REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Scooter Skates

POSTED BY: DEADLOCKVICTIM
UPDATED: Thursday, July 12, 2007 09:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6255
PAGE 2 of 3

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Wilson claimed he was sent to Niger via orders of the V.P.
NO, he didn't. And I dare you to find the quote where he did.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 2:00 AM

SERGEANTX


So, bottom line. We don't really need silly things like courts and due process. We just ask the decider. Should save some money anyway.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:18 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, bottom line. We don't really need silly things like courts and due process. We just ask the decider. Should save some money anyway.

Bottom line is that the power to prosecute is the President’s power. The Presidential pardon is needed to protect from prosecutorial excess, like this case. When a prosecutor, knowing full well, that another party had confessed to the supposed crime, begins conducting an investigation to create a crime, he is abusing his power. When no crime is found, because there was no crime to begin with, he then takes inconsistencies in his investigation and prosecutes for catch-all “crimes” like perjury and obstruction. But if there was no underlying crime to begin this is abuse of power not justice. Any prosecutor in the country could go around investigating anyone until he found some sort of inconsistency and then prosecute that person and send that person to jail. That’s abuse, which some people are perfect happy allowing because it suits their particularly hatreds and political alignments, but that’s not the way this country is supposed to operate.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:18 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Indeed!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:19 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, bottom line. We don't really need silly things like courts and due process. We just ask the decider. Should save some money anyway.


Quick question Sarge, are you against the presidents power to pardon or just Bush's?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:34 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Clinton pardoned 140 convicted criminals including drug dealers, big-time embezzlers, and all sorts of low-life felons....I don't remember ANY Dems. having ANY problems with any of those going away presents to America from bad-boy Billy....AND then he and thunder-thighs STEAL everything that isnt' nailed down in the White House...and are humiliatingly forced to return almost all of it to its' rightful owners, the people of America. Selective outrage to the point of insane fucking absurdity I say!
AND...let's look at the real issue of quid pro quo....can you (clear-minded citizen) even possibly fathom the "payment" for just one of these 140 felons...let's say Marc Rich? ...Now that's Marc Rich, the Clinton pal who stole the life savings from tens of thousands of hard-working Americans, and then FLED to Europe, too much of a scumbag coward to go to court. I would bet my Firefly DVD set that Mrs. Rich has a lifetime of impromptu, grubby little sex hook-ups at the Motel 6 in store for her...that plus a few million donated to the Clinton "library". And what about the Hill?...Her cocaine-cowboy brother was also pardoned by Mr. Wonderful...I'll bet he got it in writing from her that if she ever became President, he would get to screw (or assault) everything that walks thru the WH doors in a skirt. Can you even imagine the lining-up, camping out on the lawn in advance "event" for all the little Clinton cultists...a dream of an opportunity to suck the great big Bill?...sort of like the sweet cult girls that Thulsa Doom could make commit suicide with just a mere gesture in Conan....what a team!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:08 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quick question Sarge, are you against the presidents power to pardon or just Bush's?



I'm against the abuse of presidential powers, or government power in general for that matter. This president has show a callous disregard for the spirit and intent of the constitution, pushing every possible legal loophole he can find to subvert it (gitmo?). As an isolated incident, this example would be less troubling. But it's not isolated and this president has proven he has no respect for the principle of limited government or the rule of law.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:32 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:


SergeantX wrote:
Thursday, July 05, 2007 02:00
So, bottom line. We don't really need silly things like courts and due process. We just ask the decider. Should save some money anyway.



Tell that to the former President.

I submit to you Bill Clinton's commutatinos and pardons.

Commutations
Benjamin Berger
Ronald Henderson Blackley
Bert Wayne Bolan
Gloria Libia Camargo
Charles F. Campbell
David Ronald Chandler
Lau Ching Chin
Donald R. Clark
Loreta De-Ann Coffman
Derrick Curry
Velinda Desalus
Jacob Elbaum
Linda Sue Evans
Loretta Sharon Fish
Antoinette M. Frink
David Goldstein
Gerard A. Greenfield
Jodie E. Israel
Kimberly Johnson
Billy Thornton Langston Jr.
Belinda Lynn Lumpkin
Peter MacDonald - President of the Navajo Nation
Kellie Ann Mann
Peter Ninemire
Hugh Ricardo Padmore
Arnold Paul Prosperi
Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
Pedro Miguel Riveiro
Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
Susan Rosenberg
Kalmen Stern
Cory Stringfellow
Carlos Anibal Vignali - convicted of cocaine trafficking
Thomas Wilson Waddell III
Harvey Weinig
Kim Allen Willis
Kimba Smith
Antonio Camacho Negron - FALN militant

