case anybody is wondering how badly liberals are wanting Bush's scalp.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

PUH-LEEEEZE!

Yeah, let 'em keep hoping. Ain't gonna work. If they thought the country was against going after Beelzebubba, then just let 'em try going after a President like Bush with his currently popularity and the public's understanding that what we're doing is for our own protection and national security.

Yeah, go ahead, Demonazis, try it...

[jocko12]

WHAT SCANDAL!!!!

[Lancey Howard]

You would think a guy who is married to an aging prostitute would have better things to do than concoct Democrat fantasies. On the other hand, these may be the only fantasies Dean has left.

[Young Rhino]

Time to put John Dean alone in a room with G. Gordon Liddy...actually, it is about 30 years overdue.

[rintense]

Oh give me a break. If they impeach Bush, they have to impeach Clinton- AGAIN. It's the same intel. Yet, no one called for Clinton's head. Oh, I forget. Monica did. And that's why he attacked Iraq.

[Pokey78]

John Dean. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

The libs are running of straws to grasp.

[Allegra]

Oh, cry me a freakin' river, John Dean.

These guys reek of desperation.

[goose1]

Give me a break I hope they try it it will blow up right in the RATS face.These liberals are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel now.

[The Iguana]

...and John Dean should be indicted for serial perjury.

[altura]

Is John Dean writing a book?

[HitmanLV]

Truth is, if there are no WMD in Iraq, we have lost a ton of credibility - we either lied or were just very wrong, and in either case it's not very good.

I think WMD will be found in the coming weeks, actually I think the Bush-Blair alliance is doing a classic 'rope-a-dope.' I think they are sitting on info very damning to Iraq until we get more evidence and verify other evidence. They are giving the bad guys enough rope to really hang themselves.

At least I hope that's the case - they stuck their necks out, and if they knew they were wrong it was insane for them to posture as much as they did. It would likely mean Blair's political career, and could threaten Bush' reelection - though in the latter case I think most americans don't care. In any case, if he knowingly decieved us, that was a rotten thing to do and it certainly couldn't help him.

[FairOpinion]

So let's start quoting the Democrats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924988/posts

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored. ...

-- Tom Daschle, October 11, 2002


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924722/posts

"[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."

Signed by prominent Democrats, October 9, 1998, a letter to Clinton.

[maxwell]

I don't get it. I thought the military was over there uncovering WMDs just one stash right after the other. Every time I turned around there was a new post on FR about "this or that found", so I don't understand this hoopla about "where's the weapons".

[altura]

Dean, who starts his commentary with Bush has got a ...
probably thinks he is more literate than Bush.

[Maceman]

You know, I remember how John Dead wrote columns of outrage when Clinton -- without going to Congress or the UN -- bombed Iraq in 1998 the day before the impeachment vote in order to delay the proceedings until the next COngressional session when there would be more Democrats.

I'll never forget how Dean was so elequent in condemning Clinton for bombing Iraqi civilians for mere political gain. Oh wait. Dean never said anything about that. Never mind.

[Porterville]

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too

I guess this is to make him an unbiased bitch....well he's still a biased bitch.

[finnman69]

HERE is a reminder of what all were saying about the intelligence prior to the invasion. Including TOM DASCHLE.

http://www.senate.gov/~daschle/pdf/iraqresolution101002.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924988/posts


Daschle convinced of Iraq's WMD (FLASHBACK: Daschle statement October 11, 2002)

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on a Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force, if Necessary, to End the Threat to World Peace from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Thursday, October 10, 2002

Mr. President, we are now engaged in one of the most consequential debates addressed in this chamber in
many years. We are confronting the grave issues of war and peace. We are considering how the United
States should respond to a murderous dictator who has shown that he will be bound neither by conscience,
nor by the laws or principles of civilized nations. And we are contemplating whether, and under what
conditions, the Congress should authorize the pre-emptive use of American military power to remove the
threat he poses.

These questions go directly to who we are as a nation. How we answer them will have profound
consequences -- for our nation, for our allies, for the war on terrorism, and -- perhaps most importantly -- for
the men and women in our armed forces who could be called to risk their lives because of our decisions.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who has done barbaric things. He has invaded
neighbors, supported terrorists, repressed and murdered his own people. Over the last several months, as the
world has sought to calm the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Iraq has tried to inflame the situation
by speaking against the very existence of Israel and encouraging suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made
no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated
the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq’s nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That
agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.

For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to
key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no
choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq’s
arsenal.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological
agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including
VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible
weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is
committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf
region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to
US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real.
It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.

--snip----
Second: We need to make it clear to the world that the reason we would use force in Iraq is to remove
Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I would prefer that this goal had been made explicit in this
resolution. However, it is clear from this debate that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are the principal
threat to the United States -- and the only threat that would justify the use of United States military force
against Iraq. It is the threat that the President cited repeatedly in his speech to the American people Monday
night. It may also be the only threat that can rally the world to support our efforts. Therefore, we expect, and
success demands, that the Administration not lose sight of this essential mission.

[prisoner6]

As much as I hate to say it the dems are going to keep working this. No, he can't be impeached over it BUT if they keep it up he could have problems getting re-elected.

I was watching this at FARK this morning and the usually fairly conservative crowd there was waffling.

FWIW I also think keeping Chaney on is a mistske. The pubbies need to be grooming someone to take over. Not Jeb, absolutely not Powell and Chaney won't make it. Rice is a question mark but at this point I'd put her at a disadvantage. It all depends on how she is promoted over the next term.

prisoner6

[F.J. Mitchell]

It took five years to find Eric Rudolph, and it was just blind luck that that deputy stumbled upon him. It took decades to catch the Uni-bomber and only then by a tip from a family member who recognized his diatribe. THey are still looking for the Lost Dutchman gold mine in Arizona, Bopeep is still looking for her sheep, Clinton is still seareching for a legacy, Dr. Kilmer is still seeking the one arm man, David Banner is still seeking a permanent metamorphis from his Hulk alter ego. Wonder Woman is searching for her Invisible Air plane-but our troops are expected to find weapons of mass destruction, hidden somewhere in Iraq, over a period of twelve years, faster than Robert Byrd can arrange another pork barrel program for West Virginia.

[spectacularbid2003]

I don't know a "John Dean" that hasn't been a disservice to our country in one way or the other.