This is the heart of the matter, and Republicans should take note. Just 5 short years ago, they were up in arms over Clinton's lies regarding Monica. We all know the story, and I felt that some of the Republicans' rage was justified. If Clinton lied there, how can we believe him on matters of national security, the economy, etc??? With all of the successes of the Clinton administration, this was it's black eye, and a very good reason why Gore didn't win the 2000 election. Well, the shoe is on the other foot now. We have been lied to and misled, not necessarily in a court room (a la Clinton and his deposition) but shouldn't the halls of Congress expect a similar standard of truthfulness? (don't answer that...) Bush misled the nation in going into war. We cannot trust him, and even more importantly, Congress cannot trust him to provide them with reliable information to set our nation's course. When you can no longer trust your leaders, just like in the 2000 election, you don't keep 'em, you find new ones.
Kennedy stands by criticism of Bush on Iraq. "This whole thing was a fraud." Go Uncle go! "Kennedy has been a consistent and persistent critic of the administration's policy toward Iraq..." That's right. Consistent and persistent. Gen. Clark has got something to learn here.
The Constitutional answer to this is "whatever Congress wants to see." They have subpoena power, and the power of the purse. And the Otter Doctrine ("You *#*#*#*#ed up! You trusted us!") has a very limited shelf life. And since we're bringing up murderers, is now a good time to remember that Pickles' childhood sweetheart died of lead poisoning - inflicted by Laura's car?
If the economy continues to limp along. If no WMD are found. If Iraq continues to be a disaster. If Saddam and bin Laden are still unaccounted for... Then this president will be one of the worst mistakes the US and Republicans have ever made. He is handing the election to the democrats. All other arguments about Clinton, Kennedy, et al just wont matter. I, in fact, would be tempted to vote democrat for the first time ever. Nahh. I'll just abstain.
No, but World News Tonight did. A reporter specifically questioned the "$1.5 billion bribe" comment by The Swimmer. He called the CBO and they didn't issue such a statement & Teddy's office had no comment. Addle-brained, fat load, inheritance-sponging, drunk Ted made this up while sailing on the Vin-yahd sipping martinis and playing grab@ss. Everyone has an uncle who rants & raves like Teddy. Nobody takes the uncle seriously either.
That doesn't prove s***. Kennedy said he thought that's where the money is going. He did NOT say that he heard that from the CBO. CP, unless you have a better source than that, you really owe Senator Kennedy an apology. He has suspicions about where the money is going, and so far as I know, his "belief" (his word) has yet to be refuted.
I looked on the ABC News website and they didn't have a clip of it. But I did see it last week when the comments came out. Some of his fellow Democrats didn't think Ted added much to the dialogue. But that's Ted. I'll apologize when Ted finds the missing "$1.5 billion" which is never.
That would be a good poll. Which will be found first? 1. the $1.5 billion a month 2. Osama 3. Saddam Hussein 4. WMD
Ironic that in Ted's household the game is "Find all the bottles of booze Teddy has hidden" becasue it is fun and his family really loves him. Actually, he is on the Senate floor doing his Iraq thing right now.
C'mon guys, I'm choking on brown stars here. If the measure of distain for a person is measured by the amount of stereotypical attacks and character assassination, then Teddy seems to have passed Al Sharpton and moved into the #3 slot behind Bill and Hillary...
so far the only thing we've seen that comes close to refuting Kennedy's claims is a report on TV news that isn't archived on the TV news website that doesn't even really say it wasn't true. But, on the other hand, Kennedy was uncivil.
Ref Kennedy: "He said Bush officials had failed to account for $1.5 billion of the $4 billion the war costs each month, citing a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office. " http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kennedy.iraq/ Um... Suck on that
I would like to note that once again, a Republican in the article (who didn't have the balls to let them use his name) accused Kennedy of being soft on defense, but he did not accuse Kennedy of lying.
Judging by this board, approximately 75% of conservatives are retards who can't read. Hey jackass, I'm NOT disputing that Kennedy got the $1.5B figure from CBO. Your comrade in idiocy said the CBO denied that the money was going to bribes. They did NOT dispute that the money is unaccounted for. Which is what the other dope was saying. Here are the facts. 1. Kennedy has stated that according to the CBO, $1.5B per month of Iraq-related spending is unaccounted for. 2. Kennedy expressed the belief that the money is going to the coalition of the shilling. 3. A conservative attacked Kennedy, saying the CBO denied the money was going to bribes. 4. The con was asked for a link/source. 5. He failed. 6. Yankee Blue failed. 7. We still don't know where the money is going. Find a source where the CBO accounts for the $1.5B per month, then we can talk. Saying "I saw on ABC news that the CBO hasn't made a statement one way or the other" fails both ways. ********** But seriously, has anyone else noticed that about the conservatives recently? They cite these articles which have a couple of words in common with the topic at hand, but don't really address it. It's like they all just discovered search engines, but don't really know how to use them. Here's a hint. At least skim the articles your search churns up.
I guess this is like "not having sexual relations with that women (pause) Ms. Lewinsky" type of non-denial denial. One guy fails to say the other guy lied, but the President lied to you and me and you make this kind of stink now? Balls to use his name? I guess that is what is considered "civil" today?