[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.

[Gritty]

"A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it." (John Dean)

Coming in the wake of eight years of clinton maladministration, this sentence is a real howler!

[Imperialist]

Has John Dean forgotten the events of 9/11/01? GWB has all the authority he needs for the recent, and next, few wars against the islamofacists. GWB has done well in our fight against terrorism during his first term, and he did not seek this fight. I am confident GWB will be re-elected so as to continue the good fight.

[PISANO]

I see, now I get it. We should IMPEACH GW because he didn't USE faulty, sparadic and unrelated intelligence that somehow should have devined some sort of revalation to take preemptive action to STOP the WTC attack and once we do that we can IMPEACH GW for taking credible, specific and coordinated intelligence from MANY SOURCES including those from defectors and foriegn intelligence agencies, and using that to preemptively attack Iraq. Now it all makes perfect sense, I was confused BEFORE! Now I am ok!

[montag813]

Everyone knows where the WMD's are...
SYRIA

But the President's strange obsession with rewarding Palestinian terrorists is not only keeping U.S. forces out of Syria, but letting them off the hook for meaningless words and gestures, and we are actually considering PAYING them $500 million to "dismantle" Hizbollah in Lebanon (yeah right, they'll do that). If we were true to the war on terror, the next stop would be the dimantle the Assad regime in Syria.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

REPUBLICANS = The FREEDOM Party

DEMOCRATS = The Anti-FREEDOM Party

[doc]

Unfortunately the Bush administration was duped by misleading foreign intelligence. This was done to pull us into this war. If our intelligence was so accurate inside Iraq as to pinpoint Iraqi military leaders going into meetings surely this intelligence could have pinpointed and followed the path of WMD. Afterall this was the number one reason for us entering this war. I am beyond being skeptical because it has taken this long to come up with any substantial evidence of WMD. The only chance this administration has now of getting out of this mess is to plant the evidence which will be have to carefully thought out before implementing.

[madison10]

...and I repeat WHAT SCANDAL?!?!?! This should not even be an issue. The Dem/Liberals are sooo desperate.

[kesg]

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

Beyond pathetic. These people need professional help.

[Sparta]

They have to prove Iraq didn't have WMDs first. Then, if they prove that, they have to prove that Bush wasn't duped himself. But, I don't think they can prove either of the two things I just said.

[Numbers Guy]

Dean quotes the thoroughly discredited Guardian story about Paul Wolfowitz and the "sea of oil". Even the Guardian retracted the story on Thursday. Yet Dean wrote this piece on Friday and should have known full well the story had been wtihdrawn.

The guy has no business talking about credibility or lies when he repeats them himself.

And citing Krugman and Dowd as sources? Gee, why did he leave out Molly Ivins?

[dalebert]

HaHa!!!! What a joke. Where are the dems who said that Saddam had WMDs?

[Bonaparte]

October 1998:Senate Democrats Signed Letter Urging Clinton To Attack Saddam Over WMDs

[ampat]

Someone pleeeze dig up some dirt on Dean to keep him busy elsewhere.

[tictoc]

Elton John	John Dean

[liberalnot]

john dean was, of course, the first rat off of dick nixon's sinking ship.

radio kfi this afternoon was advertising dean as a "republican" and devoted a lot of time to the coming impeachment of bush. you heard it first on kfi, they said.

[TLBSHOW]

SHOULD SENATE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO CONFIRM ALL BUSH SUPREME COURT NOMINEES? REFLECTIONS ON PROFESSOR ACKERMAN’S PROPOSAL

By JOHN DEAN

Meanwhile, in anticipation, a distinguished constitutional scholar and Yale law professor, Bruce Ackerman, has called upon the Senate to withhold its advice and consent for any and all Supreme Court nominations by President George W. Bush. Ackerman’s proposal has created a bit of buzz in Washington, and when, a few days ago, it was editorially embraced by the Boston Globe, I starting thinking about its viability.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20010427.html

[Susannah]

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

Well-known to those of us who search out the truth. Unfortunately, there are many people who have little time or access to anything other than liberal media. I try to share what I learn on the internet with people who mostly rely on ABC, CBS, NBC for their news.

It may be worthwhile to print out and distribute the type of info much of the public doesn't get prior to the election. My mother only gets a liberal newspaper, basic tv channels and neither my brother or I have been able to convince her that the Democrats are lying.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Anyone mind if I question Dean's patriotism? Also: A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Dean conveniently omits recent history of President Bill Clinton lying under oath. Obviously a president can get away with flat out lying if he's brazen enough and selfish enough to put himself above the interests of the nation.

[af_vet_rr]

The liberals want Bush bad and will focus on anything. Unless WMD are truly found (We know they had them, either they are in another country *COUGH* IRAN AND SYRIA *COUGH* or they were destroyed). Either way, expect this to be a very very big issue next year.

I don't think Dean comparing this to Johnson was a good comparison. Johnson and company basically fabricated or blew out of proportion a lot of things so they could ramp up and get into nation building, errr defeating those pesky communists, and the press helped them without questioning any of it. Whatever Johnson and his boys said was reported as fact. Look at Reagan or either Bush in the WH, whatever they say is picked over with a fine-toothed comb and reported as "supposedly" or "reported", etc. I have to keep reminding myself that the media is not biased ;-)

[RightWhale]

For some reason I printed out an AP article on 10 Oct 02, containing the text of the resolution passed by the House-- "Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" and read the whereases again just now. Seems clear enough that the House and the Senate wanted this.