[texasmountainman]

Why is Bush saying this? What about Salman Pak? Sometimes I don't understand why he does things like this. Just like the needless apology for the 16 words in the SOTU.
Frustrating.

[theFIRMbss]

>Why is Bush saying this? ... Sometimes I don't understand why he does things like this. Just like the needless apology for the 16 words in the SOTU. Frustrating.

[daniel boob]

Flame me if you want--but W better have a real good ploy in pocket. I think we are going back to the days of Trent "no cajones" Lott.

We should have pounded the 9th circuit. We should bitch slap the Judiciary for Estrada. Gas prices are through the roof, jobless claims are rising, work is going south (or worse, east) and the liberals are spouting lies (I know, we can't stop that) and Bush seems more worried about the energy task force than playing hardball.

I think it is time to kick some pre-election ass but I'm beginning to think we don't have the balls to do it. Fortunately, living in Texas, we are getting redistricting taken care of--because PERRY HAS CAJONES! Am I missing something?

/rant

[cyncooper]

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Not an apology in sight, and a confirmation of the ties al Qaeda had with Iraq.

[alnick]

Why is Bush saying this? What about Salman Pak?

Salman Pak is not evidence that Saddam had anything to do specifically with 9/11. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rice nor Rummy has said that Saddam was not connected with AQ. They've said that they have no hard evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. This is nothing new; they've said this all along.