From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
The June 10th 2003 INR memo

July 21, 2005 12:51 AM

Front page, tomorrow's Washington Post:

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

Joe Wilson's column disputing Bush's claim that Saddam was seeking nuclear material from Niger was published on July 6th. The State department's intelligence director sent the memo to Sec. State Colin Powell the next morning, and Novak published Plame's identity publicly on July 14th. Rove claims to have learned from Novak (yeah right) about Valerie Plame's covert status and then passed it on to Matt Cooper on July 11th.

Again.. we're supposed to believe Bob Novak is more hooked in than Karl Rove? Excuse me?

The memo brings up the fact that the State department's intelligence operation opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because they had already disproved Bush's uranium claim and duly noted their position in the famous Fall '02 National Intelligence Estimate which was scrubbed clean of their dissent before being released to the public to sell a war that has now killed 25,000 civilians.

Good job guys.

More from the archive in Intelligence, Karl Rove Scandal, Valerie Plame.

The June 10th 2003 INR memo (07.21.2005)

Next Entry: Yes, Rove & Libby are hiding behind the press (07.21.2005)
Previous Entry: Wal-Mart corporate goes to Washington (07.18.2005)

Read the 40 comments.

Dave E.:


The Bush inner circle of coddled, pimple-faced teenies just got caught with their pants down around their ankles, hands on their jimmies. This is unspinnable.

BushCo used to be able to spin this stuff like a dradel. But Rove got too cutesy playing his little game of political stratego. Karma is one cold bitch.

My guess is Fitzgerald is thinking perjury or obstruction of justice, a throwback to Martha Stewart. Rove lied his ass off the first time he testified, that much is known with certitude.

Anything from the token wingnut gallery on this one?

Thu Jul 21 2005 1:39 AM

Mike of the Great White North:

Dave E: was that a rhetorical question? Wingnuts defend the indefensible. You'll hear from them soon enough.

Thu Jul 21 2005 9:48 AM


Important petition. Please sign and pass along.

Thu Jul 21 2005 10:53 AM

Sponge Bob:

The memo brings up the fact that the State department's intelligence operation opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because they had already disproved Bush's uranium claim and duly noted their position in the famous Fall '02 National Intelligence Estimate which was scrubbed clean of their dissent before being released to the public to sell a war that has now killed 25,000 civilians.


Didn't Wilson provide information that supported the case for the war that caused the deaths of 25,000 people? Isn't he part of the killing machine that led the US to war?

Thu Jul 21 2005 5:58 PM


"My guess is Fitzgerald is thinking perjury or obstruction of justice, a throwback to Martha Stewart. Rove lied his ass off the first time he testified, that much is known with certitude."

Wow got a source on that the did get filtered through the DU?

Remember, Miller is sitting in a jail cell for not revealing her sources – and it isn't Rove because he has given blanket permission to allow disclosure. Wonder who she is protecting? Given Wilson’s past it would be just like him to allow someone to sit in a cell so he doesn’t have too.

Thu Jul 21 2005 6:02 PM

Sponge Bob:

Roberts is seen as a smoke screen for the "Rove Scandal", actually I think its the other way around, Rove will draw the fire off Roberts.

In four months we will learn that Wilson told reporters that his wife was a "super secret undercover agent" and the CIA was so impressed with her work that they "naturally" extended an offer to him hoping to make them a family of spies. Upon questioning administration officials about Wilson's claims and the revelation that his wife works at the CIA reporters found that yes his wife held down a desk but Wilson was only given a vacation trip to Niger after his wife begged them to hire her unemployed husband, if for no other reason to get him off the couch and off her. Expect Wilson to be the center of the circle jerk by late November.

Meanwhile Roberts sails through confirmation while democrats build a misplaced case of hysteria for Rove. By Christmas Rove is still sitting at his desk, Roberts is on the Supreme Court, Wilson is looking at prison and democrats and wondering how Chimpyhitlerbush outsmarted them again.

Thu Jul 21 2005 6:17 PM


Thu Jul 21 2005 8:39 PM

Jim Gilliam:

"Didn't Wilson provide information that supported the case for the war that caused the deaths of 25,000 people? Isn't he part of the killing machine that led the US to war?" --- Huh? What the heck does that mean?

