Presidential Debate Plz Discuss

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

Actually, I was making that up about Simon being a womanizer. I thought that it would be funny because the guy was so unstudly (but I think he's one of the best senators of the last fifty years). Maybe a weird joke to make.

I'm not a socialist, but I do favor socialized health care, and a more robust public sector and different regulations on corporations regarding wages and taxes. I also believe in increased assistance to the disadvantaged. I also believe we need to take the money out of political campaigns because the current system amounts to legalized bribery of politicians.

Oh, and regarding Che and Castro, it is important to draw a distinction between Castro the revolutionary and Castro the dictator.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

Good Lord. The amount of blind, uninformed support for Kerry in this thread is staggering (points to OffBrandNinja for remaining objective and fair - to both candidates, while demerits go to SgtRamrod (ComradeRamrod? /versus/images/graemlins/wink.gif j/k)). Mind you, I am of the opinion that both candidates are cretins and neither deserves to be elected/re-elected. However, among the many there is 1 key difference between the 2 candidates: one is informed and thoroughly briefed on classified materials, the other is not.

People love to constantly refer to the Iraq war as being waged for the wrong reasons. Of course, these individuals have no good reason to make such a claim apart from the fact that they heard it on CNN. I have relatives within the military who have seen intelligence photographs that specifically link Al Qaeda with Iraq. Can this information be publically distributed? No, because it compromises our intelligence network's sources and methods. Nevertheless it stands as a strong reminder that the citizen is not always optimally informed to form well rounded opinions on something as sensitive as the war in Iraq. Education before enuciation, something most of the more rabid Kerry supporters should pay heed to.

The bottom line is that although both candidates are totally inept, it serves one well to really inform oneself about any given issue before lending foamy mouthed support to either. This sort of blind, indignant hatred for Bush and support for Kerry is somewhat unsettling. If the last 15 years or so of UFO research has taught me anything it is to be objective, factual and firm. Objectivity is something I see very little of in this thread. This isn't the 60's. Iraq does not = Vietnam. If you need to manufacture for yourself a cause to froth over then choose one about which you at least know a little.

Regardless, I say let's do our best to prevent either from being elected so that we might stir up these stagnant political waters. This election has been nothing but dark humor so far... To our left: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." ... I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard when I 1st saw that (hate to break it to you John, but support for you within the military is virtually nonexistent, even among black officers). And on our right a candidate who claims the other is sending... "...mexed mistages." while totally confusing the issues (somewhat hypocritical, no?). May the Gods save us all...

Say NO to bi-polar politics.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

[ QUOTE ]
ETPharaoh said:

The amount of blind, uninformed support for Kerry in this thread is staggering ... demerits go to SgtRamrod (ComradeRamrod? /versus/images/graemlins/wink.gif j/k)).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Woe is me! I get called uniformed, receive demerits, and get addressed as ComradeRamrod- all in one sentance. It sucks to be me.

[ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I am of the opinion that both candidates are cretins and neither deserves to be elected/re-elected. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of Bush's mangled syntax, you don't site any specific complaints about the man.

[ QUOTE ]
I have relatives within the military who have seen intelligence photographs that specifically link Al Qaeda with Iraq. Can this information be publically distributed? No, because it compromises our intelligence network's sources and methods.
Nevertheless it stands as a strong reminder that the citizen is not always optimally informed to form well rounded opinions on something as sensitive as the war in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, I always love to hear this argument. A few points here:

1. Not even Bush himself is saying that there are links between al qaeda and Saddam, but he just can't prove it because the intel is too top-secret.

2. A high ranking official in the Bush Administration has stated that there are no proven links between al qaeda and Saddam.

3. On at least two occasions in the past, the Bush administration has compromised intelligence gathering operations for political gain. Once with the Plame Affair and then with the outing of an al qaeda mole.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that although both candidates are totally inept, it serves one well to really inform oneself about any given issue before lending foamy mouthed support to either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being pompous. If I know about anything it's politics. Do I try to tell you about martians and shit? Do I go to where you work and knock the jizz-mop out of your hand?

[ QUOTE ]
I say let's do our best to prevent either from being elected so that we might stir up these stagnant political waters.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the fuck are you talking about? Short of assassination, what could prevent the election of one of these guys?

