What's the Difference?

[muriel_volestrangler]

Jan 9th, 2004:
DIANE SAWYER: (You) stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

April 8th, 2004:
CONDI RICE: The PDB does not say the United States is going to be attacked. It says Bin Laden would like to attack the United States.


As Bush says, what's the difference?

Well, in the first case, there's oil, and a strategic base in the main oil producing region to be gained. Plus lucrative contracts for your good buddies in the oil, construction and defense industries.

In the second case, there's just a direct threat to the people of the United States.

So for the first, you prepare a war for 2 years. The second deserves a 30 day vacation. Why can't we all see that, and just draw a line under this messy investigation? Can't we see that by questioning the president, we're undermining democracy?

[Paradise]

1. There oughta be a law!

"April 8th, 2004:
CONDI RICE: The PDB does not say the United States is going to be attacked. It says Bin Laden would like to attack the United States."

"IS DETERMINED TO" EQUALS "WOULD LIKE TO"??? :crazy:

[seabeyond]

2. It says Bin Laden would like to attack

actually that is another spin condi said

it says bin laden is determined to attack, wink