Pardons
Verla Jean Allen (1990 false statements to an agency of the United States)
Nicholas M. Altiere (1983 importation of cocaine)
Bernice Ruth Altschul (1992 money laundering conspiracy)
Joe Anderson Jr. (1988 income tax evasion)
William Sterling Anderson (1987 defraudment of a financial institution, false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud)
Mansour Azizkhani (1984 false statements in bank loan applications)
Cleveland Victor Babin Jr. (1987 using the U.S. mail service to defraud)
Chris Harmon Bagley (1989 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
Scott Lynn Bane (Unlawful distribution of marijuana)
Thomas Cleveland Barber (Issuing worthless checks)
Peggy Ann Bargon (Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act)
David Roscoe Blampied (possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
William Arthur Borders Jr. (Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery)
Arthur David Borel (Odometer Rollback)
Douglas Charles Borel (Odometer Rollback)
George Thomas Brabham (Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank)
Almon Glenn Braswell (1983 mail fraud and perjury)
Leonard Browder (Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud)
David Steven Brown (Securities fraud and mail fraud)
Delores Caroylene Burleson, aka Delores Cox Burleson (Possession of Marijuana)
John H. Bustamante (wire fraud)
Mary Louise Campbell
Eloida Candelaria
Dennis Sobrevinas Capili
Donna Denise Chambers
Douglas Eugene Chapman
Ronald Keith Chapman
Francisco Larois Chavez
Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary)
Roger Clinton, Jr. (half-brother of President Bill Clinton)
Stuart Harris Cohn
David Marc Cooper
Ernest Harley Cox Jr.
John F. Cross Jr.
Reickey Lee Cunningham
Richard Anthony De Labio
John Deutch (former Director of Central Intelligence Agency)
Richard Douglas
Edward Reynolds Downe
Marvin Dean Dudley
Larry Lee Duncan
Robert Clinton Fain
Marcos Arcenio Fernandez
Alvarez Ferrouillet
William Dennis Fugazy
Lloyd Reid George
Louis Goldstein
Rubye Lee Gordon
Pincus Green
Robert Ivey Hamner
Samuel Price Handley
Woodie Randolph Handley
Jay Houston Harmon
Rick Hendrick
John Hummingson
David S. Herdlinger
Debi Rae Huckleberry
Warren C. Hultgren Jr.
Donald Ray James
Stanley Pruet Jobe
Ruben H. Johnson
Linda Jones
James Howard Lake
June Louise Lewis
Salim Bonnor Lewis
John Leighton Lodwick
Hildebrando Lopez
Jose Julio Luaces
James Timothy Maness
James Lowell Manning, (1982, aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return)
John Robert Martin
Frank Ayala Martinez
Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez
John Francis McCormick
Susan H. McDougal
Howard Mechanic
Brook K. Mitchell Sr.
Samuel Loring Morison
Charles Wilfred Morgan III
Richard Anthony Nazzaro
Charlene Ann Nosenko
Vernon Raymond Obermeier
Miguelina Ogalde
David C. Owen
Robert W. Palmer
Kelli Anne Perhosky
Richard H. Pezzopane
Orville Rex Phillips
Vinson Stewart Poling Jr.
Norman Lyle Prouse
Willie H.H. Pruitt Jr.[1]
Danny Martin Pursley Sr.
Charles D. Ravenel
William Clyde Ray
Alfredo Luna Regalado
Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort
Marc Rich - tax evasion fugitive
Howard Winfield Riddle
Richard Wilson Riley Jr.
Samuel Lee Robbins
Joel Gonzales Rodriguez
Michael James Rogers
Anna Louise Ross
Dan Rostenkowski - Former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal
Gerald Glen Rust
Jerri Ann Rust
Bettye June Rutherford
Gregory Lee Sands
Adolph Schwimmer
Albert A. Seretti Jr.
Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw
Dennis Joseph Smith
Gerald Owen Smith
Stephen A. Smith
Jimmie Lee Speake
Charles Bernard Stewart
Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins
Fife Symington III - former Arizona governor
Richard Lee Tannehill
Nicholas C. Tenaglia
Gary Allen Thomas
Larry Weldon Todd
Olga C. Trevino
Ignatious Vamvouklis
Patricia A. Van De Weerd
Christopher V. Wade
Bill Wayne Warmath
Jack Kenneth Watson
Donna Lynn Webb
Donald William Wells
Robert H. Wendt
Jack L. Williams
Kavin Arthur Williams
Robert Michael Williams
Jimmie Lee Wilson
Thelma Louise Wingate
Mitchell Couey Wood
Warren Stannard Wood
Dewey Worthey
Rick Allen Yale
Joseph A. Yasak
William Stanley Yingling
Phillip David Young
Keith Sanders
Darren Muci
John Scott (not a full pardon)
Anthony M Pilla


People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Wilson claimed he was sent to Niger via orders of the V.P.
NO, he didn't. And I dare you to find the quote where he did.




Dare accepted.


“In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
(Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1372824000&en
=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ei=5007



Read officials at the Central Intelligence Agency as " my wife ", and that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions as "our cover story we'll use for attempting to discredit the Bush administration per the Iraq war. "




People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 8:43 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Sorry, AURaptor, no dice. If you think Cheney's strategy to discredit Ambassador Wilson failed because it made him a cause celebre of the left then you haven't been paying attention. What does Cheney care about them for? The far left didn't support the Iraq war to begin with. Who Cheney cared about was the majority of Americans who initially supported this war because they thought Saddam Hussein represented an offensive threat to our country.

The administration had just fast tracked the Iraq war into existence by conning a majority of the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein was going to give nukes to al Qaeda. The other claims - about the chemical and biological weapons - only really resonated with those who are on the lookout for the black helicopters. The nuclear claim, however, resonated quite well with the general public. And all of a sudden, just a few months into this war, the tissue of lies surrounding that nuclear claim is being tugged at.

Discredit the messenger to discredit the message. How many times have we seen that strategy used by this administration? If you read the transcripts of the Libby trial and the testimony of the witnesses (for both sides) you see how the push back against Wilson develops. For $13 you can own a complete transcript. I can provide the ISBN number if you're interested.

From the testimony at the trial, it is clear that Libby was asking questions about Wilson as early as May of 2003 (almost two months before Wilson wrote his op-ed), that he learned about Valerie Plame's CIA status in early June (from both the Vice President and his own CIA contacts), that his information digging was necessary in the creation of the talking point that Wilson's trip was a boondoggle organized by his wife (a boondoggle to Niger? Nice boondoggle. Also conveniently forgetting that Wilson had undertaken a similar trip to Niger in 1999) that he leaked the information on Valerie Plame's CIA status to Judith Miller before that information became public knowledge, that he lied to investigators and pretended he had no knowledge of the people he had been investigating for over a month and that the first he heard about Plame's status was from a reporter, that he perjured himself in front of a grand jury and that he obstructed justice and effectively halted the investigation into the outting of an American spy. (I'm guessing that sentence could've used some shortening).

Saddam Hussein's regime did not pose a nuclear threat to the United States. This administration claimed they did. Wilson was publically repudiating those claims. In the process of attempting to discredit his message this administration sacrificed Valerie Plame. And they didn't lose a wink of sleep over it. When one of their own was found guilty of obstructing justice and temporarily halting the investigation the President doubled down and engaged in some obstruction of justice of his own.

Bringing integrity back to the oval office my ass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:35 PM

SERGEANTX


Soup, you should post more.

Not much I can add to that, except maybe this. The obvious reason why everyone is so upset about this is that Libby was nothing more than a fall guy for the administration. He did what he did at their bidding. This administration has played dirty from day one and people have died for their duplicity. Bush and Cheney are the ones who should be facing jail time.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 1:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor- It is one thing to say "the VP ordered me", it is another thing to say "I was told that the VP's office had question". I know how you like to slide one thing into another but really they're different, and they require your "interpretation" to make them conform. I will read statements as I read them, not as YOU think I should read them seeing as your judgement so far has been abysmal.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 1:41 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


You err on your very first sentence. There was no strategy by Cheney to discredit Joe Wilson. That's where this fairy tale about Cheney falls apart, from the very start. It was the WILSONS who were engaged in a strategy, not Cheney. Hell, Cheney was the victim here, having been dragged into this ruse of Joe and Val when he had no idea who Joe Wilson was nor did he even SEND Joe, as Joe claims. And that majority of Americans who thought Saddam was a threat? The list included, among others, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Madaline Albright, Al Gore, etc....

Quote:

The other claims - about the chemical and biological weapons - only really resonated with those who are on the lookout for the black helicopters


Guess that includes the list of folks from above, huh?

Quote:

Saddam Hussein's regime did not pose a nuclear threat to the United States. This administration claimed they did. Wilson was publically repudiating those claims. In the process of attempting to discredit his message this administration sacrificed Valerie Plame. And they didn't lose a wink of sleep over it. When one of their own was found guilty of obstructing justice and temporarily halting the investigation the President doubled down and engaged in some obstruction of justice of his own.


The U.S. intel wasn't the only source that had Saddam sniffing around for nuclear material. The famous 16 words of Bush's SOTUA basically said that British intel independently agreed that Saddam was looking for yellow cake. They still hold to that view today. If you're the leader of a country which had just been struck by the worst terrorist attack in history, you'd damn well make sure something bigger doesn't come down the pike. Wilson was politicallly motivated to discredit this administration, and that's exactly what he and his wife set out to do. There was no 'sacraficing' of Val by this administration and the Fitzgerald inquisition proved it. It was Richard Armatige who outed Val Plame, and no one else. Talk about ' the black helicopter crowd', its the folks who see a sinister V.P. conspiracy when no such plot exists. The claim that Bush some how 'shut down' this investigation is nothing more than pure myth. The investigation is done and over with, hell...it was over before it started. Fitz had his 'leaker' before the trial began, and yet he carried on w/ ruse and got a guy for mis-remembering facts from years ago. BFD.

You want the REAL story here ? It's the fact that the CIA, which is given billions of $$ to do its job, let this country down more times than anyone is willing to admit. It let us down when the Berlin wall fell, it let us down when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and it definatly let us down per 9/11. A President needs RELIABLE info when he/she has to make a major decission on whether to go to war or not. Bush was getting mixed signals from the CIA, and their primary goal was to cover their collective asses first, and then worry about the details of doing their job. This whole thing is a struggle from the life time bureaucrats at the CIA vs the Bush admininstration. Why do you think there are so many leaks to the press about top secret projects ? It's nothing more than the CIA trying to make the Bush admininstration look bad, while trying to divert attention away from the fact that the CIA, as a whole, has been shown up by a bunch of cave dwelling weird beards, time and time again.

I'm sorry, but you've got it 180 degrees backwards. Bush and Cheney aren't the bad guys. They're far from perfect, but history will prove they were trying to do the right thing. It was a corrupt inside the beltway enviroment which is causing so much trouble.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 2:15 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- It is one thing to say "the VP ordered me", it is another thing to say "I was told that the VP's office had question". I know how you like to slide one thing into another but really they're different, and they require your "interpretation" to make them conform. I will read statements as I read them, not as YOU think I should read them seeing as your judgement so far has been abysmal.



SignyM, here's how it is. Joe's story simply doesn't hold water because we KNOW Val Plame was the one who had a hand in sending her husband over to Niger. There was no request by the V.P.s office to send anyone over there, so OF COURSE they're gonna want to know just who the hell was sent in their name, who ever it was. Then add to the fact that Joe Wilson tries to finger the V.P.'s office while giving a phony report about how nothing had gone on over there, and it's only natural that some alarms would go off.

You not agreeing w/ me does not make my judgement to be abysmal. Point of fact, it might show the exact opposite.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 4:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It was the WILSONS who were engaged in a strategy, not Cheney.
Wilson was ordered to go to Niger by the CIA Directorate of Operations. The Directorate got its marching orders from someone other than Valerie. I don't know where you get this junk from. Why don't you take Soup up on his offer and read the transcript?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 7:29 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Wilson was ordered to go to Niger by the CIA Directorate of Operations. The Directorate got its marching orders from someone other than Valerie. I don't know where you get this junk from. Why don't you take Soup up on his offer and read the transcript?


He got it from Fox News Sig. At least I heard some of that there. This "Scooter campaign" is actually one of Fox/RNC's more thought out pieces of work. But he also coulda got it from Rush, and others. They all sing the Tony Snow approved song, to the note, in perfect chorus.

You know Rapter...it can't hurt to read the transcript, what's the worst that could happen?

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 2:27 PM

ANTIMASON


this issue about Scooter Libby really underscores the problem with America currently. a lot of people adamantly believe that the Bush administration is relatively benevolent('especially compared to Clinton'), and that theyre really just getting a bad rap from liberals in the media et al. those people are going to realize, i pray sometime in the near future, that they were outright fooled, that they aided in the destruction of our country, and that all those Bushs supporters, with their 'Bush/Cheney' stickers... amounted to nothing less than apologists to a bunch of globalist traitors. i personally dont care what the semantics of the case are, i would have to be blind and retarded to discredit or brush aside the hundreds of examples of blatant criminal activity and abuses, that have been issued by the white house over the last 7 years. but thats me... others are less discerning, and apparently more supportive of the ideology of authoritarianism and fascism

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 5:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

It was the WILSONS who were engaged in a strategy, not Cheney.
Wilson was ordered to go to Niger by the CIA Directorate of Operations. The Directorate got its marching orders from someone other than Valerie. I don't know where you get this junk from. Why don't you take Soup up on his offer and read the transcript?




The 'Directorate of Operations' for this case was none other than Val Plame herself. How you can't see that is beyond belief. The 'transcripts ' are nothing mnore than the ad hoc attempt by the CIA and the Wilsons to play C-Y-A. Only in this scenario, it didn't work. There was too much external intel that showed Iraq was indeed looking to buy yellow cake iranium.

Case closed.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 7, 2007 2:17 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Just ANOTHER gigantic blunder made by the Blunder King himself Bush....keeping that Clinton loyalist piece of shit Joe Wiilson on the WH payroll....why? Bush took office and wanted to be Mr. Nice Guy, so he kept lots of Clintonistas on the job in an ill-concieved effort to be bi-partisan, but one by one, all the Clinton vipers turned and betrayed their new boss...almost like planted sleeper cells for the Dems...set to go off once every three months to wreak havoc for Bush. Valerie Plame was a frustrated, conniving ex-secretary who wouldn't know Niger from nigger....or Yellowcake from Johnnycake. All she ever wanted was to get her smarmy mug on TV in hopes of landing a talk show or reality show. Bob Novak put her name in print first as a possible source of who sent crazy Joe on his little junket to Africa...Novak knew Plame, everybody within a 25 mile radius of D.C. knew Plame...they all went to the same cocktail parties together for years...matter of fact Novak said that Plame used to wear a name necklace that said CIA Agent Wannabee, so he gave it not a thought to print her name. The real villian in all this is Joe himself...what exactly are/were his credentials and track record concerning being a "terrorism expert"? Seems obvious to any clear-thinking person that little hippy-hairdo Wilson fucked-up America's preparedness and responses to terrorism under Clinton and Bush...a double-dose of failure for the ambitious self-absorbed traitor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 7, 2007 3:37 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I submit to you Bill Clinton's commutations and pardons.
COMMUTATIONS :
Benjamin Berger
Ronald Henderson Blackley
Bert Wayne Bolan
Gloria Libia Camargo
Charles F. Campbell
David Ronald Chandler
Lau Ching Chin
Donald R. Clark
Loreta De-Ann Coffman
Derrick Curry
Velinda Desalus
Jacob Elbaum
Linda Sue Evans
Loretta Sharon Fish
Antoinette M. Frink
David Goldstein
Gerard A. Greenfield
Jodie E. Israel
Kimberly Johnson
Billy Thornton Langston Jr.
Belinda Lynn Lumpkin
Peter MacDonald - President of the Navajo Nation
Kellie Ann Mann
Peter Ninemire
Hugh Ricardo Padmore
Arnold Paul Prosperi
Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
Pedro Miguel Riveiro
Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
Susan Rosenberg
Kalmen Stern
Cory Stringfellow
Carlos Anibal Vignali - convicted of cocaine trafficking
Thomas Wilson Waddell III
Harvey Weinig
Kim Allen Willis
Kimba Smith
Antonio Camacho Negron - FALN militant

PARDONS :
Verla Jean Allen (1990 false statements to an agency of the United States)
Nicholas M. Altiere (1983 importation of cocaine)
Bernice Ruth Altschul (1992 money laundering conspiracy)
Joe Anderson Jr. (1988 income tax evasion)
William Sterling Anderson (1987 defraudment of a financial institution, false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud)
Mansour Azizkhani (1984 false statements in bank loan applications)
Cleveland Victor Babin Jr. (1987 using the U.S. mail service to defraud)
Chris Harmon Bagley (1989 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
Scott Lynn Bane (Unlawful distribution of marijuana)
Thomas Cleveland Barber (Issuing worthless checks)
Peggy Ann Bargon (Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act)
David Roscoe Blampied (possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
William Arthur Borders Jr. (Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery)
Arthur David Borel (Odometer Rollback)
Douglas Charles Borel (Odometer Rollback)
George Thomas Brabham (Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank)
Almon Glenn Braswell (1983 mail fraud and perjury)
Leonard Browder (Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud)
David Steven Brown (Securities fraud and mail fraud)
Delores Caroylene Burleson, aka Delores Cox Burleson (Possession of Marijuana)
John H. Bustamante (wire fraud)
Mary Louise Campbell
Eloida Candelaria
Dennis Sobrevinas Capili
Donna Denise Chambers
Douglas Eugene Chapman
Ronald Keith Chapman
Francisco Larois Chavez
Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary)
Roger Clinton, Jr. (half-brother of President Bill Clinton)
Stuart Harris Cohn
David Marc Cooper
Ernest Harley Cox Jr.
John F. Cross Jr.
Reickey Lee Cunningham
Richard Anthony De Labio
John Deutch (former Director of Central Intelligence Agency)
Richard Douglas
Edward Reynolds Downe
Marvin Dean Dudley
Larry Lee Duncan
Robert Clinton Fain
Marcos Arcenio Fernandez
Alvarez Ferrouillet
William Dennis Fugazy
Lloyd Reid George
Louis Goldstein
Rubye Lee Gordon
Pincus Green
Robert Ivey Hamner
Samuel Price Handley
Woodie Randolph Handley
Jay Houston Harmon
Rick Hendrick
John Hummingson
David S. Herdlinger
Debi Rae Huckleberry
Warren C. Hultgren Jr.
Donald Ray James
Stanley Pruet Jobe
Ruben H. Johnson
Linda Jones
James Howard Lake
June Louise Lewis
Salim Bonnor Lewis
John Leighton Lodwick
Hildebrando Lopez
Jose Julio Luaces
James Timothy Maness
James Lowell Manning, (1982, aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return)
John Robert Martin
Frank Ayala Martinez
Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez
John Francis McCormick
Susan H. McDougal
Howard Mechanic
Brook K. Mitchell Sr.
Samuel Loring Morison
Charles Wilfred Morgan III
Richard Anthony Nazzaro
Charlene Ann Nosenko
Vernon Raymond Obermeier
Miguelina Ogalde
David C. Owen
Robert W. Palmer
Kelli Anne Perhosky
Richard H. Pezzopane
Orville Rex Phillips
Vinson Stewart Poling Jr.
Norman Lyle Prouse
Willie H.H. Pruitt Jr.[1]
Danny Martin Pursley Sr.
Charles D. Ravenel
William Clyde Ray
Alfredo Luna Regalado
Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort
Marc Rich - tax evasion fugitive
Howard Winfield Riddle
Richard Wilson Riley Jr.
Samuel Lee Robbins
Joel Gonzales Rodriguez
Michael James Rogers
Anna Louise Ross
Dan Rostenkowski - Former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal
Gerald Glen Rust
Jerri Ann Rust
Bettye June Rutherford
Gregory Lee Sands
Adolph Schwimmer
Albert A. Seretti Jr.
Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw
Dennis Joseph Smith
Gerald Owen Smith
Stephen A. Smith
Jimmie Lee Speake
Charles Bernard Stewart
Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins
Fife Symington III - former Arizona governor
Richard Lee Tannehill
Nicholas C. Tenaglia
Gary Allen Thomas
Larry Weldon Todd
Olga C. Trevino
Ignatious Vamvouklis
Patricia A. Van De Weerd
Christopher V. Wade
Bill Wayne Warmath
Jack Kenneth Watson
Donna Lynn Webb
Donald William Wells
Robert H. Wendt
Jack L. Williams
Kavin Arthur Williams
Robert Michael Williams
Jimmie Lee Wilson
Thelma Louise Wingate
Mitchell Couey Wood
Warren Stannard Wood
Dewey Worthey
Rick Allen Yale
Joseph A. Yasak
William Stanley Yingling
Phillip David Young
Keith Sanders
Darren Muci
John Scott (not a full pardon)
Anthony M Pilla


What a list! A real honor role of slime. And of course they occurred because honest-Abe Clinton felt an exceptional need to free all those swell folks...how nice. No remotely possible ulterior motives here I'm sure. Eight years earlier he fired 92 Federal prosecutors when he took office, but Bush is a criminal devil murderer and destroyer of America.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 7, 2007 7:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor, first, some background: The CIA is divided up into four directorates (the agency's fancy word for "branches"): * The Directorate of Operations (referred to as the "DO"), which is responsible for collecting HUMINT (human intelligence). In other words, this is the part of the CIA that you go to when you want to be (or catch) spies. However, the DO contains only 1000-2000 of the CIA's 16,000-20,000 employees. The DO is the part involved in clandestine operations.

So, first you say: There is a great deal of speculation about whether Plame was a covert operative as defined by the law at that time. If she was not, then no crime was committed by revealing her status.

Then you say The 'Directorate of Operations' for this case was none other than Val Plame herself.

Valerie Plame can't be so high up in the DO that she can "order" someone to go to NIger AND at the same time a lowly non-covert officer of the CIA. You can't have both. So one part of your story butts heads with another part. Figure out which one you want to say and get back to me on that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 7, 2007 7:33 PM

SOUPCATCHER


SergeantX, for the most part, someone makes the post I would try to make. And, by the time I get through reading all the new posts, it's usually time to get back to whatever I was procrastinating on in the first place .

What is compelling to me about this story is how it exemplifies so many of the shortcomings of the present administration and how unserious they actually are about protecting this country.


AURaptor, I'd like to thank you for a good belly laugh. The idea of Cheney, who is probably the most powerful man in the world, as a victim is quite funny.

The reason why it was so important to Cheney to discredit Ambassador Wilson was because the evidence for Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon that he would provide to al Qaeda so they could blow up an American city was crap. Wilson pointed out the problems with the yellowcake claim - the same claim that the President was forbidden from saying at a speech a year earlier. It was only through a tortured parsing and shifting that they snuck it into the State of the Union. Everyone on our side of the pond knew the claim was false, and probably based on forged documents. But it was an important piece in the administration's plans to convince the American public that it was necessary to invade Iraq right now rather than wait for a mushroom cloud on our soil.