Thu Jul 21 2005 10:24 PM

Sponge Bob:

I keep hearing from the left how Bush "cherry picked" his information to support the war. Wilson provided supporting evidence to the British claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake. Doesn't that make him a contributor to the run up to the war?

Fri Jul 22 2005 12:41 PM



you got it wrong. This is a frequently repeated, but erroneous right-wing talking point. Wilson helped de-bunk the wrong-headed notion that Saddam was seeking Uranium from Niger.

In fact, Wilson had demonstrated just the opposite. Neo-cons didn't like that news and tried to spin it the opposite way.

This is a great object lesson in neo-con tactics:
1) Try to re-define reality.
2) Attack the man
3) Attack his wife
4) Make people forget the origiinal issue.

In this case, we need to remember:
1) We went to war based on lies.
2) Rove and Bush did everything they could to blame everyone but themselves. That included compromising the ability of the CIA to do its job.
3) Once again the messengers are being attacked for telling the truth.

Fri Jul 22 2005 3:22 PM

Sponge Bob:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

So now bipartison senate reports and the Washington Post spout right wing talking points? Take another drink of Kool-Aid.

Mon Jul 25 2005 8:48 AM

Tom from Madison:


you've got your fact filter on again. There have been a ton of facts that have come out since the story you cited from July of 2004. You might want to catch up.

Mon Jul 25 2005 11:59 AM

Sponge Bob:

Other then the MSM taking a cue from the DU and distorting everything that came out of Wilson's mouth (or just flat ignoring the facts) in an attempt to make him look less like a liar, what else has come up? A reputable source please.

Mon Jul 25 2005 12:42 PM

Dave E.:,9171,1083899-3,00.html,1,2152689.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Now get upstairs and do your homework!

Tue Jul 26 2005 2:33 AM

Sponge Bob:

Ask for facts from a liberal and all you hear are the crickets.

Tue Jul 26 2005 9:55 AM

Mike of the Great White North:

Ask for the truth from a rightwing repulican neo-crazy dual loyalist wingnut bush supporting faux newz watching redneck.... and you'll end up in a straightjacket trying to put their twisted illogical thoughts together.

"Anxiously awaiting the Rapture... so all these dumb (*&%ing tards dissapear!"

Tue Jul 26 2005 1:02 PM

Sponge Bob:

Ask for some facts and you get an angry buzz kill shrieking about how unfair it is that one uses logic and lucidity. I thought maybe I’d missed something that might have changed Wilson’s status as lying sack of shit, but I guess I didn’t.

Tue Jul 26 2005 2:49 PM

Sponge Bob:

Is that really a post by Mike or did somebody grab his handle and post a parody?

Tue Jul 26 2005 2:50 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Nope. That was me alright. I've been driven to this. After much thought and serious soul searching i realized there is no point or worth trying to debate, or rationally argue with you and your ilk. So i thought i'd write in a style you could grasp and easily comprehend. Tit for tat. Although i used a few more descriptives, i would have hoped my point has been made.

The fact of the matter is, there have been too many instances where actual FACTS have been used by many of the more intelligent and educated posters here that have simply been blown off by the loony right, that have been evaded by avoidence or misdirection or changing of topic. It's a classic Right wing tactic. Facts are apperently meaningless. So why should i bother discoursing in any other type of language other than that of type your kind is so proficient at?

No spongy, at the end of the day the facts remain. No WMD. No al-quada link. Dozens of books, articles, memos pointing to predetermined war, no cakewalk, no last throes to insurgents, 1700+ dead americans, 20,000+dead iraqie civilians (almost 7 x 9-11's if you give a $#!t), no osama bin laden, still shaking hands with dictators, still lying about Iran, still deluding yourself why terrorism takes place, still stuck in a quagmire with no way out, 470 billion spent and counting, deficit spending, world condemnation and Osama still laughing as he bleeds you dry. And for all your bluster, Wilson went, saw, and reported the niger story a crock. Screw with Bush and his run to war, and you get this. Considering you seem to dispise lying sacks of shit, your platitudes of Bush only prove you're living in bizzaro world.