[ QUOTE ]
This election has been nothing but dark humor so far... To our left: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." ... I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard when I 1st saw that (hate to break it to you John, but support for you within the military is virtually nonexistent, even among black officers). And on our right a candidate who claims the other is sending... "...mexed mistages." while totally confusing the issues (somewhat hypocritical, no?).
Say NO to bi-polar politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see. The whole system is fucked and you want...a candidate in the middle! Fucking Eureka! Wow, you're a moderate iconoclast!

Oh, and if the military so loves Bush, why have all those retired Generals been so critical of the Iraq War?

I mean I realize that a lot of officers are conservative, but I don't think that holds as true for enlisted men. At any rate, there are too many people in the army who look forward to wars so that they can further their careers. That is kind of fucked.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:

A few points here:

1. Not even Bush himself is saying that there are links between al qaeda and Saddam, but he just can't prove it because the intel is too top-secret.

2. A high ranking official in the Bush Administration has stated that there are no proven links between al qaeda and Saddam.

3. On at least two occasions in the past, the Bush administration has compromised intelligence gathering operations for political gain. Once with the Plame Affair and then with the outing of an al qaeda mole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently someone needs to do his homework on how our government/military handles classified materials and how much of it actually reaches sites like those you referenced. Your statement labeled #1. is highly indicative of this fact. As for #2 there is a distinct difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. We haven't conclusively 'proven' the existence and nature of black holes or dark matter either, though we are quite certain they are there. Your 3rd "point" seems to be nothing more than a link to a CNN article that does little to elaborate on your point, and a link to a separate article from a politically biased website. If the accusations you made against Bush in your 3rd "point" are indeed valid then I would like to see a little more evidence than the two informationally vapid articles you supplied.

You refer to my lack of grievances for Bush. I did not initially list them as I did not see the sort of zealous support for Bush in this thread that I saw for Kerry. That, however, does not mean that there are no such grievances. So then, to be fair, I will note that I strongly disagree with Bush's positions on issues varying from abortion and stem cell research to certain aspects of his economic policies (the lack of insurance support for those near poverty levels is just appalling, for one).

I do find your other comments rather amusing. They are typical of the countless other starry-eyed zealots that support both Bush and Kerry (though the sort of baseless, volatile attacks you are guilty of would fail to impress anyone more complicated that somone with a boiled potato for a brain): highly emotional, ignorant and otherwise useless. Perhaps you missed the "j/k" when I referred to you as Comrade. Apart from poor comprehension or, perhaps, having been struck a little too close to home, I can see no reason for your volatility. It isn't surprising, just senseless.

Oh, one last thing. For reference, I would love to see a list of the General's you referred to that have denounced the war in Iraq.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

AND INE THIS TRAILORR WEKNOW THEY AREA MAKIN WEAPON OF MASSDEstruCTION! BESIDES THAT WeHA VE INTEELIGENCe FrOM UNKN OWN SOURQES HEYH UP (WE KANT TELL DOSE BUT HERE S A SHADOWFIGURINE!). ©Powell

/KiwE (Interchange that to Al-Quida ties)

 

...

You are making the following argument:

Bush has <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence that he cannot present to Congress or the media. This <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence would vidicate Bush in eyes of those who question his justifications for going to war. Unfortunately Bush cannot reveal this <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence because it would be too damaging to our intelligence gathering operations. Of course the public release of this <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence would help Bush to get re-elected, but Bush is such a Patriot that he would never compromise the integrity of intelligence gathering for political gain. Therefore, whoever Bush decides to conquer, we should not worry about it because after all, what the fuck do we know compared to our philosopher-king George W. Bush?

I'm sorry, but this is a falacious argument that can't withstand any scrutiny. I will give you a small list of reasons why.

1. Bush has stopped making the Saddam/al qaeda connections claims in his speeches. Why? Because he knows there is no evidence that there are any. Don't take my word for it. Let's ask the President himself:

During one of his rare press conferences, President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

I could stop here, but I will offer more...

2. The President could claim that he has the <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence and show it privately to a small, select bipartisan group of, say, U.S. Senators, who could publicly vouch for its authenticity.

