Study: False statements preceded war

[HAL 9000 96]

This is old news....The fact is that they, Bush, Condy, and Colin were using the best available intellegence at the time.

The premise here is that they intentionally mislead the people, and the world, to go to war. That's absurd.

The fact is that they did not use the best available intelligence but dismissed some of it in favor of testimony by the enemy that furthered their case to go war. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Nothing more needs to be said.

Well if you say nothing more needs to be said then I guess that's the final word on the matter. Closed minds always dominate......

Please listen up everyone. No more input to this thread as "nothing more needs to be said".... :lol

Closed minds? The fact is that Bush knowingly sold to the American people as fact what he knew the DIA had long since refuted as nonsense: that Saddam trained AQ in chem, bio and explosives. He simply lied to the public on this claim and that is well documented.

Well, here's where the one needs to appeal to ones common sense....." Bush knowingly sold to the American people as fact what he knew the DIA had long since refuted as nonsense: that Saddam trained AQ in chem, bio and explosives. He simply lied to the public on this claim and that is well documented.".....

If this were so he would've been Clinton'd, er... I mean impeached long ago. I'm afraid you're guilty of visiting far too many far left web sites and actually mistaking their drivel as "fact"............

You seem to forget that when this first came to light in mid 2005, the Republicans would have had to impeach their President. Fat chance of that happening...

But rhetoric aside, here's the substance of what we're talking about:

In Feb 2002, the DIA issued an evaluation of testimony obtained from said Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi as follows:

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

...

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

DIA letter

Yet despite this evaluation by our own intelligence services, Bush and his administration officials went around the country well into 2003 claiming that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush in Cincinnati on 7 October 2002

He knew better as he learned 8 months prior that this particular testimony was not credible. At the very least, that caveat should have been offered. But then, such caveat would have weakened the case for the war he so desperately wanted.

Hey welcome to the tin foil hat crowd!

[HAL 9000 96]

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

Sperm did!!!

Has anybody seen my cigars?

What cigars? There never were cigars... nobody with a sound, logical mind believes there were cigars... so it must be false that there were cigars.

Or they could be in Iraq hiding the WMDs... that must be it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

He lied. He didn't lie. Blah Blah Blah.

At least the daylight is at the end of the tunnel.

Only 362 more days of the Dubbya.

Party at my house 1/20/2009.

End of an error!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

Which proves, that as much as you want to believe it, Bush didn't lie to get us into war. If he did the dems would have impeached Bush and Cheney and we would be calling Pelosi Madam President right now. This is all azz covering for the dems. They were all on board for the war in 2003. They went one by one to the mic and said we needed to take him out. Bush didn't force or lie his way to war. The entire country wanted it. President Clinton said the exact same things Bush did using the very same intel.

The Bush lied mantra is nothing more than political hackery. Only the tin foil hat types really believe that Bush lied his way into war. To believe he did requires a "willing suspention of disbelief" in order to forget the run up to the war. The rest are just using the mantra to try and make political points.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

So... yes he lied. That makes him impeachable but lets just worry about preventing that Mad Cowboy from making any more messes on our behalf.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately on first appearances most of the evidence is circumstantial, given that he can pass the blame onto subordinates, and indeed the intelligence services - but there's enough of a correlation here for a reasonable person to see the guilt.

Saying that Bush didn't lie, is like saying that OJ didn't kill his wife. He might have gotten off - but every ####### knows he did it.

[GaryC 7]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

Which proves, that as much as you want to believe it, Bush didn't lie to get us into war. If he did the dems would have impeached Bush and Cheney and we would be calling Pelosi Madam President right now. This is all azz covering for the dems. They were all on board for the war in 2003. They went one by one to the mic and said we needed to take him out. Bush didn't force or lie his way to war. The entire country wanted it. President Clinton said the exact same things Bush did using the very same intel.