PS-heres a tiny bit of insight for you to chew on. and when it comes true, you dont have to call me the next Nostradamus. Right now Al-Quada is doing a damn fine job of hurting every ally you've bought. When the Brits are tired of these new bombings and rightly blame Blair for getting them in this crap, they'll immolate him, bring their troops home... BOOM end of terrorism there. Same for every other member of the coalition of the bribed. Once they isolate you, expect your next 9-11. They wont hit you now, they don't want to give the world a chance to sympathize with you since you've done such a good job pissing everyone off.

Tue Jul 26 2005 6:35 PM


"Mike of the Great White North: NEW

Nope. That was me alright. I've been driven to this. After much thought and serious soul searching i realized....."

Wow Mike I never knew you cared. It must burn your ass to be asked a reasonable measured question that you can't answer without making the left wing look like idiots. The fact is Wilson is a lying sack of shit and the democrats have tied themselves to this idiot and will burn with him. He's everything he's accused others of being and even worse and much to your anger it's documented fact.

Wed Jul 27 2005 9:23 AM

Tom from Madison:

I know it doesn't fit with the conservative talking points, but if the neo-cons did even a little bit of introspection, they'd have to be afraid of what they've become in the last 5 years.

The list of "good guys" gone bad has to make even neo-cons start wondering which of today's good guys will be tomorrow's scoundrels?

Bush 41 called Joe Wilson a "true American hero". He only lost that status when he reminded people of the facts regarding the Iraq War. The Republicans don't want the American people to know the facts. It interferes with their ability to manufacture reality.

Remember Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark? These loyal public servants were also villified for daring to speak the truth,

It's time for Republicans to realize there is a new cancer on the Presidency. It's the insistence that blind loyalty is more important than the truth.

Also ask yourself why so much energy is going into defending Karl Rove, political dirty tricks expert.

What kind of Christian makes this guy a patron saint?
What kind of democracy tolerates giving HIM access to national security information?

Wed Jul 27 2005 12:59 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Nameless... i actually do care. Thats why it 'burns my ass'.

Whatever you story is regarding Wilson being a lying sack of shit... the inescapable reality is, as soon as he made public his opposition to the words being used in the SOTU address, he got ripped into by Bushs attack dogs. its a story that has been played over and over countless times. this time it had a consequence.

Considering the fact that i hate the democratic party as much as the republicans (for the 10 thousandth time, it the foriegn policy) i really cant see how the democrats will go down burning with Wilson even if he is a liar. Bush is fairing pretty well after being associated with some of the biggest liars in history. Slam Dunk tenet, Rummy "we know where the WMD are" Rumsfeld, Ahmed 'Iraqis will treat you as liberators and oh yeah, i embezzled billions" Chalabi, Dick "Iraq has ties to Al-Quada' Cheney, Paul 'Iraq will finance its own reconstruction' Wolfowitz. Shall i go on. The amount of lies that have come out of the white house have not stopped Bush... maybe the Dems are starting to play the Republican game. In fact the bull$#!t began from day one with stories from rightwing talking heads about how Clinton and staff destroyed the white house and air force one. Played that for over a week straight. Guess what... all of it bull$#!t.

No, what really burns my ass is having this discussion in the first place. I mean i can swear that i was arguing against having this war way back in early 03. What, am i clarivoyent or something? Did i know something everyone else didn't? While all you wingnuts were screaming for war cuz Saddam was such a bloody threat i laughed at all of you because i knew from fact/history/common sense that it wasn't possible. Your congress gave Bush a blank cheque for war because it thought different. Your congress believed there were going to be mushroom clouds and drones spraying germs in the air, courtesy of Iraq and the Al-Quada connection. That is the real reason you went to war.

No what really burns my ass is hearing you nuts now saying it was for democracy, liberation and all that bull. Thats your sad back up excuse when the WMD theory didn't pan out. When David Kay said 'we were all wrong', he's talking about you wingnut trolls who rally around your talking points without thinking. (He's also talking to you Democrats who had no spine to challenge the BS for fear of being labeled a traitor or terror sympathiser.) Your just one big f'n echo chamber of stupidity. It all starts at the White House, to the RNC, to the FNC to the beer swillin toothless wonder who somehow thinks he's the next target for terrorism from some Ayrab in bumfuck Idaho.

