Question
How thin is the revelation by a president that his administration was able to prevent an attack on his country when support for his policies is at an all-time low? And especially: how trustworthy?
« 7/2 = 5 + 1 | Main | Never too old for games »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c9e2653ef00d834a898db69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Question:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Very gutsy.
Posted by: Andrea Weckerle | February 10, 2006 at 08:41 PM
Hope this doesn't start any riots...
Posted by: Serge | February 11, 2006 at 12:15 AM
Reminds me of that time Colin Powell showed an empty test-tube saying this was "conclusive evidence that Iraq was making biological and chemical weapons".
Posted by: Frederik | February 12, 2006 at 07:36 PM
And we all know how honest that was, right? Let's just hope this 'smoking gun' doesn't lead to another war being waged somewhere in the Middle East. I'd say we have "pissed off the arabs" enough by now.
Posted by: Serge | February 13, 2006 at 09:35 PM