aceventura3, Mojo_PeiPei, and Ustwo, et al, should consider themselves very fortunate that <b>their position that Bush is not a war criminal</b> , requires no arguments that are anchored by facts, because, if Murray Waas has reported reliably, the October 3, 2004 NY Times reporting linked below, meshes so well with Waas's new disclosures, if we lived in a <b>republic with functioning representative government</b>, Bush would be facing an impeachment trial in the senate....in a heartbeat:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
<h4>Important Notice !!! The link above points to a page where an enitre NY Times, Oct. 3, 2004 News Article is displayed, under the "fair use" doctrine. The article contents have no relationship to "truthout . org. Any attempt to denigrate or distract from the information in the article by linking it's contents to truthout .org, is a cheap, "troll like" tactic intentionally posted by folks here who should know better!! Challenge: post another link that displays the article at another site, and I'll change the link to the article in this post.</h4>
(The following describes the article that I posted on this thread yesterday..)
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002115278
'National Journal': More Evidence That Press and Public Misled on Iraq
By E&P Staff
Published: March 02, 2006 8:00 PM ET
NEW YORK More records have emerged suggesting that President Bush knew he was not telling the truth when he made various statements to the press during the run-up to the Iraq war concerning the threat to America from the Saddam Hussein regime.
<b>Murray Waas, who has broken several key stories recently related to the Plame/CIA leak case for the nonpartisan National Journal, returned Thursday on the magazine's Web site with a detailed acount of two highly classified intelligence reports that were delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war......</b>
|
To refresh your memories about the article that I posted here yesterday, here's the "intro":
Quote:
http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/...es/0302nj1.htm
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.
The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.
Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.
<b>The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.</b>....
|