No what really burns my ass is that all of you wingnuts seem to rationize the deaths of 3000 people as a justification to go play Empire all over the world. What really burns my ass is that when the role is reversed, and 500,000 of them die due to US backed sanctions, when an entire people are being crushed under the jacked boots of Israeli oppression with US support, when apostate US backed gov'ts in the middle east rule thier own people with an iron fist, and with hundreds of thousands of US troops on foriegn soil protecting 'American interests' over the needs of the local populace, you just dont seem to understand why they would fly planes into buildings, save for the tired, useless and thoughtless argument of 'they hate us for our values and freedoms'. Takes someone with absolutely zero intelligence to come up with something as simple and irrelevant as that.

No what really burns my ass is that Fox viewers are documented to be the most uninformed people in the world. What really burns my ass is questioning ones loyalty and patriotism when you stand up against King George and his loony policies, and then being told 'how dare you question someones patriotism' when you rightfully point out that chickenhawks and ultra rich windbags of your country all squawk for war but are neither willing to send themselves nor their children to fight for their convictions. Republicans will protect you, no, save you from terrorism so vote for us. Dems are weak. Well since terrorism will never dissapear as an option we've got the beginings of another 1000 year rule. The 4th reich.

No what really burns my ass is the fact that NJ Guardsman is still out there combing the desert looking for WMD when even Bush has finally come out and said there are none. What really burns my ass is this faux war on terror when the US supports the MEK against Iran, tells Russia to back off on Chechnya,

No what really burns my ass is seeing America turning into the police state, with rights and freedoms being wiped out. Free speech is no longer free unless you pay omage to the leader. Laws only apply until the gov't decides you are an 'enemy combatant'. Everything is classified, no transparancy, no oversight.

In a nutshell, what REALLY burns my ass is that I, a Canadian, fight more for the Republic, constitution and the vision your founding fathers had dreamed of than most Americans. And watching wingnut trolls try to destroy that vision because they have messianic visions of Empire America burns me the most.

Wed Jul 27 2005 3:05 PM

Sponge Bob:

Congratulations Mike, you successfully entered all the's talking points into a thread that had nothing to do with ANY OF THEM. To save time I suggest you copy your tirade and paste it as a reply to every post from now on. It must really suck to be a liberal today if a simply question like "got proof" can send one spiraling over the edge. Better yet, just take a few pills and let the soothing voice of George Soros tell you what to think, that will calm you.

Thu Jul 28 2005 9:09 AM


"Bush 41 called Joe Wilson a "true American hero". He only lost that status when he reminded people of the facts regarding the Iraq War. The Republicans don't want the American people to know the facts. It interferes with their ability to manufacture reality."

Reality? Facts? Look down it's biting you on the ass.

A bipartisan Senate intelligence investigation found that every point that Joe Wilson brought up in his Op-ed piece and in subsequent interviews contradicted what actually happened. The Senate report found that Plame recommended Wilson for the job, Cheney never requested the Niger investigation and certainly never requested Wilson by name, Wilson's "investigation" actually reinforced the British intelligence claim that Saddam was attempting to purchase Yellow Cake from Niger. The same report also found that the CIA NEVER expressed reservations over Bush including the British claim in his State of the Union Address. The most damning part of Wilson's report is that the CIA gave it little if any credence and decided that the amateurish job wasn't worth passing on to anyone.

The biggest problem the democrats have is that Wilson was smeared with the truth and he smelled like shit afterwards.

I agree, Rove should be fired for "careless" handling of sensitive material. But then John Kerry should have his security clearances pulled (and be prosecuted) for revealing the name of a REAL CIA OPERATIVE on the Senate floor in his attempt to smear another individual.

Thu Jul 28 2005 9:31 AM

SPonge Bob:

The above is mine.

Thu Jul 28 2005 9:31 AM

Tom from Madison:


leveling unsubstantiated charges against Kerry is not any defense for Rove. However, your resorting to that tactic tells me the left is making the right VERY NERVOUS! That's a GOOD THING!

Rove's fiiring should have already happened. There are many charges to come including perjury and possibly treason. The fact that Bush hasn't already fired Rove speaks volumes about Bush family values.

