Sanders Gets Gallery to Tell Straight Story of Bush , Iraq

The Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery will alter the text on a sign next to a new painting of President Bush in order to accurately reflect that fact that there was no connection between the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the war in Iraq.

The change came in response to a request from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who asked curators at the gallery to alter the wording posted with the painting went on display December 19 in the National Portrait Gallery.

The sign said that Bush's tenure was "marked by a series of catastrophic events (including) the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

That was not the case, noted Sanders.

"The 9/11 attacks did not lead to the war in Iraq. What President Bush was telling us (before the war) was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was somehow in collusion with Al Qaeda," he explained. "Those were misstatements of fact, as even President Bush has since acknowledged."

The independent senator suggested that: "You can agree or disagree with the war. I simply think it's important that history not be rewritten. Politicians spin all the time, but a wonderful national institution like the National Portrait Gallery should stick to the facts."

With that in mind, Sanders wrote Martin Sullivan, the director of the Portrait Gallery, requesting a change in the sign's wording "so that in explaining our current president's portrait we do not inadvertently rewrite history."

Sullivan agreed. In a letter to Sanders, the curator wrote that he appreciated the senator's concern and announced that the gallery would "revise the label and delete the words 'led to.'"

"I very much appreciate the prompt response from the director and appreciate his willingness to make the change," said Sanders, who spoke with Sullivan Monday afternoon.

So, thanks to Bernie Sanders, at least one piece of the historical record of the Bush-Cheney interregnum has been corrected to reflect reality.

Even as Sanders was setting things straight at the National Portrait Gallery, however, Bush was holding a "final exit interview" press conference at which he compared himself with Abraham Lincoln, bristled at suggestions that his response to Hurricane Katrina was inadequate -- "Don't tell me the federal response was slow..." -- and said of those who objected to his lawless tenure: "I don't know why they get angry..."

Comments (48)

1. i bet if looters raided the smithsonian a la baghdad, they'd leave that portrait behind.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 10:25pm

2. First if they delete the words "led to" the statement will read "marked by a series of catastrophic events (including) the attacks on September 11, 2001, that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." I hope they proofread it first..

   Second, 9/11 did lead to War in Iraq whether Sanders wants to admit it or not...if there had not been troops in Afghanistan, we would not have gone into Iraq...does anyone in their right mind think Bush would have shipped tens of thousands of troops to Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened??? Never mind...you guys probably do.

   Posted by usc1 at 01/12/2009 @ 11:26pm

3. This spending spree, which does not create new wealth, therefore will not create jobs, will make Bush look like a piker in the spending dept. This type of spending is just redistributing wealth not yet created..or printed.

   Yeah, free health care...that willl help...and let unionise all these guys with a shovel, to grow the economy..of course....

   but who will hire them after the piublic works program is..out of cash?

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 11:29pm

4. Dear "usc1",

   Please look up the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" and see what you find!

   (I don't actually expect you to do this, and even if you do, you still may not come to see my point. But I believe other readers of this thread already do see my point, and that they are smiling when they read this!)

   Posted by JakobFabian at 01/12/2009 @ 11:30pm

5. Dear "usc1",

   There is a difference between necessary and sufficient causes. The attacks of the eleventh of September 2001 were a necessary, but not sufficient cause for the War in Iraq.

   To put it rather more simply: 9/11 was not so much a cause as it was an excuse.

   And what it excused was the most mean-spirited and incompetent foreign and domestic policy these United States have ever seen.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 01/12/2009 @ 11:35pm

6. but who will hire them after the piublic works program is..out of cash?

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 11:29pm

   cash?

   don't you mean when there are no more lenders?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 11:53pm

7. And what it excused was the most mean-spirited and incompetent foreign and domestic policy these United States have ever seen.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 01/12/2009 @ 11:35pm

   no way. it's just been more expensive.

   don't forget you guys attacked canada.

   i mean really, canada? what we got, weapons of more drinking?

   por favor.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 12:01am

8. dear nsa/csis.

   the preceding post was meant intended for humorous purposes. any resemblance to real events is purely coincidental.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 12:03am

9. meant intended purposed for.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 12:03am

10. That you proud conservatives who generously provide so much grist for this blog's mill are able to rail against liberal spending into the TRILLIONS of dollars that we don't have and that hasn't yet occurred, on such claptrap as efforts to put people back to work in trades and professions that don't require contributing someone else's death and that may in fact improve our general health, self sufficiency and return us in part to being a nation of producers and away from the supply side demands for a nation of insatiable consumers while ignoring the staggering deficits of their most recent hero of the republic whose single greatest accomplishment may have been his ability to piss away the economic security of his great grandchildren leaves me a bit bewildered (and somewhat out of breath).

