Well another of the BUSH LIED crew is debunked.

[dude1394]

First clark, then moore, now wilson.....who's next?? Well now we know Kerry's Foreign Policy Adviser...The hambergler..

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.


Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

.......

more

[FishForLunch]

I clearly remember the Media Circus when they cried Bush mislead regarding the Niger Yellowcake. Now where is the circus that the intelligence got it right and the leftist were wrong.

Nothing here time to move on to other important stuff.

[Mavdog]

what difference is it if his wife suggested him for the mission?

The Commission concluded that the CIA "overstated" the probability of Iraq's purchasing uranium from Niger, and the statement should not have been in the speeches.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
what difference is it if his wife suggested him for the mission?

Well, for one thing he said she didn't in public, even though there is a memo to the contrary. I think it sort of goes to his credibility, no? Which after all IS the title of this thread.

The Commission concluded that the CIA "overstated" the probability of Iraq's purchasing uranium from Niger, and the statement should not have been in the speeches.

Non-sequitor...But others don't share your opinion about that.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate's report into intelligence failures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq disputes a key war critic's assertion that he had "debunked" suspicions that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from the African country of Niger.

The report contends that former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who traveled to Niger in early 2002 at the CIA's request to inquire about the uranium allegation, "did not change any analysts' assessment of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal."

The committee concluded that the CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate overstated what was known about Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium. But it also said Wilson's information, instead of steering the CIA away, "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency reports."

[Mavdog]

What she said in public goes to his credibility? strange..

read it yourself.

There never was evidence that Iraq bought any uranium, or had an agreement to purchase uranium, only rumors. yet due to CIA persistence it made its way into public speeches by Powell and Bush as a fact. The committee members take particular offense to being misled in Oct 2002.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

[dude1394]

I would suggest reading it a little closer as well. I've reworded it a little bit to help you, although as well-read as you are I imagine that you are being obtuse on purpose, but no matter.

Well, for one thing wilson said in public and on the record that his wife had never reccomended him for the niger mission, although there is a memo stating otherwise.

I think it sort of goes to his credibility, no? Which after all IS the title of this thread.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I would suggest reading it a little closer as well. I've reworded it a little bit to help you, although as well-read as you are I imagine that you are being obtuse on purpose, but no matter.

I was under the impression we were discussing the Niger uranium misstatements, which is where I took the quote of "overstated" by the commission.
The Commission concluded the CIA reporting "overstated" the Iraqi purchase of uranium rumor.

Well, for one thing wilson said in public and on the record that his wife had never reccomended him for the niger mission, although there is a memo stating otherwise.

did he know that she reccomended him? I don't know, and what difference does it make on the CIA pushing the uranium rumor?

I think it sort of goes to his credibility, no? Which after all IS the title of this thread.

the title is "Well another of the BUSH LIED crew is debunked", so how Wilson is in the title I can't say. You tell me.

I'm not aware that there is an accusation against Bush by Wilson that he "lied" , there are questions of who exposed his wife as a CIA officer tho.

[kingrex]

This political category has grown from thread to sub-category to it's own category. Way to go politicos!

[MavKikiNYC]

Sixteen Truthful Words
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: July 19, 2004

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

— George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

WASHINGTON — Those were "the 16 words" in a momentous message to a joint session of Congress that were pounced on by the wrong-war left to become the simple centerpiece of its angry accusation that "Bush lied to us" — or, as John Kerry more delicately puts it — "misled" us into thinking that Saddam's Iraq posed a danger to the U.S.

The he-lied-to-us charge was led by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat sent in early 2002 by the C.I.A. to Niger to check out reports by several European intelligence services that Iraq had secretly tried to buy that African nation's only major export, "yellowcake" uranium ore.

Wilson testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had assured U.S. officials back in 2002 that "there was nothing to the story." When columnist Robert Novak raised the question of nepotism by reporting that he got the assignment at the urging of his C.I.A. wife, Wilson denied that heatedly and denounced her "outing," triggering an investigation. The skilled self-promoter was then embraced as an antiwar martyr, sold a book with "truth" in its title, appeared on the cover of Time and every TV talk show denouncing Bush.

Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth.

Contrary to his indignant claim that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip, the Senate published testimony that his C.I.A. wife had "offered up his name" and printed her memo to her boss that "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts." Further destroying his credibility, Wilson now insists this strong pitch did not constitute a recommendation.

More important, it now turns out that senators believe his report to the C.I.A. after visiting Niger actually bolstered the case that Saddam sought — Bush's truthful verb was "sought" — yellowcake, the stuff of nuclear bombs. The C.I.A. gave Wilson's report a "good" grade because "the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium" — confirming what the British and Italian intelligence services had told us from their own sources.

But a C.I.A. analyst opined "the Brits have exaggerated this issue" because "the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

State Department intelligence also was dubious, reports the Senate, more so in October when an Italian journalist brought in a bunch of phony documents somebody was trying to sell him about a Niger uranium transaction. This outweighed the report of a top security official in the French Foreign Ministry, who told U.S. diplomats in November 2002 that "France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger."

Two months later, with no objection from C.I.A., the famous 16 words went into Bush's 2003 State of the Union.

But when word leaked about the fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries. The Senate reports that in his misleading anonymous leak to The Washington Post, "He said he may have misspoken . . . he said he may have become confused about his own recollection. . . ." The subsequent firestorm caused the White House to retreat prematurely with: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."

That apology was a mistake; Bush had spoken the plain truth. Did Saddam seek uranium from Africa, evidence of his continuing illegal interest in a nuclear weapon? Here is Lord Butler's nonpartisan panel, which closely examined the basis of the British intelligence:

". . . we conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that `The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

[dude1394]

Wilson lied, reputations died.

[Mavdog]

I can't recall when a person who volunteered to be of service to his country (yes, volunteered for all Wilson received was reimbursement of his expenses) was ripped later for that contribution. Not only did Wilson's wife lose her ability to continue in her job with the CIA (who did "out" Valerie Plume? The trail leads to the White House) but now Wilson is being labeled a "liar", not only by the White House attack squad but now by many who have not read the committee report but blindly follow along with those who demean the career diplomat.

The most critical issue is of course Wilson's report (debriefing in CIA jargon) about his trip to Niger. If one were to take the time to actually read the report by the committee, one would find that the initial reason for Wilson to be sent to Niger- a document saying that Iraq had purchased a couple hundred tons of yellowcake uranium- was not only discounted by Wilson but to this day is viewed as a fraud. So what is the ruckus now about Wilson's findings? The fact that Wilson reported to the CIA that the ex-minister mentioned that in 1999 an Iraqi trade delegation had visited Niger and the ex-minister believed they were interested in the yellowcake uranium. Did they actually put money on the table to purchase any uranium? No, they didn't, In fact, the ex-minister couldn't even say for a fact that the trade delegation asked specifically about uranium. Wilson reported that with the uranium mining controlled by the French and under their firm control, coupled with the fact that Niger knew they must follow UN sanctions on trade with Iraq, there was no basis to the report that Iraq had purchased the uranium.

Long and short the document that purported to show that Iraq had purchased uranium was found, and is still viewed, as a forgery. a fake. false. This was the basis for the sentence in the State of the Union address that Iraq had "sought" uranium.

The committee report is clear in the facts; only the CIA continued to give credibility to the document, other US intelligence agencies saw the report of Iraq purchasing uranium as unfounded and baseless. The French (where the original document supporting the rumor of the purchase of uranium by Iraq originated from) and British intelligence agencies still view the document as credible in spite of independent views to the contrary. From Wilson's letter to the committee:
"On March 7, 2003, the director general of the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic." His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries, "We fell for it."

Second is the issue of if his wife had reccomended Wilson for the trip. Here it is a fuzzy set of facts, with a comment from Plume that her husband has the contacts to do the job and knows the area. Did Plume actually suggest Wilson for the job,or did she acknowledge his skills would fit the need after his name was suggested by others?