3. As I stated earlier, this administration has compromised intelligence for political purposes before. I even provided two helpful links to illustrate this point. In the first case, the White House gave (treasonous asshole) Robert Novak the name of Joeseph Wilson's wife, who was an undercover CIA agent. This put her and her assets at risk and was illegal. It was payback because Joeseph Wilson pointed out that the Bush Administration was using known forgeries to make the case that Saddam had acquired nuclear material. There is a grand jury looking into who exactly leaked her name to Novak.

And for the outing of the Pakistani mole, I quote Eric Alterman, Phd:
[ QUOTE ]
Due to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has issued a series of terrorist alerts that have shown fortuitous timing in coming on the heels of the president's fall in approval ratings, the DHS has lost credibility with the American public. In order to remedy this, after issuing the latest alert last week, an administration official disclosed to journalists that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer, who had been arrested in Pakistan in July, was the source of the information leading to the latest alert. The problem with this disclosure, of course, was that Khan had been working with the Pakistani government to track al Qeada suspects (including e-mailing six of them in the United States) as well as in the United Kingdom and Pakistan. This week, Pakistan announced that the outing of Khan also allowed several wanted terror suspects to escape, all in the name of trying to restore the damaged credibility of the administration and the DHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you now see a pattern of this administration priveleging political concerns over intelligence gathering concerns?

Do you really want a little list of Military Men opposing Bush's policies? Here goes:

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith  deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak  chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar  commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr.  chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.

Let's not forget former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark (and he's a Journey fan).

Best of all, here's a link to speech given by Retired Four Star General Anthony Zinni.

I hope this my post does not seem shrill. At any rate, don't concern yourself too much with politics. I think that your interests may suit you better anyway. After all, if you can believe anything the Bush Administration says, believing in Martians or the Easter Bunny does not seem like such a stretch.

xoxoxo

 

Re: ...

OWNZORD

 

Re: ...

Very. I don't live in the US so I don't want to get into the debate (but I've been following it very closely as I love these things mostly cause I'm intrested in rethorics etc) but I can tell you that from a Swedish Pov, maybe european even, it's very hard to understand how so many want Bush to remain president. I believe about 85% + wanted Kerry to be President in a poll done in one of the biggest newspapers (aftonbladet) etc etc.

I can't help but wonder how the situation would have looked like in US if Bush had bombed, say, Canada on false grounds cause it housed terrorists or was believed to have connections to Al-Quida or bombed / went to war with China (against the UN) cause they judged that it was a dictatorship that needed free elections (in retrospective). Nobody seems to care about a country when it's in the middleeast basicly and that's sad. It's amazing how they've been able to spin this into strong leadership imo. Granted; it's impressive. Bla bla I won't rant anymore / go into deepths but I think it's important that you guys have a constructive debate and not feel instant hate (which I've seen throughout these threads) when someone is of a different opinion. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

/KiwE

 

Re: ...

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:

You are making the following argument:

Bush has <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence that he cannot present to Congress or the media. This <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence would vidicate Bush in eyes of those who question his justifications for going to war. Unfortunately Bush cannot reveal this <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence because it would be too damaging to our intelligence gathering operations. Of course the public release of this <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence would help Bush to get re-elected, but Bush is such a Patriot that he would never compromise the integrity of intelligence gathering for political gain. Therefore, whoever Bush decides to conquer, we should not worry about it because after all, what the fuck do we know compared to our philosopher-king George W. Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

1st of all, in addition to putting a few extra words in my mouth, your comments are highlighted in such a way that it seems as though you think that I am pro-Bush. I need not remind you that I stand in the middle and have no desire to see either candidate elected/re-elected. My desire is to be objective and fair. That being said I will look into the information you have supplied with a careful eye. As for the scenario referred to above...

Two other possibilities are that:

1. Bush is unable to reveal this information, not because it would be damaging to his political cause but because he is bound by having signed a non-disclosure statement which would therefore prevent him from even acknowleding the very existence of this intelligence, let alone the contents. If you know anything about how highly classified intelligence works you should know how highly controlled it is. The possibility remains that revealing this intelligence could be more harmful to the cause of our troops/intelligence than helpful.

2. Bush himself has been kept in the dark regarding the specifics of such intelligence. He may have been advised by persons within his military staff that such a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda does exists but was not given the full plate of facts. Of course, that would beg the question why would my relatives know while our commander in chief doesn't. Seems highly unlikely but looking back through history you would be surprised to learn exactly how little certain president's have been told with regards to intelligence operations operating here and abroad.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
I'm sorry, but this is a falacious argument that can't withstand any scrutiny. I will give you a small list of reasons why.

