[AFPhys]

I just noticed that you posted this comment two days ago... but I'm going to reply anyway.

Whether the news media likes it or not, the "16 words" did express the truth, and exactly what President Bush meant to say. When I READ those words over MYSELF, rather than let some media flunkie interpret them for me, I immediately NOTICED the way the president made that statement. I'm a bear of somewhat little brain, but I KNEW that meant our US intel had probably not had as much confidence in that statement as the Brits did, but that nevertheless the President elected to include this in his speech because of the tremendous importance of possible concealment of a nuclear program by Hussein.

This tempest in a teapot has been dismissed by me from day one for this reason. He said what he meant, and meant what he said. Case closed.

It would be helpful if more people could learn to listen, to read and think about what they read, wouldn't it?

[Peach]

Yes. I think what is the most confusing about the made-up "scandal", is the administration's rather bumbling explanations. All the had to do was keep repeating the "16 words" and say that the CIA wasn't able to independently verify the information but British intel was sure enough of their source that the administration deemed it important enough to be included in a State of the Union address. Enough said. The explanations have, in a way, made it worse.

But your point is well taken - if people would read for themselves and analyze what they've read, the could reach their own conclusions without being led by the media. Of course, that assumes that the liberal filter is appropriate quoting adminsitration officials, something we both know happens quite rarely. The new DNC ad, for example, doesn't mention the words "British intelligence". It's all misleading for people who don't take the time to read carefully themselves.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

It would be helpful if more people could learn to listen, to read and think about what they read, wouldn't it?

Why would we bother to do that when the humane liberal 'Rats and their lamestream media lap dogs are kind enough to tell us what was said and what to think about it?