    I think that the incoming executive branch and congress should model their spending policies on those of their immediate predecessors and spend at a rate that will impoverish the tenth generation without doing anything to raise any revenue to pay for it. After all, the fewer taxes, the greater the amount of revenue available for the government to spend. It certainly seemed to work for this administration when it began immediately and before the echo of the oath of office had ceased its reverberation, to blow the trillion dollar budget surplus left behind by those tax and spend liberals formerly infesting the White House.

    I suppose one of the benefits of limitless self-centered greed is the loss of a gag reflex. I am at a loss to explain how such monumental failures of an economic system designed and implemented by such persons could conceivably grant an iota of credibility to your pronouncements on the economy for as long as history continues to be recorded.

    Posted by canaarak at 01/13/2009 @ 03:08am

11. Yet the overwhelming majority of these "rich" reside in states and congressional districts represented by his fellow Democrats. Obama may well discover that slapping new taxes on these 4 million households will give an unwanted political headache to those same liberal lawmakers whose votes will be required for its passage.

    Posted by comanchenation at 01/12/2009 @ 11:03pm

    Here's some red meat for Mask this morning as I generalized about the shortcommings of Liberal Democrats.

    Comanch

    Regarding rich dems and thier calls for higher taxes, it won't be a problem for Obama.

    Think about this: Which countries are the biggest supporters of the UN Human Rights Charter? They North Korea, China, Suddan, Cuba, and Iraq before the removal of Saddam.

    Who are the loudest proponents of International law? Libya, Russia, Columbia, etc.

    The people who shout the loudest in support of a "for the greater good" type of sacrifice are the people who have absolutely no intention what-so-ever of following the law. They just see it as a club to beat their more honest enemies with.

    So who are the Democrats calling for soak the rich-type taxes? They are Al Franken (caught cheating on his taxes during his Senate Campaign) and Charles Rangle (caught cheating on his taxes) and etc, etc. etc, and on, and on, and on.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 06:55am

12. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th"---Pres. George W. Bush September 17, 2003.

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 07:23am

13. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 06:55am

    First, love to see your evidence for who is the "loudest supporter"?

    Second, doesn't that mean that Franken and Rangel would pay more taxes or go to jail? What's your problem with that scenario???

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 07:26am

14. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th"---Pres. George W. Bush September 17, 2003.

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 07:23am

    I think the problem here is Bernie's reading comprehension. To say that 9/11 led to the war in Iraq might cause certain people, say illiterates, to assume that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The statement doesn't say Iraq was responsible for 9/11; however, 9/11 changed the way many American thought about Islamic terrorism and the poverty of political freedom in the ME and the likely consequences of tyranical dicators who never face consequences. It was the change in attitudes perciptated by 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq.

    Certainly 9/11 led to the war in Iraq.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:35am

15. Second, doesn't that mean that Franken and Rangel would pay more taxes or go to jail? What's your problem with that scenario???

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 07:26am

    Because fewer than 1% get caught so only the honest pay the higher amount, which leads to a greater incentive to be dishonest.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:37am

16. huzzah for bernie. let us never forget what really happened here.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 08:35am

17. Bush used 911 as a perfect opportunity to go into Iraq, it couldn't have come at a better time for him as sad as that sounds. He was going to get Saddam come hell or high water and lucky for him 911 came right on time.

    Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 08:36am

18. Yet a third thing must be said about the whole argument that "9/11 caused the War in Iraq."

    Conflating causality with morality is a popular rhetorical strategy. It enables the proponents of untenably immoral policies to say "we had no choice," which enables them underhandedly to pardon their own choices.

    The War in Iraq was most immediately and directly caused by immoral choices made by our "decider," and that's that. We can ask what it was that motivated George W. Bush (Cheney? Rove? The prospect of bigger profits for Big Oil?), but the fact is that he, and not any other factor in recent history, is primarily responsible for the War in Iraq.