The Bush lied mantra is nothing more than political hackery. Only the tin foil hat types really believe that Bush lied his way into war. To believe he did requires a "willing suspention of disbelief" in order to forget the run up to the war. The rest are just using the mantra to try and make political points.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Edited January 24, 2008 by GaryC

[GaryC 7]

Every time I walk past a parked car emblazoned with Bush Lied and Kerry/Edwards '04 stickers, I wonder what it would take to jolt one of these revolving door revolutionaries out of their delusional sense of reality.

What evidence would be necessary to dissolve the cognitively dissonant afflictions of moral relativism, political correctness and myopic foreign policy?

I guess my real question is; what would it take to make victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) and Post Election Selection Disorder (PEST) remove the Bush Lied! bumper stickers from their cars?

As the rationales behind the Bush Lied! mantra are shot down, one by one, there must come a point where logic insists that the absence of any proof that Bush lied means accepting that Bush might not have lied at all.

I'm not suggesting that all of these people should become Bush supporters or even Republicans, but rather that they merely drop the Bush Lied! refrain due to intellectual embarrassment.

Critics of the Bush Administration constantly complain that he and his supporters always "move the goalposts" on every issue. So to help them avoid being hypocritical, I would like to propose that they set their own goalposts firmly in place regarding the Bush Lied! claim.

This can be done easily:

Specifically explain what Bush lied about.

If those accusations are disproved, then the facts must be accepted and the mantra renounced.

Of course, it is difficult to believe that such obstinate and irrational people would admit to being deceived or accept that their ideological communities are/were not reality-based after all. But to really get through to these people, we'll need to understand who they are and how their obsession with Bush began.

Let's take a trip through the way back machine to the 2000 election.

Still angry that the Florida Supreme Court was unable to wrongly deliver the 2000 election to Al Gore, many passionate democrats latched onto anything and everything possible to try to delegitimize Bush's presidency. It seemed that even before his term began, he was vilified and demeaned.

Despite the fact that Bush was dealt a very difficult inaugural year, his critics unreasonably began chanting the phrase, "Bush's fault."

When a Chinese jet collided with an American plane over international waters, Bush and his "neocon advisors" were inching us close to all-out war with the Red Dragon.....Bush's fault. War was inevitable.

When the US economy slumped into recession within months of taking office.....Bush's fault. His proposed and yet-to-be-proposed economic policies caused this.

When terrorists facilitated the worst attack on American soil in the nation's history.....Bush's fault.

When newsmen and Senators received anthrax-laden letters.....Bush's fault. When businessmen and women were offered immediate medical attention while postal workers were not.....Bush's fault.

When the ENRON and WorldCom scandals broke.....Bush's fault.

The war in Afghanistan was going to bog America down into a costly, complicated quagmire. If the almighty Soviets couldn't win a war there, then American troops certainly couldn't. Impending Vietnam redux.....Bush's fault.

So "Bush's Fault" has been around for quite a while. But it wasn't until after the Iraq invasion that the "Bush Lied!" mantra really began to circulate among angry leftists.

As I see it, the Bush Lied! refrain got traction after the 2003 State of the Union address. During the speech, President Bush said, "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Later, Joe Wilson used the pages of The New York Times to propagandize that he had direct evidence proving the opposite.

This is the moment when the mainstream media picked up the Bush Lied!theme and ran with it. The collective press investigated, opined and theorized that Bush may have lied, and they did everything possible to lengthen the story's shelf life.

As is typical with media moguls, they don't report many retractions -- they simply stop reporting on the topic. This is exactly what happened when Joe Wilson's claims and accusations disappeared in a cloud of smoke. He was thoroughly discredited, and President Bush was vindicated. And as usual, the editors and reporters who so vehemently opined that Bush Lied! failed to equally push the Bush didn't lie revelation after the allegations proved false.

Then came what the BDS'ers call "Bush's smoking gun": The Downing Street Memo (DSM).

Those who were already convinced that Bush is a war criminal see the DSM documents as proof positive that Bush lied to the American people in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Those people want so badly to make others believe that Bush is a liar, that they strip these documents of all timing and context in order for them to be perceived as evidence of deception or unlawfulness.

