[Vision2020] uranium denial--GUTLESS DEMOS?
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:43:16 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Tim,</P></DIV>
<P>You're a little too generous to the Republicans who impeached Clinton. They didn't do it out of courage of selflesness; they did it because they thought they had enough votes to succeed, and they thought the public would rally around them. I doubt they believed they were taking any risks. They turned out to be wrong. But let's not confuse vote-counting and a calculated gamble with courage.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>The Democrats won't try to impeach Bush now because they don't have the votes. The only way that's going to happen now is if Republicans join in. Since right now their leadership is working on restricting investigations, it's not likely they will get on an impeachment bandwagon. Maybe if more facts come out, but the White House is clearly counting on public apathy on this, just as they are with the continuing deaths in Iraq.</P>
<P>Don't think I'm saying the Dems haven't been cowards on this issue. Of course they have, huge herds of them, and I'll remember who voted for the October resolution when the primary rolls around. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Dale, surely you are employing irony when you write of Tenet "allowing the uranium claim to be believed by the President." You're not really saying it happened that way, are you? Not when in October 2002 Tenet tells the White House not to use it in a speech, and then in January '03 it shows up again. You're not really saying someone in the White House forgot that it was false in three months, are you?</P>
<P>Please. </P>
<P>Look at the official reactions now. Rumsfeld and Rice come out and basically say, "Well, the statement was factually true, since the British were making the claim, and that's what the President said in his speech." It's pretty clear that the White House wanted to make the claim that Hussein was trying to buy uranium from an African state, and they couldn't say that the CIA had learned this, so they found a different way to say it. They must have forgotten that the CIA was telling the British that the story was no good, and they shouldn't use it. Maybe in the week between the State of the Union speech and Colin Powell's Feb. 5 speech at the U.N. they learned the truth. Oh, wait, Rice says she didn't know until when, last month? How did Powell know to keep that one out of his speech if the CIA was hiding this info?</P>
<P>If there's something that should be pretty obvious by now, it's that the Project for the New American Century folks that are running our foreign, I'm sorry, military policy, don't want to pay attention to news that they don't like. They wanted this war going back to at least '98, and they weren't about to let a few facts get in the way.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Sunil Ramalingam<BR> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMGENUS/2737??PS=">MSN 8:</a> smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* </html>