    There are of course people who say that there is no such thing as free will, and they are worthy of an explanation. So I'll simply repeat what I said earlier, that that 9/11 was a necessary but not sufficient condition for the War in Iraq. Only when other conditions are factored in, including the stupidity and venality of the Bush Administration, does the War in Iraq appear to have been an unavoidable consequence of the September 11th attacks -- unavoidable, because our leaders were either too stupid or too greedy to avoid it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 01/13/2009 @ 08:38am

19. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:35am

    So it's all about "changing attitudes"...i.e. "feelings", not an actual link between Saddam and 9/11. I see.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:37am

    So we shouldn't keep murder illegal because so many people get away with it, right?

    Or have ALL income taxes, since people might cheat. (Hint- Here's where you make a joke about "Yeah, I'd sure like it if we had no income taxes" and don't answer the question.)

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:39am

20. "Think about this: Which countries are the biggest supporters of the UN Human Rights Charter? They North Korea, China, Suddan, Cuba, and Iraq before the removal of Saddam."

    Okay, thought about it, and I still know the same simple fact: the United States does not support the UN Human Rights Charter. Not sure what other associations have to do with that simple fact.

    Posted by onthehelm at 01/13/2009 @ 09:55am

21. Darin, what do you produce?

    What does Paris Hilton produce that warrants a tax cut?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/13/2009 @ 10:10am

22. to bernie's constituents actually give him credit for such a hollow gesture?

    Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 10:31am

23. Posted by crabwalk at 01/13/2009 @ 10:10am

    DTT probably isn't rich...maybe not even upper middle class.

    He's just been taught (by Rush, Sean, etc.) that SOMEHOW if taxes go up on people making $200K a year, HIS taxes will somehow go up or the economy will crash (despite the fact we've had boom times with 50% top marginal rates (Reagan) and even 85%!!!! t.m.r. (Eisenhower))....and that that's why ALL tax hikes are bad and ALL tax cuts are good...

    he then contradictorally is taught that "The rich pay most of the taxes in this country" and that a tax cut for the non-rich is "welfare", so to "be fair" they have to be "across-the-board".

    So DTT (loyal drone) attacks tax hikes that his masters don't want, but would have no effect on him OR the economy...and attacks tax CUTS that would help him!

    Oh and "Clinton got lucky with the tech bubble!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 10:33am

24. Oh my...

    Like... "her remarkable beauty... which led to incessant stalkers and to her eventually being raped... was legendary."

    It is this kind of duplicitous and unethical ingenuosity that is beckoning forth our current and genuine ascent back into authentic moral behavior... as a country, and as a culture.

    Rewriting history won't work.

    We need to give more than 'lip service' to moral leadership.

    Posted by ttr at 01/13/2009 @ 10:47am

25. "marked by a series of catastrophic events (including) the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." – (Smithsonian Sign)

    Yet a third thing must be said about the whole argument that "9/11 caused the War in Iraq." -- JakobFabian at 01/13/2009 @ 08:38am

    "Led to" vs. "Caused"

    Changing attitudes cuased the war. 9/11 led to changing attitudes. It's a world of difference.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 11:18am

26. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 11:18am

    Fear and greed caused the Iraq war. Your fear has killed at least 700,000 people.

    Feel better yet?

    I noticed that another group of "top AQ leaders" was killed last week. Indeed good news, but it is news that I have been hearing for 7 years. The news I would like to have heard is that after 7 years Chimpy McFlightsuit had beheaded AQ, placing it upon the ash dump of history. Alas, what he placed upon the ash heap was the leadership that the US could have provided in the 21st century. ALong with growing AQ, that could be his legacy.

    9/11 lead to Irag because sheep bought propaganda. That should be the sign under Chimpies picture.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/13/2009 @ 11:51am

27. Commanche- did you hear that Barak Hussein Obama is a muslim marxist? Evidently he is not a US citizen, is helping Al Qaeda cells florish in the US, will raise YOUR taxes, will use that money to buy Cadilacs for single moms and worst of all he cavorts with known domestic terrorists and Demons!

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/13/2009 @ 11:57am

28. Hollow gesture:

    "Mission Accomplished " banner.

    Did you achieve a hard on when you saw that urmygyro?

    c'mon, admit it, you KNEW the war was all but over when you saw Chimpy strutting in his flightsuit, package bulging for you to admire. Oh, the manliness he exuded....swooon! What a CIC! Why, he only started 2 wars he could not finish. We should all seek that kind of success in life.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/13/2009 @ 12:05pm

29. I am writing my senator now to make sure the titles under Clinton and Carters portraits accurately reflect their failures as Presidents! It should be a real cartoon charactor representations for sure!!!

