Rove was willing to wait until 2004 for Iraq war

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So much for "imminent threat".  I was lied to about why we went to war, and I'm really angry.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/0362/97242

[ATFFL]

So, what I am gathering, is that the President's chief political advisor, whose job it is to inform him of the political ramifications of decisions, said that Bush could wait until 2004 if he wanted to, with no political reprucissions back home.

Bush decided, instead, to go forward in 2003 with the war.

So, you're point is that Bush listens to advisors other than Karl Rove and should be impeached for this.  Where is the problem here?  I thought you guys did not like Karl Rove and would be happy to see he does not have the level of control at the White House that you feared.

[12th Doctor]

So, what I am gathering, is that the President's chief political advisor, whose job it is to inform him of the political ramifications of decisions, said that Bush could wait until 2004 if he wanted to, with no political reprucissions back home.

Bush decided, instead, to go forward in 2003 with the war.

So, you're point is that Bush listens to advisors other than Karl Rove and should be impeached for this.  Where is the problem here?  I thought you guys did not like Karl Rove and would be happy to see he does not have the level of control at the White House that you feared.

You are basically correct, Tredrick.  Also, don't forget, this is from Daily KOS.

[TheresNoMoney]

You are basically correct, Tredrick.  Also, don't forget, this is from Daily KOS.

Thank you, my fellow apologist.

The information is actually from the Guardian in the UK:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1635997,00.html

[Angel of Death]

First Berlusconi, now Rove. Looks like the rats are jumping the ship known as Iraq en masse.

[J. J.]

You are basically correct, Tredrick.  Also, don't forget, this is from Daily KOS.

Thank you, my fellow apologist.

The information is actually from the Guardian in the UK:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1635997,00.html

The British version of the Daily Commie.

[The Vorlon]

So, what I am gathering, is that the President's chief political advisor, whose job it is to inform him of the political ramifications of decisions, said that Bush could wait until 2004 if he wanted to, with no political reprucissions back home.

Bush decided, instead, to go forward in 2003 with the war.

So, you're point is that Bush listens to advisors other than Karl Rove and should be impeached for this.  Where is the problem here?  I thought you guys did not like Karl Rove and would be happy to see he does not have the level of control at the White House that you feared.

Tredrick.... you keep resorting to logic in your posts...

Your course of action is thus doomed to failure.

[J-Mann]

You are basically correct, Tredrick.  Also, don't forget, this is from Daily KOS.

Thank you, my fellow apologist.

The information is actually from the Guardian in the UK:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1635997,00.html

Ahh, yes, the Guardian...that makes it all legitimate, then.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You are basically correct, Tredrick.  Also, don't forget, this is from Daily KOS.

Thank you, my fellow apologist.

The information is actually from the Guardian in the UK:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1635997,00.html

Ahh, yes, the Guardian...that makes it all legitimate, then.

So, ummm, what "reliable" sources do you use for your news?

[J-Mann]

You are basically correct, Tredrick.  Also, don't forget, this is from Daily KOS.

Thank you, my fellow apologist.

The information is actually from the Guardian in the UK:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1635997,00.html

Ahh, yes, the Guardian...that makes it all legitimate, then.

So, ummm, what "reliable" sources do you use for your news?

Certainly not rehashed blog postings from a British tabloid.  I try to stay away from papers with an overt bias in one direction or the other throughout, and you honestly can't tell me the Guardian is "reliable."  It's the left-wing equivalent of Fox News or the New York Post.  Can't you admit that you like the Guardian because it presents the news as you like to see it?

I read the New York Times and Washington Post, primarily, on top of watching a healthy amount of C-Span so that I can make up my own mind about things as opposed to having a paper write my opinions for me.  I also browse the Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, and several other major regional papers daily.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So much for "imminent threat".  I was lied to about why we went to war, and I'm really angry.

Then join Cindy Sheehan outside of the White House.