Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This is so DAMN disgusting. Now they're not just falsely accusing Bush of lying in things he did say, but in things he DIDN'T say. And it's not the Democrats on the campaign trail, or in Congress, but the press. This would be outrageous spin even if it were on the editorial page, BUT IT'S NOT. This is a "news" story built on a blatant lie!

Dana Milbank, how the HELL can someone "disavow" a postition they have never "avowed" in the first place?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

1 posted on 09/18/2003 10:17:17 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Stultis; pokerbuddy0; Badabing Badaboom
Gosh. I seem to remember the Bush Admin going WAY out of the way to deny links between Atta and Iraq, like the meetings in Prague.
2 posted on 09/18/2003 10:22:44 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis
Letters to the Editor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

Email the Ombudsman:
ombudsman@washpost.com

Email Dana Milbank
whitehouse@washpost.com

3 posted on 09/18/2003 10:23:50 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis
So let me get this strait. Dana Milibank, Bush hater, writes a column in which he lies about the claims of the Bush administration, and now publishes this as some sort of "clarification"? He should be fired.
4 posted on 09/18/2003 10:29:35 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn
Ping!
6 posted on 09/18/2003 10:45:39 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis
Doesn't anyone besides me remember that Bush did in fact say that he had proof that Iraq was involved in Sept 11th? And he would show is the proof in the future.
8 posted on 09/18/2003 10:47:16 PM PDT by UnsinkableMollyBrown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nutmeg
.
16 posted on 09/18/2003 11:09:36 PM PDT by nutmeg ("The DemocRATic party...has been hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters..." - Pat Caddell, 11/27/00)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis
This is a war on terrorism, not a war on just Al Queda. Saddam Hussein's regime was a terrorist one.
19 posted on 09/18/2003 11:20:33 PM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Dog; Miss Marple; ohioWfan; Molly Pitcher
ping
21 posted on 09/19/2003 12:25:01 AM PDT by kayak (I support Billybob - www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis
This has GOT to be a feeding frenzy for them. Check out this carp! And the comments! What th...? So now he tells us: Bush admits no Iraqi link to Sept. 11
"With those attacks" on Sept. 11, Bush said, "the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

McClellan said the president did not intend to suggest that Iraq was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks.

What horses--t. He may not have come out and stated that Hussein was involved, but he most certainly implied that he could have been. This is from State of the Union address back in January.
Poster-Re: What th...? So now he tells us: Bush admits no Iraqi link to Sept. 11 (Score: 1)
by regular_joe3_0 on Thursday, September 18 @ 11:26:47 EDT
(User Info)

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said, definitively knocking down a link that Bush's critics charge he and his administration have intimated and benefited from in prosecuting the war on Iraq.

BULL----!

In his letter to the Congress justifying the war in Iraq, Smirk stated unequivocally that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?thold=-1&mode=nested&order=0&sid=13009#80848 What ammo can refute these savage comments at this site!!!

23 posted on 09/19/2003 2:50:25 AM PDT by anglian ((as i scrape the crud off me boots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis
This is so DAMN disgusting. Now they're not just falsely accusing Bush of lying in things he did say, but in things he DIDN'T say.

The buck stops with Bush alone. There was no reason to undermine Dick Cheney's MTP appearance by denying an Iraq-9/11 link. Why not simply say we have evidence of it, and not reveal sources? Now Katie and Company are grinning about Bush's "flip flop" this morning.

Korl Rove is asleep at the wheel. Who is running the store over there?

44 posted on 09/19/2003 5:33:04 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson