Our Prime Minister is the elected servant of the people and his behaviour reflects on all of us.

When the National Guard Review asked Bush during 2000 what he'd learned in the Guard, he responded, "[T]he responsibility to show up and do your job."

Why has the White House accepted intelligence reports to initiate an unprovoked, first-strike declaration of war, a declaration of war that is a first time occurrence in the entire history of our republic, yet failed to accept as valid these very same intelligence reports when it came time to take action to protect the American people from the possibility of the 9-11 attacks?
There is a serious lack of consistency with regard to when the Bush administration reacts to intelligence, irrespective of whether or not that intelligence is good or bad, and the way it cavalierly and selectively dismisses them.

O'Neill's revelations were decried as really no biggie - this was a mere extension of the Clinton administration's priorities. But then, why wasn't "global warming" a continuing policy as well? Why weren't environmental issues a continuation as well?

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat," spokesman Scott McClellan said.
But if US President George W. Bush never called Saddam's Iraq an "imminent threat" in so many words, he said it was "urgent".
Vice President Dick Cheney called it "mortal" and it was "immediate" to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Other senior Bush aides shied away from using the word "imminent" but agreed with that characterisation in exchanges with reporters.
On January 26, 2003, CNN television asked White House communications director Dan Bartlett "is he (Saddam) an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"
"Well, of course he is," Bartlett replied.