Websites like After Downing Street and Alternet stated that, "the Minutes now stand as irrefutable proof that the road to war in Iraq was paved, with absolute intent, with lies and deceit and misdirection and fraud."

The anti-Bush blogosphere went into a rage when the mainstream media failed to become equally enthusiastic about the revelations in DSM. They simply couldn't understand why such evidence wasn't front page news? Even liberal-leaning news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post were accused by BDS'ers of covering for the neocon cabal.

They were further outraged when a Washington Post editorial finally addressed the Downing Street Memos:

War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration's preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush's deceptions about Iraq. Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to them. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.

In another slap in the face, Michael Kinsey wrote:

After about the 200th e-mail from a stranger demanding that I cease my personal cover-up of something called the Downing Street Memo, I decided to read it. It's all over the blogosphere and Air America, the left-wing talk radio network: This is the smoking gun of the Iraq war. It is proof positive that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq the year before he did so. The whole "weapons of mass destruction" concern was phony from the start, and the drama about inspections was just kabuki: going through the motions.

Although it is flattering to be thought personally responsible for allowing a proven war criminal to remain in office, in the end I don't buy the fuss. [...] You don't need a secret memo to know [that the Bush Administration had decided to take military action]. Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war against Iraq as "much-planned-for." The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to an earlier story "which reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein." Rumsfeld effectively confirmed the report by announcing an investigation of the leak.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece declared that "the drums of war beat louder." A dispatch from Turkey in the New York Times even used the same word "inevitable" to describe the thinking in Ankara about the thinking in Washington about the decision "to topple President Saddam Hussein of Iraq by force."

Poor Time magazine, with a cover date of July 22 but actually published a week earlier, had the whole story. "Sometime last spring the President ordered the Pentagon and the CIA to come up with a new plan to invade Iraq and topple its leader." Originally planned for the fall, the war was put off until "at least early next year" (which is when, in fact, it happened). Unfortunately, Time went on to speculate that because of a weak economy, the war "may have to wait -- some think forever," and concluded that "Washington is engaged more in psy-war than in war itself."

Some people you have to hit over the head. Hey, you folks at Time, why are you ignoring the Downing Street Memo?

New, earlier memos of a similar nature are currently emerging, and each will serve to further cement ideologues in their preconceived positions. The rabid BDS'ers will see more smoking guns. Reasonable people will see nothing new.

Then came Hurricane Katrina. There are so many Bush's Fault! and Bush Lied! myths involving the Hurricane Katrina that Popular Mechanics devoted an issue to debunking the major ones. I'm not talking about the truly absurd declarations that President Bush ordered the levees blown up, but rather the mainstream allegations that Bush lied about being forewarned of a levee breach. In a widely circulated AP piece titled, Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina, it was alleged that:

In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

The footage - along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press - show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster. [...] Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility - and Bush was worried too.

White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.

"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."

It seemed as though the BDS'ers finally had indisputable proof that Bush lied -- proof that even the most rabid 'Bushco apologists' would have to accept. The mainstream media ran the story everywhere. But as usual, a closer inspection revealed that the "Bush Lied! claim was once again unfounded and the AP was forced to print a retraction.

Needless to say, the AP's mea culpa didn't receive the same attention as the original Bush-a culpa. Then another video briefing emerged that completely dispelled the Bush Lied! claim regarding the levee breach. From the new video, we learned that:

In the hectic, confused hours after Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast, Louisiana's governor hesitantly but mistakenly assured the Bush administration that New Orleans' protective levees were intact, according to new video obtained by The Associated Press showing briefings that day with federal officials.

Then came the NSA wiretapping story. Despite the media mob's hunger for sensational front page by-lines, there is little to the story and there is broad public support for the program. (If you still think it's an illegal program, then read these articles titled The Democrats, the MSM & the Lies that Bind Them and Democrat Demagoguery & Media Malfeasance.) But the lack of facts hasn't stopped BDS'ers and their allies in some media outlets from trying to take a pound of flesh out of President Bush. Just yesterday, The New York Times was caught stretching and skewing their coverage of former FISA judges' testimonies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in an effort to make it appear as though they asserted that the President overstepped the law. They had asserted no such thing.

