I will express no opinion as to whether Mr. Bush is capable of such.

Dugger

And says it openly to a foreign head of state and with somebody taking notes?

Several instances of such have made it into the history books somehow. There musta been witnesses.

And says it openly to a foreign head of state and with somebody taking notes?

Come now. Aren’t we just the wee bit skeptical of all of this?

Dugger (you can tell me, I’ll keep it to myself)

would he say openly to Blair and a chronicler that he intends to create a false incident as a pretext to start a war?

I will express no opinion as to whether Mr. Bush is capable of such. However, even if one assumes that he is, he would not be the first American president to do so.

You really believe that?

Let me repeat this:

my point is a very narrow one: the Guardian isn t alone on this.

I’ll not set forth any other opinions on the matter unless and until the alleged memo can be seen and verified.

You really believe that?

Furthermore, I’d invite you to Google the good perfessor. He’s ben out there pursuing charges against Blair, Howard and Bush on the basis of the illegality of the Iraq war. He is hardly anything other than a highly, highly biased observer.

Dugger

What illegal activities associated with Abramoff are you talking about?

Mr. Abramoff has accepted a plea agreement in which he admits to illegal acts involving at least one member of Congress and aides to another.

If you mean that the people Mr. Abramoff accuses have not been found guilty, you are correct.

So far.

We are hearing thirdhand hearsay from the Guardian

…and British Channel 4. They also claim to have seen the memo in question.

Of course, one may question the authenticity and accuracy of the memo. However, my point is a very narrow one: the Guardian isn’t alone on this.

You screwed up everyhting.

What illegal activities associated with Abramoff are you talking about? Why don’t you specify an illegal activity?

Sort it out:

Looking at Congressional and Excutive branch members of either party, there have been NO LEGAL findings of guilt re Abe. The fact that Abramoff may have fleeced tribes does not mitigate any possible illegal actions (if same were to be found) regarding Abramoff-directed donations (per WaPo) or Abramoff direct donations.

A donation by Abramoff or any lobbyist, direct or by proxy, is not illegal or immoral – pe se.

There has been absolutely no finding of he Bush administration ruining the career of a CIA agent. None.

The decision to go to war was bi-partisan. You can’t rewrite history. The timing of the execution of that decision was the Executive Branch’s. Ask an adult about it.

I’m not impresed by childish F bombs. Its usually an attempt to cover up for a lack of knowledge and judgment – which you had already amply demonstrated.

Dugger

Do you listen to your own stupidity?

You seem to say that Abramoff and the republicans dirty, illegal activities are inconsequential because Democrats got legal, clean donations from the same Indian tribes Abramoff fleeced.

Then you excuse the Bush Administration for ruining the career and putting in danger a covert CIA operative, exposing other CIA operatives, and a whole slew of contacts, simply for crass political payback by saying it is simply manufactured Democratic political outrage. Get real.

Then you want to say the Democrats were egging George Bush into war. Historical revisionism aside, that is just plain stupid. It was GW Bush who decided invasion was a good idea, it was GW Bush that said there were WMDs, it was GW Bush that fucked up the diplomacy, it was GW Bush that fucked up the occupation. It was GW Bush that went before congress and said Iraq was an immediate and dangerous threat. It was GW Bush that used the bogus, manufactured evidence to convince congress. It was GW Bush that set the political climate around that vote. Notice Bush asked for a resolution granting him the right to make a decision for invasion, not for a direct declaration of War.

Dugger;

I am a democrat concerned about corruption.

So why was there a war vote? Perhaps you meant (but did not say) that hte timing of the action was Bush’s. Bush could not have gone to war without Congressional approval. Check the vote total. It was factually bi-partisan.

And we are hearing nothing from Bush/Blair. We are hearing thirdhand hearsay from the Guardian – a notorious Bush-hating left wing paper. I probably could dig out a newspaper saying Clinton was smuggling drugs in Mena Arkansas. Or one about Pres Dewey (remember him – after all, it was in the papers).

Dugger

Dugger, there is no other way to put it but that’s just plain bullshit and you know it. Your CIC did along with his supporting staff of Rumsfield, Cheney, etc. The republicans with some success have portrayed this as a bipartisan action to take the heat off their asses for what is now know as a totally unneccessary action, period. But the ultimate decision to go to war was his and his alone. He could have avoided this mess by giving the inspectors more time and avoided the loss of life and the resulting mess that has occurred.
Furthermore, I dont and really dont give a flip who supports the Iraq war, its still wrong. Do you ever stop to think that maybe if we weren’t so mired up in Iraq, our military could have put more people and resources to where it belongs, Osama Ben Laden? Thats the main problem and the reason I opposed this action from the start, not because I dislike GWB or the republicans.

To get back to the subject for a change, this is about whether Bush intended to attack Iraq all along and was not being truthful when he said he would go to war as a “last resort”. If what we are hearing from the conversations between Bush and Blair leading up to the invasion, that was not the case. At a time when we were supposed to be trying to get the ones who were behind the 9-11 attacks, he was already planning to attack Iraq, who had nothing to do with it.

The Indian tribes were looking for things like gambling concessions are were using their money like any other lobbyist – to gain influence. They worked with Abramoff. The distinction made by Dean is meaningless. This SO remiscent of the Plame scandal. Democrats aren’t concerned about corruption. They are only concerned abouty any angle that affects Republicans. Same with security leaks under Plame. If Abramoff is the corrupting immoral spawn of Satan – then both sides are corrupted. If he just carries typhoid – Dean has a point.

And any way you cut it, There was a war vote and there was bi-partisan support for it. Remember the great movie Ox Bow Incident . ALl of those cowboys sitting around on their horses saying ‘do it’ and providing the rope were just as guilty as the old Colonel.
I’m out of time.

Dugger

Harry Truman’s motto: the buck stops here

George Bush’ motto: go buck yourself!

“Democrats and republicans are equally mixed up with Abramoff”

“Democrats in congress are just as responsible as Bush for the mess in Iraq.”

His purpose in life is to make us waste a lot of time refuting his lies. Then he just waits a few days and repeats the exact same lies all over again. We refute them again… he tells them again… We refute them again… he tells them again… And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

He’s really quite good a yanking our chains. I gotta hand it to you, Dugger. As contemptible liars go, you’re one of the best.

Dugger consistently distrusts any bureaucracy. There is more than
just a little justification for that feeling.

Point two, you keep acting as if the Indian tribes Abramoff represented and fleeced were somehow evil or at fault or guilty of something. They were victims. We are talking about illegal actions between Abramoff and the republicans he bribed. Not who got donations, not some kind of weird association of A stole from T to bribe R, T gave to D, therefore D = R.

You keep repeating these dishonest and misleading claims.

It’s been a while ~ here’s a couple of things that caught my eye. Seems ole John Kerry might have aggravated his Dem colleagues for pushing for a filibuster of the Alito vote. Tom at BTD suggests that we look