If you look at the timeline that was established from multiple people testifying at Libby's trial you see that Libby's requests for information from the State Department and the CIA were the only reason that Armitage (and the others) knew that Plame was CIA. You would know that Libby learned of her identity from Cheney (who had learned of it from high level CIA contacts) and from others. You would also learn that Libby was ordered by Cheney and, presumably Bush, to leak her status to reporters in an effort to paint the Niger trip as a boondoggle instead of a fact finding mission.

The reason why Libby was convicted of lying to FBI investigators, and of perjuring himself to a grand jury and of obstruction of justice was because all of the evidence pointed at him as being in on the investigation into Wilson from day one not, as he testified, of finding out about Plame third hand from a reporter. Fitzgerald can't find out who was ultimately responsible for destroying Plame's cover because of Libby's obstruction of justice. And now, thanks to the President's obstruction of justice in commuting the sentence, he never will.

You can continue to defend the casual outting of a CIA operative who was working to protect our country from WMD proliferation. You can continue to defend what should be considered treason. But the people you are defending haven't earned your support. Far from it. They don't deserve the effort you are investing on their behalf. Loyalty has to go down as well as up and there's no loyalty to you from them.

This administration came into office promising to bring integrity back to the oval office. Instead, they have done everything that the Republicans accused the Clinton administration of doing, and done it to an even worse extent.

It would be laughable if all they were doing was shitting on the carpet. But they're actually tearing down walls and ripping up floorboards and we may never get our system back in the shape it was before they came in through the side door.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 4:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Then you say The 'Directorate of Operations' for this case was none other than Val Plame herself.

You're putting words on screen for me, words I never said. Simply put, she's the reason her husband went to Niger, not anyone from the V.P.s office. There's no ' butting of heads' anywhere on this. That's just your weak attempt to deflect the issue.


People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 4:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

The idea of Cheney, who is probably the most powerful man in the world, as a victim is quite funny.
How is he 'the most powerful man in the world ' ?? There's your good belly laugh! I swear , the obsession some have over Cheney is cultish in nature.

Quote:

The reason why it was so important to Cheney to discredit Ambassador Wilson was because the evidence for Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon that he would provide to al Qaeda so they could blow up an American city was crap.
No, it wasn't crap, and Wilson himself said so. Wilson admitted that it wasn't inconcievable that such a transfer of material from Niger to Iraq was possible, though unlikely. Add to the fact that the British intel did and still does give credence to the notion that Iraq was still seeking to obtain Yellow Cake iranium wasn't going to be dismissed by ANYONE whose job it was to protect U.S. interest. Nor SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN.

Quote:

You can continue to defend the casual outting of a CIA operative who was working to protect our country from WMD proliferation. You can continue to defend what should be considered treason. But the people you are defending haven't earned your support.


But that's not what happened, nor how it happened. That's only your spin on the facts, as you already believe Cheney is so daaaanngerous. The outting of the Wilsons holds no water what so ever.

Quote:

This administration came into office promising to bring integrity back to the oval office. Instead, they have done everything that the Republicans accused the Clinton administration of doing, and done it to an even worse extent.
The single greatest example of hyperbole and hypocrisy I've seen in a long time. It wasn't Bush who gave a way vital missle technology to the Chinese for campaign contributions, sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom, nor took advantage of office interns. Please, the Bush W.H. has its faults, but it's still light years ahead of Clinton on the issue of ethics.

Quote:

It would be laughable if all they were doing was shitting on the carpet. But they're actually tearing down walls and ripping up floorboards and we may never get our system back in the shape it was before they came in through the side door.
The second greatest display of hyperble I've seen in a while. Congrats.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 5:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Simply put, she's the reason her husband went to Niger, not anyone from the V.P.s office.= Auraptor


Quote:

You're putting words on screen for me, words I never said.= Auraptor
I cut and pasted your words exactly. They came from this paragraph: The 'Directorate of Operations' for this case was none other than Val Plame herself. How you can't see that is beyond belief. The 'transcripts ' are nothing mnore than the ad hoc attempt by the CIA and the Wilsons to play C-Y-A. Only in this scenario, it didn't work. There was too much external intel that showed Iraq was indeed looking to buy yellow cake iranium.

So, how is it that you "never" said them? Are facts tough to hang onto for you? Auraptor, I have a simple question for you: Did Plame create the mission to NIger or did the mission originate someplace higher in the CIA?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 7:13 AM

SOUPCATCHER


It's pretty clear that Cheney is Bush's gatekeeper. The Decider is only deciding on stuff that Cheney has allowed through the filters. That puts Cheney in a higher position than Bush. The trade-off is we get a less petulant President (Bush gets disgruntled when he is confronted with information that goes against his narrow worldview) for a more powerful Vice-President. Now if you don't believe that the leader of the United States is arguably the most powerful person in the world then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one (although I'd be curious who you think is more powerful).

Side note, for your theory to hold water, Ambassador Wilson and Valerie Plame would need to have more influence and access than they did.

Look back at the evidence that this administration used to sell the country on the nuclear threat that a Hussein-al Qaeda partnership would represent. There weren't that many claims: aluminum tubes and yellowcake and the 90s program were about it. The yellowcake claim, the one Bush wasn't allowed to use in a speech back in 2002 because the CIA had already decided it was crap, was snuck into the State of the Union by cleverly outsourcing it to the British. Secretary of State Powell refused to use that claim when he made the case before the UN a week later.

Why did the administration use a lawyer solution (British outsourcing) to make a claim that they already knew to be false? Because it strengthened their case for the need to invade Iraq right now. The case was already pretty weak - the IAEA knew exactly where all of Iraq's impounded 90s program stuff was and the general consensus was that the aluminum tubes were for conventional rockets. The administration needed people to believe that Hussein bought/sought* a significant quantity of enriched uranium from Niger because why would he buy/try to buy the stuff if he couldn't use it? Without that public belief, Cheney's statement - made three days before the war started - that Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons would have been treated to the ridicule that it, in hindsight, deserved.

Flash forward a bit. We're in Iraq. We've found nothing that the administration said was there. Granted, it's only been a short time, but it sure is starting to look like the IAEA and the UN and Scott Ritter were right and the administration was wrong. And now Wilson publicly repudiates one of the central claims that the administration had hyped.

That's why it was necessary for Cheney to order Libby to start finding ways to discredit Wilson. And that's why it was necessary for Libby to lie to FBI investigators later that year (before Fitzgerald was even assigned to the case) when the FBI asked about what Libby knew about Valerie Plame and when he knew it.

A jury listened to all the witnesses and heard recordings of Libby's grand jury testimony and decided that he did indeed lie to the FBI, that he did indeed lie to a grand jury and that the reason he lied was to obstruct justice and prevent the investigation from continuing. He was found guilty of four felony counts and sentenced within the acceptable guidelines. And then the President rewarded Libby for subverting justice by making sure that he would not pay the penalty for his actions. In doing so, the President obstructed justice himself by making sure that the investigation could not continue.***

You can keep advancing your claim that all of this didn't happen but the evidence, and the jury in the Libby case, disagree with you.




* there's an interesting series of posts by eriposte, of The Left Coaster, tracking the Niger claim and how "bought" got changed over time into "sought".


** edited to add: One of the interesting things to come out in the trial was that Marc Grossman, who responded to Libby's request for information about the Niger trip, remembers telling Libby that Wilson believed the trip had been at the request of the Office of the Vice President. A month later Libby asks his CIA briefer why Wilson was told that his trip was because of a request from the Office of the Vice President. And all of this happened before Wilson even wrote his op-ed. So it looks like the case can be made for both claims (that Wilson believed he was being sent to Niger because of a request for information from the OVP and that the OVP was not aware that the Niger trip was going to take place).


*** edited one more time to add: Why is Bush's commutation an obstruction of justice? Because he is stepping in and stopping an investigation in which he is implicated. As has been pointed out quite often over the last few days in the lefty blogosphere, this is the big difference between this commutation and other Presidents' pardons and commutations (with the exception of George HW Bush's pardoning of the Iran Contra people that also served to shield his own role in the illegalities). To borrow from Marcy Wheeler:
Quote:

excerpted from http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/obstruction-o
f-.html


In fact, our forefathers gave us clear instructions what to do at a time like this, when a President uses his pardon authority to cover up his own crimes.

Quote:

In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison responded: f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..


It doesn't take minutiae to prove that Bush has "sheltered" someone whose crime was "advised by himself." It takes Libby's notes and grand jury testimony.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 8:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

I cut and pasted your words exactly. They came from this paragraph: The 'Directorate of Operations' for this case was none other than Val Plame herself. How you can't see that is beyond belief. The 'transcripts ' are nothing mnore than the ad hoc attempt by the CIA and the Wilsons to play C-Y-A. Only in this scenario, it didn't work. There was too much external intel that showed Iraq was indeed looking to buy yellow cake iranium.

So, how is it that you "never" said them? Are facts tough to hang onto for you? Auraptor, I have a simple question for you: Did Plame create the mission to NIger or did the mission originate someplace higher in the CIA?



I never said those words. Presenting the words 'Directorate of Operations' as I did was to show how Val was the one who nudged Joe toward being chosen for the trip. Saying Val was " the reason " for her husband being sent to Niger isn't by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying " she ORDERED " him there. All she had to do was to reccomend to her higher ups that Joe was the man for the job. What we have here are the Wilsons, both opposed to the war in Iraq and willing to do anything to trip up the Bush administration, conspiring together to accomplish their goals. Then, pinning the 'outting' on someone else, close to Bush , only makes the plan all that more appealing. They can publicly debunk one of the minor details for the war in Iraq, and then claim victim status as being part of some heavy handed move on behalf of the office of the V.P.

The sad thing is, it has conned enough folks that many think Cheney was the one who outted the Wilsons, when it was they who did it to themselves all along.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 1:40 PM

SERGEANTX


Black.

It's the new white.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 1:46 PM

ANTIMASON


Auraptor please.... the Iraq war has been in the making since the '98 liberation act during Clintons tenure. the timing was secured to provide the Bush cronies the fodder to hoodwink and swindle the American public for all we were worth, based on untold numerous lies, disinformation and secrecy. why cant you see this? you need to stop defending them as if they arent the most despicable liars and traitors currently holding high offices. CLinton isnt president anymore.. Bush is, so i care about the crimes and injustices currently being committed, more then school grade, partisan apologetics and hypocracy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 6:17 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Auraptor please.... the Iraq war has been in the making since the '98 liberation act during Clintons tenure. the timing was secured to provide the Bush cronies the fodder to hoodwink and swindle the American public for all we were worth, based on untold numerous lies, disinformation and secrecy. why cant you see this? you need to stop defending them as if they arent the most despicable liars and traitors currently holding high offices. CLinton isnt president anymore.. Bush is, so i care about the crimes and injustices currently being committed, more then school grade, partisan apologetics and hypocracy



Give some 'lies' of the Bush Presidency per the Iraq war. Those which allegedly got us INTO the war. Be specific, please..

Sergeant - That's how you reply when you've run out of false conclusions ? Sad.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 8, 2007 7:33 PM

ANTIMASON


im not meaning to come off harsh, im really just in amazement. how do you feel you relate to these people? i assume your not part of the incestuous, elitist, east coast socialist blue-blood segment of society are you? thats all Bush is.. masquerading in conservatives clothing. he doesnt care about us, cause if the terror threat was legitimate, his concern for our well being would have led to some border enforcement by now

the post Iraqi invasion lies have all been covered before, you just dont believe the misinformation was deliberate. but i think we ought to examine the motives for war more closely... since we all know none of the then alleged threats panned out. i decided instead to look up a speech given by Ron Paul prior to the invasion, regarding the build up to war

Quote:



Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 8, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

Some – even some in this body – have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.

Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.

Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:

Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."

Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh's article from Nov. 1993:

Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:

The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad...Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.

Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds...throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90–95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid – used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin – directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem..."

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 12:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Posting Ron Paul's opinion on a political rival's action doesn't exactly equate to supporting your charge that Bush 'lied'. Fact is, Ron Paul was against the war long before Bush was even in office, back when Clinton policy , Paul claims, was leaning toward war with Iraq. I get it, it's fine to be against war. But don't allow that position to cloud your vision on the issues, as Paul has, and come to the conclusion that Bush some how 'lied' about Iraq. There's no evidence here in the post you offered. There's difference in opinions, and denial of historical events. Paul inexplicably suggests that Saddam did not use chem weapons on his own people. A stunningly ignorant remark, with what the entire world already knew, and now knows, about such acts.

You say Bush is masquerading as a conservative, and I'd agree. His stance on illegal immigration clearly shows he's no fan of stemming the tide of illegals into this country. Even after 9/11. But I've never given credence to the claims that Bush 'lied' before because just about everything he said was verbatim what Dems were saying before Bush was in office, before 9/11 and even up until the eve of the war. Ron Paul's speech changes nothing, and simply shows he was against the war, whether it was Clinton or Bush who was President.

Were there mistakes made ? Yep. Were there holes in the info we were TOLD we had, info that the CIA said was solid, but then backed off as we moved toward war ? Yep. But a choice had to be made, and based on what OUR intel said, as well as what other agencies were saying, there was a strong level of suspicion w/ Iraq. Adding to the fact that it had violated UN sanctions, as well as rules which constituted a break in the case fire from the 1st Gulf War ( there never was a treaty of peace signed ), a choice had to be made. And W made it.

I'm sorry, but your posting of Ron Paul's disapproval of Bush's policy does not amount to proof that Bush 'lied'.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 1:38 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sergeant - That's how you reply when you've run out of false conclusions ? Sad.



No, that's how I respond to awkward regurgitations of Rove's sophistry. Not sad. Funny! ["The Wilson's outed themselves!"] hehe...

I suppose Iraq invaded itself too, eh?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 2:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

the reason " for her husband being sent to Niger isn't by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying " she ORDERED " him there. All she had to do was to reccomend to her higher ups that Joe was the man for the job. What we have here are the Wilsons, both opposed to the war in Iraq and willing to do anything to trip up the Bush administration, conspiring together to accomplish their goals. Then, pinning the 'outting' on someone else, close to Bush , only makes the plan all that more appealing. They can publicly debunk one of the minor details for the war in Iraq, and then claim victim status as being part of some heavy handed move on behalf of the office of the V.P.
So, the mission to Niger originated someplace higher up than Valerie. Her role was to "recommend" her husband, and she was high up enough in the food chain where her recommendations carried some weight but not so high up that she could move all the pieces into place by herself. Did the CIA dream up this inquiry on its own as part of a plot to bring Cheney down? Or did a request come from some place outside of the CIA? The reason why I'm asking you to take me though this, step by step is because I don't quite see how this was supposed to work. Are you saying that the Wilsons "outed" Valerie themselves? How did they manage that, when even YOU said that Armitage was the source?



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 4:39 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'd like to hear now from the morons who still support this administration. Care to dance for us?


Her name is Ann Coulter, and trust me, you don't want to see her dance, or even talk, eeesh! all those lanky fingers and scrawny legs.

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.



That is scary without the bouncing adam's apple and swinging ball sack........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 4:40 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'd like to hear now from the morons who still support this administration. Care to dance for us?


I just love being the Devil's advocate, moron that I am. Libby, while spared jail time, must still pay a $250,000 fine, get 2 years probation, and have a criminal record. How can that be equated to skating?



BDN,
Ever try to skate.....it's kinda hard....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 7:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hopefully Auraptor you will answer my questions.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 8:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

the reason " for her husband being sent to Niger isn't by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying " she ORDERED " him there. All she had to do was to recommend to her higher ups that Joe was the man for the job. What we have here are the Wilsons, both opposed to the war in Iraq and willing to do anything to trip up the Bush administration, conspiring together to accomplish their goals. Then, pinning the 'outing' on someone else, close to Bush , only makes the plan all that more appealing. They can publicly debunk one of the minor details for the war in Iraq, and then claim victim status as being part of some heavy handed move on behalf of the office of the V.P.
So, the mission to Niger originated someplace higher up than Valerie. Her role was to "recommend" her husband, and she was high up enough in the food chain where her recommendations carried some weight but not so high up that she could move all the pieces into place by herself. Did the CIA dream up this inquiry on its own as part of a plot to bring Cheney down? Or did a request come from some place outside of the CIA? The reason why I'm asking you to take me though this, step by step is because I don't quite see how this was supposed to work. Are you saying that the Wilsons "outed" Valerie themselves? How did they manage that, when even YOU said that Armitage was the source?



I've heard Armitage was the source for Novak, but that there were multiple times when Joe and Val both outed themselves, based on their own actions. As for the details of how the trip to Niger panned out from inside the CIA, I can't diagram, nor do I think it matters. It didn't come from Cheney, as Joe claims it did. That alone is good enough for me. Never mind that Joe's various reports don't conclude the same things, and that even he admitted the possibility existed that Iraq could be seeking to buy Yellow cake. The whole point is that there was no underlying crime here, and yet some folks are acting as if this were bigger than Watergate. The Left can dream, I suppose.

Sergeant, yes, the Plames outed themselves. Being against the war,wanting to sabotage the Bush administration, not wanting the faults of the CIA to see the light of day,.... take your pick. Joe and Val knew the Left wing elites would fall all over themselves to praise them, and come to their aid after buying into the Wilson's story.

" That mean, evil Dick Cheney won't get away with it ! We've got to tell somebody...quick! Off to Vanity Fair!! "

Please.

And no, I don't get a news letter from Rove's office, so don't even try to claim I'm simply parroting his views. It's just common sense, and a dose of reality, that's all.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 8:01 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Did the CIA dream up this inquiry on its own as part of a plot to bring Cheney down?


The CIA had reports of the Niger business from several sources, most important of which was Great Britain. They wanted to seek independent confirmation. At that point Ms. Plame suggested her husband. He was a logical choice as he had diplomatic experiance with Iraq and ongoing business contacts with Niger.

It should be noted that Ms. Plame has offered several versions including two seperate versions under oath (one to Congress, the other to the Grand Jury) as to how this selection occurred.

It should also be noted that Wilson did this trip twice, once in 1999 and again in 2002.

It should finally be noted that Wilson's actual report supported the British claim rather then throwing it into doubt. The source of the doubt comes from Wilson's editorial which contains glaring factual omissions and conclusions not contained in his 'official' report to the CIA. That report remained classified at the time, so there was no way for the media to check what he was saying.
Quote:


Or did a request come from some place outside of the CIA?


The White House requested in 1999 and 2002 that the CIA seek to confirm the British reports. Likely, from reports, the 2002 request came from VP Cheney's staff as part of the National Security Council's review of Iraq intel.
Quote:


Are you saying that the Wilsons "outed" Valerie themselves? How did they manage that, when even YOU said that Armitage was the source?


Your confusing yourself I think. Armitage was Novak's source for his story. The reason it was not a crime was because she was no longer covert (after all if your covert identity is working openly at the CIA, then you need a new covert identity). The law requires protection for a period after the covert status ends. Her protected status expired in 2002, prior to the so-called leak.

All of that is not relevant, because prior to 2002 it was common knowledge in DC circles that Ms. Plame was a former covert operative. The Wilsons had shared that information with friends and neighbors. Rather then being secretive about her job at the CIA she was quite open. It is reported that this is why her covert status was terminated when she was married, because the cat was out of the bag.

This is why nobody was charged despite the fact the Grand Jury was told by everyone who was responsible. No underlying crime was committed.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 8:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auratptor, Hero:
Quote:

I've heard Armitage was the source for Novak, but that there were multiple times when Joe and Val both outed themselves, based on their own actions.
Such as....? I keep hearing this, but when their neighbors were interviewed for a story, NONE of them knew what Mrs Wilson did for a living. And I can link to those interview.

