I must assume that Suskind's statements have evidence to support their truth. How about it, dittoheads? Got any DATA for me? Not Fox "News" speculation?

OBTW, let's deal with your stock answers first...

The WMDs? Hidden in Syria!
The yellowcake? Hidden in Syria!
The evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11? Duh! Syria!

Syria must be a lot bigger than I thought. So why aren't we at war with Syria? Is bin Laden in Syria too? Or is Cheneybush just waiting for October to trot him out and have him say he's accepted Jay-zuz?

Jesus Christ, you Rushblowers are lame.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

The pages felt smooth and silky in my ass crack as I took a shit!

Comes in handy after a visit to Taco Bell...

to being a schlongwalker like his "Daddy" and like John Edwards?

We might as well get this out there now when it will do the least amount of damage.

Very little chance of there being a child, however, given BLObama's sexual proclivities.

Theres good news and bad news.
1. That paper burn must of hurt.
2. At least now he's a smartass.

by Suskind's book? Chimpy has been lying to us since day 1. So has Cheney. What is really a crime is that the Democrud congress won't do anything about it.

But Former Democratic Candidate Denies Fathering A Child With The Woman

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/politics/main4333667.shtml

So, JohnJohn told Mrs. Edwards in 2006.

Mrs. Edwards forgave him (Past tense).

Then Mrs. Edwards utters “This is really, really tough” (present tense) and fights back tears during the interview?

It appears that Mrs. Edwards is having a hard time getting over this given that 2006 was over 1.5 years ago.

It seems that Mrs. Edwards is a grudge-holder. Not consistent with other forsaken Democratic wives.

ISO the crazy Whack-Lib says: There’s no story here, let’s all move along. Just part of the Republican smear machine.

“Obama – the judgment to think that John Edwards is a good guy worthy of being looked-up-to and considered for VEEP”

Odd how the media has not linked the July 12th Al-Maliki demand for a timetable for Iraq withdrawal of U.S. troops with the ‘great success’ of the surge. Seems the natives have ‘calmed’ down and Iraqis are waving U.S. flags (during Obama’s visit) instead of burning them.

But this is what they need to be investigating (from an ImpeachBush.org email):

Suskind, in his new book: The Way of the World, asserts that the Bush White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter from Saddam Hussein’s Chief of Intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, stating that alleged September 11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had received his training in Iraq.

The Bush White House and the CIA were getting secret, direct reports from Saddam’s Chief of Intelligence in January 2003 that stated that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program since 1991. When the U.S. invasion started in March 2003, the Bush administration “resettled” the Iraqi Intelligence Chief in Jordan and paid him $5 million dollars in what could be considered “hush money.”

After the Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame expose in July 2003, that proved that Bush and Cheney were trying to destroy those who were uncovering their lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and so-called links to the September 11 attacks, a new plot was hatched to cover-up Bush’s bold-faced lies.

Suskind explains the plot:

"In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”

"The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists including Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil."

John W. Dean, who served as Richard Nixon’s White House Counsel, drew the connection on MSNBC between the new allegations and those that brought down Richard Nixon in 1974 just weeks after the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Articles of Impeachment.

John W. Dean being interviewed by Keith Olberman stated:

"I don‘t think people are looking at it too narrowly or Suskind is when I read his book. What happens when you tie that with a criminal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, which nailed countless people in Watergate for misusing the agencies and departments of government—that‘s where they‘ve got a problem.

"That‘s where Nixon had a problem for telling the CIA to block the FBI for part of the Watergate investigation. Yes, it was obstruction but it was also defrauding the government. This is their real problem with that statute. ... "