There are now NUMEROUS intel sources saying Bush lied (and IS lying)...

[Brotherjohn]

...so I don't see how this can stop (I hope).

It's not just the revelations by Joseph C. Wilson in Sunday's NY Times on his trip to Niger for the CIA, but the State Department's Greg Thielman, today's BBC reports citing an unnamed CIA official, and numerous other identified and unidentified intelligence officials in past reports. Not to mention the still dubious, but potential "smoking gun", statements of one Terrance J. Wilkinson (yesterday's Capitol hill Blue story).

All of these many, many sources independently point to the fact that, contrary to the White House statements right up to today, that they DID know at the time of the State of the Union address (and long before) that the Niger uranium evidence (and perhaps much other evidence they have used) was false. In other words, there are numerous sources running directly counter to the past and current White House statments. In other words, it can be proven that Bush lied and is lying today.

While the mainstream media as a whole may still be willing to brush this under the rug (or on Page 2 behind the Africa trip and the Iranian twins), there are parties in government and the press who won't let it drop (notably Walter Pincus and others at the Wash. Post, Nicholas Kristof and others at the NY Times, and Rep. Henry Waxman; read his latest from his House web site -- he's asking more questions every day!).

I believe (I hope) that this story has reached critical mass.

[Solomon]

1. None of it matters.

He lies in the service of maintaining white supremacy. That's okay and acceptable. Lying about sex is despicable. Americans want to kick Arab ass. It doesn't matter if he lied to do so. After all, we can't let those Arabs develop to the point where they may compete with us, them with all that oil and all. We will accept any lie to murder these people. And that's the bottom line. Bush will not pay for his lies because although most Americans will not admit it openly, they support his agenda of ruling the world.

[jonnyblitz]

9. I pretty much agree with your post. n/t

[Starpass]

2. As dissappointment seeps in and disgust at our Dems

I heard about this story second hand yesterday - I'm taking sort of a vaction from the new. I tuned in this a.m. to see what was being said and as you described in your post, it was a little "what a pile of partisan dung" type of sneer between his glorious trip and a gay military guy being found out. Within 5 minutes they did the same pass over. They have wrapped Bush literally snickering and assuring us that WMD's will be discovered, blah, blah. But I want to know (and I guess it's because they're all on vacation) where the hell the Dems are screaming at the top of their lungs that it is criminal to lie to the US Congress to get them to okay a war and let our GI's be killed. It brings up what else he lies about and they vote on. They may have shrugged off the stolen election but this is something every one of them should be thrown out of office on both sides of the isle if they don't drag his sorry ass before Congress and impeach him. If they don't, they are admitting that none of them care a shit about protecting our GI's nor the citizens of this nation. Where is the group gang bang----this is pathetic.

[Jacobin]

3. Agreed.

It's enough to make you throw up your hands in disgust and join the 60% of the people who don't follow politics out of frustration or the feeling that "they are gonna do what they wanna do regardless of how or if we vote".

A clear shot to the political heart of the beast, and no sense of urgency or outrage (ok, a little bit).

If they don't take advantage of this situation, it would be appropriate to conclude that they are complicit.

[jpak]

4. I was up in Maine last weekend

There was a front page story in the local papers how the family of a Maine serviceman killed in I-raq had asked for a inquiry into his death.

The family was told he died in a vehicle accident - the same day another member of his outfit was reported killed in a firefight. He was, however, the only member of his unit killed on that day.

To make a long story short, the family does not believe the Pentagon and asked Sen. Snowe and Collins to investigate the mattter.

Was posted on DU????

If the Pentagon is cooking the books on casualties in I-raq, will this get swept under the rug as well????

on edit: Link to story...

http://www.pressherald.com/news/york/030708reservist.shtml

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Wait, wait--gotta get my tinfoil hat.

There. Got it on. Now--how do we know that only one soldier was killed in that unit? Maybe 2 were killed & only one reported. Maybe we're seeing the ragged edge of the military casualty coverup machine here. One of those screw-ups that give you a hint that something strange is going on.

[Brotherjohn]

5. Well, there's this letter to the President, from Rep. Waxman...

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_nuclear_evidence_july_8_let.pdf
Please read it. I think he's gearing up to file for impeachment.

And there's this:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/07/08/uranium_claim/

And this:
http://www.wtev.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=62641D71-6190-4930-A76D-A384552DF882

And from the Wash. Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29766-2003Jul8.html?nav=hptop_ts

The senior Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), said the administration's admission was not a revelation. "The whole world knew it was a fraud," Rockefeller said, adding that the current intelligence committee inquiry should determine how it got into the Bush speech. "Who decided this was something they could work with?" Rockefeller asked.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, yesterday questioned why, as late as the president's Jan. 28 speech, "policymakers were still using information which the intelligence community knew was almost certainly false."

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said Bush's "factual lapse" cannot be easily dismissed "as an intelligence failure." He said the president "has a pattern of using excessive language in his speeches and off-the-cuff remarks" which "represents a failure of presidential leadership."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said the administration "doesn't get honesty points for belatedly admitting what has been apparent to the world for some time -- that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate."

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the intelligence panel, said, "George Bush's credibility is increasingly in doubt."

I don't think the Dems are rolling over on this one. Admittedly, they need the press to get behind them and give them some spine, but I think that is happening.

[HFishbine]

6. Yep

"While the mainstream media as a whole may still be willing to brush this under the rug..."

Yep. My local paper carried it on the back page of section A. We have a ways to go...

[Bandit]

7. Put them all under oath

Then we can nail his slimey ass for good.