Bush won't fire Rove because it's the right thing to do. The only way he'll fire him is to be politically expedient.

The Bush family values most what crime families value--LOYALTY. Loyalty matters more to W than the truth itself matters.

This is truly a sick and twisted man. It should be a clue that W refers to his most trusted political advisor as 'Turd Blossom'.

How many of you neo-cons out there will proudly tell your kids of the glory days of the Bush presidency and how it was all made possible by that political genius "Turd Blossom"?

How many preachers will exhort their congregations to be more like Turd Blossom?

By the way, just how did that nickname originate?

Thu Jul 28 2005 4:41 PM

Sponge Bob:

"leveling unsubstantiated charges against Kerry is not any defense for Rove. However, your resorting to that tactic tells me the left is making the right VERY NERVOUS! That's a GOOD THING!"

It's not a defense, but neither is it unsubstantiated:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Revealed Name Of Undercover CIA Officer In Senate Hearing:

"John R. Bolton, President Bush's Nominee To Be Ambassador To The United Nations, Delicately Referred To The Undercover Officer As 'Mr. Smith' At His Confirmation Hearing On Monday."" (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Loose Lips Let Slip Agent's Name At Hearing," The New York Times, 4/13/05)

"Though Mr. Armstrong [Name Kerry Revealed] Had Been Identified In News Reports Two Years Ago About His Dispute With Other Officials Over Intelligence Involving Cuba, That Was When He Was The National Intelligence Officer For Latin America, And His Name Was No Secret. When The Bolton Nomination Resurrected The Old Accounts, However, The C.I.A. Asked News Organizations To Withhold His Name." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Loose Lips Let Slip Agent's Name At Hearing," The New York Times, 4/13/05)

"[M]r. Kerry Mentioned [Armstrong] By Name While Questioning Mr. Bolton. The Hearings Were Televised, And Transcripts Were Widely Published." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Loose Lips Let Slip Agent's Name At Hearing," The New York Times, 4/13/05)

All this concern of the secrecy of CIA agents, but not a word about this little item. Just more hypocrisy on the part of the left. As I stated, I think Rove should be sent back to Texas for his sloppy handling of "sensitive material". But Kerry should have his clearances yanked and maybe spend a little time in front of a grand jury of his own for that little faux pass.

Fri Jul 29 2005 10:27 AM

Tom from Madison:

I trust the Bush justice department is on top of any charges to be brought against Kerry. If not, please call THEM immediately!

To compare that to Rove-gate is absurd. We have lies in the 2003 State of the Union speech, a bogus rationale for war, and lots of dead Americans and Iraqis based on policy that spun out the fact-mangling of Rove-Bush-Cheney. That's where the country needs to focus. Please adjust your talking points accordingly!

How about answering my questions. I'm interested in what you righties teach your kids about Karl Rove and what YOU think it says about the President.

A moral reading of this chapter of history indicates that Bush owes his a debt of gratitude to a true slimeball who may be guilty of treason.

Do any of you principled neo-cons have a problem with that?

Fri Jul 29 2005 11:54 AM

Sponge Bob:

It must suck being a liberal swimming against the tide of facts and reason. Kerry reveals a REAL CIA agent on the Senate floor before the C-Span camera and it's a non event, Rove spoke to a reporter about an publicized CIA employee and the president should be impeached - what color is the sky in your world?

By the way, you have yet to address Wilson's part in providing the tainted intelligence the led the US to war. Or the fact that it appears that Wilson had a big hand in “outing” his own wife:

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column was published. In it Corn's only source referenced is Wilson, but Corn denies that Wilson spoke of his wife. But Corn asserts that Plame “working covertly”, how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing? In the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” How did Corn know that Plame had “undercover” status? Novak NEVER mentions it in his column. Corn has never admitted who gave him that information, and the only person he used as a source for the article is Wilson.

Fri Jul 29 2005 1:56 PM



For YEARS the only way people got news was from: NBC, ABC, CBS and print, the left had a monopoly “all the news the left sees fit to print”, since the advent of the internet, and the popularity of radio, people have had a choice, you like choice don’t you?