From Wilson's letter to the committee:

July 15, 2004

The Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Hon. Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Sen. Roberts and Sen. Rockefeller,

I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Sens. Roberts, Bond and Hatch's additional comments to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.

First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife, sent to her superiors that says, "My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] reports officer stated that "the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department intelligence and research officer stated that the "meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she [Valerie] departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium-related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the reports officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments." I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.' 'We paid his [Wilson's] airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover," dated July 22, 2003)."

Quite frankly the nuance of if Valerie Plume suggested Wilson or didn't, and if Wilson had this issue factually correct in his public statements, means nothing in regard to the basic point of his work; did Iraq go to Niger to purchase uranium, and was the evidence that Iraq had purchased a couple hundred tons of yellowcake uranium valid? The answer then, and the answer today, is a definite no to the later, and no to the former. That is unless one interprets "sought uranium" to mean that a trade delegation which visited Niger in 1999 be giving credibility as proof of an attempt to seek uranium.

Read the committee report, the full one, which discusses the Niger allegation. Then make up your own mind on Wilson's veracity, as well as how the sentence found its way into the State of the Union speech. The facts are not how the White House attack squad would like you to believe.

[MavKikiNYC]

Long and short the document that purported to show that Iraq had purchased uranium was found, and is still viewed, as a forgery. a fake. false. This was the basis for the sentence in the State of the Union address that Iraq had "sought" uranium.

Safire: But when word leaked about the fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries.

If there were independent analyses, which pointed to the same conclusion, one of which was later found to be based on false evidence, does that invalidate the other independent conclusion?

So your complaint is that Bush was right for the wrong reason?

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

So your complaint is that Bush was right for the wrong reason?

no, IMHO he was wrong. period.

[MavKikiNYC]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

no, IMHO he was wrong. period.

The Democrats and the fools at the NYTimes have made such a completely disproporitonate non-issue of the President's wise refusal not to perform a soul-bearing mea culpa for his administration's handling of national security prior to 9/11.

And here, when he bent just a bit and acknowledged having acted on imperfect information, it turns out he was closer to right than wrong in the first place.

Interesting exchange between Safire and Shields on Friday's News Hour--Click 'Candidates Spar in War over Iraq', which puts Bush in a stronger light vis a vis the yellow cake assertion.

And then tonight's News Hour had Wilson and Sen Kit Bond (R, Missouri), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the latter forcefully rebutting the assertions of the former, who sported a nice 1970's butterfly haircut and stumbled about defensively after Bond exposed him as a liar.

See it for yourself tonight--I think the News Hour is broadcast around 10PM on the public television station in Dallas, or I'll post a link to it as soon as it's available online.


George Bush's only mistake so far has been in relenting one whit against the shrill chirps of ballless Dims, brainless liberals, and the inveterate NYTimes who call incessantly for him to say he was wrong about something...anything.

So he did, and as it turns out, he was wrong about having been wrong.

Satisfied?

[dude1394]

Now it's the clinton-berglar...And oh how the MSM is howling and showing their skirts.

It wasn’t until Sandy Berger started stuffing his shorts with classified documents that his role in the Kerry campaign was described as informal:

Kerry himself makes ample use of the former president’s name, advisers and record. At a Detroit union hall last week, Kerry won his loudest applause when he invoked the Clinton economy. His team of economic advisers is led by Roger Altman (formerly deputy Treasury secretary) and Gene Sperling (Clinton’s longtime White House economist). The same goes for his foreign-policy team, dominated by Sandy Berger (Clinton’s national-security adviser) and Richard Holbrooke (his U.N. ambassador).
- Kerry: Looking to Clinton for a Helping Hand (MSNBC)

and…

If a Democrat ousts U.S. President George W. Bush in November’s election, what would the nation’s new foreign policy look like? Take a glance back to the Clinton White House for a clue.

Top hands from former President Bill Clinton’s ship stand out among the leading candidates’ foreign policy advisors. According to the names FP obtained from several campaigns, former U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is one of the most prominent gurus.
- Revenge of the Clintonites (Foreign Policy)

and…

and on May 28th the Washington Post described Berger as a “top Kerry advisor":

Kerry would not rule out preemptive strikes, nor have past presidents, but he would de-emphasize this option in stated U.S. policy. Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, a top Kerry adviser, said this represents a “profound difference” between the two candidates.
- Kerry Vows to Rebuild Alliances, Confront Terrorism (Washington Post)

But today they spin it:

Former Clinton aide says he does not want informal role to hurt campaign.
- Washington Post (main page)

But wait there’s more:

Democratic Party delegates supporting presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich struck a deal this weekend with representatives of John Kerry over the Party’s stance on the Iraq war. The deal happened this weekend at the Democratic Party Platform convention in Miami. Kucinich’s delegates withdrew their proposal for a quick withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The critical paragraph was worked out in negotiations led by Sandy Berger, who was President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser.
- Did Dennis Kucinich Sell Out Anti-War Democrats? (Democracy Now!)

and…

[dude1394]

Much Glee In Blogland

First Joseph Wilson runs smackdab into a crisis. Now Sandy Berger does.

Both are Bush critics. Both are Kerry campaign advisors. Both have become huge political millstones in the last two weeks.

Maybe there is no October Surprise strategy being planned by the Bush campaign. Maybe the strategy is more along the lines of The Death of 1000 Cuts.

As for Berger himself, assuming the descriptions of his actions are accurate....

Q: Who covertly removes top secret documents?
A: Spies.

Q: So who's he spying for?
A: If we're lucky, the Kerry campaign, or the company he's chairman of.

Q: If we're not lucky?
A: Let's hope we're lucky.

Update: Hmmm.

Update: Hmmm.

Datum 1.
Today former National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced the formation of Stonebridge International LLC
...
Stonebridge International will serve a discrete number of companies in the telecommunications, energy, aviation, financial services, entertainment, manufacturing and other industries. The firm will work closely with Lehman Brothers in advising on business transactions in key markets and with Hogan & Hartson in executing strategies that depend on experienced legal advice in business, financial and governmental arenas around the world.
...
In addition to his government service, Mr. Berger spent sixteen years with Hogan & Hartson, an international firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. with more than 800 lawyers in 18 offices in the U.S., Europe and Japan. He headed the firm's international trade group. Through Stonebridge, Mr. Berger is Senior Advisor to Lehman Brothers and International Strategic Advisor to Hogan & Hartson..

Datum 2.
The commission also found "probable cause" to believe that Hogan & Hartson, a Washington law firm, violated election laws in the handling of $50,000 in donations that a client of the firm made to the national committee in summer 1996. Two officials at the firm who were involved in the handling of the donations have agreed to pay a total of $67,500.

Datum 3.
Since 9/11, Saudi Arabia has had, to put it delicately, a public relations problem. For more than a year, it's had to dodge allegations that it had a hand in the terrorist attacks. To rehabilitate its image, the kingdom has lined up on offense, deploying a PR and lobbying machine worthy of royalty. The Saudis' U.S. embassy has enlisted K Street shops Qorvis Communications LLC, Gallagher Group Communications, and Patton Boggs to get its message out to the public and Congress.
...
Hogan & Hartson and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which currently don't have local affiliations, used their governmental contacts to establish ties with Saudi Arabia. After J. William Fulbright joined Hogan in 1975 following his service in the Senate as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he negotiated a retainer with the country. The firm later went on to sign up Saudi billionaire prince Alwaleed bin Talal as a client.

[MavKikiNYC]

Bond exposes Wilson

[quote]
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: Mavdog

The Democrats and the fools at the NYTimes have made such a completely disproporitonate non-issue of the President's wise refusal not to perform a soul-bearing mea culpa for his administration's handling of national security prior to 9/11.

And here, when he bent just a bit and acknowledged having acted on imperfect information, it turns out he was closer to right than wrong in the first place.

Interesting exchange between Safire and Shields on Friday's News Hour--Click 'Candidates Spar in War over Iraq', which puts Bush in a stronger light vis a vis the yellow cake assertion.

And then tonight's News Hour had Wilson and Sen Christopher Bond (R, Missouri), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the latter forcefully rebutting the assertions of the former, who sported a nice 1970's butterfly haircut and stumbled about defensively after Bond exposed him as a liar.

See it for yourself tonight--I think the News Hour is broadcast around 10PM on the public television station in Dallas, or I'll post a link to it as soon as it's available online.


George Bush's only mistake so far has been in relenting one whit against the shrill chirps of ballless Dims, brainless liberals, and the inveterate NYTimes who call incessantly for him to say he was wrong about something...anything.

So he did, and as it turns out, he was wrong about having been wrong.

Satisfied?

[Mavdog]

Read the following in the report:
Conclusion 13, page 83
Conclusion 14, page 84
Conclusion 16, page 85
Conclusion 18, page 86
Conclusion 19, page 87
Conclusion 21, page 90
Conclusion 22, page 91

Then say with a straight face that the "16 words" are based on sound support.
They weren't.
The Administration sought and found what they wanted to see to bolster their case for going to war and did not do proper discovery to either validate or invalidate the assertion.

[MavKikiNYC]

...and did not do proper discovery to either validate or invalidate the assertion.

Had it been the Clinton administration, they would still be sorting this out today, without having done a tangible thing to combat terrorism.

Bush acted--correctly, decisively, significantly, historically.

[mavsman]

Bush acted--correctly, decisively, significantly, historically.

Actually, and in all honesty: What did he achieve? According to the other thread about the arabic dudes in the airplane, you are still a nation in fear. Did his actions change your lives? Do you feel safe now? Don't you come to the conclusion that he just went out to kick some ass, anybodies ass, so y'all could feel better, just like a cat that's been cought by surprise would do anything, from licking itself to attacking his brother, to avert attention? If you throw a cat in a certain direction, it's gonna give you the look, that special look, saying "I would've gone there anyways".

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: mavsman

Actually, and in all honesty: What did he achieve? According to the other thread about the arabic dudes in the airplane, you are still a nation in fear. Did his actions change your lives? Do you feel safe now? Don't you come to the conclusion that he just went out to kick some ass, anybodies ass, so y'all could feel better, just like a cat that's been cought by surprise would do anything, from licking itself to attacking his brother, to avert attention? If you throw a cat in a certain direction, it's gonna give you the look, that special look, saying "I would've gone there anyways".

Okay here we go again.

1. He took the fight TO the islamofacists and did not wait for them to come to us again.
2. He liberated almost 50 Million people. I know leftists don't think this means anything, but it does.
3. He has struck a blow TO the islamofacists in the middle of their heartland. A blow for freedom and self-rule. Hopefully the rest of the middle-east can see what CAN happen instead of wallowing in despair like they have for a century.

And he didn't just kick "anybodies ass". He kicked the talibans ass and he kicked the ass of a regime that could have stopped it at any time. All saddam had to do was open the door and PROVE that he didn't have weapons. He didn't and yes he got his ASS kicked.

Are you so sure we are still a nation in fear? Or a nation that finally gets it and like Israel and unlike many of the rest of the world, not going to cower and take it, but willing to do something about it.

A country that realizes a large portion of the world are chicken-shits who won't (or can't) lift a finger to help anyone and hardly themselves.

[dude1394]

But that wasn't what I wanted to write about. Let's see how the good people whom Kerry has trumpeted have fared. Clark, Wilson, Berger. Let's go to kerry's website and find them.

Joseph Wilson: Here is the john kerry link to wilson's site "restore honesty".

joseph wilson Oh well, I guess he isn't good for political advantage anymore.... hasta la vista Wilson

Hmm... You can't even find ANY entry for joe wilson on kerry's website.

SEARCH RESULTS for "joe wilson"

Sorry, no matches were found containing "joe wilson".

Sandy Berger: Oh well, he'll be back as soon as he's cleared from stealing classified documents I guess. I guess he doesn't really feel that Sandy Berger gives that apperance of strength since it's been shown that he could have done something about bin laden up to 5 times .....Nous can't faisons cela

...“Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to the campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly.” ...
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0720c.html