1. Bush has stopped making the Saddam/al qaeda connections claims in his speeches. Why? Because he knows there is no evidence that there are any. Don't take my word for it. Let's ask the President himself:

During one of his rare press conferences, President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be playing the semantics game here but a direct link between Iraq and the specific "men who attacked on Sept. 11th" is most assuredly non-existent. However, other more subtle links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the form of terrorist training camps etc. do exist. I wish to the gods that I could obtain and post the photos that my uncle, a now retired Navy officer told me about during his last visit when I suggested that there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I plan to get more information from him and do a little reasearch of my own. Unfortunately, most of the intelligence related to the Iraq/terror/Al-Qaeda links remains highly classified so FOIA requests are out. I will once again stress that my intent here is to remain objective. If the facts turn out to indicate strongly that Bush manufactured imaginary connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda for lord knows what reasons, then I will turn around and agree with you, Sarge. As things stand now, I don't see a whole lot of facts. Plenty of political speculation but very few hard facts. In fact, your 1st reason that suggests why my "argument" is "falacious" is nothing more than speculation as are the 2 scenarios I supplied above. You really don't know why Bush stopped using the Iraq/Al-Qaeda lines. It is entirely possible that he stopped because it was discovered that there were no links. However, it is also equally possible that he has other reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
I could stop here, but I will offer more...

2. The President could claim that he has the <font color="green"> secret </font> intelligence and show it privately to a small, select bipartisan group of, say, U.S. Senators, who could publicly vouch for its authenticity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think this demonstrates a basic ignorance of how highly classified materials are handled. A cursory review of American history in the past 60 years or so will demonstrate that Congress and the Senate are more often kept out of the loop regarding highly classified subjects than not. A frightening prospect in some respects, it tends to do away with our system of checks and balances. Nevertheless it is reality. That being said, it is entirely possible that a committee like the one you suggested might not even be possible.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
3. As I stated earlier, this administration has compromised intelligence for political purposes before. I even provided two helpful links to illustrate this point. In the first case, the White House gave (treasonous asshole) Robert Novak the name of Joeseph Wilson's wife, who was an undercover CIA agent. This put her and her assets at risk and was illegal. It was payback because Joeseph Wilson pointed out that the Bush Administration was using known forgeries to make the case that Saddam had acquired nuclear material. There is a grand jury looking into who exactly leaked her name to Novak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of very strong accusations here. I would very much like more information on this (especially regarding the supposed forged documents). Although it sounds alot like more speculation, I would very much like more information. I will poke around and if you can supply me with any helpful links etc. I would be greatful. If your allegations are true then I would be much less likely to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I need specifics though. Traceable, legitimate sources. Not the garbage that can be found on politically biased sites under the guise of being factual.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
And for the outing of the Pakistani mole, I quote Eric Alterman, Phd:
[ QUOTE ]
Due to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has issued a series of terrorist alerts that have shown fortuitous timing in coming on the heels of the president's fall in approval ratings, the DHS has lost credibility with the American public. In order to remedy this, after issuing the latest alert last week, an administration official disclosed to journalists that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer, who had been arrested in Pakistan in July, was the source of the information leading to the latest alert. The problem with this disclosure, of course, was that Khan had been working with the Pakistani government to track al Qeada suspects (including e-mailing six of them in the United States) as well as in the United Kingdom and Pakistan. This week, Pakistan announced that the outing of Khan also allowed several wanted terror suspects to escape, all in the name of trying to restore the damaged credibility of the administration and the DHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I need to know specifics for this information to be considered valid. Eric Alterman is a known liberal and that tends to make this particular reference somewhat useless in the eyes of fairness. I'm not interested in what some floppy eyed liberal has to say about the situation listed. Neither am I interested in some floppy brained Republicans rebuttal. I want facts. Objective, hard facts.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
Do you now see a pattern of this administration priveleging political concerns over intelligence gathering concerns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no. I need more than unsubstantiated left wing propaganda to pique my interest. Substantiate things for me and I may change my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
Do you really want a little list of Military Men opposing Bush's policies? Here goes:

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith  deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak  chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar  commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr.  chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.