Now the leftist liberal media has become desperate, hand in hand with Democrats (case in point: National Guard debacle, Newsweek, etc etc). It tried demonizing Rumsfeld (didn’t work), Gitmo (flushing the CORAN down the toilet-a lie), Abu Ghraib (torture yeah right), among other things.

Recently in LA police had to shoot a man using his own daughter as a shield and a certain news entity had the video on its website, normally you’d have to pay to see any video – BUT - this one was free, (any way you can screw authority do it) Why? Could it be because the video portrayed the LAPD in an unflattering way? NO there’s no liberal media bias.

Truth is up until 1994 the Dems/Libs have had the run of American Government and pretty much the media, now that the American public is no longer spoon-fed only what they want us to know, the left don’t know what to do with themselves (case in point recent rant by MOTGWN on this website).

On the case for the 9/11 Iraq connection from the 9/11 report: “Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

Question How can it be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq."

After being personally attacked by MOTGWN on WMD in Iraq all I have to say is why is the UN looking for something that reportedly DOES NOT EXIST?

You play the class envy card by judging patriotism by how much money some one has.

“I pull for the human race” that’s funny so do I! So does POTUS – he realizes we have been under attack since 1993 and no one has done a thing about it, BUSH HAS and is still doing it to spite aid and comfort to the enemy given by the likes of: Kennedy, Durbin, Moore, Frankin, Pelosi and a lot of you!

“Uniter not a Divider” do you remember Bush 41 saying “Kinder, Gentler America” and then Iraq invades Kuwait. And your side waged a campaign against the military then, saying we weren’t ready, our equipment was faulty, be prepared for 250,000 body bags – I remember it.
“America doesn’t look terribly united today” why, because America isn’t united on your terms and because America hasn’t united under your leftist pinko commie ideals, that’s why you call the American people stupid, ignorant, un-educated, not informed enough because they don’t go your way.

What’s left for the left, insinuating Bush is making back door deals to fill his pockets while twirling his mustache and wearing his black hat, saying Bush knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen (funny, they said the same thing about Pearle harbor). Doing all you can to destroy his character, personally attacking him calling him Hitler and you wonder why we’re divided.

Accusing Cheney of still working for Haliburton and for the life of me I cant see him doing all he can to make the guy who replaced him at Haliburton be more successful then he.

Now that the public is better informed and the left no longer has a monopoly on the media – you guys are all in an uproar.

You all scream as loud as you can about the Administration/Republicans/Neo-cons, yet not a peep about racist comments by Dean, stolen classified documents by Sandy Berger, comparisons of the American military to the Nazis by Turban, false documents brought out to discredit Bush (crickets chirping).

What should really burn you ass is that you actually justify 9/11, and blame 500K deaths on the “U. S. Backed sanctions” when the one responsible is/was Saddam himself.

Tell you what; if Rove is CONVICTED of anything concerning this scandal I’ll be the first to say he deserved it!

Will any of you do the same of those I’ve mentioned or those I haven’t on your side

Fri Jul 29 2005 3:39 PM



Your schwastika is showing

Fri Jul 29 2005 6:39 PM


Yet again the left turns to personal attacks, Who ever you are you can go to hell

Fri Jul 29 2005 7:20 PM

Dave E.:

Looks like NJ just blew a gasket. You know he's reached full wingnut frenzy when the McCarthy-era "pinko commie bastard" accusation enters the fray. Thanks for the it.

And thanks for hitting the 'suggestions for creative writing' guides. Between you and Spongey, the redundancy was becoming excruciatingly boring.

Now. I'm not calling the American people stupid. Not when a clear majority disapproves of Bush, with quite a few swing voters suffering from a nasty case of buyers remorse. But I guess they're pinko and commie and bastards too, huh? What was all that disdain you showed about name calling? Pot meet kettle? The time has come to stop making excuses for the Bush administration.

Sun Jul 31 2005 11:25 PM


"buyers remorse" yeah, thats why 60% of the American people say we will win the War on Terror.

Mon Aug 1 2005 8:19 AM

Tom from Madison:


I think I hit a nerve!

...No the American people aren't stupid, but they have been victimized by a charlatan. The good news is, the great awakening has begun.

Bush's approval is continuing to sink as people realize that the peace and prosperity they want won't be achieved by Bush's eternal war on terror.