    Posted by comanchenation at 01/12/2009 @ 10:35pm

    It's a shame that you really can't see what a disaster Bush has been, looking through those Rose coloured glasses all the time must really hurt your eyes!!! Clinton and Carter may not have been perfect, but in Clinton's case in particular he left Bush with a surplus....so where did that go we wonder! As regards to impeaching him over Monica Lewinsky, now there was a waste of time considering what Bush has done in the past 8 years and the crimes he has committed!! Let the facts play out against the crimes here and I think you will find Bush wins hands down!

    Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 12:11pm

30. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 11:18am

    So again, it wasn't a "logical, strategic" thinking on WMDs, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, 17 UN resolution violations, etc....

    it was on "changing attitudes"...aka "feelings"!

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 12:55pm

31. [President Bush] bristled at suggestions that his response to Hurricane Katrina was inadequate -- "Don't tell me the federal response was slow..."

    Very interesting place to cut the quote. I heard the full quote and it was to the effect of, "Don't tell me the federal response was slow! We rescued 30,000 people off of their roofs and air lifted them to safety."

    I'd never heard of this before. I had no idea that Fed helecopters rescued 30,000 individuals trapped on their roofs.

    I can't image why The Nation didn't report on this smashing success of the big bloated government that us Conservatives hate in directly saving the lives of 30,000 of society's most vulnerable people.

    You'd think The Nation would trumpet this success from the rooftops. But I guess their hatred of Bush is far more powerful than their love of government helping society's most vulnerable.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 1:03pm

32. Fear and greed caused the Iraq war. Your fear has killed at least 700,000 people.

    Feel better yet?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/13/2009 @ 11:51am

    How did you calculate the 700,000 figure?

    I remember reading, long before the war, that America's support for UN sanctions was directly responsible for the dealths of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children. That's a stagering number in a country of 25 million people and perhaps 5 million children. The knowlege that the removal of Saddam could lead to the removal of sanctions was also a reason I supported the war.

    But now getting to 700,000 dead because of the war.

    (I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't when it comes to killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.)

    When the number of US soldiers dead was approaching 4,000 (about 4 years after the start of the war) I remember seeing a figure of 70,000 Iraqis murdered. I countered this by saying Saddam murdered 400,000 of his own citizens in the decade before his death so at 40,000 murders per year for 4 years, only having 70,000 murdered was a savings of 90,000 people not murdered.

    Next thing I knew it was 700,000 Iraqis murdered.

    If it isn't obvious, I'm more than a little skeptical.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 1:14pm

33. So again, it wasn't a "logical, strategic" thinking on WMDs, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, 17 UN resolution violations, etc....

    it was on "changing attitudes"...aka "feelings"!

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 12:55pm

    I think I've written this before. We were angry and we wanted to kick someone's ass. And sometimes a good ass kicking makes all the difference in the world. Saddam deserved on every bit as much as the next guy.

    WMD was a legal justification to shut the UN up. Once the war started and we didn't find WMD, we were certainly surprised, but not necessarily disappointed, because either way, Saddam was dead.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 1:20pm

34. WMD was a legal justification to shut the UN up. Once the war started and we didn't find WMD, we were certainly surprised, but not necessarily disappointed, because either way, Saddam was dead.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009

    You sound so flippant about the actions of this trumped up war, like all these lives lost, military and civilian meant nothing. Saddam being dead means what then, because he was a "bad man" he had to go and don't we have plenty more "bad men" around the world? So we have the right to "take out" for the want of a better word anyone we see as "bad"...it's even worse here because he had nothing to do with 911. I think we have a "bad man" in power in Israel, I don't see us rushing over to "take him out", but why would we he's our friend after all....not important that he enjoys this killing spree in Gaza.

    Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 1:40pm

35. I countered this by saying Saddam murdered 400,000 of his own citizens in the decade before his death...

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Is THAT what you say Darin?

    Where did you get those figures Darin?

    Do you even know the actual source Darin?

    I do.

    (Hint - We refer to that source by their initials.)

    I also know where Crabs numbers came from...the Lancet Study conducted by Johns Hopkins, of which was said "...the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

    Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

    I know which one I trust more - do you?

    Posted by Lillian at 01/13/2009 @ 3:12pm

36. Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 12:11pm

    Uh, excuse me but you have a pretty strong prescription on your rose colored lens yourself. Clinton left us in a recession and the surplus you libs like to quote was nothing but one big giant shell game.

    Also, let's set the record straight, Bush didn't lie "under oath" before a federal grand jury. And unlike Clinton, no Articles of Impeachment have been brought before the House on him.

    Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

37. Clinton left us in a recession and the surplus you libs like to quote was nothing but one big giant shell game.

    Also, let's set the record straight, Bush didn't lie "under oath" before a federal grand jury. And unlike Clinton, no Articles of Impeachment have been brought before the House on him.

    Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

    Only in your dreams did Clinton leave us in a resession and the surplus was there whether you like to believe it or not!! You are right about Bush not lying under oath...it was worse, he lied to the American people over and over, there are no impeachment articles on him but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be!!!

    Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 5:50pm

38. Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Caj, nobody's dreaming here but you. You can't spending in a recession.

    Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 8:36pm

39. Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 5:50pm

    Caj, nobody's dreaming here but you. You can't spending in a recession.

    Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 8:36

    Why not it never stopped Bush!!!!

    Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 11:09pm

40. i bet if looters raided the smithsonian a la baghdad, they'd leave that portrait behind. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 10:25pm

    I laughed so hard I almost fell down.

    thank you, frosty man!!!

    Posted by ficheye at 01/14/2009 @ 01:23am

41. That caption should also include......

    the Bush Administration's mind-numbing incompetance also led to, or more appropiately, caused the deaths of hundreds of American Citizens during Hurricane Katrina.

    Posted by koroviev at 01/14/2009 @ 02:40am

42. now there was a waste of time considering what Bush has done in the past 8 years and the crimes he has committed! Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 12:11pm

    What crimes?? Put up or shut up. If he is/was as bad as the writers here at the Nation claim, he would have been impeached, thrown out of office, sentenced to death, and hanged years ago. Illegal war? The left has NEVER been able to back up that allegation.

    The history of the Bush presidency has NOT been written. It won't be written for another 25-30 years. That's because the results of his policies won't be felt for many years to come. I'm not defending Bush, I'm just stating fact.

    Posted by fram at 01/14/2009 @ 08:08am

43. the Iraq war? low hanging fruit. the reason was to try and wipe the shame of 9/11 from Bush's face. and to get "re-elected".

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 09:42am

44. I am not suggesting that Bush has ever entertained the notion of shame.

    it will be fun to watch him drink himself to death. Prost.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 10:18am

45. ACook

    The recession started March 2001. http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/

    And it took me all of three seconds to find that link

    Posted by brunowe at 01/14/2009 @ 12:39pm

46. Darin, if you have a figure for civilians killed during the US occupation of Iraq, I will read it. So far all your side has is "we disagree with those numbers". You have yet to provide any substance to your claims, something I would not expect from the Worlds Most Famous Actuary, or any actuary for that matter.

    I use The Lancet study, UN estimates and give the 700,000 as a CONSERVATIVE number. Think about it, in interviews every Iraqi interviewed knows someone that has been killed by violence since 2003. That is 24 million people that all know at least one person killed.

    Feel better about your fear of the non-existent threat of Saddam? zero wmd's, zero drone planes, zero capability of producing nukyuular weapons while being watched by the "feckless" UN, zero threat to Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Israel. Zero threat to you and yours. Maybe if you pray to your God She will forgive you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/14/2009 @ 1:57pm

47. Bernard Sanders claims:

    "The 9/11 attacks did not lead to the war in Iraq (or in Afghanistan)." Suggesting it did is to "rewrite history".

    But that is untrue and ridiculous. We would not have had those wars, but for 9/11.

    Sanders is more than a political independent, he is untethered to common sense.

    Moreover, that Saddam took pains to hide from the UN inspectors the elimination of the WMD he had indisputably acquired, did not make Bush a liar in claiming Saddam had WMD. But it does reveal Sanders as a vindictive mangler of the truth.

    Nor was collusion with al Qaeda "somehow" suggested, as the upright Bernie implies. The Czech espionage service, on its own initiative, advised the CIA of meetings it had observed between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda members in Prague. That Bernie is bitter and disgusted that the White House fastened on that information after 9/11, offers an insight into the battle between the senator's endocrine system and his brain.

    That he thinks it cute to slide his shiv into Bush via the National Portrait Gallery is another interesting aspect of this slippery paragon from Vermont.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/14/2009 @ 2:36pm

48. Posted by crabwalk at 01/14/2009 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Crab, I just knew Fat Darin would run away rather defend his tripe. I'd bet he doesn't even KNOW where the numbers he quotes came from.

    After hearing them from Rush or on Faux Snooze, he just spouts them back...

    ...like the good wing-nut parrot he is.

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 11:38pm