Let's not forget former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark (and he's a Journey fan).

Best of all, here's a link to speech given by Retired Four Star General Anthony Zinni.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I will look into the records of these individuals and see what I come up with. I have a feeling that I will probably seeing the word "Democrat" pop up a number of times but that doesn't necessarily discount the viewpoints of the men you listed. It is also worth noting that the list of Generals who do support the war quite significantly dwarfs this list of those who do not.

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:
I hope this my post does not seem shrill. At any rate, don't concern yourself too much with politics. I think that your interests may suit you better anyway. After all, if you can believe anything the Bush Administration says, believing in Martians or the Easter Bunny does not seem like such a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

More veiled insults, more begging the question. Where did I even once indicate that I believe what the Bush administration has to say? The trite comment about "Martians" and the "Easter Bunny" is both simultaneously ignorant, pointless and childish. More assumption and speculation, I might add. You know what my beliefs are? No? Then I can only assume that the Martian bit was a feeble attempt at humor.

 

Re: ...

Spectacular. It's been so long since I've heard political arguments demanding solid rational evidence (not to mention promoting objectivity) that I nearly shed a tear reading this. There's only one problem, however. Do you really expect a guy with "W stands for Worst President ever" in his signature line to be objective and fair?

 

Re: ...

ETP go back to Mars, Pluto or another universe b/c your insight is just too much for me tiny little human brain to comprehend. /versus/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

Ramrod's Classified Dossier

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this...

George W. Bush personally trained the 9/11 hijackers at his ranch so that they could carry out the WTC attack and save his presidency. That's why he was on vacation so much during his first nine months. My cousin is in the CIA and he's seen the pictures. Even John Kerry has seen the pictures, but he can't say that he's seen them because their existance is,like, totally secret, dude.

My CIA source has also seen pictures, taken from a hidden camera in a Pakistani cave. Because of the sensitive nature of these pictures, I don't want to describe them in graphic detail, but suffice it to say, these pictures clearly show Osama bin Laden, the Bush twins, and and a sheep in some very compromising and unnatural positions...

Do these pictures suggest a quid pro quo of some kind? I don't want to speculate. I only report. You decide.

 

Re: Ramrod's Classified Dossier

Well then, my only option left for President is Lau Chan. Even though he can't actually get into office because he's a foreigner (that, and being a fictional character), he supports my views. He likes to cook, and check out his superb articulation in this recent press conference:

[ QUOTE ]

Reporter for NY Times: Mr. Chan, your opponents in this election have made claims that you do, in fact, devour human hearts in order to command their eternal souls. Is there any truth to these claims?

Lau: (blood curdling scream) YAHHHHHH!

[/ QUOTE ]

See that? I know where my vote's going, and if any of you have any sense, you'll agree with me. Otherwise, Lau will cook your kidney in a skillet and feed it to you.

 

Re: ...

"Traceable, legitimate sources. Not the garbage that can be found on politically biased sites under the guise of being factual. "

Oh what like your Uncle?

No offence, but who gives a fuck what your Uncle thinks? - Nobody, otherwise he'd be a person of importance., and he's not.

Ex-millitary or not, it doesn't make him an intelligence expert, AND by your own admission he's yet to show yourself any evidence to back up his claims. Try to be objective hey?

On the issue of why Bush stopped making claims about links between Saddam and 9/11 I believe there are two main reasons.

1. There is absolutely no evidence to back it up.

2. Blair wouldn't have been able to agree, which would have led to serious issues considering they're both trying to give off an impression of solidarity on the War on Terror.

I think you need to ask yourself why did Bush leave Afghanistan when the job was nowhere near completion and start an entirely new war in Iraq, when it posed absolutely no immediate threat to us?

If the answer you come up with is some mysterious piece of intelligence, which for some mysterious reason can't be revealed even though all other bits of intelligence were revealed to make the case for war, you need your head checked. Besides why wouldn't they reveal the one bit of intelligence that would vindicate the President?

Its much easier for me to accept (and I'm trying to be truly objective), however much I'd like to belive we can trust our politicians, that both our governments exaggerated (possibly lied about) the threat Iraq posed and have been back-pedalling ever since for the interests of individuals rather than the nation or the planet as a whole.

Sorry, but being objective, thats the conclusion I have to come to.