Kerry tries to defeat Bush again

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Downing memo obviously deserves more attention. The American media has not been doing its job of reporting on such a newsworthy memo, so Senator Kerry will be doing so. Obviously Bush isn't going to be impeached, you only get impeached when a majority of the House dislikes you (even a lot of Republicans admit that). And impeachment isn't that big a deal, because a two-thirds majority of the Senate is need to actually remove you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I will not  believe it till somebody with unimpeachable journalist credentials starts to play the story.

Well, we can rule out you.

UPDATE:

Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), not that anybody actually believed him, has ALREADY broken his word - despite signing on to the deal to bring the Owen Nomination to the floor, he actually voted to sustain the fillibuster in tonights vote..

Hmmm... breaking a high profile deal in under 24 hours... is that a record...?

BUSTED! He wasn't there, you liar.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00127

It got a lot of coverage from respectable media .... in the UK. Of course it'd be too much to expect a Republican like you to be aware of that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually I did make a mistake.. he choose not to vote.... he was present... but he did not support the deal he signed on to...

I stand corrected !

Nice to see you still active and your fiesty self Mr. JFern...

No, he was not there. If he had been there, his vote would be listed as "Present" like that of Senator Steven's vote on the actual confirmation vote. "Not voting" means you're not in the Senate chambers when the vote is taken.  He also was not at the "gang of 14" press announcement.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00128

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Brain Dead Crook??  The British GOVERNMENT has not denied that this is autehntic.  Maybe it will turn out to be nothing (if investgated correctly I doubt it), but it is somethuing that should get attention & be looked into

Ditto for the Bush adminstration. The memo is fact.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, the memo is fact.

It's actually only one document in a long list of documents showing that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since 1999.

If he'd only spent as much time pre-9/11 reading memos about terrorism as he spent planning an invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/5/184322/3073

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, the memo is fact.

It's actually only one document in a long list of documents showing that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since 1999.

If he'd only spent as much time pre-9/11 reading memos about terrorism as he spent planning an invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/5/184322/3073

Bill Clinton did not take terrorism seriously even after 1993 Waco, the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1995 OKC bombing, and the rash of school shootings in 1998-2000.  So, how can you criticize Bush for being lax on terrorism before 9/11, when his predecessor did not take it seriously.  Sure, Clinton looked at Osama Bin Laden and even tried to punish Saddam Hussein, but he didn't actively try to remove the thorn in the world's side, known as Saddam Hussein.

Only George W. Bush had the guts to take a big political gamble and remove the threat from Iraq.  I do admit that the Bush administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace (such as why we're in the insurgent mess today), but at least he tried.  I believe he is still actively looking for Bin Laden, just as he is al-Zarqawi and the other al-Qaeda terrorists and terrorists from other organizations.  By the way, Bush won that gamble at least by being re-elected by a bigger margin than he was appointed President in 2000.

I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out the facts how I see them.

Jeff

Ever heard of the 1996 Clinton anti-terorrism bill watered down by the Republican Congress? Ever heard of the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000 that was prevented? No, well that's because all you have are your biased Republican talking points.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

By the way, the war on terror will never be won until the world ends.

How 1984ish.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ever heard of the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000 that was prevented?

That was a lucky break, and not part of an organized anti-terrorism strategy.  The officer who foiled the plot even admitted to that.

Yeah, you're right, they didn't get a memo about that one. The 8/06/01 memo titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US", on the other hand.....