AFA being "common knowledge" in DC circles... Is there anyone who claims to have known what Mrs. Wilson did before Novak's story? Anyone specifically who has stepped out and said "Yeah, she told me herself?" or "I figured it out"? It seems to me if such a person could be identified it would be powerful ammunition for the Administration, and yet all I hear are rumors and innuendo. You claim, for example that her covert status ended by 2002. What do you have to back up that claim? The CIA specifically said she WAS covert. Are they lying?
Quote:

As for the details of how the trip to Niger panned out from inside the CIA, I can't diagram, nor do I think it matters. It didn't come from Cheney's office, as Joe claims it did. That alone is good enough for me.
If you don't know where it came from, how do you know where it DIDN'T come from? Because Cheney said so? AFA Joe Wilson is concerned, isn't it possible that the CIA TOLD him it came from Cheney's office? Maybe he was just passing on questionable info in good faith. My understanding is that Cheney first became interested in the topic because of a memo
Quote:

And no, I don't get a news letter from Rove's office, so don't even try to claim I'm simply parroting his views. It's just common sense, and a dose of reality, that's all.
Your "reality" is sorely lacking in verifiability, details, and common sense. The things that don't fit together you gloss over. I still have questions.

I agree there was ill will between the WH (on the one side) and the CIA and State Dept (on the other side). I've been saying this for... oh... years. Feel free to backtrack my posts on the topic. But what would have to happen for this sort of conspiracy to take place would have to have started back in 2003, with the forging of a memo to Saddam Hussein about a “Niger Shipment,” which referred to an unspecified delivery (“believed to be uranium” according to the Telegraph, citing believing Iraqi officials who remained unnamed) that had been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Leupp1106.htm
because it was that memo that supposedly kicked off the whole Niger -uranium investigation.

So who forged the memo? Who initiated the mission to Niger? Was it part of a "grand CIA conspiracy" to discredit Cheney? If so, how was that supposed to work? Was the goal to trap the President into saying something about uranium that the CIA knew to be false, which could later be discredited? Or did it depend on Cheney's office "killing the messenger"? In either case, wouldn't it depend on a deceptive and/ or vengeful Administration?

No matter how I turn this around, I can't piece together ANY sort of "conspiracy" on the part of a lone CIA officer and her husband. It would have to be much more far-ranging than that, or nothing at all.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 9:51 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...And no, I don't get a news letter from Rove's office, so don't even try to claim I'm simply parroting his views. It's just common sense, and a dose of reality, that's all.



I'll take your word for it. But I'd wager the blogs you're getting this stuff from do. Have you asked them?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 9:55 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

So who forged the memo?.



The answer to that comes from NPR. As I heard it a NY Times reporter was offered the Niger documents by an Italian source. It failed the sniff test so she refused to buy it.

Interestingly at that time she brought it to the attention of a CIA contact she had and they pretty much told her it was fake. The documents where later sold to Italian Intelligence who shared it the resulting intelligence with the British. The British passed the information to the CIA BUT not the documents it was derived from.

Now the CIA knew about the earlier NYTs inquiries and believed that the British information was a second independant source. This caused them to re-evaluate the information and deem it credible. So, in effect, the forged documents became their own colaborative information.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 10:12 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

So who forged the memo?.



The answer to that comes from NPR. As I heard it a NY Times reporter was offered the Niger documents by an Italian source. It failed the sniff test so she refused to buy it.


True. But the Niger-Uranium connection was a series of intellegence reports, mostly European and most credibly Britsh that dated back as far as 1994.

Wilson, at the request of the CIA (and using liberal reasoning, he was under orders from ALGore...ha, like anybody named Gore or Clinton could take five minutes for national security), traveled to Niger in 1999 to confirm or deny the reports. At that time he learned that while Saddam was trying to make the deal, no deal had yet been made. Niger was not willing, at that time, to violate the sanctions.

The 2003 memo was discredited because the dates and addresses mentioned were not correct. Wilson's 2003 trip found that the errors were nominal errors (like list '21' in place of '12' on an address). He concluded in his official report that while the memo was likely false, the information contained in it was largely true. The situation in 2002 was similar to 1999, Saddam was buying, but nobody was selling.

Was the memo forged? Yes. Was it false? No. It was likely forged to provide confirmation of information that was obtained by other means, in order to protect the source of that information (undercover operative, confidential informant, super code breaking device, telepathic Nazis in Her Jewish Majesty's service...who know...)

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 10:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Was the memo forged? Yes. Was it false? No."

Wrong again. Here are some of the problems with the concept:

"One letter, dated October 10, 2000 [The article’s editor at La Repubblica identifies this as the "memorandum of understanding" between Niger and Iraq] was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a [Niger] Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, who had been out of office since 1989". Seymour Hersh 31 March 2003 in the New Yorker

The memo (as noted in the Senate Report) was filled with major errors. There are two mines the uranium could have come from (from which yellowcake is made) "One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities" (Senate Report)


----------------------------

Hussein not only did not try to buy yellowcake from Niger, he could not buy it.

Is this how you do your job Hero? Cook evidence, lie, and weasel ? First the trial, then the hangin', right ?


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 12:38 PM

FLETCH2


The problem seems to be one of acreditation. The information the CIA got from the British cited credible reports from another European intelligence service (which we now know to be Italy) however only the citation was passed back not the actual source document. Without knowing the source of the British information this seemed to suggest to the CIA that there were at least two seperate sources for the same info. Even then we must assume the CIA didn't completely believe it if they sent Wilson to try and confirm it independently.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 12:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Immediately after Bush's SOTU speech ("The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa") the Senate convened an inquiry to determine how that phrase got into the speech. It was known at the time that it was in fact a bogus claim.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 2:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...And no, I don't get a news letter from Rove's office, so don't even try to claim I'm simply parroting his views. It's just common sense, and a dose of reality, that's all.



I'll take your word for it. But I'd wager the blogs you're getting this stuff from do. Have you asked them?

SergeantX




Hope you don't gamble for a living, because I rarely do the blog scene. I go on news reports and yes, talk radio. I only flip on cable news when some good video is being looped, watched it a time or two, then move on. So spare me the 'FAUX NEWS 'crap. If there's a question I have on the matter, I will double check the facts my self on the internet. I might not have much of a life, but it does keep me somewhat busy so that I can't spend 24/7 looking all this stuff up. Make of it what you will, but all the evidence I've seen leads me to a conclusion of the Plames being the villains here, not Cheney, and not Libby. Basically, this is such a non issue, I'm growing bored w/ the whole damn subject. Bush can pardon Libby for all I care.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 2:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Auraptor,

One of the things you have consistently demonstrated over this long while is your ability to go past the facts and find the rare tidbits you like.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 2:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

rue wrote:
Monday, July 09, 2007 12:51
Immediately after Bush's SOTU speech ("The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa") the Senate convened an inquiry to determine how that phrase got into the speech. It was known at the time that it was in fact a bogus claim.



It got in there because the President and his speech writers wanted it in there. It was not a bogus claim, as British Intelligence STILL holds claim to that info being correct. The State Dept. and CIA might not like it or even agree, but the statement is true.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 9, 2007 2:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The claim about uranium was yanked by the CIA from TWO previous speeches. It got into the SOTU because the administration didn't submit it in time for CIA vetting. (Any guesses why not?)

The wording (The British government ...) - also known as word-smithing - shows an intentional attempt to deceive the US public.

You're like the little boy who says "I didn't break the cookie jar mommy .." thinking "the floor did ..." Why you think such a pathetic excuse flies with rational adults is beyond me.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL