Why won't Bush testify?

[Nate]

I don't know what Bush's real motives were, but it is clear that he intended
to go to war from the start. All the evidence says his plans pre-dated
9/11. To those who say he acted on the same evidence that Clinton failed to
act upon -- well, a 1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House." National Security Council
Clinton adviser Sandy Berger arranged ten briefings for Bush and Rice. They
gave Bush a comprehensive plan to deal with al-Qaida and told them that the
terrorist group would be their biggest job.

Bush assigned Dick Cheney to the issue and ignored the plan, starting from
scratch. Perhaps that's why Bush is fighting an investigation into 9/11 so
strongly. In contrast to, say, Ronald Reagan who, when he found out about
Iran-Contra, ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION, TESTIFIED THREE TIMES TO THE HEARING
PANEL, AND CHANGED POLICIES AS A RESULT ... ALL WITHIN THREE MONTHS. Hmmmm
...

And there are still people out there wondering why MAYBE Bush & Co. are
avoiding the committee?

[Roedy Green]

Post by Nate
1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House."

And Bush still claims his nonchalance during 9-11 was because he
thought that was "one bad pilot".

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Nate]

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Nate
1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House."

And Bush still claims his nonchalance during 9-11 was because he
thought that was "one bad pilot".
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

It's beyond me how some people actually believe him. I'm not saying that he
lied about the intelligence he got, but I do believe he cherry picked the
evidence to support his case for war with the man who tried to kill his
daddy.

[Steveo]

Post by Nate

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Nate
1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House."

And Bush still claims his nonchalance during 9-11 was because he
thought that was "one bad pilot".
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

It's beyond me how some people actually believe him. I'm not saying that he
lied about the intelligence he got, but I do believe he cherry picked the
evidence to support his case for war with the man who tried to kill his
daddy.

Cherry picking is lying.

[az-willie]

Post by Steveo

Post by Nate

Post by Roedy Green

Post by Nate
1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House."

And Bush still claims his nonchalance during 9-11 was because he
thought that was "one bad pilot".
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

It's beyond me how some people actually believe him. I'm not saying that he
lied about the intelligence he got, but I do believe he cherry picked the
evidence to support his case for war with the man who tried to kill his
daddy.

Cherry picking is lying.
=========

The Bush administration has a long proud history of distortion,
misleading, and half-truths.

In this morning's Arizona Republic( an ) on page A4 there is an article
about the Union of concerned scientists issued a report that says " the
scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation
of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

They cite several instances with the Bush administration forced
government agencies to remove material from reports that didn't fit with
their political agenda. In some cases they delayed the reports in the
past the agency to end a project which had results counter to what the
administration wanted.

Issuing half-truths in a report is lying... cherry picking is using only
the facts that support your agenda and ignoring other facts and when
those cherry pick facts are reported that is a lie.

The Bush administration has chosen to lie many times to further its
agenda whether it be to invade Iraq or remove environmental restrictions
on corporate contributors.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH!

[jose soplar]

Post by Nate
I don't know what Bush's real motives were, but it is clear that he intended
to go to war from the start. All the evidence says his plans pre-dated
9/11. To those who say he acted on the same evidence that Clinton failed to
act upon -- well, a 1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House."

A tale from a Tom Clancy book. Is that what the Clinton people based their
"plan" on?

Post by Nate
National Security Council
Clinton adviser Sandy Berger arranged ten briefings for Bush and Rice. They
gave Bush a comprehensive plan to deal with al-Qaida and told them that the
terrorist group would be their biggest job.

By they, you are obviously referring to Berger and Clinton. Do you really
think that the President should have continued the failed policies of the
Clinton administration.

Post by Nate
Bush assigned Dick Cheney to the issue and ignored the plan, starting from
scratch. Perhaps that's why Bush is fighting an investigation into 9/11 so
strongly. In contrast to, say, Ronald Reagan who, when he found out about
Iran-Contra, ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION, TESTIFIED THREE TIMES TO THE HEARING
PANEL, AND CHANGED POLICIES AS A RESULT ... ALL WITHIN THREE MONTHS. Hmmmm
...
And there are still people out there wondering why MAYBE Bush & Co. are
avoiding the committee?

Obviously, the sole purpose of the committee in deposing the
President is to damage the President during the election
cycle. It's all about politics. I think it is beyond
disgusting that the Democrats have politicized the war
against Jihad extremists who are blood thirsty lunatics who
cherish martyrdom above life.

[ME]

Nate - are you really as stupid as you sound? I just have to know.

Post by Nate
I don't know what Bush's real motives were, but it is clear that he intended
to go to war from the start. All the evidence says his plans pre-dated
9/11. To those who say he acted on the same evidence that Clinton failed to
act upon -- well, a 1999 study warned that Osama might "crash land an
aircraft into the pentagon, CIA or White House." National Security Council
Clinton adviser Sandy Berger arranged ten briefings for Bush and Rice.

They

Post by Nate
gave Bush a comprehensive plan to deal with al-Qaida and told them that the
terrorist group would be their biggest job.
Bush assigned Dick Cheney to the issue and ignored the plan, starting from
scratch. Perhaps that's why Bush is fighting an investigation into 9/11 so
strongly. In contrast to, say, Ronald Reagan who, when he found out about
Iran-Contra, ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION, TESTIFIED THREE TIMES TO THE HEARING
PANEL, AND CHANGED POLICIES AS A RESULT ... ALL WITHIN THREE MONTHS.

Hmmmm

Post by Nate
...
And there are still people out there wondering why MAYBE Bush & Co. are
avoiding the committee?
--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "know" that aint
so." -- Will Rogers

[Gus]

He's scheduled to chew gum that day.