The most important thing to note is that, according to the guy who ran the CIA during Bush's build up to the Iraq Attack, Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq but told us there were anyway. George Tenet now says that his "slam dunk" comment was "mis-used" by Bush and co. 3000+ dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis later, Tenet secured his place in the history books as a guy who needed a $4 million book advance to convince him to tell the truth. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney, et al, still won't be impeached. But here are some details from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18400008/|the transcript of last Friday's episode] of Countdown on MSNBC:
"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat, "nor," the former director of the CIA adding, "was there ever a significant discussion about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion," Mr. Tenet complaining in the book and in ! a "60 Minutes" interview to air on CBS Sunday that the administration twisted and misused his "slam-dunk" comment about the evidence of WMD in Iraq first to justify the invasion, then later to deflect blame onto Tenet and the CIA when no weapons were found.Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown went on to point out that the Dems were still perfectly responsibly for keeping the secrets Bush was keeping about the march to war:
When it comes to who else knew the American public was being lied to about Iraq, one Democratic senator now says you can add the entire Intelligence Committee to the list, Dick Durbin of Illinois making the amazing claim on the floor of the Senate that, while he and perhaps the 16 other members of that Intelligence Committee knew the administration was misleading the American public, he, perhaps they, kept quiet about it because, due to his position on the committee, he had been sworn to secrecy.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DURBIN: A few hundred feet away from here, in a closed room, carefully guarded, the Intelligence Committee was meeting on a daily basis for top-secret briefings about the information we were receiving, and the information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people.
....
I was angry about it. Frankly, I couldn't do much about it, because, you see, in the Intelligence Committee, we're sworn to secrecy.
Nice.This is ridiculous.
So, which should be worth more morally speaking?
1) The lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.
2) Dick Durbin's reputation as a secret-keeper?
Every time I think I can't be more disgusted with our leaders in Washington, I'm more disgusted. It's not that I trusted Democrats to be honest, it's that I expected them to be ignorant. Instead, they were fully in on it but were too spineless to do anything about it.
These are our leaders, folks. Not a single one of them trustworthy.
So, in the end, not only did we "nay-sayers" know that Iraq had no WMD, but so did the Bushies, the Demmies and anyone with a brain.
Orignal From: BUSH KNEW ALL ALONG ON IRAQ AND SO DID DEMS
Ooo, it's a beautiful woman blindfolded... the man behind her is going to romance her all night long, right? Well, that's certainly what the advertising company would tell you. The text suggests her permission has been given for him to "surprise" her. But look at how her head is angled. To me it looks like he's tied the silk cloth around her head with a bit of force. Not a lot, mind you, just a bit. Now look at the guy's hands. They look almost like clenched fists to me. Both of these reactions in me suggests that I have a subconscious tendency toward violence toward women and that the advertising company is trying to take advantage of it. Ironically, I don't have a tendency toward violence--I don't even like it when my wife playfully slaps my arm because of a bad joke. However, to me, the imagery in the above banner ad is the same. I don't see a woman lovingly giving her man permission to love her in a way that surprises her, I see a woman willfully submitting to a man's will. And that man looks powerful and capable of overwhelming her. So, this banner ad is encouraging women to want their men to overwhelm them. Think I'm over reacting? Then why not show her wearing one of those masks you wear to block out the light when you're trying to sleep? It can be made of silk, just like the cloth in the current add. Why not have his open hands on either side of her head, looking as though they've just slid the mask over her eyes? See how easy it would be to tell the same story without invoking a suggestion of violence and submission to some of your audience? Hm, well, I suppose the above message of willful submission to a strong man is OK since once you click through to the company's site one of the images you'll see is that of a woman tying a man's wrists together. 
So, clearly since they are both submitting to each other and we now know alcohol is involved, it's OK. Ha. As if. Men submitting to women is no better a message to send than women submitting to men. We're supposed to be equal with neither side submitting to the other's dominance. That said, like a man with his wrists tied couldn't still physically overwhelm the average woman. In other words, the image of him being tied up hardly makes everything better.