It seems that each month brings about a news story of Presidential tyranny that outrages BDS'ers. When the smoke clears from their storms of manufactured outrage and righteous indignation, President Bush's actions are proven to be legal time and again.

Now, I'm not suggesting that BDS'ers must support programs like the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, only that they can't falsely claim that perfectly legal actions are illegal simply because of disagreement. They can opine on end about their disagreements with the wisdom, morality and possible consequences of Bush's actions, but the law is concrete. Like Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts."

So there are really only two issues that the BDS'ers can still cite to support their claims that "Bush Lied!":

Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein had a collaborative relationship with al Qaeda.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, the BDS'ers are right to cite these two issues as justification for the Bush Lied! mantra. Until the public record holds these two claims to be true, the BDS'ers can and should scream all they want.

But I would like to remind them that the Iraqi documents seized in Operation Iraq Freedom are slowly being translated, and many revealing facts are being brought to light. Some would even say that enough has already been learned to shoot down the Bush Lied! myth. I personally think there are many revelations yet to come, and there is going to be more than enough crow to go around.

So I ask the question again; what would it take to make victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Post Election Selection Disorder remove the Bush Lied! bumper stickers from their cars? At what point will insisting that "Bush Lied!" be tantamount to insisting that the Soviet Union wasn't collapsing in the early 1990's?

More importantly, when the President is once again vindicated, will his critics apologize or move the goalposts?

You can probably guess what I think.

[HAL 9000 96]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

Which proves, that as much as you want to believe it, Bush didn't lie to get us into war. If he did the dems would have impeached Bush and Cheney and we would be calling Pelosi Madam President right now. This is all azz covering for the dems. They were all on board for the war in 2003. They went one by one to the mic and said we needed to take him out. Bush didn't force or lie his way to war. The entire country wanted it. President Clinton said the exact same things Bush did using the very same intel.

The Bush lied mantra is nothing more than political hackery. Only the tin foil hat types really believe that Bush lied his way into war. To believe he did requires a "willing suspention of disbelief" in order to forget the run up to the war. The rest are just using the mantra to try and make political points.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Damn there's Common sense and then there's Gary Sense.

[HAL 9000 96]

But you know, against good judgement I am going to revise my public opinion to appease the people in the know. Instead of having a liar in the White House, I now believe we have a misinformed President that makes policy decisions based on flawed, misguided, and false resources.

For some reason I think most would prefer an informed liar rather than a moron in office. But wait... can't you have both??

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More importantly, when the President is once again vindicated, will his critics apologize or move the goalposts?

You can probably guess what I think.

Gary, can you site your source for this? I take it you didn't actually write this, yes?

[kaydee457 13]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Edited January 24, 2008 by kaydee457

[Dan J 277]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Its not a cute little conspiracy. There has been support to invade Iraq among hawks for a while now. But there had not been significant justification to go to war.

Then 9/11 happened, and due to most peoples inability to separate Iraq from AQ. Bush got all the reason he needed to go to war.

Its not a conspiracy as much as it is a perfect storm that played right into the hands of a group of people who had other goals for Iraq.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Truthiness is the best word to describe what the Bush Administration did. I don't think it was some diabolical scheme, but more of an ideological viewpoint taken to catastrophic extremes. Read about the PNAC and look who's who. Regardless of whether 9/11 happened or not, there were key members of the Bush Administration who thought, ideologically, that removing Saddam Hussein by force would a successful strategy and then after 9/11, to put in the best of terms, did their very best to try to win over public support for the invasion.

I find more fault in the media and those who just rolled over for not asking the right questions (including many Democrats in congress). It's a lesson learned for all of us....never again let power go unchecked.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

ahem........maybe if he'd paid more attention to briefings and was thinking with the big head instead of getting his willy wet, he'd not created that fiasco we had in somalia.

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

Sperm did!!!

Has anybody seen my cigars?

maybe in monica's "humidore"