st">Posted by: alkali at July 7, 2003 02:30 PM

McKinley was assasinated after he ran for reelection in 1900, which was a year and a half after the Spanish-American War.

Posted by: Steve Smith at July 7, 2003 04:37 PM

"An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_2518.shtml

Posted by: southpaw at July 8, 2003 11:13 AM

Here's a lefty's take on the issue, Which are lies?. The consensus is that most are not lies. They may not be totally honest, but they are not lies.

Posted by: Howdy at July 8, 2003 12:23 PM

The right's defense of the truthfulness of President Bush is starting to resemble the arguments made in defense of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. If the whole basis for one's claim is that Bush "fudged" the truth a little, but didn't lie, you're basically conceding the fact that he isn't to be trusted.

Posted by: Steve Smith at July 8, 2003 03:17 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->