How 'bout that John McCain and his anti-torture proposal!

While it's a sad day that America needs such a bill, it is a courageous act to stand up to the President and remind him that with the claim of having the moral high-ground comes a responsibility to walk the talk. Bush has failed miserably to live up to this and most of his other responsibilities.

Speaking of the war on terror, when is Bush going to show REAL LEADERSHIP and answer the obvious question? How will we know when we've won?

He doesn't say because he doesn't know AND his political power comes from keeping people afraid and in the dark. Moreover, this guy NEVER volunteers to be accountable for ANYTHING!

The more light that shines on Bush, the more obvious it becomes that we need a regime change at home. Democracies don't need to rely on advice from guys named 'Turd Blossom'!

Mon Aug 1 2005 10:38 AM


OK here I go again

The only charlatans are people like those I’ve already named on previous blogs

Everyone knows (and maybe even you) that polls can turn on a dime and President Bush doesn’t govern by polls, he’s not like a previous president that used to wet his finger to see which way the political winds were blowing. Bush has said, “this is who I am, this is what I believe” and you people just can’t stand that!

Yeah, how ‘bout that McCain, he’s already limited our freedom of speech lets see how many more freedoms he can curtail from the white house.

Please show me where, at any time did the U. S. know EXACTLY when we would win a war or for that matter find a way out of a conflict?

Please prove to me where our leader(s) knew when conflict(s) would finish, tell me about: the Revolutionary War, The Spanish American War, and WWII, VIETNAM

I can picture you on a newsreel during WWII saying “its 1943 why are we still in Europe, we were attacked in 1939, we’ve killed so many innocent Germans we should get out”

It says a lot about the left when the worst thing you can do is to call Karl Rove a nickname from a cartoon strip.

Mon Aug 1 2005 1:51 PM


I forgot to add this to the newsreel "Why are we fighting the Germans, we were attacked by the Japanese, we should be fighting them"

Mon Aug 1 2005 1:54 PM

Tom from Madison:

Iraq is not WWII and W is certainly no FDR.

We need a President who tells us not to be afraid. W does the opposite.

I'm not the one who gave Turd Blossom his nickname! Guess who did?

Mon Aug 1 2005 5:29 PM


Iraq is just like WWII in the fact that we are fighting an enemy who means to destroy our way of life.

President Bush got more votes then anyone else in American history not because people were scared but because people knew the most important issue was national security.

I could care less who gave KR that nickname.

Tue Aug 2 2005 7:04 AM

Tom from Madison:


you're way off base again. When you talk about people who "mean to destroy our way of life", you need to speak with precision if you intend to JUSTIFY A WAR.

The 9/11 hijackers cetainly did mean to kill Americans. However, those are not the people we attacked in Iraq. You know that. Why do do deliberately confuse Saddam's regime with 9/11 hijackers?

The Iraq war has resulted in a lot of dead, innocent Iraqi civilians, dead US troops, lost US credibility, and a compromised ability to fight future terrorist threats. This is a sad legacy that Bush is leaving.

In the process of prosecuting this war, many war experiments were used in the Iraqi theater. We have privatized war to an extent never before attempted. In the process of doing that we subsidized torture thereby sabotaging US credibility. We have also deliberately created a zone where no accountability exists--no human rights, no world court, no consequences for authors of the torture policy.

This is morally reprehensible and counter-productive to "the war on terrror". We are helping to recruit new terrorists and to motivate jihadists world-wide.

Iraqis are being asked to trust that America is really going to be a liberator this time. History does not bear out this assertion. The 1991 Gulf War saw US using depleted Uranium on these people and abandoning those who would rise up against Saddam. Only a few years prior to THAT, the US was GIVING Saddam WMDs to fight IRAN.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd be deeply suspicious. Tens of thousands have been killed in this last war, more are dieing daily, and there is a permanent state of civil war established. Iraq is now a gathering place for Jihadists.

Does anyone really expect Iraqis to be happy about this?

What is really sick and twisted is the notion that somehow America is safer because of this war. We have fewer allies, more debt, and more enemies.

American voters need to hold our leaders accountable.

Tue Aug 2 2005 10:17 AM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart